Talk:List of premiers of British Columbia/Archive 1

This should be ordered with the most recent premier first. If anyone has a quick way to do this, go ahead. dave 09:48, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• It seems to be standard on Wikipedia to put the current incumbent last. There are numerous examples at Lists of incumbents. 142.179.125.20 01:51, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Picture Problem

The pictures of the premiers are covering their names. Can anyone fix that. I don't know how.Unknownlight 17:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone has said that about another of these lists too, but I've tried looking at the page on a couple different browsers on a couple different operating systems on many different screen resolutions and I never get that problem. What system, browser, and resolution are you using when this problem shows up? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Campbell's pic?

I don't think it appropriate that a current office-holder, heading into an election, be given prominent "face time" on this page; better to ahve Amor de Cosmos or Richard McBride or another historical and NPOV choice; I'm going to sub the Amor de Cosmos portrait, if anyone objects and has a good reason why Campbell needs to be featured, I'd appreciate the explanation....but I don't think there's a good one.Skookum1 (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Non-partisan" removed

that was a contraction of Non-partisan democracy, which now that I've had a look at that article could still be a pipe behind my change to "no party affiliation" - "Non-partisan" in BC has specific connotations to the right-wing Non-Partisan Association and also to terminology used by the Wartime Coalition of Grits and Tories (otherwise known as "the Unholy Alliance"). Actual terminology for candidates was "Government", "Opposition" and "Independent".Skookum1 (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Premiers and ridings

Almost just put this on Arctic Gnome's page, but might as well put it here - the ridings are easy enough to ascertain by going through List of British Columbia general elections, or rather each page linked there; in some cases though there may be two ridings as I think in some cases they might have won the election in one, then had a by-election in another. In most cases though there's only one riding, although from term to term it might change; federal members, if appointed to cabinet, resigned their general election seat and ran in special byelections to confirm their cabinet appointment; but this wasn't done in the case of the provincial elections. Anyway we DO have all the premiers' riding information; just not on this page.Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It is possible to get the information, sure, and it is relivant. But in the process of reworking the layout of these pages at here, we were thinking that this information doesn't belong on the main list and might be better suited in its own list like List of Prime Ministers of Canada by constituency where the topic can be discussed in more detail. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the point of that second list - if anything List of constituencies held by Prime Ministers of Canada might make some sense; but both seems largely irrelevant and not all that useful. Easiest and best just to have a "constituency" column in the main tables; I can't see why not (it's not like there aren't list-tables with more columns...).Skookum1 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Assemblies" vs "Parliaments"

Although the Ledge is called the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, a sitting of it is called a "Parliament" (capital-P); to refer to them as "assemblies" is just not a BC usage; it may occur as a standard elsewhere in Canada, it has no relevance in British Columbia political culture.Skookum1 (talk) 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Picture change, the non partisan change and the terminology changes that are proposed. Each of these changes improve the list. --KenWalker | Talk 01:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

We should use whatever the official term is, so it would be useful to be able to cite a government publication that uses one or the other. Do you know what the other provinces use? I'm assuming that Ontario uses "parliament" since it calls it's members MPPs, but I'm note sure about the other provinces that use the terms MLA, MNA, and MHA. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's important to remember that the Assembly is only part of a Parliament, i.e. a component of it, in the same way that the Cabinet is only part of the Queen/G-G/L-G/Comm-in-Council ("Comm" for "Commissioner", used by the territories); or rather it's something technical like the Assembly is the body of the Parliament, the Crown is its head, the Speaker having taken the Crown's place - rather specifically the Monarch's place, as the authority of the Crown remains embodied in the Throne but the Assembly's control of that chair is more than a token sign of Parliament's autonomy; I think it was with the end of Charles II's reign that the practice of having the Monarch operate as "Preident" - Chair - of the Houses of Parliament - was fainlly ended; maybe with William of Orange, I'm not sure. Symbolically, the Crown does not occupy the Throne, the Throne is occupied at the will of the Assembly....it's one of those convoluted parliamentary technicalities that comes out of all the turmoil from the English Revolution and the Restoration and the Orange and Hanoverian succession; it's why the important role of the Speaker, who occupies the Throne during a sitting, rather than the Monarch; the holder of that position represents the will or control of the House over the power embodied by the Throne, in which is vested the power of the Crown etc etc etc. That's not boilerplate, that's me trying to explain why there's a difference between the Assembly and the Parliament....now, obviously I'm completely uncitable, but as far as citations for the usage, there's abundant press copy; sittings are styled the 16th Parliament, the 23rd Parliament etc; and you'll see the phrase "when parliament ends" and also the practice in procedural language of referring to the House as Parliament, depending on the technicality as of course politicians and lawyers and such refer to the Crown quite a bit, but they also refer to Parliament; meaning the British Columbia one. It's also small-p parliament as a concept. If it's not used in the Prairies in the same way, but that would surprise me; in both BC and in the Prairies the early bureaucratic infrastructure was dominantly British straight from the old country, though different in style/background between the Prairie "railway colony" and the earlier existing base of adventurer/mariner/miner Britons who had built BC's colonialist paradise long before Canada bought Rupert's Land for the CPR :-o - but in both cases newly-arrived straight from the Isles, not descendants of early 19th and late 18th Century immigrants in Ontario, or much before to the east of that; I haven't noticed in the Nova Scotia papers, which I don't read much as there's no real hotbed of local political news like BC or Ontario or Quebec is, what they use here; possibly Assembly as isn't the legislature here the House of Assembly? I'm unclear about that, guess I should learn since I'm here....anyway back to the citation issue for the usage, I'll keep my eyes open in the various readings on BC history I've been doing lately, but I know for certain that you'll find it in regular news copy, depending on the subject matter....Skookum1 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The only thing we really need is an example of the government using the term in official publications, which we can get in the headers of Hansard transcripts and legislation. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Image check

Gary King asked me to check up on the images, and the remaining ones all meet criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wartime Coalition colour

It doesn't look write having it in Liberal red, not at all, and the way the text reads just doesn't present the facts on the ground and at the time. The Coalition was a formal affair, I don't have the resources or know-where-to-look to give it a proper writeup; and it just so happens that as part of the PPAP group election histories that there's a designated code-colour for the Coalition out there; better if we could do a blue-red barber stripe; can't remember what colour we picked, but there is one and it should be used; I'll give some thought as to that coalition wording; but what's really need is a Wartime Coalition article as the whole history of the tango between the BC Grits and the BC Tories is an involved one; it's important to note that that wasn't a Liberal government at teh time, y'see, it was a Liberal-Conservative Coalition government (that was the Coalition's formal name as I recall and should be such an article's title, or part of it with "BC" in it I guess, as right now that's a redirect to coalition government rather than the specific coalition in question....think it even had a charter or they had a signed agreement, in fact).Skookum1 (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re Arctic Gnome's reversion of my colour-change: "Premiers are not coalition, governments are." - is that it gives the impression that his was a Liberal government; it was not, of course, and there's a big difference; it says in his party affiliation that he's Liberal; but in terms of optics if not definitions it makes it look like the regime in that period was Liberal, which it was not, it was Liberal-Conservative Coalition, and there's a big difference (sure was to Duff Pattulo anyway huh? Likewise to Ceece Bennett). My gut says that the table scans liek a succession of the colour of party rule, rather than teh Premier's own colours; that's what these tables usually mean; I htink it's enough it says he's a Liberal in text and more specfici notes on teh Coalition would explain the colour change inthat sequenc e of time/sittings/elections. Neither Hart nor Johnson would have been Premier without being in the Coalition; they themselves defined and made the Coalition; I don't know how you can say a Premier can't be Coalition; yes the Coalition wasn't a Party but it was an identifiable Arrangement. History doesn't speak of Boss Johnson as a Liberal Premier. It speaks of him as being the Liberal leader of a Coalition government; ditto John Hart. Yes, they were Liberals personally. But their govenrments weren't. Just like some pre-1903 Premiers had federal party affiliations; it was their status on the BC hustings and in the BC House that matter in this table (i.e. "no party affiliation" - althoug actually on the returns they'll have been Government or Opposition or Ind. or the "ballot"; and on the hustings and in the House in Coalition years there was the fact of the Coalition; Johnson himself wouldn't have called himself a Liberal Premier, he was a Coalition Premier who belonged to the Liberal Party.....between optics and how-the-folks-at-the-time-thought-of-it, I say change the colours back; it marks an era in BC politics, optics-wise, and as I said neither Johnson nor Hart were "Liberal Premiers" and certainly wouldn't ahve been written of that way at the time; Premiers who were Liberals, yes, but not Premiers of Liberal governments. Not often you get a chance to dintinguish between a Premier and a government, given that hte latter is usually a rubber-stamp for the former's ambitions/whims/dreams/schemes/corruption (="politics"), but in this case yes you're right, the individual can't be Coalition; but his office was due to the Coalition, not hte Liberal Party; he may have been a Liberal, but in essence his government wasn't; it was "a two-headed beast, a vile abomination" I think one columnist called it at some point....It was neither a Liberal nor Conservative government, and while as an individual he was a Liberal, in his capacity as Premier and therefore first minister in the cabinet, i.e. a Coalition cabinet, he's then a Coalition Premier......Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As you say, "he was a Coalition Premier who belonged to the Liberal Party". This is a list of Premiers and we should show his party membership, especially given that the header is under a column labelled "premier". OF course, we should continue to mention that he his government was a coalition, just as we mention when they are minorities. The coalition colour is good for when we are talking about a government or a cabinet or even an election, as in pages like List of British Columbia general elections or List of Canadian federal parliaments. We should only use the coalition colour for individual people if they themselves are members of two parties. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:34, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with that at all. The result of your decision is extremely misleading visually; it gives the impression that there was a Liberal government in those years. There wasn't. That's my point. If it's a question of changing the headings on the table to match the necssary colour scheme, then so be it; he did not sit as a Liberal Premier, he sat as a Coalition Premier; your argument suggests that because WAC Bennett was a member of the federal Tories his colouration should be Tory, likewise various of the 19th Century "no affiliation" Premiers. they are "no affiliation" because that was the status of their cabinet and the capacity in which they ran. Nearly all, or all, were members of the Tories or Grits; your argument says that we should use those party colours for them, too.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't give the impression that there was a Liberal government because this page is not about the government. If we used the Liberal colour on a page called List of British Columbia parliaments, then yes, it would be misleading. But here the page title and the introduction says that we are talking about premiers, not governments. If someone came here without reading the title of the page nor the introductory text, then yes, they might be confused, but I hardly see that demographic as being the one to which we should cater. Your WAC Bennett comparison is a bad straw man argument because this page is clearly talking about provincial-level politics and would thus have his provincial membership. As for the "no affiliation" people, if BC is like the other provinces with such premiers, it didn't have a legally recognized party system at the time, so the premier's proclaimed memberships were unofficial. It would be useful to note their affiliation, but their colour should remain neutral, as with some premiers in List of premiers of New Brunswick (and in fact, there should be more neutrals on that list than there currently are, I'll have to go change that). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We should probably get a couple of outside opinions, as this pertains to all other premier lists with wartime coalitions and both of us have valid arguments on the topic. I'll go ask the notice board what they think. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if there might be a way to redesign the table so that there's space for both colours to be reflected somehow. Not that I know how best to do that, but I offer it as food for thought anyway. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The most accurate place to put a second colour would be near the parliaments or elections, but in 95% of cases it would be the same colour as the other band, so I'm not sure if that would help. We could maybe add a thin second band beside the existing one and still have the table look okay, though I think that would be more confusing than either of the existing proposals. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Arctic Gnome that since the article is on premiers, the colour should reflect the premier's party. Skookum1's point is well-taken, though. Why could we not do as Bearcat suggests and put the colour on the Parliament column. I understand it would always be the same except for coalition governments but I don't know that that matters. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal What do you folks think about this version? I added a thin bar of coalition colour on #23 and #24 beside the existing colour. We could make the bar a bit wider if we want, though that would make the number more offset. I also suggest we get a coalition colour that stands out more and doesn't look like just another party colour; maybe a shade of grey would work. Or, we could use the colour of the party with whom he was in coalition as the thin bar. In any case, this way we don't have a redundant line of colour for most parliaments. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• • Comment Well, one thing that would be possible with that system is also indicating what federal party allegiances the pre-party era Premiers had, and that would also give reason to have a footnote that this is their party affilliation independent of their status as Premier, though what that wording would be I'm not sure.Skookum1 (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean have the main bar white and the side bar coloured to their unofficial party? I like that idea, though maybe in that case the thin bar should go on the left. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Something like that, anyway; but it has to e stressed that provincial and federal allegeiances in BC are often different, especially sicne 1952 (provincial Socreds might also be federal Tories or Grits; this didn't paply to teh Premiers of course). My point is that, once we cinlude the fedral party allegiances, we have to stress that the party affiloioation shown was not part of hte BC governing polity; in fact, some of those Premiers had to swear that it wasn't in order to keep their constituents happy......Skookum1 (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Woah, I didn't mean including federal party allegiances, I was talking about unofficial parties before the party system was used. Adding federal allegiances would be way more trouble than it's worth (especially given that we would also have to add them in the other provinces' lists), and would likely confuse people who aren't familiar with that province's party structure. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Christy Clark two pictures issue

I looked at a couple of other premier lists just now, OK, there's two separate images of, say, Allison Redford. My problem here is that the upper picture plugs her appearance at an economic summit; that might sound like nothing to someone allegedly NPOV about this but, again as in my edit comments, this is election season; you (117Avenue) say I should get my POV out of editing; I say the same to you; I've seen all too often that claims of POV abuse are the reason to keep blatantly POV material in place, and don't pretend that you don't have a political alignment yourself.....and I've seen edits of yours that were definitely politically-bias originated.....while claiming to be acting NPOV, you're not. Two portraits of Clark would be fine, but the subtle "statesman" subtext to the top picture, is to me (knowing BC politics oh so well) highly POV, albeit subtly.Skookum1 (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

the edit comment "Wikipedia doesn't care if it's election season or not" is debatable; Wikipedia is a major UGC content information site and influential, it can't wash its hands of responsibility to abide by election-season rules (OK, the campaign's not "officially" on but for every intents and purposes it has been). The excuse that Wikipedia doesn't have to pay attention to real-world realities and is somehow above them is offensive to me, and that attitude goes a long ways to explain why supposedly NPOV material/pictures are claimed to be POV when they're clearly not.Skookum1 (talk) 08:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the POV accusation, that just heated the argument, and went too far. I recognize that I am human, and have POV as well. Thank-you for explaining yourself, I did not realize that it was the location of the picture, at an economic summit, that you found inappropriate. But it almost sounds like you think that it is not appropriate to add a picture to Wikipedia of a politician doing their job, during a re-election campaign. It is much more difficult to get good pictures of politicians in Canada than the United States, because there all government images are free. So in Canada we get pictures at public places, and politicians appear at public events as part of their job. When I came to this page I saw an image of de Cosmos, which I found odd, he is not the first Premier, or the longest serving Premier, or the current Premier. I think that an image of some importance should be at the top. In the other lists the thumbnail is used to quickly identify the current Premier. But this is not the Premier of British Columbia article, it is a historical list, so perhaps you are correct, in that an important historical figure should be in the thumbnail. I think that importance should be determined, and stated in the caption. I also think it is odd to repeat an image in an article, so I went ahead and looked for another image of C. Clark. I didn't think the image put her in a negative light, so I went ahead and used it. What I meant by "Wikipedia doesn't care if it is campaign season or not", is that we should always be striving to create better articles. Sure attention is but on certain political articles during an election campaign, but I don't think that adding an image should be considered "fluffing her up". We don't have a different set of policies for election season. I hope this provides more of an explanation than I could fit in an edit summary. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've found many images of C. Clark on Flickr, and have uploaded some of them. In the Kris Krug ones, you can't tell what she is doing. 117Avenue (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That particular image constitutes putting her in a statesman-like stature, unlike other public appearances.......that's my objection - maybe subtle but in BC politics very real and nuance is everything. About Amor de Cosmos, the reason he was there is he was the first elected premier, the first premier was an appointee; and easily one of the leading figures in early BC history or BC history in general.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)