Talk:Nathan Cullen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Neutrality

There are a couple paragraphs in this article that definitely read like a press release. I don't have time to clean it up so I added the tag. --Padraic 10:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerns of bias have been raised and tagged many times, only to be disregarded and edits restored. It is not clear who is making this article into a press release, but it needs to be dealt with lest Wikipedia become a joke. This article needs a lot of fixing to even approximate NPOV.--99.244.177.12 (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted some of your edits [1] While, your first couple of edits were good, the last few removed relevant, referenced biographical information. I have added more references and edited some sections [2]. You will have to be more specific about the NPOV charge though - what is being presented unfairly? maclean (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In the bio for Conservative Dick Harris that you supposedly maintain, the first statement is that he is a Canadian Politician; it then states later that he is an MP. This is not an innocuous choice. "Cullen was approached to run federally for the New Democratic Party MANY TIMES BEFORE FINALLY ACCEPTING [completely irrelevant and implies some kind of benevolent reluctance to enter politics] and winning in 2004 where he has been representing the Skeena-Bulkley Valley riding ever since. Cullen MAY BE the first MP in Canada to state that he represents the land as much as the people, a belief he learned from his mentoring by Tsimshian, Nisga'a, and Haida First Nations elders in his riding." Uncited weasel words. Complete joke, and that's the first paragraph. "Cullen made support of the federal moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling part of his campaign which WAS INITIALLY VIEWED [by who!? The reference doesn't prove this at all, weasel word alert] as a disadvantage for him in the riding, but a magnitude 6.7 earthquake off the Queen Charlotte Islands during the campaign helped highlight Cullen's arguments." There have been staff writing this article for years, and it's a complete joke. I fixed most of the problems yesterday - check the actual references to ascertain where it's original research or simply unsupported by the reference. I assumed good faith in making my edits, but apparently this is not up to the biased standards of Wikipedia's moral majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.177.12 (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Notably, there is a legitimate, ongoing dispute. Not sure why you, assuming good faith, would remove an NPOV tag.--99.244.177.12 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing out specifics which can be addressed. However, it appears you have removed many of your examples yourself [3]. From your list above,
  • Politician vs MP in lead sentence - I utterly reject that is a case of POV.
  • MANY TIMES BEFORE FINALLY ACCEPTING - you removed that yourself [4]
  • MAY BE the first MP - this is speculative but, again, you removed that yourself [5]
  • WAS INITIALLY VIEWED - weasal word and passive voice. The solution is to edit the phrase, not completely remove relevant information. I edited it here removing the offending "viewed". Btw all of which is completely supported by the reference "Cullen's win on the north coast was even more surprising given his opposition to lifting the moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling...Cullen's point about the risks of oil drilling were hammered home when voters in the region woke up Monday morning to a magnitude 6.7 earthquake off the Queen Charlotte Islands." Perhaps you read the wrong reference?
  • I have re-written the lead section to bring it more in line with WP standards WP:LEAD. [6]
• As all your points are addressed, I have removed the NPOV tag. [7] maclean (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • POV issues abound. "Scott ran an aggressive [biased wording] campaign attacking the Liberal candidate, filing a request with Elections Canada for an investigation into Cullen's campaign finances, and using signage saying "Re-elect Scott", despite the fact that Cullen was the incumbent. [he was probably referring to his previous incumbency, in which case the semantics are a point for debate, not a fact; if notable, Wikipedia should present both sides of argument. Wikipedia has no place stating an opinion on this matter]" I do not have to specifically list all of these issues for a POV problem to exist. You have consistently un-done most of my edits, fixed only some of the issues I pointed through edits such as the one above, and removed the POV tag. Remain unsure as to why you would so hastily remove the tag if editing in good faith. I don't edit other Wiki articles and felt compelled to help on this one, because it was so clearly not NPOV. Looking at the previous versions, including the one I first edited, it read like a PRESS RELEASE. Please leave POV tag on until significant revisions to the article are made. I've been trying to work on it daily, but when you keep undoing most of my work and then taking the POV tag off, it makes my contributions really futile. I will probably just give up now.--99.244.177.12 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we mention his language skills?

I came to the article to find out how well he speaks french (a relevant question for a leadership candidate). Can we include that information somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.223.51 (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)