Talk:Brampton, Ontario

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article covers subjects of relevance to WikiProject Urban studies and planning, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the assessment scale.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Canadian communities
This article is part of the Canadian communities WikiProject (Discuss/Join).
Ontario
Ontario Portal
This article is part of the Ontario WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] Vandalism is SO childish

I removed the "Ethnicity" portion of this article, due to vandalism. The vandals typed this:

გუჯარათული ენა გავრცელებულია ინდოეთის გუჯარათისა და მაჰარაშტრის შტატებში. თავისი სტრუქტურული ტიპით უკავია შუალედური მდებარეობა ჰინდისა და მარატჰის შორის. იგი ახლოსაა რაჯასტანულ ენასთან, აქვს ბევრი დიალექტები, მათ შორის სოციალური. ძირითადი დიალექტებია: ჩრდილოეთის ანუ აჰმადაბადის, დასავლეთის ანუ კათხიავარის, სამხრეთის ანუ სურატის. გუჯარათულ ჯგუფს მიეკუთვნება ინდოეთისა და პაკისტანის რამდენიმე მცირერიცხოვანი ენა, მათ შორის: აერი, ჯანდავრა, პარკარი, ვადიარა და სხვები

I know a cat named Ameer


Anyways, though living in Arizona, I have a personal connection to Brampton, so I don't appreciate vandalism. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population Mistake

"Population growth in Brampton

   * 1858: 50
   * 1922: 8,000 (according to Celebrating 150 Years)
   * 1949: 6,000 (according to Brampton: An Illustrated History)
   * 1959: 14,500
   * 1963: 26,363
   * 1967: 37,701
   * 1978: 95,000
   * 1983: 165,000
   * 1985: 180,000
   * 2002: 351,646
   * 2005: 415,000
   * 2031: 123,344,334,222,000 (est.)"

I very highly doubt that brampton will have 123,344,334,222,000 people in 25 years.

Could we get the right date of incorporation here? -- Zoe

Yes. The City of Brampton has three "birthdates" - in 1973, it had the Centennial celebrations (the town incorporation in 1873) and in 2003, there was the sesqicentennial celebration, marking the 1953 incorporation as a village. Of course, 1974, the formation of the city, was also marked in 1999 for the 25th anniversary. The city really should pick one date and stick with it to mark. --Spmarshall42 00:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

123,344,334,222,000 people would probably crowd five earths, not to mention the Peel Region. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 21:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arts Person of the Year

Does City of Brampton Arts Person of the Year refer to this Brampton or a different one in the world? Kingturtle 23:22 May 13, 2003 (UTC)

This one. --Jay(Reply) 00:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
BTW I moved (and updated) this list to Brampton Arts Council/Person of the Year. -- Robocoder 18:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population accuracy?

Note the sign saying welcome to Brampton says the population is 386,000 and that was changed in 2004. However the mayor said in Brampton guradian (april,29th,2005) that the population of brampton is 412,000. Has brampton's population jumped by 100,000 since 1999????

Bet your bottom dollar it has. That's estimated, based on new homes and other records. Also, there's hundreds of homes in Brampton that are, shall we put it, "over capacity", and would likely boost the numbers a thousand higher. But such stats have never included people illegally in the country, or who deny existance in the census. -- user:zanimum

Brampton was such a only 220,000 people in 1995 i remember. Population climbing by 180,000 in ten years is insane. I think we should add two things about this page. One the growth and the demographics of the city which i very interested in knowing. Brampton is a growing city with a population confirmed over 400,000. Wow this city has grown alot. It all started in 1999 when the North of Brampton got developed a lot!!


Image:Applesandoranges.jpg
An interesting classified.

[edit] to be merged (from "Bramalea")

Bramalea is the location of an automobile factory in Ontario, Canada, owned by DaimlerChrysler and originally developed by Renault for the manufacture of its large Premier sedan.

[edit] Schools in Brampton

Someone entered Lincoln Alexander as a school that lies in Brampton, however it's not, and actually lies in Malton (Mississauga). Also, a lot of the Catholic high schools were left out of the list. Image:Amsterdam4.jpg Image:Amsterdam2.jpg Image:UnionVillage4.jpg Image:DT2.jpg Image:CGCP1.jpg Image:RailroadSt1.jpg

[edit] Traffic

Some of the discussion of the traffic sounds more like the opinion of a frustrated commuter than an unbiased expert. Great Green Arkelseizure 21:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you find info from one? -- Zanimum 23:29, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Mayor Susan Fennell
Wards 1 + 5

Regional Councillor
City Councillor
Elaine Moore

Grant Gibson
Wards 2 + 6

Regional Councillor
City Councillor
Paul Palleschi

John Hutton
Wards 3 + 4

Regional Councillor
City Councillor
Susan Dimarco

Bob Callahan
Wards 7 + 8

Regional Councillor
City Councillor
Gael Miles

Sandra Hames
Wards 9 + 10

Regional Councillor
City Councillor
John Sprovieri

Garnett Manning}

[edit] New Info Box

  • As per a request by user:Phil-hong I made this page a new, more updated looking info box. Because of the "interesting" format of Brampton's City Council, I'm a little torn on how to list the Councillors - Right now I have them all lumped together in two rows of cells "Regional" and "City" with their wards listed in brackets after their names (see current article page for example). Alternatively, each ward grouping could have their own cell row - like in the example below. Let me know which one you think looks better and we can either leave it, or switch it. Thanks pm_shef 23:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Like I said about the Infobox made for Vaughan, I am terribly impressed by your work. It certainly looks a lot better than the older tables. Given the EXTREMELY confusing ward system in Brampton, I think your idea in organising the wards like that is the best, because otherwise we'll have clutter. Phil-hong 20:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unanimous vote

How long has this fact tag been up? How come no one has a citation? Shouldn't I remove the statement now? If not why not? Something like that needs a citation. Thanks. Wjhonson 00:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's been there since you put it there a few days ago.[1] I suspect that the editor who added that information (WikiWoo) has been too busy with other issues to find a citation that quickly, especially since this may have been his least contentious contribution. --Gary Will 19:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neither political nor any other hype doesn't belong in an encyclopedia

There is nothing "unprecedented" or "remarkable" about simple population growth that the City cannot cope with (due to the "Ontario" and confederate feds stealing all of our revenues, not abiding by their own laws, etc., and sorry, nothing in the Ontarios comes close to that compared to the City of Toronto).

Here is the population growth of the Canadas. See how many pages it takes before you manage to hit little Brampton under Vaughan (page 8), Barrie (page 9), Canmore (Alta.) (Town but with over 10,000 in population), Airdrie (Alta.) (City), with Brampton tied with Constance Lake 92 (Ont.) on page 14. Or in the GTA around real population growth, not worthless percentages of a whole 5 people amounting to 1000% population "% change":

Greater Toronto Area, Census Division and Census Subdivisions (Municipalities), 2001 and 1996 Censuses

_______________________________________________________________________
                                       Population         Pop     % of
Name                         Type   2001       1996      Growth    GTA
_______________________________________________________________________
01-Toronto Division               2,481,494  2,385,421   96,073   48.83
_______________________________________________________________________
 Toronto ...................    C 2,481,494  2,385,421   96,073   48.83
_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
02-Peel Regional Municipality       988,948    852,526  136,422   19.46
_______________________________________________________________________
 Mississauga ...............    C   612,925    544,382   68,543   12.06
 Brampton ..................    C   325,428    268,251   57,177    6.40
 Caledon ...................    T    50,595     39,893   10,702    1.00
_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
04-York Regional Municipality       729,254    592,445  136,809   14.35
_______________________________________________________________________
 Markham ...................    T   208,615    173,383   35,232    4.11
 Vaughan ...................    C   182,022    132,549   49,473    3.58
 Richmond Hill .............    T   132,030    101,725   30,305    2.60
 Newmarket .................    T    65,788     57,125    8,663    1.29
 Aurora ....................    T    40,167     34,857    5,310    0.79
 Georgina ..................    T    39,263     34,777    4,486    0.77
 Whitchurch-Stouffville ....    T    22,008     19,835    2,173    0.43
 East Gwillimbury ..........    T    20,555     19,770      785    0.40
 King ......................    TP   18,533     18,223      310    0.36
 Chippewas of Georgina                                  
  Island First Nation ......    R       273        201       72    0.01
_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
05-Durham Regional Municipality     506,901    458,616   48,285    9.97
_______________________________________________________________________
 Oshawa ....................    C   139,051    134,364    4,687    2.74
 Whitby ....................    T    87,413     73,794   13,619    1.72
 Pickering .................    C    87,139     78,989    8,150    1.71
 Ajax ......................    T    73,753     64,430    9,323    1.45
 Clarington ................    T    69,834     60,615    9,219    1.37
 Scugog ....................    TP   20,173     18,837    1,336    0.40
 Uxbridge ..................    TP   17,377     15,882    1,495    0.34
 Brock .....................    TP   12,110     11,705      405    0.24
 Mississaugas of
  Scugog Island ............    R        51          ¶        ¶    0.00
_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________
11-Halton Regional Municipality     375,229    339,875   35,354    7.38
_______________________________________________________________________
 Burlington ................    C   150,836    136,976   13,860    2.97
 Oakville ..................    T   144,738    128,405   16,333    2.85
 Halton Hills ..............    T    48,184     42,390    5,794    0.95
 Milton ....................    T    31,471     32,104     -633    0.62
_______________________________________________________________________
Municipality of Toronto           2,481,494  2,385,421   96,073   48.83
Rest of GTA                       2,600,332  2,243,462  356,870   51.17
_______________________________________________________________________
TOTAL                             5,081,826  4,628,883  452,943  100.00
_______________________________________________________________________

Source: Statistics Canada - Tables - Canada Population and Dwelling Counts (by about any way one wishes to view them)
_____

A whole 57,177 in pop growth from the 1996 Census to the 2001 Census. See how many other municipalities, just in the GTA, gained more; like the municipality of Toronto for example.

Try to keep it somewhat real. --S-Ranger 10:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to your GTA comment, you're making little sense. The population growth of Toronto is staggeringly small compared to Brampton. Brampton grew by 21.3% between the 1996 and 2001 censuses (and I believe the growth rate for 2001-2006 is actually a good deal higher than that). Toronto grew by only 4%. As for Brampton and the rest of Ontario, I stand corrected, Brampton is not the second-fastest growing city in Ontario, it's the third (fourth if you include the Town of Richmond Hill, which is a town in name only). That's still pretty good. The whole issue of "remarkable" (which simply means that it's something you'd remark on) is to say it is a very fast-growing city. And it is. Choose a different word if you must, but it's not a political word, it's simply a modifer of "growth" to show that it's pretty damn good growth, indeed. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

_____

  • "Remarkable" means "notably or conspicuously unusual; extraordinary: a remarkable change. (Dictionary.com). It does not simply mean something one remarks upon unless the context is, "<Whoever> remarked <whatever>" or the like, which is explaining that someone else made a remark. Like, "Osgoodelawyer remarked ..." or do you think, lawyer, that that means the same as "Osgoodelawyer is remarkable"? It means extraordinary, unusual, and there is nothing extraordinary or unusual or remarkable about Brampton period. And it used to state unprecedented with no qualifier at all, as though Brampton's popuation growth, which isn't even as high as Toronto's is in reality, not "% change", has never occurred on the face of the planet at any point in history because there is no time qualifier either. And even if "Brampton's population growth [which is not "% change"] is unprecedented in the GTA over the last 5 years" was stated, good luck finding a verifiable source for it.
  • Did you even read what I posted? After I specifically stated (and proved if you click on the link just above the table I posted above) that "% change" is totally worthless/meaningless in the Canadas (or Kshish 4 (B.C.) with 5700.0 in "% change" in population from the 1996 Census to the 2001 Census takes the cake in the Canadas), why would you point out what I already proved is nothing but hype; by going back to irrelevant "% change"?

Brampton gained 57,177 people from the 1996 Census to the 2001 Census, so even with its little population of only 325,428 residents in 2001, how can it possibly mean anything when the City of Toronto gained more people in reality, 96,073 from the 1996 to 2001 censuses, with a 2001 population of 2,481,494? You think that Brampton is going to "catch up with the City of Toronto's population" (or is at all remarkable; let alone unprecedented, which is what was stated) by not gaining as many people as the City of Toronto does and having nowhere close to its (irrelevant) resident population either?

And it's nothing against Brampton: it's simple reality with verifiable sources, which is what encyclopedias are for -- not hype. You probably "think" that I'm "hyping" Toronto but it's only because you have an inferiority complex of some sort against Toronto if that's the case. I just state the facts and make sure that they're verifiable.

Statistics Canada doesn't release updated population estimates for CSDs/municipalities (just CMAs) and the Assessment Office of the Ontario Ministry of Finance doesn't release any CSD/municipal population estimates; only for "counties"/Census Divisions (CDs). So amalgamate Peel into one municipality with one city hall and no regional government/council and it will be able to compare apples to apples, with verifiability, as Toronto can: because the municipality of Toronto is also a CD, unlike the rest of the GTA with its 24 (at minimum) municipal governments/councils and four regional governments/councils. --S-Ranger 16:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

And don't you ever pull this crap again: "I find Brampton's statistics credible. Prove they're not."

YOU PROVE THAT THEY ARE. YOU GET THE METHODOLOGIES, YOU MAKE DAMNED SURE THAT THEY ARE FROM A CREDIBLE SOURCE BECAUSE NO ONE CARES "WHAT YOU (or anyone else) HAPPEN TO THINK" AROUND AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. --S-Ranger 17:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear S-Ranger, you are dangerously close violating WP:NPA. You have certainly violated WP:CIVIL. Claiming that I have an inferiority complex is just ridiculous. Your "shouting" above is also pretty uncalled for (and also the "threats" for me not to "pull this crap again"). I will "pull" what I find to be reasonable.
If you read, which you proved you do not regarding your first response, which is why I checked, you would see that I stated, "but it's only because you have an inferiority complex of some sort against Toronto if that's the case." I have no idea what the case is, but simply by taking offense to what I laid out, you must have an inferiority complex or the like against Toronto (or just a Brampton inferiority complex), because I stated, "if that's the case." So you're saying that it is the case? If not, it doesn't aplly to you, so ignore it.
It's always interesting to see who does take offense to nothing they have been accused of. And you proved that you don't read (hence the caps; and I should have bolded it as well but didn't even mention a handle so how do you know I was referring to you?), which is exactly what I was trying to prove. The first statement and proof above is all that was necessary. Get proper verifiability (whomever, I wasn't addressing anyone) and that's that. Don't and the 2001 population is all you've (whomever, it's not an email) got that is verifiable.
As for your claim that percentage change is meaningless by noting that some tiny communities grew by massive percentages, I can't possibly see how that means anything. That an Indian Reserve with a population of 1 in 1996 grew to 58 in 2001 (the Kshish 4 you refer to) cannot possibly be considered relevant when discussing the population growth of cities. When compared to other municipalities in Ontario with significant or larger populations, Brampton is clearly growing very fast.
Brampton is a tiny community compared to Toronto. It's not ridiculous at all. You just want it to be ridiculous because you can't figure out that "% change" means nothing when comparing the Sun to Pluto or an ocean to a puddle. The puddle may grow in area by 800% over 15 minutes, but who cares when comparing to oceans? Even with the 2 million removed from Toronto's 2001 population, Brampton still doesn't have the population of the municipality of Toronto, which makes it a puddle and allows anyone else to claim that they have 'unprecedented' (your work?) population growth (which "% change" is not) compared to Brampton.
Just because you don't happen to find the population "% change", not growth, to be remarkable elsewhere doesn't mean a thing. I don't find Brampton to be remarkable around anything at all. Toronto has 8 times the population of Brampton (without including all of your commuters into this city), so anything with 8 times less the population of Brampton, 10 times less, 100 times less, so what? "% change" is all that matters and Brampton has no population to speak of from my perspective (let alone a global perspective; which is the perspective of Wikipedia), so why should it be any different around anyone else looking at this page with 8 times less the population of Brampton (and much higher "% change" in population) or more, to claim that their population "growth" makes Brampton look like nothing, which is almost exactly what you said about Toronto's real population growth?
So what if Brampton happens to have more population than communities you find to be irrelevant, regarding their population % change? So does Toronto -- and I also told you and proved that the City of Toronto gained more in real population, which totally destroys your hype. And hype is all it is. You're talking in circles and are making no sense at all.
As for your comments on remarkable not being what I said it was, er, your quoted "notably or conspicuously unusual" is an apt description of Brampton's population growth in percentage (which, despite your claims to the contrary, is an important indicator of growth). Whereas few cities in Ontario have a population growth of over 21%, Brampton's growth is, well, conspicuous.
Is the above sentence supposed to make sense? I've read it ten times and still have no idea what you're trying to say. A dictionary proved you wrong on what "remarkable" means. Period. Go complain to the dictionary. Do you know how many times I've seen these "tactics" around "Canadians" who simply cannot accept reality becauze it happens to offend them? Give it up. If you wish to express your opinions then go find some phpBB discussion board. This is an encyclopedia and opinions mean nothing -- only verifiable facts.
First you claim that remarkable means a remark, just something that is remarked upon and you were proven wrong by a dictionary. Now you claim that "% change" in population is an important indicator, which goes right back to the irrelevance of total population and simply focues on "% change", which is exactly why I stated that it was/is worthless -- which you agree to by claiming that just because other communities have less in total population than Brampton that their "% change" in population is irrelevant. And that makes Brampton's % change in population irrelevant and you did it all on your own.
And finally, what the heck are "Canadas"? As far as I know, there has only been one Canada since 1867. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
"As far as you know" again -- which is not good enough for an encyclopedia. You have to know and back it up with credible sources, not assume/guess anything. The Canadas are the reality of the fiction of the alleged singular "Canada" that is falling apart; again. And "as far as you know" is wrong again. Canada is the Union of Canada referred to in the British North America Act 1867; Upper Canada/Canada West and Lower Canada/Canada East.
The former British colony of New Brunswick, from which the colony of Nova Scotia was formed, joined the Union of Canada in 1867. Then the others followed and if you have not heard that Quebec wants to suceed from Canada and that Kenora wants to be part of Manitoba and that BC is going to suceed and "take Alberta with it" and then "we'll be sorry" (uh huh; they have no land claims at all other than as granted by the federal government as nothing but jurisdictional boundaries), as with the Ontarios, but obviously you know nothing about Canadian history either. Nor is this the place to discuss it. And I'll call the Canadas whatever I feel like calling the mess; on talk pages around immature fools, not in mainspace articles. You can see verifiable every time you edit anything and you are not only "close" to violating that, which is the #1 problem Wikipedia has, you are getting quite hysterical about it. --S-Ranger 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
1) S-Ranger, not only was your use of "if that’s the case" grammatically misplaced, but it was also a "weasel phrase"—you were clearly at the very least suggesting, and likely accusing me of having an inferiority complex. You can't get out of responsibility for such statements by using weasel words. Most intelligent people around here can read around technical use of language to get to the actual meaning. And we'll hold you to it.
2) You're the one not making any sense. If Toronto has eight times the population of Brampton, then if it was growing like Brampton, one would expect it to have a population increase of eight times that of Brampton. Clearly, that is not the case. Speaking of cities in Ontario, Brampton has very high population growth. If you read the sentence surrounding the use of the word that this whole thing started from, you'll see it was intended to show that Brampton was having a hard time dealing with its population growth. Toronto has no trouble dealing with a population growth of 90-something thousand, but a growth of half that for Brampton is a big deal. That's what the sentence was for, and you seem to miss that. As for ignoring things like "Kshish 4", well, yes, of course we're going to ignore it. It's irrelevant for the purposes of significant cities (and yes, clearly Brampton is nowhere near as big as Toronto, and clearly, culturally it is nothing next to Toronto, but that's not relevant to the issue, and you bringing it up furthers nothing in this discussion).
3) Wow. I'm sorry you're having trouble understanding a simply-constructed sentence. I believe the dictionary made it very clear that "remarkable" was an acceptable use for the growth rate of Brampton. Yes, I think that "remarkable means something that is remarked upon", but not in the way you're thinking. It's something that deserves to be remarked on, that is, something that it would be more than a passing comment If Brampton's growth rate was, for instance, the average, then it wouldn't be remarkable. That it is far above the average shows that it is remakable. Your quoted definition shows exactly that use. Brampton's population is indeed Noticably or conspicuously unusual when compared to other cities of its size (and what else would it be useful to compare it to?).
4) Um, no. My comment was, based on other cities of like population, the population growth in percentage is important. The population growth of the Kshish 4 Indian Reserve from 1 to 58 is irrelevant to a discussion of population growth in cities. In comparisons of like things (for instance, comparing the top ten municipalities in Ontario according to population), percentage change is certainly a relevant statistic.
5) Indeed, there was more than one Canada prior to 1867, and this is why I said "since 1867". I'm perfectly aware of how Confederation occurred, and I'm perfectly aware that Canada is a federation and as such the provinces are autonomous in many respects. I'm also quite aware of secessionist movements in Canada (although none outside of Quebec are much more than a thought), but I hardly see how this results in there being "Canadas". Also, you used the word "Ontarios" as well. Again, as far as I know, there is only one Ontario. I've never heard anyone else refer to modern-day Canada or Ontario as being plural, so you seem to be making words up that nobody else uses, which kind of makes for difficult conversation. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 20:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As I said, no hard feelings on this end and keep looking for that source. Something is bound to turn up sooner or later. --S-Ranger 22:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Where's the love, people? Brampton is my favorite city in North America, and I don't even live there. Gage park, The Mandarin on Biscayne Circle...you know it. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brampton in the news

Brampton Governance Criticised for lack of Ethnic Diversity [Toronto Star, August 14, 2006][2]

If there is critism of this addition then lets discuss it here. This is notable and an important subject. That the corruption of Brampton by individuals leads to new stories such as these is notable. We may not be in a possition to publish opinions and POV about how corrupt people and systems are, but the notable events and statements that do get in the mainstream medea needs to be documented so that Wiki does not become a Soapboax of the establishment to use as more of its propaganda for free. They pay enough for their propaganda paying off politicians and local media to conceil and misrepresent the facts about their inherant corruption. But the obvious parts of the consequenhces of their corruption such as the UNATURAL make up of the Council and Staffing of Brampton, which is a mirror reflection of its godfather the Region of Peel should be properly reflected on Wiki as notable information.--Wiki The Humble Woo 18:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I explained to you on your talk page why the addition is unencyclopedic. It certainly does not deserve to be at the top of the page in its own section (a whole section for one sentence which is an incorrect summary of one article)! I also explained how you are actually putting spin on the article, claiming it says something it does not. Claiming that I am censoring information and vandalising the article after I made a clear edit summary and explained my edit to you on your talk page is just incivil and uncalled for, and you've been warned about claims of censorship and vandalism plenty of times already. As for your rant, the makeup of Brampton City Council and Peel Regional Council has to do solely with the choice of those running for those offices, and the choices of the citizens in voting for them. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The article talks about exactly that kind of thing. Which exposes the corruption in Brampton and Peel Region in the manipulation of elections so that corrupt politicians tend to advance as the article clearly outlines if you read between the lines. You ARE CENSORING the information and using vandalism as your means of doing so. This is why I susspect you are a Laywer on the payroll of corrput government in Ontario posing as a law student. You are pushing POV and ensuring Wiki is misleading about what's published to help maintain the public in the dark about the truth behind Brampton and Peel Region which is that they are to Heart of ALL CORRUPTION in Canada. It accumulates there and all other systems are at work to keep their activities outside of public scrutiny. You are vandalizing the Bramton page as well as others. I would apreciate you leaving it without your censorship.--Wiki The Humble Woo 00:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • WikiWoo, this has gone on long enough. Not only are your accusations of vandalism and censorship utterly outrageous, but you are personally attacking me by accusing me of being "on the payroll of corrupt government in Ontario posing as a law student" which is THE MOST RIDICULOUS THING I HAVE EVER HEARD! I have explained at least twice now why your addition is a) unencyclopedic, b) misleading, and c) completely misplaced even if it did have any value. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 12:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the "in the news" section from the article. To have a section be a sentence fragment with a link is not encyclopedic. There is no indication that this is an ongoing controversial issue. WW, discussing things with you on talk pages does not result in a rational discourse, only with your assertions that anyone who modifies "your" articles is a censoring vandal. Enough is enough. JChap2007 16:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning population estimates

In response to S-Ranger's removal of Brampton's population estimate:

Ontario estimates the 2006 population of Peel Region to be: 1,248,570.[3]

Peel region is made up of Brampton, Mississauga, and Caledon.

Brampton estimates 2006 population to be 434,000.[4] Mississauga estimates 2006 population to be 700,000.[5] Caledon estimates 2006 population to be 58,500 (Sorry, I don’t have a source for this one, but it's on the article page). Total of the three estimated populations: 1,192,500.

If anything, Brampton may be underestimating. Since Brampton and Ontario’s estimates seem to match, I reiterate that the Brampton estimates are reliable and should be included. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

May be, could be, who knows? Where's the methodology showing the low, medium and high estimates and explaining how they were arrived at so that statisticians will agree with it as opposed to writing it off as nothing but irrelevant political hype from a press release that proves nothing? It's not verifiable and that's why it was removed.
This is a global encyclopedia and just because you think you can "trust" a press release from the City of Brampton means nothing. You'll have to wait for the 2006 Census numbers regarding Census Subdivision/municipal population numbers to come out to be able to prove anything -- or complain to Statistics Canada and/or the Ontario feds to release municipal population data more than once every 5 years or so.
Toronto is in its own "county"/Census Division/CD, and the Assessment Office of the Ontario Finance does release population estimates (with methodologies and low, medium, high estimates so that others actually believe them, which is called verifiability) or complain to Mississauga, which wants out of Peel anyway, Brampton and Caledon (one town hall/local government/council?) and the Peel regional government/council to amalgamate the Peel CD into one municipality.
Then, anyone in whatever the amalgamated single municipality of Peel in its own CD, will have no problems at all getting verifiable sources, for population and anything else the Ontario and/or confederate feds release regarding CDs. Until then you'll just have to wait for the 2006 Census numbers for CSDs to be released in 2008/2009 or so.
Or complain to Brampton city hall to get verifiability into is allegations. Or call your counciller or whatever it's called in Brampton and ask it why it's publishing numbers pulled from a hat in press releases, with no verifiability. --S-Ranger 17:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure they're not just pulled from a hat. Just because they don't say where exactly the numbers come from doesn't mean they haven't been gotten from some proper statistical analysis or whatever the heck they do. As I said, the numbers jive with the Ontario numbers listed above, so it's not blind trust (or are you not trusting the Ontario numbers either, now?). └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
And so what that "you" are sure of anything around an encyclpedia? If you were so sure you'd have the documentation at least showing the statistical methodologies used, so that others who truly KNOW THINGS could look at them and decide whether they used anything scientifically statistically accurate or not. If and when you get those documents, go ahead and cite them as the source and it'll be verifiable.
If the City of Toronto (article around this encyclopedia -- not phpBB2 discussion board) publishes anything that isn't 100% verifiable and it ends up in the Toronto article, people from all over the planet are screaming and yelling and it gets removed. Grow up. This isn't some schoolyard "argument" it's simple verifiability -- and there is none with the source provided. That's all. Get verifiability and go to it with 800 trillion people in Brampton as of 2006 in some estimate (from what and based on what statistical science?) and then, others will still write it off because the entire planet doesn't have that many people.
I do not care about anything but the #1 problem of Wikipedia -- it is not considered to be a reliable source of information and precisely due to things like this. You want Brampton to "look better" (or whatever, I have no clue or care what you want) but you're going to have to get real verifiability to do it. And they're not my rules, take it up with an admin or ten if you want to.
But if this or any other page gets away with the kind of crap you're trying to get away with, then all hell will break loose on other city/town/regioon pages.
What's the problem calling your city counciller or going to its office or emailing it to ask where the numbers came from? You know that they're not verifiable as is, with the press release (of all things) provided, but one phone call could change that. Go to it. --S-Ranger 17:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have already started the process of looking into the metholodology behind the numbers. However, as I have stated twice, the numbers appear to jive with the Ontario estimates, and I think you are agreement that the Ontario estimates are acceptable (even without a detailed methodology given for those numbers), so I am unsure what your problem with their inclusion actually is. Question: Would estimates from the Region of Peel itself be considered authoritative enough to include?
Also, it would be nice if you'd stop making unfounded accusations. I personally do not, in fact, want "Brampton to "look better"." I have no love for the city, whatsoever. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Good work, it's all that was necessary in the first place. Verifiability is not some press release that proves nothing, nor are assumptions good enough. All the Assessment Office of the Ministry of Finance proves (with its methodologies for everything explained) is that Peel is estimated to have 1,248,570 residents in 2006. It does not break down Mississauga (which also has no verifiable source for its alleged population), Brampton or Caledon.
I'm sure there is proof around, but it's always frustrating to find it, particularly when only free information for the public domain can be used, and with governments that do not provide the GTA with the statistics it needs and deserves given the amounts of revenues the Ontario and federal governments make from this region. The GTA out-populates every province in the Canadas other than the usual: the rest of the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. But population alone means nothing. We also need at least real and nominal GDP for the most basic economic measure around: GDP per capita and split up by at least the 5 CDs that make up the GTA. Lots of places out-populate this area (outside the Canadas) and with not even the most basic economic data around, we could all be unemployed, this could be Old Calcutta with less population, full of slums and open sewers, etc., because population alone means nothing. But it's difficult even getting verification for that, which we should all be complaining to our governments about.
I hope personal whatever stays out of it, because the only goal is to create the best articles for an encyclpedia that we can. When I read an edit comment, I didn't even look at the handle, basically telling me to shove it, "you" (after I lookd for the handle) find the stats to be okay and prove it wrong? That's not how encyclopedias work, and from where I sit, you started the personal attacks. But no hard feelings on this end, the table still states the 2006 population estimate and source, but it's just not good enough and particularly as a press release.
It doesn't mean that the information is incorrect -- it simply means that it's not verifiable, which is all that matters to me and is all that should matter to anyone who wants to make Wikipedia better. FWIW. --S-Ranger 19:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population Estimates

The response I received from the Peel Data Centre at the Region of Peel follows:

Peel’s population forecasts are developed by Hemson Consulting. They use population data from the latest census, births and deaths estimates, housing development statistics and a wide range of other data as inputs into a model.
We are currently in the process of updating our forecasts. We are in the midst of the political process now, but we have no way of knowing when the forecasts will be officially approved because we do not yet know how many (if any) appeals will be filed. I can keep you apprised of this situation if you wish.
Please email me directly if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Sarah
Sarah Cannon
Planner
Region of Peel Planning Department
10 Peel Centre Drive, 6th Floor
Brampton, Ontario
L6T 4B9
Telephone: (905) 791-7800 Ext. 4344
Fax: (905) 791-7920
Email: sarah.cannon@peelregion.ca

While this might not be as good a response as what one might like, I think the fact that the estimates come from Hemson Consulting, a reputable firm, and take into consideration birth and deaths estimates, housing development statistics, and various other data, shows that this is not just some off the top of the head estimate of Brampton's population. I am satisfied that this is enought to support the inclusion of the figure in the article, and I have therefore included it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odd street numbering system paragraph.

One oddity about Brampton's street network is the inconsistency of its north-south street dividing/numbering system. Queen Street is the official divider, with streets numbers increasing as as one goes north or south of Queen. However, this numbering sequence is only used for streets between McLaughlin Road and Highway 410, and only applies between Steeles Ave. and Bovaird Drive. Outside the boundaries of these four roads, the Regional numbering system (which begins at Lake Ontario), is used. This fact is usually not recognized, even by officials--for example, the Powerade Centre is usually labelled as being located at 7575 Kennedy Rd. South. "South" is technically incorrect, as the numbering sequence continues from Mississauga, and there are several houses to the north with address numbers higher than 7575. There are also several inaccurate street signs posted along Dixie Road (which lies east of the 410 and thus uses the Regional numbering system for its entire length through Brampton) that read "Dixie Rd. N".

Why was this section deleted? It was an informative paragraph on a little-known quirk of Brampton's street numbering system. How many other cities have that? A.L.70.24.71.154 05:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It seemed rather specific for a general article on the city. It was also, apparently, original research as it was presented. Why is the way streets are numbered useful for an article of this type? I know that some very small streets in a part of Mississauga (with, for instance 20 houses), have numbers that start and end in the thousands, which is also somewhat unusual. It would be ludicrous to think this was an important enough fact to add to Mississauga, Ontario, though. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 13:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Ask at Talk:Street where this sort of information should go. -- Zanimum 15:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This text was misplaced, please find a home for it

Brampton is considered to be one of the safest cities in Canada by civic officials.

Brampton is home to Peel Regional Police Headquarters, 22 Division.

[edit] Motto

I added the motto "Per ardva ad summum bonum civilium" which appears under the coat of arms (where it now says "City of Brampton") on the cover of "Brampton's 100th Anniversary: 1873-1973", a book published by the Corporation of the Town of Brampton. I have emailed the city asking for confirmation that this is still the official motto, and I have left messages on the talk pages of a couple Latin speakers on Wikipedia for translation, although I think it's something like "Through struggle to the best society". └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 14:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good to know you have that book, I've never come across that volume anywhere but my old high school. I really doubt the motto is still in usage, but so long as there's no replacement, I don't seem the harm in including it.
I'd be curious to see if the city would mind waiving the copyright of the book into the GFDL. The Region of Peel Archives allowed me to start reprinting old artist bios from a book they published, on to the Visual Arts Brampton site. I wasn't asking for the copyright, but they seemed rather like "If someone wants this old stuff, why not let'm have it." -- Zanimum 16:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The book is from the library, and it's due back on Sunday, so if you want it, you can have it after then. As for the motto, I'm writing a letter to the mayor right now about the disgraceful lack of proper symbolism in Brampton. We don't really have a flag (a coat of arms on a white background isn't a flag), our coat of arms itself is not only ugly, but really lacks proper symbolism (and is heraldically wrong), and we don't have a real motto. Maybe one day they'll get their act in gear and fix the situation. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 17:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, okay. CC it to the marketing department, as they're the ones in charge of that sort of stuff. Just as a point of note, the Pickering shield has a sheaf of grain on it, but it looks like a mushroom cloud when represented small on lapel pins. Really not comforting. -- Zanimum 22:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I got an email back that didn't say it wasn't still "official", but what it did was not say anything about it. Apparently, Brampton has two "official symbols", the "historic 'City Crest'", and the "modern 'Flower City Crest'" (which is a yellow flower logo with blue at the sides, "Flower City" at the top and "Brampton.ca" at the bottom. Brampton's "positioning statement" (that's what he called it) is "Flower City". That doesn't help a lot. Would that be considered an official nickname? Or a motto? Bloody Brampton! └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 19:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I work in Aquatics and our new instructor and lifeguard uniforms feature the "Flower City" logo that you mentioned. They're massive little buggers, but they're becoming the official logo of the City of Brampton.. in Aquatics at any rate. It could be that Parks and Recreation (which Aquatics is a division under) could be adopting this new logo. I do think that Brampton should be referenced to as the "Flower City" somewhere in the article. --Aquatics 02:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It's based on our old nickname, so I'd say it was closer to that. As per the above comment, hopefully I can get some info on the floral industry in. I don't think Parks and Rec would be adopting that logo entirely, they already have their own branding. Curious... what was the aquatics team's logo before hand? -- Zanimum 16:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Buffy's tavern

Not too sure about the fact. A 2003 thing by the Guardian said that in fact it was a shoemaker who just served his customers tons of liqour. -- Zanimum 22:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if that's true (and everything I've read says otherwise), that's still enough for me to call it a tavern. It's not like bars were regulated back then, were they? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. -- Zanimum 15:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Related note... someone at some point applied to get a Buffy St. in Brampton. The Region denied the name submission, and the City says they will "never" reconsider any rejected name. Crazy, we have a gigantic street named after a modern mayor, in yet one of our first business people doesn't get a street. -- Zanimum 16:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] urban development ended on mayfield border not until 2021?

hmm, I wonder if it is true, because on google map, I already seen some development north of Mayfield. I would prefer to buy a house north of Mayfield rd&Airport road. because I would like to enjoy some country life without sacrificing some my urban hobbies.

btw, there is a train track goes into DaimlerChrysler factory, and it looks interesting, how often the train actually pulls there? to pick up new cars? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.117.25.232 (talk) 07:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

The line dosesn't actually go into the plant (there are no tracks on the bridge). The plant was supposed to have rail service, but for some reason the tracks were never laid. A.L.74.120.54.29 02:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:North brampton hospital in the works.jpg

Image:North brampton hospital in the works.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Canada/Ontario Project rating

I changed this article's importance rating to "Mid", to be consistent with most of the articles about cities in the province. PKT (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)