Talk:BC United

Split

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

@Autospark: please tell us, why you think so Braganza (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I feel that it is best that we should underline the (former) party's long and significant history as the British Columbia Liberal Party, which has governed British Columbia for a significant part of the province's existence, as well as the party itself being a section of the Liberal Party of Canada for most of the 20th century, and treat this 'rebranded' party as if it's a new, separate entity.--Autospark (talk) 21:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The split with the federal Liberals happened in 1987. For 35 years, it operated as the "BC Liberals" without any connection to the Liberal Party of Canada. Even before that it was complex/messy, as there were coalitions and electoral cooperation agreements with local conservatives from time to time as those parties cooperated to defeat CCF/NDP and Socreds. But all of this is distant history, when the party changed its name a week ago, the name and logo is all that changed. It was a facelift. The party's leader, MLAs and policies remain the same. The party is the same entity it was before. In these circumstances, it would be odd to view these parties as separate entities. We have one article for the CCF/NDP, why should we have two here?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

To insert myself into this conversation briefly, I understand the desire to want to preserve the history of what used to be called the BC Liberals, but that can easily be accomplished with the simple acknowledgement on the current article as it stands, since the history of the party is already written. Plus, precedent is in favour of the opposite. Name changes for political parties have usually not garnered the need for new articles, while splits and mergers have. I think that since the party has seen no major rift as of yet, that we keep the same article, and if there is a split or merger of some sort, then we can create a new article. EnigmaticSigma (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition to what Darryl Kerrigan said above, there just isn't anything to split at this time, or even really the immediate future. Maybe in 20 or 30 years, they'll have a distinct identity and enough history to warrant it. — Kawnhr (talk) 04:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

There could be an argument for having three articles: one on BCLP until 1987, one on BCLP from 1987 to 2023 and one for BC United since 2023. Surely, as there has been a change of name, I would at least split the article and have a new one for BC United. --Checco (talk) 05:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree; whether it is into three or just two articles, there should be a split. In any case, this rename is the party firmly jettisoning the last vestiges of its history as a former affiliate/section of the LPC. (Incidentally, the old BC Liberals website used to describe the party has being "since 2001", indicating there was some intent that it was considered a 'new' party separate from the federal Liberals.)-- Autospark (talk) 15:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to provide a link to that archived version of the website, or another WP:RS for the 2001 claim? There appears to have been one article about the BC Liberals since the founding of the project. Are you now suggesting four are needed? One from circa 1867-1987, a second from 1987-2001, a third from 2001-2023 and a fourth from 2023-present? Do I have that right? So the party continued as the same entity, with the same leaders, policies between these years aside from the regular change that would be expected within a party (and in the first three "transitions" continued with the same name) but for some reason we should consider the party as four different parties not one? Someone is going to have to do a better job explaining this. It would be a pretty radical change flying in the face of long standing consensus. Sure, consensus can change, but there would have to be compelling reasons for it to change.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Kawnhr and Darryl here... all sources say BC United and BC Liberals are the exact same party. This is (again) not like when the BC Liberals came into existence and the Socreds stayed around as a continuing (albeit depleted) party.

Without sourcing to say BC United is a brand-new party, this issue is moot. —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not and never suggested four articles; my preference would be for two, one article for the BC Liberal Party and one for the BC United party. If other editors would prefer a scenario where there was a third article for the BC Liberal Party up until 1987 and a separate one for 1987-2023, then so be it. As for the archived version of the website, there are examples here and here where the party describes itself as "first elected to govern British Columbia in 2001", seemingly regarding the BC Liberal party that governed the province in the first half of the 20th century a different entity. However I would grant you that is possibly open to interpretative and therefore inconclusive.-- Autospark (talk) 13:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Not to repeat myself, but consider the difference between the BC Liberals becoming BC United and the Reform Party becoming the Canadian Alliance.

The Alliance was technically, legally, the same party as the Reform Party (the Reform Party did not apply for dissolution and have the new Canadian Alliance apply for recognition; the Reform Party simply sent an application to Elections Canada to change its name and logo to that of the Alliance). However:

• the Canadian Alliance was, at least ostensibly, a merger between the Reform Party and outside Tory elements;
• "Unite the Right" had been a subject of active discussion for years — not just abstractly, but holding conferences and conventions to discuss it, gauge interest, etc.
• the merger had notable opposition within the party, including two sitting MPs;
• the establishment of the Alliance was inaugurated with a fresh leadership election — Manning had every intention of leading the new party but still had to be formally elected to the leadership, rather than simply inheriting it based on his leadership of Reform.

None of this applies to BCU. It was not pitched as a merger or an ideological shift, but a simple rebranding exercise because some of its members don't like the Liberal moniker. Renaming the party had been floated over the years, but had never been a major discussion until Falcon's leadership, and then it was over-and-done with in the span of a few months. The renaming effort did not seem to spawn a movement to counter it (if it did, it was pretty minor — certainly no MLAs were leading the charge). Finally, BCU did not hold a new leadership election, Falcon simply continued as leader.

So it's hard to see BCU as a different entity. It's the final shift away from their historical link to the federal Liberal Party, sure, but that's a process that has been slowly unfolding over three decades, with several moments one could use as a divider. So it seems strange, to me, to draw a firm line between them when recent BCL history is obviously relevant to BCU. And there isn't any other way to keep that history on one page without obviously flouting consensus (ie: if we split their history page at the 1987 disaffiliation, what does that mean for other provincial parties?). — Kawnhr (talk) 23:36, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

@Autospark, thanks for that clarification and for the citations. It doesn't seem that there is anything like a consensus developing to open up the "transitions" of 1987 or 2001 as points on which to split the article in to different articles about different BC Liberal parties. The 1987 disassociation from the federal Liberals, does not appear to have corresponded with significant changes in policy or leadership of the provincial party, or any other significant change. The 2014 wording from the website, appears to attempt to rebrand the party to some extent and focus on the last decade, in line with the slogan at the time "Today's BC Liberals". It does not seem to be a disowning of the past entity, an attempt to split from the old, or to found a new party. And it doesn't seem that anyone is arguing that 2001 should be a splitting point. Since you are not advocating for three or four articles, we seem to be back to talking about just whether we split the article into an article for the BC Liberals (circa 1903 to 2023) and BC United (2023-). I think editors positions on that are stated clearly above, but that seems to be where any further discussion is to be had (not on events of 1987 or 2001).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The article should be split in two, if not in three. To start, we should have an article on the BC Liberal Party and one on BC United. In Wikipedia there are several examples of parties, which were re-incorporated, having separate articles—just think of France's Gaullist parties, notably Union for a Popular Movement and The Republicans (France), or Italy's Democratic Party of the Left and Democrats of the Left. Readers benefit from distinct articles. --Checco (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Neither of these examples are comparable. In the French example, the party dissolved and a new party was formed. In the Italian example, several parties/factions merged into a new party. This is not what happened with the BC Liberal to BC United name change. It is the same party before and after, just with a different name. It is also relevant to note that the names "BC Liberal Party", "BCL", "BCLP", "British Columbia Liberal Party", and "Formerly known as: British Columbia Liberal Party" are all still registered by Elections BC as other names of BC United.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Darryl Kerrigan: Thank you for telling us the way the party came about. I was for splitting until I saw your comment :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

i personally weak support a split since its an historic rebranding

(and for technical reasons, the article just gets too long imo) Braganza (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name: BC United, BC United Party, United BC Party...

Further to the closed move discussion above, and Kawnhr's comment there about "how their branding will evolve", it is worth noting that BC United appears to have registered BC United Party and United BC Party as other names with Elections BC. I am not eager to change the name at this time, but this might be one thing to consider if we look at this again in the future, when more reporting has occurred and the branding has developed through elections etc.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Move back?

Obviously a bit premature now, especially if a few MLAs still run under the BC United banner, but if the party truly is dead, would it make sense to move it back BC Liberal Party, considering that was the party's name for 99% of its history? -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Should they be separate pages? Likely not as it's the same political party. When does BC Liberal/United ceased to exist? GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If the party is truly over — formally and legally, deregistered by Elections BC, etc — then moving back to the old title would be sensible for the reasons you said. If, however, BC United continues to technically exist and fields a handful of candidates to keep its registration (like Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan, or until last year, British Columbia Social Credit Party), then it should stay at the current name. But we won't know the situation for a few years, probably. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if the party remains dormant but continues to be registered, the name should probably be reverted back similar to Alberta Social Credit Party given that party's current registration as the "Pro-Life Association", since it will have used the Liberal name for all of its relevant history Windfarmer — talk 02:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

100% should NOT be considered for retitling for several months until things very clearly shake out. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sidebar

Charles lindberg on 3 April 2017 before being blocked added

"Conservatism in Canada" sidebar. Today I removed with edit summary = "Removed Conservatism in Canada sidebar. Liberals don't belong in a "series" about that, and aren't tightly bound to it." Wellington Bay soon reverted with edit summary = "BC United was a centre-right party". My mention of "series" related to the fact that the sidebar says this article is part of a series on Conservatism in Canada. My mention of "tightly" related to the fact that WP:SIDEBAR says "The collection of articles in a sidebar template should be fairly tightly related, and the template should meet most or all of the preceding guidelines." Who supports or opposes the sidebar? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The BC Liberals/BC United Party have long-been considered a conservative party - since the leadership of Gordon Campbell at least - and the article states that they are centre-right - see footnote b in the article which contains multiple sources. The fact they use/d the word "Liberal" isn't relevant - the Liberal Party of Saskatchewan under Ross Thatcher was also a conservative party, as is the Liberal Party of Australia and a number of "Liberal" parties around the world. That doesn't mean they are the most conservative party in BC - just as the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada wasn't the most conservative party in Canada after the creation of the Reform Party - but they are still a conservative party and part of the conservative movement in Canada. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The Gordon Campbell article does not have this sidebar. The Saskatchewan Liberal Party article does not have this sidebar. The Liberal Party of Australia article has sidebar = Liberalism in Australia as well as Conservatism in Australia. The question here is not whether the label centre-right is okay in the text. It is: Who supports or opposes the sidebar? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is (was?) definitely a centre-right party, its leader happy to publicly use that description, and the comparison with other centre-right/conservative provincial parties across Canada is definitely a valid one. So I definitely support the inclusion of the "Conservatism in Canada" sidebar for this article, given for over three decades the BC Liberals/BC United were the dominant (and often governing) centre-right party in one of Canada's most populous provinces.--Autospark (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

While I am not a fan of sidebars, I also agree that the "Conservatism in Canada" could well have a place in the article. Side note: I would remove "neoliberalism" from the infobox. --Checco (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)