Talk:Gordon Campbell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject United States / Dartmouth (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire - Dartmouth College (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Canada / British Columbia / Politicians (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.
WikiProject Vancouver  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vancouver, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
This article is not specific to any one area of Vancouver.



Extremely biased. There is no talk of how he cut health care workers wages by 15% while increasing his own salary. Who cares I guess, so much for free speech. My words will probably be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone show his popularity % please? I think that it'd be a useful piece of information, and if I'm not wrong, its laughably low as of recently. Benstordy (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes Need Fixing

Can someone fix the footnotes? They are all there in the editing text-view but not correctly displayed in the article. Thanks --Mahakaya (talk) 07:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the addition of a list of key legislation or other types of change he has made to the province of BC?

Feel free. - Montréalais
the most major change is that he introduced fixed-term elections for BC, so that governments fall on schedule, and parties know when the election is, as in the USA. the next election slated for BC is in May 2005, exactly four years after the last one in May 2001.
Now included.

--- The drunk driving issue is not going away. It's the ONLY issue in BC now. A more complete treatment of this was required, and was available in the older versions. There was absolutely no reason to delete it, whatsoever, Two16 is editing articles he or she knows nothing about, an an ad hominen basis.

Please I meant to do know harm. I am the strongest advocate for free speech in the Wikipedia. This is no word of a lie.Lockdown Sv Rule .We seem very much alike so far. I have sworn eternal hostility againstover

And speaking of style that was the criteria that I used when looking at the article. The first paragraph was exactly the same:

Gordon Campbell is the current Premier of British Columbia. He is a member of the BC Liberal Party, which holds a majority in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.

I removed every thing after that point. Of course it is important. You should set up a page of called "list of BC political scandals" that would be a hoot to write. NPOV is essential reading. That is the voice of encyclopedia writing. Its actually a branch of English Literature. Its a genre with its own styles and conventions: titles are standardized for the search engine, title are used bolded and used in the first sentence etc. There is still lots to do and you get the idea. This is so hot now because its news. Something like his father's alcoholism "needs" to be in the article; but it also needs to be handled with delicacy. Blurting it out as an unconected sentence in an article on the day the story hit the papers makes it look like you have an ax to grind. It reads like coverage from the Vancouver Sun.

His father was an alcoholic who committed suicide when Gordon was 13 years old.

On Thursday January 9th, 2003, Campbell was spotted by police in Maui, Hawaii speeding and weaving in a rental car. He admitted driving under the influence of alcohol, apologized to the people of Maui and British Columbia, and publicly swore off alcohol. However, despite his own rule that any cabinet minister under criminal investigation must resign, Campbell refused to resign. BC's most famous drunk isn't going anywhere and neither should this critically important information about his premiership.

Young Adults Educating Responsible Drinking and Mothers Against Drunk Driving is calling for his resignation, as is the official opposition BC New Democratic Party under its leader Joy McPhail

I would like to see some bullets:

  • the markup looks like
    • and this

I would really like to see bc scandel list take shape. Find the style guide. It is a very good idea to fight for your rights. It is important to know how.

Lockdown Sv Rule User:Two16

I don't think 75% of the gordon campbell page should be about his drunk driving incident.

ok, only 50% - seriously this is the only thing anyone in Hawaii or Ontario or even Alberta or Washington state cares about, it's his prime claim to fame. BC readers of wikipedia can consult other sources to find out about Campbell. And why *shouldn't* wikipedia be a tabloid, in addition to its other functions?
Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with a strong NPOV policy. That is as opposite to a tabloid as you can get. With that said... The article still unbalanced by the fact that so much of it deals with the current alcohol issue. However, that will change in time as the article is added to so I don't see this as a big problem. --mav
(reply to the "ok, only 50%..." comment above) Fine, but once this whole thing is over with, I think it should be removed and trimmed down into a 3-line summary. Just like Clinton's page should not be 50% about the Monica Lewinsky stuff. Although I can understand that right during that time it should have had a lot of emphasis. And as a side note, there are plenty of politicians who have been caught for drinking and driving. Rene Levesque for example killed a homeless person while driving drunk (and drove away from the scene!), but that was 30 years ago, and I doubt that will EVER show up in his entry in this encyclopedia. Although I think it would deserve one line.

(reply to various) As a resident of BC, I would strongly dispute this entry's claim to NPOV--it reads more like a hagiography. I'm trying to figure out where to start balancing it...

No Contest to All Charges[edit]

The issue of whether Campbell pled guilty to drunk driving is subtle but politically significant. He did not plead guilty. Rather, he entered a plea, valid in Hawaii but not British Columbia, of "nolo contendre" or "no contest", which accepts the penalty without admitting guilt. This probably makes sense in terms of the precedent he made for other government officials, and for him personally in a legal sense. But at the time, there was more than a little criticism for not admitting guilt, while apologizing anyway.

POV label[edit]

It seems to me to be quite obviously POV, particularly the section labelled "Premier". Consider this, for instance:

"He apologized to the people of British Columbia (presumably for embarrassing them), later (probably under prompting) apologized to the people of Maui whom he had actually endangered."

I'm a moderately new user, so I'm not exactly sure what part of NPOV that violates, but it seems to violate NPOV for sure. The entire second half of the section is dedicated to slamming Campbell. Doesn't sound very neutral to me. TheProject 02:54, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is factual though, and this is an encyclopedia, thus it should be inlcuded. --Spinboy 06:02, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me that facts on both sides of the spectrum should be included, not just one viewpoint. There are arguments for and against Campbell, so taking only one side of the argument is irresponsible of Wikipedia. The part I quoted above also heavily biased assumptions (the "presumably for embarrasing them" part. I would like to know how the author came across this information?). TheProject 20:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Then include another viewpoint, so long as it's factual, and you can back it up. --Spinboy 20:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I removed the second to last paragraph because it was not NPOV, approval ratings in particular should be cited and any further commentary needs to be neutral. 21:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest, rather than destroying someone elses work, perhaps rewrite it in a manner you find acceptable? I restored the paragraph (not written by me), and a quick google search found the source. -- 07:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

DUI photo[edit]

The mugshot photo has been repeatedly removed from this article, in an apparent attempt to change the image of the Premier.

The DUI photo of Gordon Campbell is without a doubt, the most circulated, and recognisable photo of the gentleman.

Why is it repeatedly removed? This is like doing an article on logging, and showing a pristine forest.

I moved it lower in the article, next to the relevant paragraph about scandals. Is that a reasonable compromise? I also took out some of the more POV/political commentary. The article was reading more like an outlet for support/condemnation for the premier than an encyclopedia article. 00:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

So where is the photo now? NeoThe1 05:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It disappeared because replaced the usual page with something resembling a Campbell campaign release. If it happens again, feel free to revert it back. That said, some portions of the article are kind of POV (in both directions). Probably hopeless to get a consensus on a current politician, but I'll try to fix it a little bit. --Lanius 13:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think actually it should be the one of him "smirking". This one was more talked about and Campbell himself commented on it. --JGGardiner 02:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You needent ask twice!--NDPleaf.gifColle 02:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Current revert war and consensus[edit]

I've reviewed both disputed versions, and the one apparently favored by User:Infil00p seems on its face to be substantially more informative and neutral than the version apparently favored by User:LtCoolGuy. In particular, the LtCoolGuy version appears to be selectively omitting relevant information and appears even to be intentionally misleading in places (for example, changing Campbell's occupation to "teacher," assuming it's true that his volunteer teaching work was done before 1973 and that his more recent career was real estate). If there are actual facts in dispute then that's another issue. Either way, it should be possible to reach some consensus here on the talk page. --Saucepan 19:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The disputed edit has removed a lot of meaty biographical information including numerous places, dates, and actions. Generally, other editors will be suspicious of large-scale removal of factual information from a controversial article, especially if result is to bias the article in a certain direction. Such contributions are more likely to persist if you explain your thoughts here on the talk page and attempt to reach a consensus with the other editors. For example, you could point out specific facts which you dispute, or paragraphs that you consider biased. --Saucepan 01:09, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Some portions of the longer version look a little biased to me (e.g., the STV referendum paragraph), but it's much better than LtCoolGuy version. I think it does need more detail about Campbell's second term, and maybe photo radar, etc. His DUI arrest also probably deserves a little more space.
I've reverted User:Colle's edit because his example seems biased and cherry-picked (0.03%? Why choose this number?) and the math seems wrong. The savings for a $30,000-earner should be (8.4% - 6.05%) x $30,000 = $705, not "about $500." It's also misleading to say that the cuts resulted in "those earning more saving a higher percentage." It's true that, as a percentage of total income, the savings for upper tax brackets were greater than savings for lower tax brackets. It's also true that everyone's taxes went down by 25%, and that the proportions of tax received from each bracket remain the same. I like the version that lets readers see the before-and-after tax rates for themselves. --Lanius 05:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Please check the source given! It is customary to view the highest and lowest returns, and it is not pov in any way to do so. It would be pov to state the fact that lower income earners did not have a net-gain from the cut, due to corresponding cuts in services. Your math is also wrong, you need to reasearch BC income tax. The richer you are, the more tax brackets you pay in, the cuts effected all brackets differently, with the rich having the highest gain.--NDPleaf.gifColle 07:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

This disputed tag has been up for about a week now. Can we remove it now, or is there still a dispute about the neutrality of the article? --Saucepan 00:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the "disputed" tag. The anonymous users who keep deleting the DUI photo don't seem interested in discussion, and my dispute with Colle isn't major. Colle seems to misunderstand the BC tax system, probably because the link he/she is relying on at Strategic Thoughts [1], while mostly correct, is quite confusingly written. I'll try to explain. This is going to get very boring.
BC has five tax brackets. They change each year with inflation, but in 2001 they were: $1 to $30,484; $30,484 to $60,969; $60,969 to $70,000; $70,000 to $85,000; and over $85,000. When the Liberals took office, the tax rates for these five brackets were: 8.4%; 11.9%; 16.7%; 18.7%; 19.7%. If my taxable income is $30,000, say, then I pay 8.4% of that in tax. But if I'm in a higher tax bracket then things get more complicated. With a taxable income of $150,000, I'd pay 8.4% on the first $30,484, 11.9% on the next $30,485 (which takes me up to $60,969), and so on, finally paying 19.7% on the $65,000 I earned that exceeds $85,000. With me so far?
After phase two of the Liberal tax cut, the new rates were: 6.05%; 9.15%; 11.7%; 13.7%; 14.7%. (All of these figures can be found here: [2].) As you can see, all of the rates were cut by about 25%. The cuts actually range from 23% to 30%, with the biggest cuts going to the 1st and 3rd brackets and the smallest going to the 2nd and 5th. But to simplify things let's suppose they're all 25% cuts. So if I'm in the lowest bracket my taxes go down 25%, period. What happens if I'm in the highest bracket?
Let's say that $A, $B, $C, $D, and $E are the amounts I'd pay in each bracket under the original NDP rates. The Liberals give me a tax cut in each bracket of 25%, so now I owe:
($A x 75%) + ($B x 75%) + ($C x 75%) + ($D x 75%) + ($E x 75%)
= ($A + $B + $C + $D + $E) x 75%
See? The wealthiest people's taxes are also going down by 25%. Everyone's getting more or less the same cut. Those earning more do not "save a higher percentage."
Now in the real world, of course, things are more complicated than this, because not all income is taxable. What happens when you factor in deductions and credits? These will be obviously be different for each taxpayer, but there's a handy chart here [3] (scroll to Table 2) that shows some average results for single taxpayers. These are the figures quoted by, for example, the CBC [4]. For someone with a gross income of $30,000: original tax of $1,536, tax reduction of $430, and thus a 28% tax cut. For someone with a gross income of $150,000: original tax of $20,604, tax reduction of $5,299, which means a 26% tax cut. About the same.
This is why the statistic about the richest 0.03% of taxpayers is mostly meaningless. If they got 14% of the tax cut, it's because they paid about 14% of the taxes, both before and after the cuts. (Of course, there were other genuine, substantive objections to the cuts, and they need to be mentioned in the article body: complaints that the BC tax code should become more progressive, complaints that the tax cuts were simply not affordable and led to service cuts.)
The edit by User: was very POV, but a few portions of it deserve inclusion. I'm putting them back in with a rewrite. --Lanius 14:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I hunted online but couldn't find any details about the salmon treaty mentioned by User:, so I'm so far unconvinced that it's important.
Future project: there really ought to be something in this article about the Medical Services Plan fee increases. --Lanius 15:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
You have the general idea Lanuis, but you're still off. If I made $150 000, I would pay taxes in ALL tax brackets, as the article says. Therefore, I would get a much bigger proportion of the tax cut. I actually think the Strategic Thoughts (Robinhood analogy) is the best out there at explaining this! --NDPleaf.gifColle 20:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Furthermore, the richest .03% of tax payers getting 14% of the tax cut is NOT "meaningless". A flat tax is not the natural stystem. If you have some specific issues with the article, please bring them up here. Maybe we can decide what is meaningfull togeather. --NDPleaf.gifColle 21:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I honestly don't know where to begin. I know that someone making $150,000 would pay taxes in five brackets. See above, where I talk about paying a total tax of "$A, $B, $C, $D, and $E"? Five brackets. British Columbia does not have a flat tax system, which means a system with only one tax bracket; look to Alberta if you want an example of that. This cut had nothing to do with flat taxes. Maybe if you could tell me in detail what you think is going on with the math I could help you out; right now, really, I have no idea.
The material I cut from the BC-STV paragraph seems insignificant to me, only serving to create a negative impression of Campbell. Much of it isn't even mentioned in the Wiki entry on the referendum itself. As for the bit about how he "led the 'Yes Team' in celebration" after the Olympic bid, I don't see the problem. Look at the article history; you'll notice that it originally read that Campbell "led British Columbians in celebration" or something of the sort, but was changed to more neutral wording.
Speaking of neutral wording: Campbell "claims," but his critics "counter"? Come on. And I do agree with User: that it seems excessive to speak of a "series" of scandals if we only mention three. --Lanius 07:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, it's clear that we now both understand the tax system! Nonetheless, I oppose your reversion. Please bring up specific issues here, rather than continue to revert the page. I believe if we cooperate we can see where we each are coming from. My biggest question is just Why? Anyways, here is why I think of the issues you have brought up so far.

  • led the yes team in celebration. --that is a problem, because it is commentary on a publicity stunt, which is obviously not historically valuable. Not to mention "led" is pov, and "yes team" is not defined.
  • .03% of tax payers getting 14% of the tax cut. I don't see how this is meaningless, because it best shows the change in the tax system. Looking at the top and bottom gains of anything is standard procedure.
  • STV That entire section is valuable, including the critical sentance. This article is not about STV, but about how Gordon Campbell is related to it --It is understandable that there is some info here thats not in the STV article.
  • A Series of scandals. Three is a series, saying "he had to deal with scandals" is awkward. Perhaps you do not like the word "series". Would "a number of scandals" be better?

--NDPleaf.gifColle 08:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Tax cut: Your proposed edit reads: "Because of the cumulative nature of the tax cut, with those earning more saving a higher percentage...." I've given statistics above showing that someone with a gross income of $30,000 is expected to receive a 28% tax cut, while someone with a gross income of $150,000 is expected to receive a 26% tax cut. Your edit is simply wrong.
.03% of tax payers, etc.: How does this show "the change in the tax system"? What change do you imagine has occurred? A tax cut of 25% for everyone does nothing to change the progressivity of the tax code -- i.e., the relative proportions of the revenue that the different income levels pay -- one way or another. I'll repeat myself: If those tax payers got 14% of the tax cut, it's because they paid about 14% of the taxes, both before and after the cuts. I don't see anything informative being conveyed by this statistic.
Led the Yes Team: Okay, fair enough. Deleted.
BC-STV: The Wiki article on the referendum gives several reasons for the lack of voter awareness. The effect of the proposed edit is to imply that Campbell's government is solely responsible. It's not obvious how much blame the Liberals deserve for the lack of televised debate, given that they took no official position on the STV issue and there were no unified groups representing either side in the referendum. If we include all this detail then we'd have to include pro-Campbell arguments, and really, it's simply not that important.
A series of scandals: Saying either "series of scandals" or "number of scandals" implies a large number, and that's not supported by what follows. And "He also had to deal with scandals, both personal and political" flows fine to my ears.
New Democratic Party: They don't need to be spelled out in full and linked in both the Biography and Government sections.
If you feel the need to edit the tax-cut paragraph again, I'd prefer that you provide some evidence for your changes. (That Conflict of Interest page doesn't say what you seem to imagine it says.) I'd also prefer that you not revert to a version with spelling errors, broken links to BC-STV and the BC Supreme Court, etc. --Lanius 11:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Pt 2[edit]

Lets look at the tax paragraph first.

1. My favoured version:

Campbell claimed that the tax cuts would stimulate the economy. Government critics countered, stating the cuts would do little to help those of average income; an individual making $30,000 annually had savings of about $500, whereas a person earning $150,000 per year had savings of about $5,800. The top 0.03% of taxpayers received 14.00% of the total tax cut.[5] Because of the cumulative nature of the tax cut, with those earning more saving a higher percentage, the tax cut was far different from the oppositions favored progressive approach to taxation. [6].

2. Your favoured version:

The reductions gave British Columbia (tied with Ontario) the lowest provincial income tax rates for people earning up to $60,000, thus fulfilling one of Campbell's campaign promises. He predicted that the tax cuts would stimulate the economy. Government critics, meanwhile, argued that the tax cut was too expensive and not sufficiently progressive, remarking that 53% of the cut fell to the 13% of taxpayers earning over $60,000[7].

Reverting to the second version removes the following facts:

  1. Common criticism that the tax cuts, along side cuts in services would not help average income earners
  2. Standard examples of tax cut in practice (two examples of both high and low returns)
  3. How the tax cut was very controversial (it's not progressive, with the wealthy earning more proportionally).

The second version inserts questionable material.

  1. Comaring tax cut to Ontario (not a problem, but needs citation)
  2. 'Straw man' criticisms ..."too expensive" "not sufficiently progressive"
    1. The percentage "remark" is mild, critics would point out the stats in the first version (0.03%/14%)

I hope you see why I strongly oppose this part of your reversion. I suggest you see the strategicthoughts link to better understand how the tax cut was not devided up evenly. Not only did the rich bring in a larger total amount, but the tax cut gave them more proportionally. You must understand that a cut on the bottom tiers would benifit the rich just as much as the poor, this tax cut was on all the tiers. A person making $30,000 per year got a tax cut of $500 while a person making $150,000 per year got a tax cut of $5,800 - with 5 times more income the tax cut was almost 12 times greater.--NDPleaf.gifColle 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the finer points of the wording can wait. You say that "those earning more sav[e] a higher percentage." The BC Ministry of Revenue says that a typical tax payer with a gross income of $30,000 is expected to receive a 28% tax cut, while someone with a gross income of $150,000 is expected to receive a 26% tax cut. Please explain the discrepancy. --Lanius 03:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you please stop reverting to your version. Have you taken a peak at the reference? [8]--NDPleaf.gifColle 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, the User: edit was mine; I forgot to log in.
Colle, you've just violated the three-revert rule. Please don't do that again. (Note that my 11:32 edit of yesterday incorporated your own "Yes Team" suggestion, among other changes.) --Lanius 06:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, here are the most serious problems with Colle's version of the tax paragraph:

"Campbell claimed... Government critics countered..." The POV is obvious, I trust.

" individual making $30,000 annually had savings of about $500..." This is taken from David Schreck's website [9], where he says that "a person making $30,000 per year got a tax cut of $500." Now, the cut in that bracket was from 8.4% tax to 6.05%, and (8.4% x $30,000) - (6.05% x $30,000) = $705, not $500, so either Schreck made an arithmetic error or he's factoring in some claims or deductions without specifying which. Either way, this is not a reliable source. The BC Ministry of Revenue gives figures for single tax payers making standard claims and deductions [10], and they do not agree with Schreck's: a $30,000 earner receives a cut of $430, not $500, and a $150,000 earner receives $5,299, not $5,800.

"Because of the cumulative nature of the tax cut, with those earning more saving a higher percentage, the tax cut was far different from the oppositions favored progressive approach to taxation." Okay, four problems here. The nitpick is that "oppositions" needs an apostrophe. The other three problems are more serious, and I'll take them one by one.

"...with those earning more saving a higher percentage..." A higher percentage of what? As this stands, it's meaningless. You can state the cuts as a percentage of the original tax, in which case the lowest bracket gets a 28% tax cut and the highest bracket gets a 25% tax cut, or you can state the cuts as a percentage of taxable income, in which case the lowest bracket gets a 2.35% cut and the highest bracket gets a 5% cut. Now, which description is the one that's normally used? Hint: Don't look behind Door #2. (If I slash taxes in the lowest bracket to absolutely nothing, would you describe that as a 6.05% tax cut?)

"Because of the cumulative nature of the tax cut..." Even if we assume you're talking about a percentage of taxable income, high earners don't save a higher percentage because of anything "cumulative" in the tax cut. The effect comes from the cut in the highest bracket; the cuts in the lower brackets are smaller as a percentage of income, and serve to drag the total cut (as a percentage of income) down, not up.

"...the tax cut was far different from the oppositions favored progressive approach to taxation." Okay, first let's note that this is stated as fact, not merely as the position of one side of the debate. This passage implies that the current BC tax code is not progressive, which is simply false as a matter of definition, but I'll put that down to clumsy wording. I'll assume the intended meaning is that the cut made the BC tax code less progressive.

Okay, so what evidence is offered? This sentence from David Schreck: "The result was that a person making $30,000 per year got a tax cut of $500 while a person making $150,000 per year got a tax cut of $5,800 - with 5 times more income the tax cut was almost 12 times greater." As I've explained above, Schreck's numbers are suspect, but let's see what happens with the official Ministry of Revenue data. A person making $30,000 gets a cut of $430, and a person making $150,000 gets a cut of $5,299 -- with 5 times more income, the cut is 12.3 times greater. Wow! Maybe Schreck has a point!

Hold on, though -- let's look at the Ministry figures for total tax. (We can't do this with Schreck's example, because he doesn't give the actual tax and doesn't explain the assumptions he made to calculate it.) Someone making $30,000 sees their taxes cut from $1,536 to $1,106, while someone making $150,000 sees their taxes cut from $20,604 to $15,305. $20,604 is 13.4 times $1,536. $15,305 is 13.8 times $1,106. The wealthy earner is paying a slightly higher proportion of the tax burden after the tax cut than before. It seems to me that a Campbell supporter can plausibly argue that the Liberal's income tax code is more progressive than the NDP's. At the very least, calling the tax cut "far different from ... progressive" is extremely POV.

More later. --Lanius 15:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is getting frustrating for me. You seem to have managed to convince yourself that you understand BC tax system to the extent you can teach others, and therefore myself (I actually pay income tax here, believe it or not), and everyone else must be wrong. Look at what you are doing! First of all David Schreck IS A FORMER BC MLA, and now is a respected political columnist. If it's your word against his, I'm sorry but he has the credentials. But it's not a matter of word, you are doing your own haphazard fuzzy math! --did you factor in how much initial income is not taxed? Even if I am not able to spot where you are going wrong in the future, it does not matter. You are not a tax professional, and wikipedia has a policy against origional research.--NDPleaf.gifColle 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
And secondly, it is far different from the progressive taxation poliices of the NDP --that is why it was controversial! "far different" is an understatment, not a point of view!
Actually, it's not my word against David Schreck's about the size of the tax cuts. It's Schreck's word against that of the tax economists at the BC Ministry of Small Business and Finance [11]. And the CBC [12]. And left-wing think tanks such as the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives [13]. All of these sources (and believe me, I could find more) use the $430 number as a typical tax cut, not Schreck's $500. As I'm sure you realise, I could spend five minutes browsing in Hansard and come up with a dozen inflated statements in favour of the tax cut from Liberals who are current BC MLAs (pardon me, who ARE CURRENT BC MLAS). That doesn't mean I can quote them here as fact. I have no idea why you harbour such an emotional attachment to that one web page.
I've sourced everything I've said here, and anyone with grade-eight math skills should be able to follow what I've said. If I've been unclear, please ask and I'll clarify. If I've made an error, please point it out. Your apparent religious faith that I must, somehow, be wrong is intriguing, but not a substitute for rational argument.
It is not POV to say that the Liberals' tax policies are different from the NDP's. It is extremely POV to say that the Liberals' tax policies are anti-progressive. And I notice that you have still offered no defence of your POV wording elsewhere. Suppose someone changed it, for example, to the following: "Government critics claimed that the tax cuts would do little to help those of average income. Campbell countered, stating that the tax cuts would stimulate the economy...." Can I assume that you would have no objection? --Lanius 14:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it seems your error is in not recognizing variables other than ineptidude. Do you know the difference between net and gross earnings? This article refers to net earnings (as does the source), because it is in context of the money people are bringing home. Also, please don't play games, this is not fun for me at all. Ask me questions, put your position forward, don't say things such as "can I assume." or go into extended dialogue. Of course you assume wrong, critics criticise, governments govern.--NDPleaf.gifColle 22:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Updating Information[edit]

There is a comment made that "cuts" were made to "pay for the tax cut". That is simply not the case as spending by government increased year to year. Reductions in the amount of spending were made as the result of the $3.8-billion structural deficit as shown by the Report of the British Columbia Fiscal Review Panel. [14]

The section on the HEU strike was quite long given that the strike did not last longer than a handful of days. As well, the "15% wage cut" mentioned in older versions is incorrect. The legislation actually called for a 10% reduction in wages OR an 11% reduction in benefits. The union chose to reduce wages from these options. As well, the bill left the HEU employees among the highest paid in Canada, something that should be noted.

The "General Strike" was mostly conjecture, and was never officially sanctioned by the BC Federation of Labour. In fact, Jim Sinclair, President of the BC Federation of Labour, worked to ensure that never happened.

There was a comment in the article that Campbell's popularity suffered from his incident in Maui, but polls at the time showed his approval ratings actually went up. This can be clearly seen in polling by the Mustel Group from February 18, 2003 available online at Given this information, leaving that comment in would be pure conjecture.

Finally, with respect to the claim "Many argue that during his first election as Liberal leader in 1996, British Columbians' unease with him helped the NDP hold onto enough of its seats from 1991 to win re-election, and keep Reform Party supporters from moving to the Liberals, which many claim helped the NDP to hold onto various seats in the Interior of the province.", there is no evidence or articles linked to back this up and is again conjecture that should be removed.

Boggle99 08:32, 9 February 2006

Your edits contradict. Apperently there was a "structural deficit," yet the tax cut came from somewhere other than the massive cuts in services. Regarding the general strike, I would argue that it was very monumental--A few days is a very long time. The "structural deficit" was an election lie: [15] [16] [17].--NDPleaf.gifColle 23:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Colle - thank you for your submission. Please note that your comments are only discussing two changes that were made of many under my edit, and as such your move to do a complete revert is unwarranted and not in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia. My attempt was made to try and clarify the facts surrounding this page as there seems to have been quite a lengthy discussion on it looking at the history. That's all we should be interested in here, the facts.

Addressing your concerns, firstly I wanted to tell you more about a structural deficit. A structural deficit as defined by wikipedia is "Structural deficit forms part of the public sector deficit. Structural deficit is not a result of a cyclical policy implemented by the government but is the deficit that exists when the economy is in equilibrium." [18]. What that means is that in an average year, a budget would leave revenues lower than expenditures. That is exactly the case in British Columbia Fiscal Review Panel Report [19] given the finances of the previous government. The previous government did indeed initially balance their books as your articles show, but it was done on a one-time accounting change and higher than expected oil and gas revenues. The previous government's own budget predicted deficits in to the future as such should they have been re-elected[20]. As such, that item needs not be changed.

Secondly, with respect to the General Strike issue, you state "I would argue that it was very monumental". My point lies precisely within those words. Wikipedia is meant for factual information, and while your comment would be appropriate in a blog as you feel strongly about this issue, it is not reflected by any citations whatsoever. Had a general strike occurred, it may be worthy of more of a reference - but it never happened.

I hope this addresses your issues of concern. I hope that this will put an end to this ongoing discussion so that a non-partisan version may prevail.

Boggle99 08:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I just spent ages working on the government section as you can see in the talk sections above. I don't think it is in the 'spirit of wikipedia' to march in, without prior discussion, and replace it with excerpts of Liberal press releases. Frankly, your edits don't hold water. I know what a structural deficit is, British Columbia didn't have one, as my sources show. The Liberals (at the time) SAID there was one, as your sources show. I think we should go with the facts. And no, the general strike does not belong in a blog... Look it up, it was a bigger deal than most of the stuff in this article. If you judged it by media coverage, we could write ten paragraphs more on it. In fact, I intend to write more about the recent teachers strike, which would of led to a rotating general strike. You can judge how important that is by media coverage as well. Wikipedia is not a outlet for partisanism, you might think it would be great to cut out all the negatives, and spin everything positivly for Gordon Campbell... But people can go to for that. And lets say someone does manage to replace this article with a partisan version... wouldn't that just be begging the other side to come in and replace THAT with stuff such as this: [21]?--NDPleaf.gifColle 08:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
And also, back to what I brought up earlier. You say that there was a "structural deficit" and yet you also repeat the party statement that the tax cuts did NOT come from corresponding cuts in services. This was one of the typical contradictions made by the Liberals, how do you explain it?--NDPleaf.gifColle 08:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Colle, once again your statements are not backed up by facts or citations that dispute the changes that have been made. You have made one comment, and have removed all the factual changes that have been made. That is not in keeping with the spirit of wikipedia. Please note, I am not speaking for anyone, so I do not intend to "explain" anything as a partisan. I am simply trying to make this page factual. The citations in this current version speak for themselves, and I would hope you could respect that, or offer up some hard evidentiary documentation to the contrary without so much of a POV diatribe.

Boggle99 04:37, 12 February 2006 UTC)

Pt 2[edit]

Before Boggle's edit:

To pay for the tax cuts, the government reduced the staff complement in its ministries, cut programs and services, closed hospitals and schools, and announced a plan to eliminate one-third of all regulations then in force. The popularity of his government declined through late 2003 and early 2004. In spring 2003, surveys showed the Liberals trailing the NDP in public opinion for the first time since 1994.

In April/May 2004, Campbell narrowly avoided a General Strike after introducing Bill 37 in the provincial legislature. The Bill was intended to force striking hospital workers back on the job, while imposing a 15% retroactive wage rollback, layoffs, extension of the workweek, and outsourcing of union jobs. The passing of the bill led to immediate striking throughout BC, in both the public and private sectors. The BC Federation of Labour announced plans for a general strike, set to begin May 3, which would have included teachers, transit and ferry workers, mill, steel and forestry workers, garbage and city maintenance workers, as well as library, community and recreation centre employees.[22] On May 2, Justice Robert Bowman of the BC Supreme Court ruled that the healthcare unions were in contempt for continuing the withdrawal of services. Due to the threat of large fines, the hospital workers union signed a compromise with the BC Government and the strike was called off.

After Boggle's edit:

Campbell's government faced a structural deficit of $3.8 billion dollars upon assuming office [23], and the government had to restrain spending to reach a balanced budget. While some programs were reduced or eliminated, the funding levels for both health care and education were increased year to year [24].

As tough decisions were made, the popularity of his government declined through late 2003 and early 2004. In spring 2003, surveys showed the Liberals trailing the NDP in public opinion for the first time since 1994.

In April/May 2004, members of the Hospital Employees Union walked off the job after the BC Government introduced Bill 37 in the provincial legislature. The Bill was intended to allow striking hospital workers to go back on the job from an illegal strike position. In an attempt to get health care costs in check, the bill allowed for a 11% reduction in wages, or a 10% reduction in benefits for employees [25]. The bill left these employees among the highest paid in Canada [26]. The final decision which option to select was up to a discussion with the union. On May 2, Justice Robert Bowman of the BC Supreme Court ruled that the healthcare unions were in contempt for their continued strike. Due to the threat of large fines, the hospital workers union signed a compromise with the BC Government and the strike was called off.

Exactly WHY Boggle's edit won't FLY:[edit]

  1. POV Language/Structure (Such as "Bill was intended to allow striking hospital workers to go back on the job")
  2. Glossing over (Such as "While some programs were reduced or eliminated")
  3. Factual Inaccuracies (Such as the entire first paragraph) THERE WAS NO STRUCTURAL DEFICIT! [27]
  4. Speculation (Such as "in an attempt to get health care costs in check"

--Colle|Locatecolle.png|Talk-- 07:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


I've flagged this article with the NPOV due to the wording on some of the labour disputes, there has been a bit of an edit war with both views leaning left of center which is a little too far left for Wikipedia. Tawker 05:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed a generalization. But I don't know what you mean about "left of center" --That section lays out the dry facts one after another.--Colle|Locatecolle.png|Talk-- 05:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes as per Colle and the structural deficit[edit]

Colle, your comment regarding the wording regarding the bill affecting the HEU is valid, I have updated it as such.

With respect to the structural deficit, that is indeed a fact. The sources you are quoting do not meet the qualifications by wikipedia as "reliable and reputable sources". The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives received $200,000 from the previous government just 18 days before they left office for virtually no work received as verified by the BC auditor general [28]. The other sources are from "creative resistance", which is not a reputable news or journalistic agency. As well, your final source, "the Tyee", can best be described as "Alternative Media" and is not a credible news source accredited by the mainstream media. Please note though that these "sources" are not talking about a structural deficit, despite their incorrect usage of the term. There is no doubt the previous government had a surplus in their final year - but it was NOT sustainable in a revenue neutral position as even shown by legislation of the previous government. Former Finance Minister Paul Ramsey introduced a bill in the BC Legislature that was passed in to law that predicted a structural deficit in a revenue neutral position through 2004 [29]. When the previous government admits in legislation that there is a structural deficit, that should solve this issue unless there are credible academic studies showing otherwise. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Boggle99 (talk • contribs) .

Well, your sources can best be described as politically motivated... I do not agree with your wild assertion that CCPA is corrupt, it is well respected, and often cited in the media. I also have no reason to believe Tyee is anything other than credible independant journalism. --Colle|Locatecolle.png|Talk-- 07:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Tuition costs[edit]

I still think it's important to note that BC tuition is still within Canadian norms, I think exclusing that fact presents a bit of a bias against Mr Campbell. As such, I have added it in. One cannot simply say that removing a tuition freeze is bad for students (which is what the argument says) without realizing that without higher tuitions it is harder for universities to attract top talent, cutbacks have occured that have harmed students education. Tawker 07:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%, I think your edit may have been collatoral damage from Boggle's reversion.--Colle|Locatecolle.png|Talk-- 07:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree 100% as well. This whole article reads as a Gordon Campbell attack. He's just a politician like any other, let's it as such. (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


I have made an update to the biography to reflect the fact that Campbell was re-elected in 2005. I have also removed the DUI image as it can be seen as a partisan political smear. HPD27 07:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a already a discussion of this image above. Seeing as it was essentially your only edit, I'm putting it back in. -- TheMightyQuill 11:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Which comes first: Biography or Governmen t?[edit]

So, there seems to be some reverting going on over this issue. You guys wanna talk about it? Ujjal Dosanjh's biography comes before his political decisions. Is there a reason Gordon Campbell should be different? WikiMart? Mithridates? Anyone? -- TheMightyQuill 19:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right, many well-written articles have the biography details before current commentary of government policies and controversies. I reverted the changes by Mithridates because the juxtaposition of the mugshot directly below the formal photograph is a smear that violates NPOV. I don't object to it appearing in the article, because it was a significant life event, but its placement in the article made it prejudicial.

I think this whole article needs a major re-write anyway (for another day, not today). It's very skimpy on his earlier career and some of the minutae clearly come from policy wonks with a strong POV one way or another. User: WikiMart

Small-c Conservative.[edit]

Although he is leader of a nominally liberal party, Campbell is better identified as a small-c conservative.

This seems to be going back and forth as well. I realise it's kind of commentary, but I don't think it's POV to point out that the title of his party and its platform are not consistant. I'd be willing to bet Campbell wouldn't claim to be liberal, at least not on the Canadian scale. -- TheMightyQuill 08:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert one way, then to the other...[edit]

To what extent (if any) these tax cuts contributed to BC's considerable economic growth in the ensuing years has been subject to debate. Coinciding with the tax cuts, the Campbell government reduced government spending by reducing the staff complement in its ministries and by reducing or eliminating support for programs and services.

This is why I reverted it back. There is a POV problem with this whole line. What it was before is just fine. :: Colin Keigher 18:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

3rd photo[edit]

I prefer the strike photo over the confused-campbell snapshot. Although the strike photo obviously reflects a "negative" response towards the Premier, one has to note that his Premeiership has been marked by an overall negative response. From recieving the largest mandate in BC's history, to almost losing the following election. I think a "positive" photo is needed, but the "negative" photos should not be eliminated based on the idea that there should be a 50/50 split between "positive" and "negative" etc. Myciconia 00:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Myciconia it is clear from your comments that you do not understand the concept of NPOV, or that it also extends to context and graphics. Four photos is too much for this article, so looking for a picture of a ribbon-cutting and smiling children is ridiculous. Please stop trying to insert slanted context into encyclopedic articles. I am removing pic #3. WikiMart

Just to clarify, there is no Wikiedia policy about how many images are required to illustrate a subject. Four, eight or even 16 pictures would not be to much if they add to the quality of the article. -- No Guru 05:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I've read through the Neutral Point of View guidelines here, wikimart, have you? What I'm trying to do is illustrate the text within the article. NPOV is not about painting a 100% rosy picture half of the time. A strike photograph is prudent to this article, because under the Cambpell government the province has came close to a general strike on two occasions. There are many shades of grey here. The strike photo is NPOV in itself, there are other similar images with anti-Campbell slogans, etc. It doesn't spin the article to one viewpoint or the other, it just shows what happened. Thanks, Myciconia 06:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Myciconia, since your other illustrious contributions to Wiki include Cuba and North Korea, I understand clearly your POV. You underline your POV by justifying it by saying that there is "an overall negative response" to Campbel's premiership. Proof positive you have a political agenda that does not belong here. WikiMart

I have heard from others that my contributions are welcome! I am offended by your hostile insinuations about my personal beliefs, and will return when this page at a later date. You sir, are taking advantage of wikipedias openess to bully in your clearly biased agenda. Don't tell me I have an agenda, I actually attempt to gain consensus, and follow wikipedia policy to the letter. Your rewrite of this page grinds so far against wikipedia policy, it is almost funny. You actually believe weasel sentances such as the one stating -however BC's gigantic economic gain is not debated-, is approprite. I am not going to revert your edits, as I do not enjoy working with you. however I am confident they will not last for long. Farewell, Myciconia 03:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Myciconia, you're right I didn't adhere to Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy and I apologize. I've also reconsidered my view about the picture. Now that the article is reorganized I think it fits OK. So I put it back. Just call it my conversion on the road to Damascus. WikiM

Thanks, I'm going to try to reduce some of the new flowery language, and put a bigger scope on some selective examples. Myciconia 18:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Religion Catholic?[edit]

on the list of polition's religion he is a apperently a Catholic is this true?


So, aside from the maui mugshot, can annoying find a decent pic of our fearless leader for the article? Images of him accepting personal cheques from corporate lobbyists or strangling puppies are probably POV, so try to find something neutral. -- TheMightyQuill 00:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The vandals were quick, but wikimart was fast to respond. good work, wikimart. I think he looks like a schmuck in this photo, but i guess that can't be helped. - TheMightyQuill 05:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

New update[edit]

This article was badly in need of an update. Information on the changes made can be found below.

Change of biography photo – official photo should be used as with other political figures

Remove “well-off” – there is no citation as to the monetary value of the Campbell family.

Remove references to Charles Campbell beyond his suicide – there is no information in the citation to back up the claims made in this reference.

Added picture of the world Vancouver Public Library

Removed reference to program reductions under “Coinciding with the tax cuts…”. There was no reference provided as to the linkage to the tax cuts.

Changed “welfare reform” title to “Social Assistance Reform” to more accurately reflect the information contained there within.

Removed reference to HEU being singled out for reductions because of their linkages to the NDP. Many other public sector unions are also major donors to the NDP as well. There is also no citation to this reference.

Re-titled “Labour strife” to “Labour Relations”. Labour strife is certainly POV when looking at the overall picture.

Expanded on the HEU dispute to include more background information and make the note more comprehensive.

Changed title of “Personal controversy and political scandal” to “Personal Controversy and Political Issues”. The use of the term “scandal” is POV.

Changed title of “Tuition increases” to “Post Secondary Education” as it reflects other issues. Added more information about the tuition freeze being lifted, including a note about tuition now being indexed to inflation.

Added new sections to reflect other big issues during first and second term. i.e.; health care, education, economy, awarding of the 2010 Olympics, etc.

Moved content relating to economic challenges under new “Economy” heading.

Kept title for labour relations consistent with the first term and renamed it “Labour Relations”

Removed reference to “political polls” regarding the BCTF as no citation was given.

Added health care, economy, and first nations issues to second term.

(Lanny2005 01:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

I have removed this information as it had been removed in the past. There is no need for this non-NPOV items to be returned to the article when it has already been here in the past. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 01:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
See your talk page. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

These are NOT POV edits. See the discussion above. All this information is valid and backed up with citations. It is NEW content. If you have an issue with the content added, see the above points listed and tell me why they are not necessary.

(Lanny2005 01:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

Thanks Colin[edit]

Thank you Colin. I believe this update is more than reasonable and I appreciate your understanding. (Lanny2005 01:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

Excessive detail[edit]

This article is very long and contains a lot of information that has very little to do with Gordon Campbell. I suggest some major trimming is in order. 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Also see other articles about other Premiers like Joey Smallwood, Ralph Klein, Richard Hatfield, or Bill Vander Zalm an how the articles benefit from focusing on the important aspects of their life and not the minutiae of every bill that their governments introduced. 01:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Just to clarify my edits are now showing up as - Not sure why/how my IP changed 04:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article contains a lot about politics in BC that is not biographical about Gordon Campbell. Some of the material here should be moved to its own article or dropped. I suggest that it's time for an annual trim. --WikiMart (talk) 17:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What happened[edit]

Sorry for being blunt, But I think this article was MUCH better a few months ago. I've checked editing policy, and I think someone may have misinterpreted NPOV as writing everything from the point of view associated with the topic and frame everything else as criticism. I can see how that might make sense, but this is an encyclopedia before biography. What should be done is to cover the issues with facts and trust the readers intelligence.

Just to solidify my point I grabbed this liine out of the blue: "The Campbell government passed legislation in August 2001 claiming education as an “essential service”, intended to prevent labour disputes from keeping children out of the classroom" is a good example. "keeping children in the classroom" is how Campbell himself referred to it, but the teachers obviously saw the situation differently... so maybe that kind of language could best be avoided?

Also why did all the pictures go! The mugshot, at least, was fair use, it was given out by the police as the article states. -Brian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian887 (talkcontribs) 08:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC). \ I agree, this article has gone way down hill.


I see mention in the artice that Campbell was arrested for DUI. Wasn't he ultimately convicted? If so, should this be noted? pbryan 04:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Image removal[edit]

I removed the picture of Gordon Campbell racing at the soapbox derby. This might be proof that politicians should not be photographed wearing silly hats and doing childish things, but a pic like this is not encyclopedic, and doesn't pass the NPOV test -- especially when placed in the section on "controversies". WikiMart 20:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put this image there because of controversies. I put it there as it was the start of the section on his premiership. I don't see how this isn't encyclopedic. It's something he did to get involved in a community, and it shows a lighter side of a politician. -- Zanimum 22:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of presenting a lighter side of an up-tight politician-- what happened to the DUI photo?? Surely that's more newsworthy than Campbell go-karting.

Not longest serving premier[edit]

I deleted the assertion that Campbell is the longest serving premier in Canada as it is incorrect. Pat Binns (PEI) is the longest serving premier, followed by Gary Doer (Manitoba) and Lorne Calvert (Saskatchewan). -- 16:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Persons removing anything that reflect badly on Campbell[edit]

I notice that the issue of HEU, Campbell's government, an illegal strike and an enforced contract has been revisted many times. And it all just dissapeared.

I guess every single person who attempted it must have had problems with NPOV or citations or bias or partisan.

How odd.

How very odd that articles that I have tried to add were in fact once here but then just disapeared.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the Gordon Campbell page is now looking like a press release from his office. Imagine, his mugshot was removed. How was that not relevant? The Campbell page is obviously getting a good 'massage' from highly biased people. It seems so massaged it even seems to have gotten a 'happy ending'.

Miked789 19:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)miked789

possible problems[edit]

I want to point out a few possible problems with some specific sections or topics, esp pertaining to 'no citations':

no citation, npov: The system is still encountering strain and financial constraints, some say more than ever. And what is the point of the sentence anyways?

Healthcare The Campbell government inherited a health care system that was encountering strain and financial constraints upon assuming office.

No citation: It also has an issue that he campaigned on NO cuts to government workers, hospital workers, etc, in fact, when accused by the NDP of his going to have to make large cuts and layoffs, he fired back that the NDP was fear mongering:

[edit] Income tax reductions In 2001, Campbell campaigned on a promise to significantly reduce income taxes. A day after taking office, Campbell reduced personal income tax for all taxpayers by 25 per cent over two years. Cuts were applied to every tax bracket; the tax rate on the first $30,000 of income was cut by 2 points from 8.4% to 6.05%, while the top tax rate for income over $85,000 was cut by 5 points from 19.7% to 14.7%.

No citation:

Education While funding was increased to record levels during the Campbell government’s first term in office, challenges remained in K-12 education.

Again, no citation. Campbell might have been in favour, but it was started by the NDP, as many pundints are quick to point out when hospital closures are compared against the cost of new luge track.

2010 Olympics British Columbia won the right to host the 2010 Winter Olympics on July 2nd, 2003. This was a joint Winter Olympics bid by Vancouver and the ski resort of Whistler. [18]. Campbell, a main proponent of the bid to get the games, attended the final presentations in Prague, Czech Republic and made an impassioned plea for the games to come back to Canada for the first time since it was held in Calgary in 1988.

This is only a quick look. I would appreciate some feedback before changes are made. As I have pointed out earlier, a great deal of this article reads like a press release. If you compare this premier with any other, there will be a world of difference.

Perhaps it should be scaled back to the bare minimum bio, and everything else gets chucked into the appropriate spot.

Miked789 20:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)miked789

I'm fine with most of those removals generally. Although I think that the tax cuts and the Olympics are probably worthy of inclusion in some form or another. As for the mugshot, the issue came up about a year ago (see above). I supported inclusion then and I still do. I think the version that Colle included then is no longer around but I think that mugshots are good in terms of copyright so it shouldn't be a problem. --JGGardiner 05:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


While I agree that Campbell might have campaigned on tax cuts, he did not campaign on "big" tax cuts, and when the size was announced it was subject of controversy for that reason. He was accused of (to put it nicely) not being straight with the voters when he campaigned.

But again, I have to point out that there is no references or citations to Campbell's campaigning for tax decreases, big or otherwise.

Again, for this section there is no citation, and the "main proponent" is misleading when viewed with the context that the ball was started with the NDP. Since I have no desire to look for a citation, someone else should, or it should go.

Campbell, a main proponent of the bid to get the games, attended the final presentations in Prague, Czech Republic and made an impassioned plea for the games to come back to Canada for the first time since it was held in Calgary in 1988.

Miked789 18:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)miked789

Preventing Edit War[edit]

Hello. I'm a member of the Association of Members' Advocates who's been assigned to this topic on behalf of User:Miked789, in response to this request. Mike789 has asked for assistance in resolving this dispute. As an advocate I have no power at all, I can only provide assistance to the party requesting it. My hope is that we can identify criticism of Gordon Camplbell that the parties can agree is reliably sourced. It might be useful to begin by seeing if we can identify statements by critics of Mr. Campbell published in mainstream media etc. I ask all parties involved to remember our civility policy, to discuss the article here rather than on each other's user pages, and to refrain from discussing any matters except the article. I would also suggest that we identify and discuss criticism on this talk page first before putting it in the article, and that we avoid back-and-forth editing that could confuse readers. Wikipedia has a three revert rule designed to prevent this sort of back-and-forth. Best, --Shirahadasha 18:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Preventing an edit war and resolving a dispute are two different things. I don't edit war myself, having made only one edit to this article for example (since Mike's first). The best way to resolve that problem is for all editors to be aware of and adhere to WP:EW, It is also helpful to know WP:CIV and WP:EQ.
As for Mike's particular edits, I did have a problem with sourcing. Most of the sources (perhaps all) which I've seen were primary sources which are either interpreted or incorporated as fact into the main narrative. If one politician makes an allegation against another, it shouldn't be included in the article in that way. Most of my problem however is NPOV, particularily where it intersects with NOR and not ATT per se. I think the issue of weighting is one that is too easy to overlook in a political biography article. We have to remember that they are biographical articles and not critical commentaries. We can't inflate controversies beyond their real scope. Mike's said it directly in his request that the issues were not significantly mentioned within the mainstream media. I agree with him on that (although not completely). We can't rely on interested groups as reliable sources because none are available which are better.
Beyond that, I think it might be helpful for Mike to apologize to Wikimart for calling him a Nazi. I think that most experienced editors understand that many new users will find unfairness in the articles and do not always have good faith in other users, throwing around accusations of partisan motivations. However, I think that unfamiliarity is not an excuse for a lack of human decency. While I've been willing to look past that enough to carry on with Mike here, I'm not sure that I would if I were Wikimart. I'm the only one who responded to Mike's talk above. There can't be real discussion if all editors do not participate and think that for now it is easy for some to dismiss Mike as a troublesome SPA that does not deserve our serious attention. --JGGardiner 20:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm, since 95% of the BC media are liberal supporters (shown by the contributions), and for instance, Black publications were specificly told by the owner NOT TO RUN ANTI LIBERAL PEICES and they still haven't, many long years after the election, and since most people know who signs their paycheck, it's not difficult to understand why the general media does not carry anti-Campbell articles.

This is why Wikipedia's policy on citation is a joke. And why I had a reference (at the bottom) in one post somewhere to the infamous "I am a jelly doughnut" speech by JFK. Because it didn't happen, he never said it, but yet was carried by a large number of supposably professional papers. As many false stories are carried by the major media, and little of it fact checked. yet I cannot cite the source material in which an interview was published. The publication is subject to the same libel and slander laws as any other, and Campbell never said it didn't happen. Oh well. Never mind. I have a source from the Victoria Times Columnist. But I don't believe that the article will last more than a few hours. Because someone will cry "NPO, you can't possibly write that he said one thing then did another! It's like a letter to the editor!" Perhaps, but its also true.

These days very few media does fact checking, they just publish quotes of he said, she said. Look at fox.

I do have some sources, from reputable journalists, as I did earlier. But since everyone here feels that a negative article about Campbell is an anathema to reality, I am trying to word it just the right way. Lets face the fact though. I have put up well sourced articles, the main problem is that they show campbell as a liar. Isn't that the real problem?

Campbell promised not to sell BC Rail. Then he leased it out for 999 years. I can provide a good source. Tell me, what is the problem with that? It is factual. I am not even mentioning that he tried to keep the length of time a secret. This gets to the heart of what a person is, if they are true to their word. Campbell said before the election that he would not contract out healthcare workers. Then he did. In the end, this is what Mr Gardiner has a problem with. The straight out fact that Campbell said one thing, then did another.

In the meanwhile, I'll ignore the insults thrown at me by jggardiner and suggest these additions under his first term contraversy:

Campbell and his government was accused of having misled the people of British Columbia in his pre-election campaigning.[Times - Colonist. Victoria, B.C.: Jan 18, 2002. pg. A.1.FRO]

Protestors chant "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire" at demonstrations, incensed after Campbell's government breaks contracts and cuts wages.[Times - Colonist. Victoria, B.C.: Jan 31, 2002. pg. A.12]

Miked789 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)miked789



[edit] Health care The Campbell government launched the Conversation on Health, a province-wide consultation with British Columbians on their health care to lay the groundwork for improvements to the principles of the Canada Health Act that will be presented in the Fall of 2007 [28].

Is little more than propaganda. This might be what it is, but it is just as possible it is an attempt to further privitize the healthcare system.

The part: to lay the groundwork for improvements to the principles of the Canada Health Act that " should go.

Miked789 19:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)miked789

an article:[edit]

Broken promises cost the Liberals trust.

Campbell promised to respect union contracts. "I don't believe in ripping up agreements," he said in a pre-election interview the with Hospital Employees' Union newspaper. "I am not tearing up any agreements." Then he did.

He reassured voters that the Liberals had no plan for big tax cuts that would force cuts in services. "The only tax that we've talked about, for the upcoming election, is personal income tax for the bottom two brackets of the income scale," he said.

And then he cut all income taxes by 25 per cent, on their first day in office, a change that punched a $1.5-billion hole in revenue and handed the vast majority of the benefits to high-income British Columbians. [The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Dec 28, 2002. pg. A.22]

BTW, this directly contradicts the uncitated section ealier about Campbell campaigning on "big or substantial" tax cuts.

btw, I noticed that a number of earlier articles have been removed again. Although they were not what I hoped, they were critical of Campbell, and again, they are gone. What a surprise. Esp. since I am the only biased, partisan person here.

Miked789 19:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)miked789

I can understand why you feel that Wikipedia policy is a joke. Personally I think that it is a fair comprimise. Because Wikipedia is written by anonymous editors who do not, for the most part, have expertise in their subject areas, it requires a high burden of verifiability. This may make Wikipedia more conservative than some other sources but I think that allowing more marginal sources would make the project unworkable because of the nature of the editors. In any event, you can't violate policy because you don't agree with it. I'd suggest that you take it up at [[WP:ATT] or the village pump instead. If you need help working with the current policy, you only have to ask. Your advocate seemed willing to help you with that also.
I haven't looked at all of your edits but I can say that the one that the information that I removed was not well-sourced. There was a source which backed up those assertions but it was not a satisfactory source according to WP:RS. Although, like I said above, sourcing was not the primary problem that I was concerned with.
I think that the HEU issue and BC rail probably both deserve mention in the article. That's what I meant above when I said that I did not completely agree with you: I believe that there is sufficient media (and other) attention for inclusion of those areas. My problem was not the subject matter per se but rather the way in which the edits were structured, like I said above.
As for the "insults", I think that, however you want to characterize your comments to Wikimart, they were not appropriate. If you intend to come to some sort of resolution here, you are going to need to get all of the parties involved in discussion. I don't see how you are going to get Wikimart involved while you still think those comments were appropriate. I know that you're not happy with me but I'm the only who has been willing to talk to you. I'm not familiar with the advocacy system but I'd suggest that you talk these things over with Shira Hadasha. --JGGardiner 23:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I'm going to attempt to focus strictly on the article here and ask that the parties do the same. Miked789 (talk · contribs) has identified an article in the Vancouver Sun (p. A22, December 28, 2002) entitled "Broken promises cost the Liberals trust". Would you agree that the Vancouver Sun is a reliable source? The Wikipaedia article on it certainly suggests so. If this is an editorial it can be presented as such (and identified as an opinion). If there is no objection, Miked789 could add material from this article to an appropriate section of the article. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


Didn't Gordon Campbell gut healthcare in his first term in office? Leon Trotsky 13:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


I must point out that many pro-Liberal/Campbell articles on the page use government sources.

I use this article as an example:

[edit] Health care The Campbell government launched the Conversation on Health, a province-wide consultation with British Columbians on their health care to lay the groundwork for improvements to the principles of the Canada Health Act that will be presented in the Fall of 2007 [28].

This is an extremely biased article. This uses Campbell's own government press release. It talks about an event in the future as fact, and talks about the outcome as being "improvements". Please, tell me how we know the future? We don't even know if this government will be in power when it happens. It probably will be, but the point is WE DONT KNOW. Show me any reputable encyclopedia that tells the outcome of future events, based on future events, based on a government press release say so.

MY GOD! You say I'm biased and partisan, but the editors here allow the use of government press releases as citation material for an article on the premier of the same government? I just have to have a really good laugh over that.

I say again, it seems to me that there are two differant standards here, one for critical articles, and another for articles that pander to Campbells ego. Almost as if an editor was sitting in the premiers office. Or perhaps exactly that. I don't know, I can only see the results.

Another example: Tax Reductions In 2001, Campbell campaigned on a promise to significantly reduce income taxes to stimulate the economy. A day after taking office, Campbell reduced personal income tax for all taxpayers by 25 per cent.[2] Cuts were applied to every tax bracket. The government also introduced reductions in the corporate income tax, and eliminated the Corporation Capital Tax (a tax on job creation) for most taxpayers.

Again, the first sentence is not cited, and contradicted by a cited article of mine. Next, IMHO, it should be given the caveats of, he did this after saying he would only give a tax break to the bottom two levels. He used cuts to government and healthcare workers to get the money to pay for the tax cuts. Again, Campbell said he would not do it before the election. He said he wouldn't, then he did, just as it is cited in my articles.

BTW, just for the record: The Campbell government passed legislation in August 2001 declaring education as an “essential service”, intended to ensure children did not miss school by preventing teachers from being able to strike. [5].

Many people make the mistake of believing essential service legislation means that you can not strike. This is not true, and neither is the above statement. While the citation may say something that might make you believe that, it is in fact false. Healthcare workers have had the same legislation for many many years, yet they still strike. What it means is they must have a minimum number of people at work to cover duties that are considered essential. These are determined via hearings with the employer and the employees' representatives and the labour relations board. Very, very, very rarely does the LRB rule that workers are unable to strike in a legal strike. Usually the government must push through legislation that makes the strike illegal(back to work), or force contracts down the workers throat, much like the liberals did in order to get this current article:

AUSTERITY ... Although there were some labour unions that took job action over these contract positions, BC had the fewest number of worker-days lost due to strikes and lockouts in 30 years.

It's easy to get the lowest number of strikes and lockouts when you pass legislation banning strikes. Most people don't want to go to jail. Or by forcing contracts on the workers. This is something done in third world countries, and I recall quotes in major newspapers to that effect at the time. Eventually, I'll get around to looking for those articles as well.

The question comes to why? For exactly the reasons stated earlier by Gardiner. for balance. The Campbell page is not balanced. It is getting better.

Miked789 17:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)miked789

I'd like to agree with miked789 here, there is NO INFORMATION on the NEGATIVE POINTS to Campbell whatsoever! It talks about decreased this, this and that being good, having least strikes... But it DOESN'T TALK ABOUT THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BALANCE! How does he do all this? HUH?? State that in the article! It doesn't talk about any controversies of his and his government what so ever! It says a little about his drunk driving, but nothing of the issues he created in BC!!! Sorry for having this little comment so unorganized, I am very passionate about the freedom and accuracy and full-scope of information, and even more about Campbell.

Praisejebus (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DUI photo[edit]

After all this talk, what happened in the end to the Campbell DUI photo? The only acceptable reason for not including it here that I can conceive of is a problem with copyright issues. The photo made the front page of every national newspaper and is probably one of the things for which Campbell is most remembered outside B.C. --Saforrest 00:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I found it again. It's kind of a crappy photo, but it is public domain. I agree with the arguments above that the one where he's smiling slightly ought to be the photo used, since that's the one that was so widely circulated. But this will do for now. --Saforrest 00:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I had noticed that the original image seems to have been deleted. I doni't know why. I thought that American "mugshots" were fine as far as copyright is concerned so I don't know what the issue was. Thanks for adding that back. Although if you do have the one of Campbell "smirking" it might be better because that one attracted the most attention and Campbell felt compelled to comment on it specifically. Thanks again. --JGGardiner 02:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

busy busy busy[edit]

I see some people have been very busy. Deleted the entire first term controversy and almost every (probably hasn't gotten around to it) negative article on Campbell. This time, because it's supposed to be a bio.

Hmmm, seems there is lots in there that should be removed because it's supposed to be a bio, and not just the material that reflexs poorly on campbell.

The bias in the editing on the page is so obvious it is sad.

I guess it's not just the citation policy that is a joke, but wikipedia itself, when editors let their personal views affect how they edit.

Miked789 22:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)miked789

Danger! Danger Will Robinson![edit]

Danger! Danger Will Robinson!

The liberal supporters have been busy destroying truth every chance they get!

Danger! Danger! Look out for Liberal supporters posing as editors! Danger!

Tanton17 23:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Large scale removals[edit]

This edit removed a lot of content without any explanation. There wasn't even an edit summary. I reverted. Editors looking after this page, please have a look.

Thanks,-xC- 09:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, pressed enter too fast. Will redo--WikiMart (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok then. Happy editing,-xC- 09:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Campaign ads back in 2005[edit]

Okay, when the BC Liberal party advertised itself on television, its "de facto" focus was mostly the economy. In fact, all provincewide negative ads launched by anybody against the BC NDP were about the economy. There was only one pro-Liberal ad involving hospitals, and only one involving everything. All others were the economy. I know that some of this is already on the article itself, but that is not liberalism. There needs to be a slightly more capitalist ideology to describe them. However, if we say they hold any conservative ideology, we need an expert to confirm that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gordon campbell arrested dui.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Gordon campbell arrested dui.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 ensure 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) 23:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gordon campbell arrested dui.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Gordon campbell arrested dui.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 ensure 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) 06:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an election brochure[edit]

I'm very concerned about the long roster of "Campbell's achievements" in the 1st and 2nd term sections and throughout the article; this is reading like a re-election brochure. Trims of the promotional content on all issues should be considered/gone forward with. There is no balance to this article if only Campbell's "resume" is posted, and not the many critiques of him and his policies which are staple fare in BC. This page needs a POV watch, big-time....especially as the election gets closer.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

An example of the im-balance is the complete lack of mention of the British Columbia legislature raids scandal and the various resignations and connections-to-Campbell that exist within its context. Also TILMA (if you don't know what TILMA is, google that with BC and Alberta...). Sale of public assets to outside companies, e..g the sale of MSPBC records-keeping to a company in the US south, the sale/management of various BC Hydro to Accenture etc etc.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see most of the information that relates to policy moved to a seperate article or just deleted. Most of it is not biographical. -- No Guru (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Political biographies inhnerently must have content on the guy's politics, or ele there's no point to the bio and it's just "he was born, he went to school, he got married and had kids, he was Premier, then he quite/was fired, and then he died". "I don't want to read about issues" strikes me as the comment of someone, if you'll forgive me, who doesn't understand politics .... or politicians..... a political bio has to have issues, policies, scandals, the whole schmeer, otherwise ther's no point in them t all. The trick is making that coverage NPOV, while still presenting all the evidence and not "balancing" it with "spin"...or fluff. What *I* would like to see less of in political bios is all the listings of accolades, conferences adnd courses they were in, connections they ahve etc etc etc; what matters is their politics, not their hob-nobbery.... .Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Knock yourself out, chief, but don't pretend I wrote "I don't want to read about issues" because I didn't. And then don't use that phony statment as "evidence" that I don't understand politics or politicians. There is way too much info on (trivial) policy in this article. If you see it otherwise, fine. No Guru (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

BC Legislature Raids and BC Rail[edit]

There's no mention yet of the Sale of BC Rail, which Campbell had explicitly promised not to sell, or of the BC Legislature Raids case. Nothing at all. What there is/was....lots of feel-good stuff about teh Premier talking to the media in Torino and Bejing (somehting he avoids doing at home) and why the Olympic torch lighting in Beijing was signficant "because the next one will be in Vancouver". Yaaaaawn. All three of those items were from Press Releases from the Premier's Office.....there's no mention of David Basi at all, curiously enough...I'll be back with explicit citations, but this article is still heavily POV and needs major group attention; so much has been left out, and so much fluff is in it, it makes the Stephen Harper series of articles look as NPOV as an auto parts catalogue....Skookum1 (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Job creation"[edit]

The "economy" section in the 2nd term is clearly advertising material, and is misleading:

430,000 new jobs have been created in B.C. since December 2001,[55] the best job creation record in Canada. In 2007, the economy has created 70,800 more jobs, almost all full time positions.[56] By Spring 2007, unemployment had fallen to 4.0% -- the lowest rate in 30 years. Current unemployment rates sit at 4.5%.[57]

This is POV copy simply by dint of not naming all the factors involved in so-called job "creation". BC's economic circumstances are dictated by world commodities markets; governments like to claim responsbility for them, as if they had "created" those jobs; really they are just a result of the ebb and flow of currency and commodity markets. That many of these jobs were lower-paying "McJobs", or that real wages have not risen in comparison to cost of living, is entirely omitted. IMO this section, and others here, are "false claims" and are associated unnecessarily with the Premier's record. This page needs one big POV wash, with some bleach.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

P.R. Bloat/POV[edit]

As with the endless series of Stephen Harper glad-hand pieces, this article has a lot of unnecessary p.r. fluff in it. Do we really need to know that it was when he was working in Topley's Landing that he got admitted to Dartmouth? Or would we rather hear about the premier's relationship with Patrick Kinsella? This article needs a lot of the dross installed by his fans/p.r. consultants dumped entire, and more material added on the growing mountain of scandal and ineptitude which have come to be the main legacy of his regime. I've also noted in the edit comments that there are two (count 'em, two) sections entitled "First Nations" and extolling the premier's oh-so-earnest but unsubstantial p.r. campaigns to paint himself as the Great White Knight.....the section on BC150 was about a photo-op, now over, and without consequence; it's not like it was Expo friggin' 86 (also a photo-op, just more notable and a good deal larger). On all political leader pages there should be a big boilerplate WP:AUTO/WP:COI notice at the top of the talkpage; not that it will be paid attention to by professional "communications consultants" (paid from the public purse, no less, via whatever sideways-bookkeeping). This article needs more NPOV by way of introduction of all the stuff this article avoids, and the deletion of all the trivial crap about his struggling youth....there's more time spent on Biafra in this article than on Railgate, which is ludicrous.Skookum1 (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal agenda/deception[edit]

yes, my edit was indeed POV; so is presenting all this alleged progress on native claims when in fact none has been made; negotiations are also plentiful that were not resumed and/or never even started. A great deal of mistrust remains. Insinuations abound that the new aboriginal agenda is a smokescreen designed to get resources sold off by embracing aboriginal title, simply so it can be signed away; latest coverage in the Tyee and other non-Canwest columns about this. The aboriginal sections (plural) here remain soft-soaping and as logn as only the Campbellite line is being presetned, rather than critiques from the Opposition, the press,a nd repsonses from the First Nations themselves, this is just more puff-n-stuff. This is not a public-relations page for the Campbell government, leastways it's not supposed to, despite efforst by IP users to try and keep it that way....Skookum1 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, for a moment there I almost thought you were failing to assume good faith. I was just driving through (and fixing 21 duplicate references on the article) and saw your last edit which was nonconstructive, baiting and unsourced. But, thankfully, you we around to notice my "agenda" in deleting the text "but have gotten nowhere".
Science be praised. (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Also note that your usage of the term "gotten" is incorrect. (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
"does not actually exist in English" is nonsense unless UK prejudices towards American vernacular are taken at more important value than English-as-she-is-spoke. And yes, as already noted, I was adding a straightforward POV jab at what the paragraph clearly was leaving unsaid; that the treaty negotiation process has very little meaning, most negotiations are stalled or stalemated. The section was a glad-hand of the Liberal p.r. campaign on aboriginal reconcililation and had no real context, only p.r. emptiness. A previous edit of mine which was less POV was quickly taken out, as it reminded the reader that these treaty negotiations have had very little impact and raised the point that many FNs have not taken part in the process, or have pulled out of it. I did so in the vernacular, and don't need an IPer to tell me either how to use English or what's an agenda and what's not. You're clearly quite happy with saying nothing about critics of the Liberal "aboriginal reconciliation" agenda; I at least admit to my POV...don't be so disingenuous about your own. "I resent that...." etc is tiresome; if you're not pro-Campbell POV then do something about the clearly pro-Campbell-aborignal-policy of the current section and de-=POVize. My one-shot addition was meant to highly the pungent stifling p.r.-ness of the material that preceded it; it would ahve been removed by some editor, but the point remains; you could have simply corrected the English or found an NPOV way to put what was clearly the point. Instead you just deleted it. Case closed.Skookum1 (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm disinterested in this conversation already. I live in the United States, and I couldn't care less about your political process, so consider getting over yourself and your conspiracy.
I deleted something that added no value to the article, was POV, and removing that cruft was better than leaving it in because I wasn't going to do your job for you, ie finding legitimate sources to back up your claims.
"if you're not pro-Campbell POV then do something about the clearly pro-Campbell-aborignal-policy of the current section and de-=POVize." Throw your own garbage away if you are so concerned about the smell.
"My one-shot addition was meant to highly the pungent stifling p.r.-ness of the material that preceded it" You don't belong on Wikipedia if you're going to vandalize articles to prove a point.
Have a good day. (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

First term "Austerity" section[edit]

All items here are true - except that there's an notable absence of information on corporate largesse adn sweetheart dealing in the same period; "Austerity" in right-wing/neo-con speak always means attacking social programs, and going after your predecessor's mistakes. The Fast Ferries were sold to the Washington Marine Group for a tiny fraction of their market value, never mind their construction costs; I added that bit in as NPOV fashion as possible, cites for that information abound, I don't ahve time to look for them, it's a well-known gaffe by this administration....Skookum1 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"Privatization" section needed[edit]

Privatization and PPPs (public-private partnerships) are a major hallmark of this government's track record, yet there's hardly anything here on them, likewise the outsourcing of some government operations such as MSP records-keeping and revenue services and other sub-ministerial divisions. One of Campbell's highest-profile campaign promises was "we will not sell BC Rail", another was "we will not sell BC Hydro". Since then, BC Rail has been sold to the CNR, with that bidding process wholly and irredeemably tainted with the recent revelations that the CPR, OmniTRAX and Burlington Northern Santa Fe all withdrew from the bidding because of unfair practices by the goverment and its broker, ScotiaBank. BC Hydro continues operating its power installatsion, but its accounting and certain management divisions were sold to Accenture, while all enw hydro construction is being channelled through outside, usually non-Canadian, companies. BC Ferries is now still technically owned by BC, but its operations are contracted out to a private company. It's interesting that there was nothing here on any of this, but there was a nice little section on the Premier cutting a birthday cake on the Ledge's lawn for BC 150. Iv'e got some links somewhere on the promise not to sell BC Rail, and lots on the sale itself; but this is the kind of absence-of-information that makes this article so noxiously a glad-hand of the Campbell regime and very much an election brochure. Other less high-profile privatization/PPPs - the sell-off of the profitable end of govenrment, while keeping hte money-losing ends, is a hallmark of this government's "economic policy".Skookum1 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

POV on 2001 Tax Reduction[edit]

Well, since somebody doesn't like me pointing out the POV nature of half-provided truths, the "Tax Reductions" poli-spam paragraph needs some balancing with actual dollar values and also criticisms from the media and from the Opposition:

In 2001, Campbell campaigned on a promise to significantly reduce income taxes to stimulate the economy. A day after taking office, Campbell reduced personal income tax for all taxpayers by 25 per cent.[1] Cuts were applied to every tax bracket. The government also introduced reductions in the corporate income tax, and eliminated the Corporation Capital Tax.

This paragraph is largely meaningless as anything but p.r. boasting about Campbell as a tax reducer without $$ evaluation in cost to the public treasury/savings to the public, and also material on how much money was also given to corporations directly at the same time. This paragraph is typical of the half-information that too much of this article provides, very much a sales brochure; and reading the earlier discussion in the talkpage above it's clear taht various people have "washed" the article of uncomfortable materials and issues before; it likely needs a "semi-protect" at leat on it, especially with the election campaign coming up. It should also be noted that during that campaign if this reads too much like advertising for (or against) Campbell and his government it may come under interdict because of the anti-third-party advertising/editorializing, which could result in Wikipedia as a whole being blocked, though such extreme measures have never (yet) been taken by the BC Elections commissioner. it's in the interests of the Wikipedia community that this article cover all sides of Campbell's political history so that this article is not any form of advertising or "controlled information".....because any such page coudl violate BC elections law.....of course if such edits are made from another jurisdiction they may escape Canadian long as they're not in Canada and maybe somewhere else like, say, Minnesota or California or interesting issue; BC Elections law is decidedly undemocratic in nature because of these new third-party rules - another policy of the Campbell government yet to be seen in this article (so far)......Skookum1 (talk) 22:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing and one-sided material/presentation[edit]

So much of this reads like p.r. copy it's really quite nauseating, especially when you consider the amount of government rhetoric, as in the "Austerity" section, has no criticisms of teh same statements/policies from the Opposition or the media. In relation to the Austerity section, it's notable that there's no mention of Campbell's major expansion of the cabinet, which drastically increased the salary budget for Liberal MLAs (and gave a lot of them considerably larger paycheques than they would have had as simple backbenchers). This was big news at the time, and potraryed (rightly) as contrary to the widely-touted "austerity" agenda. At a later time, there was also huge controversy about the government's huge salary increase for MLAs, which was then rolled back in response to public outcry and, once that was done, understood as a political smokescreen to detract frrom mounting criticisms of the government on other issues (notably the BC Legislature Raids trial). Also blatantly missing from the article is the mean-spirited (as the media called it) refusal to recognize the remaining two NDP members as the Official Opposition, meaning that Joy MacPhail not only didn't get the Leader of the Opposition's proper paycheque and office space, but was also unconstitutional (but like so much else that's unconstitutinoal in this country, "gotten away with" because of "convention", which means things become constitutional once the government abrogates tradition to do them). It also limited the Opposition's rightful place ont he parliamentary schedule, i.e. less speech time, no question period etc. All this occurred to me when I noticed the p.r.-ish presentation of the Tsawwassen, Maa-Nulth and Lhedli Tenneh treaties, which were all rejected by band members but whichever p.r. shill put that material in there only wanted to promote Campbell's work with antives as a good thing, instead of as a complete flop, which is the real case. More recent and complex material like the unfolding drama re Kinsella and the Premier's meeting with the boss of CN during the bidding process or the mounting criticisms of the Aboriginal REconciliation Act and the failure of various public private partnerships are all understandably (for now) absnet by dint of being too much too keep up with. For now. Insulting edits from US based media consulting firms have not been helpful, either. this article is a p.r. magnum opus and needs major updating; but even without that it needs back-dating - a lot of historical content here is only portrayed in the fashion that the government's/Premier's spin doctors want to have it portrayed as; the info on the BCTF negotiations for exampel is extremely one-sided and full of government rhetoric. All very nauseating; even the Stephen Harper article has more balance, and THAT is saying something......I know I know "So fix it" but it's not a one-man job. Nor a part-time job, this article needs a copule of weeks of full-time revision/expansion/NPOV-izing. Especially given the upcoming election and the mountain questions and criminal allegations concerning the Sale of BC Rail and teh Premier's apparent failure to observe due the next while I"ll be updating the BC Legislature Raids article, which needs it badly ;this one needs more attention as to legislative history and more input from opposition and media-critiques, it can't continue to be a p.r. piece as it is right now.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

First Term Environment section[edit]

And presuambly also re the Second Term Envirnoment section - Campbell has come under fire for his party's close ties to the foreign-owned fish farm industry and has overseen the expansion of that sector despite opposition from fishermen, native groups and environmental scientists. The sell-off of the province's untapped hydroelectric potential to GE/Plutonic is another area of environmental criticism. The buy-out of Tsawwassen houses due to health concerns form overhead high-tension powerlines is another envirnomental issues that is not addressed in this so-far-fluff-piece. Also the re-designation fo some provincial parks to protected area, and the opening up of parklands to resource extraction...."and and and and". the Gateway strategy, likewise, is criticized on envirnomental grounds for contributing to single-user vehicle traffic and also to regional air quality, pressure on farmland/greenspace etc etc. This article needs so much work it's ridiculous; if these sections are here at all, they can't only advance what Campbell's p.r. people want to focus on, they have to address the full range of each item mentioned; the article already as a POV tag but even so it's like "sect-POV" should be on nearly every subsection until some kind of balance is provided in terms of the issues that are so far avoided (and which apparenlty have been previously deleted).Skookum1 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Gold Dragon's 2RR deletes/censorship[edit]

Gold Dragon has so far twice reverted (2RR) material I added to replace other material which had been previously censored/deleted on the circumstance of Campbell's refusal to recognize an Official Opposition and its Leader at the onset of his first term. Gold Dragon's record of pro-Tory diessembling edits at the 2008 Canadian constitutional dispute article is fairly well-established. His claim that I am making this page "a forum for POV rants" is pretty comical, considering so many of his edits are so clearly POV in anture, or at best dissembling around the facts, rather than speaking to them. The only reason my posts are so present on this talkpage is because there was so much missing from this article (and still is) and because of its earlier edit history (long before I came along) where a lot of material was dumped by SPAs and IP users and replaced by press-kit type sop (such as the romantic story of Gord & Nancy toughing it out in Topley) while the policies and issues area only had the Liberal Party line. Bringing balance, or raising issues/content that will bring NPOV/balance, is not "POV ranting", it's dealing with the facts instead of trying to cover them up, or delete them. There is, or was, clear evidence on this page of activity from public relations-type presskit-writers and there was a LOT of dross. Campbell is controversial and his policies are "big politics". Pretending that they can't be brought up because that would be POV is just nonsense. The facts of his keeping the NDP opposition from having a budget or speaking time are well-established; Gold Dragon's deletion of that speaks to a POV agenda. Me, my agenda is TRUTH (and I can be just as critical of NDP articles). A Wikipedia bio article of any kind should not be a press kit, much elss so if it's a politician it's about. Asking a political bio be only about education and family life and list a politicians' own policies without giving room to his critics or allowing any criticism is a logic worthy of a totalitarian state, not of a supposed democracy. Reviews of a politicians' actions and statements are also fair game; granted for the moment I can't cite the two items in the following bit, which I excerpted to try and prevent a reversion war (for now) ,but they DO exist and will eventually be found:

His move was seen by many political observers as between mean-spirited and un-qgracious.

That was, as I recall, "ungracious in victory", unless the correct term is "ingracious". Other terms commonly heard about this and other similar high-handedness are "arrogant" and "dishonest".....all fair game with politicians, of any stripe (so long as cited). Deletions/censorship, however, are not citable. A previous deletion of this material claimed that because the constitutional issue wasn't in the Constitution Act of 1897 was entirely specious; that's not hte constitution, and the constitution isn't only written documents; "convention" can include politicians just doing whatever they please, thereby establishing a precedent; that's what was done here, but the long-standing convention was that a formal position of Leader of the Opposition is required, which is why the Premier of New Brunswick at one point actually went to appoint someone from the general public, just so there would be one and not raise the constitutional issue at stake. Gold Dragon's pretense that this was only about official party status is disingenuous; and that particular policy is not constitutional either, it was created by the Socreds to keep small parties from forming....Skookum1 (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Skookum1's POV edits and abuse of the talkpage[edit]

I don't have confidence in Skookum1's edits yet, among many things, one is due to his extensive use of weasle words and opinions (fragments such as "ungracious in victory" are better left in the sandbox). If it wasn't me, then any other sensible editor would have reverted Skookum1's changes to the article. Furthermore, many editors have complained that Skookum1 has abused the talkpage ([User_talk:Skookum1/Archive_8#Talk_page_guidelines], [User_talk:Skookum1/Archive_8#A_few_notes], [30]), using it to vent opinions and make personal attacks, rather than really adding constructive material and improving the article. GoldDragon (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I worded the post 2001 election as "maintaining the status quo" since the government does not have an oligation to make exceptions to an opposition party that is under the legislature threshold. There are plenty of examples, such as the Liberals deciding not to give an exception to the NDP and PC parties after the 1993 federal election, the Liberals turning down official status for the NDP after the 2003 Ontario election. One could have a whole debate over Frank McKenna's successfuly 1987 sweep of the New Brunswick legislature as well. In all of these cases, the opposition parties did regain official status by the next general election. GoldDragon (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL talk about weasel words. The issue with the Official Opposition was NOT whether or not the NDP had official party status. It was the status of the Official Opposition as called for by tradition/constitution, which is an entirely different issue (though not unrelated). But this is tpyical of my experience of you from the constitutional dispute fracas; changing the terms of a point so you can jnustify some complete equivocation of same. Even before there were political parties in the BC Legislature there had to be a Leader of the Opposition, AND an official Opposition - even though they were composed of independent members (the LoO was chosen by the non-government members). This is not the same as official party status (which does nice things like the 75% donation credit/kick-back), it's about the Office of teh Leader of teh Opposition, which has grater salary than a mere MLA and also rights to office space. Remember, this applied also BEFORE there were official parties in the House. Why should it be different in 2001? Because the BC Liberals didn't give a hoot for tradition or even the constitution, and like yourself equivocated about official party status when the meaning of "Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" is an entirely different thing. "Ungracious in victory" occurred in print as did other worse condemnations; even in CanWest papers/columns but yeah, mostly in places like the Straight and Monday and other publications not vetted by Liberal Party-backing can it with your hypocritical "weasel words" allegations and face up to the fact that TRUTH IS NOT POV. Wording maybe, but actual TRUTH is not subject to "balance".....your complaint that I'm turning this talkpage into something you don't like; have a look in the edit history, and go back and see all the one-sided edits and censorship that came before me. What I've done is added actual events/policies/items from his political career, not just allowed this page to be a soft-soap press release from the Public Affairs Bureau. It read like a Liberal campaign brochure, which it shouldn't. If you have material to contribute to thet page, by all means do so; but stop complaining if someone else adds FACTS which don't fit your own political preferences; yes, I've deleted material, like padding about childhood employment and feel-good stuff which has nothing to do with an actual bio. But rather than delete/censor as is your wont, I add material to balance b.s. and POV/soapbox content. If it's material that puts your political nose out of joint, the truth hurts don't it?Skookum1 (talk) 21:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, first off, both of you need to stop edit warring on the article itself. There is no need for either of you to be blocked over it. Second, Skookum, you need to stop the bad faith assumptions. Just because an editor disagrees with your preferred version does not mean they are censoring you. Third, if statements like "ungratious in victory" appear in print CITE it. At best, such comments are a mild WP:BLP violation if they aren't supported, and yes, should be challenged and removed until citations supporting the claims are added.
From what I gather after a quick look, if denying the NDP official opposition status was that big a deal, then keep it, but cite it. The statement on the BCHRT being less powerful, and more government controled than its predecessor also requires a citation, as the link to the BCHRT's home page isn't nearly good enough. Statements like "the government claimed in the legislature..." are definitely weasely, and are designed to make the reader question the claims. If you believe the claim (in this case, cited) is not accurate, then find a countering report, it is not your job to nudge the reader in a certain direction. Resolute 23:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The cite for that, when I looked at it anyway, unless I went to the wrong cite, was simply for a certain day in Hansard when this was discussed and as you know, Hansard's a huge document even on a day-to-day basis and does not have page numbers. Speeches made in the legislature (by either side) are notoriously misleading and often distorted and are often put-to by actual facts; in other words, a politicians' claim that this was teh case does not mean that it was. BC has a long and contorted labour history and a statement like "the fewest days lost to job actions" or whatever the wording is can be contrived very pointillistically and are also along the lines of arbitrarily-dated trivia. Pointing to a period when there was labour peace in BC is very hard thing to do; if anything, a cite from a labour studies institute or thesis on the subject would be more viable, if it's out there (and not one from the Fraser Insitute, who are by definition POV and closely tied to the governing party). Rolling back the clock 30 years I remember the labour strife of the '70s fairly well, so exactly what back-date is being referred to is very vague at best. Labour peace in the '70s? Maybe in the first few months of the Miniwac regime, when there was nothing immediately at hand (the unions had helped to take down Barrett, for one thing, and ironically enough). Exactly what does that "in 30 years" refer to anyway? A week or two when there weren't strikes or lockouts or threats of same? This is why it's trivia; it's an unspecific stat that is effectively a boast, and not a very verifiable one given the source - Hansard - all that can be said about anything in Hansard is that it was something said in the legislature; it's not the stat itself. As for the BCHRC/BCHRT thing that's pretty well-known; it's not like the Tribunal was suddenly endowed with more powers, or more budget, by a government/party known to be hostile to its existence....Skookum1 (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
As the BCHRC/BCHRT assertion is a controversial claim, there must be a cited source, otherwise it would be removed since we are following WP:BLP. GoldDragon (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
That's total bullshit, especially because I know you know it's true and citable. The reason it's bullshit is that this has nothing to do with Campbell as a person, it has to do with his government's policy, and that is not covered by the anti-libel restrictions of WP:BLP. REMOVED PERSONAL ATTACKS GoldDragon (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Skookum1 (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Citeable is not the same as cited. That said, since the statement does not apply to an individual but rather to the powers of the tribunal, I'm not willing to allow WP:BLP to serve as a shield in the case of this specific statement. Enough with the edit warring. Resolute 21:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material should be enforced first. Other editors have a zero-tolerance policy for uncited information. If this is getting into edit warring, have another editor remove it, even if it means reverting. GoldDragon (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Gold Dragon's false claim of "vandalism"[edit]

In this edit, Gold Dragon claimed that my reversion of his POV/censorship deletion was "vandalism". REMOVED PERSONAL ATTACKS GoldDragon (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Skookum1 (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it is no worse than your accusations of censorship. As I have suggested to both of you on your talk pages, taking a step back from this dispute would be ideal. You're both guilty of edit warring, and you're both making bad faith accusations. So rather than arguing over who has the moral high ground here, please discuss how to resolve the issue, or file a request for comment to gain more opinions and hopefully build a consensus. The next step, if this edit warring does not stop, is to begin handing out blocks. Resolute 21:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

New section on HST controversy[edit]

I've added a fairly brief, and hopefully neutral section on the HST controversy. I would appreciate help in finding both a) a source detailing Campbell's pre-election promise to the restaurant industry not to adopt the HST; and b) a recent source reaffirming the Liberals' commitment to the HST. In addition, I would appreciate any comments or additions you may have. Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Probably something on, which contains Bill's columns in 24 Hours and The Tyee etc. which may have that info.Skookum1 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I know Tieleman is an established journalist/editorialist, but how admissible is a blogspot link? Throwaway85 (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

POV/COI p.r.-washing[edit]

It's pretty clear that since my last visit that someone has been p.r. washing this article, despite additions such as the new HST section. Someone took off the and peacock templates, which I've re-placed today, plus adding the COI template. As for other political bios, this one is in constant need of updating - and watching for interference from AUTO/COI-type edits. If someone has CHECKUSER rights, please check the IP addresses in recent edits; if any are from the BC Legislature Buildings, they can be considered COI/AUTO activity....paid for by the BC taxpayer no less..Skookum1 (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC) Unfortunately, as i just found out with the vandal whose IP resolves to parliament, the BC government provides hosting for all public institutions. The below IP resolved to the Delta School District.

Nonetheless, it's worthwhile to send the IPs in to their security investigations department, at Throwaway85 (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you don't need CU priveledges to check an ip user. Just do a whois search on them. You only need CU for registered editors, and even then, you only need it if you don't feel like doing some digging. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Low Approval Rating[edit]

Wikipedia isn't the place to dump poll numbers (which are always changing anyways.) (talk) 01:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


"The B.C. Liberal leader's disapproval rating is the worst out of the nine provincial premiers included in an on-line survey conducted late last month by Angus Reid Strategies. [35]"

This is at the top of the Third Term section. It may be verifiable, but it seems put there just to slant the entire section... seems kinda ridiculous. Any thoughts? (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's ridiculous he's even still in office; those are the lowest ratings in Canadian history and "they're a fact" (and have gotten worse).Skookum1 (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Bilderberg 2010 attendance[edit]

Here is the info erased by user Dougweller from the "Bilderberg 2010 attendance" section with the excuse that it is a "conspiracy theory". I restored the information, and also put it here, maybe you can explain what about the information is a "conspiracy theory"? I think you are referring to the referenced comments from Michael Byers, professor of international law? Dougweller are you saying that a BC professor of international law's comments on the premier of BC's attendance at a secretive international meeting are inappropriate for the article? If so I think you are in the minority and should state your case here well before you consider editing or removing that section.

here is the information I re-added: Gordon Campbell was invited to and attended the Bilderberg Group's 2010 meeting in Sitges, Spain on June 3-7, 2010. He attended the meeting in an official capacity as the premier of BC, and thus his trip to this private meeting was paid for by the people of BC.[2] However the specific details of what was discussed at this international meeting of global elites remain secret.[3] Michael Byers, a UBC professor of international law, says the fact that the premier of BC is attending secret meetings with the power brokers of global capitalism is a cause for concern for more than just conspiracy theorists. Byers also draws what he calls a particularly disturbing parallel with the H2O (miniseries) a 2004 CBC political drama miniseries in which a conspiracy is uncovered that threatens Canada's existence.[4]

cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Does anyone have any input regarding the weasel words and POV claims for the Bilderberg section? I'll remove the tags in a week or so if no-one has any objections cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


Campbell announced he WILL resign when the party elects a new leader [5]. The Canadian Constitution mandates the Lt-Gov to ensure a Premier is always in place and hence the office cannot be vacated, which would otherwise trigger a constitutional crisis.--Cahk (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's b.s. The Deputy Premier or another member of caucus would become Premier, it's pretty simple.Skookum1 (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Host of govt sources here are all POV/COI[edit]

Just going through various sections and seeing press releases from and various ministry press releases; all controlled by the Premier and his Deputy Chief of Staff via the Public Affairs Bureau, a politically-controlled press agency with 223 staffers and a $31 million budget. That the sections in question are full of happy-sounding "improvements" and not a few distorted facts, and even more omissions of relevant political context, lead me to suggest that all these sections be deleted as being COI in origin unless third-party sources and less promotional-type information is introduced to balance them out. Government press releases are not disingenuous; nor is the role of teh Public Affairs Bureau (the said news agency) in producing them for partisan purposes (using taxpayer dollars). News releases from not just a government, but a particular government office, directly controlled by the Premier and his staff, are NOT reliable sources except in teh context of "says the government"; they should not be presented as if fact, and are definitely COI, all of them.Skookum1 (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't disupute the points you make, but I've removed the {primary souces} tag. The tag reads "It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications", but there are oodles of reliable third party sources in here. This issue is better covered by the neutrality tag or by tagging the sources individually. Hairhorn (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Primary topic. Page views: Canadian politician 2,993, Naval officer 206, Scottish politician 169. Marcus Qwertyus 18:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Support, I think it's as clear cut as that. 117Avenue (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Gordon Campbell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^ British Columbia's Gordon Campbell says his attendence at this year's Bilderberg conference was considered official business and taxpayers paid for it as such
  3. ^ Campbell's Bilderberg adventure remains mysterious
  4. ^
  5. ^ BREAKING: Premier to step down, says it's time for a new person to lead B.C.