Talk:2010 Winter Olympics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2010 Winter Olympics article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Protestors

Most of the public Olympic events held to date in Vancouver have been highly attended by protesters, if not almost entirely by protesters.

What is that supposed to mean? Is it saying that most people who attend events are protesters? That doesn't make any sense, so I'm removing it. The article cited doesn't even say what was written here, just that the noise made by protesters at an event drowned out a single speech. Do people even bother reading stories before citing them?--CloutierFan02 05:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It means that there is a strong attendance of protesters to any public Olympic-related event. The video is an example of an event that was almost entirely made of protesters. This fact is notable, regardless of opinion. However, feel free to reword it. +mt 06:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What you just said doesn't make sense either. "Almost entirely made of protesters"? What the hell does that mean? Does that mean that protesters outnumber attendees? That's bollocks, and the link cited didn't give any figures other than 200 demonstrators were present. I won't reword it, it's being deleted unless you or someone else can come up with something that says protesters often outnumber attendees at events.--CloutierFan02 03:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well I'll reword it (and please check your commits before committing! you chopped the code out in the middle of a <ref>...</ref> tag!). These facts are not bollocks, and there are two references for that statement. Feel free again to reword my rewording, but watch out for those <ref>...</ref> tags in the future. +mt 04:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to try to explain this to you one more time, and if you still can't comprehend what I'm saying, I'm going to submit this for mediation. You claim that at many events the number of protesters outnumber attendees. Your source for that is a canoe.ca article that says that at one event the noise made by a group of protesters drowned out a speech that was being delivered. It says absolutely nothing to corroborate the statement it's supposed to be sourcing.
If you're going to make the dubious claim that protesters outnumber attendees, you have to back it up. I'm deleting your statement again, and if you revert it I will submit this for mediation. --CloutierFan02 06:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
First thing: relax; this is one sentence supported by several references. If you don't like it, ignore it, but don't remove it. You requested the sentence to be reworded, and support the facts it with referenced material, and I have done so. You have replied with your opinions and censorship. I've added one more citation to the reference for that statement, however here are more which I choose not to put on the front page simply because this is not the prime content of the article. Nonetheless, the mention of protesters is both notable and in context. Regarding outnumbering of protesters at events: OK you were kind of on to something, "Police and city hall security nearly outnumbered the protesters" (here), and as far as I know this outnumbering was at the Flag Lighting Ceremony, where reportedly, protesters outnumbered supporters. At other events, there has been a high attendance of protesters; at the Olympic Clock Unveiling, one source claims 100:1000 or 9% protesters, while a second reports 60:"several hundred", as well as blatant disruption this at YouTube during the ceremony. Here are some other links to news articles: Anti-Olympic activism ramps up, Vancouver council accused of trying to muzzle activists, etc. It is a challenge to find news articles regarding the Olympics that don't make any mention about opposition and protest. Again, I do not want to elaborate any more than one sentence on the main article regarding protesters, but please feel free to edit the wording if it is not clear. I do not invite you censor material you don't like.+mt 19:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but a blog post by "West Coast Tree Hugger" which doesn't cite any sources and doesn't give any figures is not acceptable reference. You're right, I don't like this, because it's extremely untoward to suggest something controversial and fail to back it up. If you have some genuine evidence from a reputable source (once again, a blogger going by "West Coast Tree Hugger" is not a reputable source), please put it in there and I won't delete it. But you refuse to do that. Show me an article from a reputable news source that says that, give me some figures, cite some sources. A blog with 2 comments is not a source.
Deleting content that is controversial and unsourced or poorly sourced is not censorship. I will be submitting this for mediation, since you don't seem to get it.--CloutierFan02 05:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
As requested:

[T]here were at least as many police and private security personnel as protesters, and the protesters themselves outnumbered casual spectators

—Seven Oaks, http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/features/olympicsbacklash.html

Protestors outnumbered actual spectators about 3 to 1 at least

—"PercussivePaul", http://www.metafilter.com/61255/Genuine-protest-or-pure-intimidation

The security nearly outnumbered the more than 100 protesters, who in turn outnumbered the spectators watching the ceremony

—The Vancouver Sun

I hope you will agree that this last reference is a good reference, and have used it in place of both the canoe.ca and "WestCoast TreeHugger" citations. Also, please read the "Avoidance" in WP:DR for your future reference, which includes deleting material that you do not like, and please don't waste the admins time over a one-sentence dispute. Lastly, please revise your edits before hitting the "save page" button. This is your second time that you missed important bits and piece of wiki-syntax. +mt 06:31, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that this statement should not be even placed in the Wikipedia article. Stating that at "most events" something happens is very vague. Is "most events" 25% of all events, 55% of all events, 75% of all events or 95% of all events? It would be better to say something like "at 25% of all Olympic events there were more recorded protesters than spectors" over some period of time according to some source. The thing is as the Vancouver Olympics gets closer and closer, there will be more and more events that will be well atttended by non-protesters and this statement will become less and less true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivaNtrainin (talk • contribs) 03:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I see the concern, and it is true that the statement will be eventually dated. Pretty much all events thus far have had a few to about a hundred protesters (according to this article), but the sources on the exact number of protesters at each event is spotty, so an exact quantification is not really possible. (However, I know that the Vancouver Police carefully tally and record on camera each event, and they would have a pretty good idea of the numbers). The only point that is tried to be made here is that there has been a number of activists (a significant number or not) in attendance at each related event in Vancouver, so far. You can reword it, but the local media has reported the activist attendance at Olympic-related events in Vancouver dozens of times, so I think it is of significance.+mt 03:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bidding process

I think this page should be moved to a separate page which describes the whole bid process. I mean by the time it is 2010, no one wants to see all this stuff about Salzburg, Pyeongchang, etc.. on this page. Any suggestions for what to name the page we move this to? The page could also contain all sorts of information (current events basically) about the construction of venues, scandals, etc... dave 23:27 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't see any reason the bid history shouldn't be part of all olympic games articles.
I compacted the bid information into a concise section so that it doesn't seem to dominate the entire article. --Gerald Farinas 19:34, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
By the time the 2010 Olympics start the page probably won't be dominated by the bidding process with all the information, especially not after the games. And also, who says people aren't interested in the bidding history? I am.


[edit] Vancouver -Salt lake

The games are returning to North America just eight years after Salt Lake City hosted the games in 2002.

I dont think it's good to use it, because it's give the illusion it's surprise it's come in North america that fast. Since the 2008 games where suposse to be held in North America ( but wil be held in China), it's look easy the 2010 will come in North America. Since 2002, Vancouver are the only North america city to win the right of host the games, so the just eight years after should be delete.

[edit] Paralympics link

Sorry to the anon IP about the Paralympics link - I meant to move it to See also, not remove it altogether. (Btw, you may want to sign up for an account!) -- Chuq 01:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial logo

this has been a no-mainstream controversy about the logo. the logo was chosen to represent the native peoples, however they chose and inukshuk, an inuit tradition. there are no inuit in british columbia, definetly not in vancouver, no native inuit anyways. it would have made more sense to make the logo, budah. but that's not the controversal part that's just the stupid and ignorant part. the controversal part is the fact that in british columbia we have several natives groups. why wasn't a totem pole or native art work chosen as the logo? we have a massive abundence of this artwork that people aparently enjoy. -- comment by User:70.66.188.94 on 02:18, 31 October 2005

Yeah, but I think it's controversial because it looks very familiar to the 1988-199http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Winter_Olympics&action=edit&section=39 Family Channel logo. Compare:

Image:2010 Winter Olympics logo.png Image:Family Channel.JPG

-- comment by User:PsychoJason on 02:40, 20 December 2005
This logo was most likely designed to represent all native peoples of Canada, and the inukshuk (or in this case, an inunguat) just happens to be the most well-known native Canadian symbol in the world. --  Denelson83  06:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, most well-known after the totem poll (which actually existed historically in BC) anyway. As for it representing all native peoples of Canada... I think that's a perfect example of a non-native view of native people. --TheMightyQuill 02:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Being white, and having been born and raised in Vancouver I was offended when I first saw this logo in the Vancouver sun. Many other people who I talked to about it were as well. They're making it like we're all Indian and living in igloos up here, when in reality only 2% of the country in Indian. EVERY EVENT, absolutely EVERY EVENT that happens in this country has to has tho have some sort of Indian influence, whether it's some sort of dance or whatever and it makes me sick. I know this isn't a forum, but that's the view many people have on this sort of thing.
70.69.50.77 06:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michaëlle Jean

Please stop saying that Michaëlle Jean won't be the governor general in 2010. She was named in October 2005, which means she WILL be the governor general in 2010. She IS expected to open the Olympic games. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 17:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove without a doubt that she'll be Governor General in 2010? Might she not resign? Is she immortal? The fact that she was appointed by the Queen in 2005 holds no bearing over potential future events. Similarly, why do you fight for Jean to be specifically named but are satisfied with the vague reference to the Monarch of Canada? It seems you know for sure Jean will be GG, but don't know whether Elizabeth II or Charles III will be Sovereign. Just leave the names out of it until the future when we can be more certain of what personalities will be present. --gbambino 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, unless a programme or an official guest list has been issued for that evening no one can say that if a Head of State, whoever it may be, would actually open the Games. We have seen in several Games held in the US the vice president opened the Games. --Kvasir 09:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First time indoor

  • Please keep in mind that prior to 1984, the closing ceremony was traditionnally in the figure skating arena and therefore indoors.Hektor 17:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that's true, and even if it is, remember that the figure skating arena itself was outdoors until the 1960 games. Crunch 02:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • i just read in the Vancouver Sun that it was the first time the main torch will be kept inside, though there now is so speculation that BC place will be fitted with a new open or retractable roof--Mygodshesfat (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gordon Campbell

Please stop removing the fact that Campbell is a Vancouver native. He is from Vancouver. He was born in Vancouver and his lived his life in Vancouver. He was mayor of Vancouver as well. -- User:SNIyer12 18:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus he represents Vancouver—Point Grey in the Provincial Legislature as well. --  Denelson83  05:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Olympics will make Vancouver the largest city ever to host a Winter Olympics.

Isn't Turin larger than Vancouver ?Hektor 12:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia Turin aticle, "The population of Turin city is 908,000 (2004 census), but with its metropolitan area totals about 1.7 million inhabitants". The Vancouver article states that "The city's population is 545,671 and that of the metropolitan area is 2,186,965 (2001 census)." --thirty-seven 18:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
The Olympics are hosted by a city, not by a urban area and 908,000 is larger than 545,671.
Well, don't forget to add Whistler and every little village that has one of the venues. --Kvasir 05:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
The "Vancouver events" are not all happening in Vancouver proper. Cypress bowl, where some of the skiing events will occur is in "West Vancouver", technically a different city. Same as with the speed skating, which will be held in Richmond (another suburb of Vancouver). Generally, the population of the metro area is the most important measure of a city's population. Generally, the borders of different municipalities are there more because of historic reasons than anything. For example, the city of London, England has a population of only ~10,000. Hmm~... what's more meaningful, that number or the the population of Metro London (over 10,000,000 people). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.251.195 (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2007

I not agree because the city of Vancouver proper are the seven in canada...but with a sururban area of 2 millions. Vancouver do not reflect a city of only 500 000, but a city of 2 millions. So yes it's will be the largest city. For the viewers of the olympics, went we are at cypress mountain and we see the city of Vancouver from the summit, we still are in Vancouver. So yes the city of Vancouver wil be the largest city to ever host the winter olympic.

I understand you're point of vue, but i dont think it's right.

Note the wording is "city", not municipality. If we say municipality will draw lines at the proper city borders. We are not saying "City" with a capital C either. So the metropolitan area population should be used for comparison. --Kvasir 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional events

I've added references to the 3 potential events. I could not find any information in the FIS website about the inclusion of ski cross, ski slopestyle, and snowboard slopestyle. Hence, I have deleted them. If anybody DOES have information on those events, please add them to the list and give references.

  • Well the next day FIS posted information that they are sending proposals to the IOC about including women's ski jump, ski cross, and a team alpine event. The problem is, I can't link to the reference page through wikipedia. [Go here] and then click on the "Edition 77" link. It's a javascript pop-up, but that type of link won't work here in wikipedia. Any help? Another problem is that the [US ski website] also lists nordic combined mass start as another event that FIS wants in the Olympics, but the FIS site has no mention of it.
    • Try this link? Though a link isn't strictly necessary -

      International Ski Federation (2006). FIS News-Flash #77. "Decisions of the 45th International Ski Congress in Vilamoura (POR)." 31 May 2006.

      would be quite a sufficient citation. -- Jonel | Speak 20:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A map

I think if we could somehow include a map of Vancouver and the surrounding areas we could give the readers a better idea where the events will be taking place. Just an idea.

Or they could go type in Vancouver in the search box, or click one of many Vancouver links on the page? :) Disinclination 08:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I was talking about a map that had an overlay of where the evnts are going to be taking place. kinda like.. an arrow pointing to the place where bobsled will take place.. and then another arrow where speedskating will take place. Just examples.
Yes, see 2008 Summer Olympics with maps of venues in the article. --Kvasir 04:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ringette as a Demonstration Sport in 2010?

Although bringing this up is kind of old, one of the announcers on CBC commented that Ringette could be (or already is) going to be a demonstration sport for the 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Could anyone find me any info (not implying that I am not looking myself, for I am), or a list of demonstration sports for the upcoming Olympics? Anything is appreciated. Disinclination 08:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, the IOC has eliminated demonstration sport from the Olympics. I know that new events MIGHT be added to the official program, but I have no knowledge of demonstration sports taking place in Vancouver. By the way, how "old" is this information? Perakhantu 08:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New heading needed

We need a new heading on this page that addresses what an Olympic event really is, and what it means socially as well as economically for our community to host the 2010 Olympic event.

So far all I see are a smattering of generic facts primarily derived through boosterism.

Considering that the last three Olympic events were economic disasters - Salt Lake City $1.2 billion deficit with almost zero negligible return, as reported by the CBC; Athens $12 billion deficit that has crippled Greece, as reported by the Globe and Mail; and Turin - still counting, but threatened bankruptcy two months before their event, as reported by the Vancouver Sun, lets see some facts on Wiki regarding the economic ramifications to the community regarding hosting the 2010 event.

I'm not talking about including facts that are solely meant to paint an anti-Olympic picture, but instead facts that give readers a balanced view of what really occurs regarding any Olympic event. I am pro-Olympic, but feel that in order to create a comprehensive version of 2010 on Wiki you have to include all the facts, not just a biased perspective extolling the virtues.

It is impossible to stay neutral regarding Olympic facts because we are now learning that many Olympic facts are questionable. The best Wiki can ever do regarding the Olympics is present a wider spectrum of information and let readers decide what is true or fiction. If readers only see regurgitated information, which we now know is often misinformation, or safe information that serves to only "boost" the Games, then this page is harmful to the community.

The economic devastation the modern Olympics causes to a host community is not speculation. I know because I invested over three years and a six figure budget researching what happens to a host community when the Olympics comes to town. I wrote a book about it and produce a sister blog that discusses in real time the impact of 2010 on Vancouver. This information is well-documented realty and it should be included as part of a treatise on 2010 or beyond.

Perpetuating myth is a disservice to readers and the community.

So far the links on this Wiki page represent pro-Olympic organizations, and anti-Olympic organizations, but nothing regarding viable information for the local community. The Olympics is not only black or white. It is grey too, which ironically is neutral. Consequently, so far Wiki is breaking it's own rules by not having all views represented.

The modern Olympics is a social animal, not a collection of useless statistics.

We need a new headingOlyBLOG 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2010 Winter Olympics bidding results not correct

107 people voted in the first round. But 109 people voted in round 2. How can there be 2 extra voters? There is a error there. - 218.186.8.10 17:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

On the first round, Salzburg was eliminated therefore the only Austrian IOC member, who was forbidden to vote earlier, could now vote on the final round. The second extra vote might have come from a member who abstained on the first round but chose to cast his/her vote on the second decisive round. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 18:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volcanic eruption?

Should the article have anything about the volcanic hazards of the volcano Mount Cayley? It appears that it has the potential to erupt and could affect the 2010 Winter Olympics. [1] Black Tusk 11:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, unless one can forecast exactly that the volcano will erupt during the Olympics. I don't believe we have the technology to do that at the moment. Plus, we wouldn't be speculating that a certain storm will hit; the Fraser River would flood; Mount Olympia erupting; an earthquake to occur or the Games being a terrorist target. --Kvasir 18:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty certain that the volcano folk that I know in the lower mainland are not worried in any sort of way about this issue.+mwtoews 05:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
They are not worried about the volcano issue because they don't know a lot about them. Western Canada is a large region of volcanic activity, several of which have been active in the past 2 million years. Black Tusk 09:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Millions and billions years ago the Rockies were also underneath the ocean and dinosaurs roamed the foothills of Alberta. What's your point? --Kvasir 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say is that numerous large volcanoes, sush as shield volcanoes, developed during the Tertiary period in north-central British Columbia and some were active intermittently to recent times. Mount Edziza and Level Mountain are most spectacular examples. Mount Edziza is a stratovolcano consisting of a basal shield of basaltic flows surmounted by a central vent and flanked by numerous satellite cones, ash beds and blocky lavas. The complex has a long history of volcanic eruption that began about 10 million years ago and ended about 1300 years ago. Also there have been 49 eruptions in western Canada in the past 12,000 years, which is pretty recent. Black Tusk 10:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Volcanoes are trivial natural hazards such as meteorite impacts. Probably a more worrying hazard is the earthquake expected any year on a 14th month pattern (the last potential was a few months ago). This could potentially do big damage to the city at or beyond the same level of San Fransisco, and I would consider this more of a hazard with slightly more probability (although both are low). I haven't checked the page for Vancouver, but these hazards are relevant to that article (or a sub-article), and not this one.+mwtoews 16:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, but as for earthquakes, a future eruption in Canada is inevitable and it is very likely to have a serious impact on people. This impact is becoming even more likely as the population increases. There have been 10 Canadian volcanoes that have been based on recent seismic activity, including: Castle Rock, Mount Edziza, Mount Cayley, Hoodoo Mountain, Lava Fork Valley, Crow Lagoon, Mount Silverthrone, Mount Meager, Wells Gray-Clearwater Volcanic Field and Mount Garibaldi. Those 10 volcanoes are the ones most likely to erupt next and could erupt anytime in the near future. Black Tusk 06:78, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the ultimate in violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. While there have been theoretical studies looking at what might happen with Cayley (per the Wikipedia article) as well as other volcanoes such as Baker and Rainier, there is no panic occurring and the odds of an eruption occuring in the next 4 years are, frankly, not a heck of a lot different than the odds of an eruption in the next 500. If volancoes were an issue, Japan would never have been awarded any Olympic games, ever. 68.146.8.46 01:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Cayley, Baker, and Rainier are all part of the same system of volcanoes called the Cascade Volcanic Arc. Cayley is in the Garibaldi Volcanic Belt, which is the northern extension of the Cascade Volcanic Arc and contains the most explosive young volcanoes in Canada. I know volcanoes outside of Canada seems much greater than the threat from Canadian volcanoes, but this appearance is due to the lack of monitoring data on our volcanoes. The list of volcanoes I was talking about above have had seismic activity since 1975, and seismic activity is usually an early sign of activity at volcanoes. For example, the long-dormant Soufriere Hills on the island of Montserrat was thought extinct before activity resumed in 1995. Its eruptions have rendered much of Montserrat uninhabitable, destroying the capital, Plymouth, and causing widespread evacuations and about two thirds of the population to leave the island. Seismic activity had occurred at the volcano for most of the 20th century, but 1995 was the first time an eruption had occurred. Black Tusk 05:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Officially opened by ...

I notice someone had already put down that the 2014 Winter Olympics will be opened by the president of Russia, which is obviously too crystal-ballish. I'm glad to see the mistake hasn't been repeated here. There are at least 4 possibilities as to who may open the games: the monarch, another royal, the Governor-General, or the Prime Minister. It's obviously way too early to guess at this point. 68.146.8.46 01:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Prime Minister would open the Olympic Games. He's head of government, not head of state. --  Denelson83  20:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I wrote to VANOC asking this question and was informed that the Olympics would be officially opened by the head of the state (the Queen) or someone delegated by her. That leaves things pretty wide open. fishhead64 15:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed lead paragraph involving Own the Podium

The Canadian Olympic Committee, as the NOC of the host country, has pledged to obtain the most gold medals of any country at the 2010 Winter Olympics, due to its failures to obtain a gold at both the 1976 Summer Olympics in Montreal and the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary. To achieve the goal, a program called Own the Podium - 2010 was launched.

I took this out because it was too Canada-centric. It's definitely not something that should appear in the lead paragraph. Since Vancouver 2010 is an international event, it wouldn't be fair to focus on Canada's efforts at getting medals. It may be suitable for inclusion in a currently-nonexistent subsection, however. Carson 20:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Climate Change / Global Warming

I think there should be some mention of Climate Change and how this may adversely affect the events held outside. Have there been any special plans made to mitigate these possibilities? topher67 (talk)

I'd suggest not mentioning that, since that topic would be original research. The natural variations from PDO and ENSO climate patterns are probably greater than any anthropogenic climate variation (well, at least at this point in time). Experts say that there has been about ½ a degree warming to present, while up to 4°C might be expected by 2100. This could be a topic for 40 or so years from now (e.g., read this), but not this time. +mt 16:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Good article. What about approaching the topic from another angle: the impact of the games themselves as outlined in this article from the official website? topher67 (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Since the environmental impact or minimisation thereof, is a goal of the organising committee, a sentence or two should mention the effort made in that area. --Kvasir (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gentrification of Granville Street as a controversy

Last summer I read an article in one of the free Vancouver papers citing one of the negative impacts of the 2010 games is the city's decision to "gentrify" Granville Street which, while reducing the presence of "unsavory" businesses like porn shops, etc., also resulted in skyrocketing rents forcing businesses such as a long-time bookstore to close. Unfortunately I don't have this newspaper anymore so I can't add this information to the article without a source. I'm mentioning it here so that if anyone does have a source, they can add the information to the "Opposition" section (though more correctly it should be categorized as controversy as there doesn't appear to be active "opposition" going on here). I've also read, anectodally via forums, that the closure of several well-known downtown Vancouver strip bars this past year has also been linked to the "gentrification", but again a print source of some sort is necessary before adding this to the article. 68.146.41.232 (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)