Talk:Prairie Giant

the critism of the eugenics and such is kind of silly. To be fair, most of the world believed in that at the time and he never went and spoke in public fora about it; it was simply a thesis for his Masters.

---

The CBC has finally recognized that the movie was historically innaccurate, especially the depiction of the former Premier of Saskatchewan, Jimmy Gardiner.

64.110.251.69 16:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

POV tag
First of all, other than the one source about CBC admiting the portrayal of Gardiner was wrong, there are no sources in the section.

The eugenics thing. Is there anyone who actually says the film should depict this? I think this is really just a criticism of Tommy Douglas that someone wants to put on this page. The film itself doesn't even begin until after Douglas has completed his thesis. Is there anything notable that happened in his life after the thesis was completed that had anything to do with eugenics that someone is contending should have been in the film?

The government grants thing. Isn't practically every TV show/film that is made for a mainly Canadian audience subsidized by the government? Even big American productions get huge tax breaks from the government. Tommy Douglas was an important historical figure, so if the government refused to give grants to the production one could more rightly accuse it of trying to "muzzle" the ideas of the film. Qutezuce 05:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Asserting that the government "had no control" over the film
Ok, I have no problem dropping the arrogance allegation (although it is not hard to find significant sources, namely press releases and Hansard comments, supporting such). The issue here is the credibility of the argument that the government 'had no control' over the film. As a major sponsor of the film, through a grant made by Cabinet, presumably through Order-in-Council, the government was in a significant position to control or at least provide some form of editorial approval. I mean, think about it for a moment, the government must have exercised some due diligence, to at least ensure that the film was that of Tommy Douglas, the former CCF/NDP leader, and not "Tommy Douglas", the gay pornography star, before handing out the money. Thus, either the Saskatchewan NDP government is completely incompetent (by giving out money without ensuring value for money), or had some degree of control over the movie by means of financial influence. It is extremely hard to conclude otherwise, and holding the NDP's defense of their reprehensible conduct as 'truth' would be doing Wikipedia a great disservice.

At the very least, you might consider quoting the person who made that statement, so that a reader of the article does not confuse truth with the typical dishonesty and misinformation that emerges from the Saskatchewan Government.

64.110.251.69 13:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to claim that they interfered with the editorial process of the film, please back that up with more than speculation.

--- Unsigned

Please read the above paragraph. No sensible government gives out over half a million dollars and does not at least review the content of the film, if not formally, then informally, before handing out the money. Either they did a review and approved the script, or they are quite simply incompetent. Since the money was given out as an explicit grant from Cabinet, and not as an arms-length transaction (such as a film tax credit), the Saskatchewan NDP government bears substantial responsibility for funding this innaccurate and shoddily researched/produced film. Take your pick, either grossly negligent, or fully responsible.

64.110.251.69 23:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets look at the facts here. You make a claim, and then you fail to state a proof of involvement, but would rather see things as either they are guilty, or they are incompetant, as though there is no middle ground? Do you feel that the gov't should have a more..."hands on" approach to films? you know, like China? The Gov't contribution is HARDLY a major one, given they only really paid for 8% of the film via their grant. I mean Telefilm Canada - Equity Investment Program gave $2,480,000. Canadian Television Fund - License Fee Top-Up Program paid $1,520,000.

Please, there is no need to distort the role the gov't paid to appease your petty vendetta against the NDP, or to encourage such gov't censorship, save that for Small Dead Animals, not Wikipedia.

-- unsigned

Proof of involvement = the $600k grant from Cabinet. Its as simple as that. I believe you even provided the reference for that.

64.110.251.69 14:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Cabinet money does not imply cabinet editorial control. Bearcat 18:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie's vandalism
The vandalism must stop. 'Don't revert this page again CJCurrie. [posted by User:64.110.251.69, unsigned]

I would encourage interested readers to look over this anon's posting history, particularly at the Saskatchewan Party page. Suffice it to say that I do not consider his accusation of vandalism to be legitimate. CJCurrie 23:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

64, an administrator reverting inappropriate POV edits is not vandalism. Bearcat 16:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

NDP contribution of $614K
This is a fact, why was it deleted?

Oh right, NDP'ers are now distancing themselves from this fiasco by now trying to rewrite history.

I included a link to the news article. The NDP party's contribution is public knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.229.85 (talk • contribs) 13 July 2006

sigh ... it's fine to mention that the Sask. government paid for part of the project -- phrasing it as "funded by the NDP government" is another matter entirely. CJCurrie 01:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It was the NDP party that paid for the event.

Hiding the fact that it was the NDP is total b.s.

Here we now go with the 'endless reverts'. I put in NDP (the truth), and you revert it (censorship)

Yep, this will now go on FOREVER. [unsigned]

The government paid for it, not the party (and I have a sneaking suspicion that a Sask Party gov't would have done much the same thing). CJCurrie 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

To Currie,

''' "government" is too general of a term, could of been the Republicans or the Marxist-Lenenist party for all I know.

Here's some links all saying the same thing. The NDP invested $614,000 into this movie.

http://northernblue.ca/cblog/index.php?/archives/603-CBC-Pulls-Tommy-Douglas-Movie.html

"Saskatchewan's NDP government contributed $614,400 to the production of the movie as part of the province's 2005 centennial celebrations."

http://www.meridianbooster.com/story.php?id=237599

"Of the $8 million to film the movie, $614,000 was paid for by the NDP government. It’s money, Burnett said, the government spent with two fundamental purposes. One, to have a huge production filmed mainly in Saskatchewan, and the second as an honour to Tommy Douglas who was voted the greatest Canadian in the same year as the province’s centennial."

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=cf43c39d-d09c-4388-82ea-21494cd93db1

"The film's production company received $614,000 in financial support from the NDP provincial government to ensure the miniseries was shot in Saskatchewan in 2005."

It was the NDP that paid the $614,000. ''' - Stan

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.61.36.172 (talk • contribs) 14 July 2006

First off, just because some (or perhaps even all) media may use a particular way of referring to something does not mean that that is how we should refer to it here. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.

Secondly, I have added a paragraph to the Controversies section to discuss the concerns with the perceived bias of the government in choosing to fund the film. In encyclopedic structure, that is the appropriate place to discuss it. —GrantNeufeld 14:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

CJC Currie's Vandalism Part 2
CJC Currie keeps wanting to say that it was the 'Government of Sasksatchewan', but not mention what party was is in power.

I've posted all the links/sources to prove that it was the NDP party of Saskatchewan that invested $614,000 into the Tommy Douglas movie.

CJC Currie is obviously trying to 'distance' the NDP party from this movie, and that flat out stinks of partisan hackery. Either way, I'm now going to have to check this page daily and keep reverting CJC Currie's blatant vandalism until someone decides to lock this page. - Stan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.61.36.172 (talk • contribs) 15 July 2006

Please refrain from referring to CJCurrie as a vandal in this case. Your disagreement with that editor's legitimate contributions to this article does not mean those edits are vandalism. (please note before you consider me "another NDP supporter" that I'm actually President of a political party that has received hostile treatment from the NDP, so am certainly not here to defend the NDP—I'm here to defend the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia.) —GrantNeufeld 14:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Attn: "Grant" I've posted all the necessary links/info to back up my point that it was the NDP party that invested $614,000 into that movie. CJC's argument was that it was a 'Government of Saskatchewan'. Alright then, what was the PARTY runing the government of Saskatchewan?

It's total waffling of semantics that leads me to believe that this is nothing more than POLITICS.

Please show me where the NDP had NOTHING to do with the $614,000.

Until then, I'm simply going to keep reverting, posting the FACTS. - Stan''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.61.36.172 (talk • contribs) 15 July 2006

Were the cheques issued from "The NDP" (or however they sign their cheques)? No. The cheques were issued from the Government of Saskatchewan (or some specific department thereof). The NDP are the ruling party, but it was still the Government of Saskatchewan that issued the funding.

The controversy you raise is just that - a controversy. As such, it's proper place in the article is in the Controversies section (where I've added it). It is quite fair to discuss the controversy that comes from the NDP having been in charge when the government provided the funding to a project that can be seen as promoting the NDP. It is, however, not accurate to say that the party provided the funding. Frankly, I would find it far less controversial if it was the party providing that funding rather than the party directing government funds to the project.

—GrantNeufeld 22:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Attn UTC: THE NDP PARTY DID SUPPLY PARTIAL FUNDING IN THE TUNE OF $614,000, PLEASE POST A LINK/URL PROVING THAT THE NDP PARTY OF SASKATCHEWAN DID ****NOT**** WRITE A CHEQUE OF $614,000 TO THE PRODUCERS OF THIS FILM. THIS IS IDIOCY.'''

http://www.saskndp.com/cw/65.3/tommymovie.html

"Saskatchewan's NDP government recently came under fire from the opposition Saskatchewan Party for contributing $614,000 to The Tommy Douglas Story through the Centennial Fund. http://www.saskndp.com/cw/65.3/tommymovie.html "

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/story.html?id=33be9dbe-93bf-458a-99ba-88e236ab59ec

The production received a $614,000 centennial grant from the NDP government.

Endless Reversions

'''I maintain the following:

1) I've posted more than enough links/urls to reputable Canadian news sites in which they all report the EXACT same thing:

a) The Saskatchewan NDP Party invested $614,000 via the Centennial Fund.

b) The argument of 'it was the Sask Government and not the NDP party' is flat out spin/waffling-semantics.        No evidence was presented to prove this 'point'.  This is total political posturing on the part       of those who constantly revert this very basic and public piece of information in that it was      the NDP party of Saskatchewan that DID invest $614,000 into the movie.

C) I don't know how many more times I have to keep repeating these points and basically        I'll just keep logging onto this wiki-site several times a day to ensure that this piece of VERIFIED/REFERENCED        info will be administered into the Wiki-entry.

2) I'm *NEVER* going to stop. So unless this page gets locked, I'll just keep at it (posting the basic facts) '''

FOREVER.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.61.36.172 (talk • contribs) 15 July 2006

Response:

I don't particularly care that you've found some media reports which describe the "NDP government" as being among the funders. For the purposes of Wikipedia, we should simply note that the Sask government contributed to funding the film.

Btw, this is a content dispute, not vandalism -- and you're so far over the 3RR that it isn't funny. CJCurrie 04:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Another response
This is in response to the anonymous editor's comments (User:72.61.36.172):

Contrary to your claim that the media reports state the funding as coming from the "NDP party", all of the links you've provided state that the funding came from the "NDP government" (emphasis mine). This is the critical distinction. The government of Saskatchewan, led by the NDP, is the source of the funding. The funding did not come out of the pockets of the NDP party, it came from the pockets of the government (i.e., from provincial taxes and/or other provincial revenues).

Your efforts to paint the money as having come from the party is actually contrary to what I perceive as your intent to make that funding seem as inappropriate. It's far more questionable to have the NDP-led Government of Saskatchewan funding (with taxpayer's money) a film project that can be claimed to be promoting a positive image of the NDP than it would be to have the NDP funding (with their own money - not taxpayer's) the project.

Would anyone complain about where the funding came from if the Conservative Party funded a biopic that made Brian Mulroney look like a good guy? Probably not. Would anyone complain if the Conservative-led Government of Canada funded such a biopic? Definitely!

To repeat: It was not the NDP's money that was spent, it was the government's money (meaning money that ostensibly 'belongs to' all the citizens of the province). It was the NDP who were in control of the government when the funding decision was made, but it was not the NDP's money that was used.

Please note that your commitment to edit-warring to try to force your POV on the article is intensely contrary to the principles of Wikipedia and reduces my (and probably other's) willingness to try to work with you on this. Edit wars do result in pages being protected and in user accounts or anonymous IPs being blocked. I highly recommend you review Wikipedia policies prior to attempting to use the disruptive methods you have described. Hopefully the policies will help you understand how such inappropriate actions will not give you the ends you desire, and how cooperation and consensus building, as well as appreciating what is meant by "encyclopedic" writing, are far more valuable then trying to assert a particular POV.

—GrantNeufeld 07:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

'''"The government of Saskatchewan, led by the NDP" is what you wrote, and I have no problem with this being inserted into the Wiki-Entry. It was the NDP party that used the Government of Saskatchewan's money to throw in $614K into the film. This I find acceptable. - Stan''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.61.36.172 (talk • contribs) 16 July 2006

I wrote that to try to help you understand the distinction, not as an example of encyclopedic writing. Applying your reasoning to the rest of the funding table would end up with something like: This is not an encyclopedic form of writing. Mentions of the various funding organizations, agencies, funds, etc., should be limited to naming the source and wikilinking it to an article with more information about the source (such as which political parties have influence or control). This article is not the place to explain anything about the Government of Saskatchewan or any of the other funding sources. The articles about those individual funding sources is the place to explain (in an encyclopedic, NPOV, manner) about those sources.

The subject of this article is the film, not the Government of Saskatchewan. As such, details of the structure, direction, history, etc., of the Gov. of Sask. are not appropriate for this article.

The exception being that in the Controversies section—and only in the Controversies section—the fact that the Sask. Gov. was led by the NDP at the time of the funding is pertinent to the subject.

As a side note, an impact of including the political affiliations in the table is that it shows that more than twice the funding came from Liberal-led (or pro-Liberal, in the case of CanWest) sources than came from NDP-led sources.

—GrantNeufeld 20:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

'''Thanks for the clarification, you've proven your point and I won't revert the fundings anymore. Sorry for all the hassle, but that's the bane of academia/democracy. - Stan''' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.61.36.172 (talk • contribs) 16 July 2006

Thanks for stepping back from edit-warring. I'm glad we were able to come to a resolution to this through dialogue. In my view, real democracy is always worth the effort. —GrantNeufeld 04:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Grant Neufeld please explain
What does NPOV mean - I will ammend as appropriate once I know what it means.

Thank you Saskwatch


 * NPOV stands for "Neutral Point of View". You can't use these pages as soapboxes -- the information has to be presented in a neutral manner.  CJCurrie 15:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Explanation concerning controversy section
Controversy section:

The 'controversy section' prior to September 14 was inaccurate and incomplete, hence misleading to readers.

It implied 1) that the Gardiner family's complaint was that the film portrayed Gardiner as a drinker. This statement is not supported by the documentation surrounding the controversy. The Gardiner family complaint is about much more than that.  Both H-Net and Northern Blue History sites have the 'Open Letter to Hostorians' document which detail the Gardiner family position.  The Wiki pre September 14 entry does not reflect the family complaint although a reader would believe that it reflects it. 2) that the CBC created/circulated its June 12 statement of mischaracterisation as a consequence of the Gardiner family complaint. Nonsence, no political observer believes that when an individual/family complains to the CBC that they will simply cancel fuuture showings. The initial complaints came from elsewhere. Gardiner family documented complaints did not appear in the media until weeks later.

I have given refernces for the editing changes under funding. Why were they deleted?

We want to come to conclusion on this.

Saskwatch

Funding
This is public money. Someone has received and posted a very incomplete list of the funding - one provided by one of the co- producers. There is no question that it is to Minds Eye's interest to not identify the other financial contibutions. I was asked for the citing and provided very credible citing - Saskatchewan Hansard is a very credible source and the indirect funding has created, in Saskatchewan, more of a controversy that the $614K. It is very relevant.

A section not yet included - but which is very relevant to the movie production AND to the funding is the role of the Douglas family from 2003, or earlier, until now (in initiating the film, in choosing the Director, in financing, and in script creation (and hence all of the various controversies)).

Will you put my citing funding back in? Or shall I provide even more refernces?

Saskwatch

further note to Currie
Perhaps the funding comments could be abreviated (which is what I initally attempted to do but detail and citations were rightly requested). The controversy is history, and publicly funded history. As they say - follow-the-money.

I expect more to be revealed on funding in the next month or so hence background, in a clear way is important. I tried to explain it clearly. More consice, but accurate/thorough suggestions welcome/requested.

Saskwatch

Currie
And why is this not acceptable?

I asked before and you never replied.

Saskwatch


 * It's Original Research, and its POV-pushing. Please review these policies.  CJCurrie 22:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Funding
No, its not original reserach. It was in the press - otherwise I would not have heard of it. The CBC refernce was widely distroibuted - should you not have left it in?

I merely added the more in depth citations because citations were requested. I shall dig through the news reports of the time and cite more easily accessible refernces. By the way, I think all Hansard refernces are on-line. All of the rest of the funding was covered thoroughly on the Leader-Post and on radio shows while the funding was being done. That's how I encountered it.

No time today. Will conclude another time.

Saskwatch

Kiefer Sutherland
I thought I read somewhere that Kiefer Sutherland was offered the role to play his own grandfather in this, but couldn't due to contractual/time obligations on other projects (like 24 (TV Series)). Is this true and if so is it worth mentioning. Spebudmak 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Continuing Controversy and rebroadcast in Saskatchewan on Vision TV
I remember seeing this show rebroadcast under contention on Vision Television not too long ago. Don't remember the specifics, but they had a panel beforehand including Randy Burton and one of the film's creators who defended the depiction of Gardiner as a composit character and claimed that criticism of the documentary was mainly driven by partisan anti-Douglas sentiment by Saskatchewan Party supporters. I think it would benefit this article's NPOV stance to include some of the creator's rebuttals of the criticisms although I don't recall that well myself. Could somebody else (who's more in the know) please flush this out a bit and add information about the debate panel and airing on the Vision network? - Wyldkat May 26, 2008

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Prairie Giant. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121106042512/http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/story.html?id=b67c03b8-a560-4e20-bed2-a5f411ea8ea7 to http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix/news/story.html?id=b67c03b8-a560-4e20-bed2-a5f411ea8ea7
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023000549/http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/columnists/story.html?id=6517028b-771b-4a1c-bff9-7adf45a95b4c to http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/columnists/story.html?id=6517028b-771b-4a1c-bff9-7adf45a95b4c
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://northernblue.ca/cblog/index.php?%2Farchives%2F603-CBC-Pulls-Tommy-Douglas-Movie.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)