Jump to content

Talk:Cindy Ady

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

Cindy Ady edits

[edit]

I am deleting the section on Idaho-Alberta transboundary task force because it contravenes the following wikipedia precepts (from: "what wikipedia is and is not"). Wikipedia is not: An opinion piece on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current affairs, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles. This peice also does not maintain a neutral pojnt of view: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly

The section on the Idaho Task force is not balanced and only presents one point of view. It is specifically biased and politically motivated. It should only be considered to be inserted if appropriately balanced with an alternate point of view Lotsapapa4 (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I disagree. The first portion of policy you quoted does not apply to this material, as it says that Wikipedia is not "an opinion piece on current affairs and politics", while the deleted material is factual reporting using, as sources, news stories (not opinion pieces). There is certainly some room for discussion as to whether the material is balanced in its selection of sourses and facts (i.e. your second point). In writing the material, I included the only response from Ady that I was able to locate ("I don't need to tell you..."). If you have some suggestion for other verifiable material from her point of view that can be included, I would more than likely support its inclusion. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More reasons to delete the passage:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone.

Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to particular viewpoints, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one.

The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article.

The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to the subjects of biographies who try to remove what they see as errors or unfair material:

When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

Lotsapapa4 (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you might be willing to clarify how you see these policies as applying to this material. In my view, the Idaho-Alberta incident got more coverage than any other element of Ady's career as a backbencher (which lasted more than six years), so I think criticism surrounding it can be considered relevant to her notability. It's obviously sourcable to reliable secondary sources, so I assume that's not in dispute. I don't think it overwhelms the article, as it's one small paragraph, and is located after her electoral record and record of legislative achievement (which I think is as it should be). As for appearing to take sides, I don't think that's the case; the media coverage included paragraph after paragraph of criticism of her about the incident, which I reduced to one sentence ("The payout was criticized by Liberal leader Kevin Taft, New Democratic leader Brian Mason, and Scott Hennig of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.") In contrast, I included every bit of her response that I could find, though I repeat my offer above to include any additional response that you can find in reliable sources.
(Incidentally, I've made some changes to the formatting of your comments for readability; I hope you don't mind.) Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion request

[edit]

There is disagreement between myself and Lotsapapa4 (talk · contribs) over the appropriateness of including this material. Our arguments are above, and are I think brief enough that they needn't be summarized. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's possible to condense the section a little, that would be best - but this comes across to me as straightforward WP:FACTS. Has there been any sort of official resolution to the matter?
And on a personal note, thank you both for being so civil. It's more of a rarety than you might guess. ^_^ arimareiji (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your input. I have no objection in principle to condensing the material; I'd appreciate any input you might have as to how that might be achieved. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cindy Ady. 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: 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) 01:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cindy Ady. 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: 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) 21:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cindy_Ady&oldid=1257152307"