Talk:BC Legislature Raids
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
You kids need to grow up a bit. All the information on the raids in the Vancouver Sun article and it states who was searched and who was named in the warrants. I mean really, it was right there on the front page of Vancouver's leading newspaper! Keep up the good work Liberals and New Democrats...those of us on the right own the country now! - unsigned comment by IP address user 205.250.69.171 16 April 2006
Contents |
[edit] April 20,2006
I just noticed the abuse that this article has taken and was wondering who some of the writers are so that I can slap them or mail them a grammar textbook. It is pretty clear to me that some of the people involved in this case are posting to this site and others related to these raids. The poster above me here has a pretty good point--all this information is on google and in the news already. You guys should have kept your noses clean and read the bible a bit...all the parts about corruption and what god will do to you in the afterlife for being jackasses here. And if you don't believe in God, check out "Karma" here on Wikipedia. Karma is walking around at your law firm, or at your political event and having people continuously talk behind your back. I put "BC Raids" in google and got all sorts of information on all the monkeys involved in this enjoyable piece of BC's history.
Back to work monkeys.
Darkfalz1
[edit] Current Events tag needed
Not sure what it is - "this article is about a current event" is its text, so could someone please put it in. A POV watch should be maintained closely here, and also someone on the lookout for violations of the publication ban(s).Skookum1 02:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dave Basi puff-piece in External links
I just scanned it and it looks pretty much like a p.r. agency bio of Basi for public relations purposes; granted he's been a "man in black" in much regular media coverage. Maybe I didn't read it write and it's not a puff piece, just starts out like one; but if it belongs anywhere it should be on the David Basi page. If we started linking ALL news articles, bios and backgrounders on this case there'd be over 100 entries on just Dave Basi alone; unless the various media profiles of Mark Marissen and Erik Bornman should also be here. Myself, I think the Globe article was inserted here because of its handy title ("There is no substance to this case"), which certainly is the unofficial government position on the proceedings (since they can't have an official one, other than Oppal's ope as A-G, which is controversial to start with).Skookum1 19:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article should be deleted
This is suposed to be an encyclopedia and not a scrapbook of breaking news summaries. The sources for almost all of this story are highly questionable. The media are notorious for its inaccuracy and blogs are pure opinion. Information from such sources is in no way encyclopedia-like. I'm not deleting this page because it looks like folks have put a lot of work into it, but this is really a story that should not be added to this site until after the trial. At that time we will have a more encyclopedic understanding of what took place. -unsigned comment by User:IWin4U 19:00, 26 December 2006
- That's crap, and by your sig ID I'm interpolating that you're a lawyer ("I win for you") with no apparent other experience in Wiki, at least none so much that you've warranted people corresponding with you on your talk page. A lot of the edits to this page appear to have been made from Ottawa and Toronto, and given the context of some edit/inline comments and statements on this talk page it's pretty clear that someone's pet law firms, or p.r. firms, have been vetting this article to suit their view of the case. But now hear this, IWin4U - articles on current events and trials underway are common in Wikipedia; the pretext that there should be no article here until the case is over is horsetwaddle, and smacks of the same kind of "keep everything under wraps" that the whole affair smacks of in the first place, whether it's the government, the Liberal Party, CN, or the government-appointed courts who sealed the evidence. In fact, the obscurantist nature of what's been going on so far is one of the main news stories attached to the case/scandal, and the full context of the case remains under wraps because the courts and the principals want it that way. Not because the public, who have a right to know everything about why the Ledge was raided by RCMP, wants it that way, but because it's convenient for "the establishment" to prevent a full public inquiry into what's going on in the Liberal regime and party back-rooms. Mark Marissen's appointment as Dion's campaign head makes this point all the more important, given the impending federal election campaign. Let's be blunt: the political fallout from this case, if fully investigated publicly, could be much larger than the Sponsorship Scandal, for both the BC Liberals and federal Liberals. That's why, as a current event, it is in the public interest and the common interest of BC Wikipedians to keep this page and others like it factual and up-to-date. NOT to imply that maybe it should be deleted or otherwise muzzled until the case is over. What do we do if Oppal's shooting his mouth off winds up in a mistrial, or the Mounties' apparent lying to a judge to get warrants to tap privileged phonelines results in the same? Because then all evidence, and the whole story, is silenced and the evidence quashed along with the proceedings. Then what do we do for an article? Well, write about the miscarriage of justice by the Attorney-General and RCMP, for one thing; we might also write about the p.r. drones and lawyers who regularly twisted and manipulated this article, and in one case even raised the spectre of libel chill (see history for inline comments by 216.13.88.86), even though to my knowledge no Wikipedia editor or Wikipedia has ever been sued for posting opinion and/or news. Now, IWin4U, because of your curious request to delete or otherwise de-emph this article, I'm very curious as to your point-of-origin and will try and track down your IP address.....and I'd sure be amused if it turned out to be from a terminal in a Liberal-affiliated lawfirm, or even in Liberal Party HQ. If that's libellious, sue me - I could use the publicity and have about 10 reporters and innumerable bloggers as friends. And granted, it's "shoot a Liberal in the foot season", especially for Liberals.Skookum1 20:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV template
I removed this template because of the heavily-neutered content of this page on the one hand, and outright POV claims such as:
- During this time rampant speculation and conspiracy theories thrived as political observers and online commentators attempted to determine why these searches took place. There are some who have used this situation for their own political advantage by slandering individuals and organizations not targeted in the police investigation.
...which I would just have removed if not for the ongoing edit war around this and other articles; this appears to have been added by the same crew of SPAs who've been patrolling/sabotaging Erik Bornmann and Mark Marissen. This article is going to need POV watch big-time, especially once the trial begins in a few weeks...Skookum1 07:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References
There are a number at Erik Bornmann which might be used here if references are required. Should he be mentioned in this article? Proto::► 20:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, totally. If you look in the edit history here, you'll see that they used to be here, and that "not mentioning Erik" also was a subject of discussion on the Talk:Erik Bornmann page - all the sockpuppets used to hold conversations with each other. Quite the show, and not a small bit of Punch & Judy (squeaky voice: "Hi, isn't Erik a great guy!" squeaky voice 2: "Yeah, Erik loves puppies" squeaky voice 1 "Isn't it terrible the things people are saying about him" squeaky voice 2: "yeah, let's get them!" thwack, punch, thwack). As there everything that's blatantly missing here was completely referenced, but the sockpuppet-activists "patrolling" and "neutralizing" these pages took them out as soon as they were put in. THAT is why my "vote" on the AFD for Bornmann's article was "Keep, Restore, Protect". Protection for these articles is de rigeur given their history; please read the entirety of the AFD that you just closed, and follow its links, to get a complete picture....note especially this edit which was sockpuppet Randy3's bulk deletion of everything I'd tried to restore to the (vandalized) talk page and the (vandalized) main article in the previous series of edits. I didn't have time to do the same here because of the AFD, and prior to that, the fight against the block I wound up with for confronting the puppetmaster (rascalpatrol, just betting....) - scroll up my talkpage for the unblock template. This page is for the BC Ledge Raids discussion, so I'll leave off; but they're heavily interrelated, necessarily. Users Agent 86 and Carson Lam, both BC Wikipedians, have been busy building the article back after your stripping of all the nice unsourced flummery on EB; but nearly everything they'll be putting back in, other than recent updates, was what had been stripped from the article so as to make it irrelevant, and because of its apparent irrelevance, that's why Zoe placed the AFD. But it shouldn't have been an AFD that was placed. What, exactly, I don't know, but definitely WP:COI and WP:AUTO template-warnings, if they exist, should be placed on these pages. And also, come to think of it, on any political party page, scandal page, or political bio page.....Skookum1 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] References April 2007
The references flag was removed. I have added it back. Skookum1 was concerned that this was "a hostile edit" because the article does have references. The warning asks people to improve the article by adding sources. I think it is a valid concern. The article on the judge hearing the case is a stub and has 2 references. In comparison, this article has 6 "external links": 1 (Yahoo) of which is dead, 1 (CBC Who's Who) that is 3 years out of date, and 2 to railways (OmniTrax, BC Rail sale news release) that can serve as background but are not focused on the trial. None of the dates or "direct quotes" have explicit footnotes which should be a concern for an article about an ongoing politically-sensitive criminal trial. So I hope the request for references is viewed as a neutral request to improve the article's quality. Canuckle 22:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Name of scandal re move/rename
This edit caught my eye, and while it's syntactically correct in an absolute sense the title "BC Legislature Raids" had evolved somewhat by consensus as for a working title for an article on this scandal; Basi-Virk Affair redirects here, and others; I created the Ledgegate redirect and see that Tieleman's been using Railgate so I'll create that redirect too. The big media has avoided these term s altogether because, like the cabinet and the RCMP, they wish the scandal would just go away. Not giving it a name ia a way to make it difficult to discuss, or shoved into oblivion behind the news about traffic, sick babies, pedophiles and crystal meth and high fashion and how to eat cheese properly; no need to investgate criminal wrong doing by ublic officials, and dubious behaviour by elected officials; they're good for the markts, don't turf 'em out, that's why this scandal hasn't got a name in the big papers or the networks (including the gutless CBC). But other than that rant, the point here is that the article is not about the raids but about the scandal, court case and evolving revelations of an organized (and illegal) coverup. Therefore, maybe the title of this age has to be reconsidered; and it can't be Basi-Virk Affair b ecause now it's about a lot more than them or their trial; I say we used a google couint for "ledgegate", "railgate" and other options and do it like a show of hands....and seaking of invisible, is it just me or are Mark Marissen, Erik Bornmann and Pilothouse Communications mentioned nowhere on this page. Are they at it again?????Skookum1 (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- How about Regina v. Dave Basi, Bobby Singh Virk and Aneal Basi? Canuckle (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that would certainly be the article about the case, but not about the larger scandal growing around it and because of it; that's the point. BC Legislature Raids case would have also meant much the same thing as you're suggesting; but it's the what's-happened-since that's the real scandal, or the larger scale of the scandal; another name that kicked around in the Sun, come to think of it, maybe only quoting a blogsite though, was "Sale of BC Rail scandal". The Basi-Virk case is the only one so far to hit the docket (and is, if you believe the editor of the Indo-Canadian Times, a fallguy case "using the brown guys to protect the white guys"; implications of the evidence are that other charges might be pending, or should be Yes, the case itself should have an article; but the larger story is not to be contained by an article about the Basi²-Virk trial/case.Skookum1 (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New moves/news in case
The latest round of procedural/evidentiary wrangling is recounted here in Tieleman's new column in the The Tyee. Makes me wonder how much of what he's talking about wasn't in the Vancouver Sun/Province/Victoria Times-Colonist. Anyway posting this here so someone else maybe will see to condense the factual bits out of the opinion, same with that long content post/addition that had to be taken out as it was "quoted without quotes" directly from Tieleman's column; some of the information deleted was still needed in this article, and should have been vetted/rewritten.Skookum1 (talk) 15:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
