Talk:Adrian Dix

POV issue

Recent expansions of this article by User:Sirjohnhackett are of an anti-Dix nature, with no attempt to present both sides of the story or any other policies than "political indictments" (without any balance) or to expand any regular biographical information on Dix which is normal in BLPs. Sirjohnhackett's attempts to purge the Christy Clark article of negative material about her have been redirected towards adding negative material about one of the leading NDP leadership candidate. COI cannot easiliy be proven (i.e. that sijohnhackett is a Liberal member/Clark campaign organizer) but is clearly indicated by the defensived edits on the Clark article here, and by the negative-addition edits here. COI means that anyone of any party editing political articles is in conflict-of-interest; not just ones connected to their own parties directly. Activity of this kind, pro and con, on all leadership articles in the current BC political climate bear close watching for COI/POV-type edits of this kind; in this case there's nothing directly wrong with the material on teh Fast Ferries or Casinogate, but adding it without adding anything else is WP:UNDUE in nature and is of course meant to have a POV impact. Fast Ferries wasn't really a scandal, and was only branded that by teh Liberal-oriented/allied BC newspapers; there was no influence peddling, graft or illegal lobbying as there was, for example, re the BC Rail sell-off under the Liberals; Fast FErries was just bad management - the real scandal is that they were pretty much given by the Campbell government to Liberal backers Washington Marine Group for less than the cost of the scrap metal, and were sold for huge profit. But the Liberal press didn't brand that a "scandal"....previous sirjohnhackett edits here attempted to say more about Glen Clark and make it sound like he was convicted, instead of exonerated as was teh actual case re Casinogate, which was another Liberal witchhunt; this particular SPA needs close watching for POV/COI activity.Skookum1 (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Physician, Heal Thyself

First of all, as a clear and fanatical NDP advocate, Skookum doesn't have much of a leg to stand on here. If he doesn't like a reference to the Fast Ferries Scandal (as it's been known in British Columbia for more than a decade), than he should take issue with the people who named the article in question (actually, he did).

As to the question of due versus undue weight - I think that the article is quite fairly weighted at the present time. Dix is notable mostly for his service to a disgraced Premier - I can't think of a single thing worth mentioning about his entirely undistinguished tenure in the legislature. If some other fellow can think of one, they're more than free to add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjohnhackett (talk • contribs) 06:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, I'm not an NDPer and I think both parties should go down in flames for a combination of ineptitude and dishonesty, and I think the party system in BC has failed democracy miserably and the public interest even more. I hope a third and fourth party emerge this year to turf you both into oblivion where you belong (even if it's the Tories). That being said, I have raised the issue at Talk:Fast Ferries Scandal and the rebuttal is that the "reliable sources" use the term (these being the Sun and Province who aided and abetted the Liberal witchhunt against the NDP for 1991-2001 (and since). So for now that article is what it is; but in this case this article is about Adrian Dix, and the norms of BLP call for balanced coverage; your original edit was very pointedly defamatory towards Glen Clark, who was exonerated even though you didn't say that, and obviously don't like it that he was. And what you added wasn't about Adrian Dix, either; the current edits stand because you didn't slant them directly; but you made no effort to say anything else, or add anything about what else he did while Deputy Premier, in teh same way that Christy's article contains information about her legislative and policy record. You don't like that it also will include things that you don't want known about her, but you don't WP:OWN that article and further censorship attempts for political reasons will not be tolerated by me, or anyone - I'm not an NDPer but you seem clearly a Liberal and so should read again (if you haven't already) WP:COI and WP:POV and WP:SOAP. It's a compliment to Dix, in fact, that his is the first article where evidence of leadership-campaign interference in his article by an opponent has shown up; must mean he's viewed as a serious threat....and it's such an old saw whenever the Liberal wagons are circled in defensive mode to attack the NDP record of -- 15 years ago? "Fast Ferries, Fast Ferries, Fast Ferries!!!" goes the refrain in blogspace, as if it weren't over and done with and hadn't happened yesterday, and as if they Libs hadn't pretty much given the ferries to one of their friends as a campaign-support reward....and the other refrain is "Glen Clark was in conflict of interest....yadayadayada..." wthout the same trolls ever admitting that he was acquitted and with everyone who remembers the non-CanWEst coverage of those events knowing that it was a Liberal frame-up with suspicious circumstantial evidence of collusion with the RCMP and BCTV (and the fact that retired RCMP were behind a competing casino bid to Pilarinos's).....BC politics is a can of worms, to be sure...so you should think twice about opening various cans of worms, as some of your own worms are probably in there too....Skookum1 (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it somewhat difficult to believe that someone who apparently considers Bill Tieleman a legitimate source but objects to the only two daily newspapers in the Lower Mainland can really pretend to be an objective observer of anything. Your views, in essence, attempt to substitute your own individual reality for that experienced by the overwhelming majority of British Columbians - one where Glen Clark isn't disgraced and where the NDP's destructive reign's end was brought about by "witchhunts" instead of by Clark's corruption.

I've added this to Dix because, frankly people ought to know about his pattern of plainly unethical conduct over a number of years. That's why this information belongs in this article. If you have good information - equally notable - about him, add it. But, as I said before, all I see is someone with a number of notable and public ethical lapses and an entirely undistinguished record as a legislator. I haven't added anything of this sort to, say, Mike Farnworth or John Horgan's article because I am not aware of similar conduct by them, or by any other candidate.

Indeed, your comments here reveal a very base hypocrisy. While you use the Christy Clark article in an attempt to engage in clear guilt-by-association tactics and to thereby smear multiple individuals, here you attempt to cover up or minimize the clear and admitted guilty conduct of individuals.Sirjohnhackett (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pffft. How did I cover them up? You mean deleting the entry you made trying to behave as if Clark had been found guilty, when he wasn't, is that what you mean? Throwing accusations at me is unfounded; all I've done is observed that this article is not fully balanced and that your recent additions are only "more of the same" Liberal tub-thumping on pet anti-NDP warhorses of Liberal blog-trolls, and that your efforts here mirror those. The hypocrisy is yours, not mine - your only participation in Wikipedia so far is to try and censor the Christy Clark article, and here to add only defamatory information about a major Liberal opponent/electoral threat. And the only edits I've made here were to reverse an off-topic and not-neutral attempt to indict Glen Clark for something that he was acquitted of, and exonerated for; even the cite you provided didn't do that, but you tried to pretend it did. Give your head a shake, and read WP:BLP, WP:COI, WP:POV/WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. If you're the Liberal party campaign worker you seem to be, you're in COI on both articles.Skookum1 (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing Dix from the "forgers" category is very revealing on the part of Skookum.

First of all, Dix admits to the forgery (or, "back-dating" to use the phrase used by his kindest advocates of the memo in question. And, further, your claim that Category:Forgers only includes those "convicted" is entirely false: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Edmund_Backhouse,_2nd_Baronet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakat_Fahim_Ali_Mohamed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annio_da_Viterbo#Detection_of_his_forgeries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Levita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bertram

Etc, etc. I'm restoring the category. And, as I said before, I'm not going to accept the NPOV tag from someone with such a clearly distorted viewpoint on the truth - to the point, as referenced above, that they apparrently refuse to accept the major newspapers in this Province as credible sources. Sirjohnhackett (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

They're widely known not to be credible sources about anything to do with the BC Liberals, which is why the public turns increasingly to the blogs, and to the Globe & Mail, for more complete and less biased coverage than what's available in the Sun and Province.Skookum1 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Known" by who? You? Your current position is to reject the validity of all major local news outlets and substitute for them your own version of reality.

You are clearly a partisan advocate of the NDP, insofar as the focus of your activity is to attempt to keep (true) adverse information out of NDP-related articles while defending false and defamatory information that has been inserted into Liberal ones. Sirjohnhackett (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from ErinLoxam, 18 April 2011

I uploaded this picture of him. I thought it would be good to add it to Adrian Dix's page now that he is the leader of the party.

Add caption here

ErinLoxam (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Portrait versions usually work better for the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 Added as requested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Time to expand

It is time to allow changes to this article again. There have been significant developments in provincial politics in BC and this article is currently barely more than a stub.

Simple items like adding his political role as Leader of the Official Opposition and Leader of the BC NDP are both required changes. There are more significant additions required as well. Now that Adrian Dix leads the BC NDP this article simply needs much more work that can only be accomplished through community collaboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.175.244 (talk • contribs) 8:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of balance and reasonable neutrality

I have cleaned up grammar and style where necessary, and imposed a more balanced tone. The personal background section is probably adequate, since the point is to show that Mr Dix has, like most British Columbia politicians, roots in the community he represents. I have also changed the language of the section concerning Dix's resignation from the Office of the Premier; it verged on libel as it was. I propose to add 2-3 more footnotes and references, for example, detailing Dix's university education (he is a UBC graduate), and am considering adding one or two facts (without interpretation) about legislative exchanges between Dix and the current Premier of the Province, Christy Clark.

Wikipedia will continue to exist long after all these people are dead and gone, so there may be little point adding much more detail than this. On the other hand, I would like to make the case that this is not a "stub" and should be promoted to a higher category of "quality" in the Wikipedia system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montaigne1944 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all of your additions, as it was unreferenced, which is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. 117Avenue (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall restore them all, of course, as you would expect. Now, it's true I added only four new references. So I'll add another one per phrase and clause. That will make quite a long list of references, but I don't think that will be a big problem, and anyway, the subject of the article is interesting. The difficulty will be the Wikipedia rule that says one is not to include original research (for example, archival research at the UBC Special Collections department, which includes references to Mr Dix's graduate from UBC). I quite like making references and footnotes, having been a professional historian for the past forty-odd years, so I don't mind. But it *will* be interesting to see how the usual rules about archivalism and and originality are applied here. I'm a little alarmed that the errors of grammar and style in the original have been left. If you are the author of this piece, perhaps you could fix them before I come back tomorrow to do the next round of detailed referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montaigne1944 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at some example featured articles, articles with long lists of references are honoured. 117Avenue (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of Birth

It's April 12, 1964. Here's the source: http://www.bcndp.ca/events/2012/04/26/adrians-birthday-party I'll leave it to greater minds than mind to update the entry page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.148.133 (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war re back-dated memo material

This has been reported to BLP Noticeboard and is in need of at least a semi-protect. The material added is claimed to be NPOV and is claimed to be coming from someone who claims no political affiliation, but is repeating the BC Lib talking points and even tried to use a cite that directed people to the attack ad against Dix. The re-inserted material conflates the incident, in the same way the BC Liberal ads and media hype and other internet forums/UGC spaces are doing, and it WP:UNDUE as well as highly POV and partisan in tone. I'm at my own 3RR on this so will desist though may try to get a properly worded and neutrally-cited account of his matter......that this issue is part of a highly visible attack ad campaign makes the complaint that *I* am being partisan and the person doing it claims to be non-partisan, while accusing me of being an NDP supporter (I am not an NDPer, nor will I be voting for them) all the more ridiculous. This notice/discussion is required to be posted here before I can complete the 3RR notice, which may lead to the SPA's suspension, especially if it comes out through CHECKUSER that he/she is the same as the previous IP users who have attempted to insert (and re-insert) the same material.Skookum1 (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

♠Reading it, I'd agree, it prima facie fails NPOV. It also appears to fail Undue, & looks a bit OT to me, too.

♠As for the IP's politics, or yours, IMO they're entirely irrelevant to the issue.

♠FWIW, I'll rv as far as I can. It looks like more editors may need to be involved. A block on the IP(s) used may be in order, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

While the tone of the additions was clearly problematic, the issues addressed are certainly notable. How is it undue to mention the fact that he was fired for the forged memo? This was a rather large controversy. The Vancouver Sun is currently running an story implying that this article is being whitewashed to keep any negative details on Dix out: [1]. It certainly does make us look pretty bad that there aren't any mentions of the controversies. I think this needs to be addressed by restoring the content, but written in a NPOV tone. TDL (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just been asked by Vancouver radio station AM1320 to comment on how Wikipedia works, in light of the Vancouver Sun article. So the issue is getting some local traction. I said I'd phone them back in 20 minutes. Thoughts welcome. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just did the interview. I have no idea what (if anything) they used from it. I tried to explain the basics about reading Wikipedia critically and thoughtfully: looking at the talk page and article history; the question of the BLP policy, and so on. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You're a celebrity, Jon! Did they tell you when it might air, or was it live? The Interior (Talk) 18:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha! No, it wasn't live. They didn't tell me when it might air, and nor did I ask. (Perhaps I'll email the guy, but they wanted it this morning.) Nor have I time or inclination to spend my day listening to the radio on the offchance that I hear myself on it!  :) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The point was never to whitewash the article, only to prevent it from being used as an "attack ad".....Sun reporter inquiries can often be innocuous and then they post a distortion/tract as if it were "analysis"....but that's the paper that regularly twists things (IMO) in favour of the Liberals, and spent a lot of non-energy helping coverup the facts behind the BC Rail case......really part of the BC Liberal camp, and famously so. Yes, coverage of this matter, in the context perhaps that it's the subject of a Liberal campaign to make a big deal out of it, rather than reporting in the article it as if it mattered (while really it's WP:Undue except for that it's part of the campaign against him; there's all kinds of other things about his time as Chief of Staff, including personality "reviews", that could also be in the article; but this one tub-thump has WP:SOAP written all over it; I'll be curious to see what Lee (the reporter) has to say about the "wiki-illegal" behaviour of the people trying to push this material in inflammatory tone....he may just gloss over that part.Skookum1 (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Canada.com and the Vancouver Sun are reliable sources. If a scandal is notable, it can be included in a bio, see other prolific politicians for examples. 117Avenue (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is Lee, the reporter. I'm also Sunciviclee (talk)My view is simple. Significant historical events involving a person should be noted in their biography. But as we all know, that's hard to do from a NPOV when it involves people involved in controversy. There's always going to be someone who thinks that a version of the report, even carefully crafted, is biased. Here's the rub in the Dix case: he did something that even he acknowledges should be reported. He also apologized for his actions. And he has - if you read my story - even offered his own view about how this should be reported on Wikipedia. There is no lack of people who want to import their own bias or views into Wiki edits. It's the role of skilled editors, and the use of citations from credible sources, that should be the foil to such behaviour. I'm not yet fluent with Wiki markup to be able to be clever in my response. And I am sure that I am probably breaking a few rules and codes without meaning to. But I am sure in one thing: no matter who is contributing to or editing on Wikipedia, they should be using some very basic rules: verify, verify, verify. I did that today with Dix, who with humor noted that Wikipedia STILL continues to incorrectly reflect his birthdate as April 26, 1964. If he doesn't dispute what he did in the memo-writing affair, why should you? If he can talk about his memo-writing escapade, why can't you? Sunciviclee (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a short note on it. The problem we see during election cycles is that content like this finds its way to the forefront of articles. When the article is short, a lengthy digression on negative aspects tips the article way off balance. This isn't a great bio, and someone will have to expand it. The memo stuff could definitely be covered in more detail, but only as the rest of the content expands as well. Remember, Lee, that this thing is written by you and me - we can complain about accuracy and imbalance, or work to fix it. The Interior (Talk) 05:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not what he did (or didn't do), it's how it's presented. I'm reading about a backdated memo & seeing it called "forgery". That's pretty strong for something that doesn't directly involve Dix (since it was, as I read it, Clark who was the subject). Had it been Clark who dated the memo, I'd have less problem with the characterization. Since it isn't about Dix directly, that, plus what looks like something pretty minor in the scheme of things (it's not like he killed someone, or faked up a document to frame somebody for a crime), makes adding this undue IMO. Should it be left out entirely? No. Even so, there does need to be a middle ground solution. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. In neutral terms, what took place was that Dix, as the most senior person in the office outside of the premier, took an executive stamp of the premier's office and used it to back-date a memo that he wrote after the fact, in an effort to make it appear as if the issue had been discussed long before. I don't know if that's "forgery" but it did get him fired and he acknowledges it was wrong. It's perhaps not something you or I would also want to include in our resumes when going for a job. It is not, TREKphiler, "something pretty minor in the scheme of things" when we are all talking about a lack of public confidence in our governments. To my mind, his biography needs is a paragraph reference to this event, with the appropriate citations.Sunciviclee (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, here's a deal: you write, say, 500 words to fill out rest of the bio, and I'll expand the memo business to a paragraph ;) The Interior (Talk) 06:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will do that later this morning. I'll post it here for review. Thanks.Sunciviclee (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

♠"took an executive stamp of the premier's office and used it to back-date a memo that he wrote after the fact, in an effort to make it appear as if the issue had been discussed long before." Phrased that way, I have no problem with it being included--with a reliable source. (Here, IDK if the Sun qualifies, since it may have its own anti-NDP or anti-Dix POV issues.)

♠I'm less sure it deserves more than a line or two, quite aside a whole separate section calling particular attention to it. Yes, it got him fired. It didn't get him charged with anything. It didn't even lead to a criminal investigation AFAIK. It's embarassing, yes. It's stupid, yes. It's something his political opponents can beat him up with, yes. It's not, IMO, worthy of more than a passing mention--until, & unless, it's materially connected with something that did lead to a criminal investigation or charges, since otherwise, it's purely a political issue.

♠Saying it creates a "lack of public confidence" suggests everybody shares your view. Clark's actions make me wonder; Dix's, less so. Over-emphasis on the issue is just as out of bounds as accusatory tone IMO. (FYI, I don't live in BC, so I haven't the awareness of the details others might. Nor, I might say, the biases.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that the section on Dix's memo-writing affair has been added back in and that his birth date has been corrected. I don't think I need to add to the piece since I am writing on the entire issue around the edits. I'll take a page out of my own book. However, look for my tracks on other interesting subjects. Sunciviclee (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that you are now reneging on your deal with User:The Interior. It would certainly have been helpful had you written 500 words to improve the article! And it would no doubt also have been a learning process for you about how Wikipedia articles are written. Oh well. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

At least he's not sill using [[Category:Whatever]] for section headings any more, as he did on his first few kicks at the can here, which required me to go get User:Good Olfactory to delete at least one rathre than bother with a CfD. I find it amusing to hear him lecturing me on how to spend my time, when if it weren't for the b.s. in his coverage of this matter, I could be doing better things with my time.....and as if I take a long time to write my "lengthy" responses; some here know how fast I can type and write, it may give the illusion of "a lot of time and energy" but he's nobody to tell me how to spend my time or where to put my attention; doing that makes him sound just like the SPAs....well, he is one, really, isn't he, because he only created this account to interlope on this article and to take it to somehow headline status on his rag (and it is a rag).Skookum1 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time I've been able to log on since yesterday, and won't be fully around until tomorrow. Yes, Jeff, the issue HAS been added back, in NPOV form and without WP:UNDUE or the attack-ad tone that the SPAs and IPs were insisting on, and I'm glad to see the Wikipedia community pull together to work on this article. Unlike the implication of your paper's headlines and tone that this was a whitewash and trying to keep this material out, that's not the case at all. I was too busy reverting the bunk-tone versions and wound up taking the matter to the 3RR and BLP noticeboards, which is time-consuming. I haven't seen your article yet; but it's not Wikipedia or any regular Wikipedia editors, namely me, who were trying to use the article to repeat and grossly conflate "Memogate", those were not "regular Wikipedians" by any stretch of the imagination. This to me deoesn't cast Wikipedia in a bad light, as some here seem to think, but is proof that (once a problem is drawn to the community's attention) that neutral and fair coverage of an event or scandal will be presented, and that wikipedia articles cannot be used for defamation campaigns. Wikipedia has proven its mettle here; and the article overall has expanded and improved as a result, with the item about the memo now properly cited and not presented as if this were part of a political ad. The article was also notably thin on the ground until now, vs the lengthy leader-articles for other people in BC and in other provinces and federally of course....suffice to say that I'm happy with the so-called restoration (actually a rewrite because the garbage-y stuff I reverted all the time is not the result) and that a full BLP protect is now on this article to prevent political graffit artists ("SPAs" and IP users) from having their way with it. WP:SOAP is obvviously not something they've read, despite one's claims that he has been around Wikipedia for years (instead of just frrom the 9th, when he created his account). I'm on a store computer so can't stay any longer, I'll be back fully online in about 24 hours. PS about the need for a "journalist" cite it's as as valid as the portrayal of Christy Clark as such; I asked The Source if they had any of his columns to cite, but none are online. Haven't tried The Straight yet - didn't I add a link to his columns at The Tyee?Skookum1 (talk) 02:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me just add a couple of things. 1) I brought up this page at WP:AN. 2) I will try to expand the article some, but a) though I live in BC, I have never really paid much attention to provincial politics, so have to read up some and b) I don't have much time in the next few days. I hope that the attention this article has drawn will bring other calm eyes to it. Finally, 3) I wasn't at all impressed with Sunciviclee's latest story; I have no idea how the "revelation" of Skookum1's identity (not exactly hidden in the first place) is newsworthy. But there we go. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Skookum1, on the issue of whether a political figure is a "journalist" or "commentator", I would tend to think that someone who makes an income from such writing is the former, and someone who writes an occasional opinion for which they are not paid would be considered the latter. Christy Clark, before she became the leader of the Liberals, was a radio talk show host. That might possibly qualify for the "journalist" tag, but her opinion pieces occasionally carried by newspapers wouldn't earn her that title. Nor would I call Dix a "journalist" unless he made a career out of being one. Just the same as I would never want to be called a politician, even though I might have a political thought in my head.

On the issue of whether Dix's memo-writing affair is properly cast now in his biography, I think it should stay the way it is right now until after the election, after which if it needs to be expanded or modified it can be done so without people thinking it's an attempt to politicize the information for election purposes. Sunciviclee (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You know what, Jeff? Of course you do. That the headlines that were used and the intro paragraphs completely distort my role, in which capacity I was being a responsible Wikipedian by preventing a very serious BLP violation. What was "restored" was completely new unbiased material as worked up by ACTUAL Wikipedians, not the fly-by-nighters (all now blocked for misconduct, including outing me). I've been on the road; I tried to use the Sun comments section to post a reply but comments are now closed. It's because of the skew/spin that was put on this, despite your nice bio of me, that makes me regard the Sun as "not a reliable source". What happened, as I have said, was Wikipedia functioning as it should; it was not allowed by me, and by MastCell who placed the full protect, to be used as a platform for replicating Liberal attack ads by people claiming to be just ordinary citizens with no ties to the Liberals; they weren't, we've seen this before re Erik Bornmann and Mark Marissen's articles and the Leg Raids one and others. Your imputation that I make a specialty of editing "political leader" articles is hogwash; there are thousands of items on my watchlist; and if it's only BC Liberal-related-material that gets my attention, it's because their articles have these problems when others don't. Gee, why is that? I'm wary of talking to you by phone now, I find your motives suspect given what I've read; I realize the senior editors are the ones who concocted the headlines. But what about a headline that went "Wikipedians thwart attempt to use Adrian Dix's page to replicate their attack ad against Wikipedia rules"? oh here's the quote "But Cleven also has a history of making changes to biographies - principally those of living politicians - that has brought charges that he's politically biased. :..... principally???? Pffft I've also edited more articles on dead politicians, and profoundly more articles on hundreds of topics. Given these type of distortions no wonder I don't regard mainstream/monopoly media as reliable sources. oh here's another "and believes that mainstream reporting of the casino scandal that led to the fall of Glen Clark's NDP government is biased and shouldn't be used in any Wikipedia article about it." I have said things like that but I never said "shouldn't be used in any wikipedia article about it". By the way, now you're a Wikipedia editor, reporter or not, you shoudl be verycareful about misrepresenting what goes on here as you have done. The account of Glen Clark's fall in the Sun has always avoided mention of Peter Montague's gambling club that was competing for the NBI one......Terminal City and others covered it, the Sun was there with the BCTV witchhunt against Clark that finally saw the judge say no laws had been broken and Clark had made an error in judgement. Yet versions of his article were repeatedly inserted with lines indicating he had been guilty and convicted; why didn't you report on that, or the many attempts to wipe information off Campbell's and Christy Clark's pages? Hmmmmm??? Technically, as someone who created an account just to ask questions, then ran and distorted the answers in print and outed another member in a negative light, and misrepresented the path of edits an the implementation of guidelines etc.....you are in violation yourself and your role here has to be looked at askance. Comments I wanted to make on your article were blocked by the Sun's autobot, and now comments are closed. Nice closed shop you run there in the mainstream media....as for the SPAs who tried to defame me and sought to have me blocked (no sign of that COI noticeboard item about me that you mention (I think it was you; I've received all kinds of correspondence from others about this), see WP:DUCK. What I want to know is, who turned you onto this story: User:Downtownmanvan calling up your editor and saying "we can raise a stink about this and shut that Cleven guy down"? Or did a little birdie tell you? Some "concerned citizen with [supposedly] no Liberal affiliation" who might just happen to be the same as those who were accusing me of being "pro-NDP"? Wikipedia has performed its function to prevent from being used as a partisan soapbox and media manipulation site.....too bad you can't say the same for your own place of employment (deny it all you want, it's common public opinion). I just ended a very long road trip while all this is going on, so of course I'm testy especially when what I said was misrepresented and twisted; from what I see of the current version of the article, it's not the same as the original, also, and matter of fact it's very different, and even more critical and imputational in tone against me......nice job, must be a fat paycheque.Skookum1 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

As one of my writer friends observed, if the Sun were edited the way Wikipedia is, it would be a far better and more trustworthy paper. Oh, and about that bit about the Liberal-backed casino bid and its ties toe Campbells' campaign office...and the RCMP.....I think it was Terry Glavin who wrote it....in fact, we're good buddies, I'll ask him. Later. Quite often, as in the attempts to censor/whitewash the Campbell and Christy articles, what comes out ultimately is an even stronger account as more sources than the "mainstream media" are used to discover all the details the "mainstream" media won't cover. Molehills and mountains etc....you try and squash a molehill, it turns out to be a volcano....Skookum1 (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

♠Judging by the Sun online article on this subject, it doesn't qualify as reliable. It (or Lee) makes out "WP editors" were protecting this page from the censorship of a single individual (who, I see, was outed, which I understood was contrary to WP guidelines). I resent being portrayed falsely. I resent having my views & actions misrepresented. If this is the standard for the Sun, it clearly fails the RS test.

♠Furthermore, seeing the Sun is apparently affiliated with the source of the above-mentioned attack add, I'd wonder about conflict of interest, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Skookum1, your very long comment simply reinforces what this is all about. You are spending a lot of time on this subject, attacking the Sun for raising an issue about revising someone's pertinent history. You could easily have dealt with this - as a "Wikipedian" - by properly putting the memo-writing issue into context. Instead you chose to delete it in its entirety at least 5 times, and when questioned about this you go on a tear blaming the media for pointing it out.

As for how I came to know about this, that's pretty simple. I was reading Dix's bio and realized that it was extraordinarily short and appeared to omit the memo-writing incident. When I looked at the edit trail, it became obvious that there was an effort to constantly clean his biography of the information. I don't know who downtownvanman is and have never spoken to him or her. This is just plain good old=fashioned curiosity on my part.

As for why comments are closed on the story, beats me. We don't have a plan to cut off comments on a story that is getting traction. We don't have a clandestine ops division last time I looked. But tomorrow I will ask the web desk if the comments section can be reopened for you to continue your defence. I have fairly tough hide. But please, be as accurate and fair in your comments as you say you are in your editing.

Trekphiler, I don't believe the Sun "is apparently affiliated with the source of the above-mentioned attack add (sic)." Please cite your source for this. You should also know that the only person who outed Skookum1 was Skookum1 himself when he identified himself in the Sun's comment station as the editor who had removed the passages. He named himself. On the other hand, I note that you all continue to use my name in this talk - and yes, I identified myself on this talk page because I certainly don't feel I need to be anonymous - even though I observe WP guidelines. Hey, I am a newbie at this but even I understand that rule. Sunciviclee (talk) 07:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

NO, you haven't observed Wikipedia guidelines. Your interpretation of the reversions that it was an attempt to clean the story from the article is utterly false; I was preventing BLP violations and wound up having to do it every other two minutes because of the re-insertion of the POV-slanted account. And it's not for you to judge how much time I'm spending on anything.....that whole comment above was written in less than 5-10 minutes, I'm a very fast writer. And have been spending lots of time and energy on non-wiki stuff as well as other articles; the only reason I've been active on this page a lot is because of the problems being presented by the now-blocked interlopers. And re COI, why don't you have a look at your paper's donations to the one party vs the other; such disingenuousness on your part (or ignorance of who you work for and what their agenda is) is kinda sad. Lots of independent reporters and bloggers and citizens consider the Sun to be part of the Liberal propaganda machine......and how you've skewed what happened here is a very precise case in point. I suggest you read a few more Wikipedia guidelines, one of which is about taking Wikipedia to the media......but you are the media, so.....yes I outed myself, and was already "out" here (via my userpage), but that doesn't make it OK for another editor to break the rule themselves, especially one with a COI to the mainstream media such as you clearly have. This comment took three minutes (four?) to write.......it was my attention to policing BLP and taking things to the noticeboards about the WP:SPA edit war over POV material (which was very time ocnsuming, as you'll find if you ever post to the noticeboards, filling out templates and other procedures) is what brought this problem to the attention of other editors, the problem being the POV nature of the material and its BLP violations and the conduct of the SPAs. The same has happened with other articles; in fact it was the state of the Idle No More article that brought me back into Wikipedia after a year and a half boycott, and because of the attention to it, other editors got involved and helped fix the ridiculous polemics that anti-FN people were inserting there, and rankly POV material on Theresa Spence. Yes you are a newbie, and at least aren't posting using "Category:" on talkpages like you were.....but before you pontificate further on Wikipedia guidelines you should read up on them much more than you have......especially WP:COI and WP:AUTO. Oh, this was five minutes now, not three, that it took me to write this. Care to tell me how to spend my energy/time for the day? This whole matter took up a lot of my time, and even though I was on the road I still took the time to defend myself, amid about twenty other things I was doing at the time......you seem proud of an article that is completely skewed and continue to defend it.......and justify your editorial board's decision to close comments......a bad habit among all MSM sites, some of which post inflammatory articles without ever letting the public comment.Skookum1 (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

YOu should also read WP:What Wikipedia is not and its subsection WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper.Skookum1 (talk) 08:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW I found out the original article is still out there, the follow-up is incredibly POV and biased and misrepresents things even worse....but managed to get the post I'd written last night that wouldn't "take" posted.......so when are you going to cover the Liberal ties to the competing casino re Casinogate...I think the Libs made a stupid error here raising this "scandal" as it's brought up details of that case that remain questionable in the public eye, all of which were obscured or omitted by your paper.....which wasn't reliable for facts in a host of cases I can think of; e.g. the police violence at Seton Portage in 1990 was misreported in the Sun, giving half the numbers that it took the Seattle papers to get right, and misportraying the "march of prisoners" to Lillooet as if it could be all on foot, and not through the heart of the reserve and over a 3500' diff pass (5280 at the top) and then 40 miles of desert canyon....marching into the heart of th reserve, with choppers buzzing ahead knowing there was a waiting crowd, was a deliberate provocation. If not for amateur video and the Seattle papers, this like Gustafsen Lake (the only accurate coverage was from Terminal City and the Straight, while the Sun reporters were embedded with the "we specialize in smear campaingns" MOuntie HQ. Skookum1 (talk) 09:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

about the Liberal insiders orchestrating Casinogate, as much as I don't like Alex Tsakumis for various reasons, he provided some coverage of the backstory that the Sun has always avoided.....time to start a Casinogate article that's not just repetition of the witchhunt that was part of the MSM approach.... here's his article. I'm looking forward to your article on this Jeff, if you editor actually allows you to write it and research it......this attack ad is just part of the same whipping a mountain out of a molehill, just like the Fast Ferries where the REAL scandal was Campbell's offloading of them to personal friends and campaign backers for 2% of their cost, but the media continues to portray it, as to Lib/NeoCon bloggers, as being emblematic of NDP bad management......and just like how Tsakumis and others exposed Christy Clark's denials of close association with Dave Basi (who very much need an article here),which was patently false and which the Sun never reported on..... Tsakumis and other bloggers are where British Columbians turn to get the facts about things, since the Sun is recognized as a spin machine.Skookum1 (talk) 09:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

From Tsakumis' article, which should be added to the section about what the memo actually was about. "The actual contents of Dix’s memo speak to then premier Clark wanting staff to know about the fact a casino application by a neighbour was something he wanted nothing to do with. ". It's not like he was destroying evidence or rigging a bidding process to pawn off a railway to campaign financiers and close friends. It's not like he was denying any association with what happened or with the people thrown under the bus by selective prosecution (as Christy has done- I use her first name to distinguish her from Glen here).Skookum1 (talk) 09:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Just finished reading that article, it's Part Two that will have the full story of the Casinogate realities, and is being published tomorrow, including an interview with Kelly Reichert of the RCMP. The current article only alludes to this so far, tomorrow's should be very interesting....and will provide further cites for this and for the Casinogate article that's very much needed.......I'll be curious as to the Liberal spin and the Sun's too, if they cover it at all.Skookum1 (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that article is months old, the date on it is January 31; I'm looking for part two right now and will link it when I can find it..... CAse in point about the Sun only presenting one side of the story and deliberately avoiding any discussion/expose on the other......this is much worthier of a headline than what you've done with your article about Wikipedia, Jeff. Maybe like other reporters who've left the Sun and its evil twin the Province you should consider going independent so you can be a real investigative journalist and not working for a company known for booting people out who report on things the publishers don't want. Because of my COI as a blogger, I'm not the one to start the Casinogate article, partly out of distaste for the events and tactics......yes, I've kept an eye on BC Rail coverage in Wikipedia, but why is that a bad thing, Jeff, as imputed in your article?Skookum1 (talk) 09:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's the interview, which contains material relevant to this article and also Glen Clark's and should be used in the eventual Casinogate article, which I invite other editors to start (not SPAs with agendas).Skookum1 (talk) 09:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(ec)♠"yes, I identified myself on this talk page" And, unlike you, I've never used your name any other place, which puts you wrong & me not. You appear to believe that makes you holier than me in some fashion, as if I have some sinister NDP ties, or something. (My only NDP ties are in thinking they aren't pushing the likes of Harper hard enough, & that Layton should have been selling used cars. I don't like Mulcair, either. I just think the Liberals are cowards & the Tories are crooks & liars--tho I do agree with them on the long gun registry.)

♠As for the connection to the attack ad, it's because the Canada.com site is on the Sun page I saw... It makes me suspicious.

♠"why comments are closed on the story" I'd be interested, too, since I wasted more than two hours trying to post a comment & kept getting a refused login. (This is just one more reason I hate sites that demand I sign up just to post a lousy comment. I'm waiting for email spam.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Canada.com is the parent site for the media chain of which the Sun is a part. So that's why it's on their page; it's ultimately the main host for the Sun, and it's why the Sun has columns written by other papers in the canada.com chain.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Turns out there are two articles, the second one, which is even more POV/skewed, has never allowed comments; the first one's comments are still open and I've said my piece there....and no Jeff, I won't call you now, I have every reason to suspect you're looking for more to skew and misrepresent. Not interested in playing your game.Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2013

his birthday is April 20 1964

someone keeps removing his participation in a political "scandal" that he does not deny

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Someone+keeping+Adrian+squeaky+clean+Wikipedia/8219088/story.html

Hootie99 (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it was presented in POV language and WP:UNDUE weight, that's why. Wikipedia is not a place to repeat attack ads.Skookum1 (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Truly, Wikipedia is not a place to simply repeat attack ads. Then again, neither is it a place to simply delete facts. As I've commented elsewhere, the solution to a factual incident being described in a biased way is to rewrite the information in a non-biased way, not to simply delete it - and especially not to even delete the notice that there is an NPOV disagreement, without seeking much less achieving consensus. At least, not if you want to avoid ending up with Wikipedia being cast in a negative light. DanCooperPara (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment The person who did that was User:Sunciviclee shooting his mouth off in headline space after a cursory glance at what was going on and complete ignorance of how Wikipedia works, and a whole lot of suppositions and assumptions about my role and my political agenda. I was too busy reverting those damned POV bits (literally every other minute as they were constantly replaced, along with POV accusations against me) to have time to rewrite it; also taking it to BLP and 3RR so a block against the vandal/POV edits could be gotten in place (which happaned, along with the blocking of those making the POV reversions and insulting and assaulting me, which they have continued on the comments on Lee's article). Be careful where you point that 'making Wikipedia look bad' finger......I'm not the problem.Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Not done: currently the only source for the April 20, 1964, date is Lee's article, which can't be used because it is a self published source. 117Avenue (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really IMO. It's a direct quote from Dix published in The Vancouver Sun, which is not self published. CMAH (Connormah's Sock) 19:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Uh, if it will help end this argument, I am quite happy to supply the digital quote of Adrian Dix telling me his birthday is April 20, 1964. But frankly, if you can't take his own comment to me in The Vancouver Sun at face value, you're not inclined to want to make the correction. Sunciviclee (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is rather ridiculous. The Vancouver Sun is obviously not a self-published. TDL (talk) 19:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Definitely agree in regard to the "self published" question: If being an edited news article on the front page of one of BC's top two dailies does not count as being "other published" or whatever term is appropriate, one has to wonder what is. I see that the corrected date has been added now with a reference to the Sun, but just in case there is any lingering doubt here is a link to Adrian Dix's official campaign facebook page, which includes the following: "Born April 20, 1964" https://www.facebook.com/#!/adriandixbcndp/info — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanCooperPara (talk • contribs) 22:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I should have taken another look at the policy, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." 117Avenue (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Uhh, 117, that policy does not even apply in the first place. Making a comment to the press is not self-publishing. He would be the primary source for the statement, but we are using the Vancouver Sun as the secondary source, as is appropriate. Resolute 02:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Dix "haunted"??

I noticed this among recent changes to the memo section = "This memo would later come back to haunt Dix". That's certainly an MSM tagline about this, but Dix doesn't appear to be haunted about it in the slightest. Subtle POV of this kind remains an issue on matters like this (not just this page). That line either has to be cited as op-ed or must be considered WP:Original research.Skookum1 (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If he was haunted before, he's not now. The Scooby Gang helped take care of it.;p Also deleted the "supported/opposed", since IMO the word order was also subtly slanting things. Xander Harris ^{where's my stake?} 09:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think that these are POV (nor, incidentally, is calling Clark "controversial") or OR. Removing them is part of the over-literal interpretation of WP policies that makes so many of the encyclopedia's articles badly-written proseline. But so be it; I won't argue. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Calling Clark "controversial" isn't POV, I never said that; I said it was redundant. Campell, Vander Zalm, Johnston, Miniwac, WAC, Dave Barrett, Boss JOhnson, Duff Pattullo, Richard McBride, John Oliver and especially Joseph Martin and Amor de Cosmos were ALL controversial. It's a pointless description and just dross/fluff......15:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)Skookum1 (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Adverts"

In what way is "adverts" unencylcopedic language?!. To me, it's a more neutral term. Moreover, putting "attack ads" is unnecessary, because it's already obvious that that's what they are if they are citing Dix's memo. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not obvious to external readers, whether outside BC or in it. Other articles from around the world use "attack ads" why should this be any different? Yes it's more neutral, but these ads aren't neutral and their nature is "attack", it's very descriptive; neutrality should not mean "vague".Skookum1 (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah, it's clear enough from the context, I think. And if you agree that there's nothing unencyclopedic about "adverts," let's stick with that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

YOu can say we should stick with it; I'm not in a mood for a further edit war here but your change was ill-advised and incorrect IMO, and I"m sure others may chime in the same way. "Adverts" is casual language and also somewhat British and not used in Canada much; and as I noted "attack ads" is common in other polities, there's no need to pretend or hide the fact that that's what these ads are.Skookum1 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There is, of course, a middle ground solution: "This memo became the focus of BC Liberal campaign ads attacking/criticizing Dix's role in the casino scandal." Resolute 22:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I"m not pushing for linking the attack ads article, and I haven't read it yet; it's quite likely very US-con (vs CanCon), your compromise is good Resolute, just wondering about not-linking, since there is an article; compared to US attack ads, Canadian ones (like this one) are mostly namby-pamby (the really bad one was the Tory one about Chretien and his speech impediment).Skookum1 (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

♠I removed "adverts" because it's too colloquial for an encyclopedia. It's fine in a Brit newspaper, or in conversation; it's not common enough in Canada, besides. (Even if it was, it fails on tone.)

♠On "attack ad", IDK if it's a common usage in Canadian politics, but it's certainly well enough understood. Ask most Canadians if they recognize the term, or know what one is, I'll bet the answer's yes. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The lede to that article ends with the one-line paragraph "Their use has gradually spread to other democratic countries as well, most notably in Canada." but with nothing else about Canadian attack ads; the ones I recall most strongly are the Chretien speech defect, the Ignatieff "just visiting" campaign (the brainchild of actually-American the infamous Tom Flanagan), and this one; I guess the Trudeau attack ad, I haven't seen it; jury's out on expanding that article with Canadian examples, I'm not into it.Skookum1 (talk) 02:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Curious that your mind only recalls Conservative attack ads, but blanked out what is perhaps the most famous one, that just so happened to be a Liberal attack ad. This sidebar notwithstanding, I think the link to attack ad could be considered fair. Certainly the one against Dix is being described as such by various media outlets. (Second aside: this was cute.) Resolute 15:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "adverts" is a common term here, it should be "ads" or "advertisements". 117Avenue (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It's definitely a British-ism, and not Canadian English, not normally anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 04:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Dismissed or resigned??

What I've been reading in NPOV sources is that he resigned, "did the right thing"......he wasn't dismissed. Suggest we look around for different citations, as far as I know he resigned when the matter became public, of his own accord.Skookum1 (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen both in reliable sources. I'm not sure that it matters, though. If he resigned, I'm guessing he didn't have much choice. --06:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it matters a lot, politically. He did what senior bureaucrats and politicians are supposed to do in this country. Imputing that he was dismissed is not the same thing and has negative political tones. Mike Harcourt, too, famously "fell on his sword" and resigned when Bingogate went down, even though he had nothing to do with it. It's a rarity in Canadian politics now, resigning on a point of honour or when associated in any way with a scandal, which is what the normal convention of the Westminster parliamentary process is supposed to work. Which 'reliable sources" say "dismissed"? Are they NPOV sources??Skookum1 (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Vancouver Magazine is not a newsmagazine, it's a lifestyle rag, though Gary Mason is a credible reporter (though not with BC Rail he wasn't....); the Province is a known anti-NDP rag even though it's supposedly a "reliable source" and I've seen them twist/distort lots of things, and that's from an editorial, not news copy. Citations which are from the time of the event, not retrospects like this with op-ed content, would be more reliable to me; on Tsakumis' blog it says he resigned, I'm pretty sure. I'll ask Laila Yuile (http://www.lailayuile.com) as she's up on this stuff....both Vancouver Magazine and The Province are owned by anti-NDP publishers.Skookum1 (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd consider the Vancouver Magazine piece an RS by any measure (lifestyle rags can publish journalism), the Province editorial could be improved on for sure. As for the firing/dismissal, Mason is clear, "when Dix walked out of the west annex of the legislature, his place of work as Clark’s chief of staff, to announce that after three years’ service, he’d been fired." and "When the ploy went public, Clark fired Dix. He had to.". Unless we have something that strongly refutes that, let's stay with the RSes. The Interior (Talk) 14:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Skookum1, would you give it a rest? If you keep it up on the "anti-NDP publishers" then you will have to start citing references - and not just those who don't like MSM = just as you would be expected to on any Wikipedia page. And if you are going to do that, you are then going to have to cite yourself, since you seem to believe that anybody who questions what you do is has a vested interest other than the truth.:::Sunciviclee (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

puh-leeze....are you going to print a retraction in your "reliable source" about there being a COI noticeboard listing for me? Are you going to clarify your claim and imputation that I was censoring Wikipedia - "sanitizing" it - and that what the REAL Wikipedia editors did was put in information about the events in question was not "restoring" what the POV SPA had been attempting? You're no one to claim to me that the paper your wrote falsehoods about me in is a "reliable source". Why are you here anyway? ARe you using your account to kibbitz on only this one article -which makes you a WP:SPA and because of the upshot, also COI yourself.....your paper is famous for being anti-NDP, "give it a rest" pretending it's notSkookum1 (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Renée Saklikar?

Is she notable enough to have her own article? Poets are a dime a dozen, though it's true we don't have full coverage of Canadian poets; she has to be more notable than just being his wife in order to get an article though, right?Skookum1 (talk) 04:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

some of this should be on the 2013 election article, no?

Strikes me that with the JOy McPhail endorsement and the memogate stuff that's to do with the current campaign the British Columbia general election, 2013 article should be getting some of that, no?Skookum1 (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This wording may be in the source but it's misleading

" a position from which he was dismissed for back-dating a memo to protect Clark from conflict-of-interest charges" but that rationale is the op-ed of the media, not the reason Dix himself gives, which was that he did it because Clark wanted nothing to do with Pilarinos' desires and was wanting to get word out to staff about it, that was the subject of the memo. The wording about this on the Glen Clark page is even more problematic.Skookum1 (talk) 07:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Skookum still editing the article?

Lets keep discussion focused on the article, not other editors. Resolute 13:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Based in the events over the last couple weeks is it really appropriate for skookum to continue his involvement with this article? It' appears there are serious ownership issues for skookum here. Wikipedia has thousands of editors. It's not on all skookum to police this page. i'm sure there are at least a couple out of the thousands of editors that can ensure npov here. He doesnt need to appoint himself as this articles guardian angel. Quite frankly this is having serious negative effects on wikipedia's credibility as,although skookum may not agreee, his edits are of a highly partisian nature and seem to be going unchecked by the wider wiki editorial community (ie. automatically overwriting or over ruling refs from MSM and substituting alternative media source which are held in a much lower regard and have but a fraction of the circulation of those MSM sources. Its fine to disagree with or having suspicion of MSM sources but they are still mainstream by virtue of their characterization which means they are more representative of broad consensus of the population. If The Tyee and Sun/Province are at odds with their reported facts like it or not the Sun/Province wins due to their being the more widely accepted reliable source amongst the general population. 108.172.115.8 (talk) 00:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Although your crowd wants to have me blocked from Wikipedia if they could, and want me silenced in forum space, starting with my preventing Idle No More from remaining a right-wing and racist tub-thump, there are no bars on me editing this article, nor if I have evidence of things that "the broader consensus of the population" doesn't know because the MSM won't tell them is entirely beside the point. Your agenda is clear - and it's not me who has WP:OWN issues about this page, I've barely touched it since other editors came along to keep POV insertions out and monitor it more closely; if it hadn't been for me coming along, the I-am-not-a-Liberal Liberal supporters would have continued to twist this article....as they have tried to do to many others before. Targeting me is the new Liberal game, you're just taking shots in the dark; not surprising, since you're shooting from the dark and wanting to keep people in the dark.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Holy freaking paranoid censorship...resolutes attempts to surpress this very relvent discussion of the quality of the page and wikipedia as a greater issue just goes to show this is no longer a crowed sourced encyclopedia for all, but rather a pet ptoject for a group of inline buddies who happen to trend (sometimes very) left in their views. Skookum, why immediately jump to the conclusion that i'm part of a vast liberal conspiracy? Odd, skookumused to be sure i was part of a vast conservative conspiracy. In fact it is your agenda that is clear skookum and resolute you've come to his aid far too many times for this to be impartial in your observatios. Reolute's attempt to terminate and hide this discussion is quite disturbing. Wkipedia used to be great. But whats happened here on this page and on other canadian pages with political implications is concerning to the point that the media is now reporting on what in fact appears to be a vast left wing conspiracy to aggressively push their own agenda. You'd think Wkipedia was led by Arun Smith as opposed to Jimmy Wales but that might just be the direction were heading. Other editors have been blocked and or banned from editing other pages for far less controversial cnflicts than skookums here. Why is the wiki editorial community refusing to restore any credibility by asking him to avoid these sensitive topics at least for a short time? As mentioned there are many, many other editors (skookum admits they are sctive here) to ensure the "liberal conspiracy" is kept in check and npov is preserved. Macutty (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

and before the paranoid come screaming sockpuppet I was the original ip editor. Forgot to login yesterday. Sue me. Macutty (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

381 total edits on 71 unique articles........wow I'm impressed, you're really qualified to speak to it, for sure, given that you made rankly POV edits that good editors have since come along and done right.....I was too busy reverting your insistence on your distorted and undue weight account to have time to rephrase anything; you should read WP:BLP a little more conscientiously. And gee, that's the first time anyone has ever suggested Resolute and I are "buddies". ROTFL. Good one huh Resolute?Skookum1 (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Your comment was nothing but an attack on another user which we don't allow here. Resolute's hatting of the discussion was appropriate as this talk page is for discussion about the article, not about other users. If you want to take action on what you see as bad behaviour on the part of Skookum feel free to take it through the Dispute resolution process. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok Macutty. If you want to play this game, I'm game. First, do you realize how absolutely hypocritical you come off by whining about Skookum1's jumping to conclusions when you do the very same thing in the very same paragraph? ("a greater issue just goes to show this is no longer a crowed sourced encyclopedia for all, but rather a pet ptoject for a group of inline buddies who happen to trend (sometimes very) left in their views.") Second, I am quite amused to find out both that I am Skookum1's "buddy", that I have "come to his aid far too many times" or that I trend left in my views. You need only to look at this talk page, but especially at WT:CWNB, to note that I am actually one of Skookum1's harshest critics and that I have repeatedly criticized him for his bad faith assumptions on the motivations of other editors. Well guess what? You are behaving exactly the same and showing yourself to be no better, and you're getting treated the same. Deal with it. Skookum1 will be the first to tell you that I also feel he is highly partisan. But I hatted that rant because this talk page exists to discuss the Adrian Dix article, not as a forum about an editor you dislike. I dislike a lot of Skookum1's editing style, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to comment or to participate with other editors on how to improve the article. And the only thing he's done to the article in the last week has been to fix a typo. Hardly worthy of your melodramatic rant. And while I could have let you and he get into it with each other, I made the decision to try and save this talk page from such nonsense. Now, are you prepared to focus on the article? Resolute 17:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

uh, didnt jump to conclusions...this is atlk page so i didnt cite refs but the concept of wiki becoming a pet project for a small group of editors has been widely reported in the media and also is discussed on the wikpedia bias page. My point was that in the past (although i dont edit everyday like some...i work a lot, that said i've been around wiki for a long time) when editors get to close too heated or too bias with a page they are asked (or skmetimes banned) from editing a page. It seems that just doeant apply to skookum for some reason. Again, in the media, its been discussed at length how the small group of super wiki contributors tend to rally around each other in times of conflict or alternatively stay away when intervention against one of their own may be necessary. And to skookum...your having thousands of edits doesnt make you smehow superior to smeone was has few...it just means you have an excessive amount of time to spend on wikipedia. Skookum is harming wiki not just with his edits but with his conflicts no making it in to MSM. Hes doing damage to its reputation as well as its content by continuing to be jnvolved in articles its obvious he's just too close to. I'm get the sense more and more wikipedia is unsalvagable. Sme would prefer to rewrite both history and reality in their own view through bullying and wiki lawyering but i guess this is just a case of it is what it is. Frustrating to aay the least. Macutty (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)