Jump to content

Talk:Charles Roach

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

McCullough criticism

[edit]

I have removed the McCullough criticism here. We are going to have to do better than a blog from an individual who "is 50 years younger" (why is this relevant?) who has a clear conflict in that they are both involved. There has to better press than this out there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There does appear to be something in the fact that one member of a republican organisation's executive thinks another member of said executive is an idiot. However, I highly doubt there's any third party sources out there that elaborate on that issue; CCR itself barely gets any coverage, let alone its internal goings on. I don't know if something could be mentioned at Citizens for a Canadian Republic about internal strife, but I wouldn't go beyond that. --G2bambino (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats exactly the problem. I have explained this to another admin. There are no reliable 3rd party sources because the group is politically and culturally insignificant (again in Quebec no one has even heard of this group and few people I have spoken consider it a national joke). This is too much of a burden to place on editors to avoid using material from blogs, which are the only source we have for insight as to the internal beliefs and goings on of the group. In lieu of the ability to use blogs, this is why it is confounding to even bother having an article on CCR or Tom Freda or JJ McCullough. Anyway, the reason I included the info is because I believed there is significance in the fact that one member of the executive of CCR attacks another one of its own executive members in such a disrespectful way (especially since Roach is 50 years older than JJ! Laval (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, hints of internal conflict might be relevant to CCR; I'd add that McCullough's opinion on Roach may be relevant to this article. I'm not 100% sure, though. WP:SELFPUB tells us that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of material about themselves, including in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field," with caveats. By my reading of that, McCullough's blog affirms his own opinion about Roach, which therefore affirms differences of opinion within the CCR executive, but, the source is still weak, at best. --G2bambino (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it is weak because it is JJ's own blog! But its not like CTV or CBC are going to report this stuff. If I call CBC or the Globe & Mail and ask them what they think of JJ's views on Charles Roach and North American Union and the internal problems of CCR, they would laugh at me. Laval (talk) 21:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are outside discussion about the dispute within CCR, i.e., just that CCR has a variety of ideas in place as to means (which could or could not be relevant at the CCR article itself), then I wouldn't mind quoting JJ's blog as a reference (if that was an example of why). However, I'm more concerned about undue weight. Yes, Roach has done some things. Yes, JJ disagrees. Is that disagreement important? There doesn't seem to be outside sources that indicate that. I mean, an alternative is whether there is some argument about Roach's involvement at CCR itself. Let me put it another way: in the US, we had John McCain pick Sarah Palin for his VP pick. Would that mean that every Republican who disagreed with the pick should be quoted and put in the article? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are any outside discussions about the internal issues of CCR. Its just not a notable enough group for newspapers and such to devote that kind of reporting. This obviously limits what can be added because we can't use personal blogs of their members, but I see your point. I don't know enough about the US Republican Party to comment on the last point, but I would be surprised if articles of prominent Republicans did not include any information about their disagreement with Palin within a section about the 2008 elections because I would think it would definitely be picked up by major papers. Laval (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's my point. If major papers picked it up, then those are the disagreements worth noting. Not just every random disagreement. Let's just say we both agree that this is the equivalent of a very minor party fighting internally over its party platform: at best, we may get a piece of news about the debate. That's probably all we have. Since we can't find that news, I don't think the press is even remotely thinking about this in the context of CCR. They are just seeing Roach filing a suit. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to Kiké Roach

[edit]

What is Charles Roach's relationship to Toronto lawyer Kiké Roach? She is not notable but might be a relative and therefore deserve brief mention. DQweny (talk) 09:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Charles Roach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charles Roach. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Roach. 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) 12:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_Roach&oldid=1195392863"