Talk:Saskatchewan Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Could Ardenn quit vandalising this page and contribute something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.236.153 (talk • contribs)

I see the trolls are back (ie: Grant Neufeld).

64.110.251.69 05:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What exactly have I done that constitutes trolling in your view? —GrantNeufeld 06:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scandal didn't hit until 1993[edit]

The claim is made that there was a corruption scandal, and that said corruption scandal, involving certain members of the Sask PC Caucus, affected the 1991 election. The first individual wasn't even charged until 1993. So obviously this would be impossible.

CJCurrie, it is completely innappropriate to blindly revert edits without justification. Rumour and innuendo generally do not belong in the article either, let's stick to fact, not baseless speculation.

64.110.251.69 06:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not agree that it would be impossible. It is entirely reasonable to believe that the investigation started well before charges were laid. A citation indicating that the scandal began before 1991 would resolve thie dispute. Without one, we may have to remove that line. Ground Zero | t 12:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion[edit]

I've reviewed the two version that are being considered now, and believe that the aanonymous editor's edits -- for example, deleting the cited fact that Brad Wall had been a part of the PC Party -- are an attempt to modify the article to make it biased in favour of the Sask Party. I have reverted to CJCurrie's version. If there are elements of that version that are incorrect or biased, the anon editor should identify them here for discussion. From my experience, CJCurrie is very reasonable in trying to find a neutral point of view, so I believe that he will accept reasonable suggestions for changes. Ground Zero | t 12:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point I was making is that detailled information on Brad Wall belongs in Brad Wall, not in Saskatchewan Party. You may note, from my IP, that I have added information to both Brad Wall and John Gerich, including, but not limited to, Wall's other work for the Government of Saskatchewan in the 1980s, and of course, John Gerich's former occupation (RCMP officer), and convictions for fraud. So I am not trying to cover anything up, but rather am only trying to ensure that information is correctly and logically replaced, and not unduly repeated.

Also it defies credibility to suggest that the PC Party scandal had any effect on the 1991 election. The tories lost that election because of unpopularity, and the Fair Share Saskatchewan program of decentralization of government functions, among other reasons. Not that the 1980s government has anything whatsoever to do with the Saskatchewan Party, since the Party was founded in 1998, a full 7 years after the Devine PC's left office. The fraud scandal didn't appear in the newspapers until 1993 either, so once again, any effect on the 1991 election would have been simply impossible.

64.110.251.69 07:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted that this page be semi-protected so you folks can discuss your edits reasonably. GreenJoe 17:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could the information about the resignation of Brenda Bakken Lackey please be left in? It is complete relevant to the article given her stated issues she was having within the party. --- unsigned comment

What 'stated issues'? Do you have quotes from Ms. Baaken concerning issues within the Sask Party caucus? We cannot rely upon rumour, innuendo, or unsupported conjecture here (including editorials or commentaries). Wikipedia is a place for facts only and is not a tabloid magazine.

Even then, I'm not sure if it would even belong. I mean, there have been plenty of rumours coming out of the NDP caucus, including the dissatisfaction of Kevin Yates with Lorne Calvert, not to mention Glenn Hagel's dissappointment with his Moose Jaw running mate, Lorne Calvert, for not being appointed a Minister, but rather only a 'legislative secretary'. Of course, this 'information' is not in the NDP caucus' wiki, and all these trivial commments really don't belong in the Sask Party's article, especially when references are weak or non-existent to most claims made therein.

70.73.4.197 22:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She stated in an interview that she was upset with being in caucus which was led by Brad Wall. The source confirms that so please quit vandalizing the page.70.64.4.74

The source identifies her problems with her role in government, and if anything, speaks to the fatigue of being in opposition, and being bullied by government members such as Pat Atkinson. Please quit vandalizing the page and adding nonsense sources.

70.73.4.197 15:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic Tone[edit]

Quoting:

  • For the first 30 years of Saskatchewan's history, the provincial Liberals could be argued to have been its liberal party, too, assiduously courting ethnic minorities as well as agrarian and labour activists.
  • The party was hounded by the NDP with accusations of having secret undisclosed plans to privatize all of the province's crown corporations. The leader, Elwin Hermanson, was put on the defensive, stating he would not sell the four major crown corporations to private business, but would consider any offers received by private business on other crown corporations. It was rumoured that Preston Manning, the former leader of the Reform Party, had been approached by Hermanson to develop a transition team for government takeover, likely to begin the implementation of the Saskatchewan Party's platform planks.
  • So powerful did the CCF and its successor, the New Democratic Party, become in the province that a basic rule of Saskatchewan politics held that (in the words of one veteran political journalist) "Saskatchewan politics shall for evermore consist of the NDP -- and one other party". The only question was, "what other party?"

This all reads like some sort of tabloid, not an encyclopedia article, and definitely needs to be addressed. More sources are also required to substantiate many claims here. (|-- UlTiMuS 17:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to clean up some of the bias and unencyclopedic tone in the article. I left most of the information on the page intact (though reworded), and so have grouped a number of points which probably do not belong in the Saskatchewan Party article under the heading "Clashes with the NDP Government". Most of these points are WP:Trivia and should probably be moved to the relevent articles or deleted.--T. Mazzei 01:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also removed cited information instead of simply editing the wording.70.64.4.74 14:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed 2 cites. The first was a mistake, and has been reinserted. The second was irrelevant to the article. Don Hoth's opinion as a party member, until it becomes official party policy, is relevant to Don Hoth's article, not this one. --T. Mazzei 00:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You (anonymous editor who keeps reverting this article) seem to be under the mistaken impression that because something is cited, it is inviolate. It is not. I attempted to clean up the tone of the article and to remove some of the WP:POV from the document. Most of the POV came from the cited articles: not from the content of the citations, which seemed appropriate and important to the article with one exception, but how they were presented. Since no cited information has been removed in these cases, only how it is presented, you have no reason to revert the article for the 3 or 4 citations I changed. If you don't like a particular change, edit to the way you want it. Don't revert the entire document when alot more was changed than a few citations. As to the one I removed, I stated my reasons above. For further clarification of why I removed it:

  1. Don Hoth's opinion has little to no bearing on the Party, or it's policy, and so doesn't belong here.
  2. Because of 1 the citation violates (at the very least) WP:Undue weight.
  3. Since the environment is not a traditional right-left issue (In fact the current national Green Party is economically right-wing), even if Hoths opinion was relevant to the party—which it is not—trying use this comment to show up the the Saskatchewan Party's right-wing nature is shaky, to say the least.

If you continue reverting the document without cause, I will (when I have time) be invoking the dispute resolution process.--T. Mazzei 02:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Greenjoe also reverted your edits. So please do not simply state I am the only one who has reverted your edits which have removed cited sources. These sources have been discussed before and they were found to be acceptable. Please check the talk page before you remove cited information.70.64.13.206 02:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all I know, you and User:GreenJoe are one and the same, since he also reverted my edits with no reason or discussion. As I stated above, I have removed only one cited source. That particular citation has never been discussed, either on this page or the archive. I have stated why it should be removed. You have not stated one reason why it should be kept. Regardless, there is no reason for you to revert all of the changes I made to the document over one sentence of cited text. Edit it back in and we can continue the discussion it further.--T. Mazzei 05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I revert everyone's edits equally when I see an edit war. I've requested full protection for this article. WORK IT OUT. GreenJoe 05:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you see an edit war and then you picked sides by reverting it to the anonymous users version of the document. Thank you anyway for requesting protection for the article.--T. Mazzei 05:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I reverted it to your version. I realized my error. GreenJoe 05:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate it. Did my name pop up on some sort of list? I've gotten 3 warnings for reverting this page in ~1 hr in spite of the fact this has been going on for a week or two.--T. Mazzei 00:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Affiliation with the NDP?[edit]

I can believe that some leading members would be involved with the federal Liberals but why on Earth would any members of a centre-right, conservative party like the Saskatchewan Party be involved with the federal NDP? They are further to the Left than the Saskatchewan NDP, can anybody actually produce some proof of this claim? It's located in the affiliation section. (Canadianpunk77 00:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You got it all wrong in fact the Saskatchewan NDP are further to the Left then the federal NDP.Michaelm

Why not? The Saskatchewan Party has members of all political stripes, as it is a party that cuts across all traditional partisan lines. A lot of federal NDP'ers are very upset with the policies of Lorne Calvert's provincial NDP concerning financial mismanagement and corruption and the Saskatchewan Party is an appealing party to cast one's vote for.

71.17.54.163 04:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the federal NDP is a social democratic party, alot further to the Left than the Saskatchewan NDP. A party which favours strong government intervention in the economy, a solid social safety net for working people (pharmacare to child care), the reversal of globalization, and the promotion of environmental interests over corporate interests. Although the Sask. Party has abandoned many of it's previous (and controversial) Far Right policies (such as large scale privatization, boot camps for young offenders, so called "work-fare", and referendums on abortion) there still a conservative party.

I mean the federal Liberal Party has a rightwing within it's ranks (take a look at Ralph Goodale, John Manley, Michael Ignatief, etc). I can see fiscally conservative minded liberals (small l-liberals) supporting a centre-right party, but New Democrats? It just doesn't make sense. That would be like a federalist in Quebec getting involved with the Saint Jean de Baptiste Society. (Canadianpunk77 00:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

With the Sask. Party's newfound support for lower tuitions, treatment for crystal meth addicts, protection of crown corporations, action on drug costs, etc. Do they still see themselves as being a conservative party? (Canadianpunk77 00:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You are right about Ralph Goodale and John Manley but as for Michael Ignatief he in fact a Left-wing Liberal. But still You got it wrong fact is the federal NDP are further to the Right then the Saskatchewan NDP.Michaelm

Yes, their base support is still Tory...and even if the federal party does one thing or has a certain policy, does not mean that the provincial party with a similar or close ideology have to share the same policies. What political parties often do is create policies based on what the local population wants or needs. From what you are telling me here, they are following a similar plan to the pre-1984 conservatives, federally and provincially. Conservative parties in the past have tendencies to do some of the most left-wing things, such as the Ontario PC Party in the Post-war dynasty from 1943 to 1985, in which they introduced Medicare in Ontario, introduced legislation to ensure women received equal wages and introduced voting rights for Natives in Ontario. They also increase and expanded public health and public education in the late 1970s and early 1980s. nat Lest We Forget. Remember the sacrifice. 05:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can show a member of the federal NDP who is affiliated with the Saskatchewan Party or a news story or some actual, you know, evidence or facts, then the sentence linking the Sask Party with the Federal NDP should be struck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.33.245 (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberals/Conservatives[edit]

The original Saskatchewan parties should not be described as "left-wing" and "right-wing", because to the extent these terms were used at the time, they did not describe these parties positions, and they did not use these terms themselves. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" might be more appropriate, which were the names these parties used. --The Four Deuces 02:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Value in WikiProject Canada[edit]

Not being from Saskatchewan, I am wondering if it would be possible to strengthen this article's value as a "Canadian" rather than provincial piece, i.e. if more coverage of policy and major actions was available perhaps? My feeling from the outside is that much of the rest of the country is unaware of the political scene in the province, and that with a little work this article could be valuable for those of us who take an interest in issues nationwide. While I'm not up to the task of writing it, again I am looking for more perhaps more content on platform - this article (IMHO) seems focused on tactics and history, and may not even be NPOV as-is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.89.139 (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Check out the Politics of Saskatchewan article for a broader context. Thats what its there for. - Wyldkat

Maintenance Template.[edit]

I removed the maintenance template as it appears the article is cited both correctly and sufficiently. Krj373*(talk), *(contrib) 20:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Center or Center-Right[edit]

Listen, User:Braganza this party hasn't been center since 2015, and that's generous. Especially now with Brad Wall gone, all the original Luberal party members gone, and the party in an all out embrace of right wing ideology and policy. BlewsClews (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BlewsClews: Sry, but are you sure that Saskatchewan Party this party is more right-wing than all other main conservative parties after their articles like
National Centre-right to right-wing
Québec centre to centre-right
Manitoba centre to centre-right
New Brunswick centre-right
Ontario centre-right
Prince Edward Island centre-right
Alberta centre-right to right-wing
Newfoundland and Labrador centrist
Nova Scotia moderate; centrist
Yukon centre-irght
British Columbia (Conservatives) Centre-right to Right-wing

Braganza (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Braganza Arguably, both the Sask Party and Alberta United Conservatives should drop the center-right label — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlewsClews (talk • contribs) 02:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing description[edit]

The sources previousy used on this page to descibe the Sask Party as centre-right are, genereally, nearly a decade old or order. I have changed this description, with updated sources and explanation, as follows:

  • The party, originally a creation of Liberal and Progressive Conservative party members, was described as centre-right during its time in opposition and early years in government.
    • Randy Boswell; Saskatoon StarPhoenix and Regina Leader-Post; Lynn McAuley (1 January 2005). Province with a Heart: Celebrating 100 Years in Saskatchewan. CanWest Books. p. 205. ISBN 978-0-9736719-0-2.
    • Charles S. Mack (2010). When Political Parties Die: A Cross-national Analysis of Disalignment and Realignment. ABC-CLIO. p. 225. ISBN 978-0-313-38546-9.
    • Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. (1 March 2012). Britannica Book of the Year 2012. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. p. 378. ISBN 978-1-61535-618-8.
    • Dennis Raphael (2012). Tackling Health Inequalities: Lessons from International Experiences. Canadian Scholars’ Press. p. 126. ISBN 978-1-55130-412-0.
    • Linda Trimble; Jane Arscott; Manon Tremblay (31 May 2013). Stalled: The Representation of Women in Canadian Governments. UBC Press. p. 220. ISBN 978-0-7748-2522-1.
  • It has, however, been increasingly described in literature and news media as right-wing since the mid-2010s.

An unregistered user reverted my changes without explanation, so I put my edits back and bring this issue to the talk page, if it even is an issue.

--Tundraski (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is important—it's increasingly hard to claim that SP is a centrist party, particularly under Scott Moe. Thanks for bringing some sources to bear. Other justin (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In need of updating[edit]

It looks like beyond the basics this article hasn't received a lot of attention since around 2007, which marks the beginning of an ongoing 16 year run in government for the SP. I'm going to try and put some work into it and would be happy to see other contributions.

The current section on 'origins' mostly looks out of place to me—I'm going to move a lot of that over to Politics of Saskatchewan (hopefully adding some sources, which are largely absent), and try and have this article focus more on its subject. Any other input welcome—please feel free to discuss below. Other justin (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saskatchewan_Party&oldid=1210228199"