User talk:Kurt Dundy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Kurt Dundy and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking Insert-signature.png if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Notification[edit]

Hello Kurt Dundy. I'm notifying you that I have reverted to of your recent additions, [1] and [2], because they are original synthesis. The CBC source does not make the contrast between the ethical oil argument and the arms sales, and doing so is original research. I would also suggest you have a read at the neutral point of view policy; Wikipedia is not the place to push a particular point of view. Please also mind the biographies of living persons policy: making a negatively-worded statement by a political opponent without in-line attribution is not acceptable. You are welcome to include additions that are not undue, are neutrally worded and appropriately referenced (see reliable sources). Thank you, and if you have any questions, please do ask! :-) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethical Oil and Peter Kent

Hi CharlieEchoTango... Thank you for the advice on editing. "Hello Kurt Dundy. I'm notifying you that I have reverted to of your recent additions, [1] and [2], because they are original synthesis. The CBC source does not make the contrast between the ethical oil argument and the arms sales, and doing so is original research. I would also suggest you have a read at the neutral point of view policy; Wikipedia is not the place to push a particular point of view. Please also mind the biographies of living persons policy: making a negatively-worded statement by a political opponent without in-line attribution is not acceptable. You are welcome to include additions that are not undue, are neutrally worded and appropriately referenced (see reliable sources). Thank you, and if you have any questions, please do ask! :-) CharlieEchoTango (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)"

I do have some questions on your POV.

1. The ethical oil book is based on the premise that many of the OPEC nations are guilty of various unethical acts against their populations. The premise that Canadian Oil Sands production is "ethical" is based on the argument our government does not do these things to our people. I think it fair to say that it is not original synthesis to draw the conclusion that if the reason you qualify as "ethical" is you don't do this to your own people. You also don't profit by selling weapons to the countries who are doing it? It is a matter of fact we sell millions of dollars of weapons to the nations that are accused of unethical behaviour in the book. How can Canadian oil be ethical because the Canadian Government doesn't do certain things to the Canadian population, but quite happily sells the weapons to the nations who do and then call them "unethical" afterwards?

2. I'll make the modification to include specific references to Elizabeth May who quite clearly outlines the "distortions of truth" (http://greenparty.ca/blogs/7/2011-11-28/fact-check-kyoto-distortions) It's a much clearer argument then to go item by item with references to the Kyoto Protocol, though I'm willing to do that as well. A BLP policy does not protect the person from factual, referenced, public statements they have made during the course of their political career. BLP's are not puff pieces, though they as you say do need to be written in a neutral tone. If a politician in this case Peter Kent uses a popular term coined in a book, (in this case the ethical oil book) there is a specific intention to attach the arguments within the book to his use of the phrase. As above I think it a valid point to highlite that the very reason Canadian oil sands oil is ethical is because the Canadian government is not committing the various acts described in the book on their people. It is a fact though that the Canadian government does sell weapons to these nations. How can we be ethical in our treatment of our own people, but say another nation is unethical and sell them weapons??? There is no original synthesis here. Thoughts? Kurt Dundy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurt Dundy (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Kurt Dundy, thanks for replying! Re Q1

There are two wrongs here:

The claim is a correlation (or contrast) the CBC source did not make. When you argue that because Canada sells weapons and thus lacks the moral ground on the ethical oil argument, it's a conclusion you draw, and it is the textbook definition of original synthesis: correlating two facts, but with no source cited for the resulting synthesis itself. It's akin to saying "Jack is gay. But Jack has kissed a girl. Therefore Jack must be straight.[1]".

The claim is made from an authoritative and engaged perspective. You added "Both the book's citation of "ethical" and the Minister's use of the popular term to describe oil sand production are definitley questionable while the Canadian government/arms industry sells weapons to these countries." - a) this is your opinion, b) it is not the role of an encyclopedia to say something is 'definitley (sic) questionable', especially without sourcing it to a reliable source that actually makes that claim (again, the CBC source did not). I highly suggest you read WP:NPOV, which is a fundamental pillar of our project (see also what Wikipedia is not).

Possible solution

Did someone notable actually made the claim and was subsequently reported in reliable, third-party sources as making the claim? If so, then it may be included. E.g. "John Doe argued that Jack was straight because he kissed a girl.[2]" That said, always beware WP:UNDUE.

Re Q2 There is no policy against factual public statements. There is a policy against negative claims on living persons which are not supported by reliable sources (and no, a political opponent is not a reliable source). Consider these two examples : Jack is straight, but said he was gay. Therefore he is distorting the truth.[3] In 1999, Jack was accused of "distorting the truth" about his sexuality by the Coalition against fake gays, according to the National Post.[4]

See the difference in wording, relevance and presentation? Has Liz May's outline of Peter Kent's "distortion of the truth" been reported in a reliable, third-party media? If not, then why is it relevant to the article? Can you imagine what our articles would look like if we added everything political opponents say about each other? We would have 3 megabytes page on every politician in Canada. Again, see WP:UNDUE. In any case, presenting negative content as fact and sourcing it to a highly-partisan source is not okay.

The bottom line is quite simple, really: claims must not be presented from an engaged perspective (e.g. Wikipedia doesn't tell the world that something is definitely questionable) and must be sourced adequately to reliable, third-party sources (to show relevance and to make the claim verifiable). This is especially true for biographies of living persons. Again : WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTHESIS/WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Thanks for your time, and I hope you have a great day! CharlieEchoTango (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ethical Oil and Peter Kent[edit]

1. The ethical oil book is based on the premise that many of the OPEC nations are guilty of various unethical acts against their populations. The premise that Canadian Oil Sands production is "ethical" is based on the argument the Canadian government does not do these things to people in Canada. I think it fair to say that it is not original synthesis to draw the conclusion that if the reason you qualify as "ethical" is you don't do this to your own people. You also don't profit by selling weapons to the countries who you accuse in the book of doing it? It is a matter of fact we sell millions of dollars of weapons to the nations that are accused of unethical behaviour in the book. How can Canadian oil be ethical because the Canadian Government doesn't do certain things to the Canadian population, but quite happily sells the weapons to the nations who do and then call them "unethical" afterwards?

I think it a fair critical point to highlite this vs the content of the book.

I'll begin to list supporting papers and articles here.

1) The G8: global arms exporters Failing to prevent irresponsible arms transfers

(P.6) ..."Considering the extensive nature of human rights violations13 in Saudi Arabia, it is surprising that Saudi Arabia is one of only 16 countries to which automatic firearms can be exported according to Canadian regulations.14 The G8 global arms exporters, Control Arms Briefing Paper, June 2005 7. The other countries are Australia, Belgium, Botswana, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the USA. In March 2005, Finland, Latvia, Poland and Portugal were added to the list..." [5] The current version of the export list is available on this site and does include Saudi Arabia as per the above paper dated 2005. [6]

2) Canadian Government Report from CSIS, I'm looking for newer versions of the same report that are unclassified.

ARCHIVED: Commentary No. 33: The Contemporary Armaments Trade

..."Certainly, strong elements of public opinion in the West appear to be opposed to the export of arms in principle, on ethical grounds. However, most governments throughout the world have long considered arms transfers to be a perfectly legitimate instrument of their foreign policy, at once beneficial to both supplier and recipient."

..."In the current climate, however, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that most arms suppliers are driven most of the time by purely economic motives."...[7]

3) A related news article from the UK

A Point of View: Why euphemism is integral to modern warfare[8]

"...So, even as Gaddafi's forces were being destroyed in bizarre battles that pitted British weapons against other British weapons, plans were afoot to sell still more of the same to authoritarian regimes in the Middle East - such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain - with documented histories of human rights abuses."

"...But why shouldn't we apply the same domestic analogy to the conduct of states themselves? If we consider a government that attacks its own citizenry to be on a par with a homicidal maniac who stabs his wife, then what does that make the government/person who supplies the knife other than an accessory to uxoricide?..."

"...Absolutely, let's call a spade a spade, a gun a gun, missile a missile, a cluster bomb a child-killer and a Tactica armoured car a means of brutal civilian repression when it's deployed by the Saudis to support the undemocratic government in Bahrain."...

I do not think it is a stretch that to claim you provide "ethical" oil alternative, this must be backed up with more than just domestic policy fluff. That a valid critisism of this "ethical" title is linked to the foreign policies of the Canadian government particularily when they connect weapons sales to regimes used to highlite the disparities between how governments treat their own populations. The connection is made by CSIS, BBC, Various International NGO's etc...

I'm not sure how to cite the above references... any help would be appretiated I'm still a rank rookie at this. Kurt Dundy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

You're not getting the point. Your sources are valid to reference the fact that weapons are bad, and that Canada sells weapons. But nowhere does your sources say that Canada's argument for ethical oil is hypocritical because they sell weapons. Find me a source that correlates the two and we'll be talking, but so far the above is irrelevant. Please read and understand my message above and WP:SYNTHESIS. Best, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Dundy (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Sarah Harmer.JPG missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 16:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Better source request for File:Sarah Harmer.JPG[edit]

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 21:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Sarah Harmer.JPG[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sarah Harmer.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. CutOffTies (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Study says straight people kiss girls, 31 February 2000, CBC.ca
  2. ^ Doe, Jane (31 February 2000) John Doe says Jack is straight because he kissed a girl, hilarity ensues. Page A3, The Globe and Mail.
  3. ^ Jack distorts the truth! Coalition against fake gays, 31 February 2000
  4. ^ Doe, Jane (31 February 2000) Coalition against fake gays says Jack "distorting the truth". Page A3, National Post
  5. ^ http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/POL30/007/2005/en/da33ec51-d518-11dd-8a23-d58a49c0d652/pol300072005en.pdf
  6. ^ http://www.international.gc.ca/controls-controles/about-a_propos/expor/destination.aspx?view=d
  7. ^ http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/cmmntr/cm33-eng.asp
  8. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15478001