Talk:Danielle Smith

Ancestry

I fail to see how selectively questioning a seemingly random piece of biographical ancestry information is acceptable. I don't care what idiotic policy pages you point me at, it's plain wrong. My edits were in good faith. What exactly is the suggested 'citation' for someone's ancestry?

I can't even begin to imagine the mental gymnastics involved in failing to see the problem with such an arbitrary and difficult to fulfill citation request.

Regardless, I guess you 'win' this edit war. I had no idea who Danielle Smith was before reading a news article a few weeks ago, and edited what I believed to be an excessive and irrational citation request upon finding her article. I should have better things to do with my life than argue over minutia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howel t (talk • contribs) 00:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The initial add of {{Citation needed}} was made in good faith; anyone is allowed to question any information presented. Even though you removed this tag in "good faith", since you feel that the point does not require a citation, the fact is that someone does question it. As long as it is questionned, it should be tagged or removed.

An appropriate citation for this would be, for example, a news article or biography that states her ancestry. Since none do, I myself question the accuracy of this statement. If it is indeed true as you suspect, then it should not be difficult to find a citation-- after all, all the information on Wikipedia is from external sources per WP:NOR. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere did I state that I suspect it's true. What I suspect or don't suspect are my own concerns and don't belong in content claiming authoritative information.

If there's anything resembling a point to be made here, beyond the one atop your head, it's that the statement about her 'Cherokee heritage' is no more or less worthy of verification than any other 'fact' on this page. Singling it out for verification reflects an unbalanced application of policy and suggests editor bias. My subsequent multiple citation request edits may have violated some policy by proving a point, a valid point: that any one of those pieces of information flagged for citation are equally worthy of verification. Your revert is simple biased censorship, irrespective of 'policy' backing. Howel t (talk) 20:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Native heritage would be very important for a politician in Canada.--Qyd (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Move to Danielle Smith

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: DOne. Fences&Windows 01:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Danielle Smith (politician) → Danielle Smith — Per WP:TWODABS, disambiguation pages for only two uses are unnecessary— it is much more effective to lead directly to the primary topic and hatnote to the secondary topic. Since the politician is more notable (and thus more of a primary topic) than Danielle Smith (martial artist), this page should be moved to Danielle Smith, with a hatnote added linking to the other. -M.Nelson (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense. Rebecca (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Move. Clearly, the politician is the more notable, and therefore should take primary position. Bastin 10:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Move, as per nom. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Move, as more notable and likely primary topic. WP:CRYSTAL prevents me of predicting how much more notable. --Qyd (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
• Move per nom. Connormah^talk 20:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

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.

"Anti-gay"

I noticed that there has been some edit-warring over the use of "anti-gay remarks" and "remarks that were interpreted as anti-gay" with regards to a statement by Wildrose candidate Allen Hunsberger. As the editor who had penned both descriptions and self-reverted over the issue, I must say that upon revisiting it, it would seem that "interpreted as being anti-gay" is perhaps a bit more appropriate. The original incident was described as follows by the Edmonton Journal:

"on his blog in 2011. Hunsperger, a minister with The House church in Tofield, suggested if gays and lesbians continue to choose their sexual orientation they will suffer in the afterlife: “You will suffer the rest of eternity in the lake of fire, hell."

But the case is still debateable: one could argue that since he was only asking gays to 'change their ways or else...', it was not a comment condemning gays but really a call to action for gays to repent. Therefore Hunsberger may argue that contrary to being "anti-gay", he was in fact trying to "save gays". Without going into how ridiculous these views may be to you or I, I don't know if you can conclude that the original action was, in and of itself, anti-gay. Per our WP:NPOV policy, even if you and I are very convinced that such a statement is anti-gay, we cannot describe it as such in the article. Therefore "remarks that were interpreted as anti-gay" is probably best. Colipon+(Talk) 01:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems all good to me. 117Avenue (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, to attempt to 'save gays' by asking them to not be gay is anti-gay by definition, as the message is 'do not be gay' or negative towards one being homosexual, hence 'anti-gay'. I don't think Allen's comments can in any way be simply 'interpreted' as anti-gay, they ARE anti-gay. It is not a question of interpretation, but the fact that Allen asking people to NOT be gay is anti-gay --- hence the use of negative words prior to the word 'gay'. A clear comparison is to say ' We don't like women' - which would be anti-woman, not 'interpreted' as anti-women, as the negation ('don't like) of women is equivalent to 'anti'. --- Hope this makes sense, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lellogram (talk • contribs) 05:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your interpretation, which isn't shared by others, WP:BLP. 117Avenue (talk) 05:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Broad vague claims

On April 24, I added a "citation needed" tag on the following sentence for this article:

The Progressive Conservatives surpassed the Wildrose in support in early 2010; however the Wildrose Party was able to remain in second place for the next two years.

I noticed that on April 25, the tag was removed, along with a comment that the general list of references at another article (27th Alberta Legislative Assembly) support the claims made in this sentence.

I must disagree with this approach.

If the sentence is actually true (which I dispute), or at least what it claims can be supported by more than one Wikipedian's opinion, with non-original research, then a specific third party reference that supports the claim(s) made in the sentence should be provided, or the sentence should be removed or modified.

According to the article that 117Avenue referred to, the Alberta Liberals were in second place as the Official Opposition throughout that entire time period, as shown by the number of seats they held in the Legislative Assembly. If we are referring to polling data rather than seats in the Assembly, while it may be possible that certain specific polls done between 2010 and 2012 showed the Wildrose second in popular support behind the Progressive Conservatives, and others may have shown that the provincial PCs were leading in the polls early in 2010, one must keep in mind that polls are specific snapshots in time so the sentence should reflect the dynamic nature of how polling works by being more specific in its claims - I think it is misleading at best for this sentence to suggest that the Wildrose Party was in second place in popularity throughout the province for an entire two year period of time and no references are provided to support this broad and vague claim. In reality (or rather, I should say at this juncture, in my opinion until I can provide reliable third party references), widespread support for Wildrose was primarily regional in nature (southern Alberta), peaked in the two weeks just prior to the election (mostly based on biased news coverage depicting the election as a two-horse race), was exaggerated by the media based on a whole lot of wishful thinking (or fear-mongering) based on polls done with faulty methodology, and dropped off in the final days of the election campaign. The election results "prove" this, despite the overexaggerated and unsubstantiated claims of widespread "strategic voting" by voters who would otherwise have voted NDP, Liberal, or "other". Garth of the Forest (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay; having made my point I am going to just be bold and modify the sentence to something that hopefully will be acceptable to the majority of editors and supported by Wikipedia policy. No poll required I hope. Garth of the Forest (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The poll numbers were spotty at best, and spectacularly bad at predicting actual levels of support at worst. I went back and revised to water down the superlatives and broad claims, and you are welcome to revise it if you so choose. Colipon+(Talk) 05:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

First Name

Ms. Smith's full first name is Marlaina (as she herself says on Twitter, and as referred to by Elections Alberta). However, this article refers to her as M. Danielle Smith (as a result of the previous editor noting that she referred to herself as "Marlaina Danielle Smith," but not making out at least the spelling of "Marlaina"), which could possibly be read as a title rather than an initial, and is out of step with other people who use their middle names, such as James Gordon Brown or Willard Mitt Romney. As a result, I've edited the article to refer to Marlaina Danielle Smith. 80.193.191.80 (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Necessary updates and fairness

Suggestions for discussion on a few matters of fairness and relevancy.

- In Background, the statement: "Other prominent conservatives who attended the university during the same period included journalist Ezra Levant and Member of Parliament Rob Anders" should be deleted. It has no relevancy. There is no mention of notable people other political leaders in Alberta attended university with, which makes this reference unnecessary. No relevancy.

- Name of first husband should be deleted. He is not a public figure and the mention is irrelevant.

- Photo: the photo of the election sign in Background is quite outdated and lacks relevancy.

- In 2012 election, the statement: "Others contend that they have been relegated to a southern Alberta social conservative rump, a protest party, and their longevity and potential historical impact – not unlike that of other southern Alberta conservative protest movements such as the Western Canada Concept Party, the old Wildrose Party, and the Alliance Party – remains yet to be proven" - should be deleted. This lacks any relevancy. Further, it can be successfully argued that Wildrose has far surpassed the accomplishments of any of these three parties by forming official opposition. The comparison is unjustified.

-The results in this section should be moved to the top of the section instead of buried at the bottom. Montueswed (talk) 16:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

CanPRRI

I know Smith directed CanPRRI (Canadian Property Rights Research Institute) prior to her 1998 stint on the school board (I met her as the director before that). I just lack a reliable source (or time to find one now). Could you help me? Thanks. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 22:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you just looking for a source to confirm her directing role? The Wildrose website[1] confirms this. Her linkedin profile also lists it: [2]. A secondary source is Alberta Views: [3] Hope that helps. Montueswed (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Semi-prot request

I've requested semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Danielle_Smith due to the IP vandalism on the page in the last bit. Paleking (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I've declined the request. The edits were not vandalism. However, since they're unsourced, they do run afoul of WP:BLP. All editors are reminded that edits must be backed up by reliable sources, and it's sometimes better to err on the side of caution and wait for multiple sources to independently report an event before we put it in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? "Prior to her traitorous defection to Diamond Jim's ruling PC party and her plum appointment to Deputy Premier, Danielle was leader of the Wildrose Party.. Before that Smith was the Director of Provincial Affairs for Alberta with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. She has also worked as a journalist in print, radio and television." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleking (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Danielle Smith. 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/20141226063424/http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Wildrose+leader+vows+more+floor+crossings/10416724/story.html to http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Wildrose+leader+vows+more+floor+crossings/10416724/story.html

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:22, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Contaminated meat

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)

This BLP is too neutral

It needs to be made more indirectly neutral to comply with Wikipedia’s policy on the biographies of potentially non-democratic and polarizing people. The Casual Scholar (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)