Talk:Fair Elections Act

A point from the start

Let's just acknowledge from the beginning that this page has the potential to raise a lot of controversy. However, let's be mature and make this page accurate and complete; the "bill proposals" section is exactly what the government is proposing to do. Criticism and support should be directed to their appropriate sections of the page. JOttawa16 (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is clearly not being followed. This page has been _targeted with vandalism and malicious edits. I will continue to revert anything that is not factual or not properly sourced. JOttawa16 (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There have clearly been attempts by the Conservative Party of Canada to alter this text. The criticisms are not indicated clearly, and the most partisan talking lines were repeated with a 'some say that...' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.144.102.64 (talk) 00:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

jottawa16 is clearly filling it with POV. Also, there is false information. There is one academic supporter of the bill cited works for the business school at Carleton; he does not teach public policy. Also, there is no mention of the 160 political scientists who signed an open letter against. The manner in which the information is presented follows closely the Conservative party line, which makes me suspect that JOttawa16 is an agent of the party. I will not get into an edit war, but this article should be flagged for serious revision.184.144.102.64 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not an agent of anyone, nor is this article a reflection of my personal POV. I have created this article with well-sourced media reports both for and against the Fair Elections Act. If there are other sourced praises and complaints that do not amount to vandalism, please add them. JOttawa16 (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, yes, Ian Lee is a public policy professor. Source added to the article. Finally, I have also added the National Post article where the 160 professors express their issues with the Fair Elections Act. JOttawa16 (talk) 20:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The guy, lee, teaches management. It says he studied public policy in the 80s. 66.78.101.2 (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Lee has a PhD in public policy; his education and expertise is public policy, as clearly stated in the reference. JOttawa16 (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The criticism of Mayrand was a conservative smear, dreamt up posthoc to demonize anyone critical of the bill. The use of the passive voice in this article suggests that Mayrand faced general criticism, when in fact this is a strategy of the conservative party. So this is POV hiding as fact. Better write who made that criticism. (you might also note that sun news first tried to pretend that Sheila Fraser had received 400000$, but gave up on that line when it transpired that she had been paid something like 2000$ for some work. 75.98.19.140 (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC) 'come under scrutiny' is still a smear, because it makes it sound lke tree s a real controversy involved.75.98.19.140 (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

POV check

I have nominated this article to be check for POV because the author has written attack pages on the Liberal Party of Canada in the past, and there are passages that concern me in this article. Specifically, I would like input on the paragraph that identifies "loans" (with scare quotes) that the Liberal Party accepted. This seems like a further attack on the Liberal Party, but I may be reading too much into it. Someone more knowledgeable than me about Canadian politics would need to look over the coverage to see if it's truly balanced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not written any attack pages about anyone. I think this is an excellent article and of course it's properly balanced with the facts. JOttawa16 (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I probably should have linked to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal to ban JOttawa16 from political articles. It was bad form on my part to make that initial statement without any sort of explanation. I apologize for that. We'll see how the proposed topic ban goes. If it takes effect, this article will need to be scrutinized. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This page needs editing to be NPOV

The section outlining the bill does not contain all the information (ie nothing about poll clerks), and really reads like a pro-Bill statement written by the Conservative Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.142.63.46 (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is the sort of thing that I was looking for when I tagged it to be checked for POV. Can you list any newspaper articles that discuss your concerns? Just post the URLs here, and someone will get around to adding them to the article. Or you can do it yourself. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:24, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

the section outlining the bill is largely from the government website. There is a fair bit of balancing information available later in the article, and those references can provide more content for the initial section outlining the bill - references 21 ("Everything you need to know about the Fair Elections Act") and 22 ("A rough guide to the Fair Elections Act") provide reasonably complete overview's of the bill. What is now missing from the article is information on what amendments were made before the 3rd reading. DiligentDavidG (talk) 17:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fair Elections Act. 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/20140416135816/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com:80/2014/03/11/dont-undermine-elections-canada/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/03/11/dont-undermine-elections-canada/

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).

• 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) 05:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)