Talk:Saskatchewan Party/Archve 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Saskatchewan Party. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Liberal template

There is a Liberal Party of Saskatchewan, and this isn't it. The Liberal template does not belong here. Shame on the anonymous editor for suggesting that I supported putting the template here without asking my opinion. Ground Zero 16:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I should of asked 24.222.32.205 04:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Conservative or centrist?

In various places around here, there has been a debate about whether to characterize the SP as "conservative" or "liberal - conservative". And thetre have been some revert wars. I think it makes sense to focus the discussion here.

In the past, under the leadership of former Reform MP Elwin Hermanson, it is clear that the SP was conservative despite having been founded as a coalition of PCs and Liberals. Now with leader Brad Wall, it is not so clear. The Party seems to be trying to move to the centre. How should Wikipedia charecterize it?

The party's current "Guiding Principles" can be found here: [1]. Principles 1, 2 and 3 are clearly conservative. Principle 4 is something that all parties claim they want, whether left or right. Principle 5 is more centrist, but not actually left-wing. Princples 6, 7 and 8 fall into the "ice cream" category -- if asked to vote for or against ice cream, is there anyone who would vote against it?

I don't know enough about Sask politics at this point to have formed an opinion.

Please: discuss amongst yourselves. (And by discuss, I mean, provide well-reasoned arguments backed up by evidence, rather than just assertions of you believe. Thanks. ) Ground Zero 18:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

evidence? every news story, I ever saw, on every network, that ever broacasted on TV or the radio, refers to it as a right-wing party. I could say every and ever a few more times, but I think I made my point. Pellaken 18:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

god this aggrivates me. how can I explain it? its a fact? its like you can drink water! you know it is! its obvious! its accepted! its everywhere! I typed in sask party and right wing into google, here are the first few links or something:

http://www.cbc.ca/saskvotes2003/features/feature4.html

http://canadaonline.about.com/library/bl/blhermanson.htm

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2003/n25se03a.htm

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/oct1999/ndp2-o02.shtml

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/sep1999/ndp-s25.shtml

http://users.metro2000.net/~stabbott/parties.htm#canadaparties

do I really have to go on? its a "commen fact" like how the sun shines. I dont think there's any more proof needed. Pellaken 19:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is old info under the leadership of Elwin Hermanson how about Brad Wall Leadership Michaelm 20:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

you know as well as I do that the media only focuses on elections. Wall himself supported a tory in the federal election. These are facts, not wishes like you'd have. The leader does not change the party. Pellaken 21:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

A discussion is underway to resolve this in an adult, Wikipeidan fashion. Why did you start making changes again on this question again, Michael? You know that it will only lead to a revert war. Leave it be for a couple fo days to allow a consensus to develop. Ground Zero 21:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I thout you might wont it removed because its not clear what it stand for. But I will Leave it alone for a couple fo days. Michaelm 21:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

As I just explained over on Template_talk:Major Canadian Conservative Parties, saying that a party is "conservative" does not mean that they are hard right. No one, so far as I have seen, has argued that the Sask Party is left-of-centre, I believe that there is consensus that it is right-of-centre. That is to say a "small c" conservative party. I do not see the logic behind any dispute on this at all. I think the problem here is that some, particularly Michaelm, reads "conservative" to mean "hard right-wing" but in fact that is not what it means at all. - Jord 21:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

yes. the PC Party of PEI is further to the left then the Liberal party of PEI. but it's listed on each otherses template. I accept the saskatchewan party has either moved, or is moving frmo right of center to center right, but it's still right. Pellaken 21:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment to see if I can convince myself. I think you make an excellent argument, Jord, but what do you think about this:

The SP is not a conservative party per se, but a "broad tent" that includes conservatives and liberals, and Conservatives and Liberals. The reference that Michael provided elsewhere of an introduction speech for Wall delivered by a Liberal points in that direction: he talked about the need to stop the NDP, and the SP being the only way to do that. The "Liberal member of the SP" phenomenon may arise from the split that occurred in the party when its leader took it into coalition with the NDP, and the rest of the caucus refused to go along.

On the other hand, it is so widely recognized as being a conservative party that I don't think Wikipedia should state otherwise. The article already reflects the participation of some Liberals in the party. I think what we have, at least until we get a better idea of where Wall is going, is a "conservative party that is supported by some Liberals as a way of opposing the NDP". (The introducer's speech focussed, if I recall correctly, on what the NDP is doing wrong, rather than a belief necessarily in SP policy.)

I think lean to the latter position, rather than the devil's advocate position. Ground Zero 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Factually, it's partly a "liberal" party. lemme get some numbers...

in 1995, the PC's elected 5 members, and the Liberals, 11. IIRC, 4 or 5 of these numbers, IIRC, including the party leader in the legislature, decided to join the PC members to create the Saskatchewan party. (I am pretty sure it was 5). of these, at least one, Ken Krawetz (I think Liberal Leader), is still a member of the legislature. see: List_of_Leaders_of_the_Opposition_in_Saskatchewan

of the remaining 6 libreals, 4 were re-elected, and 3 joined the NDP in coalition, and stuck with them. While the "party" official did not join either, the membership and base did, making the Saskatchewan Party, and new NDP more centrist then either the previous PC Party or old NDP.

MY issue is that while the party is "more" centrist, it is not Centrist. MichealM quotes sources that talk about how the party is trying to rebrand itself as more centrist... well so is just about EVERY other political party on the planet. We cant go around calling them ALL centrist. This is a right-wing, conservative party, and so it should be labled. the only thing MichealM is right on, is the fact that Liberal MLA's made up half the party in 1995 does deserve an unqualified metnion. Pellaken 08:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

proof of right-wingadcy

http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/1998_May_Jun/article_8.html

http://www.rightwing.ca/archives/2003_10_01_archive.html

http://www.governmentrelations.ubc.ca/informed/nov2003/provinces.html

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2003/n21oc03a.htm

http://www.saskndp.com/cw/65.1/shadesoffuturepast.html

http://www.saskndp.com/cw/64.5/electionredux.html

http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/x0926rro.htm

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Saskatchewan:Government:Insurance.htm

http://www.votenga.ca/Common%20Pages/BackgrounderTextFiles/Current%20Comments%20from%20NGA%20Site.htm

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1099award.htm

http://www.hursh.ca/2003_11_02_archive.asp

http://www.carillon.uregina.ca/10.21.04/story3.html

http://www.halifaxlive.com/Little_Dec31.htm

http://www.web.net/blackrosebooks/sask.htm

http://saskatchewan-party.area51.ipupdater.com/

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000986

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/special/yir2003/bandw_politics.html

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/2004062914372787

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/pen-l/2003w44/msg00153.htm

http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/002021.html

http://www.fairvotecanada.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=488&forum=3&5

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1378022/posts

http://www.koschei.net/blog/archives/000415.html

http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0997tidbits.htm

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22saskatchewan+party%22+right-wing&btnG=Search&meta=

Wow

I'll check some of these out. Nice work, P. And I thing the term is "right-wingèdness". Ground Zero 21:55, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to say Pellaken did alot of research. I will be ok if we call the Sask Party center-right. And 1st Leader for the Sask party I know he was from a socred bace party (Reform) and he also worked with the Conservative Canadian Alliance. However the party has Liberal Conservative mix so we need to do more research for both side of the arcument.Michaelm 00:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hear is some more info [2] Michaelm 01:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

as I already said, over and over, the Communist Party of the USSR called itself Democratic Does that mean it supported Democracy or Dictatorship? Reality is often not what parties claim themselvs to be. so far your ONLY source has been the sask party itself. I've provided, what, 30 links, and one of those links leads to 500 more. This was over from before it started. Pellaken 03:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Look the Communist Party of the USSR is a far Left-wing Dictator party but lets not get into that. did you read the link ? Michaelm 04:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

and if you've done alot of research, prove it, with links. and what's a "socrad bace". its not my job to research your side of the argument. you do it. Pellaken 03:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Socred is a nickname for Social Credit and the Reform Party was born from the Social Credit movement but lets not get into that. Michaelm 03:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Underhanded Tactics

the edit by 24.222.32.229 is infact an edit by MichealM, who logged out to make it. compare his past contributions as both and look at the edits. not to mention the identical spelling mistakes they make. Pellaken 03:26, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You should not asume Michaelm 03:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

He's right its my falt 24.222.32.205 04:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Lets just fix the page

Never mind the Underhanded Tactics lets just force the task on hand and don't put down outher peoples research. Michaelm 04:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hear is some more info [3]

your own "proof" provided above, speaks of a right-wing party, trying to become something more centrist. This is exactly what the federal tories are trying to do. If you want to say this right of center party is becoming more center right, then go ahead, but its only BECOMING one, its in the process of getting there, for the time being, it's still right-wing. Pellaken 08:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Federal tories have no intention to make the party more centrist or center-right or right-of-center. Thay are Hard core right-wing. PC party of Saskatchewan is going to be re-born [4] Most likely the Conservative Party of Canada have somthing to do with it. Thay are more right-wing then the Sask Party. Michaelm 13:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

At their last policy convention, the federal Tories tried to put a "moderate" face on the party to be more appealing to voters. It didn't last very long once the debate on Bill C39 (smae-sex marriage) got underway. As far as the Sask PC Party, the article only says that they are accepting new memberships, and then will meet to decide the party's future. It doesn't say that they have decided to re-start themselves as an active party. As far as involvement of the federal Tories, that is purely speculation. Why would they want to start from scratch to challenge an existing centre-right party?

As far as the evidence that you've provided about the Sask Party not being right wing, you haven't specified what parts of those documents support your case. A lot of the Sask Party's policies are very right wing -- lower taxes, smaller government, less government involvement in the economy, which actually contradict the point you are trying to make. I think that the Sask Party should remain in the conservative parties template, at least for now, and should be described as a conservative party in the Sask Party article, as long as the parts about there being some Liberals in the party are kept. Ground Zero 14:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree Michaelm 15:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Redraft of intro paragraph

Here is my proposed redraft of the intro paragraph to recognize the fact that things are in flux:

The Saskatchewan Party is a centre-right political party in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. The party was established in 1997 by a coalition of former Progressive Conservative and Liberal members and supporters who sought to remove the New Democratic Party from power. While it has been a conservative party since its creation, it is now attempting to attract moderate voters. The Saskatchewan Party serves as the province's Official Opposition, holding 28 of the 58 seats in the province's Legislative Assembly in Regina.

Comments? Ground Zero 15:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That will work. However thay have 28 seats out of 58 24.222.32.236 15:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Right you are. I've fixed it. Ground Zero 15:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the edit Michaelm 15:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I vote in favour of the motion, Mr. Speaker - Jord 18:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

while I'd prefer right of center to center right, I'll accept this. Pellaken 19:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I just wont to make so centre-right is linking to centre-right agree Michaelm 20:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I will accept center-right in the name of consensus. Pellaken 01:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC) (did I spell that right? I have dysgraphia and by spelling sucks)

Cleanup time

I see that a lot of unsubstantiated allegations have emerged in the article. Allegations that are not supported by evidence are not acceptable on wikipedia, especially if they do not have credible sources backing them up. The Bakken Lackey article cited does not make any reference whatsoever to Ms. Bakken Lackey having any difficulties within the Saskatchewan Party caucus, but rather states her frustration with the nature of the antagonistic and bitter relationship between the Government and the Opposition (and how often very simple matters become tarred with politics). Therefore, to infer otherwise, unless you have evidence, is entirely innappropriate.

64.110.251.69 09:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverts and stuff that doesn't belong here

1) The phrase that insinuates that Crown Corporations would be 'sold to private business' is innaccurate. Even the Devine Progressive Conservatives didn't generally sell the Crowns 'to private business', but rather privatized through Initial Public Offerings of shares (for instance, PCS and Cameco shares were available to Saskatchewan-based investors first and foremost).

2) The insinuations with respect to Ms. Baaken Lackey have no evidentiary basis. While it is true that there may have been some conflict within the caucus (the caucus being comprised of human beings), there is evidence to suggest that Ms. Baaken Lackey was subject to a dehumanizing level of ridicule from the government, and that the stress became too much. If you review the "Talk" page for Weyburn-Big Muddy, on page 19 of the referenced Hansard (the video is available online...at www.legassembly.sk.ca, of the incident), a theriomorphism is used to refer to her by Pat Atkinson, a long-time NDP cabinet minister (and a very mean person overall, but that's besides the point).

3) It is not accurate, to state as fact, that the Government "had no involvement" with the Tommy Douglas film. They gave a grant, they obviously must have done some due dilligence with respect to the film, and they obviously had the ability to apologize for the gross innaccuracies in the film. Again, claiming they had 'no involvement' as fact, based on one statement from a member of the Government in a newspaper certainly is not credible.

4) Brad Wall has a page of his own, and its not really necessary to expand a large biography of him. Even his former work for the Associate Minister under a previous administration probably isn't relevant to this article, entitled "Saskatchewan Party", but I guess we can let it stand.

5) Tuition freeze? Give me a break. I was a Usask student not so long ago, and tuition was just a very small part of my overall costs of attending the institution. The ad perhaps was innaccurate, but while tuition has been frozen, other ancillary fees at the universities have been steadily rising, "tuition increases by stealth". For instance, just before I graduated, there was a tuition cap at 12 classes fall/winter term. I took 16-18 per fall/winter term, and only had to pay for 12. They removed that cap, thus tuition for people like me skyrocketed.

6) The policy on the wheat board is similar to that of the federal Conservative party. I don't understand why anyone would cast their policy in a negative light.

7) The Weyburn-Big Muddy by-election results statistically show that at least some NDP urban voters must have voted SaskParty, thus it is entirely accurate that the Saskatchewan Party has succeeded in attracting some traditional NDP voters to the party.

64.110.251.69 23:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

While the current edit is not without its problems, the 64. anon's changes only serve to make the article far, far worse.

You cannot write about "the NDP's dishonest campaign" if you want to ensure your contributions are not reverted. CJCurrie 01:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Worse? In the eye of the beholder, perhaps. The NDP's campaign was dishonest. For example, one claim the NDP made in the 2003 campaign was, "we will not raise taxes". Soon thereafter, the PST was hiked from 6% to 7%, the Premier (or the Finance Minister, van Mulligen, I forget which) claiming that promises made during an election aren't that important. [5]

You've just blown all of your credibility with that statement. The NDP ran a dishonest campaign.

64.110.251.69 02:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you should read Wikipedia:NPOV before going any further. CJCurrie 02:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My quick answer to your complaint: many governments change there minds on tax rates after an election. Calling this "dishonest" is POV. CJCurrie 02:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

A central theme of the NDP campaign in 2003 was the promise of no tax hikes. When the ink was barely dry on the returned writ, taxes were raised, not only the PST, but also certain capital taxes as they apply to royalty trusts.

Let's not also forget about the SaskEnergy asset privitization that was apparently in the works in 2003, while the NDP was running around claiming, "we will not sell the Crowns".

Its fairly apparent that you are involved (or at least sympathetic) with the NDP in some form or another, and I think you probably can infer that I am fairly close to some members of the Opposition (heh, I pay to attend the dinners, its a great tax break!, but otherwise, I'm not involved). Obviously you will not allow the article to read like a SaskParty press release, and I won't allow the article to read like a John Conway piece out of The Commonwealth. So let's stop the reverting for a week or two, and start a section about "POV" here and discuss the article line by line.

64.110.251.69 02:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are interesting points of debate, but (for our purposes) they do not support the assertion that the NDP ran a dishonest campaign. I do not accept that the article should be left in its current form for a week, or even for a day. CJCurrie 02:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed framework in which these discrepancies can be resolved? I mean, there always will be somewhat of an 'artistic license' to writing an article such as this one, when references are somewhat lacking, or are merely editorial, rather than factual in nature. Wikipedia isn't well served by injecting a lot of rumour, innuendo, opinion, and speculation (as seems to be the case in reference to the former Weyburn-Big_Muddy MLA) into the discourse, but rather by focussing on fact.

For instance, Saskatchewan Party policy called for the divestiture of Crown Corporations in the past. This can mean a number of different things. For instance, it can mean an [Initial Public Offering], an employee buyout, a direct dividend of shares to citizens of Saskatchewan, or in the cases of some unproductive Crowns (Navigata comes to mind), discontinuance, restructuring, or asset swaps. Sale "to private business" would be one of the options that would have been contemplated under a privitization scheme, but not the only option.

64.110.251.69 03:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Links dealing with the resgination, and the accusation of a push poll, and the fact it wasnt one. You may notice that even the Leader of the Provincial Liberal party states he is accusing the Saskatchewan Party of push polling. http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=2d90ddb7-ea88-4a0e-9b2c-ca43fca0b3e8&k=19911 http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2006/05/12/poll060512.html

POV

To the anon: arguing that the NDP ran a dishonest campaign is inherently POV. You will not be permitted to retain this assertion on the article page. CJCurrie 22:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dishonesty has been proven. I will continue to correctly assert that the campaign was predicated on a complete lack of honesty, especially in light of the fact that taxes were raised in the next budget.

I think you should note that I haven't gone over to your beloved NDP pages and added in all of the scandals the Saskatchewan NDP has incurred (let's see...Channel Lake, Guyana, Spudco, 1998 electrical crisis, etc.). Nor do I particularly intend to. Heck, the Sask NDP page doesn't have much, if anything in terms of policy, and not a word of how Kaspersky (the former MLA) was bullied out of caucus (he's now a member of the Sask Party), not a word from Bob Pringle, the former minister and Saskatoon Food Bank who has been publicly shaming his former colleagues for their inaction. Not a word on how the Sask NDP-controlled health care system is literally falling apart. Not a word about much of the other misconduct that has taken place in the Crowns or in provincial agencies that are run by the Saskatchewan NDP government. Oh, and let's not forget how the NDP government privatized parts of SaskOil and Cameco, to pay down the deficit, while hypocritically acusing the "Tories" of having a hidden agenda.

Just be careful for what you wish for.

64.110.251.69 22:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand: it is a violation of Wikipedia policy to describe the Sask NDP as dishonest, regardless of how convinced you are of the accuracy of that statement. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV, and don't revert the page again. CJCurrie 23:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand anything about neutrality, or even common decency. don't revert the page again applies entirely to you, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for threatening me in this fashion, along with your constant reverts without justification. You need to read up on wikipedia policy, in particular, policy against trolling and policy with respect to NPOV, before you spam your pro-NDP garbage here again. 64.110.251.69

This is nothing short of preposterous. It is a violation of Wikipedia policies to describe a political campaign as dishonest. Do you not understand this? CJCurrie 23:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

As CJCurrie has already said, please read Wikipedia:NPOV before you edit this page, or any page for that matter. I am a conservative myself look at my User page if you don't believe me. However edits like the ones that you have made are in violation of Wikipedia policies, as stated in Wikipedia:NPOV. SFrank85 00:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur with CJCurrie and with SFrank85. The edits that the anon user has been making are not consistent with Wikipedia policy. I extend a welcome to the anon user -- Wikipedia is a great project, and the more people who participate, the better it will be. Wikipedia does have policies, however, that are designed to protect the encyclopedia and improve it. I encourage User:64.110 to review those policies to learn how to work here with other users. If you have any questions, I'd be pleased to help. Ground Zero | t 12:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Page locked

Please discuss your differences and work out a consensus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let's get started

Brad Wall -- Brad Wall has a wikipedia page of his own, and a reader can look there to determine his former political affiliations, including, but not limited to, who he formerly worked for, what positions he ran for, etc. I would suggest the same for Ken Cheveldayoff, and other former members of the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Party who are now members of the Saskatchewan Party, as well as Elwin Hermanson, who was a former Reform/Canadian Alliance MP.

Policy -- clearly policy that was formulated under the leadership of Brad Wall would belong in a section concerning, "The Party Under Brad Wall". It may be useful for someone to create (or I guess, per Tom Harrison's edict, propose) a section concerning the party's policy earlier in its life, which included, inter alia, the immediate privitization of Crown Corporations, boot camps, and a right to work policy concerning trade unions.

Party affiliations, on a national level -- the Saskatchewan Party does not have an official affiliation with a federal political party, nor an affiliation with a present or former provincial party. I am sure you will find all stripes of voters and members within the Saskatchewan Party insofar as federal and provincial politics is concerned. The original Saskatchewan Party caucus was comprised of a number of MLA's formerly members of the Saskatchewan Progressive Conservative Party and the Saskatchewan Liberal Party.

"Left-wing, Centrist, or Right-wing" -- this is entirely POV, and any references to policy as 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' probably doesn't belong in the article on account of POV. POV is always a very difficult thing in articles concerning politics (many a revert war has been fought over political wikis), but we all have to try our best, or at least come to a consensus. Implying that the party is 'trying to improve its image', is also making the implication that the party had a 'tarnished' image to begin with. That may or may not be the case, as image is entirely in the eye of the beholder.

Rumour, innuendo, and unsubstantiated allegations: I see a number of them. Firstly, the rumour about Preston Manning. Without Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it is as good as useless. The innuendo about Ms. Baaken Lackey is about as innaccurate and unsubstantiated as it comes. Saskatchewan Party policy, as well, is not dictated by the leader (then, Elwin Hermanson), but is rather set forth in policy resolutions. At the time of the 2003 election, the Saskatchewan Party was not running on a campaign of privitization, and was not seeking a mandate for privitization of any Crown Corporation. The phrase, 'sold to private business' also is a severe exxageration, especially given the history of Saskatchewan Government investment divestitures (see discussion above -- inquiring minds might want to get a list of stuff divested in the 80s from the SGEU and post it under the Sask PC's wiki).

64.110.251.69 04:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Bakken Lacky -I have cited two different articles by two different authors in the Star Phoenix which indicate it was most likely the party wasn't moving ot the right as much as she'd like.

- Also! I'd like to suggest moving some of the stuff over to Brad's Wiki page. Also, if anyone can cite where he failed at being nominated that would be good (I couldn't find anything in my materials, as true as it may or may not be). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnits (talk • contribs)