Talk:British Columbia New Democratic Party

Untitled
Eh? Democratic Socialist? THE BC NDP is centrist enough that social democratic would also be giving them too much credit/blame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.54.83 (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veenoghu (talk • contribs) 7:09, 7 February 2005 (UTC)
 * 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.240.108 (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

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) 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) 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This article has major bias and almost no in-text citation or sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnarr (talk • contribs) 04:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 - A l is o n  ☺ 05:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

New (2011) Logo
The BC NDP appear to have a new logo from the one in the article. It can be found at their website: http://www.bcndp.ca/newsroom/logo-photo I would update the page myself, but.. I don't know how to make an SVG image, and I feel like that's the standard for Wikipedia these days, so if someone is capable of doing that, there are JPG and AI versions of the logo on their site, so it should be pretty easy. -Jermdeeks (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Leader List in Table Format
The leaders list would look better in a Table format than just a bullet-point list. Can this be changed? Anyone agree? --209.207.71.9 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

2001 POV template
Dropping by here, which I rarely do (if I ever did, in fact, I've forgotten completely), I wondered what the POV tag, dated 2001, was about; the previous section above dates from 2006 and, while I disagree with what is said there, and noting nobody bothered to answer the points made there, wonder what is here that warranted the POV tag placed in 2011. I will refrain from some observations I made while reading certain sections, due to false allegations of NDP partisanship and/or membership hurled at me in the course of the Talk:Adrian Dix matter a while back, pending anyone else fielding reasons why the tag should remain and/or what it was placed for. There are some vague and rather terse, sometimes misleading and incomplete wording/information in the Clark section, and I note that no mention of the Salmon War of 1996 is made at all, but I do not wish to be falsely accused of partisanship and my real name flouted in the media again so will refrain from any emendations or alterations, but leave the floor open to points others may make as to POVism here. Most political party articles are POV in one direction or another; there is nothing overly POV here that I can see; only incomplete and at times a bit misleading or too vague. I do not care to edit political articles any more as too much bad energy and stressful, and had come here to check wording re the recent RM of the New Democratic Party article and the associated dabpage and saw the citation and POV tags. Researching the citation tags is time-consuming but needs doing by someone. To me there is a bit of revisionism going on here, but that's a given in a province where all media is heavily politicized and often overtly partisan...so not surprising. I see no acute POV here, and wonder about the meaning of the POV tag, in relation to what wordings it was placed.... and if it should remain.Skookum1 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on British Columbia New Democratic Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes: When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090621232316/http://www.elections.bc.ca/docs/stats/2009-ge-ref/fres/GE-2009-05-12_Party.html to http://www.elections.bc.ca/docs/stats/2009-ge-ref/fres/GE-2009-05-12_Party.html

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Political Spectrum Issue
This article refers to the BCNDP as a social democratic, centre-left party. There is an increasing view that the party is/has moved more the centre. There are some articles that I've read that go so far as to call it "neoliberal." I believe that Third Way is more apt, but, nonetheless, it is not a social democratic party. Given Wikipedia's plasticity, how would we go about creating an article that reflects reality? For example, some of the articles cited to prove the party's political identification are dated 1996. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3d08:5282:8a00:51e6:1045:5a67:9377 (talk) 05:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)