Open main menu


Slagging Richard Mahoney?Edit

Even though I will probably vote for Dewar in the upcoming election, I'm a little baffled by the paragraph of text slagging Richard Mahoney. It really does not belong on a page meant to describe Paul Dewar. Therefore, I am removing it. It read as follows:

Mahoney's occupation as a corporate lobbyist while simultaneously running for parliament and advising the prime minister has been controversial. Articles in the Ottawa Citizen in the fall of 2005 revealed that Mahoney may have broken rules with regards to registering as a lobbyist and that members of his team apparently violated civil service guidelines by using government resources to campaign for Mahoney during work hours.

Riding AnalysisEdit

I removed the riding analysis but it seems to have been reverted. I believe that it is fine if one wanted to say that things are close, etc. but I don't think that political analysis, speculation and opinion belong on an article about a particular candidate. It is not directly relevant to say that the provincial riding, which generally has not shared the same boundaries, has whatever representatives since some arbitrary starting point. Provincial voting habits are very different. While it may help an analysis, I believe that would be original research. Providing raw data and hoping that people will come to some sort of conclusion is essentially the same thing. Extrapolation is against Wikipedia policy. As well, I believe that it is opinion to say that it is a "swing seat" (although I may agree with that opinion). I live in the riding and I often hear that it is a Liberal stronghold: They've won it One could also conclude that the Liberals have won it nine of its twelve elections. The NDP only won it by 54 votes in '84 and were widely expected to lose handily to Mahoney in 2004 until Broadbent came along. The riding's page (which I've never touched) has a different characterization: "The riding has traditionally voted Liberal, with one exception being in the 1984 federal election when widespread disaffection caused it to go to the New Democratic Party (NDP)." One the whole, I believe that date is there to mislead the reader into believing that the riding is something other than what it is. Frankly I believe that Dewar will win but not based on the historical voting trends. --JGGardiner 05:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some tweaking to avoid NPOV and original research is best? -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Although tomorrow is election day and then the whole section becomes unnecessary.Looking at the history, it seems to have spun out of control after one user called the riding a Liberal stronghold. Another changed it to swing riding when they probably should have just removed it if they disagreed. I personally don't think that WP needs to include these characterizations. I think if one had to say something it should be perhaps be that it is a tough race for Dewar or something along those lines. I'm sure the article will have a post-election update anyway so I'm happy to just leave it for a few days. --JGGardiner 02:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


There have been a number of changes and reverts with lobbyist title. Whoever is doing this, could you please provide some sort of source or reason why you feel this label applies. Wikipedia works best when there is discussion and collaboration on disputed points. If you keep making the same change, even in good faith, it will keep being reverted. Thanks. --JGGardiner 20:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class ratingEdit

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Paul Dewar. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 17:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Return to "Paul Dewar" page.