Talk:Rick Dykstra

Interesting use of footnoting by CJC
urrie

Mind if I copy your footnoting technique? Much of the idolizing comment on Jack Layton's page deserves this kind of treatment. Thanks for the idea! DSatYVR 17:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there's no reason for you not to use it (though I won't make any assessments of its applicability to the Layton page). CJCurrie 03:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Dykstra recieving [sic] one of the lowest vote totals of any MP elected in Ontario." This is simply untrue. After just a cursory search, the following sitting MPs from Ontario received fewer votes than Dykstra:
Parry Sound—Muskoka: Tony Clement - 18,513
London—Fanshawe: Irene Mathyssen - 16,067
Kitchener—Conestoga: Harold Albrecht - 20,615
Kenora: Roger Valley - 9,937
Thunder Bay—Superior North: Joe Comuzzi - 13,983
Thunder Bay—Rainy River: Ken Boshcoff - 13,525
Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing: Brent St. Denis - 14,652
Nickel Belt: Ray Bonin - 19,775
Welland: John Maloney - 20,238
Oshawa: Colin Carrie - 20,617
Beaches—East York: Maria Minna - 20,678
Davenport: Mario Silva - 20,172
Scarborough Southwest: Tom Wappel - 19,930
York West: Judy Sgro - 21,418
Parkdale—High Park: Peggy Nash - 20,690

“Conscientious Objectors” to “Wars Not Sanctioned by United Nations”

Greetings CJCurrie:

In your July 26, 2008 quick deletion of my well-documented July 25, 2008 edit (see history), you said, “I believe that all Conservative MPs voted against this ... it belongs on the Conservative Party page, not here.”

According to the Results of the Canadian federal election, 2006 the Conservatives won 124 seats. Compare that number with the 110 Conservatives who voted on the June 3, 2008 motion. The difference is 14 MPs. Among them are notables like the leader of the said “Conservative Party,” Stephen Harper, and the former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Maxime Bernier.

The leader of “the Conservative Party” walked out of the House of Commons just seconds before the vote took place. Therefore, his not voting was not due to travelling nor sickness, etc.

The fact that the leader of “the Conservative Party” abstained from the vote means that there is more to this story than just that “it belongs on the Conservative Party page.”

In the interests of precisely recording the factual complexities of every situation, which Wikipedia aspires to, I believe that there are grounds for keeping this edit on this page.

Wikipedia is all about recording the precise facts and their complexities -- not in interpreting those complexities. To ignore the abstention of the leader of the Conservative Party, and to say that it “belongs [only] on the Conservative Party page, not [anywhere else]” is an interpretation of the facts, not a recording of the precise complexities of the facts.

I should also mention that I am not the only Wikipedia editor who believes that “this statement can remain in the article.” Another prominent Wikipedia editor, Vidioman, said of a similar statement on the Joe Comuzzi page, “ …This statement can remain in the article (and the other articles to which you added that section)…” (Quote from Talk:Joe Comuzzi )

Links to vidioman are here: User:Vidioman User talk:Vidioman

I believe that this disagreement between prominent editors of Wikipedia does, at the least, require a discussion on the discussion page before any further quick deletions are made.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Boyd,

I can sympathize with some aspects of this logic, and I believe that I understand what you're trying to do ... but I don't believe you're going about it in the right way.

There are some rare situations where an individual parliamentarian's vote is notable enough to be included in that parliamentarian's Wikipedia entry. Examples would include the 1976 and 1986 votes on capital punishment and the 2005 vote on same-sex marriage, wherein the party caucuses were internally divided. Some other examples might include cases where a single MP voted his or her conscience, and/or of the wishes of his/her constituents, against the party line or party consensus (for instance, when Keith Martin was the only Canadian Alliance MP to support a symbolic motion opposing the 2003 invasion of Iraq).

This, however, is not one of these occasions. My understanding is that all Conservative MPs who were in the house voted against the bill in question. The issue of international sanctuary is quite notable, and most certainly deserves to be mentioned on Wikipedia ... but I don't believe that referencing the votes of individual MPs is the way to go.

Harper's absence from the chamber may be noteworthy, but the presence of low-ranking MPs like Dykstra is not.

User:Vidioman is entitled to his view, but I don't believe it's the correct one in this instance.

I plan to call for a discussion on this point. I'm prepared to leave the reference in place for now, as I don't regard it as especially problematic one way or the other. CJCurrie (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've said in other cases where this very issue has come up, the problem with this is that it sets up a WP:NPOV-violating assertion that the Conservative MPs had a moral obligation to vote in favour of the legislation, and are thus being singled out for committing some sort of ethical or moral lapse in their duties as MPs. It's not being presented as what it is, which is a legitimate difference of opinion on a contentious issue, but as an unquestioned POV implication that their votes on the legislation are notable precisely because they somehow violated some sort of moral or ethical code by voting as they did. While I may personally agree that the legislation should have gone through, including it in the bios of each individual Conservative MP isn't a useful or neutral contribution — it's a statement of opinion masquerading as fact. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings LovingRoads:

You used the word “nonsense” when you made a speedy deletion of a well-documented contribution which was still the subject of discussion amongst several prominent Wikipedia editors, including a Wikipedia administrator. I welcome you to please join the discussion. Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Bearcat:

I stand corrected.

In your sentence which contains the words “singled out,” you have made a wise point about efforts to be balanced. I have now acted on your wisdom in the following way:

In the interests of not singling out anyone, I have helped Wikipedia readers by providing them with the information of the way many different MPs voted on this issue, regardless whether they voted: “yea” or “nay.”

In the interests of being balanced, I have now ensured that the “nay” votes recorded in MPs Wikipedia pages have numbered no more and no less than the MPs “yea” votes recorded in this way. In this way, I am now no longer guilty of “singling out” anyone.

Thank you for your constructive criticism.

In response to your discussion thoughts about value judgements: All the people who voted (whether “yea” or “nay”) thought it to be “the right thing to do” that they voted the way they did. If they did not think it “to be the right thing to do,” then they would not have voted in the way they voted. In my contribution, I, myself, do not make that value judgement. They make the value judgement with their vote. I simply record it for the benefit of Wikipedia readers.

PS. If there are further problems with what I have done, it would help me (and vidioman) to understand your discussion comments more quickly if you would please point us directly to the particular section of the policy you allege I have violated. (I have read the link you gave me and haven’t yet found the particular section.) Thank you. This will help to speed up the discussion.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is, it's really not Wikipedia's job to document how every individual MP voted on every individual piece of legislation that got to a reading in the House. In a free vote situation with highly publicized intracaucus divisions, such as the same-sex marriage debate in 2005, that kind of information may be relevant to individual MPs. But for a whipped vote all it tells us is that they obey party direction. Like, big whoop. Adding the same piece to some MPs who voted in favour of it doesn't really solve the problem either, because the fundamental problem is with the notion that it's relevant to the individual MPs at all, not just whether opponents are getting singled out or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Bearcat:

As I understand it, this discussion now boils down to a question of “relevance.” Does Wikipedia have guidelines as to what is considered “relevant” and what considered “not relevant?” If so, I am more than willing to read them and apply them to pages for MPs in particular.

Here are a few examples to consider:

Many MPs have a section entitled “personal life” filled with information which many would not consider “relevant” to the “job of Wikipedia.”

The MP Vic Toews has a entire section entitled “Trivia” filled with information (about mustaches, etc.) which many would not consider “relevant” to the “job of Wikipedia” as it pertains to MPs.

Which is more important to Wikipedia: whether an MP has a mustache or how he/she represented thousands of constituents in the House of Commons which has an effect those constituents lives?

Is Wikipedia doing a better service to those constituents by discussing issues of mustaches but not issues of wars in which many thousands are killed?

The way these questions are dealt with now, will shape the future of Wikipedia:

It will shape its future donor base, and it will determine what kind of visitors Wikipedia gets in the future.

Yesterday in the Vic Toews page, user LovingRoads left intact the discussion of mustaches, but at the same time made a speedy deletion of a fact about Vic Toews MP House of Commons vote on “conscientious objectors” to “wars not sanctioned by United Nations,” calling it this fact “nonsense.”

LovingRoads did this even after I asked him to join this discussion.

Instead of joining this discussion, LovingRoads made the speedy deletion and left this comment: “You still havebn't explained why this nonsense should be included.”

Is that the future of Wikipedia?

If it is, I predict a massive reduction in donors, and a massive migration to other “open source” sources.

Other examples.

MP Stephane Dion has a section called “Miscellaneous” which discusses his dog.

MP Stephen Harper has a section about his personal life, discussing his son’s shirt at a hockey game.

I could go on.

Don’t get me wrong: Personally, I don’t mind a discussion of mustaches, etc, on MPs pages as long as issues of greater importance are also allowed to stay on those pages.

Practically speaking, it would be a huge impossible job to police what is considered relevant and what is not on all Wikipedia pages.

But it is a much, much smaller job to police speedy deletions of facts which are obviously of greater importance than discussion of mustaches on MP pages. Boyd Reimer (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It has nothing to do with whether this is a more important issue than mustaches or dogs (nobody in their right mind would disagree with that point in the least) — it's not relevant to the individual MPs because it was a whipped vote in which the MPs were bound by party discipline to vote a specific way regardless of what their own personal feelings might or might not have been on the issue. It's irrelevant to the individual MPs because it wasn't a free vote where MPs were at liberty to vote their consciences. It's relevant to the parties, certainly, but in the individual MPs articles all it tells us is that they obey party direction. It doesn't tell us much of anything about their personal views, since we have no way of knowing whether any individual MP might have voted differently in a free vote situation. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Bearcat:

As I understand it, you appear to be indicating that my contribution is “off the topic.”

I realize that there is a Wikipedia policy which requires people to stay “on topic.” I understand the purpose of that policy is to make it easier for visitors to find information.

But isn’t that purpose being defeated if a visitor -- who wants to find out how their political representative voted on their behalf—doesn’t find that information even after typing in the representative’s name in the search box?

Your interpretaion of the rule of “staying on the topic” seems to mean the MP pages should exclude any information which is not unique to that particular individual.

As I have already pointed out, your interpretation of that rule will allow talk of mustaches but not talk of the actual function of an MP—which is to represent a riding of constituents by doing things like voting in the House of Commons.

Perhaps Wikipedia pages for MPs should adjust this interpretation of “staying on the topic” to include some intellectual space for the core, original democratic function of an MP.

The purpose of making rules is to help, not hurt. When rules hurt instead of help, then it’s time to adapt to the situation instead of being puritan about absolutes.

You mentioned “free” votes.

If a vote is not free then it’s not truly a vote (by definition).

It then logically follows that every true vote is an action of a person.

I was under the impression that all well-documented records of the actions of a person have a place on that person’s Wikipedia page, unless there is a specific Wikipedia policy, or legal policy, against certain confidential actions.

Votes of an MP are not confidential. On the contrary, in order for democracy to function, people must be aware of how their representatives vote.

What is being discussed here are two fundamental concepts of democracy: the concept of a “vote” and the concept of a “representative.”:

Are the rules of Wikipedia in tune with these two concepts?

It’s an important topic for many readers of Wikipedia.

With all due respect, I ask again: Which specific policy of Wikipedia is being violated by my contribution?

Boyd Reimer (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're vastly misrepresenting the situation at hand. None of the articles in question are restricted to content about mustaches and dogs; all of them already include significant information about political views, votes and individual press coverage that they received in their role as MPs. This matter, however, is not about MPs as individuals, because it was a whipped vote in which MPs were bound by party discipline to vote the way the party dictated. And using semantic trickery to obscure the very real distinction that exists in Canadian politics between a free vote and a whipped vote doesn't exactly strengthen your case. Nobody's saying that the issue shouldn't be covered on Wikipedia at all — but the way to document it simply isn't by recording the votes of individual MPs, because MPs were bound by party policy, and not given the liberty to vote their own individual consciences, on this particular issue.

Which specific policy of Wikipedia is being violated by your contribution? Well, you're adding three reference links. One is a Toronto Star article about the motion itself, but which doesn't even mention the votes of any individual MP, and therefore fails to actually support the statement you're referencing it with. The second is the cover page of the report itself from the House of Commons website, which explicitly shows that the Conservatives' rationale for voting against it was not fundamental opposition to the very idea of accepting war deserters, as you appear to be determined to portray it, but a belief that existing programs already cover the issue without the need for a new one. You may disagree with that assessment, but it violates WP:NPOV to simply assert — or to deliberately create the impression, as you're doing here — that they're objectively wrong. And the last is the Hansard debate itself, which explicitly violates Wikipedia's injunction against primary sources. We can't go directly to Hansard to document things that the media didn't cover. We're not a news site that can be used to publish information that hasn't gotten media coverage on its own — our content policies require media coverage as a baseline for inclusion on here, because we're not a primary source.

Bottom line, you're combining three links, none of which is a valid source on its own for the reasons I outlined above, to create a synthesis of facts that haven't been documented by the media — if you have to go directly to Hansard to document an individual MPs vote, because none of the media coverage in reliable sources has singled out any individual MPs vote for scrutiny or attention, then by definition you're violating Wikipedia's policy against original research. And you're doing it all with a non-neutral point-of-view agenda of admonishing individual MPs for not voting the way you feel they should have. And then, on top of that, you're deliberately misrepresenting the quality of the current articles by trying to create the absolutely false impression that yours would be the first genuinely substantive or important contribution ever made to articles that otherwise only discuss trivial fluff like mustaches and dogs, even though in both of the articles in question, the fluffy bits are but one or two lines near the end of an article that already contains several hundred times as much substantive, documented information about their political views. Assume good faith, eh? Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to add something -- just because I have said something, doesn't make it a standard here. Bearcat is a very established editor here with lots of experience to how this place works and you should take his words in account more than mine. Also, on the Joe Commuzzi talk page, I said that the section you added should be re-written because it is awkward (I should have mentioned that a more reliable source should be included as well but overlooked that at the time) but that did not happen. After putting more thought into the situation, I think the sections should be removed from the articles. vıdıoman 20:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Bearcat:

Thank you for referring me to these Wikipedia articles. I will study them carefully and do my utmost to be a responsible Wikipedia user.

Greetings Bearcat, CJCurrie, and vidioman:

Since you are all more knowledgeable about how political Wikipedia articles are structured, I sincerely ask this question, with all due respect:

If a reader of English Wikipedia wants to know how their representative voted on whipped votes, which article should they go to to find that information?

It seems that if Wikipedia boasts 2,500,655 articles in English, there should at least be somewhere where English speaking people can go to find out how their representative voted on whipped votes.

I am not the only one who made the [now false] assumption that we could find that on our representative’s page itself. There are at least two other Wikipedia users in the last 40 hours who made that assumption (with no prompting from me—I might add).

See Revision history of Jack Layton Aug 10 -- User:GiuseppeMassimo.

Also see Revision history of Michael Ignatieff Aug 11 -- User:Mboverload.

In just 40 hours all three of us –without knowing of each other—made the assumption that the architecture of Wikipedia is set up so that MP pages do not exclude their whipped votes.

In fact, vidioman, with all due respect, you, yourself, as an experienced Wikipedia editor, seemed to indicate that that assumption made sense to you at first thought.

All of this evidence means that the probability that there are many, many more people like us is very high.

I noticed at the bottom of many MP pages is reference to an external link entitled “How did they vote” But every time I click on it, I get a “page not found” message. (as with many external links)

Can Wikipedia set something up internally (like a boxed templated link?) for people like me, User:GiuseppeMassimo, User:Mboverload, initially vidioman, and the probable thousands of others?

Or should I start a page myself to help those people?

The above evidence shows that there is a real need here, but I wouldn’t want to start a page that already exists.

Please help. Thanks.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings all

Below is the message I left for User:Mboverload

Members of Parliament Pages need a link to Whipped (Party Policy) Votes--Please help, Thanks

Your technical expertise will be fantastic for this.

--Please help, Thanks

On Aug 11, you reversed a deletion on MP Michael Ignatieff page.

Because of that, I am sure you will be interested in both the technical and philosophical end of the discussion now taking place in the discussion page for MP Rick Dykstra.

Participants to the discussion are

User:vidioman

User:CJCurrie

User:Bearcat (an admistrator)

and myself.

With an election coming up (See http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080807.welections07/BNStory/National/home ) a linking device like this may save a lot of work for the people (like CJCurrie) who are on the watch for vandalism.

Please join the discussion. Thanks.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Its obvious you know how to edit a page, if you find that external links are dead (as you noted above), you could take in upon yourself to fix them rather than complain about them being dead.Islander at heart (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Islander at heart

Actually I wasn't complaining. I was just making a technical note of it, as anyone would do on the technical side of a topic. Boyd Reimer (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

If a reader of English Wikipedia wants to know how their representative voted on whipped votes, which article should they go to to find that information?

If a reader of the English Wikipedia wants to know how their MP voted, they are in the wrong place. They should go to How'd they vote?, which exists for that purpose. vıdıoman 08:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings all

Thank you very much, vidioman. Strangely enough this is one of the few times that link has worked for me. Now that I have the link, I am able to fix it in other places I find it (for the benefit of all).

Reassurance about my integrity:

In the course of answering my questions about Wikipedia policy, Bearcat has made some statements which may or may not inadvertently cause some of you to doubt my integrity. The discussion has inadvertently raised the question as to whether I am deliberately setting out to put unbias material on pages.

I know that Bearcat’s intentions were to simply answer my question and illustrate Wikipedia policy, and that he did not intend to smear me. But I think that the following additional note is necessary to reassure all of you of my integrity.

My contribution included a link to the June 3 motion. The text of that page has the following content:

      1.  76 words of the motion

      2.  76 words of opinion dissenting from the motion

      3.  Zero words of opinion supporting the motion.

This is strong evidence that my act of providing this link is not biasly supporting the motion.

Here is more evidence: The news article I gave a link to ends with dissenting opinion. Most of those who study the psychology of literature and speeches agree that content at the end of an article or speech have a place of greater psychological importance than content buried in the middle.

Also, in reference to Bearcats comments,“You're vastly misrepresenting the situation at hand. None of the articles in question are restricted to content about mustaches and dogs..” In a comment previous to his I said, “I don’t mind a discussion of mustaches, etc, on MPs pages as long as issues of greater importance are also allowed to stay on those pages.” The Vic Toews section entitled “Trivia” is 95 words long. My contribution about conscientious objectors to wars not sanctioned by the United Nations is (make that “was”) 26 words.

Bearcat also used the words, “semantic trickery” to describe my statement that “If a vote is not free then it’s not truly a vote (by definition).” This is not semantic trickery because often MPs do, in fact, vote against party policy even if it means being forced out of a party. Frankly I believe that “wars not sanctioned by the United Nations” is an issue worth that sacrifice.

About the other things Bearcat had to say, I am still busy studiously reading Wikipedia policy, and promise to abide by it. For now, I consider myself a “still learning” student of Wikipedia policy.

Thank you, Bearcat, for your patience.

Boyd Reimer (talk) 09:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Boyd Reimer

Above you stated "Frankly I believe that “wars not sanctioned by the United Nations” is an issue worth that sacrifice."

I was under the impression that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a pulpit from which an editor can use to get his or her views known. Its obvious this is an issue you feel very strongly about. All one has to do is go back and read the original edit you made, and they will see that by the tone of that edit, you were trying to use Wikipedia to paint those who voted against the bill in a negative manner. You were instructed to tone down that message, and you did, but the original intent is still shining through. This became even more noticible when you began to edit the articles of those who voted for the bill. It clearly looks like an attempt to show those who voted for the bill in a positive manner, and those that voted against in a negative manner. There are many ways to get your views on an issue heard, but using an encylopedia in this manner, should not be one of them. We all have strong views on certain issues, but just because we feel something is important, doesn't mean that it should be put in an encyclopedia, especially when the issue is rather insignificant when looked at in a broader context.LovingRoads (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings LovingRoads

You quoted me saying ""Frankly I believe that “wars not sanctioned by the United Nations” is an issue worth that sacrifice."

Those words were never put into an article. They remain on a discussion page, which, as I have seen in other discussions, operates under different rules and allows for opinion if that opinion is an integral part of the discussion.

"On April 21, 1996, John Nunziata was expelled from the Liberal caucus after he voted against the government's budget in protest over the government breaking a promise to rescind the Goods and Services Tax." I believe that most people believe that wars are more dramatic than taxes. Therefore, I admit, a better phrasing of my previous post should read as follows: "Given the fact that 'wars not sanctioned by the United Nations' have affected people more dramatically than budgets and the Goods and Services Tax, there is a high probability that at least one or two MPs may consider this an issue worth the sacrifice."

LovingRoads, you also make mention of other edits I made which are inside articles. I am not sure which ones you speak of. Please provide link and quote. Thanks. That makes it easier for me to adjust it to comply with your complaints. I will quickly do so if your complaint is justified. Boyd Reimer (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Boyd Reimer:

Re-reading my comments, I can see that I worded the quote in a way that didn't make much sense. That was not my intent. I was trying to show that the quote you made on this talk page, not one in an article, clearly showed your view on the topic at hand, and I believed that your personal view was the reason behind you wanting the information on the vote put into so many articles. I'm not saying this is what you did, only that I myself felt this was what you were doing. If you were not posting the info because of a bias against the MPs that voted against the bill, then I appologize.

Now, as far as the other edits you thought I was talking about, I was only refering to the edits you made in regards to this vote. By original edit, I was refering to the first group of edits on the vote you made, which you edited into the articles of several Conservative MPs. I was just trying to point out that your personal view on the issue was clearly evident in those posts, and that I believe Wikipedia is not the place to bring attention to an issue that wasn't all that important. You do deserve credit for toning down the views in the original edit and making it more presentable, but I still believe there are far more important issues.

If the issue has been settled, than I won't argue with you about it, anymore. You believe it belongs in the articles, I don't, and to keep fighting over it, is not going to change our views on the importance, or lack of importance in regards to the vote.LovingRoads (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings LovingRoad,

You said, “the issue is rather insignificant when looked at in a broader context.”

It was covered by the New York Times, (circulation 1,077,256 Daily) with this quote: “its Conservative government has ignored a nonbinding motion demanding asylum for deserters that was approved in June by Parliament, where Conservatives do not control a majority of the votes.” See [1]

The motion was also covered by Britain’s BBC, a country across the ocean which does not have any US soldiers like New York may have. The BBC has this quote, and others: "On 3 June, Canada's parliament passed a non-binding motion in favour of allowing deserters to stay"[2]

Insignificant? Hardly.Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

New section about vote notability

Hey guys! As a dirty american =) I think that him voting to allow conscientious objectors from the United States is a very big political move. I am not saying I'm for or against it, I am saying that it is very, very notable and I think should be included in the article. --mboverload@ 03:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this vote anymore important than the hundreds of other votes that have been held in the House of Commons over the last while? The fact of the matter is that this particular vote is classified as non-binding, meaning the government can just ignore it. How does a vote on something that is more symbolic than anything else, belong in the articles of the MPs that voted against? If this is allowed in the articles, than every other vote should be as well.Islander at heart (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Islander at heart. Ignatieff voted for, not "against." Boyd Reimer (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the talk page for Rick Dykstra, not Michael Ignatieff. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I didn't know that Mboverload was concerned only about Ignatieff (and no other MPs) until he made the above posting. The only reason I called him into this discussion were these words of his in the history revision of the Michael Ignatieff page: "This seems like a pretty politically important vote that he made." These words are ambiguous enough to be misinterpreted as applying to all MPs including Dykstra. In hindsight, I was mistaken to invite him to this talk page. Thank you for your patience.Boyd Reimer (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I never even mentioned anything about Ignatieff in my previous post, I was commenting only on the notable factor in regards to the vote and wether or not it belonged in the articles of any MP. The point I was trying to make is that a non-binding vote, that is more symbolic than anything else doesn't seem significant enough to be placed in an encyclopedia, regardless of how an MP voted on the issue.Islander at heart (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Greetings Islander at heart:

You said, "[the] vote ..... doesn't seem significant enough to be placed in an encyclopedia."

It was covered by the New York Times, (circulation 1,077,256 Daily) with this quote: “its Conservative government has ignored a nonbinding motion demanding asylum for deserters that was approved in June by Parliament, where Conservatives do not control a majority of the votes.” See [3]

The motion was also covered by Britain’s BBC, from a country across the ocean which does not have any US soldiers like New York may have. The BBC has this quote among others: "On 3 June, Canada's parliament passed a non-binding motion in favour of allowing deserters to stay." [4]

Insignificant? Hardly.Boyd Reimer (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

photo

File:Dykstrabb.jpg

Is it appropriate for the article to contain the photo at right, which depicts Dykstra texting on his BlackBerry during a Remembrance Day ceremony, or is it a POV attempt to depict him in an unduly negative light? Posted to WP:CWNB as a request for comment. Bearcat (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I've refrained from comment thus far, but I strongly suspect that reproduction of this photo constitutes a POV attempt to depict him in an unduly negative light. I would recommend removing both the photo and the accompanying text. CJCurrie (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine to keep both the photo and the accompanying text. The text has been re-worded to eliminate any POV bias, however if there are still POV concerns the text probably could still be reworded. As for the photo, here is a quote that I believe is relevant. "The picture is fine, actually. It shows me on my BlackBerry, looking serious and intent." That quote is off of Rick Dykstra's blog on his constituency website, as is a reproduction of the photo.[5] In the text there contains an almost verbatim quote from the St. Catharines Standard with Dykstra's explanation of the photo. Seeing that the issue here was the photo, I think it's appropriate for the photo to be posted.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the photo is fine in view of the fact that there's currently no photo of him on the article. It should be replaced if/when a better photo is obtained. PKT(alk) 12:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I was asleep at the switch...there's a potential copyright issue here. Mr. NFN, do you have written proof that Renate Hodges has actually released the photo into the public domain? It's not enough to simply assert that a photographer has released her copyright, because anybody can say such a thing without proof — Wikipedia requires that an explicit confirmation of this (written by Ms. Hodges herself) be filed directly with permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Until that's done, this image can't be in the article regardless of POV issues. Bearcat (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Underage drinking scandal

Several anonymous IPs have attempted to delete sourced material about Dykstra's drinking scandal. This has resulted in a discussion on one of their user pages. I have copied that discussion here where it is most relevant and in hopes of furthering the discussion if any. Also, rather than blocking these IPs for edit warring or possible sock puppetry, a block that would be easier for him/her/they to evade, I have semi-protected this article. Reviewing admins are welcome to remove this protection if they deem it appropriate.

Wikipedia is not intended to be used as a place for political operatives to slander opposing candidates. Libellous information is just that, libellous. The edits political operatives are putting on Rick Dykstra's page are unsubstantiated and untrue. They are not in the public interest. Simply because a tabloid decided to publish the unsubstantiated allegations does not justify using them as a reference to support inclusion on Wikipedia. It is unethical to do so, and it does not make it any better to add some reference to a public figure denying unsubstantiated allegations. Those allegations have no place on Wikipedia unless substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.63.101.74 (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for engaging in discussion. Wikipedia does not presume to know the truth of any information, it can only report on what is verifiable by reliable sources. In this case, this incident has been published by Buzzfeed Canada, which despite its low reputation for the rest of the site, does have a political editor who is a respected journalist (Paul McLeod, former Ottawa Bureau Chief of The Chronicle Herald). Since then, it's been picked up by multiple other reliable sources, including the CBC and the Globe and Mail, CityNews, the St. Catharine's Standard, CHCH, etc. Since Paul Dykstra is alive, any potential issues of libel would fall under our biographies of living persons policy. In that policy, under the section for public figures it says the following: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." In this case, the article does not allege that the event is true, but merely repeats what reliable sources have said about it. Since there are multiple, third-party sources, from reputable outlets that describe what allegedly happened, it should say in the article. If you feel like the article does not present the incident fairly or is written in a way that seems to indicate that the events are proven, then feel free to discuss that on the article talk page. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Patar Knight, it is clear from your editing history on Wikipedia that you are a political operative. I'm not sure if you are paid, but you seem to primarily engage in posting sensationalist pieces, or taking down sensationalist pieces (presumably from Wiki pages you disagree with). You explicitly recognize that BuzzFeed is not a reputable source, yet you argue that it has a reputable editor. If he were reputable, presumably he would *currently* be working for a reputable news agency. You further assert that the story has been picked up by other news sources. That's not accurate. It was not the story that was picked up, but the story about the story. That is, no other sources allege the same events, but instead, state, "According to Buzzfeed..." Normally, when CBC or any other major news outlet picks up something from the Canadian Press that is substantiated, they simply report the story, they don't say, "according to bob smith..." They only do that when they are sensationalizing something that lacks journalistic integrity. In the case of this story, all other media is writing about BuzzFeed.... That itself is poor journalism. You'll see I didn't delete other negative comments about Rick Dykstra, just the ones that are libellous and unsubstantiated. You obviously have some agenda here beyond informing the public; you surely understand that this story is unsubstantiated and therefore has no journalistic merit. Why then do you insist on putting it on Wikipedia? Surely you understand that Wikipedia has as its goal, neutrality.

Here are the facts as I know them... the Young Liberals shopped these false allegations around local media for about a month. No local media source would touch it, and in the meantime, those who made the false allegations retracted their statements. Finally, the creators of the story got BuzzFeed to publish it, referring to "anonymous" information. Other media sources, including the St. Catharines Standard, who had previously declined to report the story, now saw a legal way that they could make a profit on the story... by reporting not the story itself, but what BuzzFeed said about the story. This then gave you, a political operative, the opportunity to cite it on Wikipedia....

Your indictment of journalism in general, "That itself is poor journalism," pretty much puts the problem squarely where it belongs - with them and not us. If reputable journalists think a story is worth sharing, well, there's really nothing we can do about it. There is no other readily accessible standard we can use (i.e., we don't employ our own investigators). So if or until the story unfolds further that demonstrates that Dykstra has been victimized by lies (all he's claiming is "unsubstantiated" - which means "no one else is making this claim - just those involved"), then we're pretty much stuck with the story as it is - one that the media has seen fit to repeatedly publish. In the meantime, you're welcome to spend lots and lots of hours trying to figure out how to smear my own edit history. Rklawton (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Who gets to define "reputable" journalists? Is it political operatives whose business it is to smear political candidates? Apparently so! I didn't realize that Wikipedia allows political operatives administrative rights to engage in censorship. Now I have one more reason for encouraging others not to trust Wikipedia. What a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckboki (talk • contribs) 19:15, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I further note that the "protection" of the Dykstra page from further editing is in place until October 19, 2015. This is the date of the Canadian election, further demonstrating that the "administrator" who blocked further changes is actually a professional political operative for one of the other political parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duckboki (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

You are pretty free with throwing around accusations. I even challenged you to find anything in my editing to support your accusations. No luck (hint, years ago I edited the article on the Canada goose a few times)? Indeed, it's rather obvious I'm American and yet you still accuse without evidence. This demonstrates a rather remarkable disregard of the facts on your part. Oh, and the fact is, I have no idea when Canada holds elections. I just used a number suggested by the protection template. Dykstra gets bad press. Dykstra doesn't like bad press. You come here to do Dykstra's dirty work. You rant and rave and vandalize my user page when you don't get your way - and then you decide Wikipedia isn't reliable. Are you Dykstra? Or you someone from Dykstra's opposition trying to make Dykstra look bad? The Press can sort that one out. That said, if you can point to an article that demonstrates the accusations are *false* (maybe an accuser has recanted? Maybe Dykstra wasn't there? Maybe someone on the waitstaff has a different recollection of the events?), then we'll be more than happy to incorporate that information into the article, too. In the meantime, please know that if you can't be civil, your account will likely end up being blocked from editing. Rklawton (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

For someone who reports not being a political operative, you sure seem hell-bent on making sure this stays up until the date of the Canadian election. Does living in the US prove anything? If you're really just some disinterested party who happened to stumble upon a story about Rick Dykstra on a tabloid website, well then you are a very odd duck (or Canada Goose). And if you're really keen on the facts, I suggest you reading the original tabloid article which itself reports that the accusers recanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.17.5 (talk) 17:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The way page protection works is that edit requests get funneled through the article's talk page for review and consideration by experienced editors. This does not mean the article is frozen until after the election. So far, those who want the article to change have stuck to name calling and bogus accusations. Rklawton (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the article you cited, Dykstra's campaign team says the girls recanted, but that is, as you say, "unsubstantiated", and the girls deny it in the same article. At any rate, the article, the screen shots, the admission that the text exchanges actually happened but were a "joke", the independent witness, and the photos are all pretty clear - as is the subsequent press coverage. If you'd like to argue in favor of removing this from Dykstra's article, then:

1. Don't call people names
2. Do be clear about any conflicts of interest you have as required by Wikipedia's terms of service
3. Don't misrepresent citations as you did above.
4. Do base any suggested edits on reliable sources.

Rklawton (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

What girls? They are not even named. I gave you a reference to a claim the girls recanted. That reference is as accurate as any claim regarding what they reportedly said in the first place ... But you freeze the article rather than allowing it to include a statement that their is a claim they recanted. You are being loose with the truth by error of omission. As for the screen shots, who knows if those are real, but even if they are, there is no evidence that they have anything to do with the politician in question. You now suggest that people who challenge you are in some conflict of interest. I have suggested that you are a paid operative. Wikipedia is full of paid operatives of all political stripes.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am nothing more than a concerned citizen. I'm not a member of any political party, I do not know the political candidate in question, nor do I live in his riding. I am simply disgusted by what I know is dirty politics and feel sorry for the victim and wish there were some way I could make this unethical and immoral behaviour stop, for his sake, for your sake, and for the sake of Canadians for whom this sort of thing is the cause of feelings of hopelessness. That's all. You win! Duckboki (talk) 02:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The reference that says that Dykstra's people said the girls recanted is the same source that says the girls deny recanting. Unless there is a different source you'd like to provide. How is it you are so certain you know who is the victim in this case? If you've got new sources, please provide them. If not, you're just taking sides based on your personal biases. As for me, I'm here to edit an encyclopedia. What I care about is neutrality and reliable sources. If you'd like to propose an edit rather than point fingers, call names, or complain, please do so - along with sources to go with your suggestions. It's the article I care about. "Winning" is producing the best article possible with the most reliable sources available. Rklawton (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

You've proven a point. You control the article. You acknowledge that the article includes information that you selectively decided to omit from the Wiki entry. You point to anonymous secret sources denying recanting, while in the same article, a publicly identified source indicates the opposite. You are biased, that much is clear. You've still locked down the article until after the election. I imagine the victim knows he can't win such an insidious battle. You, the other hand, have. Enough said. Your behaviour on Wikipedia speaks for itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.243.209 (talk) 14:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

As I've said several times already, the article cited here in Wikipedia where Dykstra's people say the girls recanted also says that they girls deny recanting. There are no secret sources. The people defending Dykstra have done a really poor job of it so far - so much so that they appear to be Dykstra opponents trying to make him look bad. Rklawton (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

There are no secret sources? Who are the girls? Really, now. I'm not a Dykstra political supporter (although I'm sure you'll keep wheeling out that accusation), I am simply against you and your seemingly unethical behaviour. If that makes the victim look bad, I guess we'll have to let others decide. You are the one that has to look in the mirror each day and realize that you have made an anonymous/secret profession of harming other peoples' reputations. Indeed, you seem to really delight in doing so. It's no secret that the world is full of many other people just like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.243.209 (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

As for "the people defending Dykstra"... there is a pretty simple and widely accepted rule of thumb that one can't defend oneself against false accusations. Dykstra is smart not to engage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.57.243.209 (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The rule of thumb is that "one can not prove a negative" - not that one can't defend oneself against false accusations. The latter happens in court all the time. You've been instructed how to affect change here. Instead, your approach has been to accuse me of bias and behave so badly that, as noted above, a reasonable person might assume you're actually fronting for Dykstra's opposition. Rklawton (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm not a paid operative, not a member of any Canadian political party, not a Canadian, and don't care about this subject one way or the other, you're kinda stuck. What I see are some Canadians trying to whitewash one of our articles. Maybe they front for Dystra and want him to look good. Maybe they front for his opponents and are trying to make them look bad by behaving badly here on Wikipedia. I really don't care. All I know is that we've got reliable sources pointing one way and no sources pointing anywhere else - so that's what we're stuck with. That's how an encyclopedia that doesn't publish original research works. According to the sources, the girls have been interviewed and their statements have been substantiated by at least one other witness. A disreputable (but so far as we know reliable) source has chosen to publish and other reputable sources have chosen to re-publish this story. If you don't like it, I don't blame you. But instead of trying to impun our reputations, why not go and find some reliable sources that contradict the statements given by the girls quoted in the article? If you can find them, I'll even help you format them correctly for use in the article. If you can't, well, that's just how it goes. However, if you persist in behaving badly or in an uncivil manner, you'll simply find yourself banned. You also run the risk of finding yourself at the receiving end of some future inquiries by journalists wanting to know why you are doing what you are doing. Folks have lost their jobs after being discovered pulling the kind of shenanigans you are trying to pull here. You should also know that all of your edits become part of a permanent archive. Once you make them, they don't go away. Rklawton (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Please revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Dykstra&diff=686672413&oldid=686670537 - it's a very clear, shameless attempt to 'poison the well' against criticisms of the editor's favored candidate. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Paid_operatives&diff=685556517&oldid=680410468 . 2620:0:1000:3509:61BD:A4C0:AD8B:A634 (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Meh. Buzzfeed's reputation is relevant to its reporting and thus its use here. Sure it's a blatant attempt to blunt negative information, but that doesn't make it untrue or unhelpful. I think it provides a broader context. The fact that it may have been added by a political operative (but which side?) isn't as relevant as its usefulness to the article. Rklawton (talk) 19:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That's fair.

However - I looked at the actual survey, and describing Buzzfeed as the 'most distrusted news source' is a dubious description of what the survey actually found. The great majority of respondents who'd actually heard of Buzzfeed 'neither trusted nor distrusted' it, per http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/appendix-c-trust-and-distrust-of-news-sources-by-ideological-group/ . (This was not generally true - compare the results for most of the other news sources on the survey, e.g. Fox News.) 2620:0:1000:3509:61BD:A4C0:AD8B:A634 (talk)

The article cited, among many others, reports that it is the most distrusted. Distrust is relative, and in fact that's what the survey found. Among the many new sources queried, Buzzfeed ranked lowest. Duckboki (talk)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- ferret (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rick Dykstra. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928061104/http://www.enerplus.com/documents/StandingCommitteeReportFeb282007.pdf to http://www.enerplus.com/documents/StandingCommitteeReportFeb282007.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928061104/http://www.enerplus.com/documents/StandingCommitteeReportFeb282007.pdf to http://www.enerplus.com/documents/StandingCommitteeReportFeb282007.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)