Talk:Wildrose Party

message: According to , the Alberta Alliance Party did not dissolve, but changed it sname to the Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta, and accepted the members, assets and liabilities and by-laws of the Wildrose Party. how should the articles reflect this? should the Alberta Alliance Party article be merged into this one? Probably not. Comments? Ground Zero | t
:Tough Call looking at president for Alberta provincial politics, The general trend so far is that if it has been a simple rename ie: Conservative to Progressive Conservative, Communist to Labour Progressive then back to Communist, Cooperative Commonwealth to NDP then it shares the same article, if the previous entity was significantly altered ie: Alberta First being a firewall Conservative party to The Separation Party of outright separation policies or was merged ie: Social Credit, Heritage Party and Western Canada Concept to the Alberta Political Alliance Party then it is a different article. --Cloveious (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: She is the new leader of Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta, she also describe herself as 'social libertarian', according to the link below.
http://www.calgarylibertarian.ca/?p=184
Wouldn't it make sense in addition to the party's ideology as 'conservatism' should also add 'libertarianism'? 
If you also look at their policy at their website online, it does show libertarian values. REDSoC (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Danielle Smith

message: Jeff Willerton is referred to as an "author" which is true, but I believe he is more often referenced as an "Airdrie businessman."Landroo (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to change if you like.  I went mainly by what he was reported as in the stories of the leadership race, and by what he promoted himself as being in the debates.  Resolute 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jeff Willerton 

message: The full name of the party is "Wildose Alliance Party" , not "Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta", so the page (along with other related pages like this one should be renamed to reflect this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Invisible Hand (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name correction 

message: Currently, the "policies" section of this page is hopelessly opaque: where are the party's positions on abortion, private health care, education etc.? Does someone with some advanced knowledge in Albertan politics write up a more detailed description of the party's policy positions? Colipon+(Talk) 17:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policies 

message: Here are references to the Wildrose Party  being "right-wing", from a wide range of Canadian sources:
*Globe and Mail
*Chronicle Herald
*CBC
*SUn news Network
*CTV News
*Angus_reid (pollster)
*Global News
Ground Zero | t 21:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And one speech by the party leader "urging her party to adopt more progressive policies" does not mean that the party has changed. As the article you linked notes, "Wildrose is a party of libertarians and social conservatives". The article does not say that the party adopted any progressive policies, nor does it identify the party as "centre-right". Ground Zero | t 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

text: As a rule, Montueswed, we rely on secondary sources rather than primary ones (in this case, the party itself).  Of course, that can be somewhat problematical in things like this, because as long as the Conservatives are considered centre-right (they are borderline centre-left at this point, imnsho), then Wildrose will be viewed by the media as right of that.  Even so, unless sources start calling the party "centre-right", we may as well keep it at right wing. It remains a fair descriptor, and as new policies are adopted and covered, the article's prose can be used to explain the policies in greater detail. Resolute 23:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, the Wikipedia definition of right wing is not at all appropriate to describe the Wildrose Party. Since becoming Official Opposition, Wildrose has focused much of its energy on issues of social issues.In this Calgary Herald article, Wildrose held a press conference to highlight cases of seniors abuse. The Huffington Post reported on Wildrose pressuring the government to end the one bath per week policy, which Wildrose saw as degrading. Wildrose congratulated the B.C. Liberals on winning the election recently. Here and here, Wildrose calls on government to halt its funding cuts to persons with developmental disabilities. Clearly, Wildrose is more than just right wing. Strictly right wing parties would not have done any of these things. While it is accurate to note it has right wing elements, particularly on finance policy, it does not strictly fit with the definition of right wing. It may be to the right politically by comparison to the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, as the PC Party is described as centre-centre right by Wikipedia, it would be appropriate to refer to Wildrose as centre-right.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montueswed (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Would it be fair to summarize your argument by saying that the sources that I've provided for the party being "right wing" are out of date, and that your original research based on interpretation of positions the party has taken more recently concludes that the party is "centre-right"? Ground Zero | t 19:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Yes that is the argument I've tried to make. I think an objective look over the last year would disqualify them from the category of "right wing" by the definition on Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montueswed (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Wikipedia, however, is not a place for original research. please see WP:OR. Wikipedia requires verifiability of edits through references to reliable sources. These are core Wikipedia policies. When reliable sources start reflecting your view of this change, then we can make the edit to the Wikipedia article. Regards, Ground Zero | t 15:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am inclined to agree with Ground Zero.  It is not a lack of sympathy to your viewpoint, Montueswed, but Wikipedia policy is to rely on what secondary sources say, not our own interpretations. That being said, if the linkd to the right wing article is viewed as inaccurate, we can consider more appropriate links.  Such as instead stating the party's political position is "Conservatism", and linking to conservatism in Canada. Resolute 16:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input, I see why the info I provided was inadequate. I did a little more digging and found plenty of secondary sources that refer to Wildrose as centre-right. Metro News uses right-centre in an article before the 2012 election, whereas Canadian Press notes Wildrose is gaining popularity among centre-right voters before the election (sixth paragraph). National Post says Wildrose has staked its claim on the centre-right (last paragraph), while Calgary Sun says Wildrose shouldn't stray too far from being a centre-right party (near end of article). So I respectfully submit that secondary sources do refer to Wildrose as centre-right, and while other secondary sources use right wing, that centre-right might be a better descriptor. I also agree with Resolute that linking to Conservatism in Canada would be a suitable alternative. Montueswed (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the divergence of opinions in the sources, I think "conservatism" might be the best one-word descriptor currently available for the infobox.  This article suffers from being out of date in many areas, and the "Policy and identy" section is a good example since it is entirely geared towards three years ago.  What I might suggest, Montueswed, is to consider rewriting that entire section to better reflect how sources have discussed the party's identity.  Trim down what is currently there to show how the party was initially viewed as right wing/far right (by our standards), but has moved towards the centre, pointing to more recent sources discussing this.  But also include opposition perception, which would note that the party is viewed by some as farther to the right, point out the so-called "bozo eruptions" as being examples they opposing parties/media have pointed to, and the impact they had on the 2012 election.  A strong section of four or five paragraphs would explain things far better than a single word can.  The trick - and it isn't always easy - is to try and cover all sides of the issue without over or under representing one aspect or viewpoint relative to what sources say (Or, as we term it, putting undue weight on it).  Resolute 21:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the pletheora of sources for "right wing" and several for "centre-right", it would probably be original research for us to choose between them, whereas "conservative" does not appear to be contentious. I agree that changing the descriptor to "conservative" would be the best approach. Ground Zero | t 21:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, though I just noticed that is already right there under "ideology".  Would "Right wing/Centre-right" work (each with a noted citation), or too bulky? Resolute 13:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference is for Conservatism, or centre-right because I think it's more accurate, but will defer to the editors on this page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montueswed (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

text: Seeing no opposition, I'll make the change, but will understand if more discussion is needed. Montueswed (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

text: It is in my view. I lost track of the discussion and didn't notice Montueswed's change, which reflected his/her view ("My preference is for Conservatism, or centre-right because I think it's more accurate") not the consensus. I think that the last four years shows that Wildrose did not in fact move to the centre. Newer sources would be required to support leaving it at "centre-right". Thanks for bringing this up, Peter. Ground Zero | t 21:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Right-wing

message: In appraising the pages of political parties in Alberta, some inconsistency has become apparent. Pages for Alberta Liberal Party, Alberta New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta do not give space to the opinions of opposing political parties. The views of opposing parties cannot be considered neutral in characterizing Wildrose, even if from a secondary source. The below sections do not comply with the goals of fairness and consistency when evaluated against the pages of other Alberta political parties. Thus, I propose deletion of the following two statements in Policy and Identity: "Opponents have often characterised the party as extremist: former Liberal leader David Swann, in congratulating Smith on her election as leader, argued that Albertans would be "uneasy" with the "rather extreme, socially conservative, economically irresponsible vision of the party"[46] - and - "Opposing politicians have criticized the Wildrose Party's policies as vague and undefined (including the topic of gun ownership),[51] while supporters have praised the party under Smith as "refreshing".[47]" Montueswed (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairness 

message: Some of this page has become severely outdated and requires maintenance. I propose the following: 1. Under "Danielle Smith Leadership," reference is made to 2011 candidate nominations and the pending 2013 election. This should be updated to 2014 information with new references. 2. Under "2009 leadership election," reference is made to a potential candidate. This lacks relevance and should be removed. Other political party pages do not give space to all the candidates that withdraw from leadership races. 3. Under "Danielle Smith Leadership," the fifth paragraph on conscience rights is outdated as the party repealed that policy in 2014. Update required. 4. "Policy and identity" is severely outdated. Other political party pages do not give such generous air time to the inititives of past years. As such, the references to the 2009 task force should be removed. The party has also changed its views on climate change. I fail to see how polling from 2010 and 2011 is relevant today. Updates required. 5. Under "Danielle Smith leadership," paragraph 2 concerning a former employee should be removed. The person in question has a much lengthier record with the PC association, but isn't mentioned at that page at all. Thank you for considering these changes. I look forward to any comments before moving forward to make these improvements.  Montueswed (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good luck with the updating.  You are, of course, correct that this article requires a fair bit of new and more relevant content.  In the meantime, I think I might nominate it for delisting from GA status - it certainly is not there at any longer, and given the amount of new changes required, would likely need a re-review. Resolute 22:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice that the article was out of date. For Policy and Identity, The PCs passed a fixed election law, and alot of the polling is irrelevant. MarkFizz (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Wildrose Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091114084915/http://www.calgaryherald.com:80/news/Wildrose+unveils+vision/2205217/story.html to http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Wildrose+unveils+vision/2205217/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Wildrose 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/20150115161541/https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/wildrose/pages/2871/attachments/original/1421189870/Wildrose_Party_Constitution_2015-01-13.pdf?1421189870 to https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/wildrose/pages/2871/attachments/original/1421189870/Wildrose_Party_Constitution_2015-01-13.pdf?1421189870
*Added  tag to http://www.chroniclejournal.com/stories_national.php?id=180741
*Added  tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/m/story.html?id=1775504&s=Related+Topics&is=Joe%20Clark&it=Person
*Added  tag to http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Wildrose+success+attributed+governing+Tories/2084410/story.html
*Added  tag to http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Wildrose+support+blooms/2080964/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091016104051/http://www.calgaryherald.com:80/news/Stelmach+poised+speech+amid+sagging+polls/2099162/story.html to http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Stelmach+poised+speech+amid+sagging+polls/2099162/story.html
*Added  tag to http://www.canada.com/technology/Alberta+Tories+slide+Wildrose+gains+poll/2186644/story.html
*Added  tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/story.html?id=2404005
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100628141600/http://www.edmontonjournal.com:80/news/Wildrose+Alliance+kicks+coming+party/3202872/story.html to http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Wildrose+Alliance+kicks+coming+party/3202872/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221152813/http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/local-news/2014/12/18/historic-day-in-canadian-politics/ to http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/local-news/2014/12/18/historic-day-in-canadian-politics/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218211207/http://www.ottawacitizen.com/coyne+alberta+politics+beat+them+when+just+join+them/10661337/story.html to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/coyne+alberta+politics+beat+them+when+just+join+them/10661337/story.html
*Added  tag to http://www.canada.com/technology/Wildrose+becomes+unlikely+contender/2369754/story.html
*Added  tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Wildrose+continues+make+Alberta+inroads+poll/3009004/story.html
*Added  tag to http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Alberta+track+another+massive+majority+poll+shows/5173053/story.html
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) 10:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Now that the Wildrose & the PC have merged, what's the Wildrose status? GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, the Alberta system doesn't actually allow mergers, per se.  The United Conservative Party, once registered, will be a new entity.  The Wildrose and the Progressive Conservative parties will still exist until such time as they formally dissolve. Resolute 23:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party status 

message: Now that the "Wildrose Party" has dissolved and there are plans by Wexit and the Freedom Conservatives to form a new "Wildrose" Independence Party, maybe we should have a note at the top of this article to avoid confusion.  The "new" party, does not exist yet, and does not have an article yet, but has been in the news a fair bit.  I have created a redirect to the Wild Rose disambiguation page, which notes the proposal.  I have also added content here and on the Wexit and Freedom Conservative articles about the proposal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: For the reference of readers, there is now a Wildrose Independence Party of Alberta page. Klbrain (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: New [[Wildrose Independence Party of Alberta]] Proposal