Talk:Edmond Blanchard

NPOV Issues
"His good looks, fluent bilingualism and success as Minister of Finance made him a strong candidate to succeed Frank McKenna for the Liberal leadership in 1998." -- This is clearly biased language, and is not cited anywhere. Could be mad speculation on the part of a wikipedian partial to Blanchard. I do not know much about him, but I do know that this language is dubious. There are overtones of pro-Blanchard rhetoric in the rest of the piece, but I will not approach it on a piecemeal basis. Other opinions welcome. Shagmaestro 04:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thought, here are the only other two sections of concern. Emphasis added.
 * "Blanchard was first elected to the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick in 1987 when his party won every seat in the legislature"
 * "He was elected to a third term in 1995 and given the high profile portfolio of finance minister."
 * --Shagmaestro 04:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a source should be found for your initial complaint, though that is how the press described his candidacy at the time, it should be cited. As for the other points though, it is a fact that the New Brunswick Liberal Association won every seat in the New Brunswick general election, 1987 and this was quite a noteworthy thing. It is also widely accepted that the position of finance minister in Canada is high profile and normally considered the second most powerful position in a Canadian cabinet after that of Prime Minister / Premier. - Jord 04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I still beleive that there is a certain bias in the way this information is presented. Here is what I would consider an example of NPOV depiction, gleaned from Jim Flaherty: "James Michael "Jim" Flaherty, PC, BA, LL.B, MP (born 30 December 1949) is Canada's Minister of Finance; he had formerly served as Ontario's Minister of Finance."  While there is indeed a certain prestige and high level of responsibility in this position, there is no technical seniority associated with it, unlike in the United Kingdom where the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one of the four Great Offices of State.  Furthermore, "high profile" (as per the current article) means roughly "prominent in media and the public eye", rather than "important", a stance for which you seem to be arguing.
 * In response to "when his party won every seat in the legistlature", the party was not "his" at all. This is a semantic issue, but the article may be taken by some to mean that Blanchard led that victory, whereas he did not.  I would maybe consider something like "Blanchard was first elected to the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick in 1987 as the Liberal party took every seat in the province" or something-- I realise that it should not be phrased so un-encylopedically, but I hope you get my drift.
 * Part one needs to go or be changed significantly if we can not find a strong source for such a subjective, normative statement. That means something like CP or CBC.
 * And of course I will not change any of the disputed text without consensus or external arbitration, which is only fair.. the same is expected of anyone else taking part in this. Thanks for responding so quickly and I hope we can get this resolved! Shagmaestro 15:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect to the finance minister role, Wikipedia's own article says " Sometimes the finance minister is the most powerful cabinet post, like in Canada or New Zealand", in terms of the style question in what language to use to affiliate Blanchard with the Liberals and not leave a perception of leadership - something he certainly did not enjoy as he was not even included as a member of the cabinet after the election - I guess I can see where you are coming from and I will make that change now. As I mentioned, I agree that a source should be found for the first bit, however it is not as simple of a process as you might think.  There are few internet news sources for New Brunswick, and there were fewer in 1997-1998 when this was reported.  I will have to find the time to go to an archives and find old newspapers to get a source. - Jord 18:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed material from that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Docg 22:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not libel to state something was alleged by an opponent and never confirmed nor denied, which are the facts of what happened. I will now waste my afternoon going to the library and finding old newspaper articles to source this so that I can improve the project which, frankly, I think is seriously damaged by wreckless removals such as this. - Jord 15:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Libel has nothing to do with it. The policy is clear, all negative material in a biography MUST be attributed and referenced. Read WP:BLP - but I can assure you that the policy was carefully worked out by the community to ensure high quality, and to avoid recklessness.--Docg 17:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess my view has been that rather than removing unsourced material, it would be more helpful to the project for those wanting things backed up to assist in looking for a source. - Jord 18:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ideally, yes. But not practical. There are 2million articles 20-30% are bios. Of these, many thousands will have unsourced allegations, some of which (not most, granted) will be libelous. There are thousands of writers and editors, but just a few tracking down unsourced allegations. It isn't practical for us to go through and sort the sourcing, the only way it works is if we remove all unsourced allegations, and make it clear to every editor that they must source these things if they wish them in articles. I realise that looks harsh when something you know isn't libelous gets removed - but it is the only way Wikipedia can combat the potential for libels on a large scale. And like it or not, that's the policy. Sorry if it sucks, but I hope my explanation helps you see where we're coming from.--Docg 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)