Talk:Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
|
 |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template] |
| Portal | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
The scandal didn't break in the news media till 1993 when the first fraud/breach of trust charges were laid by the RCMP, so obviously it would have been impossible for the scandal to have effected public opinion of the PC Party and caucus in the 1991 election.
64.110.251.69 17:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Progressive Party of Saskatchewan Web Site.
The Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan has an official website www.pcsask.ca
Yes they do.
[edit] Disputed statement re fraud
A NDP caucus worker also confessed to fraud. [1]
OK - what's disputed? Tearlach 13:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly; the NDP caucus employed a woman who confessed to fraud. The confession letter was even linked. 68.146.248.65 07:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- No "exactly". I've removed it again, as just restoring it will contine the edit war. We want to work out a consensus wording. I'm well aware this is about some current political point-scoring: the NDP presumably want it forgotten; opponents of the NDP presumably want to highlight that the NDP did nothing about it. I hope you've grasped that this ongoing removal/replacement war will never get the article in the state you want. So talk about it.
- And that goes for 70.64.13.206 too: it's a cited fact. Why don't you want it included, and in what form would you accept its inclusion? Tearlach 02:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- The 'other' IP has had a day now to respond, but instead, the 'other' IP chose to revert again. I don't know how you could formulate a simpler wording; a NDP caucus worker confessed to fraud, and its now clear from the police reports that Pat Lorje indicated to police that it was the desire of caucus to cover it up. The fact that police complied also is evidence of a political motivation when former Tory members were being prosecuted for fraud, often fraud that resulted in no personal benefit (such as the purchase of a saddle, or constituency office computer gear), unlike the situation with Ann Lord/Davies. 68.146.248.65 08:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
-
An NDP causcus worked confessed to fraud so put it on the NDP page? Also how does paying for a saddle with ones communication budget using it once in a parade and than keeping it for personal not result in a personal benefit?70.64.13.206 03:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:PClogoSK.jpg
Image:PClogoSK.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done, photo-Nazi's. -Royalguard11(TยทR!) 19:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
