Talk:Calgary

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to Talk:Calgary, Alberta/Archive_2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

Archives
1 2

Second Most Head offices ?

Could someone please tell me what the source is for Calgary having the 2nd highest concentration of head offices in Canada is? When I checked statscan, all I could find was the number of head office workers and it showed Montreal as having the 2nd highest number of employees after Toronto.

In an article by Bruce Little in the Globe and Mail last year, he stated that Vancouver actually had the 2nd highest number of head offices in Canada although Calgary did have more head office workers than Vancouver did. But Montreal still ranked second in terms of # of head office workers.

This is actually a very widely known and well published fact. Information is not hard to find. Calgary definitely has the second highest concentration of head offices in the country. Other cities such as Vancouver and Montreal have only more offices that Calgary in certain sectors, not overall. Here is one link, [1]. Just do a Google

search

I don't think that this link is as objective as Statscan's. I tend to believe their research more than that of the Calgary Business Development Association. Especially when I see a statement like "it is home to all of Canada's leading financial, law and accounting firms." I never knew that the major banks considered Calgary to be their home. Are there any other websites re:head offices that you can direct me to, especially where the number of head offices by city is listed?

Try Emporis. They are database company based in Germany whom I believe to be reasonably unbiased [2]. This fact commonly appears in newspaper articles as well (it is by NO MEANS obscure). I would reference the articles if there wasn't a charge associated with accessing their archives. Unfortunately, StatsCan does not do research of this sort as it is outside of typical demographic issues. I do notice, however a StatsCan article indicating the Montreal has a higher number of people employed in head offices than does Calgary. This statistic (although it is old and things have changed massively recently) is correct, it does not reflect the gross number of head offices in the city. Actually, I believe that a majority of your confusion stems from this fact. This is the realm of business and economics, which is why trusting the "Calgary Business Development Association" should not be so far fetched. I will try to find hard numbers for you... I do recall seeing them before. In addition, Calgary is home to a number of major REGIONAL offices for banks and law firms (including most of the largest).

Here is another link from CBC [3].

When I checked the Toronto Stock Exchange's website, it showed well over 100 firms with head offices listed in Vancouver. The claim that Calgary has the 2nd most head offices may commonly appear in some papers, but this is not what I saw in an article by economist Bruce Little in the GLobe and Mail last year. The claim to 2nd most head offices may just be an urban myth that keeps feeding on itself. You are correct in stating that this is the realm of business and economics, however business development associations are there to "toot" their own horn and sell their cities, as a result the information they provide may not be totally accurate or may be skewed. All that I ask is for the source of the study that ranks Calgary second, along with an accompanying explanation. So far, the only one in existence re: rankings of head offices and cities that I have found comes from statscan.

Falsifying data is generally not in the best interest of an organization such as the Calgary Business Development Association. At worst (and reasonably likely), the data has been skewed. Regardless, trying to find hard numbers for you has proven to be generally fruitless, as they are extremely inconsistent. I have seen many sources citing 76 for Calgary. The Macleans article that I have included here [4] indicates a number of 204. I have also seen numbers of over 500! Likewise for other cities. In fact, anytime I read anything about Montreal, the article usually points out that the city is continually losing head offices to other centres. Vancouver may have 100 companies listed on the TSX, but this number is otherwise useless. Neither you nor I know how these numbers are determined, and since I have seen such a wide range of values, it is not likely that these methods are consistent anyway. In fact, what definition of "head office" or "corporate head office" is being used here? Does it include regional offices? Does it include any unincorporated companies? Is it only companies on the FP500? If it is really bothering you, it may be worthwhile to phone the Calgary Business Development Association yourself to ask them where their data comes from. However, for the sake of general knowledge, and certainly for the purposes of Wikipedia, it is probably fair to assume that Calgary sits at number 2. I say this only because of the shear number of sources I have seen that support this case; Bruce Little's article being the only exception so far. Some of the more notable sources that I have seen publish this data (many on numerous occasions) include: The Calgary Herald, The Calgary Sun, the National Post, The Financial Post, Maclean's Magazine, The Edmonton Journal, CBC, The World Book Encyclopedia, Emporis, The University of Calgary, and a large number of websites (some of which are in the business of promoting Calgary, and some of which are third party). I would like to think that myths do not self-perpetuate to such a great extent (without the meddling of the US goverment of course), especially when fact checking companies like Emporis are involved. If you would like to despute Calgary's place based only on the number of firms listed on the TSX and Bruce Little's Globe and Mail article, then be my guest. However, I would be inclined to figure out where these numbers actually came from first. I too would like to know what you find. Until there is substantial media indicating otherwise, Calgary's status as number 2 should be regarded as "fact", at least for the purposes of this article.

You are correct in saying that there is much ambiguity in the number of head offices. This is why it is perhaps not a very meaningful statistic. Furthermore, it is also why why statscan does not publish head office data based on # of units, but on number of managerial employees. I have spoken with the econometricians at statscan who have worked on such studies (their names and contact #s can be found at the end of the studies found on the statscan website)they believe that the number of units is meaningless due to the fact that for tax and liability issues some companys set up many other companys. For example,a bank may have several other companies created. Thus the number of head office units is more a reflection of these legal issues than of other economic factors. If the law is such that a company is better off setting up other divisions rather than keeping one company unit, then more units are created with employees shuffled off under these units. You state that the Financial Post also states that Calgary has the 2nd highest # of head offices. In a January 2005 report, they also state that Quebec has more of the FP500 head offices than Alberta, 156 to 104, respectively. Since head offices are usually located in major cities, then we can most likely assume that Montreal has more of the FP500 head offices than Calgary. Hence since what exactly is meant by head office and head office units is ambiguous, then to state that Calgary has the second most head offices units is itself an ambiguous statement and therefore should not be considered as a fact. A more accurate statement would be to say, based on Statscan's most recent study which is slightly more than a year old that Calgary has the third highest number of head office employees. This study showed that Montreal had about 35000 head office workers compared to Calgary's 16 000. I doubt it that Calgary has surpassed Montreal in this regard since this study was carried out. Statscan is a highly respected non-biased institution that all Canadians pay for. It is there to report facts as accuartely as possible. It is not there to push a cause for some particular group. If we wish this site to be accurate, then perhaps we should strive to make it as least ambiguous as possible.

I don't have any proof but I have seen, heard and read the statistic quoted an uncountable number of times. I'm not sure of the requirements for something to be considered a head office. --Sven Erixon 08:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Statcan's latest report on head office counts (The Daily, July 13, 2006) Calgary is 4th after Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver in terms of number of head offices. Furthermore, it ranks third after Toronto and Montreal in terms of head office employment. (BF) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.210.8 (talk • contribs)

Can you provide a link? I can't find the daily for July 13 on statcan's website. - Qyd 14:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. I'm going to replace the pdf external link in the article with the equivalent html reference - Qyd 15:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, according to Statcan (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-010-XIB/11-010-XIB2006007.pdf), Calgary has never had the 2nd most number of head offices in Canada. Their July 13, 2006 study goes back to 1999 and in each of the years to 2005 (the last year of the study) Calgary has never had the 2nd most head offices. (BF)

The article is pretty clearly talking about head office employment, not the concentration of offices. Did you read it? Calgary only recently surpassed Vancouver for head office employment, making it third after Toronto and Montreal. It is still second in terms of the number of offices however. --Arch26 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have read it. If you refer to p.28 of this statcan link (http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/11-010-XIB/11-010-XIB2006007.pdf) you will see that the number of head office units is given. According to Statcan, Calgary has never ranked 2nd, at most it has ranked fourth. Perhaps you should read the report. (BF)

Yes. But a "head office unit" is only defined as an office who's role as a "head office" is divorced from its operations unit. Many smaller offices, of which there are many based in Calgary are not distinguished as their own units (despite their being a head office). In fact, in many cases, a true head office unit only exists when the company is large enough to have multiple other offices that aren't head offices. Often, a company with a single office (which also happens to be the head office) does not have a true "head office unit" (however, this is not always the case, particularily with larger companies). The relative abundance of smaller companies based in Calgary (relative to Tornoto, Montreal and Vancouver) is the reason for its having only the 3rd highest head office employment and the 4th highest number of "head office units". Nowhere in this article is the actual number of offices given. The reason for this is simple: since the article is discussing head office employment, accurate statistics can only be obtained when head office units are studied. In all other cases, it is impossible to differentiate between head office-related employment and operations-related emplyment. --Arch26 06:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you please refer me to an actual study stating its methodology and what is meant by a head office and a ranking of within Canadian cities? Similar to what Statscan has done? I still trust and believe Statscan's and find it hard to refute their study.

Nashville of the North?

Who wrote "Calgary is affectionately called the Nashville of the North"? This is not true. Calgary has almost no music recording industry. There's an "active country" scene once a year during Stampede, which sees country music being played, not recorded. Nashville is a recording centre. Also, Nashville North implies something like the "opry". Nothing in Calgary resembles that. Hopefully the author will delete this.

I am not too familiar with the country scene and Calgary, and I would never refer to Calgary as Nashville North. However, I have heard the term tossed around in Calgary a few times. Country music is fairly popular here, especially when compared to other Canadian cities. I do not see any statement in that paragraph that is inaccurate. Whether that name is appropriate or fair to the country music industry in Nashville is an entirely different issue. The article as it is currently worded does not claim that Calgary has a music recording industry. -- JamesTeterenko 21:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It also is the location of the Canadian Country Music Hall of Fame.--Djsasso 19:39, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And the annual Canadian Country Music Awards.

Nashville North is the name of a building on the Stampede Grounds which features live country music during the Stampede[5]... Perhaps this is the source of the confusion??? SKE 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

John Glenn

I don't think I support blanking the existing information in favour of linking to something on a possible questionable motive. The change was made by someone who created the John Glenn article, which is currently being checked for possibly copyright violation. Until this is sorted out and we can definitely say who was here first, lets leave it as is. Anwyay I don't support a change without discussion fo the matter at least. --Crossmr 21:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The John Glenn article has some reliable sources; it's true that the article was poorly concieved in the first place, but it might well be true nevertheless. It may be quite intresting from the historic point of view. And let's not scare away new contributors ;) - Qyd^(talk)21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to, just trying to err on the side of caution. When the same individual creates an article on a person then goes about putting information about that same person in two different articles contradicting what they're saying, I prefer to ensure its accurate before letting it sit. Nothing personal to trailmix. --Crossmr 23:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - I appreciate some support here. The copyright violation is only for a photo and only because I am new to wikipedia and wasn't sure which category to choose when I uploaded it - it's not truly a copyright violation.

John Glenn was the first settler in Calgary, I'm not trying to take anything away from Sam Livingston - I admire him too, he and John Glenn were good friends and fought for western rights together.

I'm also not trying to be difficult, I just know what I know and the facts back me up. No one who knows Calgary history will state that Sam Livingston was the first settler. -- (unsigned comment by TrailMix)

No worries. We don't deny that John Glenn was probably in Calgary first. We just need convincing and you're doing that. I know it's not easy when you first start contributing to Wikipedia but it gets better. Cheers. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I was the person that flagged the copyright violations. It is more than the pictures. For example, the second paragraph is nearly a verbatim copy of the second paragraph of this page. The page clearly says at the bottom that it is copyrighted. There is no doubt in my mind that there should be an article about John Glenn in Wikipedia, but it must properly fall under GFDL. As for who was in Calgary first, I am not sure, but I did do a bit of digging. Most web sites I examined are vauge about who was in the area first. Any site that claimed one to be "the first Calgarian" did not appear to be a fully unbiased reliable source. -- JamesTeterenko 01:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I may have taken artistic license on the text, I didn't realize that was what they were talking about as I didn't see the page as it is now until it was mentioned above today, as I mentioned earlier, I am new to Wikipedia and I wasn't aware of all their rules (I know, I know, I should have read it first).

So you are saying that the Government of Alberta site, the University of Calgary and the Bow Valley Ranche sites are not unbiased? For the record, I am not part of any of these organizations and had nothing to do with their text.

I've pondered why some sources are so vague, basically I have decided it is because SL has been alluded to for so long that people are having a tough time back peddling on it now - it's tough to skew history and then admit it when people are trying to correct it.

Most of those sites only go as far as saying that his house was the first house built in what is now Calgary by a person of European descent. They don't go so far to explicitly say that he was the first person of European descent in the area. Anything that I have seen shows that Livingston and Glenn were here around the same time, but none show exact dates, only approximate. I wouldn't exactly consider Bow Valley Ranche unbiased, since they have Glenn's house. -- JamesTeterenko 14:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Bow Valley Ranche doesn't have John Glenn's house, it is owned by the Alberta Government. I'm not going purely on online articles, there aren't that many and they are subjective. We are talking about the 'First European Settler' so since he built the first house and he is European...

I'm not sure why you are resisting this so much - you mention that the sites you have seen say they were here around the same time - if we accept that - then you can't say that Sam Livingston was the first Euro settler either - but you are quite happy to do that - do you have a personal interest in this story? (I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm just wondering).

I realized shortly after I left that message that misspoke about Bow Valley Ranche. They just have the site, not the actual house anymore. Sorry about that. My point was that they are at least somewhat biased. I don't have a problem with rewording the statement that Livingston was in Calgary first. Maybe something along the lines of "Livingston & Glenn were among the first settlers". As for assuming first house = first settler, I would be careful about that. Since they both appear to have arrived in Calgary around the same time, it is possible that the one that settled first had a temporary shelter but the other had a permanent home built first. As for personal involvement, I have no tie other than I am interested in this history and want to make sure Wikipedia is accurate. As an example, I created the original articles on Fort Calgary and George Clift King. By the way, you will probably want to sign your talk points with four tildes (i.e. with ~~~~). This will be converted into a signature with your username and the time. Welcome aboard! -- JamesTeterenko 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I should mention a couple of things, what I'm basing this on is the written words of 2 of John Glenn's sons and other documentation I have. The Calgary Sun and the Calgary Herald have both done their homework and an article about John Glenn (and the preservation of his cabin) appears in both papers today.

I am John Glenn's Great Great Granddaughter, so yes, you could say I am biased as well. However, I do know that John Glenn arrived in September of 1873 and Sam arrived in 1874.

Thanks for the info on signatures! Trailmix1234 17:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually interesting, I just read your articles on Fort Calgary and George King - unfortunately they are both inaccurate. Did you know that John Glenn helped to build the chimneys at Ft Calgary? Do you know that he purchased the first land in what became Calgary? I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but it isn't accurate. Trailmix1234 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I do believe I have heard about the two items you mention about Glenn, but I don't think that either the Fort Calgary page or George King page conflict with that information. Note that I only created the original articles, and they are not actually "mine". Others may have contributed and extended them. I see you have edited the King article. The information you removed can be verified in a few sources. I will take that discussion to Talk:George Clift King, the talk page for the article. I have read the article about John Glenn in the Herald. The only claim that it makes about him being first is, "In 1876, he became -- with Sam Livingston -- the first settler to cultivate cereal crops in the district." I have not been able to find the article in the Sun. If there are any other things that you feel are inaccurate in any articles, please mention them in the talk pages of the given articles. I'll help investigate and weed out any inaccuracies. Also, an important side note: using personal papers to write articles isn't appropriate for Wikipedia as it is regarded as original research. Please review the policy on this matter. -- JamesTeterenko 03:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm finished with this dicussion but I must say, I thought Wikipedia would be fun and interesting, after all one of their rules is 'ignore the rules' - but so far it's just been annoying. Trailmix1234 02:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

there are policies in place to protect the integrity of the information placed here. Otherwise wikipedia becomes completely useless to those who want to use it as any kind of unsubstantiated information could be left to sit in articles. Discussion is an extremely important part of wikipedia, especially when something is in contention. --Crossmr 02:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok Crossmr, I take your point and you are correct, I was just getting a bit frustrated originally because everytime I posted something it was replaced. So I gave it a rest and now I'm back. Does anyone else editing this page have a problem with me posting information that John Glenn was the first 'documented European Settler' in the Calgary Area on this page? I have loads of documentation to back it up - which I'm happy to provide. John Glenn was also the purchaser of the first lots of Calgary when they were sold, I think it's important that he be mentioned in this article - any objections? Trailmix1234 15:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Support: the sources seem reliable. Qyd 16:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Support: same reason as above. Arch26 00:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hailstorm Trend

That link is proof of nothing. You make the claim that 2006 has been an active year, but that link only states that in the 1990s they were more frequent. It provides no information to support the statement that they're more frequent in 2006 and that its a continuation of a trend.--Crossmr 06:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• That's true, however there have been a lot of hail storms this year. At least one per week since the beginning of June. We had a pretty nasty one in the last couple of days (don't remember exactly one). I don't think it has any place in this article though. Sven Erixon 07:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Can you cite any studies that show there actually has been a lot? You can test that claim statistically, but until a published source says there has been a lot, we can't say that in the article. Putting forth that opinion without a source is original research as we're basing it on our own observation.--Crossmr 13:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Even if I could find evidence, I don't think it belongs in the article anyway. I was just stating that there has been a lot. I agree with you that it has no place in the article. Sven Erixon 14:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

  Well when they are becoming frequent and nasty, they do become notable. Especially when you start recording hail the size of golfballs. Thats a notable climate change, depending on the frequency and how bad they are. But we do need reputable sources for any claims made.--Crossmr 14:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is getting a bit long. I'm thinking about setting up Werdnabot to archive it like is done on some other pages. Maybe any discussion over a month old would be fine? Anyone have any objections to that?--Crossmr 19:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Archiving is enabled. Any sections that have no comments in the last 30 days will get archived. It only archives sections that have at least 2 signed comments in them (so make sure you sign comments, and use the unsigned template on anyone who forgets). This way if someone asks a question and no answer is forthcoming it should remain until at least one person answers. Any older sections that I had trouble finding the sigs for I'll archive by hand to the same page once Werdnabot goes through and does its initial moving.--Crossmr 02:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)