Talk:Conservative Party of British Columbia

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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)

Request for comment on the description of the Conservative Party of British Columbia as Right-wing to Far-right

Should the following description of the Conservative Party of British Columbia as Right-wing to Far-right, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the lead of the article, the infobox of the article, or both? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Right-wing to Far-right^[1][2][3]

1. Jen St. Denis (September 25, 2024). "The Troubling Far-Right Content on BC Conservatives' Social Media". The Tyee. Retrieved October 5, 2024.
2. Dirk Meissner (September 19, 2024). "NDP flips, BC United flops, B.C. Conservatives surge as election campaign approaches". CTV News. Retrieved October 5, 2024.
3. Mike Hager (September 13, 2024). "BC Conservative leader who spoke at event alongside conspiracy theorists faces uphill climb to court urban voters". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved October 5, 2024.

PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Include in both the lead of the article and the infobox of the article - per precedent in other articles on Right-wing to Far-right political parties and the abundance of reliable sources listed in support of the description of the Conservative Party of British Columbia as Right-wing to Far-right. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  +1 @PoliticalPoint's proposal.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Agree, essentially, but keep only one political position in the ideology field (right-wing, seeing as the party is clearly to the right of the established centre-right party in British Columbia).-- Autospark (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Autospark it is common for infoboxes to list a range. For example, Lega Nord's infoxbox says "Right-wing to far-right". Its because sources don't often agree and WP:DUE requires us to present all significant viewpoints.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I strongly disagree with any political party Infobox listing more than a single entry in the Position field. Listing multiple positions (with references) should be left solely for the article body.— Autospark (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  There are quite a few articles on political parties that list several political positions on Wikipedia. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• I feel that the lead should include a very brief statement on party ideology, since there's a section on this in the article and it's an important piece of info for a political party. There's already been some discussion about centre-right versus right-wing on this talk page (with sources included), and I think it might be hard to achieve consensus. I feel it's more truly a right-wing party; I think the far-right stuff is such a recent phenomenon that we would have to be careful not to give it undue weight, since the party is over a century old. I feel it's safe to say that the party has throughout its history championed free enterprise, and to see where we can go from there. Other justin (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe we can list both with qualifiers? Like:

  Ideology

  • Centre-right to right (X—2023)
  • Right-wing to far-right (2023—present)

  VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

  This is not done for any Canadian political party, and is also wrong. It was further right before 2023. Deathying (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Do not include - Centre-right to right-wing is the most accurate characterization of this party. There is an official party platform. No media outlet has labelled it a "far-right" platform.

You again cherry pick your sources. Sources 2 and 3 qualify the use of "far-right" by indicating its not the majority of the party:

"Rustad — who faced criticism from BC United Leader Kevin Falcon and Eby about the far-right and extremist views of some of his current and former candidates and advisers"

"The BC United document also cited Mr. Isidorou’s “admiration of Lauren Southern,” a far-right Canadian activist, who got her start in politics as a teen pundit for the BC Conservatives in the lead up to the 2013 provincial election and then, in 2015, ran as a federal Libertarian candidate in the B.C. riding of Langley-Aldergrove."

Simply because an advisor admired some far right activist does not make the party far right.

The idea that the party was far-right from 2023 onwards is also ridiculous. It was notably further right and fringe before Rustad took over and absorbed the BC Liberal base. Deathying (talk) 01:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Include per their description in sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Do not include I would classify the party as simply "centre-right". However, I can accept "right-wing", while I strongly oppose "right-wing to far-right" both on the method (why having complex positions when one can have just one?) and the merit (the party is not far-right to any extent and such exaggerations are not good for an encyclopedia). --Checco (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that classify the Conservative Party of British Columbia as "centre-right". All reliable sources classify the Conservative Party of British Columbia as either "right-wing" or "far-right".--PoliticalPoint (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment on the inclusion of content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of the Conservative Party of British Columbia

Should the following content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the article, either in the lead of the article or in the body of the article with a summary in the lead of the article? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

The BC Conservatives have been variously described as racist, anti-Indigenous, anti-LGBTQ rights, anti-human rights, and a "conspiracy party" under the leadership of John Rustad, with many of the party's candidates espousing various conspiracy theories, including comparing 5G technology to "genocide" and a "weapon", claiming that children are being forced to eat bugs, expressing concerns about "microchips", believing that "cellphone towers cause COVID-19 and are genocidal weapons", and alleging that vaccine mandates were about "shaping opinion and control on the population"; espousing various homophobic and transphobic beliefs, including calling pride parade participants "degenerates" and a political opponent a "woke lesbian", and comparing education about the LGBT community to residential schools; and espousing various anti-Indigenous and racist views, including asserting that Indigenous peoples in Canada "commit more crimes like Black people in the US" and that the efforts of the provincial government of British Columbia to recognize Indigenous land claims in Canada are "a direct assault on private property".^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

1. Dirk Meissner (September 24, 2024). "'Loopy', 'whacky' or a 'big blue tent'? Growing pains for Rustad's B.C. Conservatives". PressProgress. Retrieved September 27, 2024.
2. Rumneek Johal (September 24, 2024). "BC Conservative Leader John Rustad Warned Convoy Event That Kids Will Be Forced to 'Eat Bugs'". PressProgress. Retrieved September 27, 2024.
3. Moira Wyton (October 1, 2023). "B.C. Tory leader defends post that appeared to liken teaching of sexuality and gender to residential schools". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved September 27, 2024.
4. Simon Little (September 24, 2024). "Party leaders need to 'quickly depoliticize' vaccines, B.C. doctor says". Global News. Retrieved September 27, 2024.
5. First Nations Leadership Council (September 5, 2024). "John Rustad's Interview with Jordan Peterson Another Example of BC Conservatives Taking Aim at Indigenous Rights and Reconciliation". Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. Retrieved September 27, 2024.

PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Include in the lead of the article - per precedent in other articles on political parties that espouse various conspiracies and are mired in various controversies and the abundance of reliable sources listed in support of the content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of the Conservative Party of British Columbia. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  @PoliticalPoint, you need to first add that content to the body of the article, and then a summarized version of that can appear in the lead. A lead is not supposed to have content not in the body of the article. For example, I do see a section on conspiracies but I don't see anything about "microchips" in the body. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Vice regent, inserting this content in the lead of the article or in the body of the article with a summary in the lead is the purpose of this proposal as certain users had previously objected to the inclusion of the content in the article, despite the content being exceptionally well-sourced with multiple reliable sources being cited in support of the content. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• I don't think this paragraph should be included, and I think there's been consensus established on that already. The paragraph has been trimmed down and included in the article in a section on 'Conspiracies'—personally, I think that's adequate. I certainly don't think it should be in the lead, as that would be giving undue weight to current events for a party that has more than a century of history. Other justin (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  The fringe conspiracies and related controversies of the Conservative Party of British Columbia should certainly be prominently mentioned in both the body of the article and the lead of the article per WP:FALSEBALANCE. The failure to do so would improperly sanitize the Conservative Party of British Columbia. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Do not include - This paragraph comes off as opinionated editorializing. You are aggregating controversial statements made by candidates and presenting them as official positions of the party. Many of these controversial statements were made before these candidates became members of the party. We don't have a paragraph like this for the Republican Party (United States), or any other party for that matter, quoting everything controversial said by a candidate. Official party platforms exist for a reason.

Your own sources also do not go as far as to call the party racist or anti-human rights. That is not contained anywhere in your sources. That is something you synthesized. Deathying (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

That's not what I see in the sources. [4] says BC Conservative Leader John Rustad saying he regretted taking the “so-called” COVID vaccine and claiming vaccine mandates were about “shaping opinion and control on the population.” [3] says "The leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia has defended his social media post that critics say appeared to compare teaching students about sexual orientation and gender identity to the genocide of Indigenous children in residential schools."

These are statements made by the leader of the Conservative Party after he became the leader of the party. So a summary of such statements should be mentioned.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

These are more the opinions of the leader than the party itself, and you can write a long paragraph about it on John Rustad Please tell me how this is "anti human rights" or "racist".

Official party platforms exist for a reason. Deathying (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. The fifth source clearly contains both descriptions. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 03:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Do not include - While it would be appropriate to include some reference to these types of things, this is far too long and WP:COATRACKY. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not a coatrack paragraph by any means as the entire paragraph pertains to the fringe conspiracies and related controversies of the Conservative Party of British Columbia. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Do not include There should not be a "controversies" section, but some criticisms or, better, critical classifications could come up in the "ideology" section. --Checco (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

A "controversies" section is fairly standard on articles about politicians and political parties on Wikipedia. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Do not include This comes across as very pointed editorializing. Substantive points can be addressed elsewhere in the article if justified. Atchom (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not "very pointed editorializing" by any means as the entire paragraph extensively quotes verbatim from the multiple reliable sources listed. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. Violation of WP:BALASP. While it would be fine to include some information about the recent conspiratorial turn of the party, perhaps with a sentence in the lead and one in the positions, this pargraph is not it. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is particularly relevant here as it pertains to fringe conspiracies and related controversies. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Include in the lead There are enough reliable sources at this point that some of it is due. The paragraph as it is needs to be rewritten though and trimmed down to focus on the most due parts of it. Symphony Regalia (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)