Talk:John Buchanan (Canadian politician)

Assessment
I have assessed this as a Stub, as it contains only the basic information on the topic, and of low importance, as I do not feel that many people outside of Canada would be familiar with the subject of the article. Cheers, CP 16:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

John Buchanan the cricket coach
I would suggest that John Buchanan the former Australian national cricket coach (and current coach of Indian Premier League side the Kolkata Knight Riders) is more notable than this gent. Suggest changing it, or at the least making the main John Buchanan page the disambiguation page. Phenalot (talk) 05:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this Canadian politician beats a cricket player. He has been out of office for almost 20 years and out of the limelight for almost 10 years since he retired from the senate. Yet he is still a news maker in Canada. Good or bad politicians still reference his long term in government and the role it played in Nova Scotia. An article in the last 30 days still brings him up. I think he stays as is. JBignell (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

John MacLennan Buchanan listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect John MacLennan Buchanan. The proposed redirect will potentially directly affect John Buchanan, so you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). MTS Peanut (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Blanking or rewriting references to Buchanan's secret fund
An IP with an acknowledged conflict of interest has been blanking the reference to funds paid secretly to Buchanan by his party for more than a decade. While some early refs use uncertain terms to describe the fund, there is no shortage of refs that use terms such as "secret" and "confirmed" or describe the arrangement in no uncertain terms.

Given the editor's connection to the subject, I can't help seeing this as an attempt to rewrite the past. Hairhorn (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

How can it be a Conflict of interest when I am using language quoted DIRECTLY from the cited references (5), (6) and (7)? The link you refer to, in reference to a Conflict of Interest, is a discussion about the incorrect metadata linked to the image provided. It had nothing to do with changing the language of the Entry to Politics section of the article.

None of the references were listed or cited by me. I am not attempting to "rewrite the past". I am removing malicious and speculative language and replacing it with factual language obtained from the provided citations. Assuming the references were provided by Hairhorn, and assuming the original language was also provided by Hairhorn, the fact that Hairhorn has an issue with changing the malicious nature of the text, suggests a Conflict of Interest on the part of Hairhorn not mine.

Conflict of Interest? Maybe so, but not with me.
How can it be a Conflict of interest when I am using language quoted DIRECTLY from the cited references (5), (6) and (7)? The link you refer to, in reference to a Conflict of Interest, is a discussion about the incorrect metadata linked to the image provided. It had nothing to do with changing the language of the Entry to Politics section of the article.

None of the references were listed or cited by me. I am not attempting to "rewrite the past". I am removing malicious and speculative language and replacing it with factual language obtained from the provided citations. Assuming the references were provided by Hairhorn, and assuming the original language was also provided by Hairhorn, the fact that Hairhorn has an issue with changing the malicious nature of the text, suggests a Conflict of Interest on the part of Hairhorn not mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.114.200 (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that the conflict of interest has been acknowledged from the start. Trying to turn things around by accusing me of a conflict is bizarre at best. The same user has also blanked this section entirely twice. I see nothing particularly malicious in the language, particularly, as this user likes to point out, the language is largely taken from the references (including the word "secret", which has been blanked by several IPs, presumably all the same person). Hairhorn (talk) 19:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

No, again you are twisting the facts. There is no Conflict of Interest. There was no acknowledgement of one. The link you refer to is a discussion relating to the source and metadata associated with an image. It has nothing to do with the section of the article in question.

With the word "secret" omitted as well as other recent changes, it is not malicious. Previously, it was. There is nothing within any of the references that indicates any secrecy. The facts are simply:

1. Payments were made by the PC party 2. The RCMP investigated the matter. 3. No evidence of any criminal wrongdoing was found.

There is nothing more to say on the matter. Why you are dragging it out? Why try to make an issue when there is none? Why bring up conflict of interest? Then post a link to something completely unrelated? Again, I say how can changing the article to include factual language quoted from the references be a conflict of interest. The fact that you are so sensitive and accusatory is more indicative of a conflict of interest than anything I have done. Why so emotional to a minor change? Why so hostile and quick to speculate on my reasons for making changes. Why would you be threatening and try to post IP addresses? Why post vandalism and COI banners all over the place when it is quite obvious that this is not what is happening. Since you seem to be policing the article, I would think you would want it to be accurate and factual. Which it was not, until recently, when changes were made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.236.105 (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Major Contributor??
Wow, I just noticed that you list me as a "Major Contributor" to the article. Yet another twisting of the facts! I have contributed less than 1 sentence to the article in total. I think the total might be an omission of 5 words or less, an addition of 3 words or less and 1 change to an inaccurate numerical value. Is that considered being a "Major Contributor"? Why go to all these lengths to try to discredit me or the changes I have made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.236.105 (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Major Contributions to Nova Scotia
Can this talk page start looking at what this man did and didn't do for the party, government, Nova Scotians, and finally in the senate? There has to be more interesting things about his time in office then only scandals? Donating land for a community park, world trade centre debates, Halifax waterfront development, etc. JBignell (talk) 02:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It does seem hard to believe that a political career that began in 1967 and lasted until 2006, with 12 of those years serving as a provincial premier can be summed up in a few sentences. There has to be more that can be added, but one problem is that while it's easy to find info on scandals that can be considered notable, most announcements a government makes are not really notable to an encyclopedia article. I have worked on a number of Nova Scotia political articles over the last few months, and would be willing to tackle this, however I would like some advice or help on what should and should not be part of the article. This article has a history of reverting anything that is not negative about the subject, and I don't want to work on an article if that will be the end result of anything added. Cmr08 (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)