Talk:Andrew Wilkinson: Difference between revisions

Biography: Politics and Government Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Canada: British Columbia / Politics Stub‑class Low‑importance

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 Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia. This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

On several occasions in recent weeks, a user named User:Penzerandrew (who thus has a possible but not confirmed WP:COI) has been removing the following text from this article:

The source for the text in question was this Globe and Mail article: Hoffman, Andy (Feb 19, 2013). "New B.C. Liberal candidate has ties to shuttered pulp mill". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2 November 2015.

Personally, my own evaluation is that this sounds like a remarkably insignificant controversy, of probably no enduring notability or encyclopedic significance — if it turned into a big scandal, that might be something worth mentioning, but pretty much every candidate for any political party always undergoes some kind of public scrutiny over their past associations with other people or groups without that fact necessarily becoming encyclopedic in most cases. To me, the whole thing seems far more like a insinuation of guilt by association than like a properly substantiated thing about him that would belong in an encyclopedia article. But as I'm not an expert in BC provincial politics, I don't know if it might have greater significance than it seems to as written. And it's Wikipedia policy, not the subject's own personal image management preferences, that determine whether it should be in the article or not — so it's a consensus of established Wikipedia users, not an WP:SPA who's never made a single non-Wilkinson related edit to the site, that gets to decide on its includability or excludability. And aside from this, the editor also actively borked some reference templates which were being left in the article, which is inappropriate behaviour regardless of the includability or excludability of the "controversy" itself.

For the moment, the content remains out of the article and the page is under temporary edit protection, but I wanted to ask for some additional input on whether it's a thing we should be covering or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclinded to agree with Bearcat on this. Just as not every fart is notable, not every controversial person that someone has been associated with is relevant enough to me mentioned in their article. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bearcat. Mr. Wilkinson's involvement with Ni Ritao seem run of the mill for his positions (deputy minister, then a lawyer), so unless other sources (which I can't find at the moment) indicate greater involvement in the corruption scandal or that the work with Ni Ritao is something out of the ordinary, I don't see why this should stay. At best, if there's wider coverage of his role in the 2010 lawsuit that indicates the case was very important, that might warrant a one-line mention in this article and a wikilink to an appropriate article (if any).---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he was a doctor, but only mentions his qualification in law. Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the above-entitled section, the following statement is egregiously partisan:

"His speech was quickly criticized by NDP partisan hacks who never had a fun time while they were young.[32]" Filmhunter (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The user Bearcat locked this article today but before doing so, he added in obviously biased comments made by an anonymous user just a few days ago, all without any discussion in the talk section of this article. Bearcat has put in a "whacky times" section and a "sexism controversy" section which again are obliviously biased and were placed in by an anonymous user on or about October 10th. Bearcat, is there a conflict of interest here on your part? I kept reverting back to a October 10th version of this article before there was an edit war going on. I am requesting that you revert back to that version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualVisionary (talk • contribs) 02:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you examine the edit history and contents of both the Andrew Wilkinson and John Horgan articles, it appears that in fact the John Horgan article is being washed by people with a bias to "clean" the article whereas the Andrew Wilkinson article is being flooded with negative and obviously biased comments and sections. Again, obviously biased sections were added in by an anonymous user a few days ago, I reverted the changes and requested that we discuss any changes in the talk section and now without warning, Bearcat has added in these obviously new biased comments by an anonymous user and locked the article.