Talk:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation

Party name

Does anyone know if the CCF called itself the "Cooperative Commonwealth Federation" or the "Co-operative Commonwealth Federation"? Our articles all seem to use the former, but I wonder if that is not a case of presentism. Kevintoronto 17:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This CCF pamphlet shows the name as ""Co-operative Commonwealth Federation". Further evidence one way or t'other would help. Ground Zero 16:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I have further evidence. Here is a series of document published before and during the 1944 Sask election, which was the first won by the CCF:

[1], [2], [3], [4], [5].

In all cases, the party's name is the "Co-operative Commonwealth Federation", and not the "Cooperative Commonwealth Federation". So if no-one objects, I will move this article in a couple of weeks when I return from vacation. Ground Zero 13:54, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Continuity

I'm wondering if there should not be a difference in the CCF colour compared to the NDP? The PC's and the New Cons are different because they were different parties. Anyone who knows something about history know that the CCF and the NDP are different (not just a name change)

ex

Party	Party Leader	# of candidates	Seats			Popular Vote
			Previous	After	% Change	#	%	Change
New Democratic	Tommy Douglas	000	000	000	000	000	000	000
Cooperative Commonwealth	J.S. Woodsworth	000	000	000	000	000	000	000

• I am inclined to agree with the anonymous editor on this. The CCF was disbanded and a "New Party" was created in co-operatoin with the Canadian Labour Congress, so the New Party should be treated as being different from the CCF, just as the new Conservative Party of Canada is not a continuation of the PC Party, but a merger with the Canadian Alliance. The NDP, on the other hand, is just a re-naming of the New Party, so there should be no change in colour between those two, although since the New Party never ran in a general election, the point is moot. The change in name of the Conservative Party of Canada (historical) to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was just a renaming, so no change in colour is required at that point. Kevintoronto 16:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)\

Actually the "New Party" was never really a party but a collection of clubs, associations, etc. There was one person who was elected under the New Party banner, however this was more of a test to see how the people would react to the coalition off CCF'ers and organized labour.

• Fair enough. On the issue of changing the colour, there are two points you should consider:

1. I've just noticed that the colour that you're proposing is already in use for Socialist candidates in various elections, including the 1935 election that you just changed.
2. Making changes randomly to articles that appear in a series like this one is not a good idea. This is how articles get out of sinc. The CCF ran candidates in numerous federal and provincial elections. If you just change one or two, your changes will be reverted soon enough when people realize that there is an inconsistency.

I urge you to choose a new colour, post it here for comments, and then if you get others to agree, make all of the changes in one go. It would be a good idea to move this discussion over to Talk:Canadian federal election results since 1867 where there is already a discussion underway about party colours. Regards, Kevintoronto 20:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My changes to the 1935 election were just a test. I would be more than happy to change all federal and provincial election. The socialist party is something that could probably be left alone (it was a marginal party) The party is on the left and could basically be left alone similarly labour, farmer-labour, Independent labour party, ect, or it could be changed to gray, like the UFA.

• Okay. But why not choose a colour for either the CCF or the Socialist Party that is different so that the continuity of the Socialist Party is maintained, rather than adding it to the heap of grey parties? The trouble is, I don't actually know how to go about finding different colours, so I'm not much help in that regard. Kevintoronto 22:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

what im saying, is that the socialist party in 1935 had one candidate that recieved 200 votes. Can you really call that a party? Does it deserve its own colour? How about the colour "moccasin"?

• In 1935, yes, it was minor, but in other elections, it had more candidates, and in at least one BC election, Socialists won.
• "moccasin" would work, though, for either the Socialist Party or for CCF. It is currently used for the Confederations of Regions Party from 1984 on, but I don't think that's a big deal. That might be an argument for using moccasin for the Socialist Party and using #EEDDAA for the CCF. Kevintoronto 22:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK so. We have moccasin for Socialists, and EEDDAA for the CCF. Should I get started?

• Fine by me. Others may object, though. It's up to you. Kevintoronto 22:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See also list

Today's edits are, to put it as politely as I can, not consistent with Wikipedia style. It is not clear what the numbers mean, and it looks a mess. Perhaps the anonymous editor could take a run at making this look less jumbled and confusing, and more consistent with the appearance of other articles. Biographical information, including what elections they ran in and whether they won or lost, belongs in the articles, and not in this list. Ground Zero | t 19:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ccflogo.gif

Image:Ccflogo.gif 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 09:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ccflogo.gif

Image:Ccflogo.gif 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

CCF founded in ??????

Was it founded in 1919 or 1932? Please let's get our story straight.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cover of CCF pamphlet.jpg

Image:Cover of CCF pamphlet.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

CCF's predecessors

The CCF's predecessors should include the Canadian Labour Party and the United Farmers of Alberta, as they sent representatives to the founding convention and joined, although still running candidates a bit later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.225.148 (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. 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/20040216003527/http://www.mta.ca:80/faculty/arts/canadian_studies/english/about/study_guide/roots/index.html to http://www.mta.ca/faculty/arts/canadian_studies/english/about/study_guide/roots/index.html

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) 01:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Co-operative Commonwealth Federation. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mta.ca/faculty/arts/canadian_studies/english/about/study_guide/roots/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050425030506/http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/readings/ccf-ndp.htm to http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/readings/ccf-ndp.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 22:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Repeted deletion

Aquitoba, you have twice now deleted my addition of information to this article. Following your first deletion I rephrased it to be less dense. The most recent revision was:

Weir's identification in the House of Commons as a member of the CCF is in name only, and does not mean that he or anyone else intends to re-establish the CCF as a registered party. Weir hopes to run in the 2019 federal election as a New Democrat or an independent candidate.

Can I ask why you have done so? The only rationale in your edit summary was "Excess verbose is fowned [sic] upon." I think it's clear that the following facts are relevant:

• Nobody is re-establishing the CCF as a registered party
• Weir doesn't even want to run under a CCF banner.

I also don't think your text of "The designation is in name only." is sufficient to explain the difference between an independent giving himself a parliamentary designation and a political party being established. Madg2011 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree that the Erin Weir affiliation needs to be included in this article. There are lots of newspaper sources to cite from regarding this. 162.208.171.22 (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I've added back the revision as of June 30, and invited Aquitoba to discuss it here. W.andrea (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This unquestionably needs to be re-added to the article, not least because several OTHER Wikipedia articles specifically link to the specific paragraph on the 2018 incarnation of the CCF. Unfortunately, the linked paragraph, now having been needlessly deleted, cannot explain the circumstances of the in-name-only revival of the CCF. I can see no cogent argument that's been made for the paragraph's removal, as it is an unquestionably documented (and exhaustively sourced) fact that the name of the CCF was revived, and the paragraph carefully and patiently explains the unusual circumstances behind this unexpected revival. Accordingly, the paragraph belongs back here in this article to explain this event -- an event which is reflected in official Canadian parliamentary records, and really needs to be explained HERE in this Wikipedia article, as well as elsewhere as appropriate. I will give a few days for any interested parties to respond, however, before making any effort to reinstate the paragraph. 70.53.44.67 (talk) 03:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, the sourced information is now back in the article, where it belongs. 70.31.82.87 (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That section absolutely does not belong in this article, and should be moved to the specific article about Erin Weir. The CCF is a political party which ceased operations in 1961, and the section is misleading.--Autospark (talk) 14:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not misleading in any way, shape or form. At all. To anyone, in any context -- unless, of course, that person is willfully, deliberately and in bad faith intending to "misunderstand" it in advance. To any reasonable reader, the well-sourced information is presented clearly and succinctly, in the place and in the context in which it belongs. It does not disrupt the flow of the article, presents the situation in a way that is easy to grasp, and does not dwell on it. One may not approve of Weir's actions, or one may feel that his use of the CCF designation was inappropriate ... and that's fine. But it happened, it was widely reported, and it is enshrined in official parliamentary records. To NOT have a brief summation of this situation here on this page is at best obfuscatory, and at worst could be described as fundamentally dishonest. 70.31.124.93 (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Hm. Seems that no-one's refuting this argument. The material should therefore be reinstated, no? 24.251.5.213 (talk) 08:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. 174.95.198.211 (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The information should absolutely not be reinstated on this article. It has nothing to do with the historical federal CCF.— Autospark (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It has been exhaustively discussed why this sourced, widely-reported, and undeniably verifiable piece of completely relevant information absolutely, assuredly and positively *should* be here. It is entirely and COMPLETELY relevant to explain the situation to anyone who comes across official parliamentary records and numerous news reports of the era that reference the CCF as a contemporary parliamentary party in 2018/19.

Of course, you can absolutely believe that Weir should not have used the CCF designation, or that Canadian Parliament should not have officially recorded Weir's party as such. These are reasonable beliefs.

But he did, and they did. It is a matter of official parliamentary record that the CCF was a party with parliamentary representation in 2018/19.

Not the historical CCF, you say? Fine. There is no better, more relevant, or appropriate place to note what happened in terms of the re-emergence of the CCF as a parliamentary designation than in an article on the CCF. None. This is the ONLY Wikipedia entry where any reasonable researcher would expect to find such information.

So. The information is notable, sourced, relevant to the article, placed correctly within the article, not given undue weight, and explained clearly, thoroughly and succinctly. It does not imply in any way that the CCF of 2018/19 was the historical party, and the information as written cannot be construed as misleading in any fashion whatsoever to any reasonable reader approaching the article in good faith.

Again, you personally can feel that Weir unfairly expropriated the CCF name. That's perfectly reasonable. And if you have a reliable published source that agrees with you, you can even reference that in the article. But.... the CCF 2018/19 issue happened. It's relevant. And as a result, it needs to be reflected here. 174.95.198.211 (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I’m not arguing that the event happened, or about Weir’s motivations. That’s irrelevant. Just that the information is not relevant to an encyclopaedic article about a political party which has not existed since 1961.— Autospark (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

What can I say? You're wrong. As has been patiently, rationally, calmly, respectfully, repeatedly and exhaustively shown.70.53.102.55 (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)