Talk:Kevin Falcon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edit request from Diwolfio, 18 February 2011

Hello, I was going to correct a typo in the word "widespread" in the paragraph about Coastal Contacts, but I was not able to edit the page.

Diwolfio (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Diannaa ^(Talk) 21:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Why would Falcon be a "see also" for the Legislature Raids? His name isn't even mentioned in the article. Clearly Skookum is obsessed with seeding connections to this everywhere, even when it's wholly disproportionate. Similarly for how much of the article is devoted to something that Falcon is barely connected to or has discussed vis a vis his leadership campaign. Sirjohnhackett (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Y'know, continuing your vendetta and accusations against me is a sure road to hell....I was not the one who added that see also, just as I was not the one who added the BC Rail content on the Christy Clark article. Your "washing" of this article is being noted and tracked, and sooner or later is going to be put on "spin cycle".....but you have a penchant for pretending that the content of these articles is all my doing, and have loudly alleged that I'm an "NDP fanatic" which is utterly laughable. What I am is a loyal Wikipedian. As for truly POV attacks on your party, I'll do that in blogspace; but here in Wikipedia your atempts to control these articles will fail; it may be easier to keep the Sun and Province on the leash for you, but Wikipedia is not under your control and never will be; you invoke guidelines like BLP and POV and COI while breaking them constantly. And by accusing me of things I didn't do, here as elsewhere, you're in WP:NPA turf also, though that's much more minor than the slanderous and defamatory material you tried to add to the Glen Clark article....Skookum1 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to frame the dispute between online eyeglass vendors and the traditional retail channel in a more neutral tone, but it could probably use a second opinion. There are some legitimate health concerns, but it cannot be denied that the traditionalists primary objection is to the competition to their livelihoods. Foobard (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I've undone a reversion to my edits, and rewrote the paragraph to be more neutral. If anyone has an issue with the wording, please discuss it here. I've removed references to donations made to Falcon by Coastal Contacts because I cannot find any source that says they donated to him, specifically (they have given to the Liberal party). Foobard (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Politics section edit from BMstudier, 28 December 2011

Hello, I have added some information to the politics section regarding the change in BC healthcare regulations. I have included references for everything that is new. Many health care professionals have criticized the regulation changes and that should be noted in this article. They have also spoken out about the consequences of free sight testing and the negative economic impact to BC caused by these regulations, and some of that should also be included if relevant.

Bmstudier (talk) 21:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted this because it's entirely one sided. It's important to note that the associations you link to are both health care professionals and industry associations for traditional optometry retailers. Their views should be included, but the conflict of interest needs to be strongly highlighted to maintain neutrality. Foobard (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"The proposed changes, which caused criticism from traditional, non-internet based optometry retailers[6], came into effect May 1, 2010." This sentence is extremely inaccurate and contradicts the citation which you have provided. All of the citations that I used were professional health care associations. Optometrists are professional health care providers, not just retailers. All optometrists provide health care and not all optometrists are involved in retail. There are also other health care specialties that have criticized the regulation changes and therefore a much more accurate phrase to use in place is: "The proposed changes have caused wide spread criticism from many professional health care associations across the continent." This is entirely accurate according to the citations provided, and there are many more that can be used if needed. If there is support for the legislation changes, feel free to add it in with proper citations. There is ample criticism from health care professionals, and I will add it back to the page. Many letters were written from health care professionals directly to Minister Falcon expressing concern. Please do not censor out accurate information from this page for which there are many citations Bmstudier (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted this again, at least for the moment, because you put back exactly the same thing. Let's discuss this and try to come up with something we can agree is neutral. Would you be willing to work with me on that? Foobard (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Everything that I added had multiple citations. Is there anything specific that you are referring to as not neutral? I posted summarized content of the criticisms found within the many many citations that were provided. It is not one sided to acknowledge them, and it is one sided to ignore them. Should we also include something about sight testing regulations by opticians and the increased risk involved? I feel that there is much more to add as we only focused on part of the changes that took place. You have changed it back to the same inaccurate statement as before (see above), but I am open to re-wording what I previously edited, but the content will remain the same as it is accurate information. The regulation changes have created much more criticism than praise, and that is a fact that should be noted. If I have ignored another side of the story please add it yourself with citations. To come up with something neutral you could inform me of some citations that I have overlooked or add them in yourself. I think it would be more productive for you to add something to what I write then to simply delete it. If you are willing to work together let us add to each other's cited content rather than deleting it Bmstudier (talk) 08:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have just edited the politics section. I did not delete any of your content and all of the new content is backed up with many citations. It is not exactly the same as the edit before, I re-worded some things to sound neutral. Please work with me on this and do not delete or revert it backwards. If you're willing to work together, feel free to add anything that I may have missed anything rather than deleting.Bmstudier (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've rewritten the paragraph to concentrate more on what the specific objections are, rather than just that objections are being made. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this. Foobard (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a little better but I still disagree with referring to organizations such as the CAO, CNIB, BCAO etc. as industry associations, and Optometrists as traditional non-internet based retailers. You have effectively called every provincial Optometry association and states association of Optometry and even some Ophthalmological associations industry associations when they are actually professional health care associations. That needs to be changed, and Optometrists are health care professionals not traditional non-internet retailers. I have communicated this previously and health specialties within and outside of Optometry have objected to the regulations but they are not necessarily retailers at all. More changes need to be made. You said you want more specific objections, there are some more that I will add with citations. Bmstudier (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I just updated it with some more citations, and left the majority as you had written it. I included some specific objections, let me know if they should be more detailed, more technical or more specific. Bmstudier (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC) You have just deleted my edit, without discussing on here, and it was fully cited. Bmstudier (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we were editing at the same time. I've changed the wording a bit. I think it's critical to note that BCAO et al act not only as health organizations, but as representatives of some retailers against others. Also note that there is an important distinction in the CNIB's position and that of the optometrist's associations. I don't see the need to cite multiple optometry associations unless their positions differ from one another. Foobard (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I took time to put together valid content only to have it deleted instantly upon adding it. Can you at least read it and look into the citations provided and discuss it here? I am open to your input and discussion but do not appreciate it when I take the time to put together valid content and have it erased immediately. You also contradicted yourself in your previous post, re-read it you will realize that you just supported my version of the edit with more citations than one. Choosing a small subset of citations and information and ignoring other sources is not a neutral point of view. Bmstudier (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

More than one citation is certainly fine, but there's no need for redundancy. I did read your edits, and made some of my own. I did not delete yours, I changed some of the wording. Please do not just delete mine without discussion.Foobard (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

You did delete my citations and my edit. It was not redundant because as you said, the CNIB supported one of the objections and didn't mention the other. Just because they did not object does not confirm their support and that is not even a useful piece of information or evidence of anything. It is a classic example of Argument from ignorance. CNIB not speaking about a particular subject does not show anything about their stance on the issue and therefore is unusable information. Since there are other citations that bring up information that CNIB did not cover, it is useful to include them to provide a fuller spectrum on the issue. I am not deleting your post, I am adding to it. Bmstudier (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Sir, your behaviour is inappropriate. The undo function is not for dispute resolution. Please take a step back.

Sorry, I just edited again. I added some content rather than using the undo functionBmstudier (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not delete my post. Let me know exactly what is redundant. I added only 2 more citations than the 1 that you chose to use.Bmstudier (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I feel it's critical to distinguish between organizations that are just about health care (such as the CNIB) and those that also represent commercial interests. One nit pick: your Waterloo reference does not actually include citations for academic work (I think). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foobard (talk • contribs) 01:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you scroll to the bottom of the University of Waterloo letter you can view the references to the academic material cited within the letter. Also the BCAO and other optometry organizations are professional health care organizations as is the CNIB. Their primary interest and priority is eye health. Bmstudier (talk) 02:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC) The BCAO is a non-profit organization as stated in their mission statement. They are advocating for eye health as well as their members concerns. When it comes down to an eye health issue shouldn't we be listening to the eye health professionals (Ophthalmologists and Optometrists) as well as academic bodies? Bmstudier (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC) Your latest edit changing "Professional health associations" to "Optometry professional associations" Is still accurate (for BCAO, CAO, AOA, etc) so I will leave it unchanged, but it is not all encompassing (CNIB is not an Optometric association). It may be a bit more fitting to say "Professional Optometric Associations" though. Bmstudier (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight - eyesight testing issue

The eyesight issue section is too heavily reliant on primary sources rather than reliable sources. And in hindsight, is it worth that much length in this biography and is it worth being portrayed as the most significant controversy identified in this political bio? Canuckle (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved (an American, unfamiliar with the figures, working through POV disputes in the Fs). I've tried to summarize this to some extent. I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to use primary sources for professional organizations, but the weight within the section felt wrong before, and I believe that a modest shrinking of the section was also in order. I don't know, however, that it's easy to keep the basic story intact with further reductions. As always, if you see improvements, it's best to start with WP:BRD, fix the problem, and the discuss it with people who think you're wrong. Thanks! --j⚛e decker^talk 20:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)