This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just wanted to leave a talk page note here in case there's any confusion: I've seen discussion boards incorrectly assume that Tabuns is gay because he's partnered with someone named Shawn, but in fact Shawn Kerwin is a woman. So just as a precautionary measure, I'm posting to note that Tabuns should not be added to Category:Gay politicians on the basis of his partner's name. (There doesn't seem to be a logical way to address this directly in the article, which is why I'm noting it on the talk page.) Bearcat 01:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Overall, I found this article to be objective and informative, however I am concerned that bias is shown in the paragraph beginning with Tabuns has won support across the political spectrum. This sentence is very subjective, and comes across as cheerleading. The quotes which follow it are strongly one-sided, and appear to have been taken very selectively from the source. No quotes which might have contradicted this view were included in this article.
I would prefer not to edit this page, as I am a newbie, and I am sure that there are more qualified people, who already have a vested interest in maintaining this page, who could do a better job.
With all due respect to the contributors, might I suggest deleting the paragraph in question? The only alternative would be to add quotes from the same source which are not so flattering to the subject of this article, and would detract from the overall flow.
Storm108 04:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying the dates and sources of your quotes. Please consider this article from your source Judi McLeod: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2004/edesk051804.htm
This article could be quoted to indicate that the subject has taken actions which might lead to a loss of support across the political spectrum, assuming that the left is generally pro-union, and the right is generally deemed conservative (please note that I say could be - I am not taking that stand, and prefer not to include those quotes here, that's not my intention). Also, this article is much more recent than the quotes you have supplied, and may be a better representation of the source's current opinion on this matter.
I don't agree with your logic that because a source has been branded right-wing, positive quotes are necessarily more valid, and can be taken without considering quotes which do not support your opinion that the subject has won support across the political spectrum. In fact, that kind of argument could be used to justify adding unbalanced negative quotes from left-of-centre sources, which I wouldn't necessarily agree with, either - and the link that I have provided does indicate that those views are there to be quoted. In either case, an opinion can lack a neutral point of view. To maintain NPOV, opinions are best avoided. Cheers.
Storm108 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I explained myself quite well, thank you. Kudos to Bearcat for making the edit, and if I may quote Bearcat let's avoid vague feel-good generalities about his political activities and stick to clearly quantifiable stuff
Storm108 22:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Peter Tabuns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)