Talk:Elwin Hermanson

Controversies

The section 'Controversies' should be removed because the news article sourced is based on an opinion and not fact. The tweet referenced is not Islamophobic (hostile towards Islamic people) 2605:59CA:1106:C410:15CD:ED94:67CB:DDFF (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It's good that you've started a discussion on this, but unfortunate that once more you have removed the content without waiting for input from other editors. This is unacceptable per bold, revert discuss. The section has now been removed five times despite multiple editors opposing this. AusLondonder (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

As to the substance of this dispute, I strongly believe the content should be included (although merged within another section seems appropriate) because it attracted significant media coverage and criticism from other political leaders, including from his own party. AusLondonder (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I also think the content should be included for the same reasons outlined by AusLondonder. If anyone wants to propose a re-phrasing here, that could be helpful if deemed necessary, but I do think the content should remain. Other justin (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say significant coverage. If you read the articles you will see that he said that what he tweeted was misinterpreted. I think the wording of the wiki is too aggressive considering how far you have to stretch the call it Islamophobia. The criticism from a member of the party was purely a political move that fell flat. I am speaking here from first hand testimony. I know this individual personally and was appalled when I saw that this was included in his wiki article 2605:59CA:1106:C410:C8C2:574A:45F3:146F (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's very obvious you have a personal connection here. Some might call that a conflict of interest. If you'd like to propose a re-wording, please do so. AusLondonder (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Not really a conflict of interest, I'm not related to this person or have a relationship with this person outside of them being a respected member of our community. What’s written in the article is just not in line with their character and it’s approaching defamation. I will edit the section then 2605:59CA:1106:C410:C8C2:574A:45F3:146F (talk) 06:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no defamation. The facts as I understand them are that the subject shared an article from InfoWars—a known conspiratorial commentary site—that suggested Europeans may need to arm themselves against growing Muslim populations; this drew criticism from public figures in the province, especially in light of the fact that the party he used to lead was in the midst of a leadership race, and hence the media coverage.

If anyone is going to suggest re-wording, please do so in this space in an effort to achieve some consensus before changing the article. Other justin (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I would correct your statement by saying the only person who was critical was the leadership candidate who was trying to gain a political edge. The tweet itself was not Islamophobic: “In 10-30 years Islam will be the dominant religion in every Euro nation. Muslims will be the largest people group if current trends persist.”

Can we drop the Controversies heading and just merge it with After Politics.

In 2017, during the leadership race to replace Brad Wall as Saskatchewan Party leader, Hermanson was criticized for sharing an Anti-Muslim article on Twitter. Alanna Koch, the leadership candidate that Hermanson had endorsed, was vocally critical of the tweet. 2605:59CA:1106:C410:C8C2:574A:45F3:146F (talk) 17:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not defamation to report what an elected public figure shared online and the political reaction to it. The leadership candidate had been endorsed by Hermanson himself so to suggest she had ulterior political motives for criticising the tweet makes no sense. I wouldn't oppose removing the seperate controversies section and merging the topic into the rest of the article. On the substance of the tweet, it's obviously patently false and ridiculous - sharing false narratives about Muslims swamping the west is clearly Islamophobic. AusLondonder (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know how to merge two sections but could you do that and put in the edits that I made above 2605:59CA:1106:C410:C8C2:574A:45F3:146F (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I've merged the sections, which seemed to be agreed upon. I'm not sure why you're insisting on "Anti-Muslim" rather than Islamophobic, but it appears that me and AusLondonder at least agree on the wording as it was. Other justin (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)