Talk:Regina, Saskatchewan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

protection

{{editprotected}} This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance. CMummert · talk 01:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ski runs

Friesguy: This website — http://www.virtualsk.com/guides/winter/downhill_skiing.html — would indicate that White Track (at Buffalo Pound) and Mission Ridge (at Ft Qu'Appelle) are still going. Do you have more current information that they have closed, as with Last Oak (pity that; it was a very enjoyable ski run)? I won't restore the references to them since obviously you have personal knowledge of the current situation that I lack, but do please confirm. Masalai 15:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

And this one — http://www.saskbiz.ca/communityprofiles/CommunityProfile.Asp?CommunityID=230 (a Broadview community profile) — says "Ochapowace Mountain provides downhill skiers with the best facilities in Saskatchewan. Their snowmaking equipment ensures that skiing is possible from early December until late March or mid April." Are you sure that there is no more skiing at Broadview? Masalai 15:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

White Track and Ochapowace ski runs, to the best of my knowledge have not opened in 2 seasons, while Mission is doing fine and just completed their best season in a long while, was out there a few times last season. Friesguy 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Photos in historical buildings section

Friesguy and kmsiever will note that I have inserted a number of photos from the City of Regina Archives into this section, which is now becoming disproportionately large and suggestive of an editorial bias towards historical rather than contemporary Regina. Fear not; I intend to hive much of this off into the currently somewhat maladroit History of Regina sub-article in due course; but the sub-article needs a fairly thorough edit and I don't want to get into that for the moment. And in the meantime, leaving the historical buildings section in the main article for the time being is more likely to attractive constructive additions from other editors than if it is filed away in the history sub-article. Masalai 10:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for all your work, Ive been meaning to take the digital cam out and snap a few pics and I was gonna try to get a nice aerial view of the city and I can post them on my website for you guys to have a look before I post them. Friesguy 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, by all means -- that would be terrific! Exactly what I was planning on doing myself in July -- the new campus of the University and the Research Park; the Centre of the Arts (perhaps from the Broad Street Bridge so it doesn't look like a factory); downtown -- the Scarth Street Mall, perhaps, and from the south bank of the lake; Bishop's Court (1701 College Avenue), while it's still there; maybe a panorama from west on Number 1 Highway (Regina's most flattering angle); maybe the box stores. What is lacking and which I can't supply is winter photos -- Wascana Centre with hoarfrost on the trees is magnificent; kids tobogganing down the hill at the end of McTavish Street off 15th Avenue and on the new hill that was created with the dredgings from the lake bottom (when all is said and done, Regina is only green for 4 months of the year and in some ways it's at its best looks-wise when there is snow and the sun is brilliantly reflected off it); skating on Wascana Lake. Masalai 23:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Guess you can forget about the Centre of the Arts: Scotwood has added a very good photo of it. Masalai 23:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Riddell Building, New Campus"

I hate to break it to you but that's not Riddell. Heck, the proper name is the Riddell Centre anyway. The picture is actually showing "The Terrace Building" in the Research Park. And what exactly is "New Campus"? I'm changing it until somebody explains what they are trying to do. Overall the whole article is a little image heavy too. HybridFusion 07:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Useful correction; but why not just make your corrections without the4 snotty editorializing? 210.49.82.188 15:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably because I couldn't care less about anyone's fragile ego. Wikipedia get's it's criticism for a reason. HybridFusion 07:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

A pity. Your contribution is actually entirely useful. And the Regina article is stacking up to be rather a good thing. Why don't you just make your contributions and be nice? Incidentally, "its" is the proper English. Incidentally, why instead of saying "Overall the whole article is a little image heavy too" don't you make a few constructive suggestionsMasalai 07:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed. These several persons seem to be sacrificing a considerable amount of time towards making the Regina article a very good article indeed. Why don't you make a few constructive contributions rather than just being snarky? Doubtless your contributions will be received with great favour. 210.49.82.188 08:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

If you consider what I wrote to be that snarky, you'd hate to see me on a bad day. What it comes down to, mostly, is people's interpretation of my writing style. Is it snappy, yes, wholly mean spirited, no. The reason I commented on this talk page is so that I might understand what they were going for, as evidenced by my comment about the "New Campus". It also seemed odd that someone was familiar enough with the campus yet mislabeled the picture. HybridFusion 21:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think that the article is "Overall ... a little image heavy too," HybridFusion?210.49.82.188 10:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Overall the whole article is a little image heavy too

Why do you say this, HybridFusion? 210.49.82.188 08:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say that is it's "a little image heavy too"? 210.49.82.188 08:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is. A matter of opinion, surely. The prose is, to be sure, perhaps a little top-heavy but that is being remedied phrase by phrase. It would be nice if critics would simply make their improvements without casting aspersions on those who have gone before, though. Masalai 10:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

With the current amount of images it looks like a scrapbook rather than an encyclopedia. If ever a picture-to-text ratio were to be developed, the Regina article would be breaking it. An encyclopedia should not pander to visual stimuli, it should inform the reader and be accentuated by images rather than be propped up by them. It would also be nice if the world were perfect, but it's not, so we move on. The reason I did--and all people should--consult the talk page, is so that a editing war does not ensue. If it were up to me I'd erase 10-12 of the 18 images. If I did, however, someone would immediately change it back, thus accomplishing nothing. If that's what you'd prefer just let me know and I'll start unilaterally changing everything I see fit. HybridFusion 21:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly very wise of you; as you say, probably a "unilateral" change of "everything [you] see fit" would indeed result in an edit war without any benefit to the article. In any case, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia like other encyclopedias; it is something that one views on a computer screen. So photos are hardly a disadvantage. Masalai 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel we are a bit heavy on images too, that the article is getting cut up and reading it feels to me like the narrow columns on a newspaper or supermarke tabloid, Sorry, but please take it as constructive, not destructive cruticism. Friesguy 21:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it be ok to delete or move some of the previous discussion on this page as its getting too long.Friesguy 22:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It can be archived. Masalai 22:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Kmsiever 23:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm the culprit as to the heavy use of illustrative photos; certainly several of them can be moved to the sub-articles that the main article now refers to and some duplicate those already there so can be deleted from the main article without undue loss. Masalai 10:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Done.Masalai 15:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sasktel Max

Since when is Sasktel Max a cable station? Sasktel Max is a cable service like Shaw, Rogers, etc.. Unless someone can verify that it is, I am removing it from the page. Mr. C.C. 07:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, they are a telephone network that distributes some tv, but they actually do not do any programming. Friesguy 14:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Exhibition Park

Ive just noticed that the section on Exhibition Park and all the shows and amenities held in the park is gone. My personal feeling is that Exhibibition Park and its attractions has more to offer on a page about Regina than some of our current info, (like our article on the organs in the churches). Would it be ok with everyone if I re-did all the info on the EX Park (now know as IPSCO Place)? Friesguy 15:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's very odd, Friesguy. I remember that section; I had thought someone had moved it to a sub-article. Don't try to re-created it, which would be a needless duplication of your previous effort; go back to the last draft where it appeared as part of the main article and copy and paste it from there. ("Our article on the organs in the churches"? What is that?) It was a substantial volume of material though; perhaps it could be a sub-article, properly linked from the appropriate place in the main article -- maybe "visitor attractions"? Masalai 16:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and restored your material on Regina visitor attractions, Friesguy, to a linked sub-article with a summary in the main article. Possibly the summary could be expanded somewhat insofar as this can be accomplished without simply replicating material already contained elsewhere in the article. Masalai 13:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Masalai, I guess my wry tongue in cheek humour doesnt translate well here. I was just trying to make light of the fact we had accidentally dropped the article about exhibition park and failed. Friesguy 14:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah...were you being funny? Yes, this medium is rather deficient for the conveying of nuance. Some nosey parker has indicated that the sub-article on the exhibition grounds (inter alia) needs a clean-up, as indeed it does. Perhaps I'll leave that to you for the time being given that my memories of the exhibition involve being dragged around by my grandfather to see every last farm implement and every last farm critter (though he was a good sport about taking me on the Wild Mouse). Masalai 07:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You want to have a go at fixing up the "visitor attractions" sub-article? I think you own it! I presume that the objection of the editors who suggest it needs a "clean-up" is that it's not a narrative but only a list. As I say, my awareness of the Regina Exhibition Gounds stems largely from being dragged around to the agricultural displays as a young kid by a farmer grandfather, plus winter concerts in Exhibition Auditorium before the Centre of the Arts got up and running.

I have tracked down an assortment of reference texts in my own library, incidentally -- the 50th anniversary of city status volume "Regina Before Yesterday: A Visual History 1882-1945" is replete with interesting and useful quotations and photos (a pity they are not available online -- surely they must be, somewhere) which I think I might incorporate with suitable footnotes. The documentary early history of Regina is largely one of incredulity in the national press at the improbable location and aghast reactions of travellers through. I really think it is not inappropriate to focus on the contrast between what Regina seemed likely to be in the early days and what its pioneers made of it. I realise that you somewhat take umbrage, but really, Regina is a marvel from that standpoint. Masalai 05:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Regina is not the commerical centre for "all" southern Saskatchewan

Hi, I am writing this to complain about an error I found in this article. Having grown up in southwest Saskatchewan, I can verify that people are more likely to shop in Medicine Hat, Calgary or Saskatoon, especially the first two to avoid paying PST. In fact, I doubt many of the people in my town have ever been to Regina. Many communities west of Swift Current are closer to Calgary than Regina, thus it makes no sense to head east to a smaller centre. --129.128.183.196

Commercial means much more than simply where consumers shop. There's also more to southern Saskatchewan than Maple Creek. --Kmsiever 04:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Regina is the major center IN southern Sask. Last I checked Calgary was in Alta and Saskatoon isnt really considered south to most ppl its usually thought of as central Saskatchewan in my experience. Friesguy 04:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

So fix the text of the main article, by all means. Masalai 07:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. It may well not be the commercial centre for all southern Saskatchewanians but it is certainly the commercial centre of southern Saskatchewan. N'est-ce pas? Masalai 08:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I can definately see why people from Maple creek would want to shop in Medicine Hat or Calgary to avoid taxes, but why would anyone from south-western Saskatchewan drive all the way to Saskatoon? Its further than Regina and you'd have to drive on back roads. That seems silly to me--71.17.48.24 20:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Big Dig

For anyone who cares, I created an article for the Big Dig. Feel free to expand it if needs be. --Kmsiever 22:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Any public domain photos? Masalai 22:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You and your photos. :) There may be some. I am not sure where though. --Kmsiever 01:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a few photos of the dig the last day as they started to fill wascana lake I will go through and see if any are worthwhile posting. I also have a friend who took a pic everyday from the same spot on the Broad st bridge through the whole job it is very interesting and will see if there is anything of his I can use. Friesguy 04:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That would be terrific. I also have good photos, taken by a cousin, but they were then published and are therefore unavailable. Masalai 08:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...me and my photos. Well, I appreciate that opinions differ -- vide the discussion supra -- but as discussed on the Slate.com website in connection with its 10th anniversary, webpages are a medium unlike others and it's well to take advantage of their peculiar nature. And encyclopedias are, after all, replete with photos. Masalai 08:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I was being facetious. --Kmsiever 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Forgive my po-facedness. This medium isn't conducive to nuance. Masalai 15:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I used an emoticon. :) --Kmsiever 15:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Regina International Airport, the oldest established airport in Canada"

Anyone have a source for this statement? It seems a little fishy. Masalai 08:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I discover with a Google search that some websites indicate that it was the first commercial airport, but I can find no source for such a statement and it seems highly improbable that Malton (now Pearson) and Dorval much less Vancouver are more recent. Masalai 01:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know it to be a fact as several friends are members at the Regina flying club and Roland Groome was the first licensed pilot to fly in Canada out of Regina. The First airstrip was where the Golden Mile centre is now and there was actually an article on this in the Regina Leader post just a few days ago, probably around June 18th or so. try this website for more details, http://groups.msn.com/cahsregina/_homepage.msnw?pgmarket=en-us Friesguy 05:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Mosaic Stadium?

Good grief. Is anything going to be left without a commercial sponsor's tag? The Kentucky Fried Chicken Legislative Building? The L'Oreal of Paris Old Post Office? The Starkist Tuna Wascana Centre? The Smith & Wesson RCMP Barracks? Why the Mosaic Stadium, anyway? Can you fill in the details on this renaming, Friesguy? Masalai 01:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Mosaic mining company (formerly IMC) has paid the Riders and the city 4 million over the next 10 years for much needed repairs and upgrades to Taylor field. This seems to be a real so called "trend in the last few months with the agridome, Exhibition Park, Centre of the Arts all recieving name changes lately to get the all mighty commercial dollar as various levels of govt didnt put sustainable levels of funding into these venues to keep them current. Now different sources of funding were found. I am not too fond of the situation, but, if it means an upgraded Taylor field, it isnt a bad thing either. Friesguy 05:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the trend seems to be "give us a bunch of money, and you can name the building whatever you want." I'm surprised that we don't have the "Coca-Cola Advanced Centre of Learning at the University of Regina" Aericanwizard 15:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh calm down people. Does this really surprise you? This is something that happens all around the world, all the time. It's only new to Saskatchewan because we're so socialist. And it's not like they're naming these places "Coca-Cola Stadium".. At least Mosaic, Ipsco, Brandt, and Connexus are all companies with deep roots in Regina. These naming rights may be inconvenient at first, but they mean real money for facilities that badly need it. These venues(and the experience for the people who visit them) will be greatly improved.--71.17.48.24 20:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, we are so socialist, so it still bugs me. Besides, a little known fact was that our sister NFL team, the Green Bay Packers, is the only NFL team that is community-owned, like us, and one of the few whose stadium ("Lambeau Field", named after the Packers' founder--sound familiar?) hasn't been corporate-sponsored-up... Unlike ours, thanks to this. Hiddekel 22:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Leader-Post

We seem inadvertently to have got into an editing imbroglio here. I conceded that the episode of the drastic staff cuts (and related issues of editorial independence and the withdrawal of by-lines by LP reporters) on the paper after Conrad Black acquired it does indeed properly go into the separate LP article. However, it is also relevant to Regina per se in that (a) it caused Regina for a short time to be at the centre of Canadian news and (b) it had significant importance to the community in that it involved the cessation of a local editorial voice. I think there should be some mention of this episode in the media section. Or at least in the history of Regina sub-article. Masalai 06:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not disputing that all you say is true, but, in the big picture in the history of the city is it really that important a point to make with an article already getting fairly long? T o be truthful i had forgotten about the episode and really dont notice how things have changed from the way they were before that happened, but if you feel strongly about it go ahead and put it back in. Friesguy 21:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A failed shopping mall

"A failed shopping mall — ironically, built on the site of the old city hall in a misconceived 1960s effort to revitalise the city centre — has now been converted into a federal office building"

What is this referring to? Is this the Galleria? If so, it was built in the 1980s. Either way, perhaps we should specify the mall. --Kmsiever 20:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it was built (as the Midtown Centre) immediately after the demolition of the old City Hall, the city council having considered that this would increase commercial activity in the city core. It was successful for some years but as you know, towards the end it was largely unoccupied. There's quite a good discussion of it in a recent L-P article which may still be online. Masalai 20:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Images

A lot of the images in this article seem to be old, and are all taken in the winter/early spring. Would anyone mind if I replaced some of them with newer, warmer, less depressing pictures?--71.17.48.24 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

By all means, go for it. The usual difficulty with newer photos -- unless one takes them oneself -- and the reason there aren't all that many in the article and its sub-articles is that they are usually subject to copyright and therefore not available. Public domain pictures of the University are particularly in short supply. I agree that Regina isn't at its best in spring when there is dirty snow and slush everywhere; but in true winter when the sun is blazing and the hoarfrost is on the trees and the snowdrifts are deep and white, Regina (and the prairies) is prodigiously beautiful and that's when it looks like something out of the ordinary. (A photo of skaters on Wascana Lake would be especially welcome. It is a credible competitor in attractiveness at that time of year and from that vantage point for Ottawa and the Rideau Canal.) So don't get too carried away with ensuring that all photos are Regina in June, when from the look of it, it could, after all, be pretty much anywhere else in the western world. And after all, summer is only three months of the year on the prairies, so pretty pictures of flowerbeds aren't very indicative of the reality of Regina.Masalai 20:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, you might like to check the sub-article Regina's historic buildings and precincts, which is replete with further historical photos, some of them not all that illustrative, though for my part I find historical photos vastly fascinating. Why don't you take a moment to register your user name to facilitate communication with the handful of others who are taking an interest in creating, editing and generally improving these Regina articles.Masalai 01:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I do have a username, I just wasn't signed in for some reason. Don't worry about copyright issues, I have a ton of Regina pictures that I have taken myself. I'll start uploading them after lunch--Reginaguy 18:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Great. Masalai 19:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have now officially gotten permission from Corinne Boivin-England to freely use the images from their website. Sorry about the delay but was awaiting their reply. Friesguy 04:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide documentation of that such as to satisfy Wikipedia? The babysitters seem to want to delete the photos from the Corinne Boivin-England website. Masalai 09:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reported as follows to user Psychonaut, who is threatening to delete the photos of Regina: "Oh don't do that. User Friesguy reports that 'I have now officially gotten permission from Corinne Boivin-England to freely use the images from their website. Sorry about the delay but was awaiting their reply. Friesguy 04:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC).'" I responded, "It may take a while to get the copyright tags fixed up but in the meantime do relax."Masalai 18:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that independently-verifiable evidence of permission is required for legal reasons. Also note that permission for us to use it is not enough—the copyright holder has to license it under the GFDL or another compatible license. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I have an email that states we can use the images from the Boivin-England website, but I do not know how to put a tag on the image. I do not have the time or the will to bother any farther with this, if someone wants to remove all the images feel free, as I have to free up time for other pursuits anyway. Friesguy 19:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you possibly copy and paste the email here? Masalai 20:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, never mind. I see that you have done so on your own user page. If the issue arises again we can refer to that. Thanks for all your hard work. Masalai 20:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, but if you could re-read my comment above and possibly read the page I linked you'll see that this isn't enough to prevent the images' deletion. They can be, but this isn't the way to do it. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I will be in Regina later this week, and I will be taking pictures of several important areas and buildings to replace some of the older/winter pictures in the article--Reginaguy 04:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice photo of the tower on the Regina College building.Masalai 06:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have moved many of the images to the right side of the article, I think this makes the page look much more organised, and much less cramped.--Reginaguy 05:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but large gaps between sections seem to me visually rather amateurish looking in terms of layout. However, let's get some more photos to work with before we quibble. (Actually, if you look at the articles on a lot of cities, the photo layout is often rather a mess; people tend to get carried away with wanting to insert as many illustrations as possible, without taking into account the issue of readability -- and large blocks of text on a computer screen can be rather daunting.) It'll be nice to have a wider selection of photos. Do please consider putting any that can't easily be inserted in the body of the article into a photo album section at the bottom. I was going to get some photos myself this summer but my trip to Regina is deferred to October when it looks a bit bleak.Masalai 06:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you go to most city articles, for example: Calgary, Saskatoon, Toronto, most of the images are all on one side. Regina also has WAY too many images. Especially of those older images. They're great images, but having 4 of them in such a small section is insane. Some of them should be relocated to the History stub. This is an encyclopedia, not a scrap book.. The Regina article looks really amateur and sloppy right now, does anyone else agree?--Reginaguy 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that we need to drop some images and clean up the page a bit, to me it looks a bit dreary with all the old and less-than-perfect images, leave them on the Regina history page. Friesguy 17:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of replacing historical photos with current ones in the main article, as current ones become available; a wholesale purge of them without recently-taken substitutes is another matter. However,

(a) I cannot really see what the aerial photo of a residential subdivision of Regina adds to the article: this could be any residential subdivision of the 1940s through 2000s in any city in North America, Australasia or much of Europe and indeed southeast Asia.

(b) I forbear to delete it unilaterally without prior discussion on this talk page. Could other editors kindly take note of the desirability of consensus in such matters.

(c) As a matter of layout, it is certainly not the case that photos should normatively go on the right of webpages. This may be the case in the city articles that you cite, but that is neither here nor there. The standard should be well-established canons of publishing, both in print and online, not copying the Wikipedia editors of the Calgary article. A more appropriate place to look for inspiration is such filter blogs as 3QuarksDaily, with their links to literary on-line publications. I wonder where the idea comes from that it is "encyclopedic" to put illustrations on the right. If you look at the hardcopy Encyclopedia Britannica or any other established conventional reference, the layout is in columns and pictures are placed wherever they best illustrate the text.Masalai 01:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the aerial photo if it bothers you, I'm not too attached to it. I put it there as a sort of placeholder, since I felt that section of the article needed a picture, and it adds some nice colour to the area lol. And I have come to accept the staggering of photos. You're right, they don't all need to be on the right hand side, it just looked really bad before because there were areas where text was being trapped between two pictures, but I fixed that, since that type of formatting is not accepted by wikipedia standards--Reginaguy 05:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Political Soapbox

Could the people involved in civic politics please remember that this is NOT a political soapbox for you to put up information that may be leaning to one side or the other, or items that may be subject to interpretation depending on one person's political bent. PLease! lets not have a war here in the public domain where the whole world can see us airing our dirty laundry (whatever it is percieved to be), and remember that libel laws do apply to what is written in this venue as much as a newspaper. If changes that are derogatory and/or defamatory for any persons are made remember that you can be banned from making any further changes on Wikipedia also. Friesguy 01:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that user 64.110.213.33 has an issuewith at least a couple of wikipedia pages and has recently made what could be percieved as derogatory and defamatory by some. On the Andrew Scheer page and Pat Fiacco page this person made several bad remarks about both people that were removed by the administrators of both pages. I would recommend that we monitor this person when changes are made to the Regina page. Friesguy 01:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am interested to know, what remarks are libelous ? Or what agenda ? There is documented proof and links available for these statements. I could question your agenda but assume you are just uninformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.110.213.33 (talk • contribs)

Well, for starters, when you added "...and known as one of the laziest Mps in Ottawa." to the end of the line in the Andrew Scheer article that states, "He is currently the second-youngest sitting MP." Or when you changed the line in the Pat Fiacco article from "He is frequently rumoured to have been courted for higher office by all of the major federal and provincial political parties active in Regina." to "He is frequently rumoured to have courted many provincial parties for higher office, making unreasonable demands. Only to be turned away." Speaking as a card-carrying NDPer, your agenda behind these obvious POV additions is pretty clear to me. Speaking as a Wikipedian, please quit vandalizing articles with libelous nonsense. - Hiddekel 23:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I emailed Action Regina about the claimed July 2006 population of 160,800. I got this response: Thank you for your comments. The number of 160,800 is the labour force population number for the census metropolitan area of Regina as of July 2006. We took the population information from the following Statistics Canada link and simply forgot to add "population age 15 and over." http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/lfss03h.htm As you can see, the population of Regina has not dropped by 17,000 people. This number simply isn't accounting for anyone under the age of 15. Please don't post anymore "facts" unless they are from a valid source, such as Statistics Canada, and have the appropriate heading--71.17.48.24 19:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for trusting that the Chamber of Commerce would provide reliable data to their members. The simply forgot answer is not acceptable from such an organization.There were no rules on the site staing what was or was not a reliable source but for reactionaries such as yourself, something like that is not possible. I won't be surprised to see Regina's population has dropped come the census results. Please from now on, stay seated and write a counter statement or engage in some debate. If someone is wrong deal with it in a diplomatic fashion, not as a tyrant. I thought that was the point of this site ?--64.110.213.33 21:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be reactionary, I just get frustrated when people alter wikipedia for impropper reasons (In your case, you seem to want to create the impression that Regina is losing vast numbers of people, which is statistically false). I'm sorry if I seemed a little angry, but you posted the false statistic in multiple places several times, wich indicates you have some sort of agenda. --Reginaguy 07:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, user64.110.213.33, but youre telling us not to get the cart before the horse and to discuss things before changing documents? It appears to me that you changed several items without discussing ANY of it with the ppl here. You made NPOV remarks about the mayor and other politicians on other pages with your own political agenda. It would definitly be appreciated if you discuss things in this venue in the future before putting them live on the page and I am sure myself and other ppl here would be happy to do the same. Friesguy 19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Royal Presence

I really beleive that while the royals are part of our history, they belong on their own page not on the main Regina page. At most we should have a link to their pages, the Regina main page is already too long for Wiki standards. What does everyone else think? Friesguy 14:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. (Though actually the issue of length of article is a bit of a red herring: the 32 KB limit that was formerly in place had to do with technical issues which no longer pertain: see Wikipedia:Article size). But yes, extensive discussion of royal visits is another article, not this one. Masalai 04:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well indeed, it develops that this list is simply copied and pasted from the article Monarchy in Saskatchewan. It should certainly go. Masalai 04:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK then, Consider it gone then, if anyone dissents they can let us know. Friesguy 14:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sparks1, please note the following note as to the article Monarchy in Saskatchewan: "There's a copyright and plagiarism problem with the above mentioned article. Please see the associated talk page. Thanks, --gbambino 22:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)" As discussed above, two longstanding editors of the Regina, Saskatchewan article consider that the "Royal Presence" material does not belong here; this is a fortiori the case given the copyright and plagiarism problem in the "Monarchy in Saskatchewan" article from which the material has been copied and pasted. In any case, there is a longstanding convention that significant changes are not unilaterally made, but discussed on the talk page first or at least concurrently so as to invite comment from other editors. Please do not re-insert the material without such discussion. Please also sign your comments using four tildes. Masalai 18:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact the Royal Family is not only part of Regina's history - but its present! Regina has welcomed an incredible number of Royal visitors to which no other Saskatchewan community can compare. Monarchy is more a part of this city than others and it is important to its identity. Members of the Royal Family are very invovled in two city institutions in particular.

Have re-added information, condensed and altered it from the Monarchy in Saskatchewan version. Feel free to edit it and change it should you think of other ways to highlight its relevance. Thanks!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparks1 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Simpson's and Eatons reference in "Urban Planning Issues" section

Actually I am sure it was very clear from the context that these were national department store chains -- such chains have been in trouble in other western countries as well, as consumer preferences have evolved -- and they were Wiki-linked so I'm sure there was no issue of obscurity for non-Canadian readers of the article (not, I suspect, that there are many from elsewhere than in Canada who would be vastly interested in learning about Regina, to be frank). In reading an article about England, a reference to Harrod's or Fortnum and Mason or Selfridges would be equally clear from the context even if one were not aware of their respective international reputations, and similarly with Sears or Macy's or Gimbles or Walmart as to the USA. (Indeed, Roch Carrier's classic children's story The Hockey Sweater -- which is, surely, the best known Canadian children's story internationally since "Anne of Green Gables" -- makes ample reference to Eatons without qualification as to what, precisely, Eatons was: it is, again, amply clear from the context.) Nevertheless, I have not reverted to the previous version of the section, but restored the references to Eatons and Simpson's by name , both of which had a long and important association with Regina as with other Canadian cities and Canada at large.

On another issue altogether, incidentally -- albeit a thoroughly trivial one -- the protocol in Wikipedia is that spelling conventions, whether US or British, conform to that of the country which is the subject of the article. This is surely nowadays not contentious in Canada: for many years I stoutly used US spelling on the grounds that (a) the Parliamentary Library in Ottawa advocated it from the beginning of Confederation; (b) the Canadian Press used it; and (c) in many ways, though it is as perverse as British spelling in its own way, it is in some particulars somewhat more sensible and efficient. An extremely USA-friendly colleague, with many professional associates in the USA, observed that there aren't very many things that distinguish Canadians from Americans in general, and British spelling is a perfectly harmless way of showing that Canadians do take pride in being just a little bit on-their-own. I have therefore changed "center" to "centre." I suspect that this is nowadays generally more common usage in Canada anyway: even the Canadian Press and the Globe and Mail have gone over to British spelling these days, as classroom teachers always taught in any case. Masalai 03:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I have issue with using the word felicitous to describe the old post office and regina college campus renovations. In both cases, the buildings were completely gutted and only the facades were kept intact. In the Regina college case, it was only one exterior wall that was maintained, the other three were demolished. Surely felicitous should mean something more than that.

You should sign your comments, 70.49.37.107, otherwise they have a tone that you probably do not intend. Possibly not as felicitous as renovating the buildings -- though this can be a problem with buildings that have outlived their utility -- but certainly more so than sweeping the whole thing away as was done with the extremely fine Old City Hall in 1962 or thereabouts. I remember that episode (my grandfather took me in to buy a bicycle licence in the City Hall shortly before it met its demise) and it seems odd indeed that at the time the adults all seemed to think that the undistinguished shopping mall that replaced it was an improvement. But this was before the city perimeter shopping malls gutted the city centre of its commerce and the shocking state of such cities as Indianapolis, which have no city centres at all, could scarcely have been imagined at the time. Masalai 04:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Masalai, I forgot I had made an account. I was 70.49.37.107. Anyway, while I agree the sound stage and the post office are better than what happened to the old city hall, the sound stage in particular is disheartening. All they left of the original structure was the college avenue facade. I've been told, but haven't verified, that it was actually illegal for them to remodel that building as heavily as they did. I used to go to plays, and a few times worked the door at the theatre in there, and the inside of that building, although a bit run down, was as gorgeous as the outside. At least the strathdee mall, and some of the buildings remodelled into lofts in the warehouse district, keep the original structure intact. Hell, even the casino at least kept the original train station structure intact. I've been told that the loft in Darke Hall was finally repaired (that was condemned for years, and sagged so bad that it was a bit scary to walk underneath it). Would it really have been so hard to repair the interior of the old fine arts building? It really irks me that this city seems to destroy what precious little culture and history it has. That's why I took issue with calling the sound stage felicitous.Tirial 07:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

nice images and article lead-in text...

Hi I just wanted to complement you on the nice photos, in particular the ones taken from the air looking toward the skyline. These photos do very well to communicate just how green and lush Regina really is. Additionally, the lead-in text for this article is very good. It introduces Regina in a way that is informative, positive, and sends a good impression. Mumun 15:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

So it's grossly POV, then? ;-) Kevlar67 04:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Area

Hi, forgive my ignorance, but I noticed that the article lists the city's area in square kilometres as about 118km². Is this the most up-to-date number? I check the city website sometimes and I noticed that some of the lands directly south of Regina Int'l may have been annexed. Additionally, a new subdivision is being built directly north of Uplands, and I think they needed to annex land to do that as well. However, if one looks at 'City Facts' on the city website, it also says 118km². Shouldn't the area of the city be bigger than what is currently listed in the information box in this article (as well as the city website!)? --Mumun 21:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The information used here is from statistics Canada. If you have a source that shows a different figure, please share it here. --Kmsiever 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Demographics, etc

1) Some of the same data appear in the right-hand-side box and the demographics section. We should seek to not repeat information, no? Perhaps we could add the info in the demographics text to the info-box?

2) Additionally, I haven't been able to find another figure for Regina's area on the web, but I think it is not the most-up-to-date info since the land for a new subdivision north of Uplands was acquired by the city. I'll keep looking! ^^ Mumun 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE ON CITY AREA IN SQ. KILOMETRES

I have just spoken with Mr. Bruce Rice at City Hall and he informs me that, as of January 2006, the area of Regina is 120.92 km² (46.7 square miles). I assume this figure may be more reliable information than a Stats Can figure from several years back, no? If no one has any objections to posting the most accurate and up-to-date figures for Regina, I will add this myself. Please leave your objections (!), if any, here. Mumun 18:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

the article is subject to frequent vandalism. i would report it but i am not sure where to report such things. Mumun 12:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

i have reverted two times already today. it is my understanding that we cannot revert three times or we will be blocked. Mumun 12:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Maclean's "controversy"

Clearly the subject of the Maclean's article bears mention in the article -- I should have thought under urban planning issues or perhaps some new rubric regarding social and demographic issues -- but the ungrammatical and confusing text that has been inserted says nothing. And the internal links to the Leader-Post and Maclean's article will soon go dead so a narrative must be constructed sooner rather than later. I hardly see what is "controversial" about it: facts are facts and the serious problems in Regina's aboriginal community didn't arise yesterday. Anyone care to take a stab at properly incorporating this matter into the article, or shall make an attempt? Obviously it would be subject to comment and, if appropriate, amplification or modification by other editors, preferably those who have also taken an interested hand in this article in the last couple of years. I don't think it should be glossed over -- these are indeed serious problems in Regina; there is always some tendency for the article to descend into mere civic boosterism rather than objective and disinterested description. It is perhaps the job of Mr Fiacco to deal with providing such rationalisations, and not that of encyclopedists. On the other hand, the Maclean's article does seem unduly sensationalist. Comments? Masalai 08:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel this artcle should be totally treated like the trash that it is. Macleans has totally misrepresented and misquoted several people I know for the article. Also the picture facing toward the twin towers over a cluttered and vacant lot in tha article that MacLeans infers is a typical state of property in north-central is actually a construction lot across from the casino where the new bus station and 2 hotels are being built. These 2 articles have no place in the Regina wiki page as they totally give the negative POV the author knew he was going to write before he ever set foot in town. I have been in downtown Vancouver and Halifax and Calgary and all are in worse shape than our North-central as I work with school district and see the area first hand all the time. PLease lets not give this garbage the recognition Macleans wants so they can sell papers at the expense of our city. Friesguy 04:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Then you'd better go ahead and take it out. Masalai 06:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that we have to address the issue of North-central briefly and concisely in the article, but not the name of so-called magazine omitted articles(s) in particular. They are two separate issues. As Masalai writes above, the issue of poverty and community collapse in North-central is a serious one. Poverty, the non-aboriginal - aboriginal cultural divide, colonialism, and indifference are the real problems.

The article is yet another example of the way that power relations are set up in our fair country. It used to be Central Canada against the regions, but now it is the five biggest cities and their media mouthpieces who see fit to trash "the regions" whenever they see fit.

It is important to look at the wider patterns and trends associated with these articles. You see we have to deconstruct the article and the motivations for writing it to realize that an unmistakable pattern has developed in this country in which national ideology, proclaimed from on high by Canada's media, insists that the only settlements of value in Canada are, in order of importance: Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, Ottawa, and Montréal (The HOLY FIVE). All the rest of the cities and regions exist exclusively to supply widgets to the Holy Five. All the other regions, smaller cities, and towns don't count for anything else. When was the last time that the entire city of Toronto or Vancover or Calgary and all of its citizens were condemned by a national media outlet? Has that ever happened to a member of the Holy Five? No.

This is the education that Canadians receive from schools and especially the media. According to the national ideology, which has been created by a cabal of media and big-business interests for the sole benefit and enjoyment of the Holy Five, Regina is on the periphery. Since Regina doesn't count, the people of Regina also don't count. This makes it very easy for members of the media in Canada to regularly tar-and-feather us as did name of so-called magazine omitted. It is made all the more easy by the fact that the Prairie Dog is the only local media outlet in the city -- all other media are controlled for and by the Holy Five. So we cannot even tell our own stories -- positive or negative.

Yet we must always remember that Regina is not the only regular target of the Holy Five and their media drones. Newfoundland, Prince George, Northern Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Prince Albert, and Hamilton regularly get hauled over the coals for the benefit and enjoyment our "our masters". Torontonians are so into this new 21st century media colonization scene that they divide up their holy and unassailable city into districts that receive negative coverage and districts that do not. Ever heard of "Scarberia" or Jane and Finch, etc? Name of so-called magazine omitted has done Regina and all of the cities without power and influence a great disservice. But what else is new?!?

I agree with Friesguy that the section as it stands should be taken out. I think everybody agrees that things are bad in North-central, though. So why don't we have a section like the Vancouver article's "Governance" section? The Downtown-Eastside neighbourhood is discussed there along with other issues related to the governing of the city. We don't have to do it that way though...we could discuss such difficult things in a "Demographics and Society" section, etc. -- Mumun 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok consider it gone. Friesguy 14:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is good to see good old civic boosterism is well and alive in Regina. It is too bad it misplaced. I believe that the article is important to this situation and necessary for any piece of NC. The article was well written and balanced. Read Murray Mandryk article today or were some of you involved in that progressive burning/chipping events held by local media. There's a civilized response. The fact is these problems exist, and yes people are doing stuff in the community, but they lack the support needed and until recently city council completely ignored it. This article lead to a meeting with chiefs and an urban reserve was fast tracked.To attack the article and the author is misplaced anger and wikipedia should not be a sounding board for civic boosterism but a factual account.--206.163.235.114 14:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding, 206.163.235.114 , I agree with you that problems clearly exist. We are using the talk page to collect comments on what is happening and what to do. Your original contribution, or one from the exact same IP, was not written in English, ahem. One of your constructions that was placed in the article without consensus was not a sentence. Finally, you write like a Holy Fiver that "...wikipedia should not be a sounding board for civic boosterism but a factual account" but you chose to insert an entirely new section without raising the idea on the talk page or attempting to reach a consensus as we have started to do here. Somebody doesn't appear to understand Wikipedia very well, but it is certainly not me.

We are talking about writing a "factual account" and putting that into a section that fits in with the article. I would vigorously oppose any attempt to engage in civic boosterism (your words) as a way to deal with this issue. Also, why should we give credit to Name of so-called magazine omitted, whose ultimate "contribution" is to create misunderstanding and rancour between cities and regions???

Help us to make up text that deals appropriately with the serious issues. We need NPOV text. Why not suggest instead of launching a Holy Fiver counter attack. I made some concrete suggestions above. And you? -- Mumun 15:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No I completely understand your conspiracy theories. Which the Leader Post is one of them as has gone to bat for the short sighted indignation of our political elite. If you have issue with grammar, feel free to edit for grammar but not content. The purpose of the article was to raise awareness of the issues that are ignored by those whom live in brown houses with the garage as a focal point and complain incessantly about their taxes and roads at the same time. If you want, I'll take you for a midnight tour of these neighbourhoods, anytime or maybe you can join me for the needle clean up in spring. I understand enough about wikipedia to know your "Holy Fiver" theory is POV. If you can come up with an objective reason for not keeping the information then I will be happy to debate and entertain it.The stats are true and reliable. You can't argue them and you won't.--206.163.235.114 16:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well -- I still think you misunderstand me. If you'd take the time to read a little, you'd see that I agree with you -- we must address these issues in some way. I don't propose inserting text the bears content regarding what you naively term a conspiracy theory about the elites of the Holy Five. I don't propose text with short-sighted indignation either. Neither is there any pressing need for you to take me on a guided midnight tour, although I appreciate the sentiment and invitation. You are preaching to the choir, 206.163.235.114, how many other ways can I say it? :-) PLease log in and give us a few ideas. I suggest that we begin with some of the main ideas in the said article -- perhaps we can pull them out, summarize them, and provide enough detail for the average Wikipedia reader to understand the basics. I think we can need more text (background?) than you originally inserted, 206.163.235.114. Yet there currently is no major section in the article into which such text can be inserted, so we need to do that first perhaps? -- Mumun 16:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My major problem wasnt with the fact there were major problems stated in the article, my issues were with the author misrepresenting several people in the article and presenting at least one image as a typical north-central neighbouhood lot when it was actually Broad Street and Saskatchewan drive. I felt that we shouldnt link with such an article. I work in a school system and see the problems with kids and the serious issues that we are trying to address as a community, and it appears we are making progress. example; The latest Sasktrends monitor (I am doing this from memory so I may be out by a % or 2) states that approx 74% or metis are now employed and almost 60% of aboriginal people are employed, giving them the means to upgrade their own living conditions. I think we have to include a section on the state of the city, but we have to walk a fine line between being the "Regina is a bad place" segment and the boosterism that I seem to be accused of from time to time. (sorry, but I just prefer to have a positive outlook instead of the gloom and doom that some people seem to prefer). To include a link to an article that a lot of people felt was misleading would be wrong and I dont think any other city would include a link in a similar situation, but we should include something about the situation and present both sides good and bad and what is being done to fix the problems we have. Finally I used to live in North Central and have been in downtown Van, and halifax, and Winnipeg and Calgary, and in my humble opinion we are not the worst neighbourhood. Friesguy 17:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Their is nothing misrepresenting in the article and no objective reader has ever stated that it is not fair. The picture you speak of as no caption and is a property in Core,part of the article, it may represent some of the work being done to improve the area, that were mentioned in the article. The ones with a so-called "positive" attitude reacted very negatively to a critical article. Positive doesn't mean be happy at any cost or celebrate every minor truimph. Positive is saying you want to deal with an issue in "x" years and provide the necessary tools. The article and follow up are quite clear that the failure has been at all levels of government. Those cities you list as having the same issues as Regina, none are close to the size of Regina. The smallest is over twice the size of Regina. In the end, I take exception to the proclaimation of bias towards the article. --206.163.235.114 17:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

"Rotten Regina" is not biased? Mumun 18:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No it is not because it is a title and not the content od the article. The content was not biased.It was the truth.--206.163.235.114 18:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why 206.163.253.114 doesnt register with wikipedia if he has such strong views. It would be good to have someone with some conviction actually working with wikipedia to better the whole system. but sometimes its easier to criticize from a distance when you have no stake in the betterment of the project. I agree with Mumun that the article is biased from the title all the way throughout. But we will never agree with that in here with everyone. So should we create a subsection about the issues and list them, but then also give space for the remedies that are in the pipeline for the situations? And should we advise the various stakeholders in the neighbourhood and invite their input on the issues and remedies? Friesguy 18:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't register because I am deciding, if I want to deal with the "Don't worry, Be Happy" crowd on a full time basis. You state its bias but have no criteria of how it is biased beyond an uncaptioned photo of a construction site, the title and the fact that cities 2-10 times our size have similar issues. Find one that is our size, outside of Saskatoon, the compare. Check out London or St. John's. Your arguments are not very compelling. Go ahead outline the stuff that is being done but be sure to note that all this stemmed from the coverage of the article. City council was quite happy city on its ass for the last half dozen years. You may want to also ask yourself, why does it take a public media event or public outcry for these politicos to so a smidgen of leadership and why always after the fact ? --206.163.235.114 19:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now you are introducing red herrings. There is something funny about you, 206.163.235.114. What's the REAL reason why you do not reveal yourself? It seems you are here to stir up trouble. By not identifying yourself, you make it difficult for other editors to not suspect that you are some kind of sockpuppet trying to stir up trouble. Perhaps you are a regular editor who has difficulties with the way this article has been edited over the years, no? Or perhaps you are some random miscreant who hates Wikipedia or just hates "stuff". Reveal yourself and help us because there is no great difference between your thinking, my thinking, and Friesguy's thinking that we cannot overcome together. :-) --Mumun 19:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like someone to add the reaction by Regina officials and residents; they didn't take kindly to the article. Chivista 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I know people that were interviewed and feel they were totally misrepresented by the article and while some of the assertions were correct, I cannot feel I can trust the article as whole after hearing from those people. This the last I am going to say about 206.hide.behind.his cloak. Further discussions with him as it is futile but I will discuss with anyone else. Friesguy 19:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I only heard abot it from CBC Toronto, we Easterners may be misinformed. Chivista 19:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I know how you feel Friesguy , and there's something fishy about that anon. IP. But anyway I want to ask you and Masalai, as the active senior editors, to take a sincere stab at this and address the spirit of what the IP person is saying. I think we all agree on the seriousness and we can quite easily summarize things. Could you and Masalai start us off? (hee, hee) -- Mumun 19:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As inviting those responses may be, I am going have to decine the invitation. Wow, you sure know how to make some feel wanted. Good luck with that attitude. By the way, it is a "fishy" SaskTel IP. --206.163.235.114 20:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I don't get you, 206.163.235.114. You barge in here and want to label Regina as rotten, accuse hard-working editors here of wanting to gloss over issues, and raise a big fuss. Now you turn around in a huff as you walk out of the room, claiming you were never welcome in the first place. You hurl sockpuppeteer-esque accusations. We've indicated that we wish to incorporate your concerns, but you haven't made any constructive statements all day. Why don't you look at the contributions that that regular editors here have made. That way you can see that we are honest but fallible brokers. Who are you?

Check out the welcome I put on your talk page. You are most welcome. Please follow the conventions, and avoid disruptive behaviour. Let's discuss and assume the best about each other from here on out, eh? -- Mumun 20:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, chvista, I thought it was discussed above in this section that it was ok for me to remove the links to macleans article as it was soon to be gone from Macleans anyway, as the removal of the link sure wasnt considered as censorship from my end. my thought process was: "Would this be in any other city's page on wiki as a link?" I agree we need to deal with this, but a general statement of affairs subsection and what is being done would be a far better way to have this appear in the wiki than to just put in a link to an inflammatory article. I was told once that we dont allow very many links on the page in any event anyway, so it would have to take another form in any event. Any other ideas? Friesguy 22:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Friesguy 22:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ive started a new subsection named North-Central and have only scratched the surface for now as I am a bit pressed for time, I have contact a good friend of mine who lives and works in the core with the housing and quality of life groups to let me know what he suggests we include in here. Please let me know what your ideas are, we have seen many good ideas in the top part of this article,lets get them down and in print. I think we will have to make a separate article for North-Central in the not too distant future and then link it back to the main Regina page, would this be acceptable to everyone? Friesguy 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Thanks for getting us off to a good start, Friesguy. I agree that we may have to give it its own article as well. Mumun 11:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a well known fact that Regina's City council has been slow in the approval of urban reserves and has made every attempt to impeded the progress, until the MacLean's article appeared. I have had discussions with various Cheifs and until that article appeared, there was no dialogue or any communication from city council. Call any band office, ask about it.

Also please slow down on your edits, the Regina Police services Nov 2006 stats state the murders are up 35%. The MacLean's article is the source of that information on B & E's for food. You have changed the whole NC section via minor edits everywhere. They are all based on your POV,also. Please revert back. --206.163.235.114 15:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I do dispute your finding that the murder rate is up when in 2004 we had 10, in 2005 we had 8 and in 2006 we also had 8 homicides. My stats were from the Stats can site and were based on an entire year not month to month comparisons. It seems to me you have a need to lay blame with our city council only, and I beleive there are plenty of places to spread it around including all the levels of govt not just city hall and Fiacco. Friesguy 22:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Woo. EIGHT homicides in 2006 in a city of under 200,000?! I currently live in a city of over two million and it had fewer homicides than that in 2006. Maybe the section does need to be radically re-written, eh? That really is a substantial fact. Masalai 22:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, you guys`rewrite whatever you want, i give up, i hate squabbling and dealing with endless rewrites on this section. It appears to me that this is gonna be a string of back and forth until everyones feelings settle down, so I am out for a while.Friesguy 23:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, Friesguy? Who are "you guys"? Masalai 00:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Friesguy, Just post your stats can stuff beside as another viewpoint. As for city halls responsibility in this read the Cities Act, they are responsible for all our safety and welfare. They haven't met this or at best met the minimum standards. Why are you so quick to protect someone when they are on the wrong side of the story ? Should I post the state of the city where the Mayor glosses over the issues and says crime is down and the % of crime in NC, its near 30% for 10% of the city.At some point, "we're doing are best", just doesn't cut it. --206.163.235.114 05:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Northcentral neighbourhood

Drop in crime rate and urban planning

The following statement confuses me.

"The results of these strategies has been that the crime rate has dropped from its former position as highest in Canada to second highest."

Is this referring to the neighbourhood? Is the statement suggesting NC has the second highest crime rate of any neighbourhood in Canada? Or is it referring to Regina as a whole. If the former, I think a statement like that requires a citation. If the latter, then I don't think it belongs in the NC section.

In addition, I don't think this is an urban planning issue (parent heading). It's a social issue. Perhaps, there should be a separate article for Regina's neighbourhoods. --Kmsiever 20:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Second highest murder rate needs citation, try this link at Stats Can putting Edmonton at the top for 2005 [1] Friesguy 22:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement as it sits implies it is the neighbourhood, not the entire city, that has the highest crime rate. That site reports crime rates for cities, not neighbourhoods. If the statement is supposed to be for the entire city, then it needs to be moved out of the NC neighbourhood section. --Kmsiever 22:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Revert war

Kmsiever-Stop changing the article on NC. Why does somebody in Lethbridge have such an affinity for NC, anyways ?--206.163.235.114 01:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am free to edit wherever I want. No one owns the article. All I am interested is that what is written is fair, factual and NPOV. And I don't have an affinity for NC, despite having grown up there. --Kmsiever 01:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop.--206.163.235.114 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You want me to stop making appropriate edits? Name a single edit I've made that is inappropriate. --Kmsiever 01:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually 206.163.235.114 i believe youre the one that is bordering on inappropriate with your complete lack of regard for correctness and fact verification. you are using sources from websites that lean politically in one direction that may not be neutral politcally speaking. Why should you come in here and run roughshod over some other people that have been looking after this page, adding and refining what it says and how it says it.You seem to have an agenda and that isn't a good policy when youre writing for Wiki.Please, we all have to remember this is essentially an encyclopedia and sometimes it helps to think "would we see this in brittanica?" if not, perhaps we should be questioning the content or how it is written. Also, 206.163.235.114 edits should be discussed before making large edits and doing several reversals just because it doesnt reflect your point of view gemerally isnt a good idea. oh Masalai the remark about the boys i wrote in above section wasnt directed in your direction, I apologize to everyone for doing a general scattershot remark when I was frustrated. Friesguy 06:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's try and get back to the topic because the revert skirmish that has developed can be solved, I think. We were asked to give our comments in the above section of the talk page, but now since we've started another subtitle section, let's dispense with non-article related mudslinging, yes? :-)

The following passage seems to be disputed:

Yet when compared to the 1,500 or more youth gang members in the city, as estimated by CSIS, this initiative is small.

Hmmm, what do you think, all? Seems pretty innocuous to me, but it could be POV, no? Or not? Can this stand? OR -- should we do something about the previous sentence? For example, is the boxing programme the only ongoing initiative? Maybe we could add more if there is (are) more. -- Mumun 11:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

...and one more thing...if any of us are considering edits, and if such edits could be viewed by others as MAJOR, why not use Wikipedia conventions and post the proposed major changes on this page, get consensus, and then make the edit or add the material? I really think when it comes down to it, we are all of the same mind and want the best for the article. So let's use the Wiki-conventions to our advantage and build consensus instead of attempting to force things. -- Mumun 11:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem, Mumun, isn't whether that sentence is innocuous or not; it's the fact that it is false. According to the Maclean's article 206.163.235.114 used as a source for that statement, there are 1,500 youth gang members in the entire province, not just Regina. I doubted the fact of the statement and required a citation. When the citation used showed the statement was incorrect, I removed it. Unless someone can show a source that says there are 1,500 gang members in Regina, I don't see there is any rational for keeping it. Even then, it's debatable whether a statement like that belongs in a section about a specific neighbourhood. --Kmsiever 13:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Redisbursed funding

In addition to my original request for clarification, which remains unanswered, I have a second statement I would like clarified.

Positive efforts to engage the social problems in North-central include the Inner City Family Foundation, community association programs — although funds to these organizations were recently cut in order in fund higher income communities and a rental property inspector, a volunteer organization and not provided by the City of Regina. Although legal authority has endowed them with the power to enact such a department.

What is this supposed to be saying exactly? The funds were cut in order to provide money to higher income communities, a rental property inspector, a volunteer organization and something not provided by the City? I thoughts the funds were going to just the higher income communities. And what is "not provided by the City of Regina"? In addition, who has been given legal authority and what department are they endowed to enact? --Kmsiever 17:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That last comment I posted seems to have been addressed partially. The source cited, however, does not seem to indicate the funds transferred were also used for a rental property inspection team, which the sentence now says happened. Can anyone verify this transfer of funds went to the hiring of a rental property inspection team? If not, that statement should be removed from the sentence. --Kmsiever 20:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Kmsiever- Please stop being obsessive complusive. The two are different. The inspection team is community volunteers trying to deal with the situation on their own with little authority or legal right.The City of Regina has the ability , under law, to require inspections and/or licencing. The city has refused or in the Mayor's case would like to consult with slumlords about it. Community Assocayions are legal representative bodies for designated areas of Regina. They are in charge of local recreation and social programs. The funds for CAs used to go to 4 or 5 inner city CAs, now they are going to all 20 some with no increase in funds. Does that stop some of the twitching? --206.163.235.114 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Kmsiever is just being thorough and correct. Wiki requires documentation and verification on things. It isnt like running a blog where you can put up point of view material. Some of your sources are just blogs and sometimes blogs are unreliable so outside verification may be necessary.Friesguy 22:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

None are blogs. --206.163.235.114 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you keep being so mean, 206.163.235.114. It has nothing to do with being obsessive compulsive; I am simply trying to make sense of sentences that are written poorly. The rewrite does help make it clear to see what you were trying to say now. --Kmsiever 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit worried about using a source that is little more than a blog to substantiate facts. The www.actupinsask.org site doesnt appear to have ties to any major newsworthy agencies and in some cases they dont even list their sources for the info that appears within their articles. The actupinsask site is cited in a few locations within our NC section perhaps we should all give it a read and see if it appears as newsworthy as we are being led to believe that it is. Friesguy 20:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is noteworthy, it is bad practice to use one website for all sources. --Kmsiever 21:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

New article

I dont see exactly what that statement is trying to say either kmseiver.I feel its confusing and really doesnt say anything concrete. Also,on a different direction, could we look at starting a new page for North Central regina and then linking it from the main Regina article as it seems we are going to get quite large and cumbersome. It also may not be as disruptive to the rest of the Regina article if there happen to be several rewrites and edits. I am not sure of exactly how to set up a new page so if someone would like to take the bull by the horns and do it, go ahead after making sure its ok with everyone in here.Friesguy 17:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If a new article is going to be built, my personal opinion is that the article should not just be regarding the NC neighbourhood. Or if NC does receive its own article, then so should other neighbourhoods. A new article should have more than just the doom and gloom currently present in the section. --Kmsiever 18:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

i think kmsiever is correct and we need to set up a Regina neighbourhoods article and theat NC should be a big part of that. what does anyone else have to say about starting the new article? Friesguy 22:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes I can see it now, University Park- the houses are all brown have very small yards due to there enormous size. The housing is known for the fact that every house front is a double car garage.The residents are known for thei constant whining about taxes and how inner city residents have it so easy. Even though they earn 1/2 as much. Should be interesting --206.163.235.114 22:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism

Civic boosterism has been tried and back fired leading to this sudden array of programs with minimum action. NC deserves this because it is the worst neighbourhood in Canada.Simply put it is a mess. The main reason is racism. Should we add that ? --206.163.235.114 19:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. As long as you can cite a valid source that proves the premise racism is the main reason for the condition of NC. --Kmsiever 20:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed! There must be something, preferably not the Name of so-called magazine omitted article. Are there other publications that you are thinking of that could help us here, 206.163.235.114? --Mumun 22:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually there was a poll, last year, about tolerance levels and Saskatchewan was the least tolerant province.However, the MacLean's article is very accurate and refernces many good sources.--206.163.235.114 22:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

We need a source for this article that is more specific than the entire province. Just because Saskatchewan as a whole is less tolerant than other provinces/territories, does not mean that Regina is the least tolerant of any other Saskatchewan community or that the condition of NC is a result of said intolerance. --Kmsiever 23:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

POV Issues

It is very obvious that Kmsiever is editing the article to the POV of the propertied class. This defeats the purpose of this article since we are dealing with those that lack the means for property and the system that has accentuated it. I ask Kmsiever to stop. --206.163.235.114 22:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My POV is irrelevant. The sources you provided show income for all residents, not just homeowners. In addition, property ta increases are tied to properties, not where the homeowner lives. For example, if a homeowner lives in Uplands but his property is in NC, only changes in NC property taxes will affect him. --Kmsiever 22:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant and your POV is of the utmost importance as it shows your bias. The owner of the house in NC living in Upland will most likely increase the rent for the NC house. Therefor, in actuality it is just or more important to the occupant/resident then the owner. Since he just passes the extra cost on to his renters. Why do you keep attempting to gloss over this tragedy that you are 100s of km from? --206.163.235.114 22:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That may be, but the orignal statement "would have increased them for inner-city residents" is not necessarily true. Not all inner-city residents own property, let alone property in the inner city. What is increased are taxes for inner city properties. That is what is factual. None of the sources say they are increased for inner-city residents. --Kmsiever 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

One can be inferred from the other and you must be a civic mandarin with your minimalist approach.Stop glossing over the issues and the City governments hand in it. You are in Lethbridge, I am right in the thick of it.Now for the last time , please stop this "war". --206.163.235.114 22:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Where i am located is irrelevant. You are wording your contributions to paint the city administration as prejudiced and racist. I am simply asking for citations to back up unsourced claims and rewording your statements to make them more objective. If you don't like the reverting, stop being so objective. Write facts, not opinions. I find it somewhat amusing that you, of all, people are calling my edits POV. Oh, and please do be careful when you are doing bulk reverting; not all my edits are in NC. --Kmsiever 23:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Your points are subjective , mine are objective. Stop with your overly subjective POV bias towards those with out property. It is a fallacy that those that do not own property,only rent, are not affected by property tax. The basis for you entire line of edits. Your assumptions are false. I am showing the actual facts. Civic governments are becoming so minimalist. Let the courts apply Dillon's rule not yourselves.--206.163.235.114 23:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. Your contributions are blatantly not objective. The only contributions you have made have been to slam city council for neglecting NC. No one is saying renters do not have a price increase when property taxes go up. The way the sentence was written, however, implied every resident in NC will be directly responsible for the payment of the increase of the property taxes. They are only indirectly responsible, and that's only if the property owner increases rent, which not all do with every tax increase. I did not make any assumption, and so there are none to be false. You are not showing facts; you are skewing them. --Kmsiever 01:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

206.163.235.114, please use the "Edit summary" field for a summary of your edits. Please use the talk page for discussion. Using the "edit summary" field for discussion clouds your edits and makes them seem pointless, furthering this edit war you seem intent on continuing. --Kmsiever 22:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

"efforts by the Regina Police Service and several agencies, including a stolen vehicle program, an anti-drug strategy, and an increase in the number of police officers in the area. The result of these strategies is that the crime rate has dropped from the highest in Canada to second highest.[source?] In the last few years, a massive drop occurred in the number of reported property crimes, such as car thefts and break and enters.[3] The murder rate has increased by 33% in this 153 block area containing approximately 10,500 people between November 2005 and November 2006. Other violent crimes have increased: third degree assault (20%), robberies (35%), kidnapping (25%), arson (50%).[3] As of November 2006, nearly 18% of the crime in Regina occurred in this neighbourhood, which has less than 6% of the population.[3]"

The "efforts by the Regina Police...and several agencies" may well have been responsible for reducing the crime rate from the highest to the second highest in the country but if the efforts were as massive as is suggested then perhaps they weren't very effective: such a drop isn't very impressive, particularly in view of the increase in violent crime.

"civic boosterism"

206.163.235.114 makes a not invalid point -- civic boosterism is always a temptation in articles such as this one and the need for disinterestedness can be difficult to provide. However criticising other editors doesn't make it easier. Keeping the tone civil can enable the object of the exercise, that of improving the article, to be met. Masalai 02:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when someone not interested in civic boosterism (i.e. not a Reginan) attempts to downplay such (or reduce the opposite), he is told to leave and let the editing remain with the locals. Efforts to write objectively are met with constant reverts. --Kmsiever 03:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's keep trying, shall we? And surely it's not just current locals who are guilty of civic boosterism at times; nor are current locals incapable of disinterestedness. Remember Stephen Leacock's Sunshine Sketches and Paul Hiebert's Sarah Binks? 206.163.235.114 does need to consider whether there aren't forums other than Wikipedia where polemic is more appropriate. 206.163.235.114 might also consider the question of his or her credibility as an editor when he or she does not register a username and thereby submit to the jurisdiction of the arbitrators. Masalai 03:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

we neede a citation about the second highest murder rate , try this link at Stats Can putting Edmonton at the top for 2005 http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060720/d060720b.htm Friesguy 22:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Urban Reserve

"Mayor Pat Fiacco has met with First Nations chiefs to create a dialogue, the first time in over 6 years in office, with a view to establishing Regina's first urban reserve...." This point needs considerable amplication: it assumes a knowledge of local issues that cannot possibly pertain beyond the strictly local area. Without in the slightest denigrating the concept, may I suggest that the concept of an urban reserve -- and the reasons why such an institution might be considered a solution to the problems of the NW region of Regina -- be substantially elaborated (possibly in an extensive footnote, since it is obviously highly tangential to the main focus of the article which is an overall description of Regina).

At a far more basic level, do those with a more intimate knowledge of Regina demographics than I (or most Regina residents) have concur with the Maclean's description of the precise parameters of the neighbourhood in question? It would be useful for it to be stated in the article but I am reluctant to import the description from the Maclean's article without some authoritative corroboration -- no slight to journalists: Phil Graham himself called journalism only "the first rough draft of history."

One of the handful of closely interested editors of this article recently and in my view correctly observed that the discussion of the social ills of this neighbourhood doesn't necessarily properly fall under the rubric of urban planning issues. One doesn't wish to be accused of whitewashing an issue that may have brought Regina nationwide notoriety; clearly it must be addressed. On the other hand, it was thought during a now long past discussion of Regina neighbourhoods that a description of the historic Germantown precinct (which was for some decades around the turn of the 20th century an appalling slum) did not belong in the main article. May I suggest that we for the time being figure out how we are going to address the substantive discussion of the NW neighbourhood and then consider where that discussion might sensibly be placed.

Masalai 04:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The urban reserve everyone is chatting about in here isnt the first urban reserve approved by Regina city council. In 2002 Regina city council approved in principle an urban reserve at Hoffer drive and McDonald st.The agreement was signed bt Pat Fiacco and Chief Larry Oates of the Nakaneet First Nations and it is unclear to me whether the federal government ever granted it or whether Nakaneet didnt develop it. Please see article at http://www.regina.ca/news_release.php3?id=554 for more info. Anyone accusing the city council and Fiacco of stalling a reserve isnt reading articles in the news about people being upset at how quickly the reserve at Angus street was approved without any public consultation and in fact the city council said to these people that they (council) had to approve the reserve as is strictly a federal issue. The only thing to negotiate with the city was how sewer, water, and other services were to be paid as the reserve doesnt pay taxes. We need a rewrite in this section, but someone else should write it as apparently I am too much of a happy times kinda guy Friesguy 05:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope someone has taken the precaution of saving the contentious Maclean's article: it appears now to have gone offline and there isn't an offline copy it can only be referred to elliptically.

Can anyone provide any material on why establishing an urban aboriginal reserve is considered a useful solution to the problems of this sector of Regina? Not challenging, only inquiring. Masalai 07:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi masalai,I'll try to explain what I understand to be the advantages of the urban reserve as I know it. I think it will be a good thing for the people living in NC as it will create some jobs and economic activity in the area. As it is a reserve taxes arent charged on the property but the city and the band usually enter into an agreement for the city services. Where it helps out is in the taxation at retail level, if a treaty member buys merchandise, tax isnt charged ,saving the person some cash on the purchase price of their goods. Also as I understand it, a treaty member earning an income on a reserve doesnt have to pay a portion of their income tax giving them substantially more take home pay.

But, I also do see the other side of the equation too, with the pricing differences that can occur because of the uneven tax structure non urban-reserve businesses are concerned they may have to move out of NC because they cannot compete. I hope I have the basic details correct, but if anyone can elaborate further please feel free as I dont pretend to know all the nuances of the situation on urban reserves. (well, or anything else for that matter, :) ) Friesguy 12:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

And so the advantages for aboriginal people are...? Tax exemptions? Anything else? What about policing? Education? Health care? And what are the long term implications as to the multicultural ethos of the wider society? (This is an honest, disinterested inquiry, I assure you. I was in the recent past visiting my parents in Regina and in anticipation of my next destination talking with a friend in Pakistan in an online chatroom: an aboriginal Saskatchewanian horned in and proceeded to administer a thorough Paki-bashing, which I have to say my Pakistani friends in Pakistan found utterly hilarious.) Masalai 15:41, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Here in Lethbridge, there has been talk regarding the establishment of an urban reserve. Not much has been said yet and few details have emerged. Otherwise, I'd probably have some information to contribute. Too bad there isn't a Wikipedia article on urban reserve. --Kmsiever 16:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

But why IS it considered a good idea (if it is considered a good idea)? Or is it perhaps not so much a matter of a solution to aboriginal problems as a matter of hiving off aboriginal problems into aboriginal hands so that the wider society can wash its own hands and suggest that it's now up to aboriginal people to deal with its own dirty laundry? But whether this is so and whether it is good or bad is an irrelevance for an objective and encyclopedic article. The article as it stands appears to make a few assumptions which need to be explained. Hmmm...where has Mr or Ms No-Name IP Address gone, now that we are actually descending to brass tacks?Masalai 16:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Under the contract signed with the city, as I understand it, everything continues as it is now using city policing,services, and public school boards with the reserve paying an amount probably close to what their taxes would be for that property. I am not sure how the health care would change, and actually i doubt that it would change much if at all as health care is mostly under the provincial umbrella. I personally think it is a good idea as it gives a sense of ownership and community with the aboriginal population as well as the extra benefits of cheaper gas, merchandise and some employment for the residents. But I also see why there is a backlash from the business community as some feel anger and resentment at what they feel is an unfair competitive advantage.Friesguy 16:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually Masalai, in some respects I think youve hit the nail on the head. I think governments think this is a way to wash their hands of further responsibility to the aboriginal peoples. I think governments are saying lets set these urban reserves up and then we cant get blamed for anything anymore as the chiefs and band council will be running the show. But in the meantime it gives the appearance of "doing the right thing" and everyone feels all warm and fuzzy for now, except the existing business owners within the community. I really feel right now they are a good thing to do, but I have a fear that this could all come back and bite everyone in the butt later by worsening segregation in the community because of the 2 tiered system.Friesguy 16:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

If there is one thing that bothers me is this whole discussion about the poor business owners and 2 tiers. Everyone seems to forget that this is what the First Nations were given for the WHOLE country. Everyone in Canada can trace their personal prosperity to the treaties and the exchange within in them. It must also be noted that urban reserves do not include residential properties, they can only set up a business. Giving a group that we ripped off for the entire land that we all make our living from in some form or another a competitive advantage, though quite miniscule, is the least we can do for the pox brought upon their collective houses. If not more ! --206.163.235.114 18:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not denying that the europeans got a fantastic deal for the property, and I dont ever want to say the native peoples arent entitled to whatever the treaties say they get, but, it is human nature to feel tread on when there is a percieved advantage given to one person over the other whether the advantage is real or not. I think as a culture the european descent people know what is right and correct, but when it affects the individual person's livelihood he feels persecuted when an uneven situation is encountered like the example of not paying tax.Friesguy 20:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Your right, white business owners percieved injustice far outwieghs the real injustice on the First Nations. C'mon, they should be educated on the fact they have living off the real injustice their whole lives. --206.163.235.114 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Educating the individual business owner isnt going to make him feel any less bitter or pay his bills if his family business goes under when he set up the business with one set of rules. then someone else comes along and does exactly what he does for less because they dont pay for a service that he pays for. He will feel the same anger and resentment that some aboriginal people feel over circumstances that are totally out of his control. thats why I say the community understands the issues but when it comes down to an individual and his way of life, all understanding seems to get put on hold and I dont know if there is anything that can be done in the short to medium term to alleviate the issues.Friesguy 04:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just done some tightening, elimination of ambiguity and grammar and spelling checking in this quickly-developing section but it lacks necessary documentation of statements regarding the Mayor's discussion with the band council, such discussion having been prompted by the Maclean's article (was it?) and the establishment of urban reserves in other Saskatchewan centres. Masalai 23:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That statement isnt entirely correct Masalai, as there was a previous agreement signed in 2002 with another band to establish an urban reserve in Regina's industrial park. More info at http://www.regina.ca/news_release.php3?id=554. It appears that city council and Mayor Pat arent so obstructionist after all, if this is the case, perhaps other factors are in play here, not only local government.Friesguy 14:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

In this Leaderpost article (http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=72bf0cbe-9397-47ec-8fd4-026db118c3f4) it appears the city council negotiated service contracts with Nekaneet in 2002 but the reserve has not yet been set aside, inferring that the issue holding things could be federal, not local. Friesguy 14:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that Friesguy. I updated the info in the section with the info from this article. Looks much better now. --Kmsiever 16:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone recentyly added the following sentence:

"An agreement with Sakimay First Nations for a reserve in the vicinity of the airport in 2005."

There is no verb in this sentence, so I am unsure what it is trying to say. Is it supposed to say that the City of Regina had an agreement with the Sakimay First Nation? Can someone offer some clarification? --Kmsiever 05:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It appears in this article that it was never to be an urban reserve at Regina Ave and Airport Rd. http://www.newstalk980.com/index.php?p=ntnews&action=view_story&id=6083 Friesguy 22:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

People of note from Regina

Maybe I'm alone on this one, but Gail Bowen? Really? Aren't the people "of note" supposed to be famous outside the walls of McNally Robinson? Are we gonna start putting local news anchors on here now as well? Just my opinion though... --70.64.7.142 10:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, as long as they have a Wikipedia article, they can be listed in this list. --Kmsiever 15:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking that the whole list could be moved off the main page and just leave the link pointing to the People of note page. Friesguy 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another good idea. I agree. Many other cities have done this. --Kmsiever 03:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Other cities which have considerably more notables; Regina's list is far from being so extensive is to overwhelm the article, surely. As for the notablility of Bowen, she's obviously not Shakespeare or Dickens but she is a published author and accordingly noteworthy well beyond her parochial fame; having a Wikipedia entry of her own is only one among many indicia of notability. Masalai 04:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Some of the names are not what I would call notable, but I understand that a lot of people have different interests than I, so while Gail Bowen may be notable to me, a 3rd line hockey player player in the NHL may not be. The list is getting fairly long and subjective and I would think it would be better moved to page of its own. Friesguy 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo of university

Not sure how edifying this photo is. As a result of the recent spate of building and landscaping on the campus the photo is seriously out of date (and not very appealing anyway). I appreciate that the article is meant to be encyclopedic and therefore disinterested in tone and content -- I am as guilty of succumbing to the temptation to civic boosterism as anyone -- but an unillustrative, badly dated (where the discussion is not historical) and unduly unappealing photo doesn't really seem to add anything. A pity there aren't any public domain photos of the campus in recent years but may I suggest that no photo is preferable to a poor photo? Masalai 06:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the latest photo shows the extent of the campus better than the previous pic of one building. I understand it is out of date but not terribly so. In the spring Ill rent a cessna with a friend and get a couple of pics of U of R, and any other areas of Regina that we can think of that arent copyrighted. if you have any places you want an aerial pic of Regina, let me know and Ill try to get it. Friesguy 19:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is interested, the live links to the webcams looking over U of R campus and the newest buildings got to http://webcam1.is.uregina.ca and http://webcam2.is.uregina.ca . Friesguy 04:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Really, Friesguy? How terrific is this! Obviously aerial photos of the new Regina campus, the downtown area as it now is, the east Regina box stores (yuck), the new residential subdivisions to the north and east, the totality of the city from an assortment of views....Wascana Centre, obviously....Really, can you manaage all this? Masalai 19:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It shouldnt be an issue getting the pics,Masalai but I want to wait until spring because thats when I like to fly and if I am paying for it, I get to pick when i want to go, :) I have some pretty good lenses and lots of time as I just pay for the fuel while in the air. I also would like to get a couple of Ft Quappelle and Regina Beach area while I am up. Friesguy 20:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A high res Regina Beach one would be cool, then I could pick out my cousin's old house. :) --Kmsiever 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh really? Hmmm...now this is really getting interesting! I wish I could come with you and point you to near the Fort: my farm house and my old one-room schoolhouse and the coulee and the old swimming hole and the creek where I used stand on the bridge and watch the fish for hours on end as I was walking home from school in order to postpone the chores! (The old gals who were taking summer school classes at the university to upgrade their teaching qualifications used to get tetchy about "outsiders" getting familiar about "our way of life" when I set them Sinclair Ross's As For Me and My House to read. I of course gave them a rocket about that sort of stupid xenophobic nonsense: do you think they'd take the trouble to look up a hard word in their damn dictionary? Not on your life! I wonder how many of them had dealt with outdoor biffies and bringing in snow by the pailful for Gramma to melt down into soft water to wash her bushels of hair!)

How wonderful, really, Friesguy: I'm really urgently looking forward to your photos. Just take dozens and dozens of any old thing, will you? Masalai 03:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)