Talk:Saskatchewan Party/Archve 1

message: There is a Liberal Party of Saskatchewan, and this isn't it. The Liberal template does not belong here. Shame on the anonymous editor for suggesting that I supported putting the template here without asking my opinion. Ground Zero 16:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberal template

message: In various places around here, there has been a debate about whether to characterize the SP as "conservative" or "liberal - conservative". And thetre have been some revert wars. I think it makes sense to focus the discussion here. 
In the past, under the leadership of former Reform MP Elwin Hermanson, it is clear that the SP was conservative despite having been founded as a coalition of PCs and Liberals. Now with leader Brad Wall, it is not so clear. The Party seems to be trying to move to the centre. How should Wikipedia charecterize it?
The party's current "Guiding Principles" can be found here: . Principles 1, 2 and 3 are clearly conservative. Principle 4 is something that all parties claim they want, whether left or right. Principle 5 is more centrist, but not actually left-wing.
Princples 6, 7 and 8 fall into the "ice cream" category -- if asked to vote for or against ice cream, is there anyone who would vote against it? 
I don't know enough about Sask politics at this point to have formed an opinion.
Please: discuss amongst yourselves. (And by discuss, I mean, provide well-reasoned arguments backed up by evidence, rather than just assertions of you believe. Thanks. ) Ground Zero 18:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As I just explained over on Template_talk:Major Canadian Conservative Parties, saying that a party is "conservative" does not mean that they are hard right.  No one, so far as I have seen, has argued that the Sask Party is left-of-centre, I believe that there is consensus that it is right-of-centre.  That is to say a "small c" conservative party.  I do not see the logic behind any dispute on this at all.  I think the problem here is that some, particularly Michaelm, reads "conservative" to mean "hard right-wing" but in fact that is not what it means at all. - Jord 21:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The SP is not a conservative party per se, but a "broad tent" that includes conservatives and liberals, and Conservatives and Liberals. The reference that Michael provided elsewhere of an introduction speech for Wall delivered by a Liberal points in that direction: he talked about the need to stop the NDP, and the SP being the only way to do that. The "Liberal member of the SP" phenomenon may arise from the split that occurred in the party when its leader took it into coalition with the NDP, and the rest of the caucus refused to go along. 
On the other hand, it is so widely recognized as being a conservative party that I don't think Wikipedia should state otherwise. The article already reflects the participation of some Liberals in the party. I think what we have, at least until we get a better idea of where Wall is going, is a "conservative party that is supported by some Liberals as a way of opposing the NDP". (The introducer's speech focussed, if I recall correctly, on what the NDP is doing wrong, rather than a belief necessarily in SP policy.) 
I think  lean to the latter position, rather than the devil's advocate position. Ground Zero 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative or centrist?

message: http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/1998_May_Jun/article_8.html
http://www.rightwing.ca/archives/2003_10_01_archive.html
http://www.governmentrelations.ubc.ca/informed/nov2003/provinces.html
http://www.nupge.ca/news_2003/n21oc03a.htm
http://www.saskndp.com/cw/65.1/shadesoffuturepast.html
http://www.saskndp.com/cw/64.5/electionredux.html
http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/x0926rro.htm
http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Saskatchewan:Government:Insurance.htm
http://www.votenga.ca/Common%20Pages/BackgrounderTextFiles/Current%20Comments%20from%20NGA%20Site.htm
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1099award.htm
http://www.hursh.ca/2003_11_02_archive.asp
http://www.carillon.uregina.ca/10.21.04/story3.html
http://www.halifaxlive.com/Little_Dec31.htm
http://www.web.net/blackrosebooks/sask.htm
http://saskatchewan-party.area51.ipupdater.com/
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000986
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/special/yir2003/bandw_politics.html
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/2004062914372787
http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2003w44/msg00153.htm
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/002021.html
http://www.fairvotecanada.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=488&forum=3&5
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1378022/posts
http://www.koschei.net/blog/archives/000415.html
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0997tidbits.htm
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22saskatchewan+party%22+right-wing&btnG=Search&meta=
===Wow===
I'll check some of these out. Nice work, P. And I thing the term is "right-wingèdness". Ground Zero 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: proof of right-wingadcy

message: I'll check some of these out. Nice work, P. And I thing the term is "right-wingèdness". Ground Zero 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: the edit by 24.222.32.229 is infact an edit by MichealM, who logged out to make it. compare his past contributions as both and look at the edits. not to mention the identical spelling mistakes they make. Pellaken 03:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Underhanded Tactics

message: Never mind the Underhanded Tactics lets just force the task on hand and don't put down outher peoples research. Michaelm 04:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lets just fix the page 

message: Here is my proposed redraft of the intro paragraph to recognize the fact that things are in flux:
:The Saskatchewan Party is a centre-right political party in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan.  The party was established in 1997 by a coalition of former Progressive Conservative and Liberal members and supporters who sought to remove the New Democratic Party from power.  While it has been a conservative party since its creation, it is now attempting to attract moderate voters.  The Saskatchewan Party serves as the province's Official Opposition, holding 28 of the 58 seats in the province's Legislative Assembly in Regina.
Comments? Ground Zero 15:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Redraft of intro paragraph

message: I see that a lot of unsubstantiated allegations have emerged in the article.  Allegations that are not supported by evidence are not acceptable on wikipedia, especially if they do not have credible sources backing them up.  The Bakken Lackey article cited does not make any reference whatsoever to Ms. Bakken Lackey having any difficulties within the Saskatchewan Party caucus, but rather states her frustration with the nature of the antagonistic and bitter relationship between the Government and the Opposition (and how often very simple matters become tarred with politics).  Therefore, to infer otherwise, unless you have evidence, is entirely innappropriate.
64.110.251.69 09:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup time 

message: 1)  The phrase that insinuates that Crown Corporations would be 'sold to private business' is innaccurate.  Even the Devine Progressive Conservatives didn't generally sell the Crowns 'to private business', but rather privatized through Initial Public Offerings of shares (for instance, PCS and Cameco shares were available to Saskatchewan-based investors first and foremost).
2)  The insinuations with respect to Ms. Baaken Lackey have no evidentiary basis.  While it is true that there may have been some conflict within the caucus (the caucus being comprised of human beings), there is evidence to suggest that Ms. Baaken Lackey was subject to a dehumanizing level of ridicule from the government, and that the stress became too much.  If you review the "Talk" page for Weyburn-Big Muddy, on page 19 of the referenced Hansard (the video is available online...at www.legassembly.sk.ca, of the incident), a theriomorphism is used to refer to her by Pat Atkinson, a long-time NDP cabinet minister (and a very mean person overall, but that's besides the point).
3)  It is not accurate, to state as fact, that the Government "had no involvement" with the Tommy Douglas film.  They gave a grant, they obviously must have done some due dilligence with respect to the film, and they obviously had the ability to apologize for the gross innaccuracies in the film.  Again, claiming they had 'no involvement' as fact, based on one statement from a member of the Government in a newspaper certainly is not credible.
4)  Brad Wall has a page of his own, and its not really necessary to expand a large biography of him.  Even his former work for the Associate Minister under a previous administration probably isn't relevant to this article, entitled "Saskatchewan Party", but I guess we can let it stand.
5)  Tuition freeze?  Give me a break.  I was a Usask student not so long ago, and tuition was just a very small part of my overall costs of attending the institution.  The ad perhaps was innaccurate, but while tuition has been frozen, other ancillary fees at the universities have been steadily rising, "tuition increases by stealth".  For instance, just before I graduated, there was a tuition cap at 12 classes fall/winter term.  I took 16-18 per fall/winter term, and only had to pay for 12.  They removed that cap, thus tuition for people like me skyrocketed.
6)  The policy on the wheat board is similar to that of the federal Conservative party.  I don't understand why anyone would cast their policy in a negative light.  
7)  The Weyburn-Big Muddy by-election results statistically show that at least some NDP urban voters must have voted SaskParty, thus it is entirely accurate that the Saskatchewan Party has succeeded in attracting some traditional NDP voters to the party.  
64.110.251.69 23:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts and stuff that doesn't belong here 

message: To the anon: arguing that the NDP ran a dishonest campaign is inherently POV.  You will not be permitted to retain this assertion on the article page.  CJCurrie 22:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As CJCurrie has already said, please read Wikipedia:NPOV before you edit this page, or any page for that matter. I am a conservative myself look at my User page if you don't believe me. However edits like the ones that you have made are in violation of Wikipedia policies, as stated in Wikipedia:NPOV. SFrank85 00:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with CJCurrie and with SFrank85. The edits that the anon user has been making are not consistent with Wikipedia policy. I extend a welcome to the anon user -- Wikipedia is a great project, and the more people who participate, the better it will be. Wikipedia does have policies, however, that are designed to protect the encyclopedia and improve it. I encourage User:64.110 to review those policies to learn how to work here with other users. If you have any questions, I'd be pleased to help. Ground Zero | t 12:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Please discuss your differences and work out a consensus. Tom Harrison Talk 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page locked 

message: Brad Wall -- Brad Wall has a wikipedia page of his own, and a reader can look there to determine his former political affiliations, including, but not limited to, who he formerly worked for, what positions he ran for, etc.  I would suggest the same for Ken Cheveldayoff, and other former members of the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Party who are now members of the Saskatchewan Party, as well as Elwin Hermanson, who was a former Reform/Canadian Alliance MP.
Policy -- clearly policy that was formulated under the leadership of Brad Wall would belong in a section concerning, "The Party Under Brad Wall".  It may be useful for someone to create (or I guess, per Tom Harrison's edict, propose) a section concerning the party's policy earlier in its life, which included, inter alia, the immediate privitization of Crown Corporations, boot camps, and a right to work policy concerning trade unions.
Party affiliations, on a national level -- the Saskatchewan Party does not have an official affiliation with a federal political party, nor an affiliation with a present or former provincial party.  I am sure you will find all stripes of voters and members within the Saskatchewan Party insofar as federal and provincial politics is concerned.  The original Saskatchewan Party caucus was comprised of a number of MLA's formerly members of the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Party and the Saskatchewan Liberal Party.
"Left-wing, Centrist, or Right-wing" -- this is entirely POV, and any references to policy as 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' probably doesn't belong in the article on account of POV.  POV is always a very difficult thing in articles concerning politics (many a revert war has been fought over political wikis), but we all have to try our best, or at least come to a consensus.  Implying that the party is 'trying to improve its image', is also making the implication that the party had a 'tarnished' image to begin with.  That may or may not be the case, as image is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Rumour, innuendo, and unsubstantiated allegations:  I see a number of them.  Firstly, the rumour about Preston Manning.  Without Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it is as good as useless.  The innuendo about Ms. Baaken Lackey is about as innaccurate and unsubstantiated as it comes.  Saskatchewan Party policy, as well, is not dictated by the leader (then, Elwin Hermanson), but is rather set forth in policy resolutions.  At the time of the 2003 election, the Saskatchewan Party was not running on a campaign of privitization, and was not seeking a mandate for privitization of any Crown Corporation.  The phrase, 'sold to private business' also is a severe exxageration, especially given the history of Saskatchewan Government investment divestitures (see discussion above -- inquiring minds might want to get a list of stuff divested in the 80s from the SGEU and post it under the Sask PC's wiki).
64.110.251.69 04:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Okay, let's get started