Talk:Christy Clark

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Any information put in here should be properly cited and should be WP:NPOV in tone.Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: General Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: BC Rail search warrants should be mentioned

message: 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)
thread_title: Political blogs are fair game for BC political articles

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: No, blogs aren't "fair game" because you deem it so

message: 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)
thread_title: A Few Things

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Moving forward 

message: 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)
replies: text: Is there is a good reason to do this other than simply to bypass the redirect?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, I stepped away. Doing now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 117Avenue, 8 February 2011 

message: 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)
thread_title: University

message: Clark has been elected the new BC Liberal party leader (on the third ballot). GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: She doesn't have to be an MLA, to be sworn in as Premier. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  New BC Liberal Party leader 

message: 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)
replies: text: Premier-designate. GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from EngineerVictoriaBC, 27 February 2011 

message: 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)
replies: text: 4 provincial premiers (Johnston, Callbeck, Dunderdale & Clark), 3 territorial premiers (Cournoyeu, Duncan & Aariak). GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Federal/provincal/territorial combined? it's eight females, including the 19th prime minister Kim Campbell. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Options to Tieleman

message: 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)
replies: text: No.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.248.5 (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  MLA 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Undue weight in lede 

message: "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)
thread_title: Item about ties to Dave Basi

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recommended: Consolidate BC Rail Related items into one Section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.macleans.ca/culture/christy-clark-bio-goes-beyond-the-smile/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160605083509/http://www.macleans.ca/culture/christy-clark-bio-goes-beyond-the-smile/ to http://www.macleans.ca/culture/christy-clark-bio-goes-beyond-the-smile/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302200927/http://www.theprovince.com:80/news/Rail+toxic+cargo+poisoning+Clark/3985145/story.html to http://www.theprovince.com/news/Rail+toxic+cargo+poisoning+Clark/3985145/story.html#ixzz1CgYg7hJz
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Should there be a new section - maybe in controversies - relating to the ongoing RCMP investigationhttp://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/investigation-of-political-donations-in-bc-referred-to-rcmp/article34266086/ of fundraising? Milhouse-the-mighty (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies - RCMP investigates political campaign contributions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversies in general 

message: 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. 
*
*</ref><ref>
* 
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)
thread_title:  Citations added to section headings 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214205137/http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/mapleridgenews/news/111636924.html to http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/mapleridgenews/news/111636924.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theprovince.com/news/Rail%2Btoxic%2Bcargo%2Bpoisoning%2BClark/3985145/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110302013018/http://www.bcliberals.com/results to http://www.bcliberals.com/results
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130127071028/http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5367 to http://ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=5367
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150828010029/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=51557fe7-400c-4904-961f-6d76a253c09e to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=51557fe7-400c-4904-961f-6d76a253c09e
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106223050/http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=ff09dc12-78c6-4c33-8a0e-2af1cd6a60b5&sponsor= to http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=ff09dc12-78c6-4c33-8a0e-2af1cd6a60b5&sponsor=
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924124601/http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=6df178c3-a0e9-4899-8460-9b1609239ffc to http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=6df178c3-a0e9-4899-8460-9b1609239ffc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924143049/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=6f82776f-1b14-46c1-ad1b-0bf6d132b8f8 to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=6f82776f-1b14-46c1-ad1b-0bf6d132b8f8
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=27a78995-30f3-4638-a490-306bc732c9b0
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101201011446/http://www.theprovince.com/news/Clark+eyes+replace+Campbell/3895503/story.html to http://www.theprovince.com/news/Clark+eyes+replace+Campbell/3895503/story.html
*Added  tag to http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=7384619
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: CBC says August 4. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Resignation Date