Jump to content

Talk:Brian Topp

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assessment

[edit]
Changed importance as per WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason this page is ranked poorly in trustworthiness and objectivity is because many statements are heavily biased without substantiated evidence. All references to Topp's debate performances are highly subjective and do not adequately reflect what it means to be objective. Just because a few newspaper articles reviewed him positively, there are just as many which reviewed him poorly. To remain objective, it is best not to continually post opinion pieces or draw generalizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjlm3 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a press release at times and needs to be polished up!

Doug McArthur

[edit]

I'm really failing to see the importance on this. If McArthur's speculation had transformed into something substantive, then I could see it. Also, McArthur hasn't been mentioned in the media since his initial accusation months ago - except (get this) an article mentioning his support for Mulcair. So it appears that the accusation was more about smearing Topp then reflecting any sort of reality. Both Saganash and Julian denied his insinuation. This is just the drive-by smear of one guy and team Mulcair. I've left it for now, but added that McArthur is a Mulcair supporter, but I'd like to remove it - or at least cut it down. 74.13.246.50 (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was speculation and candidates still entered the race, which could be mentioned, but I don't see any reason to get rid of it. You're probably bias towards Topp but this isn't the place for that. I'll wait to see what others think. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a journalist. That section just irks me. The guy is relatively unknown prof who is in Thomas Mulcair's camp, comes out and slams Topp with no evidence to back it up, and then fades away. I just think it's unnecessary. If we include every critique of Topp, the article would be much longer. The relevant stuff would be more useful. But I'm fine waiting for a third opinion. 174.91.219.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

2 many endorsements

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Brian Topp. 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).

  • 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) 15:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Topp&oldid=1257026608"