Talk:Alison Redford

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

Infobox[edit]

Until Redford is sworn in as Premier, she's Premier-designate of Alberta not the 14th Premier of Alberta. Also we use succeeding & taking office for indiviuals who are between election & assumption of office. We always have done so. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are between election & assumption of office, how is this different? 117Avenue (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She's not the 14th Premier of Alberta 'yet'. Wait until she's sworn-in to that office. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we say "taking office", like anyone yet to take office. I don't understand what you are saying, the succeeding parameter is made for this type of scenario. 117Avenue (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've always used Premier-designate in the infobox, in between general-election/assumption of party leadership & swearing-in as Premier. It was done for British Columbia's Clark & Nwfld/Labrador's Dunderdale (for examples) - see those articles history. GoodDay (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Premier-designate is not an office. If it was, should would have begun on October 2, and her predecessor would be 4 years, 292 days, of vacancy. 117Avenue (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been done this way for others, for years. Check the history of the current territorial & provincial premiers article pages - for the time between their election & assumption of office. There's no reason to change the method now. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Redford video interview[edit]

I disagree with 117Avenue (talk) in the removal of Redford CBC video interview. Based on my reading of Wikipedia:External links, adding the video does not violate WP:LINKSTOAVOID

In fact, the link fits well under #3 of "What can normally be linked" "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_can_normally_be_linked

Until this dispute is resolved, I urge other Wikipedia editors not to remove this link. – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 05:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we then add the dozen other interviews she's done, or how about the hundreds of newspaper articles that mention her? 117Avenue (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you have time, feel free to add more interviews of Redford that inform the users of this Wikipedia article.To me, it is a simple decision to see having one interview is a million times better having ZERO interview. Wikipedia is a team effort, if you or other Wikipedia editors have time to do more research and find more informative interviews to add, GREAT! It all comes down to adding to our knowledge. – Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 22:49, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Added another Redford video interview (Global Edmonton). I wish I had more hours to spend on researching and improving this article by adding more video links, but I am busy and don't have more time. I have done what I can to improve this article for now and hope others will spend more time to improve this article.– Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 23:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, it is not to be used for self-promotion, creating overly abundant links and references. 117Avenue (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let me quote the message you, 117Avenue (talk), left on my user talk page. "You're not being neutral, why have you selected CBC over all the other media outlets? 117Avenue (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)" In good faith, assuming you want to be productive and improve the article. I added one more link (making it a total of TWO) to add additional coverage to balance. And now you, who challenged the edit on the ground of neutral, is now challenging on Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. ONE link is not neutral, and TWO links is excessive?? Quoting rule #1 "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Again, when does TWO links suddenly become EXCESSIVE? According to who, you? Also, I don't know Redford before she got elected and I still don't know her personally. So your accusion of it is not to be used for self-promotion, creating overly abundant links and references is misguided to keep it polite. Insulting if I am less generous. Next time you rebut something, don't send me a page of text and rules to read. Quote the exact line that the additional of these two links are breaking. KISS: Keep it short & simple!– Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 00:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My belief is that TV interviews have never been appropriate under WP:ELNO numbers 4, 5, 13, and 16. My pointing out that selecting one is not neutral writing, was a way to emphasize that adding these links are wrong, and because you did not get my sarcasm in suggesting listing everything that mentions Redford, I quoted the policy that prohibits such. I believe improving an article means writing and expanding it, not adding links to more information. I fail to see how these proposed changes improve the article. By the way, why are we the only two editing this now? Are there other editors who see these links as good or bad? 117Avenue (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why the two TV interviews I linked, one by CBC and one by Global, "have never been appropriate under WP:ELNO numbers 4, 5, 13, and 16"??? For the record, these are the WP:ELNO rules you quoted and I copied & pasted here for the record. Thanks for at least making it clear what you are using as "justification". WP:ELNO Rule #4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions. ..." Are we talking about CBC and Global being promoted?? Are you serious? #5, 13, and 16 are also equally puzzling to put it politely. #5 "Links to individual web pages[4] that primarily exist to sell products or services, ...." #13 "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject." #16 "Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional." I really don't have infinite amount of time to waste on this.– Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 07:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see a counter argument in that last comment, except for "are you serious". Yes, I am, as you argue to include these links, it appears you want to promote them. In your next comment, not only explain why 5, 13 and 16 are wrong, please also respond to my statement "I fail to see how these proposed changes improve the article." Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, CBC and Global are national news media in Canada. They are reputable and credible news sources and don't need me to promote them (re #4, #5) in Wikipedia. Having the two videos inform the readers of this article. You and me are having an endless debate that we can't agree. Lets have more Wikipedia editors add their views to this discussion. Lets see what others have to say because we are going nowhere on this.– Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 16:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is useful to have links to videos. The two referenced interviews with Redford are not promotional videos but journalism. It's hard to say what number of videos would be too many but it is certainly a number higher than two. (User:159.33.10.155) 23:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting OTRS for image[edit]

If we use File:Alison Redford headshot.jpg (based on File:Alison Redford profile headshot.jpg) it would probably be good to identify the author and confirm permission (with OTRS). Otherwise, it could be deleted. I'm sure permission could be obtained, if anybody's willing to go through the process of getting it, which I'm not. --Rob (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They were already nominated for deletion, the result was keep. 117Avenue (talk) 06:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see that. I do find the logic a little silly. Most copyvio images we get are from a person or company promoting themselves, and who want it to be widely seen, and we usually still demand that we identify the author, and ensure there's a proper free license, since most promotional images aren't given on sufficiently free terms of Wikipedia/Commons. If the same happened with a singer, Commons would have deleted on the spot. Anyways, I'm leaving it for now, and might renom after the election (best time to get OTRS is during an election). --Rob (talk) 13:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alison Redford headshot.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Alison Redford headshot.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Alison Redford headshot.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

biased article[edit]

this is why I left wiki, some articles such as this one are run by conservatives who will not allow any negative facts into the article, this is a person who is PLAGUED with fraud and controversy at the moment, you can see it on all news sites, but NOT in wiki, and when someone tries to put in the issues, it gets removed. this article is highly biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.174.130 (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 64.25.174.130; I presume you're referring to things such as "Alison Redford spent $3,100 of taxpayers’ money to fly daughter’s friends on government aircraft — but will pay it back, she says" (National Post, March 5). I haven't looked at the coverage in detail, but do you have a suggestion on how to cover it, keeping in mind the Wikipedia policies of WP:NOTNEWS and especially WP:BLP? Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like a press release[edit]

Seriously, her PR manager could not have written her a nicer introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.238.150 (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AUPE[edit]

The relationship with AUPE is significant, I think, and I'm surprised not to see it in the article. Ms. Redford appeared on the convention floor in 2012, praising the 22,000+ members (health care workers, prison guards, etc.) and then in 2013 rammed through legislation which stripped away the union's right to arbitration. In essence, she mandated 0%, 0%, 1% and 1% wage increases over the next 4 years - not even enough to cover the rising cost of living. While there is no direct evidence in the public record as to why the resignation is being given, the reader should be presented as much context as possible, and this information is probably important to providing some of that context. 68.144.172.8 (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overly political?[edit]

This was just removed from the article

Her resignation also marks the third consecutive instance in which a sitting Alberta Premier has resigned, as opposed to changing as the result of an election. At the time of her resignation, the Leader of the Opposition noted that the Progressive Conservative Party was required to hold "its third leadership contest in eight years, marking another period in which the party would be consumed by internal political turmoil, rather than the business of government."[1]

I don't know - seems like history to me.68.144.172.8 (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Gerson, Jen (March 19, 2014). "Alison Redford Resigns as Premier of Alberta". National Post. Retrieved March 21, 2014.

Balance[edit]

Trying to add in some of the things that Redford did effectively or got right during her term as Premier, but I'm not finding much evidence in the public record of anything. She did stand up for Alberta royalty payments during the dispute with Christy Clark over the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipelines, but it doesn't seem to be expressed that way in the press, so saying so would be original research.

Interestingly, the Prime Minister's farewell message states:

“On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to thank Alison Redford for her contributions to Alberta and Canada during her time as leader of the province since 2011.
“Ms. Redford was a strong steward of the Alberta economy, a strong voice in Confederation, and I commend her for her dedication and service.
“Laureen and I wish her the very best in her future endeavours.
“I also wish Dave Hancock well, and look forward to working with him.”

None of which indicates she actually did anything worthwhile. Being a "strong steward" in essence says she did her job. I guess screwing AUPE out of minimal cost of living increases while denying them the right to job action if they don't like it is being a strong steward.

There was a line in the article about how she was commended for her work in the floods, but I can't find a single source online that backs this up. If it is true, it should be in the article, but there needs to be some clarity on what she actually did in the way of "work".68.144.172.8 (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

length of term[edit]

Why does this:

Redford's term as Premier is the second shortest in Alberta's history, after Richard Gavin Reid's.[4]

keep getting replaced or deleted? Hancock's term does not count since it is still in progress. This is consistent with every other article on Wikipedia.68.144.172.8 (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock's term does count, because he is a real premier, please stop adding false facts. 117Avenue (talk) 04:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're not getting it. No one is disputing his legitimacy. The fact that is term has not yet expired is at issue. If we were to count currently serving members, then as soon as someone was elected, all the articles on Wikipedia would have to be changed. Barack Obama would have been the "shortest serving President" as soon as he took office. Surely you see how ridiculous you are being. You only count the terms that have been completed. Hancock's term is not yet completed. When it is complete, then it is measured against the others.68.144.172.8 (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are being ridiculous, I am removing the controversial sentence, not adding something you disagree with. If you want to make a change, garner consensus first, WP:BRD. Yes it is ridiculous to say anyone taking office has the shortest term, which is why I am suggesting not saying it at all. In September, when Hancock resigns, Redford will have the third shortest term. Is third lead paragraph worthy? No, it's POV. Please stop adding this "feat" to the lead paragraph. 117Avenue (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redford's term is the shortest of all the elected premiers. It is very much worthy of note, and frankly, deserves to be in the lede as it is emblematic of her legacy. We'll go with that instead. It is certainly consistent with other articles. Mackenzie King has this in the lede: "A Liberal with 22 years in office, he was the longest-serving Prime Minister in Canadian history." Certainly consistent to mention the shortest-servers as well.68.144.172.8 (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMHO, having the shortest term of elected Alberta premiers is notable enough for the lead. Having the second-shortest term overall might have been notable, but given that she will fall to third-place in a few months, that part isn't worth including. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'd originally put in the bit about her being the second shortest-serving premier thus far. Like 68 here, I agree not including currently-serving premiers is common sense. However, I'm not really up for arguing the point considering that in six months, Hancock will most definitely be the shortest-serving. However, I think the compromise that's been added about how she's the shortest-serving premier with a mandate is very apt. Thanks to whoever put that in, and I say we go with that. Redverton (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation Section (Red Tory???)[edit]

The section on her resignation suggests that she is a "Red Tory" because of the place her staffers are from. The source for this information is a news article that does not even mention her as a "Red Tory" or what that is. It may be so that she is a "Red Tory". However I doubt this, rather she is a just a progressive conservative that made some leftist promises to win. I think this part needs to be looked into by someone with more knowledge on the matter. However as it reads now the sentence or the source do not support the claim she is a "Red Tory". If she is found to be a "Red Tory" I suggest that the "Red Tory" page be linked to this article for that sentence. As the movement has a rich history and development of thought that cannot be easily explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathsmith (talk • contribs) 17:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alison Redford. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alison Redford. 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) 22:58, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alison_Redford&oldid=1205399520"