Talk:Terence Young (politician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Young was part of the "Family Values Caucus", (OK whoever is changing this the last few days - you are wrong. The term social conservative is derogatory in use and is a way the left ( you?) attempt to marginalize conservatives. The term has been poisened just as right wing has been poisened. I am neither. I spoke out against a book that was never read by any of the trustees on Halton School board and was to many parents obscene, but the issue was that the parents of minors were ignored when they asked the board to omit this book in grade twelve English studies. I spoke out for parent's rights to protect their minor children from books they felt were obscene and far too violent. That's the truth. I protest this slanted description and appeal that it be changed. It all seems to be based on one article in Now Magazine - the voice of the Left in Toronto and a group of editors very opposed to conservatism. I do not know who is writing this stuff, and I find this sight difficult to use, so please consider this my appeal/protest against this slanted writing. I want an opportunity to have this reveiwed or mediated/arbitrated to correct this material. Many thanks. Terence Young at youngt.policyalliance@cogeco.ca

My responses:

(i) Whatever your intentions, your last edit was an act of vandalism.

(ii) Wikipedia generally discourages public figures from editing their own biography pages.

(iii) "Social conservatism" is a commonly accepted phrase in Canadian political discourse, and is normally used in a descriptive rather than a pejorative sense. I had never seen or heard the term described as derogatory prior to your last edit.

(iv) If you wish to change the current edit, there is a more productive way of doing this than blanking the section or writing a first-person defense: you may provide greater context for the disputed passage. By removing it entirely, you appear to be concealing information.

(v) Concerning specifics: by your own admission, you were a member of a "family values" group in the PC caucus. By any sensible definition, this group was socially conservative in nature; moreover, its marginalization by the Harris government has been widely acknowledged and commented on. (Sean Conway once made this point during a panel discussion on TVOntario's Fourth Reading -- crediting Harris with keeping the socially conservative wing of his party under control).

The NOW article is the best summarization of the family-values Tory group that I've seen, but its existence and marginalization is not simply a creation of the Toronto left. CJCurrie 20:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Terrance, you can't edit this article, it violates Wikipedia's policy on no autobiographies. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Technically, the policy doesn't forbid people from contributing to their own bio-pages -- it just discourages it, and advises extreme caution when it does occur. In any case, this wasn't the main point at issue. CJCurrie 04:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The information is not inaccurate, and it is not biased. Furthermore, the subject of an article does not have the right to control what can or cannot be written about him on Wikipedia unless the information is factually wrong. Furthermore, the term "social conservatism" is not a creation of the left; it is used just as much to differentiate between "social conservatives" and "fiscal conservatives" within a conservative context. Bearcat 17:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Spinboy. Bearcat and CJCurrie

Gentlemen/ladies - whomever you are:

First of all you have me at advantage. You know who I am. I have no idea who you are. You are all faceless to me. If any of you wish to identify yourself that would be appreciated. I have some serious concerns about your project and the way you create it as follows:

Second, you are anonymous. This lacks accountabilty. You seem to think its OK for you to write whatever you want about public figures in a public forum anonymously. I find this cowardly and unethical. You either stand behind your words or you don't. If you do, tell me who you are. If you don't, your words are nothing more than electronic graffitti.

For the record I want to appeal this article to whatever body accepts such appeals.

Third I have never commiteed vandalism in my life. I suggest you retract that remark. And while you are at it, ask yourself if graffitti is vandalism. Because if someone wrote something untrue about me in spray paint on a fence, I would go out of my way to wash it off. So who is the vandal?

If I wish to correct this public record I am at a disadvantage because I am not trained on your system. I find it awkward. It takes my valuable time up to attempt to uncover the response. I just today uncovered your notes. Thus this late reply.

With respect you are amateurs meddling in what amounts to journalism. You want to create the public record but make up your own rules or 'policy'. Well, society already has rules about what you can say and imply and what you can't about people. People have right to protect their reputation. You can't just hit and run - or hide anonymously.

Your polictial bias - against your own rules - reeks through the words you have written about me. For example despite you saying you have never heard the term "social conservative" used in the pejorative sense. Your lack of understanding of politics and modern journalism shines through. Any professional journalist can tell you that "right Wing" and "social conservative" are used widely by the leftist writers as pejorative terms. Liberal writers do everything they can to marginalize conservatives - and imply they are somehow connected or admire 'right wing' leaders (Pinochet or Hitler or whomever else that term brings to mind) I am no right winger in any sense. Your biog paints me as one. In modern times "social conservative" has come to mean "anti-gay", and intolerant. I am neither and that's why I want it removed.

A comment on the "family values" caucus on TVO by Sean Conway, who had nothing to do with it and had no personal knowledge of it is no evidence on anything, let alone whether it was 'marginalized'. There was no 'socially conservative' wing of the Harris government. I was there. And our few meetings of the family issues caucus were never marginalized. Mike Harris tolerated a lot of dissent. He attended every causus meeting. He was a good listener. And he never interfered in Private Member's Bills. You guys are way off.

If you understood journalism you would know that it's not always what the writer says about someone that creates an unbalanced biography an damages a person's reputation, it's what they don't. You think because one writer in NOW magazine - a way left publication writes one nasty and inaccuarate piece about conservatives full of quotes with NO ATTRIBUTION that I'm sure his editors loved, it's OK for you to publish it on the interent forever? No one has any way of knowing if those quotes wre fabricated. That is not journalism. It's story telling. Without that biased and below-standards article, you have no basis for the paragraph I have once again just now deleted.

Gentlemen/ladies fight me on this if you will. But show your faces, and make sure your appeals process is arms length. Because if it isn't I will not participate.

Please consider this a legal caution on writing any more misleading material about me on your web site. You may face personal legal action if you do so again. You people can't just write anything you want about others and expect to never be challenged. When did that become OK? How would you like it is someone did that to you?

I await a contact from a real person - that is with a name and telephone number. Terence H. Young 905 842-5910 youngt.policyalliance@cogeco.ca

[edit] NPOV

We got a complaint from the subject of this article.

When stating classifications such as 'social conservative', contributors should attribute them to people or to groups of people. If this person is generally classified as a social conservative by most of the press, you should be able to find many citations saying so, from a wide variety of papers of different political biases. David.Monniaux 19:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To Mr Young, if it's you: threatening legal action on other contributors to Wikipedia on Wikipedia talk pages will simply get you permanently banned from the site. David.Monniaux 19:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)