Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:19, 28 January 2008

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)

Holy baloney, I've missed the discussion. Anyways, I too agree with the removal of the polls. GoodDay 17:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I too have been disturbed by the relentless hatchet job done on this entry by monarchists. I have restored the vandalizing of this page done by G2Bambino who happens to be Gavin Guthrie, the main propagandist at the Monarchist League of Canada. I will be formally submitting a complaint to Misplaced Pages about G2Bambino and suggest banning him if this continues. I will also recommend that Misplaced Pages editors examine the page for accuracy and fairness and consider locking the page against further acts. Please note. When doing research I also noticed that the previous Misplaced Pages entry for the national director of CCR, Tom Freda, has been deleted (perhaps by the same person?). MC Rufus (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have formally submitted a complaint regarding G2Bambino and am requesting arbitration to prevent him from vandalizing this page. Obviously, this person has his own personal ax to grind against republicans. According to the Monarchist League of Canada website, he is the Vice-Chairman and "coordinates the League's political action and strategic programmes." To Freshacconci: I disagree about the removal of the polls. The page links directly to the polling firms' data and the nature of the polls directly relate to the subject of the monarchy/republic debate. Comments on that page are made impartially. I haven't a clue as to how anyone could consider them not "relevant to the CCR" since that's the sole reason for the organization's existence. The reason G2Bambino objects to them is because they show declining support for the monarchy and increased support for a republic. His motivations for concealing them is pure deceit. Regarding the slow traffic here. Check when the monarchy comes up in the news, like a royal scandal or a royal visit. You should see a big difference.MC Rufus (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion clearly outlines how the decision to remove the polls was reached. If you wish to have them reinserted, argue your case here as your edits run contrary to what was decided here by three editors, not one. Also, please do not change the link to Debate on the monarchy in Canada, which is the main article on the subject; what you keep reverting to is a sub of another page. --G2bambino (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What was it that Diefenbaker said about polls? Anyways, I'm a republican & I'm looking forward to the day Canada holds a Referendum on the issue. I've little faith in polls myself - if anything, a majority of Canadian are unaware that Canada is a monarchy. I've no problem with polls being barred from any articles - republican or monarchist articles, as I find them unreliable. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

MC, isn't calling for G2bambino's Wiki-execution? getting carried away? Off with his head tends to be linked historically with 'Monarchy' (though there were those republican incidents in France, during the 1790's). Anyways, calm down & above all don't edit war. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you on the reliability of polls, but the truth is, they've been taken and the resulting numbers exist, however one wants to interpret them. This is why they've been included in a dedicated section of Debate on the monarchy in Canada. However, I think the pertinent question here was, and still is: what is the relevance of the polls to the founding of CCR? Along the lines of what I asked earlier, was the group formed because of the poll results? If so, then that should be mentioned, but the questions asked, personal interpretations of the results, etc., are rather irrelevant to the subject of the article. --G2bambino (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as this dispute is also occuring at Republicanism in Canada, perhaps a compromise can be struck. Have the polls there, but not here. I'd don't want to see anybody getting blocked over this topic, afterall we're all Canadians, eh? GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, GoodDay, I think Republicanism in Canada is a separate issue all-together and shouldn't be tied into what's going on here. --G2bambino (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident things will work out. Hopefully, my opinons on the matter, will calm the waters. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to be the adult one here and bow out of this stupidity. I will relent and be happy with the polls link alone without the other reference. I am also pleased that the youtube link is gone. It was nothing but a mean-spirited, sattirical spoof intent on poking fun at republicans and had no business being on a page intended to educate people. If it somehow returns, I guarantee I'll take it down. Also, I'm now committed to following the republican pages on Misplaced Pages more closely so I have been in contact with CCR and have been granted access to their archives. Over the next few days, I will be adding more historical data and photos that will add to the informative value of this page.MC Rufus (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The 'You Tube' is certainly not a place for sources. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)