Jump to content

Talk:Brad Wall

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

Early comments

[edit]

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)[reply]

Fellation? I beg your pardon? Please show any mistruths to the material you removed, or I will keep re-instating it.

64.110.251.69 02:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

To User:24.66.94.140 :

Your points might be better accomplished, rather than posting untrue libels towards Brad, by coming up with a page for John Gerich, including mention of his conviction for fraud. Maybe even call up Andrew Thomson and get a copy of that memo he has been talking about recently in the Legislature where the Liquor Board is ordered, in the early 90s, to deliver copius quantities of free liquor to Gerich's office. Wikipedia accepts images, but you have to sign up for an account.

Brad was barely even in his mid 20s when the Devine PC's left office, and most certainly was not in a position of authority. In many cases, the Devine PC's flouted the law (ie: retroactive legislation of the harmonized PST) -- you expect they would have given influence to a 23-year-old new hire?

64.110.251.69 16:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case than the part about what happned under Devine both negative and positive should not be in the article about Brad Wall.


Negative things happened under Grant Devine's government? What might those be? And certainly they pale in comparison to anything that has happened under the current NDP government. Pretty much every record from the Devine era for government waste, patronage pork, waste in the Crowns, investment losses, corruption, and scandalous behaviour has been broken by the current government.

Yes negative things happened and this discussion has nothing to do with the current government but Brad Wall who did work as an assistant during the Devine government. When negative things happened well he was employed and they are posted you have deleted them. Either both sides of the story goes up or neither. Not one side of the story.


That he worked as an assistant to the Honourable John Gerich isn't in dispute at all. As I suggested earlier, if you want the 'truth' to be known about the former Associate Minister, why don't you come up with a wiki page. I am sure there are plenty of articles to plagiarise from The Commonwealth or from any of the Regina newspapers if you want, or even that book, "SaskScandal" which quite elaborately lays out the whole chronology of fraud prosecutions against John Scraba/Gerich/Berntson/Hopfner/Hodgins/Meikeljohn/McLaren/Duncan/etc.

Truth be told, Saskatchewan was an exciting place to be in the 1980s under Devine, Saskatchewan did hit an all-time population high under Devine, Saskatchewan did attract significant foreign investment into such entities such as The Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Cameco, SaskOil, etc. And these organizations, for the most part, have absolutely fluorished once they were free of government control, undoubtedely because they were being absolutely mismanaged while under government control. Brad Wall was a part of the economic revitalization of Saskatchewan, and it is something to be absolutely proud of.

64.110.251.69 17:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was an assitant, who you said had little influence on the government. So why would you include that in here when that belongs in the article on Devine? The only thing that could be added to the page during his time as an assistant is about the issue of the liquor board, which was added and deleted by yourself. Also to clear one thing up at the end of Devines government which Brad Wall was so much a part of according to yourself Saskatchewan saw more people leaving than currenlty are.


Sad.

[edit]

It now seems abundantly clear that someone who has fond memories of the Devine era has taken upon him/herself to go through Wikipedia and make it seem as though EVERYBODY has fond memories of the period. In the process, the culprit has single-handedly dragged the quality of Wikipedia down.

Truth be told, it is almost an honourable effort. The blatant lack of regard for the standards/guidelines of Wikipedia is evidence of someone who does not even find it necessary to hide such unabashed bias in subtlety or clever nuance. In fact, I suspect that this 'article' was simply lifted from some sort of official bio of Wall (suggesting it is not sourced - another no-no).

[edit]

The above link for Andrew Thompson is incorrect and makes no mention of the saskatchewan finance minister, only a football player and an ontario politician. Please fix this.

Thomson, not 'Thompson'

[edit]

64.110.251.69 16:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I reverted back some old edits which I think are allowed in wikipedia articles such as personal bio information. If that is not allowed I do apoligize. I also put back some parts which were deleted due to bias, but edited them to a degree which I think makes them neutral. Also parts of the article are taken directly from the Sask Party bio page for Brad not sure if that makes any difference or not. Seaweed69

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)[reply]

Purpose of Wikipedia

[edit]

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)[reply]

Political campaign ads? Give you head a shake. Please stop imposing your own partisan agenda here and be more respectful of wikipedia.

64.110.251.69 03:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I added Wall's work for the Honourable Graham Taylor -- but I am not sure which ministry Graham Taylor was involved in. I am pretty sure he was charged with fraud as well. The article seems to be reasonably balanced at this point -- so my attention and time probably will be very limited in the future.

64.110.251.69 14:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I certainly have no concerns with it now. Thank you for your efforts and contributions. AnnieHall 14:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got them all. Not sure which ministries Wall was associated with, however. Maybe I will ask him next time I see him.

64.110.251.69 05:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Baaken

[edit]

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)[reply]

You keep removing a cited source. Please stop. The page of Brad Wall has nothing to do with that of any other on wikipedia.70.64.4.74

The source doesn't bear any relevance. The source will be removed so long as it bears no relevance or no relevant information.

70.73.4.197 08:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acually, the source does have relevance to the leadership of Brad Wall. Please quit being a vandal70.64.4.74

Sorry buddy, you're wrong. Now stop the vandalism. 64.110.244.179 19:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry new here. I have an issue with a part of this section: The first line about "voicing concerns within Wall's caucus" isn't mentioned in the source article. She said she was frustrated with the political system, not with Wall (or even necessarily the caucus). Therefore, the statement about voicing concerns is not properly sourced. I think it's being kept here by political partisans that want to make Wall look bad. The Opposition leader doesn't have a similar section for his profile, yet that party has seen many more defections, so why should it be here?--Wadougl (talk) 19:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Fair enough, I must have missed that particular line, thanks for pointing it out. Although it still says "caucus" and not Wall specifically, so could it not have been from other caucus members or staff? I don't see anything in that line that "calls his leadership into question", though it does list his delegate support afterwards. Like I said, new here, so still learning the ropes.--Wadougl (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Assessment

[edit]

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)[reply]

Protection

[edit]

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)[reply]

The Baaken-Lackey reference makes no sense. It is not supported with evidence other than an editorial of one individual who is merely repeating innuendo unsupported by statements of fact. Accordingly, it must be removed. 71.17.54.163 08:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Premiers Templat

[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks Bearcat. GoodDay 21:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007?

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old vandalism

[edit]

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)[reply]

Wall's Tweets

[edit]

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)[reply]

Despite repeated correction and proper sources (those being news stories from reporters, not columnists), it appears BlewsClews is dismissive of proper context in these articles, when it does not fit a particular narrative. It is not appropriate to reject or categorically remove context added by a user that better informs a particular section added to a biographical page. In this case, the rapid gain in popularity of a post indicates quite substantively that the post was a big topic of discussion in social media, adding profile and importance that would otherwise be lacking to any other ordinary post of that nature. Chevs1905 (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Chevs1905[reply]

Chevs1905, the type of source isn't all that matters in assessing an addition's worthiness and isn't what is in contention here. I have no "narrative" here. But how many retweets the post got adds no new info beyond that Wall's tweet was popular among his followers. The tweet became newsworthy not because of retweets, but because of the backlash from the Nigerian community. BlewsClews (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BlewsClews, as a statement of fact, the post gained much notoriety on social media well-before it was covered from The Star Phoenix, as is mentioned in the source itself. The tweet was newsworthy in many places over the internet, and the profile it received on social media is what precipitated the discussion in the Nigerian community, which when prompted the backlash. Had the post received little to no profile on social media, it would likely have changed the outcome of events with regard to the attention it got from members of the community who were upset with its content. Thus, it is very relevant and helpful information, especially since one can no longer go to the deleted post to see what level of reach it got before it was taken down. Chevs1905 (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

[edit]

Bradv (talk · contribs) 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 BlewsClews (talk · contribs)
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 Chevs1905 (talk · contribs)
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)[reply]
Third opinion by Bradv
@Chevs1905: Please respond here before editing the article further. And please read the warnings on your talk page. Bradv🍁 15:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is the content in question:

After Wall's retirement, he tweeted a post in opposition to the federal carbon tax, which read "Usually when someone tells you to send in money but you’ll get more back in return, it’s a Nigerian prince." Shortly after, Wall deleted the tweet and issued an apology to Saskatchewan's Nigerian community. The reference to advance fee scams gained quick popularity on social media, the post having been retweeted more than 3,500 times and accumulating almost 7,600 likes before it was deleted.

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brad_Wall&oldid=1208368424"