Talk:Christy Clark

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

General Comments

I would like someone to put in some information about specific policy proposals that she made while in Education and Children and Families. She hired a good Deputy Minister from Edmonton and proposed some rather innovative changes for the Grade 12 curriculum. Cheers, Dom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domperignon (talk • contribs) 06:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I used the term "left railing" in the section on the Ministry of Children and Families since this is how the Sun described the cuts in two separate articles. Both by Paul Willcocks, who is generally regarded as a fair critic of both the NDP and Liberals. Vaughn Palmer made a similar comment as well. There is a newsprint database available to university users and some professionals, access it if you are a student. The information provided there is generally well done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Domperignon (talk • contribs) 19:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Vaughan Palmer is not a reliable source on BC politics, ditto Paul Willcocks. Positive reviews by Liberal-friendly journalists are somewhat COI in nature.Skookum1 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any information put in here should be properly cited and should be WP:NPOV in tone.Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BC Rail search warrants should be mentioned

The timing of her resignation in conjunction with the escalation of the BC Rail investigation, and the search of her house by "Operation Everywhichway", should be mentioned in this article; it's "interesting" that it's not....Skookum1 (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys should probably include this if you mention the BC Rail issue at all:

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110216/bc_bc_rail_110216/20110216?hub=BritishColumbiaHome <--- Christy Clark cleared in BC Rail investigation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.228.61 (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taht's only a claim made by the mainstream media, and should only be mentioned if the opposing view, that the released materials did not prove that all arnd are "untedsted and proven in court" and taht this is widely seen as a Crown/RCMP smear campaign and a not-exoneration of Clark. NPOV demands that. Also, recent materials released on Alex Tsakumis' blog should also be included, as t he prove that despite her claims to be at a distance from the people in this case, she in fact was in regular contact with them, dined iwth them etc etc etc. Thet mainstream medai are POV soruces, and what they say is heavily discounted in the world of British Columbia politics, as they are seen as the propaganda arm of the Liberal Party. Or, as they are commonly called, the Lieberals.Skookum1 (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"NDP-affiliated"

I added a fact tag to the four-times-reinserted modifier "NDP-affiliated" to the mention of Bill Tieleman; other journalists are not generally singled out by party affiliation/loyalty, nor are publishers such as CanWest (which is widely seen as a propaganda arm of the BC Liberal Party, also one of the party's major financial contributors). It's not that Tieleman isn't an NDPer, but his credentials go beyond his NDP politicking and he is increasingly a critic of that party, also. I'm responding partly, also to this edit by User:BCLib9045 which accuses me of having a "political agenda"...as if BCLib9045 didn't themselves, and as if I were an NDP supporter, which I'm decidedly not - e.g. in my posts on Tieleman's blog yesterday]. I'm an experienced Wikipedian and fully aware of Wiki principles like WP:COI and WP:NPOV and fair treatment of WP:RS and WP:VS; unlike BCLib9045 who shows no apparent regard for these, particularly WP:COI but also WP:3RR (there's been four times that "NDP-affiliated" has been re-added after either myself or User:The Interior took it out (BCLib9045 is a SPA). I've puzzled long and hard over my own real-world COI on BC political articles, but I see no reason to recuse myself from participation in BC political arti9cles, though generally I give them as wide a berth as possible; but when I recognize POV political activity/wording, as a responsible Wikipedian I can't not say something about it, or challenge the POVism - and COI/spin edits - when I see them. My interest here is to prevent Wikipedia from being used as part of any campaign p.r. machine (of any party), and to make sure Wikipedia principles are observed - particularly by party operatives who have no reason to respect Wikipedia guidelines or concepts like WP:NPOV. In the case of this item about BC Rail, there's lots missing, including the search of the Clark-Marrissen home during the opening of the investigation (and that curious telephone call thelling them the police were coming, and why no warrant was needed....vs. all the other highly suspect/irregular warrants to do with that case). But there's also lots of other commentators, particularly from smalltown papers or independently syndicated, but also notable bloggers/independent researchers like Sean Holman, Laila Yuile and BC Mary who have similarly spoken out about Clark's involvement in the BC Rail matter and how it weights against her in the eyes of the public, and of the "informed media". She may have been out of teh way for the HST fracas, and the Big Media have pronounced her "clean" of that - but he Big Media also have maintained a veil of silence over BC Rail. The current text says that she resigned for family reasons; but it's well-citable that the timing of her resignation was seen to have to do with the BC Rail affair. And about the Tieleman thing, unless every time Conservative-affiliated columnists or BC Liberal-affiliated columnists and media outlets are similarly tagged in articles mentioning their opninions and claims (often false), it's not fair to single out Tieleman for this; that's the reason for the cite tag; Tieleman's own byline says only "Bill Tieleman is one of BC's best known communicators, political commentators and strategists. Bill writes a politics column Tuesdays in 24 Hours newspaper and The Tyee online magazine. Bill has been Communications Director in the B.C. Premier's Office and at the BC Federation of Labour. Bill owns West Star Communications, a consulting firm providing strategy and communication services for labour, business, non-profits and government." And frankly, seeing whats going on with the NDP and teh things the Party Council/James supporter types have been calling him, he may not be "NDP-affiliated" much longer....Skookum1 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By way of a further example, the Vancouver Sun's item today on the pro-Clark poll they took says:
“Compared to the other four candidates, [Clark] is the most distanced from the current Liberal government,” Braid said. “She’s had the opportunity to build up her profile outside government, and she’s probably the most charming of the leading contenders.”
Braid being the spokesman for Ipsos-Reid, which is a notably Liberal-affiliated polling company, very pointedly connected with the Martinite faction in which her ex-husband and her brother of the federal Liberals. So if that poll goes in, in all fairness re the Tieleman tag that BCLib9045 insists should be there, the copy should said "Liberal-affiliated". Similarly polls from Decima Research should say "federal Conservative-affiliated". The involvement of Clarks' brother in the BC Rail matter and other BC Liberal policies/controversies should also not go unmentioned.Skookum1 (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Political blogs are fair game for BC political articles

Noting the aggressive deletion of materials concerning Clark's connections (various) to the BC Rail Scandal, I noted one IP user who justified their removal on the basis that the cites were blogs; neither the Vancouver Sun or The Tyee are blogs, so that was just deceptive and of course the deletion, and the cited material, has been restored; and to underscore that although Tieleman's articles are on his blog, they're also first featured in his columns in The Tyee and 24 Hours (which is also not a blog). But this is serving notice that, in the absence of reliable and unbiased coverage on the part of the Liberal-friendly mainstream media, citations from leading political blogs in British Columbia must be recognized as reliable sources and certain of them, such as Laila Yuile's or BC Mary's, wind up serving as citations for the mainstream media, more than once, i.e. they're verifiable sources, which all too often the mainstream media are not (more like "disinformation sources"). Yuile blew the whistle on the shadow tolls and other highways/infrastructure corruption and was aped in the big media by, I think, Vaughan Palmer, who had to retract his claim for breaking the story and credit Yuile, who is a popular radio guest and highly notable private researcher/writer. The Liberals patrolling this page should be glad more coverage of Clark that's appeared in the blogs hasn't been cited here.....yet. But deleting things you don't like, especially when accompanied by citations from known valid sources, is not part of Wikipedia's game. And though blogs usually are not allowed as sources, they are admitted when they provide viable alternatives to the shortcomings of the mainstream media, and in BC in particular (within Canada) they have become an "alternative mainstream media", and the respect they've earned is one of the things that has cast a poor light on teh editorial/advertorial and political practices of teh Sun and Province.Skookum1 (talk) 00:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, blogs aren't "fair game" because you deem it so

Until the most recent edits, this article was poorly cobbled together with a number of citations of random blogs. "Blogger whoever says this" isn't an appropriate entry. Neither, for that matter - since you keep adding it as well - is it remotely NPOV nor does it conform to the BLP standards to repeatedly attempt to throw in accusations made by a single individual (a defense lawyer, to boot) so without proof that even you feel the need to state that no evidence has been provided for them, nor have they been proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjohnhackett (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Tyee is NOT a blog and has been recognized here as a Reliable Source; another item that was deleted also included a cite from the Vancouver Province. You know well, if you do read the papers, that Sun and Province and Globe and Mail columnists have ALSO covered what is here; it's a fact, not needed to be proven in court, that the RCMP searched the Clark-Marissen home (with permission/advance warning and no warrant), it's a fact, not needed to be proven in court, that Bruce Clark was the subject of a search warrant and confidential documents provided to him by Basi & Virk were found there, but no charges laid. It's a fact, not needed to be proven in court, that Clark was on the inside lane of the BC Rail proceedings while she was in cabinet. It's a fact, not needed to be proven in court, that journalists have raised the issue of the shadow of the BC Rail deal over her campaign (and moreso than on those of Falcon and Abbott and de Jong, who are variously connected to it but not so intimately). There is also copy to be found in teh Terrace Daily, Gulf Island Tides and other "legitimate" news sources from around BC, and to a lesser degree nationally. Your position that The Tyee is a blog is untenable, as is also your position taht Op-Ed pieces are not allowed in Wikipedia; they are, particularly in political articles, when the opinion is credited to teh columnist/op-ed writer in question. I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia guidelines before pontificating further about them - and for good measure, I'll dig up the other cites from non-Tyee sources to back up what's in the section you tried to delete and supplant with more Christy0-friendly materials. If you are involved in the Clark campaign, or the Liberal Party, you should read WP:COI and WP:AUTO.Skookum1 (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That the mainstream media are in the habit of being forced to pick up stories first broken in blogspace, like the recent memos from Basi to Bornmann that were released by Alex G. Tsakumis, is good enough reason to give them credit where credit is due, and to recognize that they pick up on news stories/facts that the mainstream papers have a habit of wanting to avoid. I know you know who I am, too, by the jab you made in an edit comment, but here in Wikipedia I make a point of being as NPOV as possible about partisan-related content, which is why I haven't taken up the long-out-of-date BC Legislature Raids article, or worked very much at this article or the other Liberal leadership-bio articles (which have been curiously quiet). Where COI does not apply is making sure that cited material, written properly, is not deleted or manipulated by clearly partisan editors (as was the case on the Bormann, Marissen and BC Legislature Raids article, quite a long time ago), just as I have done on history and geography articles where politics/opinion has come into play. Wikipedia BLPs are to be factual and cited; there's nothing in this article that's not factual; Tieleman is a notable enough political commentator, especially on BC Rail matters, that his opinion/interpretation belongs here; whether the Clark campaign likes it or not; Michael Smyth, Paul Willcocks and Gary Mason have also all said similar things - as you know - so don't be disingenuous and try and blame the coverage on just one columnist from "the enemy camp", as no doubt you perceive him to be. Your claim that The Tyee is a blog is nonsense; and anything that Tieleman publishes or allows on his own blog, where his articles in The Tyee and 24 Hours, is vetted by lawyers before publication and not libellious in the slightest.Skookum1 (talk) 20:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest that you find this other content and refer to it - and cite that.

Find me some other examples of articles which contain unproven allegations from a single source - that's just absurd to consider something as leading as the deleted paragraph to be NPOV.

And, along similar lines, the issue is the use of a blog or OpEds to inject opinions into the article. The deleted paragraph reads like an OpEd, not a biography.

And, further, Tieleman is a clearly partisan commentator. By that logic, I should go and write something on my own blog and then add it to the bios of NDP leadership condensers.

If you want that content in,, then write it in plain, factual language. Extended quotes from OpEds aren't factual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjohnhackett (talk • contribs) 21:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the Vancouver Sunand Province are clearly partisan, too, especially their columnists, but you'd have no problem accepting them. Op-Ed material is OK in Wikipedia, even quotes (and this is not an "extended" quote not more than it is a blog item), so your argument falls flat. Rafe Mair's op-ed columns led teh charge, in fact created, the media firestorme over the Fast Ferries, also the Glen Clark witchhunt was staged by Global/BCTV and yet its lies and distortions continue to be treated like facts. And I'm not going to go on a hunt-and-chase for other articles that use only a handful of sources; they are legion, including in BLPs. And I repeat, you well know that mainstream media columnists and coverage, including in the big papers, also cover the very same material, as do all the smalltown papers that CanWest-cum-Torstar and Black Press do not control. Your job here, if you're really interested in seeing proper citations and not simply POV-deleting stuff you don't like, is to look for those other sources yourself; you can't simply delete cited material because you don't like it or claim it breaks rules which it's not breaking (or a serious editor, not a WP:SPA like yourself) would have taken it out long ago. Repeated deletions of cited material may result in your account/IP being blocked. I suggest you start thinking like a Wikiepdian and respect the contributions and citations made by others; you are welcome to provide different op-ed pieces that portray her in a more positive light.....if you can find them, and so long as they are stated as being op-ed and where/who they're coming from (this doesn't include her campaign material). Also, hosts of BLP political bios are written like resumes and family cutesy stuff, and that's not allowed in Wikipedia; and this article read like that until political material began to be added that wasn't just p.r. hype from her press kit and official bio.Skookum1 (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The North Shore News article on the Basi/Tsakumis memo makes no mention of Clark so I have not used it; more memos from Basi from fall 2003 are expected to be released by Friday. Meantime, for an example of genuine Op-Ed here's Rafe Mair's blogpost, "Why would anybody vote for Christy Clark", which points out (as the NS News does not) that those memos involve her; there's a big difference between the up-front opinion there and the news coverage in Tieleman's articles (which also all cite other news sources).Skookum1 (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, let's review the BLP and why your additions to this article are unacceptable.

First, what are the differences between your revisions and my revisions?

Broadly, you have added a great deal of BC Rail-related material and seeded it throughout the article, along with a few additional lines of political punditry.  I don't think that any of it belongs in here.  Here's why, point by point:

I'm going to begin with an extended quote from the BLP:

"Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and look out for biased or malicious content."

The BC Rail-related attack additions you insist on engaging in violate every single one of these precepts.

First, as I have already discussed, they rely upon a partisan source.  Whether this is a blog or not really, is a side show.  No one thinks that Bill Tieleman is an unbiased individual - he's a commentator and a supporter of the NDP.

Second, your additions fundamentally violate the precept of providing proportional space.  You have seeded BC Rail-related material in almost every section and added so much to the section on her time in government as to make it the dominant feature - which is absurd.  No reputable source has even alleged direct involvement in the scandal.

Indeed, further violating the BLP policy, your entire strategy here is to engage in guilt-by-association.  An unverified claim made by a single defense lawyer does not belong in this article, period.  Something so out there that even the original author built a disclaimer into the article does not belong in the article, period.

Further, you've added to your revision a line flatly asserting that someone is guilty of a crime they were never charged with - after an investigation - let alone tried or convicted for.  That's just simply unacceptable.

The fact of an accusation having been made does not rise to the level of notability.  If it did, President Obama's article would be filled with Birther nonsense and the "October Surprise" would lead the article on President Reagan.

Further, the rest of the added material also engages in little more than an attempt at character association by proxy.  It all hangs upon the first, simply unacceptable and unproven, attack.

As to the column stuff - again, I just don't see how it belongs within a biography.  Why is an extended paraphrase of a single hostile columnist appropriate, balanced, or relevant?

Finally, knock off your threats and insults.  You are the one who is insisting on adding clearly objectionable material.   I feel more than slightly in the clear here with regard to the 3RR since all of my revisions are aimed at removing what is, I believe, material that is clearly in violation of the BLP.

If anything, I believe that your repeated attempts to add poorly-sourced attack material merits a warning.  So, I'm revising.  I propose that we take this over to the dispute page if you insist on re-adding this material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjohnhackett (talk • contribs) 04:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]

A 3RR warning is not a threat, it is a statement of regular policy as is the nature of the potential punishment. Claiming I have "insulted" you when you have attacked me constantly since this began is almost amusing; I have not been the only person reverting your attempts to obliterate material relating to BC Rail, and I am also not the only one who has added such material. I suggest you back off on the heated language and study up on Wikipedia policy before ranting about it further. I have reported your hostile edits here already, hoping that someone less....toothy....than I am comes along to explain things to you. However, your campaign to erase Clark's links to the BC Rail case is an issue all by itself, given WP:COI and your history of editing almost nothing but BC Liberal Party articles since you appeared- primarily this one. So you should also read WP:OWN. Other previous edits by who-knows-who denouncing material from the Straight and from The Sun as "blogs" are also relevan to the history of this article, as is a previous SPA's attempts to tag "NDP-affiliated" to Tieleman's mention. It may well be that most of this material could be migrated to the leadership election article, but so far there has been little in the way of politician particularities there, which is to be about the campaign itself, not the candidate's political background. However, your repeated deletions of cited material are a serious violation of Wikipedia norms, and your hostility to one source in particular, and also to this editor, will not weight in your favour in any dispute resolution process. "Clearly objectionable material" as you call it is only clearly objectionable to you, and it's highly dubious that background material on Clark's position in the cabinet during the BC Rail sale and events relating to her during the opening investigations will be constrused by anyone else as "highly objectionable". Politically uncomfortable, certainly, but Wikipedia is about inclusion, not exclusion, and your assertion this is "clearly objectionable material" is blatantly POV and also evidently partisan. Your suggestions that libels suits may result from this Wikipedia inclusion is also a big no-no ("no legal threats"), and will fall flat on its face with the realization by any BLP editor that Tieleman's articles are NOT libellious and have been lawyer-vetted. They may be political, but information about politicians is inherently about politics, not a government press release or a feel-good resume about family and education and all her government positions, as was all this article for very long time (resumes fall under WP:Essay), and though you obviously don't like things that disagree with your views on what's important or not, political-context information is very MUCH the kind of thing that should be in a politician bio including material critical of her. It isn't hte only political bio that has the "resume" problem, lots of other BC Liberal, NDP and Tory articles have it, there just aren't enough editors to go around to remove the "fluff". I've added other material from CP/Torstar and the Sun today, and note above my link to Rafe Mair's blog, which IS opinion and invective, unlike Tieleman's which is news-basezd. However, it's quite conceivable that Mair's criticisms of her DO belong in the article, if stated as "Commentator and ex-cabinet minister Rafe Mair criticized Clark's campaign [thusly].....". Blaming it all on me, or wanting to cause trouble for me, is just a WP:Personal attack and will not help you keep Bill Tieleman's, or Mair's, or any other notable commentators views out of this article; quite the contrary, in fact. In throwing out the baby with the bathwater, you have also removed the CP/Torstar and CBC citations/content - (both widely-recognized sources) and what they had to say, while claiming that it was "badly sourced"....just as in your original edits you claimed in your edit comment that you were only rearranging material, whereas you were really deleting chunks of it and adjusting the language in others. I suggest, again, you back off on the hyperbole and recognize you cannot appoint yourself "owner" of this article or "police" cited additions you don't like. WP:Wikipedia is not censored and WP:What Wikipedia is not are two other things you should read and get to know. And from your wanton invocation of BLP for things that are not violations of it, you should also read, in-depth WP:BLP and pay particular attention to any passages concerning poliotical bios and political content. There have been a series of deletions of Tieleman's material which your username was not associated with, but the history of attempts to remove that material will be considered in relation to your own actions about the same material. And this is not a "threat", and it's past a warning; it's cool-headed advice to a newbie.Skookum1 (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bolton's allegation re Bornmann

This passage has been repeatedly deleted by User:Sirjohnhackett and various IP users and at least one other (now-blocked) SPA:

In 2009, Michael Bolton, defence attorney in the Basi-Virk trial, alleged that Clark had participated in the scandal by providing government information to the lobbyist Erik Bornmann. These allegations were never proven or tested in court

the Cite is the "Hard Questions" cite, which AnomieBot restored after Sirjohnhackett's third deletion of it, though without the context it was attached to. The wording of this passage is important, as it does not SAY that Clark provided that information to Bornmann, it says that Bolton alleges that she did, and as such is merely reportage of what was said on court. Not having that tested in court, like so much else, is a consequence of the controversial guilty plea which prevented further testimonty. However, if I'm not mistaken, something like that maybe in the Bornmann warrants, I'll look over them, i.e. as something Bornmann said to police about what went on. Warrants are legal documents and, while never reaching the stand because the trial was called to a screeching halt, are still treated as factual evidence and are now a matter of (very) public record. Only the four legislature-raid warrants were unsealed/unredacted/ many others, such as the one to search Bruce Clark's house, have not yet been unsealed, though various media lawyers are working to overturn their redaction. The point remains that the material included is a matter of public record, i.e. something Bolton said in court or to the media, and is not an "unfounded allegation", it reports on an in-court or to-the-media allegation. As I recall, though it's been a long while, it's something Bolton said in court as part of teh preliminary hearings (not the trial). This isn't citable from a mainstream media source because of the blanket of silence that was so notoriously mposed/collaborated with during the preliminary hearings, and which The Tyee and certain other publications did report (as well as every blog in the provicne, including some conservative ones). That only they reported it doesn't mean it's not a valid item, it simply means that the major media didn't report it (like so much else). Clark was clearly involved in the sale process, as is known to be the case simply by dint of her being not just a cabinet insider but Deputy Premier; she can't have been "outside the loop".....I'll. re-read what Bornmann said in his statements to police, which were their groundwork for the legislature raids, and see if he says anything like that; still, Bolton would not have said that in court, and would have been ruled out of order if he had, as something he could show Bornmann had done, or he just wouldn't have said it nor would the judge have tolerated it in the court record.Skookum1 (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the patience to read the warrants tonight (it's nearly 2 am), though here they are in a Vancouver Sun article for editors wishing to review them; I don't think they have what Bolton alleged in them...which may be in "the Tsakumis memos", which Basi authored.....I think much more likely Bolton's allegation was made in court, in front of the judge and the special prosecutor, and was not made to the media. If so, i.e. in front of the court, he had good reason to raise it, and would have had to have evidence to support it, even though Defence never got a turn to call its own witnesses, or produce any of its own evidence. The warrants link I'll put on Bornmann's talkpage and the Leg Raids talkpage, which both need serious/extensive updating.Skookum1 (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Few Things

First of all, people who care what Bill Tieleman writes on his blog will read his blog. It doesn't belong here just because you want to drive traffic there or whatever.

Second, pick a section for BC Rail stuff. It's a clear BLP violation to rehash the same content in every section of the article.

Third, the repeated attempts to add wording regarding Bruce Clark that isn't remotely supported by the article - words which try to inferentially accuse him of crimes is simply not acceptable and, further, doesn't belong in this article at all (whose biography is this?)

Fourth, we've already been over and, I thought, settled the matter insofar as that a single assertion by a DEFENSE lawyer doesn't belong anywhere in a biography of a living person. If it did, then you'd find some Birther nonsense in the first thirty words of Barack Obama's biography. Sirjohnhackett (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported Allegations

The phrases that Skookum insists on defending are entirely unsupported by the article cited and, furthermore, are defamatory towards a living person (a person who isn't even the subject of this article) and therefore violate WP:BLP and must be removed immediately and as many times are as necessary. Specifically, Skookum - even if he did not write it - insists on adding this phrase to the article:

"Though confidential cabinet documents relating to the bid process allegedly provided by Dave Basi were found in Bruce Clark's home no charges were laid against him despite alleged bribes to Liberal party insiders Dave Basi and Bob Virk"

This statement cites this article:

http://www.theprovince.com/technology/Rail+toxic+cargo+poisoning+Clark/3985145/story.html

The clear inference that one is meant to draw by the above, and wholly false statement, is that Bruce Clark was somehow connected to the "alleged bribes" described. When, in fact, the article cited contains NOTHING OF THE SORT. This is a wholly unsupported allegation and it should not be allowed to remain for even a minute.

Skookum clearly has an extreme partisan bias here - hence his claims elsewhere that the Fast Ferry and Casinogate scandals are media inventions. His actions are much more partisan than my own and his attempt to marginalize me is, frankly, desperate and absurd. Yes, obviously, I'm an ideological conservative. And yes, I'm at least as hostile to the NDP as he is to the LIberal Party.

But my goal here is, simply, to see that the truth is told here. That means that I intend to ensure that Wikipedia is not used as a venue for slander or outrageous lies against any of the Liberal candidates and, further, that it is not used to cover up any of the scandals involving the NDP candidates. That's entirely fair. There's a reason, after all, that this is a collaborative project.

However, the revisions being insisted on by Skookum are entirely unacceptable because of the fact that they contain allegations that are entirely unproven against living people. He can threaten me and label me all he wants - but this clearly falls within the 3RR exception offered in this area. Again, let me point you towards the above example. The edit he insists in reverting to contains an allegation against a living person (who isn't even the subject of this article) that is not only unproven, but wholly unsupported (as in not even mentioned by) the article that is being cited for that. I don't believe that any fair person would assert that this belongs here.

Likewise, we've already been over the matter of why - and I thought reached an agreement on - allegations without a shred of proof made by a DEFENSE LAWYER don't belong where they've been placed. Sirjohnhackett (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this seems to be devolving into an ideological dispute, I am not going to delve too deep into this. However, the cited article does connect the BC Rail scandal to Ms. Clark through the actions of her brother. From the article:
Although Clark herself has not been formally accused or directly implicated in any wrongdoing, her brother, consultant Bruce Clark, has been mentioned prominently in court documents, including search warrants released this week. Police found confidential government documents in Bruce Clark's home during their investigation.
and:
But the ties that bind Clark to the scandal are ties of blood and family.
From what I can see, the contentious sentence needs to be slightly rewritten. The "alleged bribes" bit needs either sourcing, or to be dropped. But the main concept - the confirmed investigation of B.Clark re: Basi/Virk trial - does warrant inclusion.
My suggestion for a more neutral wording:
Although Clark was not directly connected to the BC Rail scandal investigation, her brother Bruce Clark was mentioned "prominently" in court documents and search warrants associated with the Basi/Virk trial (province ref)
Deleting back and forth serves no purpose to the public. A stable, neutral article that accurately covers Ms. Clark's political career does. I have no desire to smear Ms. Clark, but reliable third-party sources have written on the BC Rail connection, and it is indeed relevant to her political career. As for the NDP articles, that is an issue for their respective talkpages. The Interior (Talk) 18:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the proposed alternate wording, but I think the word "prominently" should be dropped from it, given that it is a characterization from an OpEd.

Also, Skookum is, at this point, simply deleting other - entirely relevant - content re: endorsements. As well,the BC Rail material belongs in one section, not seeded throughout the article. Sirjohnhackett (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, you're accusing me over and over of things I didn't do, and it's against the rules - not that you haven't broken a host already. Me reversing your unwarranted edits/deletions is not ths same as adding that material. Maybe you better learn how to use Wikipedia first before telling the rest of us how to....Skookum1 (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum's attempts to keep defamatory material in this article

User Skookum shows a pattern of being a very partisan advocate of the NDP who hods extreme views on what sources are legitimate. He has repeatedly asserted that he refuses to accept as unbiased all of the major media outlets in this Province (The Sun, the Province, Global). He shows a clear pattern of defending clearly defamatory material that is being inserted into the biographies of several different living persons for plainly partisan purposes.

In this case, I have three specific objections to the material he is defending.

First, The material contains several implied allegations are defamatory. The earlier edit he was defending contained allegations of bribery that were totally unsupported by the cited material. Now he is defending an edit that implies criminal conduct by false implication, "despite x, whoever was never charged with a crime" is a clear attempt to suggest that innocent behavior is criminal. Especially in a BLP, this is unacceptable and must be removed immediately.

Second, along very similar lines, the usage of the Bolton allegations and the way in which they are presented is false and defamatory. An outrageous accusation fipor which no proof has been presented - made by a defense lawyer - does not belong within this article.

Third, though least important, the attempt to pass off commentary by a very partisan NDP source, to such a degree that it takes up 10% of the article in the revision I undid, is absurd. Sirjohnhackett (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

See WP:NPA....though like WP:COI and WP:NPOV and WP:3RR it's just another Wiki guideline/rule you have no intention of either reading or observing. See also WP:Duck about your own role as a BC Liberal hack-meister here. And if you're so upset about what Bolton alleges, why dno't you sue him, and his client for whom he said it, instead of complaining about it to Wikipedians for reporting it (which is their due and wiki-right). You might try suing Justice Bennett, too, for admitting various bits of evidence in the preliminary hearings which you no doubt don't like either. I'll repeat the Wiki guideline that you found necessary to delete from your talkpage, apparently it was offensive to you - WP:Wikipedia is not censored.....and you should also read again WP:No legal threats - implied or otherwise.Skookum1 (talk)
I am not, nor ever have been, an NDPer, nor do I support them now no matter how many times you accuse me of being an "NDP fanatic"....In fact, I voted for the Wilson Liberals in '91....they at least deserved the name "liberal".....Skookum1 (talk) 10:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

OK I can still edit this page, but no-one else can. And of course if I do make an edit, I could get electrocuted. Apart from the general tone of the article, I am particularly concerned with the (imo undue) emphasis on the BC Rail affair, which seems to amount to guilt-by-association and/or innuendo. I would propose shortening the text as I read it now, specifically excising everything from ".Though confidential..." to "...of documents", or maybe drastically rewording and shortening the whole bit. Similarly farther down at "[h]er campaign has faced...", this seems to be undue emphasis. The reality is that not everyone always knows what their spouse or siblings are doing, and this is not the place to draw such inferences. So what can we do to get this article unprotected? Franamax (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently two large paragraphs on BC Rail, I think the one in the Government section could be trimmed, and the one in the 2011 leadership section could be gutted and folded into the preceding paragraph. I'm of two minds on the mentions of B.Clark, on one hand, his actions are not hers, on the other, his actions have impacted her political career, so there is some relevance there. The first para of the Gov section could be read as POV in a pro-Clark sense. The second sentence is problematic - a bit PRey. Hopefully we can stabilize this article, things were getting a bit redonkulous there. The Interior (Talk) 04:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the BC Rail bit, yes we don't need any particular WP:CRYSTAL ball to foresee that it will be an upcoming issue and should be covered in a neutral fashion here, this is a political BLP and relatives are fair game in (real-life) politics. Getting the "neutral" and "undue" aspect right might be a problem though, so the more suggestions the better I think. Same for any other parts of the article. Franamax (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's all I've been saying for a bit. I don't mind re-wording of the other stuff.

My particular objections - and the reasons for the edit-war are:

1) As noted above, there's been an effort to seed BC Rail-related stuff in every section of the article. 2) There are some things in here that just don't belong - I don't think, for example, that the Bolton stuff belongs at all. 3) I think that the search of Bruce Clark should be mentioned, but that my problem has always been with the way in which it's worded. "Despite X, Y was never convicted of a crime" is a form of guilt-by-association.Sirjohnhackett (talk) 08:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL that's pretty funny, considering what you pulled on the Adrian Dix page about both him and Glen Clark, including your repeated insertion of the libellious "Forgers" category, and your attempt to make it sound like, as Terry Glavin ironically put it, "guilty, guilty, guilty" (even though he wasn't). And the Bolton stuff, it's what's been reported that Bolton said, it's not endorsing it, it's just mentioning it. You want it censored and claim it's defamation - as I've said before, if it's defamation then go sue Bolton for it - and we'll report on that, too. It's not defamation until it's, how do you so often love to put it, "not been tested or proven in court". Hypocrite. And don't whine about a PA for me saying that, given all the nasty stuff you've insulted and degraded me with. Try your shoe on the other foot.Skookum1 (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CBC (originally Globe and Mail) just reported on the release of docs re: BC Rail by the Supreme Court. Though I hate aggregating news sources back and forth, we'll probably have to fix some parts of the article to reflect these new reports. The Interior (Talk) 18:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be very wary of wordings in teh major media which says that the unsealed evidence "exonerates" anyone; it is only the affidavits as prepared by the RCMP under the direction of the Special Prosecutor and, as such, is one-sided and does not reflect the full body of knowledge and other evidence, currently being wrangled over between those who would keep it with defence for purposes of a Public Inquiry, and those who want it returned to/controlled by the Crown. The affidavits as released today only underscore and reflect the original limited investigation as established by the Special Prosecutor upon his appointment, they do not represent the full body of fact, and in no way are an exoneration, though the media are portraying them that way.Skookum1 (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 117Avenue, 8 February 2011

{{edit protected}} Please change the links to 'British Columbia Liberal Party leadership contest, 2011' to British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election, 2011, to avoid redirects. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there is a good reason to do this other than simply to bypass the redirect?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the move decision was that contest was an incorrect term to use, election is the correct term. Also, the See also section should have the actual names of the articles displayed. 117Avenue (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I stepped away. Doing now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

University

Does anyone know whether Christy ever earned a degree from one of the three universities she is supposed to have studied at? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.101.130.209 (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Here is an article from her time at SFU, with a picture of her during her university years. It does mentioned she was elected to be the president of her Student Union but immediately disqualified.

"Premier-designate Clark’s colourful SFSS past"

link: http://www.the-peak.ca/article/22463 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.252.89 (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New BC Liberal Party leader

Clark has been elected the new BC Liberal party leader (on the third ballot). GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premier-designate (minus the 'current' tag) is the correct terminology. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS- Why is the article protected? GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The media are calling her the premier-designate but is she? Can Clark be sworn in as BC's premier without holding a seat in the legislative assembly? Usually an MLA will resign their seat if their leader doesn't have one but what if Clark decides to go to an election first? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't have to be an MLA, to be sworn in as Premier. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh okay, I figured you had to be but I figured I must have missed something when they kept calling her premier-designate. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The party has designated her as premier. The premier does not have to sit in the Legislature, although it is customary. John Turner became prime minister in 1983 without being in the House of Commons. Ground Zero | t 03:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Turner became prime minister on June 30, 1984. Also, prime ministers John Abbott, Mackenzie Bowell & Charles Tupper weren't MPs either (Abbott & Bowell were senators, I think). GoodDay (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's different federally becuase a senator can be a minister or prime minister. It does say in a Globe and Mail article that she wouldn't be sworn in till probably mid-March and would need to make up her mind where she would seek a seat in the legislature. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She doesn't need to be an MLA. But it's alot easier for a premier to defend his/her government's actions 'in person' at the legislative session, against the opposition MLAs. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election, 2011 be linked to in the lead paragraph? I'm thinking the words 'the leadership'. 117Avenue (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those types of articles should be at "...Party leadership convention...", but that's another topic, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from EngineerVictoriaBC, 27 February 2011

{{edit protected}} Christy Clark became Premier-elect on February 26 2011 not Februayr 26 2010 - this can be verified from the quoted reference and many other sources. This incorrect date is mentioned twice in the article.

EngineerVictoriaBC (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Premier-designate. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

As for the intro, that I cannot update because it's protected, Christy is not the sixth female she is the seventh. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4 provincial premiers (Johnston, Callbeck, Dunderdale & Clark), 3 territorial premiers (Cournoyeu, Duncan & Aariak). GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Federal/provincal/territorial combined? it's eight females, including the 19th prime minister Kim Campbell. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CBC new reports that Clark will be sworn in as the 35th premier in March 2011. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Options to Tieleman

A POV/SOAP rant here since reverted by Good Day complained that Bill Tieleman's coverage is being cited as if he were not an NDP hack; this is like complaining that Vaughan Palmer is a Liberal hack, but the same complainers have no problem with him, even claiming he's "fair to the NDP". Just because Tieleman is one of the few major journalists dealing covering the matters at hand and that the major journalists, like Palmer, who work hand-in-glove with the governing party press machine, doesn't mean that his views hsould be discounted. The real point is he's not alone, there's plenty of independent reporters and columnists in BC who say much the same thing - Mair, Meisner, Holman, Ritchie etc - and in the case of the issue about the RCMP paying visits to her brother and her then-husband (with her in attendance), that's not just coming from Tieleman but also from such as Bruce Hutchinson at the National Post (Hutchinson was long-time editor and editor emeritus of the Vancouver Sun and most definitely not an "NDP hack"). And despite complaints that this has nothing to do with her, in politics everything has to do with everything, it's just the way it is. Wanting that taken out - as was repeatedly tried during the prolonged edit war that led to the current protected status - is a POV desire, and related to WP:OWN as those who are "on christy's side" clearly only want this article to be a happy place, and not cover the real news, only the approved news..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skookum1 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I have a little rant of my own on what exact parts of any given publication can be considered reliable for the purpose on Wikipedia. A very reliable newspaper, when viewed from the aspect of (say) its Automotive, Travel or New Homes sections must be evaluated in a different way from the work published in its main news-gathering sections. In a similar vein, newspaper articles written by Vaughn Palmer, when preceded by the byline "Vaughn Palmer", especially within the Sun's presentation of op/ed pieces - can only be quoted and sourced as the opinion of Palmer as expressed in the Sun. No quotes or opinions can be sourced to the newspaper itself, this should be made clear in the article text when using such a source. Palmer has not gotten himself fired, so is presumably not a total idiot - but nevertheless, when he writes a bylined column it is just him saying those things. Tieleman (who I just saw on TV last night with the caption "Former NDP strategist") is basically publishing one long "editorial" on his blog. Same as Palmer in the Sun, except he's not been vetted by any organization at all, he's just some guy on the internet. Neither are particularly reliable in the context where they're just spouting off on whatever they're thinking about today. This leaves an unsavoury residue, which is that if we must quote opinions, we have to select them from among "reliable sources" - but still acknowledge that the opinions are only reliable as opinions. I'd prefer to see strict avoidance of all "opinion" pieces wherever possible. Franamax (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's pretty hard to do when mainstream media's "news" articles are really political advertorials and vetted/engineered for political purposes; Mark Hume's treatment of the Crown/Court/RCMP smear campaign against BAsi and Virk last week is a case in point, as is their ongoing soft-soaping of the whole case; regular reportage in the Sun is often, in fact, pre-written by the Public Affairs Bureau in Victoria as ready-to-go-press copy, such as what you'd find currently out there on teh Prosperity Mine or the South Fraser Perimeter Project. Many blogs, like Laila Yuile's, are investigative and find teh data the papers won't print, and/or tie it together in ways that the media expressly try to avoid; same goes for the big business and/or federal Tory tie-ins to the Clark campaign (now Clark regime) and Falcon campaigns; when a blog reports documented knowledge that the media won't, or which the media editorialize/softsoap in to a sales pitch - when is news copy news copy and not op-ed? Also worth noting, again, the independent journalists like Meisner and Holman and Ritchie - and among bloggers RAfe Mair and Harvey Oberfeld, both major media voices in their own time; just because they're not collecting a paycheque from CTV or TorStar shouldn't mean they're any less reliable than the pet monkeys kept on staff at the Sun and Globe. the mainstream media in BC have been predominantly advertorial for decades; claiming that they're "reliable" when the people reporting what they won't are "unreliable" because they've had to use blogspace as an outlet is.....unfair. Corporate credentials should not be the arbiter of wiki-reliability.Skookum1 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, if the reporter's name is in especially bold type, always shows up on the same page, the reporter's picture is at the start, the text is typeset with lines around it - these are all ways a newspaper separates opinion from factual reporting. As an example, Sun, Oct 29/10 (kept for repotting plants), pg. A3 where at the top of Palmer's column in bold upcase Helvetica is "opionion". In essence, that is the entirety of a blog, it's the thoughts of an individual. The difference with a newspaper is that there is redress for falsehoods and misrepresentations, enforced by a press (or broadcasting) council. If the knowledge is documented, it can be obtained elsewhere, right? And it's hard to believe that if the issues are important enough, that they won't be covered by national organizations such as the CBC or Globe and Mail, or Toronto Star for that matter. If it's really true and not just speculation, we should ne able to find a solid source for it. Franamax (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MLA

Would she be required to contest in a safe seat and be returned to the Legislative Assembly to stay as the premier? Peter Geatings (talk) 11:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.248.5 (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the IP user, there's no legal or constitutional requirement she do so, other than by convention/tradition. Any member of the Privy Council can be a non-MLA....but for the Premier to not be present in a majority House (she'd have to sit in teh Visitors' Gallery, not on the floor) would be kinda awkward. In New Brunswick, when there was a complete shut-out of any other party, the Premier recruited a civilian to serve as Leader of the Opposition so that the Privy Council could sit at all. Not sure if a seat was vacated so that person could become an MLA, but that's a case example. She'll no doubt be parachuted into a very safe riding fairly quickly....but she was in no hurry to call an election since becoming leader/premier, so no rush, I'd guess.Skookum1 (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight in lede

There is undue weight in lead to trivial information about women in politics. A brief mention would suffice, not a cobbling together of trivial facts about the ordinal numberings of women in Canadian politics.

70.67.155.147 (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Item about ties to Dave Basi

"In 2009, Michael Bolton, defence attorney in the Basi-Virk trial, alleged that Clark had participated in the scandal by providing government information to lobbyist Erik Bornmann. These allegations were never proven or tested in court." doesn't admit to their being published notebooks and interviews about this, what comes to mind is on Alex Tsakumis' blog, though I can't find the particular series of posts right now......though there are other accounts of this. "has not been proven or tested in court" is boilerplate seen in many cases as if that meant something didn't happen, and is recognizably POV in tone/intent and is not balanced in any way, suggesting that only the courts are arbiters of truth; that bit of boilerplate is common fare in Canadian politics as an excuse to avoid responsibility or admit to facts. How can you test something in court if the trial is illegally shut down to prevent confirmation of the reams of information tabled (and accepted by Crown) during the preliminary hearings??.Skookum1 (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended: Consolidate BC Rail Related items into one Section

The BC Rail items are spread in the lead section, and into the Government section. They should be consolidated into a Controversy section. However, seeing that there is a BC election in 3 weeks, and reading over the 3 year old feud between Skookum1 and Sirjohnhackett, and me being a very infrequent editor, I think a more seasoned editor should make that call. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugcrusher (talk • contribs) 19:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the point of consolidating it all in one place; though it's spread out over time; a full BC Rail Scandal article is yet needed (that's redirect for now)....and I've stayed away from starting, partly for COI reasons, as one of the main blog commentors about it on various BC blogs, but also because of the stomach upset it would cause to research/write; BC Legislature Raids has been a stand-in for that but properly should only be about the raids themselves and their evidence, not about the court proceedings since (Regina v Basi, Virk and Basi is also needed). As for Sirjohnhackett, he was out of line, see Bearcat's comments on his talkpage. Just a fly-by-night SPA....the name John Hackett surfaced before, either in relation to the old edit war around Erik Bornmann or on the Leg Raids article, or else in the BC Mary blog as an itinerant troll....the name is that of an Australian Conservative/rightist apparently celebrated by other conservatives.Skookum1 (talk) 08:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christy Clark. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christy Clark. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 08:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christy Clark. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies - RCMP investigates political campaign contributions

Should there be a new section - maybe in controversies - relating to the ongoing RCMP investigation[1] of fundraising? Milhouse-the-mighty (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/investigation-of-political-donations-in-bc-referred-to-rcmp/article34266086/

Controversies in general

There are several issues with the "controversies" section.

  • Style issues: References should not be added to the section headings but after the content they support.
  • Tone issues: "faced widespread public outrage" (vague, and contradicted by the source for that claim, too), "oversaw the ripping up of B.C. public teachers’ contracts" (hyperbole), and similar non-neutral wording.
  • Issues with the sources: They include an opinion piece and a complaint letter, neither of which are reliable sources for facts beyond the author's opinion.
  • WP:BLP issues: A section heading proclaims "perjury", yet the person in question has been charged but, for all I can tell, not convicted.
  • Content issues: There is a controversy surrounding the "ethnic vote plan", but the article doesn't even say what it is. What the article does say isn't really controversial. There are other similar sections including Christy Clark#B.C. Liberals defy claim to "Open Government" (with a non-neutral heading) which actually lists rather uncontroversial proposals. Some subsections don't even mention Clark or fail to explain how the controversies they describe are relevant to her.

Some rewriting will be necessary to address these issues. Huon (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theadjuster has replaced an opinion piece while I was writing the above, but the new references do not support what they're cited for, and the opinion of Clark's critics is presented as fact in Wikipedia's voice. The more closely I look at that section, the more parts do I find where sources are misrepresented for shock value, to make Clark and her government look bad. Huon (talk) 00:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Christy_Clark. Per BLP, discussion needs to happen before content is restored. --NeilN talk to me 04:38, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Theadjuster is also responsible for the following section "Highway of Tears Email "Triple-Deletes", Cover-ups, Perjury" here and here and here and here. Does it deserve the same treatment? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so, so I've removed it. Again, nothing from it should be restored without consensus here on this talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citations added to section headings

The following citations were added to the section heading "B.C. Liberal 'Ethnic Vote Plan'", but I removed them and am adding them here for the time being. Citations should not be added to the section heading markup as explained in MOS:HEAD; rather, they should be added to the relevant content within the section that they support. If someone knows what this content is, please re-add the citations accordingly.

The above also applies to the following citation added to the heading "More Email Purges and Document Destruction Scandals".

-- Marchjuly (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Christy Clark. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Christy Clark. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 22:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Christy Clark. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 01:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actual Resignation Date

Can anyone find out if there is a proper source that tells on what exact date Christy Clark resigned her seat in Kelowna West? She may have resigned as premier and party leader on August 4, 2017 but I have not been able to find anything saying that that is the same day she resigned as an MLA too. This source says that "Christy Clark said she'd informed her colleagues of her intention to resign effective Aug. 4. The party confirmed that Clark will also be resigning her seat in the legislature, but her last day is not yet known." All other proper source I've come across just mentions the resignation as leader only. -boldblazer (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CBC says August 4. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Christy_Clark"