Talk:2003 Ottawa municipal election

Merger from Donna Upson

I've copied two references from the article and added them to the existing text on Upson. I also removed the sentence mentioning "wanted on charges" - if we can't provide the resolution, I think it's best to not mention the allegation either. Beyond that (and removing the wikilink around Donna Upson, since presumably it will now just redirect here), I'm not sure what else needs to be transferred. Franamax (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ah - I missed this when I was doing a full-page merge - can we look at the section I added and see what needs to be deleted, altered. Also the references don't seem to be working right - can someone have a go at fixing it? thanks --Killerofcruft (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

It was a bad decision in the AfD to Merge that article here, made without consensus. It's a footnote to the election, and reliably-sourced detail about Upson does not belong here, it violates WP:UNDUE. I'm suggesting waiting to see if the Merge will stick. There has been no discussion of the specific reason for not merging given in Talk for the Upson article. A Merge decision in an AfD isn't binding on editors as to details, or ever, for that matter. But if someone disagrees, we can deal with it at DRV, which, I believe, is almost certain to reverse the AfD to either "No Consensus," most likely, or "Keep," since there are stronger arguments for keep than were made in the AfD. (I ran into an edit conflict withe the closer, so I put that comment in Talk for Upson.) --Abd (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I have no personal objection to the extra detail being here pending resolution. Contrary to the statement at the top of this page, there was no consensus for Merge, clearly, there was a decision by the closer to Merge, possibly based on a few comments, including my own -- which opinion I later reversed. I have reverted the merge at the Upson article; if that is reverted, I'd plan to take the AfD result to WP:DRV because I believe that the decision, on review, was clearly incorrect, for reasons described above. There is RS detail in the Upson article that isn't appropriate here, so the obvious solution is to keep the Upson article, which violates no guidelines at all, and only have a brief note here, instead of the gory details (I'd say there was already too much here). (One of the things that has happened is that a lot of reliable source on this has disappeared due to newspapers not maintaining public archives indefinitely. The newspapers still exist and could still be used for RS, but that would take time. I found comment from National Socialist sources about the jail time Upson served, and there is probably RS for this off the Internet. It's clear that she was wanted, that's from RS. --Abd (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As to a renomination for deletion, that's quite unlikely to succeed. The note about renomination above is silly, it has nothing to do with editorial decisions on this page. If editors here want the content here, fine, and if they don't, they are free to not allow it. The Upson affair is minor as to this election; it created a notable flap so it deserves a sentence. Not more. It takes more than a sentence to express what is notable and sourced about Upson. Some who commented in the AfD seemed to think that the sole cause of Upson's notice by media was the election; that's not true, there is major media notice from 2000 and 2001, before the 2003 election.-Abd (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the text to conform with the rest of the article. Suttungr (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I moved your work down to a new section, "Controversy", so as to avoid the WP:UNDUE thing. I'll reiterate here that I'm very uncomfortable with noting "arrest" and "wanted" - if we can't show the conviction or acquittal after five years, why do we have this material? No matter how repugnant her views, this is a living person. Franamax (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of article continuity, this text belongs at the top of article, not buried below the election results. As for her arrest information, it was part of the redirected article and is a matter of public record. You can't dispute that. Suttungr (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't happy about sticking it way down there, your placement is better. I'm not arguing about the facts on record as to charges. What I'm saying is that we can't leave it at "she was charged with" when it happened five years ago. We need to find the further reference as to whether she was found guilty or innocent. Five years ago, that was current information - now it's an open allegation and it needs closure one way or the other. Franamax (talk) 01:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I reworded the text to conform to the available references. I couldn't find anything on whether her appeal was successful. Suttungr (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Donna Upson article restored per AfD closing admin.

See Talk:Donna Upson. The upshot of this is that difficulties with the Upson article can be dealt with there. It seems that some working on this election article haven't reviewed the sources. Upson did a year in jail, it appears. See User:Abd/Donna Upson for what I dug up with a few hours searching. It is not necessary to use the possibly biased sources, there is plenty of neutral RS. It's just that you won't find it with Google, especially if you are googling only "Donna Upson." "Donna Marie Upson" finds different sources.

Please, those who are working on this article with reference to Upson, make this article what it should be on its own, and link to the Upson article for detail beyond what is appropriate here. If, after this is done, we don't have consensus and any editor still thinks the Upson article should be deleted, AfD remains a possibility. What really happened is that there wasn't consensus in the AfD, and many !voted without being aware of just how much RS exists that has nothing to do with the Ottawa election. (That's why Merge wasn't a proper outcome, at least not without an attempt to reach consensus here in the Ottawa election article.)

Yes, some of the sourced material which has been put in and taken out is questionable. But I don't think it's necessary, the important facts are available from RS. Upson was indeed known in some circles as "Baby Hitler," according to CBC, and you could even tell from the reference, it's in the title of the article. My suggestion for here: focus on what happened in the election, what was in the Ottawa media and the national media about the election and Upson's candidacy. There was a lot of flap, indeed, far more than an ordinary "failed candidate." It seems the Klan thought of her vote count as a huge victory.... But I don't have RS for that. Yet. --Abd (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)