Talk:Adrian Dix

POV issue

Recent expansions of this article by User:Sirjohnhackett are of an anti-Dix nature, with no attempt to present both sides of the story or any other policies than "political indictments" (without any balance) or to expand any regular biographical information on Dix which is normal in BLPs. Sirjohnhackett's attempts to purge the Christy Clark article of negative material about her have been redirected towards adding negative material about one of the leading NDP leadership candidate. COI cannot easiliy be proven (i.e. that sijohnhackett is a Liberal member/Clark campaign organizer) but is clearly indicated by the defensived edits on the Clark article here, and by the negative-addition edits here. COI means that anyone of any party editing political articles is in conflict-of-interest; not just ones connected to their own parties directly. Activity of this kind, pro and con, on all leadership articles in the current BC political climate bear close watching for COI/POV-type edits of this kind; in this case there's nothing directly wrong with the material on teh Fast Ferries or Casinogate, but adding it without adding anything else is WP:UNDUE in nature and is of course meant to have a POV impact. Fast Ferries wasn't really a scandal, and was only branded that by teh Liberal-oriented/allied BC newspapers; there was no influence peddling, graft or illegal lobbying as there was, for example, re the BC Rail sell-off under the Liberals; Fast FErries was just bad management - the real scandal is that they were pretty much given by the Campbell government to Liberal backers Washington Marine Group for less than the cost of the scrap metal, and were sold for huge profit. But the Liberal press didn't brand that a "scandal"....previous sirjohnhackett edits here attempted to say more about Glen Clark and make it sound like he was convicted, instead of exonerated as was teh actual case re Casinogate, which was another Liberal witchhunt; this particular SPA needs close watching for POV/COI activity.Skookum1 (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Physician, Heal Thyself

First of all, as a clear and fanatical NDP advocate, Skookum doesn't have much of a leg to stand on here. If he doesn't like a reference to the Fast Ferries Scandal (as it's been known in British Columbia for more than a decade), than he should take issue with the people who named the article in question (actually, he did).

As to the question of due versus undue weight - I think that the article is quite fairly weighted at the present time. Dix is notable mostly for his service to a disgraced Premier - I can't think of a single thing worth mentioning about his entirely undistinguished tenure in the legislature. If some other fellow can think of one, they're more than free to add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjohnhackett (talk • contribs) 06:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

First off, I'm not an NDPer and I think both parties should go down in flames for a combination of ineptitude and dishonesty, and I think the party system in BC has failed democracy miserably and the public interest even more. I hope a third and fourth party emerge this year to turf you both into oblivion where you belong (even if it's the Tories). That being said, I have raised the issue at Talk:Fast Ferries Scandal and the rebuttal is that the "reliable sources" use the term (these being the Sun and Province who aided and abetted the Liberal witchhunt against the NDP for 1991-2001 (and since). So for now that article is what it is; but in this case this article is about Adrian Dix, and the norms of BLP call for balanced coverage; your original edit was very pointedly defamatory towards Glen Clark, who was exonerated even though you didn't say that, and obviously don't like it that he was. And what you added wasn't about Adrian Dix, either; the current edits stand because you didn't slant them directly; but you made no effort to say anything else, or add anything about what else he did while Deputy Premier, in teh same way that Christy's article contains information about her legislative and policy record. You don't like that it also will include things that you don't want known about her, but you don't WP:OWN that article and further censorship attempts for political reasons will not be tolerated by me, or anyone - I'm not an NDPer but you seem clearly a Liberal and so should read again (if you haven't already) WP:COI and WP:POV and WP:SOAP. It's a compliment to Dix, in fact, that his is the first article where evidence of leadership-campaign interference in his article by an opponent has shown up; must mean he's viewed as a serious threat....and it's such an old saw whenever the Liberal wagons are circled in defensive mode to attack the NDP record of -- 15 years ago? "Fast Ferries, Fast Ferries, Fast Ferries!!!" goes the refrain in blogspace, as if it weren't over and done with and hadn't happened yesterday, and as if they Libs hadn't pretty much given the ferries to one of their friends as a campaign-support reward....and the other refrain is "Glen Clark was in conflict of interest....yadayadayada..." wthout the same trolls ever admitting that he was acquitted and with everyone who remembers the non-CanWEst coverage of those events knowing that it was a Liberal frame-up with suspicious circumstantial evidence of collusion with the RCMP and BCTV (and the fact that retired RCMP were behind a competing casino bid to Pilarinos's).....BC politics is a can of worms, to be sure...so you should think twice about opening various cans of worms, as some of your own worms are probably in there too....Skookum1 (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it somewhat difficult to believe that someone who apparently considers Bill Tieleman a legitimate source but objects to the only two daily newspapers in the Lower Mainland can really pretend to be an objective observer of anything. Your views, in essence, attempt to substitute your own individual reality for that experienced by the overwhelming majority of British Columbians - one where Glen Clark isn't disgraced and where the NDP's destructive reign's end was brought about by "witchhunts" instead of by Clark's corruption.

I've added this to Dix because, frankly people ought to know about his pattern of plainly unethical conduct over a number of years. That's why this information belongs in this article. If you have good information - equally notable - about him, add it. But, as I said before, all I see is someone with a number of notable and public ethical lapses and an entirely undistinguished record as a legislator. I haven't added anything of this sort to, say, Mike Farnworth or John Horgan's article because I am not aware of similar conduct by them, or by any other candidate.

Indeed, your comments here reveal a very base hypocrisy. While you use the Christy Clark article in an attempt to engage in clear guilt-by-association tactics and to thereby smear multiple individuals, here you attempt to cover up or minimize the clear and admitted guilty conduct of individuals.Sirjohnhackett (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pffft. How did I cover them up? You mean deleting the entry you made trying to behave as if Clark had been found guilty, when he wasn't, is that what you mean? Throwing accusations at me is unfounded; all I've done is observed that this article is not fully balanced and that your recent additions are only "more of the same" Liberal tub-thumping on pet anti-NDP warhorses of Liberal blog-trolls, and that your efforts here mirror those. The hypocrisy is yours, not mine - your only participation in Wikipedia so far is to try and censor the Christy Clark article, and here to add only defamatory information about a major Liberal opponent/electoral threat. And the only edits I've made here were to reverse an off-topic and not-neutral attempt to indict Glen Clark for something that he was acquitted of, and exonerated for; even the cite you provided didn't do that, but you tried to pretend it did. Give your head a shake, and read WP:BLP, WP:COI, WP:POV/WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. If you're the Liberal party campaign worker you seem to be, you're in COI on both articles.Skookum1 (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Removing Dix from the "forgers" category is very revealing on the part of Skookum.

First of all, Dix admits to the forgery (or, "back-dating" to use the phrase used by his kindest advocates of the memo in question. And, further, your claim that Category:Forgers only includes those "convicted" is entirely false: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Edmund_Backhouse,_2nd_Baronet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakat_Fahim_Ali_Mohamed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annio_da_Viterbo#Detection_of_his_forgeries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benedict_Levita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bertram

Etc, etc. I'm restoring the category. And, as I said before, I'm not going to accept the NPOV tag from someone with such a clearly distorted viewpoint on the truth - to the point, as referenced above, that they apparrently refuse to accept the major newspapers in this Province as credible sources. Sirjohnhackett (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

They're widely known not to be credible sources about anything to do with the BC Liberals, which is why the public turns increasingly to the blogs, and to the Globe & Mail, for more complete and less biased coverage than what's available in the Sun and Province.Skookum1 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

"Known" by who? You? Your current position is to reject the validity of all major local news outlets and substitute for them your own version of reality.

You are clearly a partisan advocate of the NDP, insofar as the focus of your activity is to attempt to keep (true) adverse information out of NDP-related articles while defending false and defamatory information that has been inserted into Liberal ones. Sirjohnhackett (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from ErinLoxam, 18 April 2011

I uploaded this picture of him. I thought it would be good to add it to Adrian Dix's page now that he is the leader of the party.

Add caption here

ErinLoxam (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Portrait versions usually work better for the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 06:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 Added as requested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Time to expand

It is time to allow changes to this article again. There have been significant developments in provincial politics in BC and this article is currently barely more than a stub.

Simple items like adding his political role as Leader of the Official Opposition and Leader of the BC NDP are both required changes. There are more significant additions required as well. Now that Adrian Dix leads the BC NDP this article simply needs much more work that can only be accomplished through community collaboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.175.244 (talk • contribs) 8:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of balance and reasonable neutrality

I have cleaned up grammar and style where necessary, and imposed a more balanced tone. The personal background section is probably adequate, since the point is to show that Mr Dix has, like most British Columbia politicians, roots in the community he represents. I have also changed the language of the section concerning Dix's resignation from the Office of the Premier; it verged on libel as it was. I propose to add 2-3 more footnotes and references, for example, detailing Dix's university education (he is a UBC graduate), and am considering adding one or two facts (without interpretation) about legislative exchanges between Dix and the current Premier of the Province, Christy Clark.

Wikipedia will continue to exist long after all these people are dead and gone, so there may be little point adding much more detail than this. On the other hand, I would like to make the case that this is not a "stub" and should be promoted to a higher category of "quality" in the Wikipedia system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montaigne1944 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all of your additions, as it was unreferenced, which is a violation of the biographies of living persons policy. 117Avenue (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall restore them all, of course, as you would expect. Now, it's true I added only four new references. So I'll add another one per phrase and clause. That will make quite a long list of references, but I don't think that will be a big problem, and anyway, the subject of the article is interesting. The difficulty will be the Wikipedia rule that says one is not to include original research (for example, archival research at the UBC Special Collections department, which includes references to Mr Dix's graduate from UBC). I quite like making references and footnotes, having been a professional historian for the past forty-odd years, so I don't mind. But it *will* be interesting to see how the usual rules about archivalism and and originality are applied here. I'm a little alarmed that the errors of grammar and style in the original have been left. If you are the author of this piece, perhaps you could fix them before I come back tomorrow to do the next round of detailed referencing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montaigne1944 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at some example featured articles, articles with long lists of references are honoured. 117Avenue (talk) 00:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of Birth

It's April 12, 1964. Here's the source: http://www.bcndp.ca/events/2012/04/26/adrians-birthday-party I'll leave it to greater minds than mind to update the entry page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.148.133 (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war re back-dated memo material

This has been reported to BLP Noticeboard and is in need of at least a semi-protect. The material added is claimed to be NPOV and is claimed to be coming from someone who claims no political affiliation, but is repeating the BC Lib talking points and even tried to use a cite that directed people to the attack ad against Dix. The re-inserted material conflates the incident, in the same way the BC Liberal ads and media hype and other internet forums/UGC spaces are doing, and it WP:UNDUE as well as highly POV and partisan in tone. I'm at my own 3RR on this so will desist though may try to get a properly worded and neutrally-cited account of his matter......that this issue is part of a highly visible attack ad campaign makes the complaint that *I* am being partisan and the person doing it claims to be non-partisan, while accusing me of being an NDP supporter (I am not an NDPer, nor will I be voting for them) all the more ridiculous. This notice/discussion is required to be posted here before I can complete the 3RR notice, which may lead to the SPA's suspension, especially if it comes out through CHECKUSER that he/she is the same as the previous IP users who have attempted to insert (and re-insert) the same material.Skookum1 (talk) 06:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

♠Reading it, I'd agree, it prima facie fails NPOV. It also appears to fail Undue, & looks a bit OT to me, too.

♠As for the IP's politics, or yours, IMO they're entirely irrelevant to the issue.

♠FWIW, I'll rv as far as I can. It looks like more editors may need to be involved. A block on the IP(s) used may be in order, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

While the tone of the additions was clearly problematic, the issues addressed are certainly notable. How is it undue to mention the fact that he was fired for the forged memo? This was a rather large controversy. The Vancouver Sun is currently running an story implying that this article is being whitewashed to keep any negative details on Dix out: [1]. It certainly does make us look pretty bad that there aren't any mentions of the controversies. I think this needs to be addressed by restoring the content, but written in a NPOV tone. TDL (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've just been asked by Vancouver radio station AM1320 to comment on how Wikipedia works, in light of the Vancouver Sun article. So the issue is getting some local traction. I said I'd phone them back in 20 minutes. Thoughts welcome. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just did the interview. I have no idea what (if anything) they used from it. I tried to explain the basics about reading Wikipedia critically and thoughtfully: looking at the talk page and article history; the question of the BLP policy, and so on. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You're a celebrity, Jon! Did they tell you when it might air, or was it live? The Interior (Talk) 18:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The point was never to whitewash the article, only to prevent it from being used as an "attack ad".....Sun reporter inquiries can often be innocuous and then they post a distortion/tract as if it were "analysis"....but that's the paper that regularly twists things (IMO) in favour of the Liberals, and spent a lot of non-energy helping coverup the facts behind the BC Rail case......really part of the BC Liberal camp, and famously so. Yes, coverage of this matter, in the context perhaps that it's the subject of a Liberal campaign to make a big deal out of it, rather than reporting in the article it as if it mattered (while really it's WP:Undue except for that it's part of the campaign against him; there's all kinds of other things about his time as Chief of Staff, including personality "reviews", that could also be in the article; but this one tub-thump has WP:SOAP written all over it; I'll be curious to see what Lee (the reporter) has to say about the "wiki-illegal" behaviour of the people trying to push this material in inflammatory tone....he may just gloss over that part.Skookum1 (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Canada.com and the Vancouver Sun are reliable sources. If a scandal is notable, it can be included in a bio, see other prolific politicians for examples. 117Avenue (talk) 05:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is Lee, the reporter. I'm also Sunciviclee (talk)My view is simple. Significant historical events involving a person should be noted in their biography. But as we all know, that's hard to do from a NPOV when it involves people involved in controversy. There's always going to be someone who thinks that a version of the report, even carefully crafted, is biased. Here's the rub in the Dix case: he did something that even he acknowledges should be reported. He also apologized for his actions. And he has - if you read my story - even offered his own view about how this should be reported on Wikipedia. There is no lack of people who want to import their own bias or views into Wiki edits. It's the role of skilled editors, and the use of citations from credible sources, that should be the foil to such behaviour. I'm not yet fluent with Wiki markup to be able to be clever in my response. And I am sure that I am probably breaking a few rules and codes without meaning to. But I am sure in one thing: no matter who is contributing to or editing on Wikipedia, they should be using some very basic rules: verify, verify, verify. I did that today with Dix, who with humor noted that Wikipedia STILL continues to incorrectly reflect his birthdate as April 26, 1964. If he doesn't dispute what he did in the memo-writing affair, why should you? If he can talk about his memo-writing escapade, why can't you? Sunciviclee (talk) 05:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a short note on it. The problem we see during election cycles is that content like this finds its way to the forefront of articles. When the article is short, a lengthy digression on negative aspects tips the article way off balance. This isn't a great bio, and someone will have to expand it. The memo stuff could definitely be covered in more detail, but only as the rest of the content expands as well. Remember, Lee, that this thing is written by you and me - we can complain about accuracy and imbalance, or work to fix it. The Interior (Talk) 05:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not what he did (or didn't do), it's how it's presented. I'm reading about a backdated memo & seeing it called "forgery". That's pretty strong for something that doesn't directly involve Dix (since it was, as I read it, Clark who was the subject). Had it been Clark who dated the memo, I'd have less problem with the characterization. Since it isn't about Dix directly, that, plus what looks like something pretty minor in the scheme of things (it's not like he killed someone, or faked up a document to frame somebody for a crime), makes adding this undue IMO. Should it be left out entirely? No. Even so, there does need to be a middle ground solution. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 05:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. In neutral terms, what took place was that Dix, as the most senior person in the office outside of the premier, took an executive stamp of the premier's office and used it to back-date a memo that he wrote after the fact, in an effort to make it appear as if the issue had been discussed long before. I don't know if that's "forgery" but it did get him fired and he acknowledges it was wrong. It's perhaps not something you or I would also want to include in our resumes when going for a job. It is not, TREKphiler, "something pretty minor in the scheme of things" when we are all talking about a lack of public confidence in our governments. To my mind, his biography needs is a paragraph reference to this event, with the appropriate citations.Sunciviclee (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, here's a deal: you write, say, 500 words to fill out rest of the bio, and I'll expand the memo business to a paragraph ;) The Interior (Talk) 06:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I will do that later this morning. I'll post it here for review. Thanks.Sunciviclee (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2013

his birthday is April 20 1964

someone keeps removing his participation in a political "scandal" that he does not deny

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Someone+keeping+Adrian+squeaky+clean+Wikipedia/8219088/story.html

Hootie99 (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Because it was presented in POV language and WP:UNDUE weight, that's why. Wikipedia is not a place to repeat attack ads.Skookum1 (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Truly, Wikipedia is not a place to simply repeat attack ads. Then again, neither is it a place to simply delete facts. As I've commented elsewhere, the solution to a factual incident being described in a biased way is to rewrite the information in a non-biased way, not to simply delete it - and especially not to even delete the notice that there is an NPOV disagreement, without seeking much less achieving consensus. At least, not if you want to avoid ending up with Wikipedia being cast in a negative light. DanCooperPara (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: currently the only source for the April 20, 1964, date is Lee's article, which can't be used because it is a self published source. 117Avenue (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

An edited, front page news article printed in and by one of the two major British Columbia dailies is considered "self published?" If so, what can possibly be used as a reference on Wikipedia? Really, one starts to wonder...but anyway. Note also that - aside from the citation by Lee in the Sun article of Mr. Dix himself giving 04/26 as his birthday - there is a second, verifying link posted a bit up this page, to the NDP website giving the same date. Here it is again: http://www.bcndp.ca/events/2012/04/26/adrians-birthday-party Ah, and here is his campaign's facebook page, again giving "Born April 20, 1964": https://www.facebook.com/#!/adriandixbcndp/info DanCooperPara (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)