This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Am I the only one who objects (and semi-disagrees with) the sentence at the end which reads, "Expo '67 in many ways marked the peak of Montreal as a city, Canadian confederation and national harmony"? Is there another way we can express a similar idea without, I don't know, making such a sweeping, biased generalization?
--Diane M. Napolitano 07:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
But what about Expo 86, it doesn't follow that pattern either. All Canadian Expos are consistent now! Nfitz 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is called Expo 67 and not Expo '67 because the appostrophy is not used in short forms of dates in french, which is used by most Quebeckers
"Ironically, "Expo 67" was originally going to be held in Moscow, to help the Soviet Union celebrate the 50th anniversary of its revolution."
It's like rain on your wedding day...
Editing to remove reference to "irony".
My recent revert/un-revert
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'd like to publicly apologize for my recent reversion/unreversion of this article. The Wiki watchlist showed me a detrimental difference that was not, apparently, really there; I reverted this difference, but then I went back to check the history to see which was the "truest" version to revert to. Whereupon I discovered that I was apparently mislead in the first place, so I unreverted my reversion. But if someone really knows the opening date of the Expo, could you check out the article, please?
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Who was the illustrator of the fine poster on the opening of this article?
My, My! an editor named Shaun signed his message with the year 200 !! Dogru144 23:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
First Family to enter Expo, dubious
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Someone keeps adding a line about the first family to enter the Expo site. This is likely a dubious claim, since the only claim that can be validated is that Al Carter was the first member of the public to enter the fair. If a better citation is not presented soon, I will delete it. As it stands, the citation is confused. and differentiate between the title of the 1967 broadcast and the 1992 broadcast. If the 1992 rebroadcast, with the interviews with the adult children, is the source, then only quote that. Also, it is not clear if Jack and Ann are the parents or the children. Abebenjoe 18:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Some one keeps removing the line about the first family in Expo 67. The request for a citation,
"Can we get a better citation, that includes the radio station's name, if it is a major broadcaster i.e. the CBC", was added on.
You asked that a citation should be added, the CBC was given, both radio shows; the 1967 and 1992 one. Further articles in American papers shall be searched for. The official authorities validations seems the next part of your request, perhaps that can be arranged, though could you allow history and the nuances, be part of Wikipedia. Most publication would find this interesting, evidence is clear, referenced and documented. There was no official "first family"? The media saw one, unofficial perhaps as they stood in front line, and were interviewed and documented, this is clear. Your requests are ever more demanding, I am not sure that history is well represented in environments were only one source is valid. The media documented who was " the first family in Expo 67 ". The removal of the unknown details, with statements "This is likely a dubious claim, since the only claim that can be validated is that Al Carter was the first member of the public to enter the fair", seems unreasonable; in 2007 media is a validation of claim.
First of all, it is a dubious claim that there was a "first family". It is a manufactured term that probably a reporter made-up to make the story interesting, if it occurred at all. Are we then going to look for the "first Jew", the "first Hindu", the "first left-handed midget" to place in this article? No, because it is not noteworthy and very likely not verifiable, even if it appeared in contemporary media. The criteria would be too wide, and all that anyone was looking for was the first person anyways (seeWP:verify). It only makes sense to mention the only noteworthy title: first person to attend the fair. As well, their last name seems to appear and disappear randomly when the paragraph appears in the article.
Secondly, what does it add to the article? If the source is to be believed, it seems to be a "man in the street" interview of people saying that they are glad to be at Expo and isn't it exciting. Again that adds nothing to the article. Every time that it gets added it has overblown claims of "presenting Expo to the world" and is not in keeping with the WP:NPOV#Undue weight policy. Thirdly, your source material seems to either not exist, or worse, improperly quoted and presented so as to not make sense.
In contrast, Al Carter is only worth mentioning because of his shear audacity and persistence, over a four year period, and that was recognized by Expo staff as such and was noted in the media. The supposed "first family" appear to be just randomly selected out of the crowd by a CBC reporter and don't add anything to this story other than their excitement at being at Expo, if the supposed source is to be taken seriously. Well who cares? I can name and quote thousands of people who had the same experience, it is simply not noteworthy, therefore should not be included in the article. Abebenjoe 08:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the paragraph that I am assuming is from the same person that keeps adding this (they don't have a wiki user name, just an IP address that changes every time they log on)"
Colin Vaughn one of the Architect designers of the Canadian Pavilion, son Adam Vaughn of CBC Radio's “Metro Morning", invited the first family on the Expo 67 site for an interview, now 25 years later; the April 28, 1992 broadcast was part of a retrospect. Listening to the historical April 28, 1967 public opening celebration of Expo from a taped CBC 1967 radio broadcast "Matinee with Pat Patterson", instudio parents Jack and Ann van Vliet heard themselfs and their children on the radio; amazed 25 years earlier at the opening of the fair. Their eyes saw Expo 67 as they stood in front of the line, their joy in their words, season passports that opened the doors of the world. Interviews that introduced Montreal's Expo 67 to the World.
Assuming the facts are correct, I continue to ask what does this add to the article? Nothing. It's just POV, and as such is not to be listed in an article. What is noteable of sorts is that former Toronto City Councillor and Citytv politics reporter Colin Vaughn helped design one of the pavillions. figure out which one it was add that fact to that specific pavillion. Otherwise, what is written is not noteworthy nor even meet wikipedia style and point of view guidelines WP:BETTER. Finally, create a wikipedia user account, and sign your replies, also good wikipedia etiquette. Abebenjoe 09:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
This is offensive:
"Are we then going to look for the "first Jew", the "first Hindu", the "first left-handed midget" to place in this article?"
History uses many sources, as I recall the baby-boomer era; the fair was about the future-now. The emotions and thoughts of a generation, this is about a human Expo, of great value for historians: Your quote:
"No, because it is not noteworthy and very likely not verifiable, even if it appeared in contemporary media."
Most interesting, you are becoming more demanding; you started of with just a request for a citation, “documented” human interaction are acceptable validations. Canada’s pavilion Architect, Colin Vaughn was part of “interesting details” in historical reference, a synergy of people, your quote:
"What is noteable of sorts is that former Toronto City Councillor and Citytv politics reporter Colin Vaughn helped design one of the pavillions. figure out which one it was add that fact to that specific pavillion. Otherwise, what is written is not noteworthy nor even meet wikipedia style and point of view guidelines WP:BETTER."
I am not sure of your motivations and reasoning, what same experience; interviews printed and broadcast. The opening was a celebration; a family was interviewed, since they were standing in the front of the lines, all with the same last name. They are a symbol of an era, your quote:
“Well who cares? I can name and quote thousands of people who had the same experience, it is simply not noteworthy, therefore should not be included in the article.” —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.211.168.17 (talk • contribs).
Please sign your edits using four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. Skeezix1000 16:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Who the hell is this "Burton" and why is he referenced so much?
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
What is his POV, who the hell is he? Is he credited? GET OTHER SOURCES!
-G
Pierre Burton, correct spelling is Berton, is a noted Canadian Historian, who has written a book about life in Canada during 1967. He includes two chapters on Expo. The book draws from many sources and is easy to verify. Also, there are five main sources for the article. Abebenjoe 01:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that my and other people's references to Berton have been misspelled, I'll correct that shortly. Abebenjoe 01:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Berton's lastname is spelled correctly on all citations as of now. Abebenjoe 01:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Katimavik, The Canadian Pavillion no longer standing.
Latest comment: 17 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Katimavik, the inverted Pyramid, was demolished in the mid 1970s. Today, the area that once contained Katimavik is a bunch of trees on Avenue Pierre-Dupuy and a parking lot off of Chemin des Floralies. I doubt the existing buildings near there are original to Expo 67, because that part of the site was completely overhauled in the 1970s for the olympics and to create Circuit Gilles-Villeneuve. Only the former French pavillion and the Quebec pavillion remain where they were during Expo 67 in that area of Ile Notre Dame on what is now known as Parc Jean-Drapeau. Abebenjoe 07:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You may doubt that the existing buildings are original to Expo 67, but you are mistaken, according to the official web site of Jean Drapeau Park. Please check these references and restore the information you deleted.
La Toundra, one of the smaller whiter buildings seen at the base of Katimavik, is still in use as User: 69.70.202.29 from Montreal points out. So technically, a part of the Canadian pavillion still exists, just not the majority of it, so adding a line that a part of the Canadian Pavillion is still standing is quite accurate. Abebenjoe 07:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You are confusing two posts, and you are disregarding several buildings which still stand (in addition to the reception hall). As stated on the web site,
"What was the Canada Pavilion during Expo 67 now serves the administration of Parc Jean-Drapeau (still officially called the Société du parc des Îles), a para-municipal body of the City of Montréal."
I have visited the site several times in recent years. Please take a few moments to research the links I have posted.
I agree that La Toundra still stands, and that is now in the article as Apple2gs wrote it. I've checked your links, and yes it now serves as the administration building for Parc Jean-Drapeau, which will be added to the article, but saying the Canadian pavillion survives, though correct, needs to be qualified, as it now stands in the article. Almost 80% of the Canadian pavillion is now gone, both from what your links show, and compared to the pictures from 1967. So thank you for clearing up the confusion on the fate of the remaining part of the Canadian pavillion. Abebenjoe 08:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's the section on the remaining buildings as it now reads in the article:
File:Building the Canadian Pavillion e000756920.jpgSeen here underconstruction in 1966, the white flat building is today's La Toundra and Parc Jean Drapeau admin building, which were part of the Canadian pavillion complex.The only buildings remaining in use on the Expo grounds are the Buckminister Fuller dome (now operating as a museum called Biosphère) and the Habitat 67 residences. Also, the French and Quebec pavilions are now part of the Montreal Casino. La Toundra Hall,[32]is the only surviving structure from the Canadian pavilion. One part of it is a restaurant and special events hall.[32] Another part of it now serves as the administration building of Parc Jean-Drapeau (still officially called the Société du parc des Îles), a para-municipal body of the City of Montreal.[33] The administration section of the structure is still called Pavillion du Canada.[33] Kamtimavik's distinctive inverted pyramid and much of the rest of the Canadian pavillion were dismantled during the 1970s. The Jamaican Pavillion is still standing, and the Place des Nations is also. There are several other remains, such as lampposts and landscaping, and the rapid transit subway system still has at least one "Man and His World" logo on a station's wall. Abebenjoe 09:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added this picture of the construction of the Canadian pavillion complex, as it is more demonstratative of which buildings we are talking about. The picture shows the Katimavik inverted pyramid under construction, and to its left, is the white building that is mostly completed, that's the one that houses today's La Toundra and administration buildings. The whole Canadian pavillion site was over 11 acres. The remains of the Katimavik site today is part of the G5 parking lot that serves the admin building. The lagoon, where the above photo showing the completed Katimavik, was filled in, along with part of Regatta Lake, to allow a section of the Circuit Gilles-Villeneuve to be built. Abebenjoe 11:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the "Legacy" section needs to be rewritten. It begins by saying "The only buildings remaining in use on the Expo grounds are the Buckminister Fuller dome (now operating as a museum called Biosphère) and the Habitat 67 residences."
It then immediately contradicts this by stating "Also, the French and Quebec pavilions are now part of the Montreal Casino."
The next statement again adds another building "La Toundra Hall,[32]is the only surviving structure from the Canadian pavilion."
In addition, several other buildings and sculptures are omitted.
I would attempt to correct this paragraph, but quite frankly I was exhausted by my effort to correct the statement that the Canadian pavilion no longer stands. My corrections were deleted twice before finally being reinstated, more or less. The statement "What was the Canada Pavilion during Expo 67 now serves the administration of Parc Jean-Drapeau (still officially called the Société du parc des Îles), a para-municipal body of the City of Montréal", is a quote taken from the web site of the organization http://www.parcjeandrapeau.com/en/historique/batiments.asp For some reason this was qualified by "The administration section of the structure is still called Pavillion du Canada"
Your additions definately improved the article. Thank you. Abebenjoe 09:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Section irrelevant, should be removed
From the article (near the end of Legacy):
``1967 was also the year that invited Expo guest Charles De Gaulle on July 24 addressed thousands at Montreal City Hall by yelling out the now famous words of: "Vive Montréal... Vive le Québec ...Vive le Québec Libre!" (See Vive le Québec libre speech). To be later rebutted by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson: "Canadians do not need to be liberated, Canada will remain united and will reject any effort to destroy her unity". In the years that followed, the tensions between the English and French communities would continue.
I don't think this should be included in the article. It's clearly irrelevant to the article subject and politically charged.
-phil
‘Le Cirque Aux Merveilles’ (The Magic Box)
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In 1967, Montreal was the host to Expo ‘67 with an attendance of 50 million people. The 1700-seat Jardin des Etoiles Theatre located in La Ronde Entertainment Zone at Expo ’67 featured a children’s introduction to ballet entitled ‘Le Cirque Aux Merveilles’ (The Magic Box). Inspired by Léo Delibes’ ballet, Coppelia, ‘Le Cirque Aux Merveilles’ was conceived and written by American, Romm Doulton. David Haber (former Artistic Director of the National Ballet of Canada and Producer of Theatrical Presentation for Expo 67) having read the script, commissioned Doulton to undertake overseeing all the children’s entertainment at Expo. Doulton and notable French Canadian playwright Jacques Languirand were co-executive producers.
Le Cirque Aux Merveilles’ 30-minute production played for 728 performances, combining magic, music, with ballet with high-wire acrobatics. With the raked audience seated on three sides, Le Cirque Aux Merveilles fully exploited Jules Fisher’s unique triangular open stage design. With no curtain or proscenium, and set changes were made by the actors. Doulton’s cast of acrobatic circus animals employed the entire volume to move about the stage and audience.
+
+
The production opens at the closing moments of the circus. The storyline revolves around backstage activities after the show and the conflict between an evil ringmaster/magician, a soulful clown and a life-sized, ballerina doll (Pupee), who magically came to life only during each circus performance. With the aid and intervention of the high-flying acrobatic circus animals with a black-lighting dream sequence finale, good triumphs over evil. Unable to break the ringmaster’s evil spell and become a real person off stage, the clown chooses to become a doll in order to be with the beautiful ballerina who has stolen his heart.
+
+
Guy Laliberté, the founder of Cirques Du Soleil, would have been an impressionable 8-year old at that time.
Properly cite sources, cut it down to about two or three sentences, and then add it to the section dealing with entertainment. Don't add it to the key people section. This was not key to Expo coming into exisitance.--Abebenjoe 23:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
