Talk:Prairie Giant

message: the critism of the eugenics and such is kind of silly. To be fair, most of the world believed in that at the time and he never went and spoke in public fora about it; it was simply a thesis for his Masters.
---
The CBC has finally recognized that the movie was historically innaccurate, especially the depiction of the former Premier of Saskatchewan, Jimmy Gardiner.  
64.110.251.69 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

message: First of all, other than the one source about CBC admiting the portrayal of Gardiner was wrong, there are no sources in the section.
The eugenics thing. Is there anyone who actually says the film should depict this? I think this is really just a criticism of Tommy Douglas that someone wants to put on this page. The film itself doesn't even begin until after Douglas has completed his thesis. Is there anything notable that happened in his life after the thesis was completed that had anything to do with eugenics that someone is contending should have been in the film?
The government grants thing. Isn't practically every TV show/film that is made for a mainly Canadian audience subsidized by the government? Even big American productions get huge tax breaks from the government. Tommy Douglas was an important historical figure, so if the government refused to give grants to the production one could more rightly accuse it of trying to "muzzle" the ideas of the film. Qutezuce 05:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Ok, I have no problem dropping the arrogance allegation (although it is not hard to find significant sources, namely press releases and Hansard comments, supporting such).  The issue here is the credibility of the argument that the government 'had no control' over the film.  As a major sponsor of the film, through a grant made by Cabinet, presumably through Order-in-Council, the government was in a significant position to control or at least provide some form of editorial approval.  I mean, think about it for a moment, the government must have exercised some due diligence, to at least ensure that the film was that of Tommy Douglas, the former CCF/NDP leader, and not "Tommy Douglas", the gay pornography star, before handing out the money.  Thus, either the Saskatchewan NDP government is completely incompetent (by giving out money without ensuring value for money), or had some degree of control over the movie by means of financial influence.  It is extremely hard to conclude otherwise, and holding the NDP's defense of their reprehensible conduct as 'truth' would be doing Wikipedia a great disservice.
At the very least, you might consider quoting the person who made that statement, so that a reader of the article does not confuse truth with the typical dishonesty and misinformation that emerges from the Saskatchewan Government.
64.110.251.69 13:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cabinet money does not imply cabinet editorial control. Bearcat 18:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asserting that the government "had no control" over the film

message: The vandalism must stop.  'Don't revert this page again CJCurrie. [posted by User:64.110.251.69, unsigned]
I would encourage interested readers to look over this anon's posting history, particularly at the Saskatchewan Party page.  Suffice it to say that I do not consider his accusation of vandalism to be legitimate.  CJCurrie 23:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CJCurrie's vandalism=

message: This is a fact, why was it deleted?
Oh right, NDP'ers are now distancing themselves from this fiasco by now trying to rewrite history.
I included a link to the news article.  The NDP party's contribution is public
knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.229.85 (talk • contribs) 13 July 2006
sigh ... it's fine to mention that the Sask. government paid for part of the project -- phrasing it as "funded by the NDP government" is another matter entirely.  CJCurrie 01:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NDP contribution of $614K 

message: CJC Currie keeps wanting to say that it was the 'Government of Sasksatchewan',
but not mention what party was is in power. 
I've posted all the links/sources to prove that it was the NDP party of Saskatchewan
that invested $614,000 into the Tommy Douglas movie.  
CJC Currie is obviously trying to 'distance' the NDP party from this movie,
and that flat out stinks of partisan hackery. Either way, I'm now
going to have to check this page daily and keep reverting CJC Currie's
blatant vandalism until someone decides to lock this page. - Stan
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.61.36.172 (talk • contribs) 15 July 2006
Please refrain from referring to CJCurrie as a vandal in this case. Your disagreement with that editor's legitimate contributions to this article does not mean those edits are vandalism. (please note before you consider me "another NDP supporter" that I'm actually President of a political party that has received hostile treatment from the NDP, so am certainly not here to defend the NDP—I'm here to defend the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia.) —GrantNeufeld 14:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CJC Currie's Vandalism Part 2 

message: This is in response to the anonymous editor's comments (User:72.61.36.172):
Contrary to your claim that the media reports state the funding as coming from the "NDP party", all of the links you've provided state that the funding came from the "NDP government" (emphasis mine). This is the critical distinction. The government of Saskatchewan, led by the NDP, is the source of the funding. The funding did not come out of the pockets of the NDP party, it came from the pockets of the government (i.e., from provincial taxes and/or other provincial revenues).
Your efforts to paint the money as having come from the party is actually contrary to what I perceive as your intent to make that funding seem as inappropriate. It's far more questionable to have the NDP-led Government of Saskatchewan funding (with taxpayer's money) a film project that can be claimed to be promoting a positive image of the NDP than it would be to have the NDP funding (with their own money - not taxpayer's) the project.
Would anyone complain about where the funding came from if the Conservative Party funded a biopic that made Brian Mulroney look like a good guy? Probably not. Would anyone complain if the Conservative-led Government of Canada funded such a biopic? Definitely!
To repeat: It was not the NDP's money that was spent, it was the government's money (meaning money that ostensibly 'belongs to' all the citizens of the province). It was the NDP who were in control of the government when the funding decision was made, but it was not the NDP's money that was used.
Please note that your commitment to edit-warring to try to force your POV on the article is intensely contrary to the principles of Wikipedia and reduces my (and probably other's) willingness to try to work with you on this. Edit wars do result in pages being protected and in user accounts or anonymous IPs being blocked. I highly recommend you review Wikipedia policies prior to attempting to use the disruptive methods you have described. Hopefully the policies will help you understand how such inappropriate actions will not give you the ends you desire, and how cooperation and consensus building, as well as appreciating what is meant by "encyclopedic" writing, are far more valuable then trying to assert a particular POV.
—GrantNeufeld 07:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another response 

message: What does NPOV mean - I will ammend as appropriate once I know what it means.
Thank you
Saskwatch
*NPOV stands for "Neutral Point of View".  You can't use these pages as soapboxes -- the information has to be presented in a neutral manner.  CJCurrie 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grant Neufeld please explain 

message: And why is this not acceptable?
I asked before and you never replied.
Saskwatch
*It's Original Research, and its POV-pushing.  Please review these policies.  CJCurrie 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currie 

message: I thought I read somewhere that Kiefer Sutherland was offered the role to play his own grandfather in this, but couldn't due to contractual/time obligations on other projects (like 24 (TV Series)).  Is this true and if so is it worth mentioning.  Spebudmak 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kiefer Sutherland 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Prairie Giant. 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/20121106042512/http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/story.html?id=b67c03b8-a560-4e20-bed2-a5f411ea8ea7 to http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/story.html?id=b67c03b8-a560-4e20-bed2-a5f411ea8ea7
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023000549/http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/columnists/story.html?id=6517028b-771b-4a1c-bff9-7adf45a95b4c to http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/columnists/story.html?id=6517028b-771b-4a1c-bff9-7adf45a95b4c
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://northernblue.ca/cblog/index.php?%2Farchives%2F603-CBC-Pulls-Tommy-Douglas-Movie.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) 11:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified