User talk:Schoeppe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Schoeppe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- JamesTeterenko 07:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Party colours

The current CPC may be the legal successor of the old PCs, but it's also the legal successor of both the Canadian Alliance and, by extension, the Reform Party of Canada. As a result, the CPC's colour has to be different from the PC's colour, because it's unacceptable POV to privilege the CPC's relationship to the PCs over its relationship to Reform and the Alliance. The colours are to stay as they are, and you may be editblocked if you disregard this. Bearcat 11:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The new CPC is most certainly not the same thing as the pre-1942 CPC. It's not even close to being the same thing. Bearcat 15:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Party Colours

The 3RR is the three-revert rule, which says that you cannot revert a page more than three times in the same day (unless you are fighting vandalism). Bearcat gave you a warning because your edits go against current consensus of how we colour the tables about Canadian politics. Your argument about the topic does have some legitimacy to it, and I know that you are not trying to be a vandal, but you cannot edit pages to match your view unless you first convince the general consensus of the community to change its policy. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing that confuses me most about your edits is why you make the PCs different from the old and new CPCs. Do you think that the old and new parties have more in common with each other than with the PC party in between them?
In any case, the problem with making the old and new CPCs the same colour is that it ignores the Alliance Party, which contributed more MPs to the new party than did the old party. It would actually be more accurate to give the new CPC the Alliance's old colour, but that would also be POV. The compromise is to give it a whole new colour.
As for your second question, the main way to get around disputes is to ask more people from the relevant wikiproject (in this case WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada) to weigh in. You may also want to read this policy on Resolving disputes in Wikipedia. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

In proposing that the new CPC have the same coloura s the old CPC I was trying to follow the arguments you made about legal entities to a logical conclusion. I personally feel that the historical CPC through to the current CPC, including the PCs should be the same colour. However, there is validity in the argument that the PCs and the new CPC should be separate colours. Political opponents of the new CPC argue that it is merely the Canadian Alliance with a new name and all vestiges of the old PC Party of Canada have forever disappeared, including any links to the historical CPC. By portraying the Prime Ministers of all tory parties other than the current CPC as the same colour while giving the new CPC a new colour it definitely corresponds with that viewpoint held by those people. Definitely not NPOV. Unfortunately, Bearcat has lowered the discussion to the level of personal attacks, so there isn't really much to discuss with him anymore. Please see the discussion on Minority Governments in Canada (sorry I don't know how to link directly to a given page.) I appreciate the way you have dealt with this. Hopefully I will have the time to look at the dispute resolution mechanism. Thanks. Schoeppe 16:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Schoeppe, you have not characterized the opposing argument fairly. Here it is in a nutshell: there was a party from 1867 to 2003 that changed its name several times. It was called the Conservative Party, the Liberal-Conservative Party, the Unionist Party, the National Liberal and Conservative Party, National Government and the Progressive Conservative Party. In 2003, it dissolved itself, and the majority of its members joined witht he members of the Canadian Alliance to form a new Conservative Party.
Because the new Conservative Party was founded by members of two previous parties, it should not have the same colour as either of them. If it has the same colour as the CA, this implies that it is a continuation of the CA, and the CA has "taken over" the party. If it has the same colour as the PC Party, it implies that it is a continuation of the PC Party, and the CA members just folded their tent and joined the PC Party.
Neither is the case. it is a new party, formed by members of two former parties, and so it should have a new colour. I hope this helps clear things up. Ground Zero | t 17:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to your last comment on my talk page. Ground Zero | t 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
And again. Ground Zero | t 20:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)