This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ottawa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ottawa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OttawaWikipedia:WikiProject OttawaTemplate:WikiProject OttawaOttawa articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Please discuss any removal of cited material. The paragraph talks about the diplomatic missions remaining open in Canada despite their corresponding mission closing in Mali. Mkdwtalk20:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
disagree, it should be Canada Mali relations not here. Just because Mali kept its embassy open is irrelevant to Canadian government decision. Its WP:SYNTH to suggest this should be in the Mali embassy article. No need to pad out articles with tangential information. Also almost all consulates/embassy receive protests esp china and usa, we don't barrel scrape embassy articles with such. LibStar (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
We'll let the AfD decide about the merger of information. In regards to the wholesale removal of content it's not irrelevant. Diplomatic missions are largely considered like a trade deal in which both sides need to be actively in agreement for the ongoing relationship to remain open. In the light of recent current events, relationship remains open despite the coup de tat. The embassy is the direct anchor for those relations and remains in place with the other side is in flux. You cannot close one with out affecting the other. Furthermore, if the protest was large enough to warrant attention from a reliable source and directly related to the article then it should be kept. If you read other embassy articles that have been filled most in full then you will see many of them mention protests and controversies. With all information, it is not up to us to decide the relevence of information if a source has already done that. Its one of the five pillars.I think the fact that you have proposed the deletion of this article as well as other country to country relation articles means you find most of the information unuseful, but to others and most of the information in the article is now supported by sources, do. Mkdwtalk19:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
politely disagree, what happens in one embassy doesnt need to get reported in another embassy article of another country. What next the Canadian ambassador changed and Mali didn't changr ambassador should be included? And protests being covered in reliable sources should not be a reason for inclusion. The white house has had numerous protests but we don't include them. Your other article improvements are good but these 2 are pure padding. LibStar (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
