User talk:Marmichette

José Nunez-Melo
Please note that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy which must be followed. We can neutrally summarize the dispute, giving a fair hearing to both his version of the story and the party's, but we cannot simply publish a flat assertion that he was unequivocally in the wrong while entirely suppressing any acknowledgement whatsoever of his own counterclaims. We have to be fair to both sides of the dispute, and neither side has any right to use Wikipedia as a venue for controlling the story.

As well, naming a newspaper and date but not providing the title of the specific article you're alluding to is not a reference. Bearcat (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * One more time: the NDP does not have the right to use Wikipedia as a venue for controlling the narrative by depicting its side of the story as unequivocally true and his side as unconditionally false. We must fairly and equitably represent both sides of the story and may not take sides as to which one is right and which one is wrong. Read our WP:NPOV policy. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In the name of neutrality and fairness, Wikipedia should give both sides of the story. Just printing Nunez-Mello's version of events contradicts Wikipedia's claims of neutrality Marmichette (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've revised the article, in accordance with our WP:NPOV policies, to resolve any balance issues that existed. (All it took was a minor rewrite of a few words in two sentences.) Your version of the text, which asserted the NDP's explanation as gospel truth and completely eradicated any acknowledgement of his claims about it, was not the appropriate manner of doing so. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)