Talk:Rodney MacDonald

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wait until February 24th, 2006[edit]

Rodney MacDonald is scheduled to become NS premier Feb.24/06. Let's wait until that date arrives before we edit him into office, after all it's assumptious to say he'll still be alive & well by then. GoodDay 15:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

Read somewhere he is personally pro-life but will not seek to write his personal beliefs into law or overturn consensus. Must be Catholic since he attended St. Francis Xavier. How lucky the Canadian pols are not to be threatened with excommunication like in the U.S.A. Rosemary's Baby 05:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attending St. FX doesn't automatically make you a Catholic. It's a public university, and has students of all religious beliefs. I myself know at least 10 people who attend St FX, none of whom are Catholic. I agree, though, it's great that religious beliefs are non-issues in most Canadian political arenas. I hope that it stays that way! Gortex99 23:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separation from Lori-Ann[edit]

It has been reported in Frank multiple times that there is speculation of infidelity on his part. It is accurate to report the speculation, rather than the fact, as it is politically pertinent. WayeMason 22:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of the MacDonald's infidelity (or the accusation of infidelity) is regularly deleted from the page. It should be retained, as it was politically pertinent, he has not denied the charges, and it reflects on his political platforms, particularly his passion for 'family values.'

Assessment[edit]

I have assessed this as Start Class, as it contains more detail and organization than would be expected of a Stub and of low importance, as I do not feel that many people outside of Canada would be familiar with the subject of the article, despite the fact that he is a current premier. Cheers, CP 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Politician and Educator"[edit]

Is it really necessary to say that Rodney MacDonald is an educator in NS at the top of the page?

Such information is peripheral to the reason why he's in WP - because he's a premier. We might as well state in the first sentence that he's also a musician, an excellent step dancer, is married to Lori Ann, is married, is RC, etc etc.. I'm not suggesting WP should not state that he was a teacher so much as I'm saying the value of the info is definitely subordinate to his role in politics. It should be put in a sub-section later in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.238.153 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Quality Issues[edit]

User:Nscotian, despite the raft of edits you've made in the past day or so, I still see a lot of issues with the Political Career section. It remains poorly sourced, reads as a general indictment of MacDonald's tenure as premier (I was tempted to tag the entire section NPOV), contains too many weasel-words, speculation, and uncited facts. I will grant that it is modestly improved from earlier this week when I first tagged it but this has got to be better than just adding half a dozen URLs.

For the record, I'm from Nova Scotia and while I'm no fan of MacDonald, this article isn't supposed to be a way of saying "Look how bad he is." His record's got to be presented in a factual, NPOV fashion, with proper quotes/citations for and/or against it. Habfan29 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that not all people believe every rumour they hear, but as long as some people believe a rumour, then its noteworthy enough to be included in an article. The senate rumour about Rodney MacDonald is pretty far fetched, but as long as some people believe it, as the editor states in the article, then it must be included in the article which is why I reverted the previous edit as vandalism. To those who don't believe this type of information belongs, I say get a life, the rumour is in the article and that's where it is staying.142.68.229.123 (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Habfan29 the scandals and blunders that I have mentioned of the MacDonald Government are a matter of record. I have cited legitimate sources (under references)such as the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), CTV (Canadian Television), and The Chronicle Herald (Nova Scotia's largest daily newspaper). I am not deleting the positive things said about Rodney MacDonald, just adding facts. I have refrained from going into rumors such as possible infidelity as these are just rumors and cannot be backed up. For those who keep deleting the "scandals and blunders" information (along with the above mentioned references), I have one wood for you: CENSORSHIP. After all, why is it you feel that things must be sugar-coated and the CBC, CTV, and Chronicle Herald reporting simply be deleted?? The article is not suppose to be a way of saying "nice infomercial for Mr. MacDonald". The article should show any positive and negative facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nscotian (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

It looks like there is enough controversy around this guy that there should be a few negative items in the article. Not all the sources have been good enough for a BLP, but there must be a way to include some of this information from a neutral point of view. --Onorem♠Dil 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My breakdown of the sources being used for negative info:
Just initial thoughts...my opinion could probably be easily swayed either way on some of them. --Onorem♠Dil 15:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insights on the added info[edit]

I have been following the edit war in this article for the past couple of weeks, and have some views on the information that was added and deleted too many times to count. First off, I'm not an expert when it comes to Nova Scotia politics, but through researching the info added to this article, I do have some insights as to the topic at hand. If an article here on wikipedia is going to be a factual up to date article, then all info must be considered, both positive and negative. I find it strange when an account is created for the sole purpose of editing one article and one article only, and in doing so is used to add every bit of negative info the editor can find to the article at hand. What this tells me is that the editor is only interested in painting the subject in a negative light, not improving the article. When the same editor refuses to reconsider any of the info and keeps adding all of it back into the article, then after being banned, creates a number of sock puppet accounts to keep adding the same info, this only goes to confirm what I believe.

While I do have problems with some of the info that was added, its obvious that some of the info should be included if the article is going to be fair, and neutral. What I do have problems with...

  • The editor keeps stating that MacDonald and his wife are separted, and has even stated they have been separated since 2006. This is untrue, as they did separate shortly after the 2006 election but reconcilled several months later.
  • For some reason the editor included as a reference, a viewpoint page from CBC asking for opinions on why MacDonalds party is last place in the polls. Why would this be included except to paint a negative picture, when more up to date polling numbers have been released since this article was published in June 2008. The latest polling numbers released in December 2008, show that MacDonald's party is in 2nd place, 4% points behind the NDP. The same poll shows that the satisfaction rate with the government is at its highest in two years (59%). [1]
  • After researching the "Take the bus issue", I have to ask...Where did the editor find the quote that was included in the article, and attributed to MacDonald? The source provided is an op-ed critical of MacDonald, and not the actual article where the quote was made. Maybe the editor didn't include the article because he already knew what I found in researching the issue, and that was MacDonald never made the quote that the editor attributed to him. The actual quote that MacDonald made was "The most important thing that we as a government can do, and all Nova Scotians can do, is to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles and to take up the opportunity for transit,". [2] The media then interpreted the quote to mean take the bus, as the headline shows. No matter how a quote is interpreted, or the meaning behind it taken, the fact is that the quote made and the quote attributed to MacDonald in the article are not the same. If someone is going to put a quote in a wikipedia article, and attribute it to the subject of the article, shouldn't the quote be one that the person made? I would think so. I also must ask, why was the title of the op-ed included as a reference changed when the editor added the reference. The actual title of the article is "When is the last time Rodney MacDonald rode a bus?" [3], however the editor has the title in the reference section as "You Take A Bus - I'll Take A Helicopter". Looks like another attempt to paint the subject in a more negative light.
  • The reference article in regards to Ernie Fage has also had a title change when the editor included it in the article. The editor has the title listed as "Cabinet Minister Ernie Fage is Charged", while the actual headline reads "Former N.S. cabinet minister Ernie Fage charged" [4] This may not be a major change, but the editor is playing it off as a member of MacDonald's cabinet bing charged, when it was actually a former member of the cabinet being charged. Didn't MacDonald take the step of getting rid of this guy when the incident occured, and will not allow the man to run for the party again?
  • Anyone who watches CPAC or sees coverage on the news of Parliament or Legislature sittings would know that heckling is something that goes on at all levels of government. Often times, its hard to hear the speaker because of the noise other members around them are making. What I would like to know, is when did heckling become something put in an encyclopedia? All members are guilty of it at one time or another, so why should info be put in the wikipedia page of a party leader when someone in his caucus heckles another member in the House of Assembly. Its getting very trivial when MLA's run to the media because someone heckled them, and then even more trivial when an editor puts what was heckled on a wikipedia page. There has to be a line drawn somewhere as to what is encyclopedic and what is not.

I know these are just my opinions, so it would be better for the article if everyone who edits the page comments on what belongs and what doesn't belong in the article. I am interested in reading the views that you guys have on some of these topics I raised, as well as the ones that I haven't touched on yet.Islander at heart (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still Premier, for the next few days[edit]

In spite of the 2009 prov election results. MacDonald is still Premier, until he resigns. His resignation will occur, whenever Premier-Designate Dexter is prepared to be sworn in as the new Premier. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Dexter has officially been sworn in as Premier of Nova Scotia. I hope its ok to change the text of this and other articles. The ceremony was held about 1 1/2 hours ago, and brodcast on the news. 142.167.231.13 (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

So on Still Standing, he claims that his full name is Rodney Alec Angus Kenny Sandy Finley MacDonald. Huh? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Zanimum (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His name is sourced as Rodney Joseph MacDobald.[5] Cmr08 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rodney_MacDonald&oldid=1208659432"