Talk:Evidence For Democracy

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 26 August 2018 by reviewer Drewmutt (talk · contribs).

Canada Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Updates To Evidence For Democracy Page

Hello! I originally created the Evidence For Democracy Wikipedia page, but can no longer edit the page as I now have a conflict of interest. I am creating this Discussion post to flag potential suggestions to consider, seeing as the page is slightly out-of-date and could benefit from edits. Please feel free to consider these edits, and adapt or discard as appropriate.

Suggestions:

1- Edits addressing this paragraph: "On 8 August 2019, a call to vote for science was published by The Narwhal. This campaign was also promoted by the E4D just because they stand for funding structures, integration of science into policy and transparency and openness." The first sentence is technically incorrect (The Narwhal media outlet covered the launch of an E4D campaign, it's not that The Narwhal made a call to vote for science). The second sentence may be in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality principle.

This paragraph can be further expanded as there are several reliable news sources, e.g., "On 8 August 2019, E4D led a group of science organizatons to launch the Vote Science campaign amid the 2019 federal elections, with the goal of empowering Canadians to advocate for science.^1-4 During the 2021 federal elections, E4D re-launched the Vote Science campaign, and spoke about how Canada is falling behind when it comes to investing in science and research.^5-6"

Sources: 1) https://thenarwhal.ca/in-age-misinformation-advocates-call-canadians-vote-science/ 2) https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/08/08/news/coalition-launches-vote-science-election-campaign 3) https://thevarsity.ca/2019/09/15/votescience-a-campaign-that-wants-science-to-inform-your-vote-next-month/ 4) https://rosslandtelegraph.com/news/national-non-partisan-campaign-vote-science 5) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/federal-election-2021-science-funding-top-election-issue-1.6178832 6) https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/sep-18-the-election-and-post-covid-science-toilet-training-cattle-and-more-1.6178772/canadian-science-suffered-from-covid-after-the-election-how-do-we-bring-it-back-better-1.6178784

2- Add a new paragraph about newer research which has been covered by the media

Suggested text: "In 2021, E4D reviewed the progress made by the Government of Canada in addressing the 35 recommendations outlined by the Advisory Panel on Federal Support for Fundamental Science in the 2017 Fundamental Science Review report, and testified about this research in front of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Research on 22 March 2022.^1,2 In 2022, E4D led research to assess the transparency of evidence use in a total of 100 policies issued by the Government of Canada, and 133 policies issued by the provincial governments of Ontario, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan, finding that both federal and provncial policies scored low, meaning that it’s difficult for members of the public to find the evidence behind government policy.^3,4"

Sources: 1) https://www.universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/taking-stock-of-the-naylor-report-5-years-on/ 2) https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/44-1/SRSR/meeting-8/minutes 3) https://researchmoneyinc.com/article/eyes-on-evidence-iii-still-almost-nothing-to-see-here/ 2) https://omny.fm/shows/640-toronto/canada-has-a-transparency-problem-when-it-comes-to

3- Add a new paragraph about recent advocacy

Suggested text: "In the summer of 2022, the Support Our Science rally took place at Parliament Hill in Ottawa, where E4D joined students, scientists and science organizations to carry a 70-metre-long open letter signed by thousands of scientists, calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Minister François-Philippe Champagne to provide trainees and post-doctoral fellows with a living wage so they can conduct their research."

Sources: 1) https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-student-scientists-demand-action-on-federal-scholarships/ 2) https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2022/08/10/ten-years-after-the-death-of-evidence-scientists-again-march-on-parliament-hill/271112/

Soulsinsync (talk) 16:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Soulsinsync (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]