Jump to content

Talk:Peter Tabuns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shawn Kerwin

[edit]

Just wanted to leave a talk page note here in case there's any confusion: I've seen discussion boards incorrectly assume that Tabuns is gay because he's partnered with someone named Shawn, but in fact Shawn Kerwin is a woman. So just as a precautionary measure, I'm posting to note that Tabuns should not be added to Category:Gay politicians on the basis of his partner's name. (There doesn't seem to be a logical way to address this directly in the article, which is why I'm noting it on the talk page.) Bearcat 01:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

[edit]

Overall, I found this article to be objective and informative, however I am concerned that bias is shown in the paragraph beginning with Tabuns has won support across the political spectrum. This sentence is very subjective, and comes across as cheerleading. The quotes which follow it are strongly one-sided, and appear to have been taken very selectively from the source. No quotes which might have contradicted this view were included in this article.

I would prefer not to edit this page, as I am a newbie, and I am sure that there are more qualified people, who already have a vested interest in maintaining this page, who could do a better job.

With all due respect to the contributors, might I suggest deleting the paragraph in question? The only alternative would be to add quotes from the same source which are not so flattering to the subject of this article, and would detract from the overall flow.

Storm108 04:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the paragraph is proper and fair. Here are sources for the two articles if you want to read them in their entirety.
  • The Integrity of Peter Tabuns; Judi McLeod, Toronto Free Press. March/April 1995, Pg 3
  • The "Bad Boy" Law; Peter Tabuns, Toronto Free Press. June/July 1995 pg 5
I'm not sure why you feel we should add "not so flattering" quotes. The quotes are relevant precisely because they're from the opposite side of the political spectrum. If they were from a left-wing journalist, then your argument would make sense. -Cyberboomer 00:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying the dates and sources of your quotes. Please consider this article from your source Judi McLeod: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/edesk051804.htm

This article could be quoted to indicate that the subject has taken actions which might lead to a loss of support across the political spectrum, assuming that the left is generally pro-union, and the right is generally deemed conservative (please note that I say could be - I am not taking that stand, and prefer not to include those quotes here, that's not my intention). Also, this article is much more recent than the quotes you have supplied, and may be a better representation of the source's current opinion on this matter.

I don't agree with your logic that because a source has been branded right-wing, positive quotes are necessarily more valid, and can be taken without considering quotes which do not support your opinion that the subject has won support across the political spectrum. In fact, that kind of argument could be used to justify adding unbalanced negative quotes from left-of-centre sources, which I wouldn't necessarily agree with, either - and the link that I have provided does indicate that those views are there to be quoted. In either case, an opinion can lack a neutral point of view. To maintain NPOV, opinions are best avoided. Cheers.

Storm108 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, a pre-existing link. You should have explained yourself better. I thought you might have been one of the source's student writers trying to slip new quotes in around Wikipedia's no original research rule. In future, dive in and make changes if you have a relevant link, and not make a song and dance about it. You say you're new to this but I'm fairly certain you'll get the hang of it. Bearcat's edit works for me. --Cyberboomer 01:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I explained myself quite well, thank you. Kudos to Bearcat for making the edit, and if I may quote Bearcat let's avoid vague feel-good generalities about his political activities and stick to clearly quantifiable stuff

Storm108 22:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I ask why you witheld the link? If you look at the article you'll see I deleted some "feel-good generalities" from the article. I then brought the article to Bearcat's attention so that he could make further edits. --Cyberboomer 22:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Tabuns. 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:

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) 21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peter_Tabuns&oldid=1210182790"