Wikipedia

Talk:History of Vancouver

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Hitrish in topic Anthropology of Vancouver, perhaps older than 8-10,000 years?
Learn more about this page
Former good article nomineeHistory of Vancouver was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 20, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Date and Location of first operations at Stamp's Mill / Hastings Mill

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

It seems unlikely that Stamp's Mill began operations in 1865 at Brockton Point. We need a citation from an authoritative source about when and where the mill operations actually began.Nesbit (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The authoritative sources are several; try reading some, they're very well known. Major Matthews' Early Vancouver, Olga Ruskin at al's The Gassy Jack Story, Alan Morley's Vancouver:Milltown to Metropolis, Peter MacDonald's historical atlas, and others; also in the Akriggs' BC Chronicles. Captain Stamp's misadventure on Brockton Point is part of the story; I think there's even fairly exact dates, or months/weeks anyway, to pin it down to...it may seem unlikely to you, but it happened. Not sure how far mill construction got, but they had major problems with the tides/currents and the Brockton reef; IIRC they were also warned by the Skwxwu7mesh that it was a bad spot, but stubborn ol' Stamp he wouldn't listen. Until he had to. Those are the cites; it's in all of them, and many more. Read some.Skookum1 (talk) 06:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't doubt that the site at Brockton point was planned and that land was cleared. I'm questioning where and when the mill actually began sawing logs and producing lumber. Was the imported mill equipment first assembled at Brockton point or at the south shore site? This has implications for the timing of permanent settlement of workers and the development of early urban infrastucture. Nesbit (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
A little hunting for electronic resources turned up this.
In 1865 he formed a company in England, backed by capital of $100,000 , to produce lumber in British Columbia. Stamp also secured from the colonial government of British Columbia the right to purchase or lease 16,000 acres of timber on the lower coast, and selected a mill site on a point of land along Burrard Inlet's south shore. Delayed by the failure of crucial machinery parts to arrive from England, Stamp did not begin cutting lumber for export until June 1867. After managing the firm for less than two years he retired, and shortly thereafter his company went into liquidation in England. The mill closed for a period in 1870 but opened again in August after being purchased by Dickson, DeWolf and Company of San Francisco. Known at first as Stamp's Mill, it now became the Hastings Sawmill Company, or Hastings Mill.
McDonald, Robert A. Making Vancouver: Class ,Status and Social Boundaries, 1863-1913. Vancouver, BC, Canada: UBC Press, 1996. p 7. Copyright © 1996. UBC Press. All rights reserved.
We should revise the article accordingly. I'll work this into the Hastings Mill article first. Nesbit (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply
I'm questioning where and when the mill actually began sawing logs and producing lumber. Was the imported mill equipment first assembled at Brockton point or at the south shore site? This has implications for the timing of permanent settlement of workers and the development of early urban infrastucture.

Whuh? Obviously the "timing of permanent settlement" woujldn't include temporary digs on Brockton Point, and this has nothing to do with the devleopment off "early urban infrastructure". There's a case to be made, that other than the mill manager, there were no permanent residents at Hastings Mill (the Dunlevy site, not Brockton); it was a company town, inherently impermanent, as were its workers. What began urban infrastructure was the land-survey of the lot next to teh mill property that became Granville, B.I. aka Gastown, and it can be dated right down to September 1, 1867, which is when Gassy Jack wset up a plank and a couple of barrels and got the mill employees drunk. As re the mill machinery, I don't know if any source, other than maybe Matthews (which is grotesquely un-indexed), has anything about whether or not it was unloaded/assembled at Brockton Point, although as mentioned some fairly precise dates are mentioned somewhere; it may be taht the instability of docked ships prevented the unloading of equipment; my reading of the sources gave me t he impression that ships couldn't dock to pick up milled timber, suggesting that the mill was already in operation. I suggest yhou find the Olga Ruskin book mentioned, it had a lot more Gastown-specific detail; the book on Capt. Stamp that's around these days also should have something more.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Still, June '67 to Sept '67, by which time the mill had been already at Dunlevy for a while....hmmm. It may be only that they figured out the reef/currents would be counterproductive before the machinery arrived...but if the Brockton Point "experimental site" was attempted in July, that would be after the equipment arrived. Check the Olga Ruskin book, maybe the Morley which is easieer to find (I'm in Halifax, they're not possible to find here at all).Skookum1 (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I checked Morley and Eric Nicol's Vancouver, and neither is that specific. Morley does say, however, that the Dunlevy site wasn't up and running because "an essential piece of equipment" was delayed in arriving. But yeah, we're still a ways off from anything resembling "urban infrastructure" at this point. -Bobanny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.26.41 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Treasure trove site

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

By accident, while looking up the Palomar Theatre (713 Burrard, at Alberni, now gone but in its day very famous) re a mention in the Yvonne de Carlo article, I found http://vancouverhistory.ca which appears to be built by the Vancouver Historical Association and is chock full of content of all kinds....Skookum1 (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the site's homepage, it turns out to be notes towards a new book by Chuck Davis, for whom a bio is long overdue.....Davis is the closest thing to Maj. Matthews in thorough coverage of Vancouver, and picks up the ball from where the Major left off....also included is his email address, and he's a 'go to" guy for any questions anyone may have about nearly anything to do with the city.Skookum1 (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on History of Vancouver. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Anthropology of Vancouver, perhaps older than 8-10,000 years?

edit
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hey everyone, let’s talk about changing the first paragraphs of Indigenous habitation in Vancouver, on the west coast of North America, from the Paleolithic Period.

It is now becoming accepted in both academic- and scientific-archeological communities that the 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, or also known as the “Clovis First theory,” is no longer valid — and is being replaced with a much, much older reality due to finds of remains dating back many tens of thousands of years in many different regions around North America.

Dr. Paulette Steeves is the research expert in this field, and continues to teach and lecture on this subject but the predominantly “white supremist culture” amongst professionals and influencers, ranging from business through to scientific communities, do not want to listen or change their minds at all.

The book by Dr. Steeves tells the story, and while reading a book in order to validate and quote a few lines in this historical article may seem like a lot… well, it is a lot.

And, I do not want to be the one doing the reading and quoting — I would like to start the conversation and let it sit and gain at least some positive reinforcement and momentum before proceeding. Of course.

Thanks for your attention and consideration. Love. HiTrish (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply


Following are links to Dr. Paulette Steeves’ work:

Quote by Dr. Paulette Steeves, during an interview in 2022 (link above):

“There are myths we are told growing up — be it via schooling, popular media, or elsewhere — that people have lived in the Western Hemisphere for only 10-12,000 years, at most.

“This is the Clovis First theory.

“In archeology in particular, this framework, that the peopling of the North and South American continents could only have occurred that recently, is treated as dogma.

“In comparison to the astounding discoveries made by archeologists on other continents — pushing back human and protohominid migration, settlement, and cultural development hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years into the past — why is it that this story has persisted in this field for so long?” -Dr. Paulette Steeves HiTrish (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Vancouver&oldid=1207559613"