Talk:John Turmel

message: It is worth noting that Turmel was intentionally losing elections to get into the Guiness Book Of World Records.
Jct: Most elections contested doesn't matter win or loss so why presume losing intentionally when all I want to do is win so I can install a LETS for my constituents? 
Turmel was disruptive, silly, and rude during the 2006 federal election candidate debate at Brantford City Hall.  
Jct: http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/case-dossier/cms-sgd/sum-som-eng.aspx?cas=33319 is the story. 
He flustered the referee and the other candidates.  I spoke with him afterwards and he said that losing was a goal of his election campaign to ensure his eligibility for Guinness. Dajhorn 05:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Turmel Loses Elections Intentionally

message: He doesn't appear on the official results for the race. Does anyone know why? -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we do.  CJCurrie (talk) 06:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1996 byelection in Hamilton East 

message: Ground Zero: You asked me on my personal talk page to explain why I placed a POV tag on this article. Before I explain why, first, understand that I placed the tag so that editors can be alerted to the compromised nature of the article. I was going to follow up with specifics when I had time to post. That's why I gave a brief explanation in my edit summary. It was meant to tide other editors over until I had time to go into more specifics at a later time. Also, I'm not invested in this article, so I'm not going to edit it. That's why I placed the tag as a primary measure. The point is to alert those who are invested in the article that there is a problem. Further, a POV tag isn't a bad thing. It just means an article needs improvement. I don't ascribe to the belief (like some others do) that, given the choice between placing tags and taking other action, we are to not place tags. I think tags are a good tool for alerting those who are invested in an article to a problem. One doesn't always have to be bold and edit every article that one comes across. No one has that much time anyway! It's better to devote one's time to a few articles that one can tackle. I know some feel that tags are like the plague and must be avoided at all costs. I'm not that person. I think tags have a good purpose on Wikipedia.
Now, here's why I placed the tag. To begin with, an article can be correct and still be POV. This is an example of such an article. The problem is that it focuses on the most laughable aspects of his career in a manner that overshadows everything about the man. Wikipedia has strict guidelines concerning bios of living people. So even if we think he's ridiculous, we can't be POV. Living bios have a zero tollerance conerning this. Sure, perhaps most of Turmel's career is laughable, but when the tone and content of an article focus primarily on derogatory aspects of a guy's life and do so in a derisive tone, then the article becomes POV. This is such an article. Moreover, this article has very few citations and is written in a personally invested tone (also a violation of Wiki guidelines).
Now here are some more specific examples of POV:
* The lede makes prominent note of the fact that he's lost so many elections. If he's lost so many elections, then, sure, write that. But do so in a manner that does not overshadow the entire introduction.
* The article mentions his arrest(s) in the "History" section. That would be fine, except for the fact that it is a history that's otherwise exclusively about his political career. Either it's a history of all the events of his life, or it's a history of his political career. But it can't be somewhere in between. It's not supposed to be a history of his political career PLUS a few embarassing moments you choose to add in there.
* The article uses quotation marks to indicate exaggeration or that something is ridiculous or, more specifically, incredulous. For instance, the article reads, "He was reported to be "attempting to form" an Ontario Social Credit Party." In this case, it's clear why the quotation marks are used—to emphasize either (a) the fact that he was perhaps not attempting to form any party but, rather, to garner publicity or (b) the fact that his actions are so ridiculous that they are not to be taken seriously at all. Wiki Readers don't need editors adding this type of emphatic formatting to the text. In this case, it certainly isn't needed because Turmel's actions are already pretty outlandish by default.
* The "Background" section focuses almost exclusively on the most unusual aspects of his campaigning. It also reads with a somewhat derisive tone.
* It's POV to call his poem doggerel. The word, "doggerel," is a subjective term meaning "of no artistic value." Many may feel that his poem is indeed doggerel—I sure do—but, still, that doesn't justify using a POV word. Regardless, it is possible that the word was not used because the poem is bad, but simply to offer up a judgement aimed at further ridiculing Turmel. Of course, as I already mentioned, Turmel is so outlandish that he doesn't need any extra ridiculing. People "get it" without this type of over-the-top language.
This is five minutes of offering you examples of POV in this article. I could go on, but I think this is enough. Is Turmel a lune? Yes. Does that justify POV or excessive language? No. In fact, doing so is silly because everyone already knows he's off-his-rocker. Hope this clarifies things... As you might expect, I am in favor of placing a POV tag up until the article is revised. Cheers, ask123 (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for placing the POV tag 

message: Is there any reason there isn't an image? He makes a couple available on his website, for example
http://johnturmel.com/guinness.jpg
Bumpgrrl (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suitable images 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on John Turmel. 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/20120425064411/http://pauperparty.ca/ to http://pauperparty.ca
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Much of this article lacks RS refs. Either they should be added, as has been requested, or text deleted. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:516B:14A:BA7C:ACAA (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RS refs needed