Talk:Kwame McKenzie

CAMH affair
No reasons were given for changing the duely referenced paragraph on McKenzie's intervention in CAMH. The original paragraph more accurately described the issue at hand as well as its ideological background while also avoiding the managerial jargon substituted for it. I therefore restored the paragraph's text.Retal (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

NPOV?
A passage describing McKenzie's intervention at CAMH was again removed invoking NPOV. This is clearly abuse of the term NPOV, since the passage was factual and duly referenced. One might question the qualification of the external review as "shoddy", but if a review includes misleading information, surely the term "shoddy" is not misplaced? Or would one rather have "misleading"? Fine with me.Retal (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)