Talk:Alberta separatism

Untitled

There needs to be some kind of confirmation for these figures in this article, and it needs a complete rewrite from someone more familiar with the subject. --Scimitar 23:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite this article very soon when I get the chance. There has been a few studies that have been released recently that show over 40% of Albertans support separation and this needs to be included. rasblue

Is one poll by a magazine and one statement (That was rediculed by many) by Ralph Klein really make Alberta Separtism a movement?Habsfannova 06:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Do a Google News Search. There is much chatter in the Canadian Media currently in regards to 40%+ of Albertans wanting to explore seperation from Canada.

Well, Mr. Baldwin, I personally think that another poll should be seen before we take the Western Standard too seriously on the matter. The question really was very vauge.Habsfannova 01:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure one is coming. That of course doesn't discount the fact that the Albertan Independance Movement is growing and not shrinking. rasblue

If a party has zero seats, I wouldn't call it one of Alberta's largest. Thes entinel 17:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote this article, and probably wrote 75% more then existing content. Existing sections did not have full context. Hope my major rewrite is interesting.  :-) User:Kermit7 —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, I was very interested to see that this article was earlier voted for deletion. Do not delete! Alberta separatism is alive and well, and experiencing another resurgence (with the election of Trudeau junior). There are related ideas that could be expanded on. User:Kermit7 —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

I have edited the comment in the opening paragraph which stated 'Alberta separatism advocates the secession of province of Alberta from Canada either by forming an independent nation, by creating a new federation with one or more of Canada's other four westernmost provinces, or by joining the United States.'

While there are numerous Alberta Separatist groups, I have not managed to find one single source that is seriously campaigning for Alberta become part of the United States. (Although I am sure there are some people out there, but no sources from Alberta that I could find.)

I have examined all of the links on this page, as well as the 'See Also' section.

None of the links or 'see also's provide ANY references or sources for such claims. Infact, most of the 'see also's have THIS page as a link. This includes 'The 51st State' which refers to Alberta, but redirects back to this page. The 'Annexationist Movements of Canada' has no references or sources. And the 'Republic of Alberta' clearly discusses an independant Alberta. Not American affiliation.

Also, my own personal opinions not withstanding, (I personally think there could be merit to an Independant Alberta) It should be noted that the Western Standard poll that is so frequently referenced, does not once mention affiliation with any other sovereign entity. And, it must be noted that the Western Standard is a decidedly Conservative publication. Also, the poll that was conducted by said publication, did not specify WHO the poll group was. Only that it was conducted by The Western Standard using 'random selection methods'. That could mean anything from picking 500 names out of a phone book, to contacting 100 subscribers of the Western Standard. The souce is exceptionally vauge on their pool of voters, and therefore, can hardly be considered a reliable source. SJM 3 April, 2007

I have yet again deleted the 'Or by joining the United States' segment of the opening paragraph (for the third time). If you wish to include this in the opening paragraph, show a citation that supports this claim. SJM 7 November, 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by RainnIceberg (talk • contribs) 08:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the US words in first sentence. Keep it deleted please, re first paragraph. In 2018, Alberta "separatists" are not wishing to join the US, they generally see US as competitor (as does Canada). They are also very vague on being separatist, as most truly just want to reform the Equalization distribution. They want a better deal for Alberta, and "if you won't give it to me, let's discuss separatism."~~~~User:Kermit7

History

Further history on Western Alienation is needed. Historically this dates back too when Alberta was still part of the Northwest Territories. Kc4 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I added in a section for 1970s to give better context. But truly, Alberta was talking separatism as early as the 1950s. (not sure about how it dates back to being part of NWT) ~~~~User:Kermit7

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alberta separatism. 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/20070704044849/http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/pastbyelection.html to http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/pastbyelection.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704044849/http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/pastbyelection.html to http://www.electionsalberta.ab.ca/pastbyelection.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040912015346/http://www.separationalberta.com/ to http://www.separationalberta.com/

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

I reorganized external links to expand what people might be asking to themselves. User:Kermit7

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

---

I am trying to identify the content of one of the sources

• https://lop.parl.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublicationsArchive/cir1000/8117-e.pdf

That link no longer resolves anywhere and does not appear to have been archived by archive.org

Old copy? Title? Subject? Date? Any information about that document could help resolve the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.2.193.160 (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

45.2.193.160 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The article needs serious work on its neutrality

I understand that a lot of work has gone into making this article, and the main reason why I do not fix it myself is because I want to give the authors the chance to rework some sections into good content, and I feel I might be too heavy handed in deleting non-neutral content. The last thing I want is to start an edit war, but I'll gladly help if help is needed. (Ping me, as I might be occupied with other things)

Some work is needed to make the article neutral. It is clear that in some parts of the article, citations were taken from primary sources and then a less-than-unbiased narrative is written in between the quotes. Some parts of the article are even written in a way that is more like an essay supporting separation of Alberta than an encyclopedic article. For example, let's look at the section "2010s Liberals Again, Resurgence" is written in a way that implies that the United Conservatives support the separation of Alberta. (If that is true, then it needs to be properly cited and not just extrapolated from campaign speeches) There is a whole paragraph about Trudeau Jr. getting booed at a hockey game that is completely irrelevant to everything in the article. The excerpts from Peter Zeihan are lumped in with no explanation of their significance. Sentences like "Mr. Hopper correctly described the landlocked problems of an independent Alberta but did not argue the benefits presented by Mr. Zeihan and others" are borderline non-encyclopedic. The entire premise of this sentence is to dismiss the critiques of separatism by stating that he disregarded a portion of the evidence. I understand that it's sometimes difficult to present a subject in a neutral light, but when every single mention of separatism being criticized is followed up with an explanation of why the speaker is wrong, it becomes a problem.

Other sections have minor problems, but seem to be less opinionated and more fact-based. These sections are clearly the way to go.

I'd usually remedy this myself, but I know next to nothing about Albertan Separatism. For example, I don't know if Zeihan's works are significant, some statements I might have removed myself might be able to be sourced somewhere, or rephrased with added context. They might also be able to be replaced with scholarly sources, which tend to be more encyclopedic in nature.

I'd really like to see this article flourish, as it's a frequently misunderstood of part of Canadian culture (at least if you live in the east, like I do) and I can see it being made into a very good resource to educate all Canadians about Western-Canadian issues and preoccupations.

Best, Acebulf (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:Reply to I made significant write to this Separation article (July 2018), and see others changed what I wrote. In no way do the United Conservatives in Alberta today support separation (but many of their members do want the conversation). With lower economies and rising debt, separation sentiments rise - there is a cycle - and the cycle is political to the extent of who is in power. Separatism sentiment rises when Liberals are in power, so a point made about Trudeau and a hockey game are relevant to that extent. But whoever did the edit on that seems to have run on too long with it. Likewise with the sentence about "Mr. Hopper correctly described the landlocked problems of an independent Alberta but did not argue the benefits presented by Mr. Zeihan and others." I don't recognize these sentences as my contribution. There is too many edits to click on under history but if you show me a list of words and sentences added since my contribution, I can rework the article back to unbiased status. The entry should inform not promote Separatism. Kermit

This article seems to promote an Alberta seperatist view as opposed to a neutral world view of Western Seperatism. It needs to be properly flagged as lacking neutrality. I find it odd that the article describes almost every Eastern federal policy as being "catastrophic" for Alberta yet separatism sentiment often can't get a single candidate elected... the counter political sentiment that Alberta should remain in Canada seems largely ignored and provincial government responsibilities during economic downturns seem conveniently ignored. 204.48.92.87 (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The references list needs to be completely overhauled. Western Standard is not a credible source, nor are some of the forum based sources. The list is bloated and filled with mis and disinformation. Verity4good (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Spelling

prime minister and minister are not capitalised because they are not proper nouns. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom or The Queen are proper nouns because they refer to a person. Therefore, it is prime minister the Right Honourable Justin Trudeau but, The Prime Minister of Canada.

"Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's" seems to be correct as is used elsewhere and is a title. Should I change to be Right Honourable Justin Trudeau? Kermit

First Past The Post

FPTP favours the Conservative party since by most accounts it over-represents rural and suburban constituencies that historically favour Conservatives. Stephen Harper did not "succeed against the odds"-he was the odds-on favourite to win the election of 2006 because of the Sponsorship scandal and a United Conservative party that at the time had a larger base ie. western Canada and rural Ontario than did the Liberal party whose traditional base Quebec had splintered between the BQ, and Liberals and a resurgent NDP. Furthermore such a comment is inappropriate as it is conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.44.150.150 (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Which sentence are you referring to? It is fact that Harper did win against political odds (calculation not partisan comment) based on current political structure in Canada that does bias in favour of eastern Canada. Kermit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F478:3800:75FE:3069:6AED:3C (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the talk page

Template:Ping This is the article's talk page. Instead of repeatedly adding the same material after users have pointed out problems with it, you discuss the matter here.

When doing so, you need to assume good faith from others.

It would also be a good idea for you to familiarize yourself with our policies and guidelines regarding:

• original research
• neutrality (especially avoiding advocacy, editorializing, and undue weight)
• paying attention to what others have pointed out instead of making the same dismissed argument over and over
• making sure your primary interest is helping the encyclopedia, instead of some other goal like "righting great wrongs".

Ian.thomson (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

This definitely reads like an argument for Alberta separatism, rather than an encyclopedia article about Alberta separatism. I've done some clean up, but this needs an overhaul. Ground Zero | t 20:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

#wexit is of dubious WP:LASTING significance

A spike and a drop-off over 48 hours is the very definition of not lasting significance. Simonm223 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

There have been other articles about that movement recently that should be added. I have a backlog. MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality in the title, renaming proposal

Since the article claims that its neutrality is disputed, let's start by this problem : the title. "Separatism" by its very nature is a pejorative word which has an history of either being used to scare the concerned people thinking about independence to stay loyal to their existing country or portray an independence movement in a negative light internationally by the dominating nation to prevent international sympathy. There is a deeper reason why villains (think Star Wars or any another cultural product) that desire in their fictional world independence for their people are labeled as "separatists" and why heroes in a similar situation are labeled "freedom fighters". By having "separatism" in the title, the article already take a side with a negative point of view over the subject and promote this negative portrayal to viewers by its choice of words, making it violate the principles of neutrality of Wikipedia. Which is why I'm proposing this article to be renamed : Albertan independence movement. The wording in it is much more neutral without going into automatically-positive territory either. Not only that, but other similar pages use this naming form for a reason (think the Québec sovereignty movement article -the name the movement gave to itself- or Cascadian independence movement article). Users should be free to decide in a more neutral ground for themselves what they think of the movement. I personally don't agree with it yet I still think calling it "Alberta separatism" is just unfair. A vote should be held. 96.22.228.193 (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't vote, we reach consensus, and we use terminology derived from sources, not individual editors' analyses. I'm not seeing the term "independentist" in a preponderance of sources, but "separatist" appears in many. Also, "independentist" would tend to exclude sentiment to join the U.S., which is covered in the article. I've reverted the change. Acroterion (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Even if the words the sources use might be negatively biaised and thus against the value of neutrality and neutral perspective on Wikipedia and thus perpetuate these negative or mocking perceptions rather than setting the record straight in a more neutral ambiance? Also that wasn't everything I did, I also tried to make some sentences more encyclopedic in tone since this page visibly has a neutrality problem hence the banner. Finally, not necessarily, "independentist" can also include annexion movements (doesn't it already have its own distinct page, the annexion movements of Canada, however?) like California, which got independence first...in order to join another country later. 96.22.228.193 (talk) 22:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

You need sources for all that, and you need to explain how sources describe the subject, not your own perception or preference for one term over another. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This is not how "my preference" goes, this is an objective observation that similar independence movements here, compared to each other, experience a visible double-standard with some using the very much pejorative "separatist" (as it has been historically used by anti-independence campaigns to make the prospect of independence scary and deligitimize their advocates by using this term, including in both Québec referendums, which is still reflected to this day in popular works prominently using "separatists" to describe movements the audience must consider evil or crazy compared to "freedom fighters" in a similar position, which is used to make audience consider them good and never the other way around) and others using the neutral "independentist" or "independence movement" (advocating for independence, permanent or temporal, with no historical track record giving it a positive or negative connotation, just that they want a country, which is stating a fact, no dressing attached). This is what I'm talking about : wikipedian neutrality. Even if you are normally right that sources should say what is and shouldn't be said, you can't deny there is a visible contradiction with the biais of these sources using this loaded word (history and all to show it is pejorative and regarded as pejorative) as well as their nationality of origin, which in itself could reveal a conflict of interest, promoting naturally what holds their country the benefit from together, as Russian sources can be about the Soviet Union compared to Ukrainian ones or Han Chinese ones about China compared to Uighur ones. I was just hoping to start a conversation about this potential issue, which didn't really happen really however sadly. 96.22.228.193 (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, you need to address wha the sources say, not what you perceive. You appear to be starting from a position and arguing in its favor, not following the references. About four times as many of the references mention “separatism” or “separation” than “independence”, and a substantial number describe joining the United States, which is not independent nationhood. Acroterion (talk) 10:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Leduc oil.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

This article is rife with fringe sources

Seriously there's a lot in here sourced to youtube and some guy's soundcloud. These are not WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ping Could you be more specific? I don't see any YouTube or SoundCloud references in the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

That is because I removed them. Simonm223 (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ping Are there any more sources left that you view as questionable? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Still evaluating. I tend to be a measure first cut once guy. YouTube and soundcloud are obvious inadequate sources. Beyond that I have questions about whether some of the cited opinions are WP:FRINGE but need to research further. Simonm223 (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

all Western Post sources should be removed as well as non-credible forums. List is bloated and full of non-relevant references. Verity4good (talk) 05:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Addition of annexationism and fictional infobox

Should the change of scope to include movements to join the United States be included here as per the recent move? Rather than at Movements for the annexation of Canada to the United States#Albertan annexationism and 51st state#Alberta. Should the infobox that portrays Alberta as a U.S. State since 1905 and run by a Republican be kept? The infobox is WP:UNDUE imo as the article barely has anything on annexationism overall, and seems to promote how Alberta would look like as a U.S. state. Other separatist movements don't have infoboxes at all. DankJae 09:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

That infobox has to go. It's just somebody's fantasy. Even if annexationism ever gets anywhere (which I personally doubt), there's no guarantee that any of the items listed there would turn out that way. WP:CRYSTALBALL also applies, I think. The flag and seal should also not appear anywhere in the article. Until reliable sources show actual photographs of the flag in use, it's just a web graphic created by a fringe group, and giving it such prominence in Wikipedia is WP:UNDUE. Indefatigable (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been any support for the infoboxes, I'll go ahead and delete them. Indefatigable (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

@Indefatigable, well one was added back, but as long as it wasn't the fictional one. DankJae 14:20, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Indefatigable, well someone didn't like this discussion as they removed this discussion entirely. Since removed the infobox again per here as the image was changed to Alberta in the United States, seems it is being used for POV purposes. I do wonder if the move to include annexationism should be reverted as nothing has been added to the article since the move and largely still WP:UNDUE as this article largely only has about one sentence on the annexationism in the body. DankJae 17:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Since reverted the move. It was undiscussed and annexationism is a very small part of this article, which nothing new added. There is more detail on the topic at Movements for the annexation of Canada to the United States#Albertan annexationism and 51st state#Alberta than here.

Of course if there is a case to expand it here, anyone is free to raise an RM, but before any such move. But it probably is best as in or as a separate article as they merely share the outcome of leaving Canada but not the end outcome. DankJae 10:34, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I agree with going back to the previous article name for now. As for the infobox, most of the really objectionable speculation has been removed from it, but I still think it's inappropriate to have it. First, it's "infobox settlement", and the article is not about a settlement - it's about a political movement. Second, to echo a slogan from Quebec's history, "If Canada is divisible, Alberta is divisible". There's no guarantee that a separate Alberta would have the same boundaries as it currently has. Thus the area figures in the infobox are WP:CRYSTALBALL. Take them out, and there's nothing left in the infobox, so delete it completely. Indefatigable (talk) 13:29, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

@Indefatigable, well it has since been edit warred back in by @FacilityII, who first added it and keeps adding it back. FacilityII is there a reason how it meets WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE? it shows nothing important aside the map which can just be an image on its own. Does the size of Alberta matter? I don't think the article mentions that. DankJae 19:08, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

If you look at the page from over a year ago, or from 2023, it is using (infobox settlement) and has a map with basically the same information in it (including area) as it does now. FacilityII (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

When it was added doesn't necesarily matter as WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. It was added undiscussed in 2022. It is now being discussed here, as it never was initially. Nonetheless the infobox doesn't really provide anything for a WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the size of Alberta or how much of it is water is not a crucial reason for separatism. Therefore just a map is enough imo, like most other separatism articles of existing entities. If someone wants in infobox of Alberta they'll find it at Alberta. DankJae 19:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

"Alberta separatism and annexationism" listed at Redirects for discussion

File:Information.svg The redirect Alberta separatism and annexationism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Template:Section link until a consensus is reached. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 15:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Bias

In the section on debates following the 2025 election, this quote (While Ontario and Quebec reject this, Albertans view the idea more positively, seeing their culture as more akin to that of Montana and the United States, than that of eastern Canada.) gives an impression that annexationist sentiment is far more common in Alberta than opinion polling bears out. Select interviews from a news article are more anecdotal than anything else. While I do acknowledge that pro-51st state sentiment is greater in Alberta than any other province, I would still wager that more Albertans feel connected to the rest of Canada than to the United States.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.94.40 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I changed it to this: "While still opposed by the majority, support for annexation is greater in Alberta than other provinces as some residents see greater cultural connections with the United States than eastern Canada." It still conveys the fact that pro-51st state sentiment is greater in Alberta than in any other province, but it doesn't create a false perception that this is a majority sentiment (as polling consistently shows that it isn't).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.193.94.40 (talk) 16:15, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Is there an unbiased source that breaks down the location and demo of the polling that can be included as well? Verity4good (talk) 05:48, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

First image

Seems there is a dispute over what should be the first image of this article. It has either been a map of Alberta in Canada, a map of Alberta as part of the United States, a separatist flag and the normal flag of Alberta. (and of course the infobox containing practically all)

Seems a bit POV or WP:CRYSTAL to promote or predict what a separate Alberta would look like. Best use the most certain, what Alberta specifically is now. So prefer the current flag, current map or an image of a current protest/rally for separatism. Or even no image? DankJae 20:45, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

A rally would be best. The current flag is not an illustration of separatism, and I'm not sure any particular proposed flag has such widespread support that it should introduce the article. None of the current images in the article seem that helpful, so no image would be fine absent something suitable. CMD (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Template:Hidden pingRemoved the annexationist flag, as it was sourced from a 51st state group and this article is not purely about annexationism so undue. I expect it won't last for a few hours though, something will be added again. DankJae 21:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)