Talk:Darrell Dexter

Expenses and the edit war
Two things about the revert war that's going on in the article: I await comments here. —C.Fred (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) In the course of re-adding the details about certain ministers' expenses, two references have also been misattributed. Please be careful not to break other content in the article in your collective haste to revert one another.
 * 2) While those removing the details have provided edit summaries with some information, the time for debate by edit summary is long past. Both sides need to refrain from any further revert cycles and discuss the situation here, on the talk page. I would prefer both sides do that voluntarily than be compelled to discussion via page protection, of course.
 * My only goal is that the facts be told. I took no issue with the edits made by Cmr08, but obviously someone did... to say the least. I don't think Cmr08's edits were political, as someone claimed. Let's just keep things accurate and behave like adults. Freshfighter9talk 19:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure what is meant by both sides in the edit war. The only edits I made were the original edits, it was others who were reverting. Anyways C.Fred, I responded on your talk page before I saw that you had started a discussion here. Those two references that were broken, were like that to begin with, it was one of several edits I made after I had removed the part about the expenses that corrected the broken links. It wasn't just my edit of the expenses that was reverted, it was all the edits I had made, which is probably why the references are broken after the revert. Cmr08 (talk) 07:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to rewrite the first year section, include the expenses section. I find the MLA expense controversy to be significant news worthy of an encyclopedia entry, but will shorten it, and remove some of the minor news. I will rewrite this section so that it follows the format of Year 2 and 3. CameronCamera (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Best Examples of a Canadian Premier's Wiki Page
There are a few Wikipedia biographies of Canadian Premiers that are sparse in information, including Premier Dexter's. I would like to build on Dexter's entry by following the best examples out there. These two wikipedia entries are balanced, neutral, well organized and packed with information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_McGuinty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Doer

I think the writing should flow this way:

1 Early life and career

2 MLA

3 NDP leader Leadership Election 2003 Election 2006 Election

4 Leader of the Opposition First Term 2009 Election

5 Premier 5.1 First year Economy Education Energy Environment Financial policy Health Justice Labour MLA expenses Natural resources Social policy Viola Desmond pardon

5.2 Second year Economy Education Energy Environment Financial policy Health Justice Labour Natural resources Social policy

6 Electoral record

I would like to work towards these examples, and welcome your feedback or concerns in advance. A.Harpell (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't worry too much about length of article, or amount of info compared to other premiers at this time. Darrell Dexter has been premier for just over a year, as well as being from a smaller province, so the amount of info available would be much less than the others. Adding a large amount of info just to make the article longer wouldn't improve the article, you would end up with alot of filler, rather than notable information. The longer in power, the more info that will be notable enough to put in. Also remember that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news site (See WP:NOTNEWS), so every annuncement or minute piece of info shouldn't be added to the article. Cmr08 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The format you're suggesting is good - if this is a wikipedia article you'd like to work on, then by all means, do so. I would like to second Cmr08's suggestion that you review WP:NOTNEWS. Keep in mind that not everything that makes it into the local paper has the 'enduring notability' for mention in an encyclopedia. If a story made national news, like the Trenton wind turbine deal and the MLA expenses, then yes, it may belong. Or if it changed Nova Scotia significantly in an area, like the pesticide ban or the Viola Desmond pardon you mentioned. But not every activist protest against the government OR every funding announcement made by the government belongs here - only on rare occasions would they make it into the history books. I would also recommend sticking to just this one political article - work to write Dexter and do it well, but don't run out and edit every MLA in Nova Scotia. Someone's doing that now, and doing it very poorly. CitationWatch (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks Cmr08 and CitationWatch. I'll get started working on this page again once I read more about Wiki rules, formatting and customs. I'm sure you will anyway, but please keep an eye on the page and let me know how I'm doing, delete any info you don't think is notable enough, or give me any tips on how to improve my wiki skills. A.Harpell (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A.Harpell, I just touched up the example section titles you listed above so that when it comes time to add them to the article, you would know the correct way to list them. It's pretty common to come across articles where WP:Headings isn't be followed and must be cleaned up. Cmr08 (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The suggested format is good, however the actual article is not following this example, or any other good example. I will take this on if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CameraCameron (talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Cmr08 and A.Harpell, I have chosen McGuinty's page as the best example, as I find Doer's pager offers too great an opportunity to add non-essential info, or news stories that are not encyclopedia-worthy. I will now begin editing the text. There is some content that is just not significant enough to appear in an encyclopedia, and other headings that need at least a paragraph worth of research. CameraCameron (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia: When You Wonder What To Do
When I joined Wikipedia, and editor kindly advised me to read What Wikipedia is NOT (see WP:NOTNEWS).

This passage is what I keep in mind when editing the Darrell Dexter page:

"When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia."

And that is why, when editing, I have deleted info that you just would not see in an encyclopedia entry on a Premier. Thus far, I have deleted the fact that Dexter likes basketball (something of no great significance), that in his teenage years he was pulled over for driving while under the influence (it didn't make news at the time, or after, and was just mentioned in a biography-style news magazine piece - hardly encyclopedia material), and I plan to remove a few more bits on not-so-worthy content (it may be 'true' that he was once on this or that Board, but it's hardly worthy of being in an encyclopedia.

I will also write a couple paragraphs for Year Two of Dexter's premiership. These will be fair and balanced (the good and the bad but always significant enough to be in an encyclopedia. I will generally follow how Year One is laid out, only I will use proper chronology (Year One is all over the place). CameraCameron (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I will draft the text for Year Three, following the example set with Year Two - fair, balanced, and with news that is "significant" enough to be in an encyclopedia. If a story made the national news for a few days, significantly changed Nova Scotia, or made "history" (only the most significant legislation) than it will appear here. CameronCamera (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There are a few sections that I will clean up in order to both make them more concise, ensure the information is cited, and that all the information is important enough to be in an encyclopedia. There are a few things in the Early Life, Campaigns and Year One section that should come out. I am also going to remove a few phrases I feel show some editorial bias - using 'scandal' instead of 'controversy' for instance, and the meal expense story is hardly worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Some of the Early Life information is not sourced well and seems the be 'filler' instead of 'substance'. CameronCamera (talk) 15:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I will draft the text for Year Four, following the example set with Year Two and Three - fair, balanced, and with news that is "significant" enough to be in an encyclopedia - things that made the national news, or made "history" (only the most significant legislation). CameronCamera (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"Electoral Mandate" Fairness
The article talks about how he has the first government to not win a second electoral mandate. However, I feel that this terminology is misleading, and at least shouldn't be present as upfront as it it. There's a big difference between party mandates and candidate mandates. For instance, his direct predecessor, Rodney MacDonald, only won one mandate. He's given credit for more than one party mandate because of his predecessors, but he only won one election. I think the current format shows bias toward a two party system. There are other Nova Scotia Premiers as well who benefit from being 'appointed', who were only elected to a single term. For the sake of fairness, I simply think comments about Darrel Dexter having the only "single mandate" government should be removed, as it's a very misleading phrasing, as there have been a number of single mandate Premiers from other parties. 156.34.175.93 (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You're 100% correct, there have been single mandate premiers, but the statement in article is not referring to premiers, it's referring to governments. The NDP government was the only government not to win a second term. Rodney MacDonald only won a single term himself, but the government was in power from 1999 to 2009, winning re-election twice. The same with Russell MacLellan before that, he only won a single mandate but the government did win more than one term. How is the statement bias, when it's a fact that every other government in Nova Scotia was re-elected at least one time? Cmr08 (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Darrell Dexter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928101018/http://www.canadaeast.com/business/article/657849 to http://www.canadaeast.com/business/article/657849

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Darrell Dexter. 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/20111007223728/http://www.electionalmanac.com/canada/novascotia/polls.php to http://www.electionalmanac.com/canada/novascotia/polls.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929042046/http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news/article/824856 to http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/news/article/824856
 * Added tag to http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/pressroom/viewnews.php?id=688
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121002153045/http://www.thecoast.ca/ArtAttack/archives/2011/12/01/new-nova-scotia-arts-council-established-arts-nova-scotia to http://www.thecoast.ca/ArtAttack/archives/2011/12/01/new-nova-scotia-arts-council-established-arts-nova-scotia
 * Added tag to http://www.halifaxnewsnet.ca/News/2013-04-19/article-3223379/Widows-to-be-reimbursed-for-unpaid-benefits/1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)