Jump to content

Talk:Gary Merasty

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

Untitled

[edit]

Okay, can whomever tagged the page be specific about the allegations? --Saforrest 23:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took down Merasty's bio which was copied right from his site. Any re-editing is welcome. --Darkcadaver February 6, 2006

The allegations of 100% turnout seem to be greatly exaggerated, as bucketsofg shows (follow the link). There were almost 500 voters in that poll in June 2004; Merasty was ahead by 200 before it reported and lost by 70.

For data about the earlier elections in the Ahtahkakoop poll, see http://bouquetsofgray.blogspot.com/2006/01/electoral-misconduct-in-churchill.html. Off the top of my head, it looks like the turnout was more like 70%, which is about what it was in the Nov. 2000 election. Bucketsofg 22:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV raffle

[edit]

I suggest that we delete these lines:

"Harrison has alleged that the television raffle was offered as an inducement to vote Liberal, although Ahenakew insisted that the raffle was not a partisan inducement, but was in fact open to anyone who voted at all. It is illegal under Canadian election law to offer a reward in exchange for voting a particular way. To date, Elections Canada still has not ruled on whether the TV raffle broke election law."

Firstly, did Harrison himself ever make the allegation that the raffle was for Liberals only? I'm not sure that he did. And even if he did, is this something that we need to clutter up the article with? The statement that Elections Canada has not issued a ruling is not relevant, either: as far as we know, they have not been asked to rule. Bucketsofg 01:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to removing that section; the only reason I added it in the first place was because I was attempting to balance a clearly pro-Harrison bias in the way the article was initially written (for example, it claimed that the raffle was unquestionably an illegal partisan inducement.) Since you've done a lot of good cleanup that exceeds the limited amount of work I was actually willing to put into this, the clarification is no longer necessary. Bearcat 09:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks for the clarification, BC. Bucketsofg 03:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this continues to be removed. The tv raffle was for those who voted Libera.

No, it wasn't, as was made clear in all the news reports about it. In the days after the election, Harrison made the allegation that it was for Liberals only; several different news reports then asked locals who said that the poll was for any voter. Harrison did not repeat this allegation (which is quite serious) during the official recount, which surely implies that he no longer believed it to be true. The other point, of course, is that unless there were enormous breaches of electoral law, the people holding the raffle wouldn't know how individuals had cast their vote. Bucketsofg 21:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And than the media asked the Chief who denied there ever being a raffle, and later went on to admit he lied.

The Chief admitted to the raffle, not sure why this continues to be changed.

The chief admits to the raffle, the allegation was that it was Liberal only. Wikipedia's policy of NPOV requires that we try to find a wording that does not skew the reader towards one's partisan viewpoint. 'responds to allegation' is neutral; 'admits to allegation' is not. Bucketsofg 22:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Telling the situation is neutral. In the article the Chief admits to the TV for votes. "The chief of a Saskatchewan First Nation says there was a raffle for a free TV, but it wasn't intended just for Liberal voters. Instead, according to Chief Larry Ahenakew, it was simply an incentive for people to vote."

On the complaints to Elections Canada.

[edit]

Message to 64.110.220.20. How do you know whether there has been a complaint? There has been no mention of one in any news report. (If you have a link, please give it.) Without any such evidence, all we have are the exaggerated claims of the morning after the election, all of which seem to have been dropped by the Harrison campaign since.

Don't forget allegations made by the NDP candidate.

Again, none of them have resulted in any formal complaints that have been reported in the news. Bucketsofg 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acually the recount application delt with some of them and is part of the reason for the recount.

According to the CBC story[1]: "[Harrison] has offered no evidence of specific wrongdoing, at least in public." And at another CBC story about the judicial hearing: [2]: "Harrison has alleged there were electoral irregularities, including ballot-box stuffing.However, during arguments in court last Friday, his lawyer, James Rybchuk, focused on alleged adding errors at several polling stations." Without specific evidence to the contrary, we don't know whether Harrison's accusations the morning after were ever followed through. In any case, 64.110.220.20, please re-familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. You and I should be able to come up with wording for these articles that accurately reflect the facts, but is neutral. If you can't manage that, you should post your opinions somewhere else. Bucketsofg 19:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public, the court room would be private.

Um, no. There is no place more public than a courtroom. Bucketsofg 23:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBC article title

[edit]

In the back-and-forth with 64.110.220.20 and my attempt to find a compromise title for the link to the CBC article about the tv-raffle, I didn't notice that the original name of the article came from the CBC itself. I changed the link back to its CBC title. Bucketsofg 19:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: POV

[edit]

I looked at the data regarding Ahtahkakoop reserve which is Poll 105. Here are the facts the voter turnout increased from 31% to 70%. While the number of registered voters increased from 458 to 558. And in 2006, Gary Merasty got 353 of the 388 (90%) of the vote. I would say that it is likely that the Lib Campaign targeted these communities to win the Riding, which voted 80% for the liberal Candidate in 2004. I don't believe these accusation should be allowed to be in Wiki. The conservative candidate stopped contesting the election. Vote irregularities have occurred in the past, but allegations of irregularities are all too frequent. Look at the Tony Ianno sour grapes campaign. Pete Peters 17:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pete. I agree with your analysis of the data and that the Conservative allegations were probably baseless or exagerated. This becomes even clearer if you bring the 2000 election. (2006 was in the winter; 2004 in the summer; 2000 in the winter. In 2000, the turnout was similar if I recall to 2006; again, all but a handful voted for the Liberal, who happened to be native.) Nonetheless, I think that the accusation should remain in the article because it really happened: Harrison did make this charge. I think it was inaccurate, but he did say these things, and the article should show that. Bucketsofg✐ 18:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the trend wasn't Winter-Summer-Winter, But Native Candidate-Whitey-Native, Perhaps the allegations are better suited for the Electoral District entry, and reduce the length of the conflict in his personal entry. Pete Peters 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, and it's probably useful to add some of this detail to the Electoral district, but I think that some of these allegations need to be here, too. Anyway, go ahead and change this as you like--it's a wiki, after all. Bucketsofg✐ 21:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

[edit]

This wikipedia entry was outdated and dealt more in heresay and red herrings than fact. All the changes I have introduced have been to make the entry neutral and fact based.

I have dealt with the 2006 election issues in a neutral manner that is respectful to Mr. Merasty and Mr. Harrison equally. Any one who is interested in the allegations can refer to official Elections Canada report dated October 25, 2006. All the allegations are included and dealt with.

This entry now gives a sense of what Mr. Merasty has been doing as an MP on a factual basis as well, which it was sorely lacking. The two motions have been his most notable achievements in the House of Commons and have been important issues for Canada.

In sum, I think these entries should provide a forum for people to get a sense of the person, place or thing they purport to address. This entry now does that.Downontheupside 04:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gary Merasty. 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) 12:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gary Merasty. 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) 09:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Merasty&oldid=1208215819"