Talk:War Measures Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Canadian law, an attempt to co-ordinate articles on Canadian law, produce common standards and fill in the gaps. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information). |
I am researching history, and it is not fun.
[edit] NPOV
The entire WWI section of this article is a screed against the Canadian government. It should be sufficient to outline the facts of the 1914-1920 internment without loaded or otherwise non-neutral language. The opinions of those seeking redress, although more than likely valid, should not be considered encyclopedic content. Does anyone have thoughts on this? AidanBC 09:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
- I agree completely; this topic is covered neutrally and more completely in its own article: Ukrainian-Canadian internment. Since this is the War Measures Act page it should keep focused on the Act and what it was used for, and just link to where the further-reaching consequences are examined in more detail. (That's my two cents, anyway!) Arg 23:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Also agreed, the specific artile on Ukrainian-Canadian internment includes more neutral coverage, and is a better place for the specifics of that event, linked from the WWI War-measures page. Two more cents (ShawnB, Mississauga, ON)
-
-
- Disagree. NPOV does not mean an obligation to present the government in a favourable light as if IT were neutral. The first internment camps IS significant and worthy of mention here. The same argument could be made that the details on the FLQ are irrelevant or NPOV. A major reason why the Act is significant and worthy of inclusion is because of how it is experienced by those it affects. That said, the article generally needs expanding and could read better. I think if that was done adequately, WWI wouldn't stand out so much as it does now.Bobanny 19:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
-
The article remains more neutral than many other governmental articles out there, go look upon those, this article remains untainted by biased opinions.
