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.
As I mentioned in the edit summary, "caucus" is usually specific to a party, the Tories have their BC Caucus, the NDP has theirs, etc. Simple Google web and news searches produce references to the Tory BC Caucus and the Liberal BC Caucus and so on, but nothing about an all-party caucus. While it might be technically correct to refer to this group collectively as the "BC Caucus", i don't in fact see it being used that way . Hairhorn (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Then you haven't been around politics that long. It's still in use by major media and by political analysts, and it has cousins as in the Alberta caucus, the Ontario caucus etc. and of course there's also "the BC caucus of the NDP" etc. Tehre is no formal organization of it, though at times I believe there have been occasions when they've collectively met; which certainly was the case with the original caucus in 1871 but also applies within modern politics. "Caucus" is not limited to by-poitical-party groupings alone, the whole notion of a provincial caucus is shared matters of provincial concern, which are often bipartisan or non-partisan, calling for regional/provincial solidarity. Do I have to go to the bother of finding specific press citations for this or are you brave enough t5o take my word for it?Skookum1 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
And I note your use of "usually", indicating you at least subliminally know that it's not exclusively specific to a party. A caucus is a group of members drawn from any nature of affiliation, whether regional/provincial or perhaps by issue; it doesn't imply solidarity/bloc-voting except when it's applied to within-party caucuses.Skookum1 (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Since entries are supposed to be sourced, I'd be happy to see some documented usage somewhere, sure. I did some quick searches and came up blank. Hairhorn (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
It's been a few weeks, and per these Google web and news searches that show "BC caucus" used only for caucuses of individual parties, I have again removed the line calling all BC MPs regardless of party, "the BC caucus." Feel free to replace this sentence if you can cite a source showing otherwise. Hairhorn (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, upon approaching 54 years old (which I'll be at the end of October) and a reader of history and politics my whole life, and familiar with more of BC history and politics than I can at times stomach, I have to tell you I find it utterly asinine that the existence/definition of a term is decided by whether or not there are any google references for it; as if all of reality were encompassed by Google (certainly google's ambition). I haven't had time to source press uses - and it so happens that CanWest, when Izzy Asper acquired it, destroyed all the archives of papers before about 1993, digital and hardcopy; I do know that the term "BC caucus" appears in mentions of the federal caucus in books such as J. Morton's In the Sea of Sterile Mountains and Scholefield & Howay's British Columbia: From the Earliest Times to the Present. and countless others, and that it is a staple usage in BC news copy whether in op-ed or regular news items. That its meaning has changed is maybe reflected by the very narrow results that google has provided; but that only reflects teh shortcomings of google, and of what people put on the internet. Fine, take it out, but it's utterly asinine that you would do so because it'x not in google. It's also utterly asinine that the meaning of the term is disputed at all - "caucus" simply means "meeting". When the original BC MPs travelled to Ottawa (via San Francisco and Chicago...as the railway was only a promise, not a reality, in 1871), they did so as "the BC caucus". When reporters were faced with things like the drift net crisis or the Salmon War and wanting to refer to the reactions of BC MPs, they'll refer to the group, from all parties, as "members of the BC Caucus". I'm old enough to know/remember all of this; it's really ugly to be confronted by someone who just hasn't read as much, who's obsessed with viewing google as t eh definer and arbiter of reality, or will react to an unfamiliar but correct usage of something as if it's wrong, instead of realizing that they're themselves just uneducated and inexperienced.... you waited a hasty three weeks, I'm impressed....Skookum1 (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to take things personally. How "BC caucus" was used in the 19th century isn't all that relevant to this page, which is about the current ridings in BC. (There weren't even federal parties in BC in 1871.) And if this term is standard news copy in BC, surely you can find one link to a story online that follows the usage you suggest. Also, the book British Columbia: From the Earliest Times to the Present is searchable online in several versions; I cannot find the word "caucus" in it. The OED also backs me up: both meanings given for "caucus" link it to individual parties, not cross party groups. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)