Talk:Alberta separatism

message: There needs to be some kind of confirmation for these figures in this article, and it needs a complete rewrite from someone more familiar with the subject. --Scimitar 23:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I have edited the comment in the opening paragraph which stated 'Alberta separatism advocates the secession of province of Alberta from Canada either by forming an independent nation, by creating a new federation with one or more of Canada's other four westernmost provinces, or by joining the United States.'
While there are numerous Alberta Separatist groups, I have not managed to find one single source that is seriously campaigning for Alberta become part of the United States.  (Although I am sure there are some people out there, but no sources from Alberta that I could find.)
I have examined all of the links on this page, as well as the 'See Also' section.  
None of the links or 'see also's provide ANY references or sources for such claims.  Infact, most of the 'see also's have THIS page as a link.  This includes 'The 51st State'  which refers to Alberta, but redirects back to this page.  The 'Annexationist Movements of Canada' has no references or sources.  And the 'Republic of Alberta' clearly discusses an independant Alberta.  Not American affiliation.
Also, my own personal opinions not withstanding, (I personally think there could be merit to an Independant Alberta) It should be noted that the Western Standard poll that is so frequently referenced, does not once mention affiliation with any other sovereign entity.  And, it must be noted that the Western Standard is a decidedly Conservative publication.  Also, the poll that was conducted by said publication, did not specify WHO the poll group was.  Only that it was conducted by The Western Standard using 'random selection methods'.  That could mean anything from picking 500 names out of a phone book, to contacting 100 subscribers of the Western Standard.  The souce is exceptionally vauge on their pool of voters, and therefore, can hardly be considered a reliable source. SJM 3 April, 2007
I have yet again deleted the 'Or by joining the United States' segment of the opening paragraph (for the third time).  If you wish to include this in the opening paragraph, show a citation that supports this claim. SJM 7 November, 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RainnIceberg (talk • contribs) 08:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening Paragraph

message: Further history on Western Alienation is needed.  Historically this dates back too when Alberta was still part of the Northwest Territories. Kc4 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Alberta separatism. 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/20070704044849/http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/pastbyelection.html to http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/pastbyelection.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704044849/http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/pastbyelection.html to http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/pastbyelection.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040912015346/http://www.separationalberta.com/ to http://www.separationalberta.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
I reorganized external links to expand what people might be asking to themselves. User:Kermit7 
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I understand that a lot of work has gone into making this article, and the main reason why I do not fix it myself is because I want to give the authors the chance to rework some sections into good content, and I feel I might be too heavy handed in deleting non-neutral content. The last thing I want is to start an edit war, but I'll gladly help if help is needed. (Ping me, as I might be occupied with other things)
Some work is needed to make the article neutral. It is clear that in some parts of the article, citations were taken from primary sources and then a less-than-unbiased narrative is written in between the quotes. Some parts of the article are even written in a way that is more like an essay supporting separation of Alberta than an encyclopedic article. For example, let's look at the section "2010s Liberals Again, Resurgence" is written in a way that implies that the United Conservatives support the separation of Alberta. (If that is true, then it needs to be properly cited and not just extrapolated from campaign speeches) There is a whole paragraph about Trudeau Jr. getting booed at a hockey game that is completely irrelevant to everything in the article. The excerpts from Peter Zeihan are lumped in with no explanation of their significance. Sentences like "Mr. Hopper correctly described the landlocked problems of an independent Alberta but did not argue the benefits presented by Mr. Zeihan and others" are borderline non-encyclopedic. The entire premise of this sentence is to dismiss the critiques of separatism by stating that he disregarded a portion of the evidence. I understand that it's sometimes difficult to present a subject in a neutral light, but when every single mention of separatism being criticized is followed up with an explanation of why the speaker is wrong, it becomes a problem. 
Other sections have minor problems, but seem to be less opinionated and more fact-based. These sections are clearly the way to go.
I'd usually remedy this myself, but I know next to nothing about Albertan Separatism. For example, I don't know if Zeihan's works are significant, some statements I might have removed myself might be able to be sourced somewhere, or rephrased with added context. They might also be able to be replaced with scholarly sources, which tend to be more encyclopedic in nature.
I'd really like to see this article flourish, as it's a frequently misunderstood of part of Canadian culture (at least if you live in the east, like I do) and I can see it being made into a very good resource to educate all Canadians about Western-Canadian issues and preoccupations.
Best, Acebulf (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article needs serious work on its neutrality 

message: FPTP favours the Conservative party since by most accounts it over-represents rural and suburban constituencies that historically favour Conservatives. Stephen Harper did not "succeed against the odds"-he was the odds-on favourite to win the election of 2006 because of the Sponsorship scandal and a United Conservative party that at the time had a larger base ie. western Canada and rural Ontario than did the Liberal party whose traditional base Quebec had splintered between the BQ, and Liberals and a resurgent NDP. Furthermore such a comment is inappropriate as it is conjecture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.150.150 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Past The Post 

message: This is the article's talk page.  Instead of repeatedly adding the same material after users have pointed out problems with it, you discuss the matter here.
When doing so, you need to assume good faith from others.
It would also be a good idea for you to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines regarding:
*original research
*neutrality (especially avoiding advocacy, editorializing, and undue weight)
*paying attention to what others have pointed out instead of making the same dismissed argument over and over
*making sure your primary interest is helping the encyclopedia, instead of some other goal like "righting great wrongs".
Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This definitely reads like an argument for Alberta separatism, rather than an encyclopedia article about Alberta separatism. I've done some clean up, but this needs an overhaul. Ground Zero | t 20:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is the talk page 

message: A spike and a drop-off over 48 hours is the very definition of not lasting significance. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been other articles about that movement recently that should be added. I have a backlog. MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  #wexit is of dubious [[WP:LASTING]] significance 

message: Since the article claims that its neutrality is disputed, let's start by this problem : the title. "Separatism" by its very nature is a pejorative word which has an history of either being used to scare the concerned people thinking about independence to stay loyal to their existing country or portray an independence movement in a negative light internationally by the dominating nation to prevent international sympathy. There is a deeper reason why villains (think Star Wars or any another cultural product) that desire in their fictional world independence for their people are labeled as "separatists" and why heroes in a similar situation are labeled "freedom fighters". By having "separatism" in the title, the article already take a side with a negative point of view over the subject and promote this negative portrayal to viewers by its choice of words, making it violate the principles of neutrality of Wikipedia. Which is why I'm proposing this article to be renamed : Albertan independence movement. The wording in it is much more neutral without going into automatically-positive territory either. Not only that, but other similar pages use this naming form for a reason (think the Québec sovereignty movement article -the name the movement gave to itself- or Cascadian independence movement article). Users should be free to decide in a more neutral ground for themselves what they think of the movement. I personally don't agree with it yet I still think calling it "Alberta separatism" is just unfair. A vote should be held. 96.22.228.193 (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't vote, we reach consensus, and we use terminology derived from sources, not individual editors' analyses. I'm not seeing the term "independentist" in a preponderance of sources, but "separatist" appears in many. Also, "independentist" would tend to exclude sentiment to join the U.S., which is covered in the article. I've reverted the change. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if the words the sources use might be negatively biaised and thus against the value of neutrality and neutral perspective on Wikipedia and thus perpetuate these negative or mocking perceptions rather than setting the record straight in a more neutral ambiance? Also that wasn't everything I did, I also tried to make some sentences more encyclopedic in tone since this page visibly has a neutrality problem hence the banner. Finally, not necessarily, "independentist" can also include annexion movements (doesn't it already have its own distinct page, the annexion movements of Canada, however?) like California, which got independence first...in order to join another country later. 96.22.228.193 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You need sources for all that, and you need to explain how sources describe the subject, not your own perception or preference for one term over another. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not how "my preference" goes, this is an objective observation that similar independence movements here, compared to each other, experience a visible double-standard with some using the very much pejorative "separatist" (as it has been historically used by anti-independence campaigns to make the prospect of independence scary and deligitimize their advocates by using this term, including in both Québec referendums, which is still reflected to this day in popular works prominently using "separatists" to describe movements the audience must consider evil or crazy compared to "freedom fighters" in a similar position, which is used to make audience consider them good and never the other way around) and others using the neutral "independentist" or "independence movement" (advocating for independence, permanent or temporal, with no historical track record giving it a positive or negative connotation, just that they want a country, which is stating a fact, no dressing attached). This is what I'm talking about : wikipedian neutrality. Even if you are normally right that sources should say what is and shouldn't be said, you can't deny there is a visible contradiction with the biais of these sources using this loaded word (history and all to show it is pejorative and regarded as pejorative) as well as their nationality of origin, which in itself could reveal a conflict of interest, promoting naturally what holds their country the benefit from together, as Russian sources can be about the Soviet Union compared to Ukrainian ones or Han Chinese ones about China compared to Uighur ones. I was just hoping to start a conversation about this potential issue, which didn't really happen really however sadly. 96.22.228.193 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you need to address wha the sources say, not what you perceive. You appear to be starting from a position and arguing in its favor, not following the references. About four times as many of the references mention “separatism” or “separation” than “independence”, and a substantial number describe joining the United States, which is not independent nationhood. Acroterion (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of neutrality in the title, renaming proposal 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Seriously there's a lot in here sourced to youtube and some guy's soundcloud. These are not WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be more specific? I don't see any YouTube or SoundCloud references in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because I removed them. Simonm223 (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are there any more sources left that you view as questionable? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Still evaluating. I tend to be a measure first cut once guy. YouTube and soundcloud are obvious inadequate sources. Beyond that I have questions about whether some of the cited opinions are WP:FRINGE but need to research further. Simonm223 (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is rife with fringe sources