Jump to content

Talk:Patrick Brazeau

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

Edit request on 24 January 2012

[edit]

I believe it should be made clear that HMCS Carleton is a "stone frigate"--that is, a building--located in Ottawa, and that Mr. Brazeau did not do sea duty on her in the Maritimes. The opposite impression is given by the present wording of the article. 192.197.82.153 (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 12:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Really? It was pretty clear what the request was, and you reply with a template pish-poshing it. It now reads "He served with the Canadian Forces Maritime Command Naval Reserve at HMCS Carleton, an administrative building in Ottawa," and I'm wondering if we can move this down to semi? The protection has clearly lead to the article suffering, as his boxing stunt gets narry a mention, in yet that's how 90% of Canadians who've heard of him know him. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV Issue Not sure how to add a NPOV tag. Hope this works well. Issue: "Brazeau not only had poor attendance on the Senate floor: between June 2011 and April 2012, he missed 65% of meetings at the Standing Senate Aboriginal Peoples Committee on which he sits." Reason: "Not only" ... "but" seems to be a persuasive wording, instead of a neutral recitation of data. This statement carries with it a negative tone towards the article subject. His (I assume?) unpopularity and seemingly poor form are not sufficient cause to violate NPOV. Of course, it could still be NPOV and I'm just reading more into it than is there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.92.193 (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing fight

[edit]

I'm just wondering why the boxing fight is listed under "controversies". There really was nothing controversial about it. He lost, fairly, and desires a rematch - not because there is any disagreement on the outcome of the first fight, but because he wants a second chance to prove himself. He's a controversial individual, without question, but this aspect isn't. History user (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it's really a question of whether or not a politically motivated public boxing match is the type of behavior a Canadian Senator should be involving himself in. I believe it is not, and therein lies the controversy. ChakaKongtalk 18:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The section makes absolutely no mention of that aspect of it. If it is going to be under controversies then shouldn't it actually mention the controversies, and perhaps give some sources that people consider it a controversy? Additionally shouldn't it be listed under controversies on Trudeau's page, which at present doesn't even mention the match.? History user (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with this and have moved the mention of the fight into the biography section rather than controversies. If someone wishes to discuss it as a controversy, and has reliable sources as to the controversial nature of the fight, feel free to revert and augment the material in this direction. Martinp (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

[edit]

The Martin-Marshall motion to suspend is deficient in that it does not define the "sufficient cause" charge of "gross negligence". ' This is opinion, not fact and is unsupported. If any reliable authority has stated this opinion, it should be cited and identified as opinion. Grandma Roses (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Per Wikipedia's rules about offsite linking, the "external links" section of an article is not for collating an extensive directory of media coverage and other weblinks about the topic — it is only meant to contain the one or two primary websites for the topic (such as his own official website or his profile on the Parliament of Canada site). The following links may be cited as inline references for article content where appropriate, if they aren't already, but are not suitable for listing as straight external links:

- Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Patrick Brazeau. 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 to let others know.

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 15:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patrick_Brazeau&oldid=1255958852"