Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:02, 20 September 2007

POV

I'm disturbed by the recent edits which seem to indicate some bad faith editing by an avowed monarchist (at least from reading his user page). The selective use of polls confuses the issues: why not use the full text from the linked article on polls which indicates that public opinion is at best confused and that polling which seems to support the status quo was skewed? Also, the mention of the unsuccessful lawsuit is not balanced with the recent successes in court. I will not add or take anything out until I hear from other editors as I feel large changes such as those need to be taken to the talk page. Replacing what is claimed to be POV content with content that is POV is bad faith editing and needs to be addressed. Freshacconci 16:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Be careful with slinging around accusations of bad faith. The poll results were certainly originally edited to favour a certain point of view; the only alternative to deleting them was to balance them with the fact that other results contradicted what was only mentioned here. Is it preferred that I delete mention of the polls all-together?

Further, the lawsuit was unsuccessful - that's a fact. If there were any successful ones, add them into the article. Perhaps that would be a better use of your energy than trying to find malice wherever you can. --G2bambino 16:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith is editing an article to skew it in one direction, which I feel you did (you support the monarchy, you edited the article to slant the Republican cause as lost: how else to judge your edits? Yes, an important Misplaced Pages guideline is to WP:ASSUME which I strive to do until I see something that clearly indicates otherwise). I was of course referring to the Charles Roach class action suit which is ongoing but has had some success in the Ontario Supreme Court. If you were truly interested in objectivity and maintaining NPOV I'd think you would have added that. As I've said, I'm not making changes until I hear from other editors as I'm interested in finding consensus (or at least bringing it to the talk page). Your edits to the polls only skewed things in the other direction. The actual text in the linked article seems to be quite balanced. Why not just keep it as a link to that with some simple wording indicating the difficulties in establishing a public "mood" on the issue. As it is now written it appears that Canadians wish to retain the current form of government which is not quite true (it's more along the lines that a majority of Canadians are not interested in the topic). And edit summary comments about "hiding" some sort of "truth" is certainly loaded. Cheers. Freshacconci 16:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a hard time taking criticism seriously when its focus is on the wrong subject. If you wanted to see a skewed article, look at the record of this one before I edited it. I'm not going to say my edits are perfect, but I completely fail to see how what I did purports any winning or losing, unless there was a documented win or loss to speak of. Perhaps you could specifically point out how my adding the opposing take to a one-sided view actually tipped the balance in the other direction?

Frankly, I don't think the polls are worth any mention in this article: I don't see how some mixed poll results relate to the formation of CCR. Was there some direct link between the two events? So, yes, I fully agree that what's said here about the polls could be reduced to at least a sentence with a link to the more detailed coverage of the polls. However, that would necessitate the deletion of text inserted by another editor, which I thought might result in an edit war. Perhaps I've simply been made paranoid by experiences elsewhere on Misplaced Pages.

It's also quite evident that CCR promotes a president, whether such a person would be titled as such or not.

I'm not sure we'll get much more input here from other users; this isn't a heavy traffic article and seems to only be haunted by people with a specific tie to either camp on both sides of the monarchy. Unless, of course, an RfC is opened. --G2bambino 16:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC) PS- It seems you're confusing the Roach lawsuit with the O'Donohue one. The former is pending, the latter failed, twice, in fact. --G2bambino 16:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we're both victims of that sort of paranoia: it's really what I've been acting on here. You're right: no one seems to bother with this article and when some big changes happen out of nowhere, that's a bit of a red flag for me. I was never a fan of the article to begin with (that's why it was on my watch list as something that I would work on at some point). But life is too short for pettiness and I'll happily take back my accusations of bad faith editing. I would be interested in hearing from others on any of this (if there's anyone else reading this...). I am fine with removing the mention of polls since it actually does not have much to do with the CCR. The CCR (which I have no connection to BTW), is an advocacy group and the article should stick to the basic facts. It seems we've both been on Misplaced Pages long enough to refrain from gutter-level personal attacks (my comment is directed at me mostly). Take care. Freshacconci 16:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)