Talk:The Electors' Action Movement

Neutral Point of View issues
Tagging this with Political POV. I'd also argue that the article is unencyclopedic in tone, as well as overly detailed for an article about a defunct municipal political party, but those seem to be side-effects of the POV thing. I'll leave it to a more experienced Wikipedian to decide if additional tags are necessary (ie: tone, overly detailed).

Here are a few examples of POV:
 * A section header titled "filling a leadership void"
 * "the residents of Vancouver woke up to the fact"
 * "without anyone having asked them if they approved of such a scheme"
 * "the concept of a civic party having a platform was a novelty in Vancouver"
 * "it filled the need for civic leadership at a time when unelected and entrenched bureaucrats were ignoring the right of citizens to be informed and to participate"

These examples are non-exhaustive, but I think they illustrate the problems with the tone of the article as a whole.

Additionally, there is excessive use of quotes from candidates and their supporters. Many are "floating" quotes without context as to who or what is being quoted, aside from a citation in the footnotes. 104.142.124.211 (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi I don't know much about wikipedia but I saw this note and just wanted to provide context. The main guy editing this page is association with the new Vancouver municipal political party "TEAM for a Livable Vancouver", which is based on The Elector's Action Movement. I think he's may be trying to make this page look flattering to bulk up his new Party's status? Anyways sorry if this isn't the right place to comment this I just wanted to say something because I found the content on this page concerningly slanted. 2001:569:7171:B400:F8E3:8DF7:47F6:B5A0 (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)