Talk:Wildrose Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleWildrose Party was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 10, 2010Good article nomineeListed
February 3, 2024Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Comment[edit]

According to [1], the Alberta Alliance Party did not dissolve, but changed it sname to the Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta, and accepted the members, assets and liabilities and by-laws of the Wildrose Party. how should the articles reflect this? should the Alberta Alliance Party article be merged into this one? Probably not. Comments? Ground Zero | t

Tough Call looking at president for Alberta provincial politics, The general trend so far is that if it has been a simple rename ie: Conservative to Progressive Conservative, Communist to Labour Progressive then back to Communist, Cooperative Commonwealth to NDP then it shares the same article, if the previous entity was significantly altered ie: Alberta First being a firewall Conservative party to The Separation Party of outright separation policies or was merged ie: Social Credit, Heritage Party and Western Canada Concept to the Alberta Political Alliance Party then it is a different article. --Cloveious (talk) 06:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Danielle Smith[edit]

She is the new leader of Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta, she also describe herself as 'social libertarian', according to the link below. http://www.calgarylibertarian.ca/?p=184 Wouldn't it make sense in addition to the party's ideology as 'conservatism' should also add 'libertarianism'? If you also look at their policy at their website online, it does show libertarian values. REDSoC (talk) 03:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the party does not formally identify as libertarian, then it would not be appropriate to put that as their classification. It would, however, be quite appropriate to include information about the libertarian nature of the party's policies and the stated views of their new leader (including the citations such as the one you provided above). —GrantNeufeld (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would one go making an article about their similarity stance on libertarian values, without giving the impression to readers that Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta is a Libertarian party when its strictly self-declared conservative party? REDSoC (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best to mention that there are social conservative, fiscal conservative, and libertarian factions - as there is some confusion about this issue. This has been stated by Danielle Smith, and former ED - Vitor Marciano. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.206.45 (talk) 01:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Willerton[edit]

Jeff Willerton is referred to as an "author" which is true, but I believe he is more often referenced as an "Airdrie businessman."Landroo (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to change if you like. I went mainly by what he was reported as in the stories of the leadership race, and by what he promoted himself as being in the debates. Resolute 17:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name correction[edit]

The full name of the party is "Wildose Alliance Party" [2], not "Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta", so the page (along with other related pages like this one should be renamed to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Invisible Hand (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW move. 117Avenue (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta → Wildrose Alliance Party – The name is incorrect, not being referred to in this manner anywhere, including with Elections Alberta, as per the above comment. This request is made on the grounds of precision. Quackgrassacrez (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I don't see the name with "of Alberta" anywhere. 117Avenue (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Should I just move it, or would we like to keep the RM open for process sake? Resolute 22:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go for it, I've already started fixing some of the templates. I'm just surprised it didn't come up during the good article nomination. 117Avenue (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Name Change[edit]

The Party has changed it's name, dropping Alliance. The problem is that one of the legacy parties that merged to form this party was also called the Wildrose Party. How should we best approach this? Nickjbor (talk) 20:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other party is the "Wildrose Party of Alberta", so if this article is moved to Wildrose Party, we would need only a hatnote pointing to the old party's article. That said, has there been an official name change? The party's website still says "copyright Wildrose Alliance Party". I'll happily perform the necessary article moves if there is some official indication of a name change available. Resolute 21:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, durr. You already had a source noting the name change. Moving articles now. Resolute 21:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which source is that? Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elections Alberta still calls it Wildrose Alliance Party. Source. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC news link in the article body, reference 2. Resolute 22:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parts of the Wildrose website have changed, and it takes time for things to move through Elections Alberta. I say go ahead with the move. 117Avenue (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I say it needs to be official first. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can't possibly get more official than the party itself voting to change the name. Resolute 01:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not about to get into a move war, so the question is: Will you undo your move, or will we have to waste time with a RM? Resolute 01:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to do an RM, or wait for Elections Alberta. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that it's indisputable that the party has passed a resolution to change the party name, but I'm not sure that it has been implemented for some of the reasons noted above. No modified version of the party constitution is on the party website. The website is still copyright Wildrose Alliance Party, and Elections Alberta still lists of the party by its old name. I suspect that this is simply a case of a legal name change for an association taking some time to implement through lawyers, etc. I don't think it would be a big deal to change it now, but I can understand the desire to wait until the change becomes "legal". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disputing the factual accuracy of the article, as the name of the party hasn't legally changed. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources confirming name change: [3], [4]. Sources confirming "Wildrose Party" is the WP:COMMONNAME: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. And that did not even take me to the end of the first page of a Google news search. Resolute 21:34, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about common name. I'm talking about the name Elections Alberta has on file, as well as the name at the bottom of their own website that says who the copyright holder is. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:38, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a government source. The website of the Alberta Legislature today: [13] (note the simple use of "Wildrose" at the bottom in the party listing), and compared to what the page looked like in May: [14] (Note use of "Wildrose Alliance"). Resolute 21:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely, but it's still not Elections Alberta, or the copyright on their own website. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it that important? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Official names:

"This page in a nutshell: Common names are generally preferred to official names as article names. There are few exceptions; These are documented in the Specific-topic naming conventions."
"New editors often assume that, where an official name exists for the subject of a Wikipedia article, this name is ipso facto the correct title for the article, and that if the article is under another title then it should be moved. In many cases this is contrary to Wikipedia practice and policy.
Wikipedia:Article titles is the relevant official policy and reads in part:
Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.
In many cases, the official name will be the best choice to fit these criteria. However, in many other cases, it will not be.

So Wikipedia policy does not support using the official name as the article title just because it is the official name. Ground Zero | t 23:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is the federal Marxist–Leninist party. Under commonname the article exists at the party's preferred name, Communist Party of Canada, but Elections Canada registers it as Marxist–Leninist Party of Canada. 117Avenue (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still disputing the factual accuracy. Commonname is great, but still not satisfied. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you disputing? Resolute has provided plenty of references for the one fact you have mentioned. Is there something else on the article that you disagree with? 117Avenue (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not factual. Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:35, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not just a commonname, the party itself voted to change the name at its convention. Do we know if Elections Alberta has updated their website since? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 09:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since they still display the old URL, I would think they haven't for at least four months. 117Avenue (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elections Alberta website hasn't been updated.[15] Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policies[edit]

Currently, the "policies" section of this page is hopelessly opaque: where are the party's positions on abortion, private health care, education etc.? Does someone with some advanced knowledge in Albertan politics write up a more detailed description of the party's policy positions? Colipon+(Talk) 17:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing[edit]

Here are references to the Wildrose Party being "right-wing", from a wide range of Canadian sources:

Ground Zero | t 21:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are all over a year old and do not reflect the current policy direction of the party today, which is centre-right, and has been documented at the most recent party gatherings including the AGM in November and the Leader's Congresses this spring: http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/looking-to-the-future-wildrose-leader-pushes-for-a-more-progressive-approach/article5638894/?service=mobile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montueswed (talk • contribs) 22:25, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And one speech by the party leader "urging her party to adopt more progressive policies" does not mean that the party has changed. As the article you linked notes, "Wildrose is a party of libertarians and social conservatives". The article does not say that the party adopted any progressive policies, nor does it identify the party as "centre-right". Ground Zero | t 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As a rule, Montueswed, we rely on secondary sources rather than primary ones (in this case, the party itself). Of course, that can be somewhat problematical in things like this, because as long as the Conservatives are considered centre-right (they are borderline centre-left at this point, imnsho), then Wildrose will be viewed by the media as right of that. Even so, unless sources start calling the party "centre-right", we may as well keep it at right wing. It remains a fair descriptor, and as new policies are adopted and covered, the article's prose can be used to explain the policies in greater detail. Resolute 23:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the Wikipedia definition of right wing is not at all appropriate to describe the Wildrose Party. Since becoming Official Opposition, Wildrose has focused much of its energy on issues of social issues.In this Calgary Herald article, Wildrose held a press conference to highlight cases of seniors abuse. The Huffington Post reported on Wildrose pressuring the government to end the one bath per week policy, which Wildrose saw as degrading. Wildrose congratulated the B.C. Liberals on winning the election recently. Here and here, Wildrose calls on government to halt its funding cuts to persons with developmental disabilities. Clearly, Wildrose is more than just right wing. Strictly right wing parties would not have done any of these things. While it is accurate to note it has right wing elements, particularly on finance policy, it does not strictly fit with the definition of right wing. It may be to the right politically by comparison to the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, as the PC Party is described as centre-centre right by Wikipedia, it would be appropriate to refer to Wildrose as centre-right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montueswed (talk • contribs) 17:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be fair to summarize your argument by saying that the sources that I've provided for the party being "right wing" are out of date, and that your original research based on interpretation of positions the party has taken more recently concludes that the party is "centre-right"? Ground Zero | t 19:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is the argument I've tried to make. I think an objective look over the last year would disqualify them from the category of "right wing" by the definition on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montueswed (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Wikipedia, however, is not a place for original research. please see WP:OR. Wikipedia requires verifiability of edits through references to reliable sources. These are core Wikipedia policies. When reliable sources start reflecting your view of this change, then we can make the edit to the Wikipedia article. Regards, Ground Zero | t 15:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with Ground Zero. It is not a lack of sympathy to your viewpoint, Montueswed, but Wikipedia policy is to rely on what secondary sources say, not our own interpretations. That being said, if the linkd to the right wing article is viewed as inaccurate, we can consider more appropriate links. Such as instead stating the party's political position is "Conservatism", and linking to conservatism in Canada. Resolute 16:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input, I see why the info I provided was inadequate. I did a little more digging and found plenty of secondary sources that refer to Wildrose as centre-right. Metro News uses right-centre in an article before the 2012 election, whereas Canadian Press notes Wildrose is gaining popularity among centre-right voters before the election (sixth paragraph). National Post says Wildrose has staked its claim on the centre-right (last paragraph), while Calgary Sun says Wildrose shouldn't stray too far from being a centre-right party (near end of article). So I respectfully submit that secondary sources do refer to Wildrose as centre-right, and while other secondary sources use right wing, that centre-right might be a better descriptor. I also agree with Resolute that linking to Conservatism in Canada would be a suitable alternative. Montueswed (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the divergence of opinions in the sources, I think "conservatism" might be the best one-word descriptor currently available for the infobox. This article suffers from being out of date in many areas, and the "Policy and identy" section is a good example since it is entirely geared towards three years ago. What I might suggest, Montueswed, is to consider rewriting that entire section to better reflect how sources have discussed the party's identity. Trim down what is currently there to show how the party was initially viewed as right wing/far right (by our standards), but has moved towards the centre, pointing to more recent sources discussing this. But also include opposition perception, which would note that the party is viewed by some as farther to the right, point out the so-called "bozo eruptions" as being examples they opposing parties/media have pointed to, and the impact they had on the 2012 election. A strong section of four or five paragraphs would explain things far better than a single word can. The trick - and it isn't always easy - is to try and cover all sides of the issue without over or under representing one aspect or viewpoint relative to what sources say (Or, as we term it, putting undue weight on it). Resolute 21:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the pletheora of sources for "right wing" and several for "centre-right", it would probably be original research for us to choose between them, whereas "conservative" does not appear to be contentious. I agree that changing the descriptor to "conservative" would be the best approach. Ground Zero | t 21:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, though I just noticed that is already right there under "ideology". Would "Right wing/Centre-right" work (each with a noted citation), or too bulky? Resolute 13:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is for Conservatism, or centre-right because I think it's more accurate, but will defer to the editors on this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montueswed (talk • contribs) 19:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing no opposition, I'll make the change, but will understand if more discussion is needed. Montueswed (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To earlier participants in this discussion Ground Zero, Montueswed, Resolute: according to this edit by Charles lindberg, "see the Talk Page, this was discussed extensively. The consensus is right-wing." Is this a correct description of the consensus? It is the opposite of what Montueswed changed to on 11 June 2013. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is in my view. I lost track of the discussion and didn't notice Montueswed's change, which reflected his/her view ("My preference is for Conservatism, or centre-right because I think it's more accurate") not the consensus. I think that the last four years shows that Wildrose did not in fact move to the centre. Newer sources would be required to support leaving it at "centre-right". Thanks for bringing this up, Peter. Ground Zero | t 21:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness[edit]

In appraising the pages of political parties in Alberta, some inconsistency has become apparent. Pages for Alberta Liberal Party, Alberta New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta do not give space to the opinions of opposing political parties. The views of opposing parties cannot be considered neutral in characterizing Wildrose, even if from a secondary source. The below sections do not comply with the goals of fairness and consistency when evaluated against the pages of other Alberta political parties. Thus, I propose deletion of the following two statements in Policy and Identity: "Opponents have often characterised the party as extremist: former Liberal leader David Swann, in congratulating Smith on her election as leader, argued that Albertans would be "uneasy" with the "rather extreme, socially conservative, economically irresponsible vision of the party"[46] - and - "Opposing politicians have criticized the Wildrose Party's policies as vague and undefined (including the topic of gun ownership),[51] while supporters have praised the party under Smith as "refreshing".[47]" Montueswed (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updating[edit]

Some of this page has become severely outdated and requires maintenance. I propose the following: 1. Under "Danielle Smith Leadership," reference is made to 2011 candidate nominations and the pending 2013 election. This should be updated to 2014 information with new references. 2. Under "2009 leadership election," reference is made to a potential candidate. This lacks relevance and should be removed. Other political party pages do not give space to all the candidates that withdraw from leadership races. 3. Under "Danielle Smith Leadership," the fifth paragraph on conscience rights is outdated as the party repealed that policy in 2014. Update required. 4. "Policy and identity" is severely outdated. Other political party pages do not give such generous air time to the inititives of past years. As such, the references to the 2009 task force should be removed. The party has also changed its views on climate change. I fail to see how polling from 2010 and 2011 is relevant today. Updates required. 5. Under "Danielle Smith leadership," paragraph 2 concerning a former employee should be removed. The person in question has a much lengthier record with the PC association, but isn't mentioned at that page at all. Thank you for considering these changes. I look forward to any comments before moving forward to make these improvements. Montueswed (talk) 16:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the updating. You are, of course, correct that this article requires a fair bit of new and more relevant content. In the meantime, I think I might nominate it for delisting from GA status - it certainly is not there at any longer, and given the amount of new changes required, would likely need a re-review. Resolute 22:37, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I wasn't the only one to notice that the article was out of date. For Policy and Identity, The PCs passed a fixed election law, and alot of the polling is irrelevant. MarkFizz (talk) 04:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wildrose Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Wildrose Party. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Party status[edit]

Now that the Wildrose & the PC have merged, what's the Wildrose status? GoodDay (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, the Alberta system doesn't actually allow mergers, per se. The United Conservative Party, once registered, will be a new entity. The Wildrose and the Progressive Conservative parties will still exist until such time as they formally dissolve. Resolute 23:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Wildrose Independence Party of Alberta Proposal[edit]

Now that the "Wildrose Party" has dissolved and there are plans by Wexit and the Freedom Conservatives to form a new "Wildrose" Independence Party, maybe we should have a note at the top of this article to avoid confusion. The "new" party, does not exist yet, and does not have an article yet, but has been in the news a fair bit. I have created a redirect to the Wild Rose disambiguation page, which notes the proposal. I have also added content here and on the Wexit and Freedom Conservative articles about the proposal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the reference of readers, there is now a Wildrose Independence Party of Alberta page. Klbrain (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

GA Reassessment[edit]

Wildrose Party[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Considerable uncited material remains. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited paragraphs, and the "Policy and identity" section has a "needs update" banner from 2016. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've boldly removed the update tag from "Policy and Identity." It's not clear what's being looked for to be updated - did the party abandon its old ideology or something? I also boldly refactored some stuff that has little to do with policy elsewhere - moved some comments on polling down to "Electoral Results", and an issue with defections up to the main history section where it's already discussed. (This is not an endorsement of the article as a whole, just disagree with that one section needing an update or that being a problem.) SnowFire (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wildrose_Party&oldid=1202922023"