Talk:BC United

Federal Liberal Logo

Hi, I'm not sure why the federal Liberal logo is placed on the bottom of the page as the BC Liberal is not affiliated and only share the name (Liberal).

John

It should be removed immediatley!! Verged

Request for information

Hi,

Queen's University is missing the Vancouver Sun reels for a number of BC Liberal Party leadership conventions (to shamelessly name-drop a page that I created yesterday). Can someone who has access to these reels look up the ballot results of the following:

• February 19, 1979 (Jev Tothill chosen as leader)
• March 31, 1984 (Art Lee chosen as leader)

In each case, the Sun's coverage will appear two days *after* the dates listed above (they didn't run a Sunday edition in those days).

My thanks to anyone who actually does this,

CJCurrie 02:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

1952 Election

I thought I'd explain my heavy editing and deletions to the materials about the 1952 election. A lot of it didn't relate to the Liberals at all -- just meanderings about Bennett and CCF and pacts with Tom Uphill. All very nice but not relevant to the Liberals. The main message is that they lost badly and went off into the wilderness. What the others did is for entries elsewhere, in my opinion.

reducing size of government

Michaelm has deleted from the article reference to the current BC Liberal government trying toreduce the size ofthe provincial government. Can anyone confirm this, or, could Michaelm kindly provide some information relating tothis? Thanks. Kevintoronto 00:37, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Liberal Party of British Columbia"

It's my understanding that Liberal Party of British Columbia has never been the formal name of this organization. The proper name is British Columbia Liberal Party-- this is reflected in the majority of media useage, the Elections BC's registry, and the party itself. Up she goes onto Wikipedia:Requested moves -The Tom 22:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

• Oppose A redirect will do the job just as well. --Spinboy 19:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Since Violet has this really breeder idea that I have to explain my strong objection, I will. It has to do with that as far as I am aware, everyone knows it as Liberal Party of British Columbia. --Spinboy 23:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Obviously being from the UK I'm not in the best position to argue this, but "everyone knows it as..." isn't a particularly easy point to prove. Google searching shows it to be less popular and the Elections BC page is quite a strong source, I would say. If you want the common name then "B.C. Liberals" seems popular at their official site, but I'm not surprised they shorten it and "Liberals of B.C." doesn't sound as good. Just seems odd to me that you're so dead set against the move. violet/riga (t) 23:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Last I checked, wikipedia policy was to use the common usage name, not necessarily the legal name. --Spinboy 23:44, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • But is it the common name? I'd be willing to say that "Liberal Party of British Columbia" is not how people refer to them in common speech. And as I said the Google search indicates otherwise. I think it'd be close enough for either to be acceptable, to be honest. violet/riga (t) 23:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I suggest we hold off a few days. I posted this on Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board, so maybe we'll get some more feedback. --Spinboy 00:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I've move it back for now because there were remaining double redirects when you undid the move. Looking at the incoming links that only goes to strengthen the decision to have it at British Columbia Liberal Party. violet/riga (t) 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • [edit conflict] For gods sake I was just explaining the move when you undid it again! Please accept the decision for now as you will soon be violating the (spirit of the) 3RR. violet/riga (t) 00:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • You will also be violating it, I will leave it, but I will put a tag on disputing the name. --Spinboy 00:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • I think you're a power-hungry bitch, Violet. --Spinboy 00:40, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Really nice thing to say to someone trying to help out. You're being stupid about this, having not presented a decent argument and reverting a change without any discussion. violet/riga (t) 00:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • I'm not required to argue it, just oppose it. My reasons are allowed to be my own. There was no consensus. --Spinboy 00:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • If you disagree with a decision someone makes it is good practise to discuss it before undoing it, especially with page moves. There does not have the be consensus to move a page, and you were outvoted 2 to 1 anyway, with no decent argument presented at the time. violet/riga (t) 00:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                  • 2 to 1 isn't consensus, and Wikipedia isn't an exercise in democracy. --Spinboy 00:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                    • Surely that proves my point that there doesn't need to be consensus? violet/riga (t) 00:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                      • No, it doesn't prove your point at all. --Spinboy 01:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                        • It does, however, prove that you should've discussed it. violet/riga (t) 01:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Correct name of the party. violet/riga (t) 22:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I wish to note that the debate is still ongoing, and that the move is not final. --Spinboy 00:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Again we disagree - you've begun a second discussion to undo a decision that has been made. violet/riga (t) 00:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm allowed to put it up again. There was no consensus. --Spinboy 00:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Never said you weren't, just that this is a separate discussion. Oh, and you've forgotten the {{move}} tag. violet/riga (t) 00:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I see the tag, what about it?--Spinboy 00:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Follow the guidelines at WP:RM and add the notice to the top of this page. violet/riga (t) 00:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Are your hand broken? Could you have not done it yourself? --Spinboy 01:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • You're the one wanting to move it. violet/riga (t) 01:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Requested move to Liberal Party of British Columbia

The common name is Liberal Party of British Columbia. --Spinboy 01:00, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I should clarify, if you vote support in this section, you are voting to change the name back. --Spinboy 01:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~

---

• Oppose for the following reasons:
  1. The argument for common use is wrong when Google shows more hits for "British Columbia Liberal Party" than for "Liberal Party of British Columbia", which is boosted by mirrors of this article, and the incoming links favour the former. I doubt people refer to them with the full name usually anyway.
  2. The party itself uses the name B.C. Liberal Party as a short form (http://www.bcliberals.com).
  3. The Elections BC's registry and Legislative Assembly of BC list it as "British Columbia Liberal Party".
• violet/riga (t) 01:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose, for violet's reasons, as well as the fact that Liberal Party of British Columbia is NOT the common name. As a British Columbian and keen political follower, I can vouch for this. -The Tom 19:23, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for the above reasons. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• 'Oppose --Philip Baird Shearer 16:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I am confused the current WP:RM page says Talk:Liberal Party of British Columbia -- Liberal Party of British Columbia → British Columbia Liberal Party --Spinboy 00:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC) If this is not what this vote is about please enter a new request on the WP:RM page and remove the current one. Having done that place the request line from the WP:RM page at the top of the "Requested move" section Philip Baird Shearer 15:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Decision

Template:Notmoved violet/riga (t) 17:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

A notice that I have put up a request for arbitration in regards to User:Violetriga. --Spinboy 05:53, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Separation of Liberal-Conservative Coalition into separate article

I've been compiling historical provincial electoral district returns and habitually created links for Liberal-Conservative Coalition, which as it turns out happens to redirect here. I think the Coalition should have its own page, as it's not the direct "property" of either provincial Grits or Tories and very much a political beastie in its own right, as well as a particular period in the province's history. Pages which listed in previous linked each word in the title separately, e.g. [[Liberal]]-[[Conservative]] [[coalition]], with the coalition a small-c. Which it wasn't, i.e. it was a capital-lettered name and a "party" in its own right. Not prepared to write an article about the era yet but, as said, I think it shouldn't redirect here.Skookum1 22:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it would make far more sense to list the various candidates as either Liberal or Conservative, and then by means of a footnote point out that the parties chose not to compete against one another during those years. The Tom 23:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a murky subject; some of them became Socreds later, too. IMO the Coalition was virtually another party, with a common caucus and its own platform (not two); and as I said it's a major period in BC political history, and the only alliance of its kind in the province's history (Socreds weren't a unite-the-right thing so much as a grassroots/populist thing; the current BCLP is just hijacked, and that's all there is to it; but it's not openly a Coalition, as was "the Coalition" (as it's put in all the histories I've read). I see your point about the two parties; and the lack of a current Coalition article (an oversight IMO; I might write a stub later just to get rid of the redlinks) adds fuel to splitting it back; but to me this is a change that has to be written in; if someone types the Liberal-Conservative Coalition now it redirects ONLY to the BC Liberal Party, and that's just not right (even if Hart and Johnson, the two Coalition Premiers, were originally Grits). Coalition is what people looking it up might type, and that will go to the Coalition disambig, obviously enough. Your alternative I guess could be "Coalition (Liberal" or "Coalition (Conservative)"; but there's still a need for a common Coalition colour.Skookum1 02:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd actually prefer to avoid the need for a separate colour. My understanding is that it functioned much the same way the Liberal-National arrangement works in Australia. Single slate, separate leaders, candidates nominally associated with one side or the other but using the Coalition name on the ballot The Tom 04:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect introduction

The current introduction of this article has a incorrect definition of neoliberalism. "liberal" in neo-liberalism refers to (new) liberal economics.

Links to feds?

The party is not formally linked to the similarly-named Liberal Party of Canada active on the federal level.

Didn't this change in the Martin era? Also, the intro should clarify that the current party is very different from its pre-1970s predecessor of the same name (despite having the same constitution/charter).Skookum1 21:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Note re WP:COI (conflict of interest guidelines)

To party members who may wish to edit the article: please see WP:COI regarding conflict-of-interest concerning members of organizations editing articles about those organizations. this is a general comment/warning being placed on all BC political party pages because of problems with some articles...If you are a member of the Liberal Party of BC you should not be editing this article!!.Skookum1 01:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I think if you are a member of the Liberal Party, **OR ANY OTHER PARTY** (example, the NDP), you should not be editing this entry. --WikiMart 17:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Pat McGeer

This article already existed solely as a basketball bio, with no mention of his poiltical career. I gave it a start, cribbing from the UBC Sports Hall of Fame bio, but lots more shoudl be added; I put in what I put in mostly so he could be categorized properly; not sure of his Liberal leadership dates, which cabinet portfolios etc....someone here hopefully knows more, or would like to research this more; Pat was "orphaned".....(and I don't ahve a cite for the plywood satellite dish but it's probably online somewhere). Oh one more cat to add there which seems viable - "futurist".Skookum1 (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

wrong Allan Williams link

The link meant to lead to Liberal-turned-Social Credit politician Allan Williams actually direct to an entirely different Allan Williams, the original manager of the Beatles. Ken Burch 7:54 11 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.174.73.121 (talk) 07:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)