Talk:Paul Dewar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Political parties and politicians in Canada WikiProject, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Politics in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Slagging Richard Mahoney?

Even though I will probably vote for Dewar in the upcoming election, I'm a little baffled by the paragraph of text slagging Richard Mahoney. It really does not belong on a page meant to describe Paul Dewar. Therefore, I am removing it. It read as follows:

Mahoney's occupation as a corporate lobbyist while simultaneously running for parliament and advising the prime minister has been controversial. Articles in the Ottawa Citizen in the fall of 2005 revealed that Mahoney may have broken rules with regards to registering as a lobbyist and that members of his team apparently violated civil service guidelines by using government resources to campaign for Mahoney during work hours.

[edit] Riding Analysis

I removed the riding analysis but it seems to have been reverted. I believe that it is fine if one wanted to say that things are close, etc. but I don't think that political analysis, speculation and opinion belong on an article about a particular candidate. It is not directly relevant to say that the provincial riding, which generally has not shared the same boundaries, has whatever representatives since some arbitrary starting point. Provincial voting habits are very different. While it may help an analysis, I believe that would be original research. Providing raw data and hoping that people will come to some sort of conclusion is essentially the same thing. Extrapolation is against Wikipedia policy. As well, I believe that it is opinion to say that it is a "swing seat" (although I may agree with that opinion). I live in the riding and I often hear that it is a Liberal stronghold: They've won it One could also conclude that the Liberals have won it nine of its twelve elections. The NDP only won it by 54 votes in '84 and were widely expected to lose handily to Mahoney in 2004 until Broadbent came along. The riding's page (which I've never touched) has a different characterization: "The riding has traditionally voted Liberal, with one exception being in the 1984 federal election when widespread disaffection caused it to go to the New Democratic Party (NDP)." One the whole, I believe that date is there to mislead the reader into believing that the riding is something other than what it is. Frankly I believe that Dewar will win but not based on the historical voting trends. --JGGardiner 05:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some tweaking to avoid NPOV and original research is best? -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Although tomorrow is election day and then the whole section becomes unnecessary.Looking at the history, it seems to have spun out of control after one user called the riding a Liberal stronghold. Another changed it to swing riding when they probably should have just removed it if they disagreed. I personally don't think that WP needs to include these characterizations. I think if one had to say something it should be perhaps be that it is a tough race for Dewar or something along those lines. I'm sure the article will have a post-election update anyway so I'm happy to just leave it for a few days. --JGGardiner 02:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lobbyist

There have been a number of changes and reverts with lobbyist title. Whoever is doing this, could you please provide some sort of source or reason why you feel this label applies. Wikipedia works best when there is discussion and collaboration on disputed points. If you keep making the same change, even in good faith, it will keep being reverted. Thanks. --JGGardiner 20:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)