Talk:Ted Opitz

Awards
Does an article about a brand new MP who's literally only been in office for a few days really require a thorough (and unsourced) bullet point list of every individual award he's ever won, right down to local volunteer honours?

For the record, these are the awards in question, which an editor has now readded to the article twice: As you can see, some of them probably aren't even notable enough to warrant mention at all ("Commanders Commendation for service to World Youth Days 2002"? Really?), while others probably are if properly sourced. To date, however, no reliable sources have been added to support the notability of the awards; apart from his own website, the only other source that's been attempted is nowpublic.com, a crowdsourced news site to which absolutely anybody can add absolutely any news they want — editorial standards of notability what dat? — and where it was originally posted by a contributor whose entire history on that site involves stories about Ted Opitz (and hence presumably a campaign volunteer.)
 * Canadian Government Volunteer Award
 * United Nations Volunteer Award
 * Commanders Commendation for service to World Youth Days 2002
 * Received Gold Cross for contributions to the Polish Combatant’s Association
 * Canadian Forces Decoration with two bars for 32 years military service
 * NATO Decoration for service in the former Yugoslavia
 * Canadian Peacekeeping Service Medal
 * Queen’s Golden Jubilee Medal
 * Awarded Serving Brother of Order of St John
 * Pro Memoria Medal (Poland)
 * Knight’s Cross Order of Merit (Poland)

And furthermore, even that article doesn't actually talk about the awards; it just lists them in exactly the same bullet point form that was used here (and, in fact, the list itself may literally have been cut and pasted from that article, because the awards are listed in the exact same order and worded in the exact same way right down to the inclusion of redundant verbs like "received" and "awarded".)

So is this section really necessary, absent real sources and real paragraph structure? Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I see nothing particularly egregious about the content, but it would need to be sourced. I wouldn't sweat the bulleted list, as outside of Wikipedia, its one of the more common ways of presenting this type of info.  So, I guess basically - if the info is cited correctly, I have no problem with its inclusion, even formatted less than ideally.  If the info is added with a cite in list form, any objections should be dealt with by reformatting, rather than removing.  Canada Hky (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. If you can't easily find a source, remove it. If they want to add it back, then they need a WP:RS I don't object to the bullet list, as that is mostly a style issue. If the list is the same as somewhere else, it is also a potential COPYVIO, so it should be removed/reworded. DigitalC (talk) 18:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A google search for '"Canadian Government Volunteer Award" -Opitz' turned up 1 result - talking about Opitz. The United Nations Volunteer Award does seem to exist, but I can't seem to find any non-puffery sources saying that Opitz received this award. So, there is a start. DigitalC (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Source for Knight's Cross
 * No sources easily found for Pro Memoria Medal though. DigitalC (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Protected Status
Is full protection really necessary? Unless serious violations occur I think semi-protection should be sufficient. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The people who've already made incorrect edits to this article over the last hour or so, inaccurately representing the immediate situation, wouldn't be blocked by semi-protection because they've been around long enough that they'd still be able to edit right through it. For what it's worth, the protection is only for one week — which is the same amount of time that Opitz has available to him to decide whether to appeal the decision or to accept it and step down to recontest a by-election, so it's merely to prevent people inaccurately misrepresenting the situation over the next few days. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Opitz HP.jpg