Talk:Labor-Progressive Party

Labour or Labor?

The article is currently titled "Labour-Progressive Party" and refers to the party by that name; "Labor-Progressive Party" is a redirect. However, if you look at the Globe and Mail for April 9, 1954, on page 8, you will see an advertisement placed by the party (vilifying the US for testing H-bombs and advocating an international ban on the things), with the party's name given as "LABOR-PROGRESSIVE PARTY".

At the time the Globe's style policy was that the word was spelled "labor", so if the party was mentioned in an article, they might choose to spell it "Labor-Progressive" even if "Labour-Progressive" was its actual name. But I would expect the spelling in an advertisement to be whatever the advertiser wanted -- although that might not hold if the typesetting for the ad was also done by the newspaper's staff.

Conversely, the sources relied on by whoever created the Wikipedia article might have used "Labour-Progressive", on the assumption that that was proper Canadian spelling, even if "Labor-Progressive" was the party's actual name.

I've never seen anything else written by the party except this one old ad, so I certainly don't know what's the correct spelling, or if they used both spellings. But I hope someone has a reliable source to check. --208.76.104.133 (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The party's name was, in fact, "LABOUR-Progressive" and NOT "LABOR-Progressive"

According to sources all over the internet that I cannot be bothered to add here, and according to old fliers/pamphlets in my family's possession, regarding this party's official name:

During the entirety of its existence, this party used the proper Canadian spelling for its name. It was officially named the "Labour-Progressive Party" (which, given that it was a Canadian political party, makes total logical sense). Also, the party was very much anti-American in terms of economic protectionism of the Canadian economy (in terms of foreign -and especially American- ownership of Canadian industry). Therefore, it was very careful to make sure that public things (like its name) were reflective of its "Canadianism" to avoid embarrassment.

If you really have seen it referred to in an ad or article as "Labor", then what you read was definitely a misprint, either by the newspaper or by a careless party member/official (which has been known to happen).

The name of this article SHOULD be changed to "Labour", as encyclopedic articles are supposed to be historically and factually accurate.

So, I really don't have the time to; but whoever does should look up the NUMEROUS online/real-life/physical(old pamphlets) and make the change. If this party were a person, we'd be saying that "he/she would roll over in his/her grave at the thought of their being referred to as 'Labor' rather than the actual 'Labour' it used". 99.246.182.5 (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

See an election pamphlet here, possibly issued in 1944, where the party is spelling its name 'Labor-Progressive' on the front cover. It is possible that the spelling was not always consistent. The best source to answer this question would be a published book. Here is one book from 1946, held in six libraries according to Worldcat. Once again it is 'Labor-Progressive.' Surely history books exist that would comment on this party. Someone could make a search in jstor.org. EdJohnston (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The Australian Labor Party is called that for some historical reason, even though the ordinary spelling is "labour".

Newspapers like the Globe and the Star did traditionally use American -or spellings until recently. The Star always said it was conforming to the Gage Canadian Dictionary which formerly endorsed US -or spellings.

There is a WWII monument in the Beaches, Toronto, dedicated to "our honored dead".

For some reason, that US spelling used to enjoy some currency here too.

99.237.143.219 (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The party spelled its name Labor-Progressive Party. See http://www.socialisthistory.ca/Docs/CPC/LPP44-Cover1.jpg 147.194.27.15 (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 1 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

---

Labor-Progressive Party → Labour Progressive Party – This party is mentioned by the Parliament of Canada's website as being the Labour Progressive Party (pop-up when you click LPP link), no n-dash and with the characteristic Canadian u in labour. FUNgus guy (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

These two references (this page and this book) were previously mentioned in discussion, which use the "Labor-Progressive" banner. Do we use Parliament's verbiage, or that of these references? FUNgus guy (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Parliament of Canada probably the more reliable source. AusLondonder (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Parliamentary website is wrong. In fact, the LPP always rendered its name as "Labor-Progressive Party" as evidenced by the following archival material: http://www.socialisthistory.ca/Docs/CPC/LPP-Program44.htm and in particular the cover image at http://www.socialisthistory.ca/Docs/CPC/LPP44-Cover1.jpg, this poster http://www.archivespolitiquesduquebec.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/1945-fred-rose.jpg , here: http://www.ovieuxbouquins.com/images/livres/4009.jpg 147.194.27.15 (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Consensus supports moving this page. (non-admin closure) Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

---

Labour Progressive Party → Labor-Progressive Party – The previous move was based on the spelling used on the Parliament of Canada website, however since then, the Parliamentary website has changed the spelling to Labor-Progressive Party. See Parliamentary website entry on Fred Rose as well as the pages cited above (which have now had the spelling corrected) namely Labor-Progressive Party (pop-up when you click LPP link). In addition there is documentary material cited above in the objection to the September change in the article's name, especically the 1944 Labor-Progressive Party election program and in particular the cover, as well as this election poster, and the party's constitution. Alexander's Hood (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure people are wondering why a Canadian party, particularly a left wing one, would purposefully spell the word "labor" rather than "labour" using American rather than Canadian spelling. It's because in the early to mid-20th century the spelling reform movement was viewed as modern and progressive and that some in the labour movement deliberately adopted the 'labor' spelling as a mark of modernism (and perhaps as a blow against British imperlialism - the spelling reform was not seen so much as "American" rather than modern and anti-Americanism on the left did not become a thing until sometime after World War II.). See, for example, the Australian Labor Party which adopted the 'labor' spelling in 1912 (see Australian_Labor_Party#Name_changes) despite the fact that conventional Australian spelling was and continues to be "labour". Alexander's Hood (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support — as much as it disappoints me that the Canadian spelling was not used by the party itself, if "Labor-Progressive Party" was its official name, then it is what it is (or was what it was). This is no different than Wildrose Party, a provincial political party. It was named after the province's official flower, the wild rose, which is two words, not a single compound word. It is not Wikipedia's place to correct incorrect spellings within official names. Hwy43 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Agree with Alexander's Hood. Note that Canadian newspapers also used the "or" spelling until the 1990s. TFD (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support My original request was based on the Library of Parliament spelling, and they appear to have corrected themselves. Perhaps it was their bourgeois British imperialist mindset that said "the Communist Party is illegal, and so is your spelling of Labor". FUNgus guy (talk) 04:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labor-Progressive Party. 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/20140330155427/http://www.gov.mb.ca/hansard/members/mla_bio_deceased.html to http://www.gov.mb.ca/hansard/members/mla_bio_deceased.html

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) 06:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labor-Progressive Party. 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/20120214093619/http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/56/tulchinsky.html to http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/llt/56/tulchinsky.html

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) 03:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)