Talk:Danielle Smith

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

Contaminated meat[edit]

SeenTitan appears to disagree with the statement around Smith and contaminated meat. I bring it here for discussion. The wording I like is "In 2012, she suggested meat contaminated with Escherichia coli could be given to poor people." This is backed by this citation which says, and I quote, "In 2012, the then Opposition leader tweeted that thorough cooking can kill E. coli bacteria, suggesting tainted meat could be fed to those in need". I think that's a pretty clear and direct citation for Smith's statement. In fact, it's hard to imagine a more direct citation without violating copyright. SeenTitan has previously falsely claimed Smith deleted that tweet (as of today, it is still up). In this series of edits, SeenTitan removed any mention of contaminated meat. This may have been accidental, as SeenTitan notes in the edit summary they are hoping to provide more context. Nevertheless, I strongly oppose several of SeenTitan's edits. I am, however, open to wording changes around Smith's suggestion to feed tainted meat to those in need. --Yamla (talk) 17:25, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

poor people aren't in need of meat, obviously that would be starving people.
I mean, of you're in need of food, that's a bit pas "poor" right? 2001:56A:78B5:3000:96C3:E892:31A0:FA53 (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like there is a concerted effort to discredit her[edit]

is it normal to just repeat every single thing media ever said about a person, directly ignoring quotes from them and instead preferring to report what some journalists felt about it instead?

it's like, for this page, Wikipedia has decided that direct quotes are unreliable, and only media spin can be trusted. 2001:56A:78B5:3000:96C3:E892:31A0:FA53 (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments re health[edit]

On 3 January 2023 Truthwins999 edited to include "During this time she shared opinions on healthcare, including her belief that cancer is preventable up to the fourth stage ... and that patients should seek donations from friends, family, and strangers for treatment ...". On 6 April 2023 I partially removed it with edit summary = "... According to the cited sources Ms Smith clarified / corrected those remarks." On 7 April 2023 re-inserted, with edit summary = "... Politically motivated whitewashing of article." I remind Indefatigable that WP:NPA and WP:BLPUNDEL are policies. Let's look at what the cited articles say. For "her belief that cancer is preventable up to the fourth stage" the cited source Edmonton City News quotes Ms Smith thus: "I want to take a moment to clarify a comment I made in a podcast last week about cancer that was misunderstood," said Smith. "I know that cancer can strike anyone, at any time with no relation to lifestyle. There are so many more options. If you diagnose early, then you can treat early. That’s what I was trying to say, albeit awkwardly." Thus the statement about Ms Smith's belief is contradicted by Ms Smith, as I said. For "and that patients should seek donations from friends, family, and strangers for treatment" the cited source a National Post opinion article says "She has since said that people could use their accounts only for services that aren’t covered by public health insurance — but only after her earlier statements had been made public." Thus the statement that Ms Smith in general favours financing by non-government e.g. strangers is contradicted by Ms Smith, as I said. Any other opinions? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was too hasty, and I apologize for not assuming WP:GOODFAITH. I will revert my revert to your version. Indefatigable (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading. Truthwins999 also added "... including that hydroxychloroquine cures COVID ..." citing CBC. I left that in. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics investigation[edit]

Noting that a CBC article indicates Smith is under an ethics investigation for interference around the administration of justice. I'm stepping out shortly so don't have time to appropriately and neutrally add it to the article quite yet. --Yamla (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added. --Yamla (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]