Talk:Judy Marsales

message: I moved these points from the main article as they are unverified. Alan.ca 20:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced assertions 

message: Please note, the following section has been removed from the article as a dispute resolution process is underway to determine if the statement violates wp:npov.Alan.ca 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Disputed by CJCurrie for POV 

message: I created this section to specifically discuss the inclusion of the Hamilton Spectator citation for Judy's vote on Hudak's bill.  Alan.ca 12:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judy Marsales vote on Hudak's bill inclusion 

message: *With respect, you're asking the wrong questions.  The real question is: should we report a government backbencher's vote on second reading of an opposition member's private bill, based on one report in a local newspaper that suggests some of her constituents opposed her decision?  CJCurrie 00:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Q: Does anyone dispute that a politician's vote, that is reported in the news as controversial is relevant to the politician's career?

message: None of these stories seem to me to be particularly noteworthy.  Bucketsofg 03:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for sources 

message: I'm kind of surprised that anyone thinks that the tax-vote is something that seems worthy of inclusion, much less have a fight over it.  Firstly, this is one article in which Marsales plays only a part.  The article is mostly about property-tax anger generally.  Only one resident is cited as angry at Marsales for the vote.  Brian McHattie (the area city counsellor) expresses surprise about how she voted.  Hudak is interviewed about the bill.  Mossup (the other local liberal MP who voted against it) is interviewed.  A couple of other local counsellors are interviewed, but criticize neither Mossup nor Marsales.  This doesn't seem to me something that is worth including.  Bucketsofg 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The initial basis for the reference was to add something with a cited source to the article.  I now see that you have added quite a bit of sourced information.  Thank you!  The reason I feel the property tax vote warrants inclusion is that it was a controversial vote reported by local media.  Our own interpretation of the validity of the public's opinion is not really valid, we're here to record history, not judge it.  In fact, now that the article includes so much supportive information for the candidate it would seem more important to add something contrary to balance the article towards NPOV.  Alan.ca 03:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I'd describe the content as "supportive", it is more or less whatever was non-trivial that is in the database.  The supportive stuff--ribbon-cuttings and funding-announcements--clealry don't belong.  Neither does one Westdale blowhard's opinions. Bucketsofg 03:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I had stated earlier with CJCurrie, the opinion portion I am open to how to or not to integrate it.  I see the vote as more important than the backlash in terms of inclusion.  I know for me personally when reading a candidate's biography, I would want to know if they had voted against capping property tax increases. Alan.ca 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My view 

message: Does anyone know the liscencing implications of using the ontario government one here?  Bucketsofg 03:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I can contact them, it can take months to get an answer, but I'll try it. Alan.ca 22:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need an image