Talk:Ed Stelmach

Not yet premier

just a note.. Ed Stelmach isn't premier as of Dec 3, 2006. The correct term is premier-Designate.

Stelmach, is scheduled to be sworn in as the 13th Premier of Alberta on December 15, 2006. GoodDay 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Current status?

One paragraph says he's a sitting MLA, and then the next paragraph says he resigned his seat in order to run for the premiership. Which is it? CBC also says he stepped down prior to running, but is his current status different from that?[1] Anchoress 14:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He is still sitting in the Alberta Legislature, what he resigned was his cabinet position, as was required by Ralph Klein in order to run in the leadership race. So yes, he is still a sitting MLA. (Grizzwald 15:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC))

OK, chalk it up to me not reading carefully enough. :-) Anchoress 07:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

==Premier== Stelmach, doesn't assume office until December 15th, 2006. Date is backed by External Link to CBC news. GoodDay 01:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cabinet

I am removing this section and providing a link to the cabinet article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dissonance cognitive (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

criticism

Should there be a section under Ed Stelmach for the criticism he's received. Because he has received tons of non-positive feedback from many Alberta organizations, mainly arts groups. This should be mentioned, because Stelmach is rapidly turning into one of the most unpopular premiers that Alberta has ever seen, at least in the Urban areas.

Climie.ca 19:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC) Cam

Ed Stelmach is actually very popular in Alberta including urban areas, Recent opinion polls place his approval at 66%. http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3455. PC party support is at 59%. This is as of April 24, 2007.

Despite the "tons of non-positive feedback from many Alberta organizations", the criticism section is unsourced and vague. The line: "Generally, there was a feeling of inadequacy around his leadership, since he won by only .3%" seems more like the opinion of a contributor than fact. Tfundy 18:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section should be sourced, or removed. --Tfundy 17:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I vote for "remove", in support of WP:NPOV policy. Stelmach is a living person, a politician who currently holds office, and has been premier for less than a year. Perhaps a section entitled "Controversies" could be started, along the lines of what appears in the article on Ralph Klein, as long as information provided there is well sourced and balanced, to address controversial issues that have arisen during his premiership, such as the AEUB scandal and the royalty review. However, I think it is far too soon to pass judgement on his "legacy", and for anyone to attempt to do so while he is still premier would make it very difficult for them to maintain a neutral point of view. Let's at least wait until after he's either won or lost at least one or two actual elections (yes, despite evidence to the contrary, there are other political parties in Alberta; the leader of the PCs doesn't get to stay premier indefinitely without eventually having to call a general election). I'm assuming he'll make it through at least one election cycle before they eat their young.Garth of the Forest 09:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

photo

I think the Premier deserves a suit and tie lead photo but since the official photo has been deleted I will add a Calgary Stampede shot until someone can get a non copyrighted photo that looks more official.Cszmurlo 18:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see User:Dissonance cognitive has deleted the Stampede photo. I think that having it is preferable to having no photo at all, and I don't particularly agree that it "attempted to paint Stelmach as a country 'yocal' in western wear", but I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions. Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that this was photoshopped to make Stelmach look like anything. There's nothing wrong with western attire. Obviously Stelmach thinks it is appropriate attire. Who is Dis. Cog. to tell him that he's wrong to wear it? IF DC can provide a doifferent fair use photo, fine, but otherwise, the photo we had should return. Ground Zero | t 18:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

To take the other side, for a second, Stelmach probably didn't so much decide that it was appropriate attire as he felt forced into wearing it, just like every other politician who visits the Stampede. I actually think Stelmach looks better in a cowboy hat than do most, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

He is premier of the province, he can wear what he wants. The fact that this is suitable attire in Calgary, and that it is worn by the premier, shows that it is culturally relevant to Alberta. If anyone wants to replace it with a fair use photo of Stelmach wearing something else, they are free to do so. There is no basis for removing it and leaving no picture, though. Ground Zero | t 23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.75.133 (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I emailed Premier's office asking to take care about photo here at Wikipedia and/or provide me with some appropriate one... They have not contacted me back. Stanislav (talk) 21:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Refraining from partisan language in political articles

While often tempting to do otherwise, it is important to adhere to WP:NPOV in these types of articles, particularly when referring to living persons. Can anyone provide a valid reference citing Jim Dinning describing himself as a Red Tory, or should that questionable description be removed from this article? In the interests of accuracy perhaps Red Herring would be a better turn of the tongue!??... ;) Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I endorse removal - the guy's famous (within Canadian politics) mostly for bringing fiscal conservatism to a level hitherto unheard of. Just because he doesn't want to stone gays doesn't make him a Red Tory. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've been working on a rewrite of the article here. While it's not complete (as I write this there are a couple of controversy headings with no content in them, and I still need to add a bunch of references) I think it's a better base than the current article. Do others agree? I'd rather stay away from specific discussion of elements of my rewrite - those can be edited mercilessly if and when we decide to drop the rewrite into the article. I just want to know whether you agree with me that we'd be better off working from my rewrite than from what's here now. Thoughts? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Having heard nothing, I've opted for boldness and inserted my rewrite. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Financing

I have changed the wording to that last section. Mr. Stelmach did not blame volunteers, he was part of the organizing committee and blamed the other 3 leadership candidates suggesting he wasn't fully aware of what they were doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.75.133 (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Good article drive?

With the rewrite, I think we're within striking distance of good article status (of course, I'm biased since it was my rewrite). A couple of things that I think still need to happen are the following (please feel free to add more):

• sources need to be improved in a few sections, especially the leadership race one;
• we need to strike a better balance between positive and critical content, since the controversy section is currently somewhat longer than the policy initiatives section (although there's "positive" content in the former and critical content in the latter, so it may not be as bad as all that). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian descent

Why was the information that he is of Ukrainian descent removed or if it wasn't there, why not?

He's in Category:Ukrainian Canadians (look at the very bottom of the article). I'm not sure there's a need to make it more prominent than that, as we don't usually include politicians' ethnic origins in their articles unless it's particularly relevant. Do you think it is for Stelmach? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I do think it's relevant when they are a part of a minority. It has been included here all the time. I just quickly scanned other politicians' entries and you've included it for Bob Rae (Jewish/Scottish), Michael Ignatieff(Russian), Tony Clement (Greek Canadian), Gary Doer (German/Welch) and another Alberta premier, Harry Strom (Swedish). In each case it was no more relevant than just a part of their biography and in each case it was included in the actual body of the article and not just in the links at the bottom.

Fair enough; go ahead and add it, if you like. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Origin

Some clarification on his origin.

His grandparents moved to Canada not from Ukraine as no such state existed. Beside that, Ukraine is very broad geographical meaning comparing to the name of mentioned village which to the rest of confusion was not preserved due to numerous wars in the region. I think it is worth to mention that his ancestors left the Galician region of Austro-Hungary, near Lviv (Radekhiv Raion) and especially the fact that they left in 1898. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I know there are many of Albertans who call themselves Ukrainians, even though their ancestors moved here before Ukraine was a country, or even before Russia was renamed Soviet Union. Ukraine was still a region, and had its own culture, which was brought here in the immigration. There are many Ukrainians who have lived in the area for a hundred years, that I have no problem calling Ukrainian. 117Avenue (talk) 04:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Death" threat(s)?

The sources provided say nothing about any alleged "death threat". Unless sources can be found that do, and unless they involve the Premier in any significant way, this section can't be included. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The title of the article by Paula Simons is titled "Was sentence for death threat fair"

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080526/EDM_labelle_080526/20080526/?hub=EdmontonHome

In this video, Carrie Doll claims Ronald Labelle threatened to kill the Premier and his family and burn down his house. There was no evidence offered to support that at the trial.

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080319/EDM_labelle_080319/20080319/?hub=EdmontonHome

In this article titled “Man guilty of making death threats against premier”, it improperly reports a death threat had been made against Ed Stelmach. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2008/03/18/5040256-cp.html

“Stelmach, who initially said the threatening call had shaken both him and his family, said Tuesday he was not following the trial and would simply let justice take its course.” Initially it may have, but he was also speaking to the “death threat” he had received at that point and not the threats the Crown heard evidence of.

http://www.metronews.ca/edmonton/local/article/59372

Tom Olsen claims there was no political motive

However, thes page - http://groups.google.co.za/group/alt.obituaries/browse_thread/thread/b6154ffd68c98458 reads:

Death threat against Alberta premier confirmed Last Updated: Tuesday, September 11, 2007 | 8:37 AM MT CBC News A suspect has been arrested after Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach received a death threat, a government spokesman says. The threat was called in last Tuesday, said Tom Olsen of the Office of the Premier in Edmonton. He would not say whether security has changed as a result of the threat. Olsen didn't give any more details about the suspect or where the death threat allegedly took place. Security around Stelmach was tightened in July after a woman tried to hit him with a cream pie at the premier's Calgary Stampede breakfast. - The spokesman for the Premier falsely confirmed a 5 day old threat on a day internationally renowned for acts of terrorism. Why else would he do that?

On Global Edmonton's facebook fan page - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=512044651#/pages/Global-Edmonton/7078490926?ref=s - On wall post at 1:03pm on May 29th, 2008, Neil Fitzpatick, Global News Director apologizes to Rheanna Sand for using the word "kill" in regards to the story that Mr. Labelle had threatened to kill the Premier.

Please see the Daveberta blog for questions to the legitimacy of the release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian LaBelle (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, those are helpful as a start. I think the biggest issue now is that none of those demonstrate that there was any kind of controversy, that Tom Olsen received criticism, or that anybody accused Ed Stelmach of exploiting the issue for political advantage. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ronald Labelle did in his statement to the media - http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=512044651#/note.php?note_id=14997579074&ref=mf several groups sprung up discussing it as a result if you search Stelmach, I have had hundreds of people message me with their support saying that was their belief long before it was brought up by me, numerous strangers have added their support to various internet sites and that is why I am adding it to the wikipedia entry for the people reading this to make up their minds as to whether it was or not.

"Ronald Labelle is a political prisoner" t-shirts are on sale at both West Edmonton Mall and Chinook Mall in Calgary.

It has come up as a point of note on the Fearless Fred Radio Extravaganza on 100.3 The Bear in Edmonton as well as 630 CHED. The controversy being that as the above mentioned articles point out, the Premier had received a "death threat" which was confirmed by the spokesman for the Premier and NOT the spokesman for the Edmonton Police Service as is the standard protocol.

This was done 5 days after the arrest which is much later than standard protocol and was announced the day before Iris Evans, the Minister of labour, threatened union labourers to go back to work or go to jail. They JUST locked one frustrated union labourer up the day before, it proved how serious they were and a lot of union pipe and gas fitters noticed.

The mainstream media did not even report the proper story initially, to expect them to publish their criticism is unrealistic.

This is the concensus of many Albertans calling radio programs of note in the province BECAUSE of the unethical use of the media in this way and written transcripts of their broadcasts can likely be purchased for a nominal fee.

Regardless of any of the above, the media reported somebody threatened to kill Ed Stelmach on September the 11th, 2007 and he was not sentenced for that on May 26, 2008. I stick to my belief that because the media reported Ron Labelle threatened to kill the premier and his family and burn down their house that that deserves to be in the "controversies" section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian LaBelle (talk • contribs) 02:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite any media coverage of the controversy? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I upload audio from the Fearless Fred Radio Extravaganza on 100.3 CFBR "The Bear" in Edmonton from the date of may 26, 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian LaBelle (talk • contribs) 07:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't post it on Wikipedia (since that would clearly violate are policy on use of non-free media), but if you can upload it elsewhere, I'll give it a listen. Failing that, if you could transcribe the relevant bit, so I could see what kind of coverage this was, that would also work. Has it not been covered anywhere in the print or internet media? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Every day at about this time we take a look at the news and find the Good the bad and the ugly. Brought to you by Burger King. BK, have it your way and today we look at the bad and bad is one Ronald Edward Labelle sentenced to 4 months for threatening to punch the Premier. I'm not excusing what the guy did, he was clearly wrong but I found it interesting that Judge Lereverand in her decision said "Politicians in Alberta must be made to feel safe and that they can work without threat to them or their property."

I'd like to take that a step further and say that ALL PEOPLE in Alberta, in Canada, in the entire world should be made to feel safe.

Do you know what I think Ed Stelmach should do? I think he should phone Nina Courtepatte's Mom and say "Hey, it's Honest Ed the Premier, remember that guy that kidnapped, tortured, raped and murdered you daughter before mutilating her body? What happened to him? Oh yeah, he was acquitted! Well guess what, some drunk threatened to dig up my garden and got 4 months because I'm the Premier!" and I think the Premier should call the parents of Shane Rolston and say "Hey! some guy who threatened my cows just got 4 months in jail!" and then ask them what they think of the Alberta Justice System. Cause that's... fair? No, that's bad.

The Elbow Choke

As it was referred to by local media at the time of the incident.

In a bizarre statement statement to a Calgary-Elbow constituent, PC candidate Brian Heninger tells one of his potential constituents, “I’d choke our premier.” The premier said that kind of enthusiasm is exactly what he wants in his MLAs. He would also later admit it was a campaign strategy. Brian Heninger would go on to lose Ralph Klein’s former riding in the Calgary-Elbow by-election.

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2007/06/10/4250096.html http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=ca8ea762-7411-431c-8eaf-e62115013842&k=64362 http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20070613_100103_9844

Hey - in case you hadn't noticed, I left that content in by merging it into the "Calgarian alienation" section, where I think it likely belongs. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed. I wasn't sure if it belonged there or with other threats of violence that Mr. Stelmach has been issued? -Brian

I think it pretty clearly wasn't so much a threat of violence as it was a Calgary candidate responding to what was, at the time, very low popularity for the Premier in Calgary, so I put it in the Calgary alienation category. If you think it belongs elsewhere, please do make that argument and we can look for a solution we both agree to. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that if the Elbow choke belongs in the Calagary alienation section, the death threat from Ronald Labelle likely belongs in the environmental policy section. Ron offered to dig up the Premier's top-soil and truck it down to the U.S. for him because the Premier had previously said during his leadership campaign that he would sooner do that than send more bitumen to the U.S.. Once he started sending MORE bitumen, that is what brought on the threat and therefore a good fit.

References

Nuclear plant

I've removed mention of this, since the sources cited didn't make any mention of Ed Stelmach or the Alberta government, and certainly didn't say anything about it being taxpayer-funded. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've reorganized the article and rewritten sections to make it better conform to WP:BLP, which frowns on "criticism and controversy" sections and their ilk being segmented out. Except as noted above, I don't believe I've removed any content while doing so. I think that a few sections - "Financing", "Pay increases", and "Top doctors quit" - are still in major need of a WP:NPOV rewrite, but I'm going to bed. Hopefully I'll get to those tomorrow. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the campaign promise to stem the flow of raw bitumen to the United States and then opening 3 pipelines to do the exact opposite definitely needs to be left up. As I pointed out, under NAFTA laws, because Stelmach opened the door, it can never be shut. To most urban Albertans, this will be the defining move of any "legacy" he leaves for the province. - Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.75.133 (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a tertiary source which means, among other things, that we try to avoid independent judgments of what is important in favour of broader consensus about what's important. You evidently think that the export of bitumen is the most important aspect of Stelmach's policies. Other people might think it's his "no brakes" policy towards the development of the tarsands. Others might think it's the elimination of health care premiums, for all I know. Because there's no easy way to resolve disagreements like this, we turn to what external sources have chosen to cover. I think that the aspect of Stelmach's policies that have received the most coverage are those related to energy and the environment (I initially had these sections separated, but in Alberta they're so closely tied that it didn't seem practical to continue doing so), so I put these at the top. This category includes the bitumen export issue, so in a way it is right at the top of the section on Stelmach as Premier, just not with its own section. I think this is the most reasonable resolution. If you don't agree, I'd be quite open to bringing in a third opinion, either via the third opinion mechanism (which has the advantage that we can be sure that we'll get an uninvolved party, and the disadvantage that the uninvolved party probably won't know anything about Ed Stelmach or Alberta politics), or by asking for feedback from one of Wikipedia's regular editors on Canadian politics (off the top of my head, I'd suggest any of User:Ground Zero, User:CJCurrie, User:Reginald Perrin, User:Bearcat, or User:GreenJoe, but there are almost certainly others). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ed Stelmach/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• 1. Well written. see comments
• 2. Accurate and verifiable. one dead link, references support statements as given
• 3. Broad. Could use more on his personal/family history, but is complete in political career
• 4. Neutral. Portrays both accomplishments and controversies, maintains NPOV
• 5. Stable. No edit wars or ongoing controversies
• 6. Images. Images are properly licensed and used in appropriate locations

Overall. passed

Comments

• Ref 65 is a dead link
• The lead is insufficient per WP:LEAD. Specifically:
  • The majority of the article discusses Stelmach's career as Premier. The lead offers no commentary on this, only stating that he is the Premier.
  • None of Stelmach's controversies (and conversely, successes) are mentioned in the lead. As examples: his victory in the last election is significant enough to merit mention in the lead, and I think the challenges he is facing in Calgary are also defining. (Though in fairness, being from Calgary, I may be biassed on this point.)
  • I'd recommend at least a second paragraph discussing his tenure as Premier. The lead should touch on aspects of each major section in the article, and serve as a consise summary of the subject.
• Several run on sentences. A lot of statements with multple commas, or bracketed additions can be broken up. (I was actually just hammered on this at my FAC for Calgary Hitmen.) Examples:
  • "As a backbencher, he sponsored the Lloydminster Hospital Act Repeal Act, a government bill that dissolved the then-existing Lloydminster hospital board in preparation for a new arrangement compliant with both the Alberta government's new system of regional health authorities and the Saskatchewan government's system (Lloydminster sits on the border of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and the hospital, although built and operated by the Alberta government, sits on the Saskatchewan side)." (from MLA and minister)
  • However, the fourth, fifth, and sixth place candidates (Oberg, Dave Hancock, and Mark Norris) all endorsed Stelmach for the second ballot, one in which he finished in first place on the first count (fewer than five hundred votes ahead of Dinning). (2006 leadership contest)
  • In June 2007, the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, the government-mandated and appointed body responsible for regulating energy resource development, pipelines, transmission lines, and investor-owned electric, water, and natural gas utilities, as well as certain municipality-owned utilities, admitted that it had hired private investigators to spy on landowners who opposed the construction of a major power line in the Rimbey area. (Energy and Utilities Board affair - nine commas! I don't think this level of detail of what the AEUB does is necessary in Stelmach's article)
  • There are more. Please review the article to ensure such sentences are broken up.
• 2008 election section is underdeveloped. Examples of why critics believed Stelmach's campaign was unorganized would help. I think also details on why Stelmach won such a huge increase in seats and popular support despite the criticisms would help.

• Otherwise, I don't see obvious spelling mistakes or significant issues with the prose. A little bit of work, and I think this is easily a GA. It compares well with other GAs on politicians, imo. Resolute 04:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I think I've made the changes you requested, except that I eliminated the section on the election in favour of moving its content into the general summary of his premiership. Part of the reason that I did this was that to expand the election section, I would have to include a lot of information about his promises and policies that were already found in the "Premier" section. I felt that it all flowed better if all of the information was integrated into the "Premier" section rather than hived off. I did add a sentence attempting to explain the massive majority, though, per your request. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on the moving of the 2008 election. I had noticed that it was mentioned throughout. This helps tighten the election mostly into one section. I believe this is now a GA. Congrats! Resolute 16:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalism is rampant with this article. I just read that Ed was a liberal in the article and by the time I got in to edit the reference back to Progressive Conservative, somebody had already beaten me to the deed. Thank you very much. Regards Nmac-YK (talk) 01:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's because it's on the front page right now; articles on the front page as today's featured article are always pretty heavily vandalized, but consensus is not to protect them except in truly extreme cases (and in fairness we have seen some productive edits by I.P.s since the article went live: [2]). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Could be the kiddies out of school because of H1N1 related school closures :) JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

mandatory leadership review

Let's keep full coverage the major political event of 2009--the mandatory leadership review. It's false nonsense to say this happens every month (it's a big deal and last happened years ago). The review attracted national attention --eg a full page in Maclean's magazine, which said it would determine not just Stelmach's status byut the future of Alberta! The resulyt was a big surprise and confounded the critics and moved Stelmach from an iffy status to a solid position, as the media reported. The text is fully sourced based on provincial and national news sources Rjensen (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be full coverage of the event. Here are my objections to your version:

• It duplicates a great deal of material from elsewhere in the article (the strength of the Wildrose Alliance, the deficit, H1N1, etc.). The article is long enough when we only deal with things once; no need to deal with them twice.
• The Hancock quotes make it read like a news article (possibly because they're taken from a news article).
• This just isn't significant enough for the lead. Come on, you're a historian: do you seriously think that when people look back on Stelmach's career ten years from now this is going to be what they're talking about?
• We can't just give every paragraph about a news event its own section. I agree on including the material, but it's best integrated into the article rather than just tacked on to it as you've done.
• This is minor, but irritating: you've take my formatted citations, which are a necessary part of keeping this article an FA, and converted them into bare citations. Steve Smith (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

the problem with Smith's edits is they misinterpret and downplay the historical significance of what has happened. Stelmach was in deep trouble and the media had started a death watch for his cause until he stunned everyone by winning a sweeping landslide at the critical party meeting. (A vote that happens only once in a career, by the way.) That event was very well covered by the national media because it was so important--Maclean's gave it a whole page, for example, and the networks and national press sent their reports in. The deeper issue is how one-party rule manages to hang on for 4 decades, especially without a charismatic leader and in the face of real economic troubles. Wiki should be covering that and Smith's stated belief that it's the sort of issue that comes along every month is dead wrong. Rjensen (talk) 03:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

First, you're quite mistaken that this is a once in a career thing: it's mandated in the party's constitution that one of these occur in the second convention after an election win (and, I believe, the first convention after an election defeat, though I'm not positive on that). Second, you're right that I overstated my case with the every month thing; this is a rarer issue than that. If you'd like to work on a compromise version, which I presume that you would, could you address my objections above? And on a minor point, to keep things friendly, I prefer to go by "Steve" rather than "Smith"; if you're uncomfortable with that, "Steve Smith" or "Mr. Smith" will do fine. Steve Smith (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Steve it is. yes, I'd be glad to work on a compromise solution. The vote we are talking about I think is reasonably rare (say once every 5 years or so). But the key issue is not that it's rare or is required but that this one proved very important in reversing Stelmach's apparent near-collapse. My apologies for messing up formats. As to the complaint, The Hancock quotes make it read like a news article (possibly because they're taken from a news article) -- well yes, the scholars won't have their articles out on this issue for a while yet--it happened just a few weeks ago. To keep current you need to rely on the media (I read about a dozen stories by different reporters and tried to get their consensus, but only cited a few of the most useful ones.) As for duplication, the gist is that voters and party officials were very unhappy about a series of serious problems, so it makes sense to tell the readers exactly which problems were uppermost at the party gathering. As for the lede, yes I think it's important, as did observers across Canada.Rjensen (talk) 10:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Before I get to your points immediately above, I wanted to briefly refute your suggestion that Stelmach "stunned everyone" with his result; in fact, a wide range of possible outcomes were being predicted in the leadup to the convention; a highly unscientific Google survey finds that of the (frustratingly few) commentators venturing specific predictions, most thought Stelmach would exceed the 77.4% figure: [3], [4], [5] I'm certainly not suggesting that Stelmach fell short of expectations, just that with the information we have it's overreaching to say that he exceeded them dramatically.

As to the idea that this reversed Stelmach's near collapse, I think you're exaggerating its importance in that regard: the big story surrounding the near collapse was the surge in WRA support, and the endorsement did nothing to change that. In fact, at least one WRA supporter who was entitled to vote in the review suggested that he would support Stelmach, because he believed that Stelmach's continuation was best for the WRA: [6]

With regards to the media, I'm afraid that I didn't make myself clear: I have no objection whatever to your selection of sources (you'll note that I preserved them in my own attempt at incorporating the information, and that virtually the entire article is sourced to mainstream media stories). My objection is to the tone that including the Hancock quote strikes: while it's fine for this article to be sourced to media reports, it ideally shouldn't sound like one, which I think is the effect of including quotations like that.

My concern with duplication is that, since so much of what's in this article is related, it's almost always defensible to duplicate material (for example, the "Relationship with Calgary" section could include information on energy policy, which is a major sore point there, and the information about the teachers pension liability could include mention of fiscal policy, and anywhere we deal with political fortunes we could mention pretty much everything). We need to keep this article at a manageable size and in a style that somebody reading the whole thing won't see the same points repeated over and over. In fact, one advantage I see to including the information in an existing section rather than carving out a new one is that the former approach automatically places it in some context without needing to duplicate material.

To move forward from here, I'd suggest the following: I agree that the event can be mentioned in the lead, in exchange for which you agree that the mention can be incorporated into an existing section rather than stuck in a new one. From there we can hammer out an exact wording. If we get stuck on that, we can use WP:3O and/or WP:RFC; I hope we can agree that getting others' opinions if we reach an impasse would be helpful, rather than a sign of acrimony. (If you'd rather consult editors with literacy in Alberta/Canadian politics than try for the grab bag that 3O can provide, I'd be happy to make a list of suggestions.) Steve Smith (talk) 10:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

your suggestions are quite reasonable; let's go with them. (as to the "stunning" result, I was at a political conference where I talked to about a half dozen Alberta politicians from different parties and they were pretty surprised.) As to specifics: let's use section 4.11 but a better heading might emphasize Provincial politics & public opinion. I suggest dropping the trivial matter of a "threatened legal action" that never happened. also dropping comparisons with Storm, which no one seems to care about anymore (they were made because at first Stelmach was so little known and people were scrambling for copy.) Rjensen (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the blogger thing's worth losing. Comparisons with Strom have recently picked up again ([7], [8]), so I'm more reluctant to lose them. I like your proposed title. I'm not likely to have time to come up with a draft of a new section any time soon (like, within the next two weeks), unfortunately - are you? Steve Smith (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to make some time for it. Rjensen (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Birth

Where was Stelmach born? The infobox says Lamont, while the lead and background say on a farm, which I thought was in Lamont County near Andrew, and none of these statements are referenced. There is currently a discussion at Talk:Lamont, Alberta#Notable residents for which of the three municipalities he should be included as a notable resident. 117Avenue (talk) 19:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Village of Zavyche, doesn't appear to exist. A Google search only produces Stelmach related pages, and a search on the Belarusian, English, Russian, and Ukrainian Wikipedias doesn't produce anything. 117Avenue (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

FAR needed

I do not think this article can be considered well-researched or comprehensive due to the fact it has not been updated sufficiently since promotion and does not incorporate scholarly/retrospective sources such as this one. (t · c) buidhe 05:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)