Talk:Peggy Nash

message: I tried to expand the article on the Lebanon issue while still maintaining a neutral POV - and I've tried to incorporate sources from as many different Canadian sources as possible (both in political leanings and in geography).  I think it's a little heavy on Wrzesnewskyj's role - although he IS the spokesman for the three - and light on Nash's direct involvement, but the story's only been developing for a few days now.
The article still seems a little slanted in her favour, but I'm under the impression that's the preferred technique for biographies of living people; anyway, the story is so young that thusfar published criticisms are limited to editorials.  In any event, I'd like to keep this page from becoming an Israel vs. Hezbollah flamewar in the future.
Wencer 02:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lebanon 

message: I am making her leadership candidacy its own section, and adding subsections for her policies and endorsements. This is standard across all other leadership candidates in this race. This is useful information that many people have visited this site looking for. Too much of the content is taken from her official site. It would be nice to flesh it out with more news coverage over the coming days and weeks. A bit messy, but a start.
--chuk (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely do not do this. The style and form of some recent edits fall under WP:ADVERTISEMENT, which means that if it is present, it is to be removed immediately from an article.--Abebenjoe (talk) 14:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop removing large swaths of sourced content. There is plenty of precedent for this content: for a high profile example see Mitt Romney here and here. It is hard to imagine that a list of endorsements that appears on other candidates pages fails to meet NPOV. As for the rest of policies content---"an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view"---all of what is said and advocated by Nash and her campaign is sourced and attributed to them. If you or others think that the tone is too rosy, then please engage in a constructive fashion, by either improving the wording, or adding more content. Your current approach is heavy handed, and, in light of precedents set on other pages, borderlines on censorship.--chuk (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are violating several WP rules, as mentioned above. You are emphasizing recent events over her well established career. Stop doing this. I will revert all edits that are made in this manner. Since there is a link to the leadership page, that is sufficient. Only her major endorsers, in one sentence, and some of her main policy planks, in one sentence makes sense in this article.--Abebenjoe (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Sure thing. Though current, this is important information, and Canadians are getting started on it at sites like wikipedia. I would be fleshing out all the candidates pages if I had time. I really don't have any issue with significant changes being made to what I wrote---I do have a problem with its wholesale deletion. I'm new to wikipedia, so please fill me in on how things normally proceed from here. Thank you.--chuk (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

text: While it may be redundant to do so at this point, I would also like to register my discontent with the wholesale deletions that have been made. While I understand the thrust of the argument against the sections that were added, it does not appear to be terribly well-supported by fact. An objective list of endorsements, which I added to, hardly qualifies as promotion or advocacy. I eagerly await some productive discussion on this. Thank you.--Sebastian Mott (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that both Chuk.plante, and Sebastian Mott are both new editors, but they must follow editing rules, or else wholesale deletion will occur to improper edits for this otherwise mature, almost "Good-class" article. To guide both of them as to how to write both a neutral point of view and well-written article, I implore them to click on this link and read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Clearly, the way that both these new editors contributed, bordered on partisan advertising for the candidate, and placed far too much emphasis on current events. The main article on the 2012 NDP Leadership does contain a list of endorsers, and anyone coming to this page can easily find that by clicking on the "Main article" link below the Candidacy for NDP leadership header. As noted earlier, one sentence dealing with her main endorsers like Sid Ryan, Ken Lewenza, and Alexa McDonagh makes sense. As well as one sentence about her main policies. Anything more is giving undue weight to current and ephemeral information.--Abebenjoe (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Abebenjoe. I read the link you share, even before writing my edits---please note the sourcing and attribution of claims and statements throughout them. To put things bluntly, it isn't clear to me why you should be the sole decider of what counts as ephemeral or not. I've submitted and mentioned several precedents for this kind of content. Why is this content only inappropriate when it is on Nash's profile? You have yet to make any argument for why a sourced summary of Nash's current policy platform and endorsements is irrelevant to the wikipedia community, in stark contrast to the treatment of similar candidates in the NDP, other Canadian political parties, and other countries. You now seem to no longer deny that the content should be there, and yet you continue to censor. I'm at a loss.--chuk (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the recent edits were of importance only to the up and coming leadership convention and would not be so important afterwards. In Abebenjoe's word, "ephemeral". Put yourself in the shoes of an editor after the convention has occurred in the case where Nash does not win, then what content would then be relevant? If you can do that then that is the content that would be acceptable. In the context of a future history, there is not too many who would care who had endorsed Nash or what policies she thought she could win with. I would think that a summary of her policies would be acceptable for this article and leave the detail for the leadership convention article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidacy for NDP leadership 

message: The birth_name field is usually for a person's full name or if they use a different name than what they were born with - see Bill Clinton. Here is is used unnecessarily as it is not sources as to whether "Peggy A. Nash" is her full name or if the "A." stands for a middle name, so the field should not be used. Connormah (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth_name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Peggy Nash. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2004/riding/175/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/riding/175/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified