Talk:Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan

Untitled

The scandal didn't break in the news media till 1993 when the first fraud/breach of trust charges were laid by the RCMP, so obviously it would have been impossible for the scandal to have effected public opinion of the PC Party and caucus in the 1991 election.

64.110.251.69 17:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Progressive Party of Saskatchewan Web Site.

The Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan has an official website www.pcsask.ca

Yes they do.

Disputed statement re fraud

A NDP caucus worker also confessed to fraud. [1]

OK - what's disputed? Tearlach 13:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly; the NDP caucus employed a woman who confessed to fraud. The confession letter was even linked. 68.146.248.65 07:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No "exactly". I've removed it again, as just restoring it will contine the edit war. We want to work out a consensus wording. I'm well aware this is about some current political point-scoring: the NDP presumably want it forgotten; opponents of the NDP presumably want to highlight that the NDP did nothing about it. I hope you've grasped that this ongoing removal/replacement war will never get the article in the state you want. So talk about it.

And that goes for 70.64.13.206 too: it's a cited fact. Why don't you want it included, and in what form would you accept its inclusion? Tearlach 02:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The 'other' IP has had a day now to respond, but instead, the 'other' IP chose to revert again. I don't know how you could formulate a simpler wording; a NDP caucus worker confessed to fraud, and its now clear from the police reports that Pat Lorje indicated to police that it was the desire of caucus to cover it up. The fact that police complied also is evidence of a political motivation when former Tory members were being prosecuted for fraud, often fraud that resulted in no personal benefit (such as the purchase of a saddle, or constituency office computer gear), unlike the situation with Ann Lord/Davies. 68.146.248.65 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

An NDP causcus worked confessed to fraud so put it on the NDP page? Also how does paying for a saddle with ones communication budget using it once in a parade and than keeping it for personal not result in a personal benefit?70.64.13.206 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PClogoSK.jpg

Image:PClogoSK.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Done, photo-Nazi's. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits by unregistered editor

I have reverted a bunch of edits by an unregistered editor because they appear to violate Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. Below are some of the edits that were problematic. I am willing to work with this editor and others to improve this article, but it must be done in a way that is consistent with Wikipedia policies. That means making verifiable edits that maintain a neutral point of view.

Additions:

The editor's additions violate WP:NPOV:

• The Great Depression, which affected most of the world, resulted in extreme dependence on overly large and expensive governments, and following economic recovery after World War 2, Saskatchewan joined other regions in seeking new Conservative government options.
  • "overly large and expensive governments" is not a factual statement. It is opinion. "seeking new Conservative government options" - this is jargon. Please write clearly and simply to make Wikipedia more readable.
• This shift resulted in growing Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan support and success at the polls during the 1964 election as voters began shifting their focus to reduced taxation and more reasonable government size.
  • "more reasonable government size" -- is not a factual statement. It is opinion.
• The Progressive Conservative Party became the opposition following the 1991 election. International economic changes created a shift that again favored big governments that relied on increasing taxpayer contributions.
  • "increasing taxpayer contributions" is jargon. please write clearly and simply. And use Canadian spelling since this is an article about a Canadian topic -- see WP:ENGVAR.
• 2016 the Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan will be offering a full slate of 61 candidates. Candidates are being revealed on a daily basis. Saskatchewan has deep conservative roots and with the character and record the two current legislative parties becoming more clear to voters as not being conservative, the two Progressive Conservative Party is increasingly being noted as the only conservative option.
  • This is so very clearly promotional. If it is "being noted as the only conservative option", it should be easy to find references to reliable sources. Don't ask Wikipedia readers to just take your word for it. And there are grammatical and syntax errors.

Deletions:

• With the rise of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, politics in the province became polarized between the Liberals and the CCF. The CCF became the "New Democratic Party" in 1961. The Conservatives were frozen out of the provincial legislature for decades
• No Conservative was elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) until thirty years later when the party won a single seat in 1964 election. It lost that foothold three years later in the 1967 election.
• They were re-elected with a somewhat reduced majority in the 1986 election, but were defeated in the 1991 election, due to large budgetary deficits, an unpopular imposition of harmonized sales taxes, and a scheme entitled "Fair Share Saskatchewan" to decentralize civil service functions from Regina and privatize crown corporations.
• The party ran five candidates in the 2007 election. Swenson and other party members kept a relatively low profile but did some modest campaigning. The party collected 832 votes (0.18% of the total). Its five candidates in the 2011 election won a total of 1,315 votes (0.33% of the total).

All of these edits remove relevant information about the unsuccessful parts of the party's history. Why would we do that? Doing so gives the reader less information about the subject. It appears to me that these deletions were made in order to present the PC Party in a more favourable light.

Other edits:

• Replaced heading "Attempted resurrection, 2005–present" with "Conservative Resurgence, 2005–present":
  • There is no evidence of a "Conservative resurgence" here or anywhere. With less than half a percent of the vote in 2011 (six years into the so-called resurgence) it is still a fringe party. A decade of meager results at the polls doesn't constitute a resurgence, even if you delete the election results from the article.
• Deleted with a comment that "This is Libel... Show me the source!": The Tories were suspected of being in league with the Ku Klux Klan, which was a strong force in the province at the time, and railed against Catholics and French-Canadians. The Anderson government introduced amendments to the Schools Act banning French as a language of instruction, as well as the display of religious symbols in Catholic schools.
  • The editor expressed a valid concern. A statement such as this should be supported by references to reliable sources. It was easy to find sources, and I have adjusted the text to reflect what the sources say. Instead of deleting statements that need support, a better way of improving the article is to add this tag to the statement as a way of asking other editors to find a reference using this "citationneeded" tag: {{cn|date=February 2016}}. The editor should make reasonable attempts to find the information themselves before deleting it. This case shows that the statement, adjusted, was indeed valid, so deleting it arbitrarily was unwarranted.

As noted above, I am willing to work with the unregistered editor and others to improve this article in line with Wikipedia policies. I encourage him/her to raise questions here on the talk page instead of making arbitrary deletions. Ground Zero | t 15:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have added more sources, and changed the "Attempted resurrection" heading to the more neutral "Revival". Ground Zero | t 16:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)