| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- I've done a mild copyedit.
- Where does the term 'Canoe River' come from?
- I would have liked to know more technical details about the accident; for instance, what type of rolling stock was being used? Of course, if no such information is available...
- The quote regarding the bar examination, is that just an example, or is that the whole examination?
- To me, the whole trial section is POV; I get the impression that the article has taken side with the defense in the case. In part this is because the article goes quite in detail with the defense' arguments, but lacks a similar listing of the crowns'. It does not help the matter that two of the main sources can be said to be quite pro-Diefenbacker.
Placing on hold. Arsenikk (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know of no detailed coverage of the source which is not a book about Diefenbaker. I have another book coming about his legal career I hope will be more detailed. As Eric Pepler (who I have been researching in the hope of an image, but the only one I found was from 1914) did not inspire biographers, I'm taking what I can get. That was the entire bar examination, they clearly were not out to give Dief a hard time; I suspect because they had gotten bad publicity for charging Dief a high fee in a case where he clearly wasn't going to get paid. I'll clarify on Canoe River. I will look for info on the rolling stock but I don't remember seeing any. We are dealing with not a great number of sources available.--
Wehwalt (
talk) 23:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think we are as close as we are going to get. We have everything except the trial coverage. I have looked extensively online, and found nothing beyond a bare statement that Pepler was trying to show words were omitted from the message, which actually was something which was not in dispute as far as I can see. Pepler undoubtedly argued that Atherton's negligence justified the charge, but all the papers seemed to report were Diefenbaker's cross examinations. I also got in Diefenbaker for the Defence, by Wilson and Wilson, which provide interesting details I may include (Pepler had one leg) but doesn't cover the prosecution case beyond setup for the Dief anecdotes. I can't go beyond what the sources have. Compared to the coverage of the accident, there was relatively little coverage of the trial. That's about all I can do.--
Wehwalt (
talk) 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- As stated above, an autobiography is a primary source and not a reliable source regarding the person's life. Use of it can only be used to reference what a person says they feel or their otherwise subjective impression. Nearly half the "Arrest and preliminary hearing" section is referenced from an autobiography. The referencing from the trial is okay, as both instances indicate what he claims to have said or thought at a given time. The main reason I stated that after I had read the section, I had the impression that the article took sides. To be frank, the article ridicules Pepler, but because of the selection of sources (an autobiography, a book about Diefenbaker and newspapers who you say took sides) it is difficult to write this proper, unless access to neutral records is available. I am going ask for a second opinion on the matter to see if someone else has any ideas of how to go forward. Otherwise, nice improvements, and a great map. Arsenikk (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think we are as close as we are going to get. We have everything except the trial coverage. I have looked extensively online, and found nothing beyond a bare statement that Pepler was trying to show words were omitted from the message, which actually was something which was not in dispute as far as I can see. Pepler undoubtedly argued that Atherton's negligence justified the charge, but all the papers seemed to report were Diefenbaker's cross examinations. I also got in Diefenbaker for the Defence, by Wilson and Wilson, which provide interesting details I may include (Pepler had one leg) but doesn't cover the prosecution case beyond setup for the Dief anecdotes. I can't go beyond what the sources have. Compared to the coverage of the accident, there was relatively little coverage of the trial. That's about all I can do.--
Wehwalt (
talk) 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding second opinion: the question at hand is if the section 'trial' meets our nutral point of view policy. Arsenikk (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Yes, part of the arrest and preliminary hearing is given from Dief's memoirs, but it is in-line cited to him and is merely to give his perspective. It is duplicated by the recounting of what actually happened, which differed more than a little from Dief's recollections. Dief was never one to let the truth get in the way of a good story, and certainly in his memoirs, he was playing to build his place in history. Which is why I don't cite to them except to show Dief's perspective and one or two minor matters. -- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is well-written and interesting to read. I think there are two possible sources of potential bias. First, one could debate whether Dief could have/should have had the case dismissed at the preliminary hearing. The discussion of him being in shock from his wife's death is a bit of post-hoc justification. However, it is sourced and can stay in. Second, there is the possiblity of debate over whether Dief or the prosecutor was a more skilled trial advocate. Obviously, the victor gets to write history and the case added to his reputation and assisted in his later election. If there was any objective press account addressing the advocacy skill of the prosecutor, please consider adding that for balance. We are at a disadvantage because we have the benefit of Dief's autobiography, but not the "inside story" from the other camp. I believe the section gives a representative account of the points in the trial that would be interesting to an encyclopedia user. I give this second opinion as someone who has only done one trial in the Federal Court of Canada and that was in 1977. I hope that this helps resolve the impasse. Racepacket ( talk) 21:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know of no source which gives more information on the prosecution case. The only sources I can find that seem to mention the prosecution case at all are
here and
here. Even those really focus on Diefenbaker. Dief made good press, that is for sure.--
Wehwalt (
talk) 22:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ultimately, Wikipedia is shaped by the available sources. I don't see any bias in the selection of sources. Lack of criticism in this context means that Pepler did a good job. Of course, the role of a defence attorney is different than that of the prosecutor. Although each is to put their case forward in the most compelling way, the prosecutor's job is to service justice not just to "win." For balance, consider adding anything that you have regarding the subsequent career of Colonel Eric Pepler. Racepacket ( talk) 08:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know of no source which gives more information on the prosecution case. The only sources I can find that seem to mention the prosecution case at all are
here and
here. Even those really focus on Diefenbaker. Dief made good press, that is for sure.--
Wehwalt (
talk) 22:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I've dropped a note at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Canoe River train crash about the issue, as I would like some more feedback for experienced NPOV contributors. Personally most of my work is in fields with very little POV (rail transport etc.) and I am rather uncertain what the outcome should be. Sorry for using so much time on the review, but its better to have a good solution than a hasty one. If there is no feedback there or here within a few days, I'll make a decision either way. Arsenikk (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is no hurry. I have ambitions for this article, but if it does not pass, I'll have to do some retooling and cut way back on the Dief material. I hate to do that, though, the reader should not be fined information.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- If what we've got accurately represents the extant sources, then we have have a neutral article. Neutral doesn't mean perfectly fair to all parties; it means fairly representing the sources. If the sources are all unfair (something we'd know by magic?), then that's not something that the content policies really care about. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
For the purpose of being a good article, I believe the NPOV is acceptable, so I am passing the article. Given the availability of sources, it is difficult to give a full description of the crown's proceedings; this should not hinder us from giving a brief descriptions of the defenses proceedings, even if it is slightly umbalanced. I'm not sure I completely agree with WhatamIdoing in that neutrality is necessarily retaining the bias of the sources; it is our job to elevate ourself over the shortcomings which almost always exist in sources. Arsenikk (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comments
- I've done a mild copyedit.
- Where does the term 'Canoe River' come from?
- I would have liked to know more technical details about the accident; for instance, what type of rolling stock was being used? Of course, if no such information is available...
- The quote regarding the bar examination, is that just an example, or is that the whole examination?
- To me, the whole trial section is POV; I get the impression that the article has taken side with the defense in the case. In part this is because the article goes quite in detail with the defense' arguments, but lacks a similar listing of the crowns'. It does not help the matter that two of the main sources can be said to be quite pro-Diefenbacker.
Placing on hold. Arsenikk (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know of no detailed coverage of the source which is not a book about Diefenbaker. I have another book coming about his legal career I hope will be more detailed. As Eric Pepler (who I have been researching in the hope of an image, but the only one I found was from 1914) did not inspire biographers, I'm taking what I can get. That was the entire bar examination, they clearly were not out to give Dief a hard time; I suspect because they had gotten bad publicity for charging Dief a high fee in a case where he clearly wasn't going to get paid. I'll clarify on Canoe River. I will look for info on the rolling stock but I don't remember seeing any. We are dealing with not a great number of sources available.--
Wehwalt (
talk) 23:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think we are as close as we are going to get. We have everything except the trial coverage. I have looked extensively online, and found nothing beyond a bare statement that Pepler was trying to show words were omitted from the message, which actually was something which was not in dispute as far as I can see. Pepler undoubtedly argued that Atherton's negligence justified the charge, but all the papers seemed to report were Diefenbaker's cross examinations. I also got in Diefenbaker for the Defence, by Wilson and Wilson, which provide interesting details I may include (Pepler had one leg) but doesn't cover the prosecution case beyond setup for the Dief anecdotes. I can't go beyond what the sources have. Compared to the coverage of the accident, there was relatively little coverage of the trial. That's about all I can do.--
Wehwalt (
talk) 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
- As stated above, an autobiography is a primary source and not a reliable source regarding the person's life. Use of it can only be used to reference what a person says they feel or their otherwise subjective impression. Nearly half the "Arrest and preliminary hearing" section is referenced from an autobiography. The referencing from the trial is okay, as both instances indicate what he claims to have said or thought at a given time. The main reason I stated that after I had read the section, I had the impression that the article took sides. To be frank, the article ridicules Pepler, but because of the selection of sources (an autobiography, a book about Diefenbaker and newspapers who you say took sides) it is difficult to write this proper, unless access to neutral records is available. I am going ask for a second opinion on the matter to see if someone else has any ideas of how to go forward. Otherwise, nice improvements, and a great map. Arsenikk (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I think we are as close as we are going to get. We have everything except the trial coverage. I have looked extensively online, and found nothing beyond a bare statement that Pepler was trying to show words were omitted from the message, which actually was something which was not in dispute as far as I can see. Pepler undoubtedly argued that Atherton's negligence justified the charge, but all the papers seemed to report were Diefenbaker's cross examinations. I also got in Diefenbaker for the Defence, by Wilson and Wilson, which provide interesting details I may include (Pepler had one leg) but doesn't cover the prosecution case beyond setup for the Dief anecdotes. I can't go beyond what the sources have. Compared to the coverage of the accident, there was relatively little coverage of the trial. That's about all I can do.--
Wehwalt (
talk) 17:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding second opinion: the question at hand is if the section 'trial' meets our nutral point of view policy. Arsenikk (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Yes, part of the arrest and preliminary hearing is given from Dief's memoirs, but it is in-line cited to him and is merely to give his perspective. It is duplicated by the recounting of what actually happened, which differed more than a little from Dief's recollections. Dief was never one to let the truth get in the way of a good story, and certainly in his memoirs, he was playing to build his place in history. Which is why I don't cite to them except to show Dief's perspective and one or two minor matters. -- Wehwalt ( talk) 15:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is well-written and interesting to read. I think there are two possible sources of potential bias. First, one could debate whether Dief could have/should have had the case dismissed at the preliminary hearing. The discussion of him being in shock from his wife's death is a bit of post-hoc justification. However, it is sourced and can stay in. Second, there is the possiblity of debate over whether Dief or the prosecutor was a more skilled trial advocate. Obviously, the victor gets to write history and the case added to his reputation and assisted in his later election. If there was any objective press account addressing the advocacy skill of the prosecutor, please consider adding that for balance. We are at a disadvantage because we have the benefit of Dief's autobiography, but not the "inside story" from the other camp. I believe the section gives a representative account of the points in the trial that would be interesting to an encyclopedia user. I give this second opinion as someone who has only done one trial in the Federal Court of Canada and that was in 1977. I hope that this helps resolve the impasse. Racepacket ( talk) 21:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know of no source which gives more information on the prosecution case. The only sources I can find that seem to mention the prosecution case at all are
here and
here. Even those really focus on Diefenbaker. Dief made good press, that is for sure.--
Wehwalt (
talk) 22:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Ultimately, Wikipedia is shaped by the available sources. I don't see any bias in the selection of sources. Lack of criticism in this context means that Pepler did a good job. Of course, the role of a defence attorney is different than that of the prosecutor. Although each is to put their case forward in the most compelling way, the prosecutor's job is to service justice not just to "win." For balance, consider adding anything that you have regarding the subsequent career of Colonel Eric Pepler. Racepacket ( talk) 08:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- I know of no source which gives more information on the prosecution case. The only sources I can find that seem to mention the prosecution case at all are
here and
here. Even those really focus on Diefenbaker. Dief made good press, that is for sure.--
Wehwalt (
talk) 22:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I've dropped a note at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Canoe River train crash about the issue, as I would like some more feedback for experienced NPOV contributors. Personally most of my work is in fields with very little POV (rail transport etc.) and I am rather uncertain what the outcome should be. Sorry for using so much time on the review, but its better to have a good solution than a hasty one. If there is no feedback there or here within a few days, I'll make a decision either way. Arsenikk (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- There is no hurry. I have ambitions for this article, but if it does not pass, I'll have to do some retooling and cut way back on the Dief material. I hate to do that, though, the reader should not be fined information.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 17:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- If what we've got accurately represents the extant sources, then we have have a neutral article. Neutral doesn't mean perfectly fair to all parties; it means fairly representing the sources. If the sources are all unfair (something we'd know by magic?), then that's not something that the content policies really care about. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
For the purpose of being a good article, I believe the NPOV is acceptable, so I am passing the article. Given the availability of sources, it is difficult to give a full description of the crown's proceedings; this should not hinder us from giving a brief descriptions of the defenses proceedings, even if it is slightly umbalanced. I'm not sure I completely agree with WhatamIdoing in that neutrality is necessarily retaining the bias of the sources; it is our job to elevate ourself over the shortcomings which almost always exist in sources. Arsenikk (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)