Talk:Kerry-Lynne Findlay

Isn't this information supported in the ref? FATCA

Rather than enter into an edit war - can we check to see if the references provided support the addition of this text:

As many as 1,000,000 Canadians are affected by the Canada-US FATCA IGA but neither Minister Findlay nor Minister Flaherty have engaged in much or any meaningful public consultation aside from meetings with representatives from the financial services industry. It further remains to be seen whether imposing tax reporting laws based on ethnicity will survive a challenge under the Charter of Rights or various provincial human rights codes.

XOttawahitech (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

The references I looked at did not support this. FWIW, you should definitely not use an opinion piece as a RS without noting that explicitly, and only if said opinion piece was noted by others as coming from a significant source. E.g. "Columnist X was reported to say "This deal sucks for Canadians"" - that's a huge difference than "This deal sucks for Canadians" said in Wikipedia's voice. FWIW Ottawa, I can't help but feel like you are trying to push a POV here - a gentle reminder that we need to maintain a neutral POV.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

How is reverting an unsourced editorial one time edit warring? The section read like an editorial and included a comment that "it further remains to be seen". This is redundant as everything that has to do with the future "remains to be seen" since it hasn't yet occurred. However, I wouldn't go as far saying Ottawa is pushing an agenda, it's more likely that the IP that added the comment is trying to push an agenda here. Cmr08 (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I see some people here don't like the addition of FATCA here but the sourcing is certainly more tight than much else on this article. The Minister of National Revenue certainly did negotiate the FATCA IGA and no one can dispute that. No one can dispute that the FATCA IGA brings citizenship based tax information sharing to Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.7.252 (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Further, the revision by Arthur has been undid as his "revision" was to remove entirely any reference to FATCA. His explanation is that Minister Findlay's role in negotiating the Canadian FATCA IGA was "unsourced". The actual website from the Canada Revenue Agency references the Revenue Minister and details of the FATCA IGA with Canada. That's very accurate sourcing and is in fact from the Minister's department herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.7.252 (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You didn't provide a source, and it's not "notable". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

... and it contains a number of WP:BLP violations, using questionable sources for opinions about her actions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The section has more references than others, but there is a lot of unsourced defamatory material. You could add a sentence (to some other section) that she was instrumental in drafting the agreement (false), in getting the agreement approved, but the alleged details of the agreement and/or effect should not be in this article without a reliable source. Even if it were adequately sourced, it would be about the agreement, and should only be in the article about the agreement (or FATCA, itself). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has certain policies that must be followed, including the maintenance of a neutral point of view and the use of reliable sources. It's true that the article as written is not very well-sourced and needs major improvement, but the material that's currently here is not actually controversial — it's not really much more than a thinly veiled rewrite of her résumé. That isn't particularly good content, granted, but it's not factually in question and it doesn't fail NPOV, so none of it is actually problematic in anything like the way that the FATCA content is.

The stuff about FATCA, however, is attempting to advance a non-neutral point of view about the legislation and Findlay's role in it, and is being sourced to bad, unreliable and/or primary sources — and thus I have to direct you to the WP:BLP notice at the very top of this page, which explicitly states that Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.

A properly written, properly sourced and neutral summary of her role in FATCA would be perfectly acceptable content in this article. What's actually been added so far, however, is none of those three things. The government's own website about FATCA, for example, demonstrates the existence of FATCA, but fails to demonstrate why it's notable enough to be reflected here — you need real media coverage for that. And that means news articles, not editorials or blog commentaries or press releases. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• KerryLynne Findlay, Chair, Conservative Party of Canada Conference 2021 photo.pdf

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)