Jump to content

Talk:Conservative Party of British Columbia/Archives/2024/October

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on British Columbia Conservative 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The Tyee

A user has been removing citations from The Tyee from this article saying it's not a reliable news organization and comparing it to Rebel Media. I don't think that's a fair comparison, The Tyee has won a number of awards for their reporting this year alone. They're listed on the wiki page itself: The_Tyee#Awards. No one has to agree with the tone of their coverage, but given the anemic journalism sector in BC, excluding them entirely seems counterproductive. Dan Carkner (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Dan Carkner: I agree—The Tyee is recognized as a legitimate news organization, unlike Rebel. Other justin (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracies

I see a bit of back and forth in the edit history about conspiracies and related ideologies being promoted by party members and candidates. I think not including a discussion about this would be a significant oversight—there has been a lot of independent media coverage of this topic indicating a high degree of notability. I think the way it was posted in the lead could be considered undue weight, so to try and improve the article I've added a small subsection on this under the party ideology section. Please feel welcome to discuss here. Other justin (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's important but part of the edit warring was over whether it would be in the intro. Keep in mind this article is about the whole history of the party, so doubling the length of the intro with this month's politics may not be appropriate. However I do think it should (and can) be well documented in the section below, and then mentioned in the intro in short form roughly in proportion to how much of the overall article it makes up. Dan Carkner (talk) 20:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
The conspiracies and controversies should be covered in the lead as is the case on the article for Mark Robinson (American politician). There is a related problem on the article for John Rustad. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
@Other justin: @Dan Carkner: There is a related discussion at Talk:John Rustad/Archives/2024/October#Opponent opinions that both of you may wish to participate in. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
@PoliticalPoint: Thanks for engaging here. I don't disagree that it might be included in the lead, but I agree with the critique that the long paragraph you've inserted—which is now largely replicated in the section on party ideology—provides Wikipedia:UNDUE to what is a relatively recent phenomenon in a party with more than a century of history (which makes it a bit different than the Robinson case, a precedent that is probably more applicable or relevant to Rustad rather than the party). I've currently put in a one-sentence summary in the lead, since the lead is really meant to summarize the main points of the article. Would be happy for others to chime in here too. Other justin (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This is my position. As someone outside of British Columbia, coverage I've seen of BC politics and the BC Conservatives since Rustad took over has typically focused on or at least mentioned his controversial stances and promotion of conspiracies. As such, I think it would be unbalanced not to include coverage of that here. In regards to the lead, it's meant to summarize key points; as such, I think one line discussing the historical and current ideology is appropriate. Moreover, I think this party is more fairly characterized as right-wing than centre-right. Looking forward to other responses. Other justin (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe you did clean up that additional paragraph well. It's just that the label "conspiracy party" was taken out of context. The full context has Kevin Falcon say "at risk of becoming a conspiracy party". We cannot present that quote as if sources are calling it a conspiracy party.
As for centre-right, the party includes numerous candidates from the defunct BC United, a centre-right party. All of its 8 current MLAs were elected as BC Liberals. Deathying (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate you pointing out the context of the "conspiracy party" quote and I think that's fair enough. In regards to party position, I think it stands to reason that the BC United folks that defected would have been ones on the "right" of the "centre-right" position, and most of the coverage I've seen, included the quotes highlighted in the discussion above, suggest to me that the Conservatives are right-wing rather than centre-right themselves. But getting some consensus around this is obviously important, so thanks for chiming in. Other justin (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I deleted “Rustad has been accused of inflaming American-style culture wars, or focusing on issues with stark ideological contrasts.” as the first source [1] talked about how it’s not specific to one party in the 2024 election The B.C. New Democrats and B.C. Conservative Party are trading increasingly sharp attacks on social issues that some believe are akin to U.S.-style culture wars. and the second source [2] seems to be a line from a professor stating If we think about the kind of issues they can point to and create easy divides … lines in the sand that they can differentiate, separate themselves from the NDP on issues that can especially speak to centrist voters. which isn’t quite the same thing. JSwift49 10:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for responding here, @JSwift49: On the first point, personally I don't see how it matters if 'both sides' are participating or not—it can also be added to the NDP's article. These two sources suggest to me that it is the resurgence of the BC Conservatives and Rustad that are inflaming this issue: [3] (The tenor of political discourse in this province has changed because of the rapid elevation of the B.C. Conservatives... B.C. Conservative party Leader John Rustad, the longtime MLA for Nechako Lakes in northern B.C., is different.) and [4] (Battles in the culture war... attract far more attention now than they did 20 years ago, and refusing to engage with them spells certain death for parties seeking to topple incumbents... The BC Conservative leader John Rustad, a former Liberal MLA himself, has espoused strongly conservative positions on issues like parental rights, crime and spending, and is promising to roll back the NDP’s left-wing advances on them.). I am happy to re-write the sentence with these citations, if that seems fair. For me, in the coverage I've seen, this has been a prominent theme of the election campaign, as it has been elsewhere—this is a major development in conservative politics in the last decade.
On the second, unmentioned point, you've twice deleted a reference to the leaked dossier of oppositional research, which I can't understand. Based on your edit summary, I think you may have misunderstood what was written. The line did not state that there was widespread support for MAGA specifically—that was an example of the kind of conspiracy theories cited, which is relevant because it is about the democratic process. But there absolutely is evidence of extensive support for conspiracies broadly, if you've looked at it. I think this should definitely be included here. Other justin (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok, so these new sources says Rustad has more conservative positions and that the tenor of politics has changed with his rise, but that’s different from Rustad being “accused of inflaming”. The article already describes CPBC’s more conservative positions on issues. IMO it’s not notable to mention how politics are becoming more polarized/culture war-y on both sides.
Re. dossier the source doesn’t support an “extensive” belief in conspiracies, just that a large oppo research file exists that the NDP says includes conspiracies. Article already mentions the notable instances of conspiracy beliefs so I see no reason to add this unless an objective secondary source (not the NDP) summarizes its contents. JSwift49 14:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I do think a line about the more polarizing culture war campaign can go in 2024 British Columbia general election. JSwift49 15:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I disagree on the culture wars stuff, but I won't add it in unless other people lend support. My read of the sources is that Rustad is open to inflaming culture wars, which is something that the BC Liberals/United avoided at all costs.
Re: the dossier, I mean, the leak was publicly available and I don't see how you could conclude that it didn't demonstrate extensive support for conspiracy theories. It came originally from United, not the NDP, and the source I had in there (a CP report) had verified the leak itself. I'd like to add that back into the 'conspiracies' section, but can omit the reference to American conspiracy theories if you think that's unbalanced. I think it's notable. Other justin (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I would be okay with something like "According to Douglas Todd of The Vancouver Sun, the rise of the Conservatives at the expense of the BC Liberals led to the "tenor of political discourse" in British Columbia changing, with both the Conservatives and NDP leaning more into culture war issues." That column does expressly draw a link between the Conservatives and a change in discourse.
Looking at the dossier source [5] all I can see is the NDP using the dossier to portray CPBC as conspiracists, but besides knowing it contained many comments (doesn't say how many were conspiracies vs. controversial in other ways) we don't have information that the belief is 'extensive'. So I really think that claim needs better sourcing. JSwift49 15:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Ok, that seems fair enough for political discourse. On the dossier, Press Progress also dug into the document here: [6] I don't know if it just comes down to what counts as 'extensive' or not. Would you object to the following? (If you do, c'est la vie, and I'll wait and see if anyone else wants to chime in. Thanks for the civil discourse).
In the lead-up to the 2024 election, a leaked dossier of opposition research revealed support for conspiracy theories among several party candidates.<ref> The party dropped a number candidates for spreading misinformation on vaccination and medical issues, including Stephen Malthouse...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Other justin (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Sure, likewise. That wording seems fair to me. JSwift49 16:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conservative_Party_of_British_Columbia/Archives/2024/October&oldid=1257026509"