Talk:Jim Cowan

Electoralist Please note that you removed material that was sourced. That Senator Cowan was the subject of controversy is not a point of view; it's a fact. (above post is by User:Stoneacres)

Your edits read more like an argumentative essay than an NPOV article:

1) "A good deal of controversy has swirled around Senator Cowan since his appointment as Liberal Senate leader." - that's a POV statement.

2) "First, Senator Cowan was criticized for allowing Senator Joyce Fairbairn to continue voting on legislative matters, while he knew she had Alzheimer’s disease and had been declared incompetent." - the actual source can be found here - the article doesn't criticize Cowan, you've added your opinion to make that claim.

3)"Second, Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau removed all senators from the Liberal Caucus as a result of the Senate expenses scandal, in which Senator Cowan was directly involved." the source is here - your claim that "Senator Cowan was directly involved" in the Senate expense scandal is not made in the article, that's your interpolation. Secondly, your suggestion that Trudeau's decision to remove all Senators from the caucus is somehow Cowan's fault is again, your opinion, and not supported by your source.

4) "Fourth, Senator Cowan’s leadership has been called into question as a result of his inappropriate expenses" - the source you gave can be found here - the claim that Cowan's leadership has been "called into question" is again, your interpretation and given that he was re-elected Senate leader your interpretation is exaggerated.

Please review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policies. Articles are supposed to be neutal and factual and biographies of living persons must be so in particular. You appear to have a partisan point of view, or at least a bias against Cowan which is colouring your edits. This is particularly the case in headers you previously tried to add to the article with titles such as "Trudeau Dumps Cowan as Leader", "Leadership Called into Question", and "Liberals Booted out of Caucus Under Cowan's Leadership" which are biased headlines not substantiated by yoru sources or the facts. Electoralist (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Electoralist (talkI have removed those headers. And I have re-written the text to remove any point of view. I do not have a partisan bias against Cowan. Please advise after you re-read the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneacres (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You wrote: "In 2012, Cowan was criticized for allowing Senator Joyce Fairbairn to continue voting on legislative matters, while he knew she had Alzheimer’s disease and had been declared incompetent." Here is your source. Please show me a direct quote from the Global News article where it says Cowan was criticized.Electoralist (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Electoralist I can’t provide you with the evidence you seek in the article mentioned, because the source your provide only contains a preview of the article mentioned..Stoneacres (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC). There are several articles criticizing Cowan and his senior staff. See Jonathan Kay in the National Post: http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jonathan-kay-the-fairbairn-case-is-a-surreal-indictment-of-the-canadian-senate. The paragraphs below confirm that Cowan was criticized over this: “Moreover, the fact that the chief of staff to Liberal Senate leader James Cowan co-signed a declaration that Fairbairn was legally incompetent, and shared legal responsibility for her personal care, adds a bizarre aspect to the story. Party politics is a reality in the Senate, and one of Cowan’s functions, in some cases, is to encourage the Liberal Senate caucus to vote in a certain way. Is it not surreal — and perhaps even creepy and unethical — that a man counting votes has on his personal staff a person who has legal responsibility for a mentally incapacitated human being who holds such a vote?” “None of this — absolutely none of it — reflects badly on Senator Fairbairn. But it does reflect badly on the Senate, Senator Cowan, and the whole atmosphere of country-club uselessness within an entity whose functions apparently are regarded by insiders as less important or intellectually arduous than signing one’s name to a housing contract or cell phone plan. And the people who say so have nothing to apologize for.” User:Stoneacres

Electoralist Here is another news article confirming that Cowan’s office (his most senior aide) are being criticized for allowing Fairbairn to vote: http://www.torontosun.com/2012/08/31/tory-attacks-on-joyce-fairbairn-mindlessly-cruel Please note: contrary to what you say, above, there is implicit criticism in the article I referenced (Alberta senator allowed to vote four months after being diagnosed with Alzheimer’s By GLEN MCGREGOR AND JORDAN PRESS, OTTAWA CITIZEN AND POSTMEDIA NEWS Global News” Here is the quote; “The Liberal leadership in the Senate allowed a veteran senator to vote on legislation and spend public dollars for four months after she was diagnosed with dementia and declared legally incompetent.” That she is being allowed to vote while legally incompetent is very harsh criticism indeed. User:Stoneacres —Preceding undated comment added 05:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"Implicit" isn't good enough. If you found sources that have explicit criticism, fine, use them but the source you were using before had no explicit criticism. Electoralist (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Cowan. 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/20120709160154/http://united-church.ca/files/communications/news/general/120703_senators.pdf to http://united-church.ca/files/communications/news/general/120703_senators.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)