Talk:Alberta separatism

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

Scott Bessent comment and the movement possible ties to the Trump government

I noticed that Scott Bessent, the Treasury Secretary has openly expressed support Alberta separatism arguing that they can join the United States if succession happened., So I did a research and found a couple of articles mentioning that separation as a backdoor annexation plot for the United States. I am wondering if this should be mentioned in the article and how should it be framed. Hiyournameis (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose merging 2025-2026 Alberta independentist crisis into Alberta separatism, possibly under the subsection "US Involvement". "Independentist crisis" and the use of a military conflict infobox seems to be sensational (no reliable sources are describing a "crisis"). With significant overlap and the fact that the "crisis" article is short, I believe the Alberta separatism article (along with American expansionism under Donald Trump § Alberta) would sufficiently cover the topic. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 16:53, 30 January 2026 (UTC) (edited 17:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC))

I would like to point out its laid out that way because the very contact between the separatists and the US officials IS the crisis. Outlets and people included in the article have called it a crisis, and Canadian officials, as stated in the article, reacted harshly, with the premier of British Columbia calling it "Treason".

The article does not focus onto Albertan independence persay, it focuses on this specific chapter of this controversial political topic. Its a diplomatic crisis between two sovreign nations that deserve a separate article. The infobox used is not incorrect or sensationalistic, its just used to show the dynamic of the crisis, which is what it showcases. VitoxxMass (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Diplomatic crisis? That's rather sensationalist. There's no reason that this molehill can't be part of the existing article. Nfitz (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support no idea why this has its own article, should be a section in Alberta Separatism. Scuba 17:07, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose merge, support delete; some of the conclusions are OR or fringe. CoryGlee 17:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Where do you see fringe theories? I see an analysis subsection that cites reliable sources, but maybe I've missed something. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Use of the word "crisis" is a fringe theory. A handful of treacherous loons talking to the racist rapist is not a crisis. Nfitz (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. I'm inclined to think the (so-called) crisis is notable, as it involves a claim of foreign interference. That other article is not really about Alberta separatism, but Canada–United States relations. (In fact, that article would make better sense for a merge target.) StAnselm (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Per StAnselm above, this has become quite a big event in the global media with large articles on it in most of the world's highest grade WP:RSPs (no need to list here). The element of foreign intervention has made it a much more material event that merits coverage. Obviusly, should have a section in the main Alberta Separatism article. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support merge A subject can be notable but still not best served by having an independent article - see WP:NOPAGE. This should be a subsection of the Alberta separatism article. In addition, to call the recent meetings a “crisis” meriting its own article is also not NPOV; even if the merge proposal fails, that wildly biased title needs to be changed ASAP. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 19:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Indeed the use of the word "crisis" is sensationalist. This must change, at a minimum. I'd support an AFD. Nfitz (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  We already are discussing a change of name, as i do agree with it. VitoxxMass (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support merge this need more than 2 or 3 sentences in the existing article. A joke about the 11th province could create a "crisis" with the current regime in the USA. Nfitz (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support deletion; the article seems to be giving this event far too much prose for its actual importance. Per WP:FORK#Caution: having a separate article on a controversial incident may give undue weight to that incident--and this, to me, seems like an open-and-shut case of that, given the page only showed up a few hours ago. As for what to do with the page, it's fair to say everything that should be covered on this page is already adequately covered, and thus the page can feasibly be deleted without a need for keeping its history for attribution. Departure– (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2026 (UTC)
• Delete - At the moment, the rest of Canada doesn't seem to be in anxiety mode. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

After talking with numerous wiki editors and seeing how the event unfolded in the following days, I, the creator of the article, would support merge. VitoxxMass (talk) 12:17, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support merge - Clearly a notable development in the context of the overall movement, but not independently notable nor sufficiently prominent or separate to need its own article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

• Support merge - The new article would only be relevant if an actual referendum is held, otherwise its just another chapter of the same story. McCIrishman (talk) 10:06, 4 February 2026 (UTC)
• Support merge per WP:NOPAGE, no reason to split off this one aspect when it can adequately fit within the main article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Oppose merge Both pages are already long. The two do not overlap that much. Both issues should be covered. Telecine Guy (talk) 03:41, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Alberta Prosperity Project page proposal

Given the mediatic attention around the group, should they have their own article? I am asking here before making a possibly other controversial article. Otherwise I'm merely going to add info about the group onto this article instead. VitoxxMass (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I think they need their own article personally but it is very hard to find information about them. If you go to their About Us page on their website there are almost no names. I can only think of three people involved (Mitch Sylvestre, Jeff Rath and Dennis Moddry). If anyone knows enough to make a page they should, and I would be happy to contribute but there are so many details that are hard to find. Plastic Plastic Paddy (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Follow WP:GNG and WP:NORG. If it meets those standards go ahead and make a neutral article about them. Simonm223 (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Bias in "Resurgence in the late 2010s and early 2020s" section

The "Resurgence in the late 2010s and early 2020s" section of this article emphasizes material by Peter Zeihan his views of the benefits Alberta would have if it were independent, it does not show other views that may challenge these assertions or address other issues that argue in favour of Alberta being within Canada. With this mentioning of Zeihan on this topic without other views on the issue it makes it seem as if Alberta independence is an obviously positive choice for Albertans without any challenges made about it. BlueberryA96 (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I would also request that the article also indicate the latest support levels from the major polls and describe who supports/does not support the referendum or separation. Sloanhoo (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Polls

The selected polls cited in the text of the 'History' section of article make it appear that polls have been showing an almost 50-50 proportion between support and opposition for quite some time now. The list of polls at the end of the article, in contrast, suggest that support has been polling rather consistently around one quarter with some exceptions, making the prospect a decidedly long shot. Either the article body or the poll sample creates a misleading picture; it seems more likely to me that it is the article body that is artificially boosting the issue.

Also, it is claimed in the lede that Alberta has a sense of cultural distinctness, but there is no or almost no information about this in the body of the article. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the body; if something deserves to be in the lede, it should be elaborated on in the body. ~2026-51230-3 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

On the assertions of Albertan cultural distinctiveness that you mention that is in the intro and main body of the article without references I've placed citation needed notes where the assertions are made. BlueberryA96 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Removing false representation of quote of Canadian Prime Minister W. L. Mackenzie King

I am posting this to describe the removal of text from the article that falsely represents a quote of Canadian Prime Minister W. L. Mackenzie King. The text shows a part of King's quote in 1930 saying "I would not give them a five-cent piece" and claims that this was referring to any non-Liberal provincial government in Canada. I looked at the source that is linked to a copy of a book on the Internet Archive and the page that it says this quote is on is not shown there. I tried looking at the pages before and after what was shown in case the person who typed this typed the wrong page but I could not see this as it is not publicly available on that site.

However I found a full copy of the quote that does exist and it does not say that he opposed economic support to all of the non-Liberal provincial governments for unemployment to all but to any Tory government, Tory of course referring to the Conservative Party of Canada at the time and its affiliated provincial parties. In 1930 Alberta was not governed by a provincial party affiliated with the Conservative Party of Canada at that time, it was governed by the left-wing United Farmers of Alberta that governed Alberta from 1921 to 1935. The full quote is below

"With respect to giving moneys out of the federal treasury to any Tory Government in this country for these alleged unemployment purposes, with these governments situated as they are today, with policies diametrically opposed to those of this government, I would not give them a five-cent piece." W. L. Mackenzie King, April 3, 1930 (https://nationalnewswatch.com/2024/04/03/today-in-canadas-political-history-april-3-1930-mackenzie-king-makes-his-infamous-five-cent-piece-comments-in-the-commons)

BlueberryA96 (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Rewrite needed for this article

This article needs a serious rewrite to adequately address the topic.

Currently there is large amount info that is about the history of Alberta that not connected either directly or through influence to Alberta separatism.

The history section should focus on Western alienation that has been an issue in Alberta and other provinces for years due to views of Canadian federal politics being dominated by interests in Eastern Canada, especially Ontario and Quebec, with Alberta separatism being one of the responses to this. Opposition in Alberta to Canadian federal government policies that affect its oil sector have played a key role in Western alienation in Alberta that has led to rising Alberta separatism. Also opposition to the Liberal Party of Canada over claims that it has not represented the interests of Alberta has been an important part of Western alienation in Alberta.

With all the content currently in the history section just focused on the history of Alberta in general not directly related to Alberta separatism in this article it makes it seem as if Alberta separatism has been a big issue since the beginning of Alberta or that Alberta separatism was somehow historically inevitable. Alberta separatism was fringe up until the National Energy Program being established by the Canadian federal government led by the Liberal Party. Then it rose, declined, then issues of Western alienation by multiple Western provinces were sought to be addressed by the Reform Party of Canada later rebranded as the Canadian Alliance which merged with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in 2003 that created the Conservative Party of Canada that has had a large base of support in Alberta. With the Liberal Party of Canada elected in 2015 Alberta separatism then rose among those who opposed the government of Justin Trudeau and angered with the re-election of the Liberal Party of Canada led by Mark Carney in 2025 was a fourth consecutive election victory for the Liberal Party.

I currently don't have references ready to back up the content on history that I've just said above but I guarantee that anyone having the time will find be able to find references confirming this history. Immediately I don't have time to do so right now.

Also as mentioned by a user in 2018 and by me recently there is content in the article about the merits of Alberta separation by Peter Zeihan but it fails to describe what significance Zeihan's perspective has. BlueberryA96 (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@BlueberryA96. Just to add I do not disagree with your comments. If there is no other objections please remove any information that does not references separatism. Hiyournameis (talk) 00:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

With no further objections, the material has been removed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I am very uncomfortable with the framing of Alberta’s grievances as “Western Separatism” as it has very little relevance to and support in British Columbia. It appears to me that by framing it as an East-West issue, Alberta is trying to say, “it’s not just us.” As a BC resident, I say, “Yes, it is. Focus on what being in the Prairies is about. I doubt Manitoba wants to be included in this group, either. Sloanhoo (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Separatism in Alberta in history in the 1980s involved promoting an independent Western Canada with Alberta in it with the Western Canada Concept being a separatist party that briefly got some public attention before the issue of Western alienation was addressed by the Reform Party of Canada that rejected separation of Western Canada. It doesn't matter what our opinions are of such separatism or noting its lack of support in certain places, all that Wikipedia does is to show encyclopedic content. For example North Korea promotes a Korean patriotism and claims to represent all of Korea when in reality it does not have any significant support in South Korea but that does not deny that it is promoting a Korean patriotism, whether that is well-received in South Korea is a completely different matter. BlueberryA96 (talk) 06:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Does Alberta article mention this topic?

I thought the secession movement was recent after I saw a news story. But apparently the concept has been considered for a long time.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

More Info on Key Players Needed

with all of the news around the voter list leak, it's frustrating that there is no information on "David Parker" or "Take Back Alberta". these two items have been mentioned exhaustively in Reddit threads in the past month or so. Yesurbius (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Users with strong familiarity or expertise on the history of the National Energy Program and its effects on Alberta needed for this article

This article would benefit from having users who have strong familiarity with or expertise on the National Energy Program (NEP) in Alberta in the 1980s. There is material in this article on the NEP including claims of the effects of the NEP on Alberta. This has been a major political issue in the history of relations between Alberta and the Canadian federal government and it has influenced the political culture of a sense of alienation of Albertans towards the Canadian federal government; so content on the NEP needs to have good quality references. BlueberryA96 (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible name change

Should this article's title be changed to keep it in line with the Quebec Sovereignty Movement article? ~2026-32844-53 (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Depends on whether others, such as academics and reporters, refer to the topic. CMD (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Arguably that article should be called "Quebec separatism" because that name is more common in English language content on that topic than "Quebec Sovereignty Movement" is. BlueberryA96 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Proposal to move and merge sections

I propose:

1. Making the subsection "Allegations of foreign interference" its own section titled "Foreign interference" or "Foreign involvement",
2. Moving the "United States" section into the new section, and
3. Reverting the creation of the "External positions" section and moving the paragraph about the Parti Quebecois back to the section titled "Mid-2010s to present: Surge of support for separatism and proposed referendum on separation".

Yue🌙 (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

Implemented. Yue🌙 (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

-- No, it was better the way it was before with an external positions section highlighting the opinions of other provinces and countries. Such as Quebec's position towards this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-40178-71 (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Can you explain the reasoning on one account behind grouping Quebec and the United States together as "external" to Alberta? The United States is a foreign country, but Quebec is a fellow province. By that reasoning, all Canadian responses that are not from an Albertan source are "external". What makes a federal response from Ottawa different from and less "external" than a provincial response from Quebec? Yue🌙 (talk) 08:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)