Talk:New Democratic Party of British Columbia
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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template] |
| Portal | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] Note re WP:COI (conflict of interest guidelines)
To party members who may wish to edit the article: please see WP:COI regarding conflict-of-interest concerning members of organizations editing articles about those organizations. this is a general comment/warning being placed on all BC political party pages because of problems with some articles...If you are a member of this party you should not be editing this article!!.Skookum1 01:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Democratic Socialist?
Is it safer to go by what a political party says it is instead of what it does? As a political scientist, I would be remiss if I chose to describe a political party by what it claims to be in its constitution. A far more interesting line of analysis would be to compare its actions with its claims. The current NDP, taken by its actions and policies, is clearly a social democratic party like Blair's Labour, not a democratic socialist party. But those are facts outside the agenda of those who insist on characterise the NDP in a manner that suits them. I strongly argue that democratic socialist be removed from a description of what the NDP is and moved to a discussion of what it claims. What it claims should certainly not be the lead for this article.
Eh? Democratic Socialist? THE BC NDP is centrist enough that social democratic would also be giving them too much credit/blame.
Well we can have the debate if you want... but the constitution of the BC NDP clearly states the words democratic socialist four times in the preamble alone. "The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share in the sturggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty" & " The New Democratic Party believes that social, economic and political progress in Canada can only be assured by the application of democratic socialist principles to government and the administration of public affairs." The NDP calls itself a democratic socialist party we may as well call them that here as well.
[edit] Democratic socialist again
As he has done so often in the past, Michaelm has changed an article without providing any evidence for his change. Evidence for the revert is provided above. Ground Zero 13:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- And he's at it again. I've added the dispute box and maybe some attention will be paid to this user, or maybe he'll give evidence or a cite to his edits (not likely, methinks) Kickstart70 04:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The last edit you speak of was actually done by myself, not MichaelM. My apologies for not including a citation in my changing Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism to plain Socialism. However, as I noticed only one citation present on the page to begin with (linking to a CBC article on Carol James election as party leader) [1] I felt no particular need to add any, considering the amount of historical information present without any visible scholarly evidence to back it up. I must admit, however, that in light of my further examination on this matter, the BC New Democrats certainly are self-declared democratic socialists, and should be described as such in further edits. G3A3 04:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for information
(I'm putting this on the main BC NDP page, as I doubt many people have the leadership conventions page on their watchlists yet.)
I haven't been able to locate the first ballot results for the BC NDP's leadership convention held on November 23, 2003 (and won by Carole James). Queen's University stopped receiving the Vancouver Sun a few years ago, and the information doesn't seem to be available on-line. The national newspapers only covered the result of the second ballot (well ... the National Post didn't cover the story at all, but that's another matter).
Does anyone have the results?
Never mind, we have them now. But we still need this:
For that matter, would anyone have the results of the first four ballots from the May 20, 1984 convention? We *do* have the Sun reels for that period, but the Monday issue which covered the convention is missing.
Thanks in advance for anyone willing to do a bit of research,
CJCurrie 02:27, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit] POV problems?
There's a few places where it would seem that POV and opinion have taken over...example: "The Socred's electoral coalition was able to keep the CCF and the NDP out of power until the 1970s, when the tired, stagnating Bennett government was defeated." Kickstart70 23:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Additionally, The Toms new additions could be construed as POV: "However, owing to the absence of a strong centrist force in BC provincial politics, a significant number of left-leaning federal Liberals are members of the provincial NDP.". I'd argue that the BC Liberals are overall rather centrist, not extreme right-leaning except in direct comparison to the left-leaning NDP. Definitely the BC Liberals are nowhere near as right-leaning as the U.S. GOP. Kickstart70 18:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Since no one is responding to this for discussion, I've edited some of the POV statements in the article. I left in the issue above and hope someone will give me a supplementary reason to keep or delete it. Kickstart70 16:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Refusal to grant the NDP official opposition status in 2001
The purpose of my previous edit was to indicate that what was refused was "official opposition" status. The problem is that "official party", though used in this sense in Canada, is unclear since it can also refer to the recognition of a party for electoral purposes such as automatic presence on the ballot or funding. That edit did not introduced any bias. However, I have now expanded on this and made absolutely clear the basis for the government's position and why it was controversial. I've also removed the reference to Gordon Campbell since strictly speaking recognition of the official opposition is up to the Speaker, not the Premier. Bill 22:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] We've been over this...
The BC NDP identifies itself as being a "democratic socialist party" in it's own party policy publications. Please stop reverting it to "social democratic" and the like. Thank you. g3a3 12:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
- If you go to their actual website you'll find the following: "As social democrats we believe in a balanced and responsible approach to government, so that people can enjoy a strong economy, healthy communities, and a clean, sustainable environment." Serpent-A 00:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Could it then be ruled that they are both a democratic socialist AND a social democratic party? This issue needs to be put to rest. g3a3 03:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- They have, no doubt, a handful of members who might describe themselves as socialists, but those members are not representative of either the past or current ideology of the NDP. As far as I'm concerned, the "issue" does not even exist. If you're so desperate to describe the NDP as Socialists, the burden of proof falls on you to provide some evidence, either from party press releases, or by establishing that some sort of consenses exists amongst the media, political analysts, and the public that the NDP is socialist in character rather than social democratic. Serpent-A 06:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
You got it.
http://bc.ndp.ca/upload/20060517145555_constitution2005.pdf
http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/000173.html
g3a3 04:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- The "Young New Democrats" are simply a faction within the larger party. It's completely irrelevant how they identify themselves. You have yet to establish that some sort of consenses exists amongst the media, political analysts, and the public that the NDP is socialist in character rather than social democratic. Serpent-A 17:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, as the BC NDP identify themselves as adhering to the principles of democratic socialism within their party constitution, and by virtue of the fact the phrase "social democracy" is not even mentioned in the same constitution, the party must be referred to as a democratic socialist one. As the prospects of finding a clear survey or poll which asks how people think the NDP should be categorized, or a party press release for the explicit purpose of outlining what they can be called in terms of political doctrine is virtually nil, I am taking the written foundation of the party itself as justification for my edit. Additionally, though you have claimed I am required to find some form of public sampling which is indicative of my assertion, you have yet to provide such evidence by the same logic, as to why the article should remain in the form you support.
g3a3 13:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possible Confusion
I find it awkward, to say the least, and confusing that the section on the 1970s (currently section 4) contains some information about Harcourt and his actions as newly elected leader (though it is undated at this point in the Wikticle), and then section 5, about the 1990s, rementions him winning the leadership post. I have had to reread the sections several times to make sense of them, which shouldn't be a requirement for an encyclopædia article. Is there anyone who knows the dates and details who can reorganise these two sections (or, even make a third, the 1980s) and make them clearer? Cheers, Lindsay 08:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Are the NDP Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats?
Doesn't a reading of both of these thorough and well referenced articles makes it quite clear that the NDP in BC are social democrats? That is what the articles say. --KenWalker | Talk 05:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
No, Ken, I disagree. The NDP Constitution preamble itself describes its basic principles as "democratic socialism", which is not quite the same thing as "social democratic" (but close.) See http://bc.ndp.ca/upload/20060517145555_constitution2005.pdf --WikiMart 07:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for that link. My suggestion would be to acknowledge both sides, since there is some basis for each, by changing "is a democratic socialist/social democratic political party in British Columbia, Canada." to "is a political party in British Columbia, Canada. The party's constitution[footnote reference to constitution] mandates the party to apply principles of democratic socialism [link to democratic socialists] however in practice the policies of the party more closely resemble those followed by social democrats[link to social democrats][footnote]." Recognizing that the phrasing I suggest could be improved, is the general idea workable? It seems to me that neither side of the reversions going on is completely correct and that this description says why there are two contradictory views each with some verifiable sources. --KenWalker | Talk 21:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- Ken, I think that's a reasonable compromise. Meanwhile I keep having to reverse the change by the Belinda Stronach vandal. May s/he will stop when a change like this is made.--WikiMart 06:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article fully protected
.. for a week due to rampant revert-warring by sock-puppet editors. Please us {{editprotected}} for any edits. Hopefully, the sock-puppeteer will just get bored. I've blocked about a dozen WP:SPA sock-accounts on both this article and the Belinda Stronach article - Alison ☺ 05:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
