Talk:Ben Lobb

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ben Lobb. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150815061116/http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand%2Fcanlim&document=index&lang=e to http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand%2Fcanlim&document=index&lang=e

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit dispute
I notice that in recent weeks there has been an editwar over some content in this article, with both sides accusing the other of partisan conflicts of interest.

The disputed statements are as follows:
 * In November of 2014, Lobb endorsed Simcoe-Grey Conservative MP Kellie Leitch as candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada leadership race. Lobb agreed with Lietch's stance for immigrants to be screened for "anti-Canadian values."
 * Lobb is against the legalization of marijuana and has stated "there are issues that must be addressed, before passing a bill for marijuana to be legally used recreationally".
 * Lobb calls for immigrants to be screened for "anti-Canadian values."

All three statements were sourced to either http://1049thebeach.ca/news_item.php?NewsID=88864 or http://www.seaforthhuronexpositor.com/2017/03/17/huron-county-health-unit-gearing-up-for--trudeaus-promise-of-marijuana, fairly routine local news coverage which makes it questionable as to whether these are really genuinely important aspect's of Lobb's career in politics or not. (If he'd gotten national coverage for his views on either subject, there would probably be a stronger case for including them.) Also, even if it's considered relevant to mention his stance on the "Canadian values" matter, I would question whether it's so important as to need to be mentioned twice in what's still a very short article even with the additions. And although the most recent edits haven't focused on this too strongly, past battles in the editwar have also involved whether it was necessary to describe Lee University as "a private christian university affiliated with the Pentecostal church" in addition to merely linking its name, and the (unsourced) name of his wife.

I am expressing no personal opinion of my own about the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the content. As an administrator, however, when an editwar like this is happening my job is to step in and confine it to the talk page.

Discuss. Bearcat (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bearcat, this is my first time editing a talk page, so please be patient with me.

I am also interested in this page purely from historical standpoint. I'll note that this page is quite empty, even in comparison to some of this person's predecessor's from a century ago (Richard John Cartwright etc.). I would like to preface what I'm about to say by noting that although it appears that your edits haven't been too biased, it does seem that by making edits (and therefore having an opinion) on this article, that you probably shouldn't have blocked access to this site, as per the content dispute page, which stipulates "editors should not act as administrators in disputed cases in which they have been involved".

That aside, it does seem to me that most of the info that I restored is directly related to the notability pf the subject. Would you agree? Furthermore, even the most obscure politicians in Canada seem to have sections dedicated to there political stances. One potential solution I see to this is to include a more nuanced approach, as clearly the changes that were made previously could be perceived as anti-conservative. An example would be including this counter-point. https://www.goderichsignalstar.com/2016/11/16/mp-ben-lobb-dismisses-claims-he-endorsed-donald-trump-calls-thompsons-column-a-drive-by/wcm/148c50fe-8919-237f-8b55-4a8d1861b8e3

If it is still your opinion that the local articles cited are not "important" enough to warrant inclusion on this page, there are other more prominent stances that the subject has taken. For example, you have not addressed why you believe that the section on the conservative leadership race was removed. It is from a national source (CBC) and was quite notable in and of itself. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-conservative-leadership-endorsements-1.3851733

Best. Huronfarmer —Preceding undated comment added 06:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, this has nothing to do with my opinions one way or the other. As an administrator on Wikipedia, part of my job is to shut down editwarring over disputed content by forcing it to be discussed on the talk page instead of in the article, and the specific rule is that the disputed content is removed from the article, whether you like it or not, while the discussion is underway. It can be readded to the article if there's a consensus to readd it, but as long as its inclusion is in dispute, it has to stay out in the meantime. So I'm not "involved" in the sense that you're claiming, I'm just an administrator doing my job. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2018 (UTC)