Talk:Peter C. Newman

Untitled

I have removed the following, added by 70.81.191.157. It makes some efforts at being NPOV; however, saying that Newman's sense of responsibility is "highly debatable" is not NPOV, and the "many would argue" clause is leading and relies on weasel words.

Newman's sense of responsibility is highly debatable, and his newly released book is regarded as very controversial by Canadians. Many would argue that he deliberately exploited and betrayed Mulroney, who trusted Newman as a friend.

I also reworded " a man he claims was his friend" to "whom he considers a friend", since the former has an implicitly accusatory tone to it. --Saforrest 21:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. Yes it does, because he's being impicitly accused of betraying confidence, hence the lawsuit which has yet to be dismissed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Jackson

Hypocrites all. (Nitzwalsh) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.171.39 (talk • contribs) 4 June 2007

I have no idea what People v. Jackson has to do with any of this. In any case judgments about Newman's sense of responsibility or the ethics of his treatment of Mulroney are not Wikipedia's place to make. --Saforrest (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We'd Rather Be Clark Kent (Pearson Prentice Hall)

While reading this short essay I realized like most Canadians, the Supermen and Superwoman have had to leave Canada like yourself.

It is entirely true that the government is slow to recognize it's heros/heroines.

Look how many we have lost. Jim Carrey, Mike Myers, Celine Dion, Wayne Gretsky, William Shatner, Alex Trebek, Yvonne DeCarlo, Mary Pickford. And these are only the people, Canadians watch on the television. Since television was introduced into our lives back in the early 50's, how much backing has the CBC given our own? "This Hour has 22 Minutes" with Rick Mercer and Mary Walsh was one of the best shows ever. Now Rick and Mary are commodities we should recognize before they starting looking south of the 49th parallel.

It is a sad affair to think we have to award people posthumously by erecting statues solely. Have people forgotten Pierre Berton and his contribution? Will people forget Lloyd Robertson and all the years of service he has provided as anchor on the news each evening? The list goes on and on.

Well enough of my prattle. I'll take off my cape and put my suit and glasses back on, and as the Americans presume I'll go start building my igloo to hide away in.

All the best.

C. Kent Dec. 9/05

An Unimportant Old Fart

Do we really need an article on Peter C. Newman? Any queries, should they come, could be directed to the Wikipedia page for Alfred E. Newman, it's all the same. I vote for removal of the article on Peter C. Newman.

209.29.96.18 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Old, yes. Unimportant, that's not just up to you to decide. Newman definitely satisfies Wikipedia's notability requirements, whatever one might think of him. --Saforrest (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

disambiguation page

I'd like to set up a disambiguation page for this --Non-unique personal name -- but my finger trembles since I have not done this before and I'd hate to mess things up. So here is my idea on this:

---

Peter_Newman may mean:

• Peter Charles Newman, Canadian journalist
• Peter William Geoffrey Newman. Australian Environmental Scientist

---

Then as I understand it, I would then have to "move" the orignal Peter_Newman entry to Peter_Charles_Newman - and ditto for PWGN?

Would this be terribly wrong? May I?[ [User:Ericbritton|ericbritton]] 16:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I mention his trademark cap? It is a bit silly to mention it, but we can mention Andy Wharhol's hair or Elton John's costumes, or Thomas Wolfe's white suits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldercarb (talk • contribs) 18:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter C. Newman. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140421064315/http://www.countryroadshastings.ca/current-issue-s2.php?command=viewArticle&ID=8&currentFeed=3 to http://www.countryroadshastings.ca/current-issue-s2.php?command=viewArticle&ID=8&currentFeed=3
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091130093647/http://www.lib.uwo.ca/programs/generalbusiness/newmanbib.html to http://www.lib.uwo.ca/programs/generalbusiness/newmanbib.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 12:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)