Comments:Canadian scientists protest Harper's attacks on science

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

  • Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
  • Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
  • You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments


"If Canada had proportional representation like in many EU countries then yes they would have the right, but Canada has an outdated system that doesn't allow the most popular party to rule properly."

No because the conservatives did not win with a majority.... Having only 30 something percent support means that the majority of canadians do not support the conservatives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.104.228 (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They should have far less right to impress their ideologies upon science, than upon religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.182.73 (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.149.164 (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PR won't help[edit]

Proportional Representation won't solve the problems with representation. The power will remain with the most populated provinces (ie Quebec and Ontario), while the Western and Maritime provinces will remain under-represented. It's ridiculous how we slash politicians for speaking their minds, granted they should do it in a respectable manner, but everytime they speak to their beliefs the public is in an uproar. If we don't like what our politicians are saying, we get to not vote for them. Hooray democracy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.155.24 (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources out of seven are deadlinks[edit]

The Globe&Mail and two of the three sources from CBC are not available for me. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article is like 15 years old. SVTCobra 15:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Archive URLs can be found for those: [1] [2], and [3]. Heavy Water (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Heavy Water: Thanks so much for finding the deadlinks still alive on the Internet Archive. I read all three with interest. Makes one wonder why the CBC, which is a tax-funded organization, does not value keeping their fourteen-year-old articles online. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Heavy Water (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra; True those are old references, but...
I found this article almost useless until I could view the sources. In general it was my understanding that Wikinews makes special efforts to make sources available to its reader audiences. For example isn't staying away from paywalled sources that are preventing public access to information a stated goal of Wikinews? Ottawahitech (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, they were freely available at the time of publication and for quite some time after that. What we do now to combat the fact that publishers don't keep their pages online forever, is to use web archives. In most recent articles, you will see an archiveurl parameter in the source template. So the sources should be available as long as those archiving sites remain active. I would venture to guess you will encounter this in almost all older articles. I am not aware of any solution to fix the old articles. I am actually surprised at how many of the sources for this particular article are still available. Another issue is that more and more sites have moved their content behind paywalls where once it was free or ad supported. SVTCobra 17:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: I see enwp has a bot to handle dead links. See for example: w:Talk:Harlan Crow#External links modified. Wouldn't it be nice to have such a bot here? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same bot is active here, including on archived articles. Heavy Water (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does the bot have to be invoked or does it just operate on its own? I noticed it did make some minor mistakes on Finland becomes member of NATO. Cheers, SVTCobra 16:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Comments:Canadian_scientists_protest_Harper%27s_attacks_on_science&oldid=4719832"