Talk:Brad Wall

message: took off title "honorable", because he isn't entitled to this until he is actually premier. barbthedarb
Slight NPOV alterations. Any bugger who can come up with stuff like that "Mouseland" parody doesn't deserve a rhetorical fellation. Wareq 02:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early comments 

message: 64.110.251.69 16:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomson, not 'Thompson' 

message: What does being "an avid fan of World Wrestling Entertainment, and The Simpsons' have to do with his politics? Deleted!
AnnieHall 14 July 2006 (UTC)
:Reverted.  Brad Wall is a human being, not just a politician.  WWE and The Simpsons figure into most of the speeches he gives Saskatchewan Party supporters at paid functions.  64.110.251.69 07:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has significant NPOV issues. His interest in wrestling and long running cartoons aside, the article doesn't even pretend to be an objective examination of this particular individual. Much of the article isn't necessary (such as the WWE and Simpsons "information") and much of it seems more like a press release from Mr. Wall's office. AnnieHall 20:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think your edits looked pretty good. I made a few edits for additional NPOV purposes. As for information being taken directly from Brad Wall's bio page, that is a no no so we'll have to fix that. AnnieHall 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: Articles are NOT created/maintained by syphocants in order to stroke the ego of their subject (or the writer's own ego, for that matter) and are NOT political campaign adds. They are also NOT for the purposes of rewriting history to fit the writer's own personal biases. This article fails when the above criteria are considered. I'm not being "negative" as 64.110.251.69 has claimed, but I think it's obvious to most readers that any attempts at professionalsm and objectivity are lacking and that this article's NPOV issues need to be addressed in a constructive manner. AnnieHall 02:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact I don't have a partisan agenda. My only agenda is that articles for wikipedia are objective and professional. The changes being made to the article are an attempt to make this article conform to wikipedia guidelines. They are not vandalism. AnnieHall 17:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I certainly have no concerns with it now. Thank you for your efforts and contributions. AnnieHall 14:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of Wikipedia 

message: I see that somebody keeps adding a reference to Brenda Baaken, and some comments aimed at the leadership style of Brad Wall.  A reference to the CBC is even included, which states, inter alia:
"Bakken-Lackey, a Saskatchewan Party MLA, issued a cryptic news release describing her frustrations with the "political system". (geez, I wonder why, after Pat Atkinson bullied her in the Legislature calling her a 'dog')
and further,
"However, she told the Regina Leader-Post newspaper she had frustrations with her own caucus, as well as the political system as a whole."  (this isn't even a valid source in itself, because its 2nd hand, and isn't actually a quote, but is rather innuendo).
However, no evidence whatsoever has been adduced that Brad Wall himself, nor his leadership style, has been a source of dissatisfaction with Ms. Baaken-Lackey.
I think one should also take a look at the page for Lorne Calvert.  There is lots of anecdotal evidence of strife within that caucus, yet the article isn't polluted with unsupported or weakly supported commentary.  
70.73.4.197 06:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can assure you that's not being kept here because of partisan efforts to make Wall look bad, but simply because nobody's made an honest effort to discuss why they had a problem with it — for the most part, the section in question has just kept getting removed and readded by anonymous IPs without any real discussion. The comments above yours certainly don't shed any light on the situation — they're just pure partisan pissing match. Thank you for raising your concerns here; I'll review the source and see what it says. Bearcat (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Looking at the source, it does say that she had internal caucus issues of some kind ("However, she told the Regina Leader-Post newspaper she had frustrations with her own caucus, as well as the political system as a whole"), but admittedly isn't as specific about what those were as our article seems to claim. I'll tone down the sentence in question, but the source does say enough in that direction that it's not entirely removable. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

text: And regarding Lorne Calvert, the solution is generally that if properly sourced information can be found about leadership controversies during his term in office, then it's best to add that information to his article instead of taking a similar section out of this one. This is an encyclopedia; significant controversies involving public figures do belong in our articles, as long as they're properly sourced and don't editorialize. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Brenda Baaken

message: I have assessed this as Start Class, as it contains more detail and information than would be expected of a Stub, and of low importance, as I do not feel that many outside of Canada would be familiar with the subject of the article. Cheers, CP 04:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment

message: Due to constant revert warring between anonymous editors regarding the inclusion of some material, I have semi-protected this page for the time being. This is not to be construed as an endorsement of the current version — however, the reversion war needs to stop immediately. Requested changes to the article are to be discussed on this talk page, not by constantly undoing other people's edits to the article. Bearcat 18:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've asked the Canadian notice board for input here. Until other established editors have weighed in, however, I'm not going to take one anonymous editor's word for the relevance of a statement that's sourced to the CBC. I will, however, tag the article as having had a POV issue raised. Bearcat 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Could somebody change Wall's entry, from premier-elect (premier's aren't elected, nor is it needed to show 'premier) to designate next to his name? GoodDay 21:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Bearcat. GoodDay 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Premiers Templat

message: Okay, so he became Premier in 2007... and this article says NOTHING about it! I seriously came here to learn about Brad Wall - I'm politically interested, but don't really know anything about Saskatchewan politics. I thought - I wonder if Wall took over from an outgoing Premier mid-term, or was elected... BUT YOU CAN'T TELL FROM THE ARTICLE ABOUT BRAD WALL HOW BRAD WALL BECAME PREMIER! I would love to do the research myself, but I really don't know the topic, and I'm really worried that I'd screw something up. Can anyone help? AshleyMorton (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Brad Wall. 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/20090511225837/http://www.canada.com:80/reginaleaderpost/story.html?id=d5cda200-85bc-47d6-ac1e-3b5a531a4fcc to http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/story.html?id=d5cda200-85bc-47d6-ac1e-3b5a531a4fcc
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saskparty.com/newsroom.html?page=6&news_action=details&news_id=B7B116BE-802F-1011-7B23107A44075BF9
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110208152118/http://www.bradwall.ca/ to http://www.bradwall.ca/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722014826/http://www.saskparty.com/party/mla/brad-wall to http://www.saskparty.com/party/mla/brad-wall
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Brad Wall. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/story.html?id=d5cda200-85bc-47d6-ac1e-3b5a531a4fcc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701051939/http://www.skcaucus.com/assets/pdf/The%20Promise%20of%20Saskatchewan.pdf to http://www.skcaucus.com/assets/pdf/The%20Promise%20of%20Saskatchewan.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608111643/http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/columnists/story.html?id=ffc697e3-6eea-4899-9f99-df3539e19d39 to http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/columnists/story.html?id=ffc697e3-6eea-4899-9f99-df3539e19d39
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080405103809/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080403/tape_sask_080403/20080403?hub=TopStories to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080403/tape_sask_080403/20080403?hub=TopStories&s_name=
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) 11:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Since some of the damage done in this revision was only just repaired today, perhaps someone should check if all the 69 elements have been properly reverted? - ᴬᵐᵍᵎⁿᵉ/t · e 18:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old vandalism 

message: I believe Chevs1905 is sanitizing Wall's controversial tweet by presenting retweet numbers as a form of popular support for Wall's comments despite these numbers having no relevant useful information to add. BlewsClews (talk) 02:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please respond here before editing the article further. And please read the warnings on your talk page. Bradv🍁 15:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

text: This is the content in question:   It looks relevant to me, and there is a source, but it may be slightly white-washed. "Derogatory" probably isn't correct, per the source, but neither is "gained quick popularity on social media". Is there a compromise available that stays closer to the facts? Also, it would be useful to find a second source for this paragraph, as that will help with wording. Bradv🍁 15:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Derogatory, I believe, pertaining to perpetuating the "Nigerians are scammers" stereotype. It may have been how the Nigerian community referred to the tweet initially as well. As for the citation of retweets, I am wondering why it would be relevant info. Do all statements made via social media need to state how popular the post/tweet was? BlewsClews (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Very few things need to be said on a Wikipedia article — we establish what to include by consensus. As for the "derogatory" comment, the source contains the word in a quote, so it's inaccurate to proclaim in Wikipedia's voice that the tweet was derogatory. Bradv🍁 03:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wall's Tweets 

message: wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
; Viewpoint by : Listing the number of retweets a post got gives no additional context besides indicating the tweet was a popular opinion among Wall's own followers.
; Viewpoint by : The level of reach on the post is extremely relevant, and not even so much as for Wall followers. Thousands of people who were not his followers would have seen this post, as its reach propagated well-beyond his original audience, with the level of reach he had. This is all additional and useful context for readers who may be curious to know the level of notoriety this post received before being deleted. Since the post is now deleted, readers would no longer be able to identify this on the original post. Chevs1905 (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please respond here before editing the article further. And please read the warnings on your talk page. Bradv🍁 15:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

text: This is the content in question:   It looks relevant to me, and there is a source, but it may be slightly white-washed. "Derogatory" probably isn't correct, per the source, but neither is "gained quick popularity on social media". Is there a compromise available that stays closer to the facts? Also, it would be useful to find a second source for this paragraph, as that will help with wording. Bradv🍁 15:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Derogatory, I believe, pertaining to perpetuating the "Nigerians are scammers" stereotype. It may have been how the Nigerian community referred to the tweet initially as well. As for the citation of retweets, I am wondering why it would be relevant info. Do all statements made via social media need to state how popular the post/tweet was? BlewsClews (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Very few things need to be said on a Wikipedia article — we establish what to include by consensus. As for the "derogatory" comment, the source contains the word in a quote, so it's inaccurate to proclaim in Wikipedia's voice that the tweet was derogatory. Bradv🍁 03:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion