Talk:British Columbia Moderate Democratic Movement

Platform

Including a party's platform in the article is valid: it explains what the party was about and what it was trying to achieve. In this case, we are dealing with a party that is now merged into another, so there can be no objection that Wikipedia is being used to promote the party. Many of the election articles feature party platforms to show what issues were being discussed in the election. This is similar, and it is not the only party article to discuss a party's aims and policies. Ideally, all of the party articles would do so. Ground Zero 13:37, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can object. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. --Spinboy 16:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is what Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. says:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.

So, if you think that the report on the party's platform is not objective, let's work together to make it so. I will take the first crack at it in restoring it. I don't agree that the soapbox stuff means that we can't report what the party stood for. Let's be clear that I am not an advocate for this party that doesn't exist any more in a province 5000 km from where I live. Ground Zero 17:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have taken another run at this to make it a more objective, factual recounting of its policy proposals, which is of historical interest, and not advocacy for its program. Again, since the party does not exist any longer, I don't think there is any danger that Wikipedia will be seen as promoting this defunct party. I hope this addresses your concern. If not, please let me know how we can improve this further. Ground Zero 19:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't belong there at all. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. --Spinboy 19:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So, we should never identify what a party's policies are orr weer, even if we do it in an objective, factual way? That is not what Wikipedia isn't a soapbox says. It does not say "no political party platforms allowed"; it says: "an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view." I have tried my best to clean it up to "approach a neutral point of view". If you can identify in what ways it is not NPOV, then I can try again. I look forward to having you work with me on this. Ground Zero 20:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Further attempt to address Spinboy's concerns

I propose to post the following into the article. I have added an introductory paragraph to attempt to address Spinboy's concerns that I am using Wikipedia as a soapbox. I am not clear why he thinks I am doing so because he has refused requests for explanation, but here goes:

[ Text moved to article following Spinboy's repeated refusal to explain why this is a problem. -- see also User_talk:Spinboy#General complaints ]

Comments are welcome. Ground Zero 13:08, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My concern is basic. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. That's it. I have nothing else to say. --Spinboy 16:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have laid out all of my arguments in detail here and on your talk page. And you refuse to explain yourself. The only thing I can add is to repeat that this is not using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Ground Zero 17:30, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They have a website that explains their platform, they don't need Wikipedia to do it for them. If the website didn't exist, I might reconsider, but it does. --Spinboy 17:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Finally, an explanation. Thank you. I wish you had explained yourself much earlier. It would have avoided all of this mess, and been much more considerate. I will consider my further response. In the future, please work with other editors. Thank you. Ground Zero 17:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Platform NPOV

Starting from Ground Zero's last revision, I've generally stripped it down, especially the more self-laudatory and ambitious assertions ("making the health care system sustainable" by, etc.) Where such an assertion may have to stay (like about violent offenders), I've used a direct quote, so as to move the article a step back from appearing to endorse such a position's worth or practicality. Where possible, Wikilinks also provide more context.

Soo, if it's any help, how about something like...

Platform

The BCMDM's platform is typical of those of many small parties without thorough policy platforms. The proposals tended to lack detail, and the platform failed to address many important issues facing the province at the time. For example, there was no mention in the platform First Nations land claims, drug problems especially endemic to Vancouver's east end, and relations with the federal government of Canada.

The party proposed:

• Education
  • forgivable student loans to cover tuition fees for B.C. residents
  • increased funding for school boards
  • greater autonomy for school boards to create new programs, subject to provincial standards

• Healthcare
  • paying practicioners for "promotion of wellness rather than the treatment of disease"
  • creating regional treatment centres covering all stages of care from diagnosis to treatment

• Economics
  • a B.C. business development bank to assist the creation of new businesses
  • an "Idea Development Centre" to help entrepreneurs develop business plans and gain funding

• Governance
  • opposing to the privatization of public assets, and returning already-privatized assets to public ownership
  • requiring all MLAs to attend monthly town hall meetings in their communities
  • increased transparency, including access to information measures making all government, Crown corporation and public-private partnership records open to public inspection
  • laws to hold public officials accountable for what the party called "fiscal mismanagement and misleading budgets"

• Justice
  • to "ensure violent offenders are removed from our streets"
  • increased use of restorative justice, halfway houses, and intense supervision for first-time non-violent offenders

• Forestry
  • ensuring raw logs were processed in the community in which they were produced
  • funding forest management to prevent and control wildfires
  • ending the "self-policing" of forestry companies

• Environment
  • maintaining the ban on bulk water exports
  • funding scientific research as the basis for all environmental decisions
  • increasing penalties for environmental violations, and putting funds raised directly into park maintenance and habitat protection
  • investing in pollution control research

• BC Hydro
  • "fairly priced electricity" through investment in new generating facilities for BC Hydro, to replace aging facilities nearing the end of their life

Since the MDM on its own is now part of history, having merged with more or less seven (!) other parties in two steps to form DRBC, its Platform page probably isn't long for the web, so I tend to think we should have something here.

Further thoughts - from Spinboy, Ground Zero, and anybody else reading? Samaritan 20:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still maintain that they have a website to promote their platform on, but this does look better. --Spinboy 20:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've taken that as, with reservations, a sort-of-consensus to add the rewritten section to the page, so I did. (With two more tiny tweaks: is typical -> was typical and The party proposed -> The platform proposed). Samaritan 20:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Note re WP:COI (conflict of interest guidelines)

To party members who may wish to edit the article: please see WP:COI regarding conflict-of-interest concerning members of organizations editing articles about those organizations. this is a general comment/warning being placed on all BC political party pages because of problems with some articles...If you are a member of this party you should not be editing this article!!.Skookum1 01:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Bcmdmlogo.jpg

Image:Bcmdmlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British Columbia Moderate Democratic Movement. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414232421/http://bcmdm.ca:80/article.php?p=41 to http://bcmdm.ca/article.php?p=41
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050120011909/http://bcmdm.ca:80/main.php to http://bcmdm.ca/main.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)