Talk:Patrick Lawlor (politician)

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Canada: Ontario / Politics Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Phrasing concerns

Hi there, just noting that I have removed this article from the DYK queue because I am concerned that its phrasing too closely matches that of the cited Toronto Star article. Editors may wish to consult this page for ideas on how to avoid this issue. Once the problem has been addressed, editors may choose to re-add the article to T:TDYK to allow it to be rechecked. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at it again. Are any passages still of concern? If so, which ones? Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"He was first elected to the legislature in 1967...and was re-elected three times" vs "He was first elected to the Legislature in 1967 and was re- elected three times" and "advocated the creation of a class action which would allow groups targeted by hate propaganda to seek relief in court or before the Ontario Human Rights Commission" vs "urging the creation of a class action enabling groups of citizens who have been subjected to hate propaganda to seek redress in the courts or before the Ontario Human Rights Commission." are both examples of remaining issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Lawlor died in St. Joseph's Health Centre in Toronto following a heart attack" vs "Lawlor died in St. Joseph's Health Centre Sunday following a heart attack". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are not too many ways you can say that. I'd leave it as is. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the rewriting was as follows: [1], [2], [3]. Nikkimaria, is that rewriting sufficient to address your concerns? Carcharoth (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that when starting a section on 'phrasing concerns', it would be helpful to actually quote the phrases that are of concern. A general "I have concerns", compare this article with this source, might seem helpful (if it is the whole article that is of concern, rather than a few phrase, say that explicitly). But when you get down to the nitty-gritty of editing, a vague concern isn't that helpful. I don't have access to the article (it is pay-per-view), so was only able to compare things once the quotes above were provided. And once you get down to doing side-by-side comparison like that, I think anyone raising concerns should say how they would rewrite the phrases in question, as there can be legitimate disagreement between editors on how close is too close. If people have different and subjective standards on close paraphrasing, how can any agreement be reached? Once such concerns are raised, they need to be discussed until there is agreement from the original editor who raised the concerns that those concerns have been addressed. Carcharoth (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failed verification (twice)

I have reinstated a failed verification tag after another editor failed to correct the issues. Neither source says that he lived in Toronto with his children, and since he had grandchildren, we don't know if his children have moved. The source says he left an unfinished play-- where does "dabbled in (plural) plays" come from? As a side note, it is NOT hard to find these obits that are sliding through DYK without providing a link. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are unnecessarily nitpicking. Someone who left an unfinished play means to me that he probably played around with more than one play idea. "Dabbled" is a good way of describing this. WHile the source does not specifically say he lived in Toronto, he went to school in Toronto, he worked in Toronto and he died in Toronto. Also MPP's are generally required to live in the riding where they are elected. I think a reasonably intelligent person can infer that he also lived in Toronto.

As for the obituary, it dates from 1993 and is no longer directly online. You can find it in a database that is offered free of charge through the Toronto Public Library website. There is no direct link to the article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who left an unfinished play means to me that he probably played around with more than one play idea. It may mean that to you, but on Wikipedia, we source text according to WP:V, and your ideas are original research. I think a reasonably intelligent person can infer that he also lived in Toronto. Please read the text in question and the sources; any intelligent person will see that they say nothing about whether his children lived in Toronto at the time of his death, which is what our article said. The issues are correctable-- removing the tag without correcting the issues isn't the way it's done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]