Talk:Kevin Potvin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Vancouver Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Vancouver, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and the surrounding metropolitan area. To participate, edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
If you have rated this article please consider adding assessment comments.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 6 May 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] section heading added to fix page formating (no content was changed)

fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved the following edit from the main article (although it looks like previous editor did it ahead of me):

Warning: According to the Globe and Mail, a prominent Canadian newspaper, Kevin Potvin wrote this article about himself in order to inflate his (non-existent) reputation. This is discussed further below. (added by anonymous User:192.250.34.161).

As this article may end up being deleted it may not be worth doing much editing right now, but if it stays the references to Harper's and the Atlantic Monthly should probably be removed - currently the documentation seems to consist of a letter to the editor, not what the average reader things of when "his work" is mentioned in that context. More information on the nature of the "Distance Writing Prize" would be useful. David Oberst 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I put the [citation needed]tag back on the Geist "Distance Writing" contest, only because there is no reference or info on the nature of this. It would appear to be some sort of annual contest Geist magazine was running in the 1990's. There is no other mention of it on Geist's own site, and almost no other useful Google references other than a mention of a 1996 co-winner ([1]Mansel Robinson]). It wouldn't seem to contribute significantly for notability purposes.

I see no real problem with keeping this article if Wikipedia generally tends to include semi-notable local gadflies (may their tribe increase), although the original version seemed rather misleading. However, I suspect that what would remain is such a small stub that a better course might be to include it as brief paragraph in the article The Republic (newspaper)? David Oberst 06:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fix up

I've fixed up this article a whole bunch, but it still needs a bit of work. sinblox (talk) 04:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I am also Canadian and have read the National Post concerning Kevin Potvin. I agree that this wikipedia entry is self-serving and should be deleted as soon as possible.

[edit] Allegations of resume-stuffing

The allegations of resume-stuffing on Wikipedia need to be backed up with Wikipedia diffs before they're put back, because the article subject has asserted via e-mail that he has never inserted false information into this article. That can easily enough be checked, and until then, it stays out. FCYTravis 09:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Travis. I've placed the information back, because the text in question does not actually say that he necessarily did it, only that there was allegations from a G&M article that he did (and there is no dispute that the G&M article was written and is noteworthy. Even so, the diffs are easily brought up in the history and it is quite clear that his article was inflated with false claims (take a look for yourself). sinblox (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 24.81.131.134 is Kevin Potvin

Kevin Potvin is editing this article under 24.81.131.134 and continues to remove certain sections of it. I've left a note on his page to ask him to stop and asked him to post any concerns on the discussion page. I have changed the entry to clarify it and remove any potentially libelous statements (It's my opinion they were not libelous in the first place; but the clarifications have the added benefit of being more fair and clear). Kevin, if you have a problem, please do address us on this talk page. sinblox (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


This is not the easiest site to figure out how to do things if one is not familiar with it. I don't in fact have any idea where this is going to end up, or if anyone will see it at all. But here goes: It is arguable in my opinion that Atlantic Monthly and Harpers "letters to editors" are on the level of "contributions." The "letters" in these magazines are more akin to academic journal peer review letters. For example, the Atlantic "letter" was something like 800 words, and was responded to at length by the authors of the original article the "letter" was about. The Harpers was replied to as well, and was shorter, maybe 400 words. In my world, academic journal letters are called "articles." These were lengthy essays in these magazines. They get a lot of submissions, and to get into the letters section in those two distinguished magazines is about as hard as it is to publish an article in most other magazines of lesser distinction. The prize winning articles are in Geist Magazine, two of them, both $500 prizes, and therefore substantial. They were national contests, and in every way are "prize winning." The "letters" and the prize winning stories were originally mentioned in a long list of writing credits, but were seized on alone as some sort of fabrication, and because I am bad at keeping records of my credits, I didn't have the time to look them all up and provide the details. My bad. So someone removed the general ones (like lengthy opinion articles in the Vancouver Sun, true as well, but I'm too busy to figure out how to prove, or to put the effort into this), leaving the letters and the prize winners, which then looked like they were the only things I was claiming to have written, leaving the whole thing looking ridiculous by the time the Globe and Mail writer came along to look. I wrote emails to wiki for someone to tell me where to find info on how to do the accreditations for these writing claims, but no one ever got back to me. I am too busy with outside activities to learn all the intricate practices here, and asked for help. None was forthcoming. The latest postings at the page about me have been very libelous, and surely to anyone's eye, obviously inspired by some kind of vendetta. You can tell by the tone, can't you? The whole thing has been frustrating, and since I put it up in the first place, not knowing it was such a huge crime to put a page up about myself (or to be a little creative with political campaigning, but in any event, I am a columnist in the biggest circulation community paper in canada, and a publisher of a substantial and small newspaper, and I believe that qualifies a page) I just want it taken down. The libel is hurtful and frustrating and some people just seem to have so much time to keep posting it. The quotes that are put up now are dangerous to publish without the context of the articles they come from, and taken out of context obviously provide a totally different meaning than what they provide in the context of the articles. Because there are death threats and police involved now, it is a more serious matter than just context or not, and unless the whole articles are up, nothing should be. So I beg of you, a little help here please. I am very involved politically and I write very controversially, so I pick up enemies with time on their hands as I go along. But I am not a fabricator or a liar, and I quite shocked that this site can carry those charges with no substantiation and with no apparent concern for legal action.

You can use this page to talk about the specific content of the article. If you have more general questions, I think the best place to ask is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Checking that, I see you've already been there. You might also want to see this part[2] of WP:BLP. --JGGardiner 07:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see responses here. AvB ÷ talk 12:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

I removed 2 paragraphs by Naddude extensively quoting Potvins views on terrorist attacks. Without any context or link to the specific controversy that the section is about, it's kind of off-topic and doesn't tell the reader about the controversy. I did add an external links section, so his writings are there for all to see. If you disagree with the removal, please raise the issue here; since this article is now only semi-protected, methinks it's important to be extra-vigilant about what goes in. bobanny 19:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is important to know Kevin Potvin's views on terrorism and terrorist attacks because he has claimed publicly that he is either misquoted, taken out of context and that people are libelling him. Clearly based upon his own words he is sympathetic to the Islamic terrorist cause and such should be known. Stop deleting my entries! Naddude 23:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted your entries with an explanation, and the process for adding contentious material to an article is to build a consensus first on the talk page. I strongly disagree that your addition is appropriate, and again, because this is a controversial biography of a living person, it's extra important to be careful about what goes in.
Potvin's views are freely available through the links, and his remarks that sparked the controversy are included. It's not our job to expose him for whatever he may be; it's not a blog, an investigative journalism piece, or a newspaper editorial (plenty of those have set out to expose Potvin).
He has freely expressed his criticisms of American foreign policy, corporatism, etc. This is not the same as being sympathetic to Islamic terrorism. The United States allied with Stalinist Russia in common cause against the Nazis, but it would be ridiculous to claim, based on that, that the United States is really sympathetic to Stalinism. Both are non-sequiturs. bobanny 22:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Oh yeah, to sign your posts, simply typ four tildes after your comments (~~~~), which will automatically include your name, time, and date of your comment. bobanny 22:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with you reasons for deletion. I provided context, in that Potvin claims he has been taken out of context when the body of his writing taken as a whole indicates the opposite. Clearly by Potvin's own words (not an editorial comment or op ed) he DOES support the Islamist cause as one against corporate America. By deleting Potvin's own rants you are editorializing and censoring what HE stands for, not I. Furthermore my comments are clearly not vandalism by the definition provided, as they are true, actual quotes by the subject and not jokes ar intended as ridicule. Please advise where I can protest your undue censorship further. Naddude 23:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to expanding the article, nor to elaborating on his controversial views. What is inappropriate is that you're making an original arguement (See:Wikipedia:No original research). I'd suggest finding a reliable source (G&M, National Post, CBC, etc.) that makes the point you want to include. Other than that, you can put in a request for comment (follow the link and you'll see the instructions). This will put out an invite to outside editors to stop by in an attempt to break the deadlock. Also, to indent your comments, add a colon before the comment (or multiple colons to increase the indent). bobanny 23:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the vandalism tag I put on your talk page, it was more about encouraging you to bring these issues to the talk page and collaborate with other editors. Looking through the edit history (the 'history' tab up top), I noticed that your additions had been reverted before I came along. Repeatedly adding the same material is edit-warring, and makes the article unstable and pretty much useless, whatever your perspective is. So maybe 'disruptive behaviour' would've been a better term than vandalism. I appreciate it takes a while to learn all the ins and outs of editing Wikipedia, which is why there are ample warnings and explanations before any heavy handed action is taken. Lots of editors are seen as disruptive or even malicious when they first begin editing just because they're still figuring out how things work. bobanny 06:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

Bobanny repeatedly removes information that is sourced from the National Post and Potvin's own newspaper for no apparent reason. S/he also edits out details that add meaning to the article, such as the inclusion of publiceye online being a blog run by a reporter named Sean Holman. It doesn't seem to make much sense. 22:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by FactsFirst (talk • contribs)

I removed content based on biography of living persons and neutral point of view guidelines and policies. Things like "his kind of jounalism" and "he's an unsavoury ignoramous" are hardly neutral, whether or not they are sourced. Other parts of the stuff you insist on inserting are just bizarre. What does his explanation of "his kind" of journalism add to the article anyway? The mnemonic devices he uses have nothing to do with his notability, and despite your POV agenda, it doesn't even do a good job of making whatever point it is you're trying to make. He records his feelings and refers to them later to jog his recollections - so what? And out of curiosity, why do you insist on removing Shannon Rupp's name from the article text, yet suddenly feel Sean Holman's name is essential? Also, if you want to persist on sparring with me on this, at some point you're going to have to read guidelines/instructions. Simply making a "Request for Comment" subheading isn't a request for comment, because it won't draw any outside editors who wouldn't otherwise be reading this page. Try clicking here and reading the instructions. Also, once again, use four tildes to sign your name ~~~~. bobanny 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Consistency is the reason for either removing the only author's name used, or adding the names of the other authors. Consistency is considered a quality of good editing. A mainstream newspaper-of-record that describes someone's writing as the "ramblings of an unsavoury ignoramus" tells readers about the controversy. That is extremely strong language for a newspaper and as it has been allowed to stand, it must be fair comment. Since Mr. Potvin denies he fabricates things it is important for readers to understand what he considers facts. He doesn't take notes. He merely feels. And while that is his right, it is important that readers understand that what he calls "journalism" does not fit the Wikipedia definition of the word. Or the definition in any dictionary. In short, it's about being fair to readers. Your repeated deletions are just not fair to anyone who comes to this site looking for information about someone who is often in the press.

Incidentally, why do you feel it is important to have one author's name but not another -- that seems bizarre to me. Is Shannon Rupp a more important journalist than Sean Holman?

I don't know why you consider this sparring? That seems a rather hostile attitude for someone on a site that is supposed to be about consensus. I thought we were supposed to work together to ensure readers were informed well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FactsFirst (talk • contribs)

Newspaper opinion pieces can resort to name calling, but it doesn't do anything for an encyclopedia. Newpapers have opinion pages, Wikipedia does not. Imagine if such a reputable newspaper like the National Post ran the headline "Kevin Potvin is a rambling ignoramous" and reported those comments as fact rather than opinion. a) it tells the reader nothing about the controversy, only that the writer doesn't think much of Potvin, and b) reporting it as fact rather than opinion likely would result in a (very winnable) libel suit.
Journalists have successfully used various short hand techniques, and as much as they aspire to objectivity, they occasionally have feelings about the subject they are writing about. Your point there is not self-evident and your interpretation is weak and original research, not to mention trivial and ad hominem (if Potvin makes factual errors as a result of this technique, why not enlighten us to that?). As for my attitude, I must have mistaken your rude comments on my talk page and edit-warring for something else. And like politics, consensus can be messy business. bobanny 00:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to take this awfully personally. Perhaps you got your knickers in such a twist that you forgot to explain your edits? 1. Why do you think it is important to name some authors and not others? 2. According to Wikipedia rules a mainstream newspaper, even one you dislike, is a reliable source. How is a feature in the National Post not reliable? 3. Why do you think newspapers allow name calling? They are subject to much stricter libel laws, especially in Canada, than something like Wikipedia, which is written by anonymous editors. If this were libelous Mr. Potvin would have sued, why can't you just accept the facts? 4. The National Post's assessment of Mr. Potvin's writing as "the ramblings of an unsavoury ignoramus" is fair comment by a disinterested party -- why do you object to this being included? 5. Have you read Wikipedia's own definition of journalism? It doesn't include the kind of diary of emotions detached from facts that Mr. Potvin calls journalism. Why do you think readers don't have a right to know what he means when he (mis)uses the term? 6. Are you a journalist? If not, how (and why) are you speaking for them? Wikipedia offers us a definition of journalism that seems quite comprehensive, why aren't you content to accept it?

I still don't understand your need to be so rude, or why you are so personally involved in this? Wikipedia has a perfect opportunity to provide a great deal of information about Kevin Potvin by citing articles in mainstream newspapers and Mr. Potvin's own writings. I don't understand why you object to this? Perhaps you could explain your view, rather than just making personal attacks? Thanks. FactsFirst 01:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the current version of the article is sufficient. Short, but informative. Geedubber 00:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Not that it much matters much what us plebians think, since what Zanimum thinks goes at this point. But if any other administrators happen by, Zanimum's "Fall" edit should be reverted to "fall" ("In the fall of 2006 would be even better) and the link to Potvin's self-authored Wikipedia article is this one, not the one currently linked. bobanny 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Letter from Shannon Rupp

Hi Nicholas,

I gather you're the Canadian media contact?

Could you please see that your site stops libelling me? It's in the "Kevin Potvin" post.

I'm a reporter who does a lot of work for the Globe and Mail, the national paper in Canada, and I did an article about Wikipedia about a year ago. I found a posting done by Potvin, in Vancouver, in which he'd inflated his resume, and I used it as a focus for two profs -- one old-media, one new-media -- to talk about the reliability of wiki.

I contacted Wikipedia before and you guys very kindly removed his libel. But a colleague alerted me that there's some sort of war going on there and somehow, I'm part of his post again.

I had a look. Here's the graf I'd like removed because it is simply not true. I do a lot of legal reporting, on sensitive stories, and don't want some source coming across Wikipedia article claiming I'm malicious.

"Potvin wrote a rejoinder in The Republic arguing that the Globe and Mail article was motivated by its author's personal dislike of him, likely stemming from an earlier disagreement between the two on a journalism listserve and criticism published in The Republic of The Tyee, an online magazine to which Shannon Rupp regularly contributes, as well as professionally trained journalists generally. In making his case, Potvin pointed out that while the article was ostensibly about the accuracy of Wikipedia, the encyclopedia was mentioned 12 times in the article compared with 26 references to himself, "who is, on the national stage, a nobody."[2]"

Thanks for the help on this. I really appreciate how good you guys are about this sort of thing.

Best,

Shannon Rupp [Phone number removed] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zanimum (talk • contribs) 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I don't see how this letter justifies the removal of that section, especially under page protection. Where is the libel? The statements are sourced to Potvin's own article. People don't get to dictate the tone of their own articles. Kafziel Talk 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Rupp's concerns would seem to be about the comment that the article was motivated by personal dislike, and I can understand it, having been on the receiving end of that a few times myself. This is a pretty high-profile place to make that claim, and without proof, it's nothing but editorializing by the subject of the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I believe this was the case. Journalists are supposed to be as emotionally detached as possible from their subjects, and so this claim isn't something to be taken lightly. -- Zanimum 15:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
What claim? That Rupp is a nobody? We're not saying it's true; we're saying he said it, which he did. It's sourced. I guess I must be missing something here. Kafziel Talk 15:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. She takes issue with the claim that it was personal, right? But what I said above still applies: he did say that stuff, and it's sourced. His article calls what she wrote "viciousness", a "mean-spirited fusillade", a "smear". He specifically says Rupp "failed to mention that she and I have had serious dealings in the past on that same listserve." Those are claims he made, not us. If Rupp has a problem with those statements, that's something for her to take up with Potvin, not Wikipedia. Kafziel Talk 16:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
As the editor who wrote that section, I'm not stuck on it remaining as is, though I don't believe it implies anything more than that Potvin made this claim. Nor do I believe that leaving it in, or some variation, is somehow taking it lightly, and would like to point out that taking this seriously from Wikipedia's standpoint means sensitivity to both parties' concerns and taking them in relation to each other. The subject of that section, the GM controversy, boils down to a she-said-he-said: she's implying he's a liar, he's suggesting she's vindictive. I don't see any way around having it come off that way if it's to be in the article at all.
The reason I added that section was to balance out what's there now, and which was part of Potvin's complaint that this article was libelous to him. Included in the article now is her implied claim that Potvin fabricated his resume by claiming his work was published by Harpers and the Atlantic. She contacted these mags and reported that they were unable to substantiate whether or not Potvin's letters were printed, but didn't bother to go further in finding out, whether because she had a deadline to meet and didn't have time, or out of malice because leaving it hanging suggests Potvin lied, I don't know. Potvin scanned the Altantic letter and uploaded it to his site, disproving that particular suggestion that he lied and I linked it.
I suggest that an appropriate response to the concerns raised by Rupp would be a similar addition saying that the the editor of G&M refused to print a retraction based on Potvin's arguments, which would clearly indicate it's not just Rupp's personal vendetta and would weaken his claim just like the Atlantic letter weakens hers. Touché, tit-for-tat: that's the nature of this beast. What I wrote is neutral and only states that Potvin made a counter-claim. The "proof" he offers is included; it is circumstantial evidence, but nothing I wrote suggests otherwise. For the record, the "a nothing" remark was Potvin's reference to himself (meaning at the time he was completely a non-notable figure on the national stage). Yes, it is Potvin's editorializing, but when the subject of the section is an editorial, I don't see how that could be, or why it should be, avoided. The article now or before this deletion contains no basis for a libel claim from either Potvin or Rupp and allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. bobanny 18:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S., thanks for sharing, Zanimum, better late than never, though I still believe your edits should be reverted until either the page is unprotected or consensus is reached here. Thanks, bobanny 18:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
We do need to consider the source of Potvin's response. Is his "newspaper" really a reliable source under our guidelines? To me, it looks like a blog; I've never heard of or seen it in town outside of this discussion (mind you, I may not have been to the right places to get it), and there's a total of 728 Google hits outside of that. I'm always wary of sourcing something to an editorial. (Rupp's piece, the bit that I can read from outside the registration requirement, looks like it's a researched story, not an opinion piece.) Not quite sure how to go along beyond that, though. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the source is his newspaper's website. It's not just an editorial in a paper; he's the publisher of the paper. If the paper isn't notable, then neither is he. We don't have to trust it as reliable as far as its truthfulness; we only have to trust it to quote him. Since he's the subject of this article, and we are quoting him, and he's the publisher of the paper, it's all useful as a source. Kafziel Talk 19:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
And I guess Wikipedia thinks the paper is notable in some way since it has an article about it! (see The Republic (newspaper)). The WP article claims a circulation of 12,000, while the GM says 6,000, interestingly enough. BTW you can see the whole of Rupp's article here [3], and I agree it is not an editorial, though pretty darn opinionated(!)--Slp1 19:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Addendum. It looks like you have to go through a google search to get the full article, for some strange reason. First on the list here... [[4]] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slp1 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
I agree with Kafziel here and believe it's justifiable to use the Republic here to offset the POV in the GM article. It is a legit paper, small, but distributed in hard copy around town and a few other outlets outside Vancouver, but in this context, it's being used as a primary source, not as a reliable third-party source, which is what the guidelines prohibit (it's being used for Potvin's POV, not for "facts"). As for whether the GM article is an editorial, it's not presented as such, but it has substantial editorial content, or at least that's what is being claimed (the actual subject of the article - old and new media considered in relation to Wikipedia - isn't what the controversy under discussion is about). I believe what I wrote allows the reader to make that determination themselves. bobanny 19:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
"If the paper isn't notable, then neither is he." No, he's was a political candidate, and we have info on every federal Canadian political candidate since the turn of the century. -- Zanimum 20:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I'm surprised the article on the paper hasn't been questioned, as it's completely unsourced. Having said that, I'm just trying to provide a perspective from what Rupp might be thinking here, from a journalism POV. Her article (and I finally did find it) is a pretty balanced piece, from my read, and having a quote from someone saying she was writing it for personal reasons questions her journalistic integrity. For someone in the business, that's not a trivial claim. (Not to mention that, being unsupported by fact, it may be afoul of WP:BLP, even with her not the subject.) If there's a way to rewrite that section to explain Potvin's response without implying that, then great. If not, it's kind of a difficult call whether to include or not. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In my view, adding something like:

"However, the editor of the Globe and Mail rejected Potvin's arguments and refused to print a retraction."

would address Rupp's concern, because it would indicate any questioning of her integrity is solely coming from Potvin (and it's attributable because he mentions that in his editorial). This could be taken either as "well, maybe he's on to something, there just might be a conspiracy against him by the corporate media" or "what a petty cop-out - making an ad hominem accusation just because you got negative press." And of course a range of other possible interpretations, but the important thing is that Wikipedia wouldn't be weighing in by drawing any conclusion. bobanny 20:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's sufficient discussion here now, so I've unprotected the article to allow editorial decisions by non-admins. The section that Rupp wished removed is not inherently a WP:BLP issue as long as it is carefully stated to make clear that these are Potvin's words, not Wikipedia's words. Anyway, stay away from the electic fence. ··coelacan 02:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I'm going to add my proposed solution, since no one's objected and silence equals consent (or is it "silence equals death?" I can never remember. Hopefully you're not dead). bobanny 04:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that'd be all right. But, a question: why, exactly, do we identify Shannon Rupp as the author of the original piece? I just realized how odd it is that we're doing so. My thinking there is whether it really has bearing on the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I removed it. That should shut ... oh, nevermind. What I wrote originally elaborated more on Potvin's claim it was a personal thing between the two, and it would've looked weird without the name. What I just added is shorter and the opposite is true. bobanny 06:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partial revert

Bobanny -- I've removed a sentence from the lead because it's unsourced, not because I think it's wrong. Please keep up the good work. AvB ÷ talk 00:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for explaining your edit here. I disagree with the removal because it's not stand-alone information; as part of the intro, its function as I see it is to introduce his notability (controversial political views), which is elaborated with sources in the rest of the article. I'll wait for your response before changing anything. Also, are you an admin, AvB? If so, it seems like this article has been neutralized enough to satisfy all the warriors and could probably be fully unprotected. Looks like his 15 minutes are up. cheers, bobanny 00:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC) To be more specific, "his forays into electoral politics have proven controversial" refers to 1) getting kicked off the Green Party slate for his views which are "antithetical" to the party, and 2) starting this article as part of his campaign for city council which led to the hullabaloo in the Globe and Mail. bobanny 00:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Reverted. I agree with unprotection but I'm not an admin. Do you want to ask the protecting admin? AvB ÷ talk 10:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)