Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Woodlands Preservation League
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- New Woodlands Preservation League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This organization does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements. The organization has been mentioned in media articles, but only as "incidental coverage" in articles on other subjects. Furthermore the article was created by and predominantly written by a self-described member of the organization which is the subject of the article. As can best be discerned, the organization is informal in nature, is not registered or incorporated, has no headquarters, publications or website and has only two members. The article has been identified has having serious WP:NPOV and WP:COI issues and has been used predominately as a vehicle to attack the political opponents of the subject of the article, in lieu of the organization itself having a website. Removing all the POV content would result in a very short stub. An in depth review of the article's notability by an admin resulted in a recommendation to delete as non-notable. Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League contains a complete discussion of these issues. Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: see also WP:Articles for deletion/Gatineau Park Protection Committee. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. What about the article Politics of Gatineau Park which appears to involve the same editors and has the same COI and POV problems? Racepacket (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to question: as mentioned at Talk:New Woodlands Preservation League, I have asked the same admin to review that article as well and make recommendations. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now looked at Politics of Gatineau Park and my recommendation is that should be nominated for deletion as well, it has multiple copyright and conflict of interest problems. MilborneOne (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Offends WP:SOAP. All references seem to be primary sources so it fails the requirement from WP:ORG that it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. --KenWalker | Talk 16:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and above: not notable per WP:ORG, as well as WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:SOAP issues. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Well, I guess you interpret notability very subjectively. The two organizations have: 1) completely changed the official historical interpretation of Gatineau Park; 2) convinced parliamentarians to table 7 bills in both houses of parliament to protect Gatineau Park--and authored the first draft of those bills; 3) disclosed profound managerial problems at the NCC; 4)secured rightful federal ownership of 61.5 sq. km of land in Gatineau Park--thereby completely debunking the myth of "Gatineau Park is not a national park because Quebec refuses to transfer the lands"...; 5) managed to get the NCC to produce the first-ever published technical description of Gatineau Park's boundaries; 6)pressured the government into adopting 2 orders in council to deal with private property in Gatineau Park (thereby stopping a major residential development); 7)placed Gatineau Park protection on the government's legislative agenda;8)wrote a legislative review on Bill C-37 which has been used extensively by the Bloc Québécois in the Commons, and by the Conservatives in the Senate; 9) informed public opinion by writing in the press; 10)informed public opinion by helping set the media agenda on the issue and by being quoted extensively.
- And what have you done for your country lately? Not notable? By whose definition?
- The groups are clearly notable. The article should stay.--Stoneacres (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide reliable, third-party, published sources that chronicle these achievements? -M.Nelson (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that the article Politics of Gatineau Park has gone through more collaboration and vetting that the other two. However, both New Woodlands Preservation League and Gatineau Park Protection Committee are not properly sourced to independent third party books or news reports. Further, there is a big difference in having bills introduced and killed in committee year after year and having legislation adopted. These organizations may be very meritorious and may perform valuable behind-the-scenes work, but Wikipedia requires reliable, secondary sources. Racepacket (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide reliable, third-party, published sources that chronicle these achievements? -M.Nelson (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Below is a sample of the press covering their efforts, as well as excerpts from a speech by NCC chair Marcel Beaudry.
| Extended content |
|---|
|
Notes pour une allocution de Marcel Beaudry, président de la Commission de la capitale nationale, à l’occasion de l’inauguration de la Salle Roderick Percy Sparks, Le vendredi 8 juillet 2005, Centre des visiteurs du parc de la Gatineau, 10 h 30 “I would like to take this opportunity to thank the New Woodlands Preservation League, especially Mr. Andrew MacDermott and Mr. Jean-Paul Murray, for highlighting the role of Mr. Sparks during our various public meetings and our meeting with the NCC Board of Directors. As a result of their comments, we commissioned a study to examine the influence of interest groups and the socio-political context around the Park’s creation. “Mr. Murray more particularly, was involved and consulted throughout the process and as a result of the study, we are here today to recognize the important role of Roderick Percy Sparks in the establishment of this magnificent national treasure.” Broadbent Acts on Park, By Mike Caesar, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, November 9—Nov. 15, 2005, p. 3. Senator pushes to preserve Gatineau Park: Legislation would prevent sale of parts of property By Dave Rogers, Ottawa Citizen, January 17, 2006, p. B2. Chelsea resident instrumental in Senate bill to protect Gatineau Park By Julie Murray, The West Quebec Post, January 27, 2006, p. 9. Give NCC more power, chairman says: Beaudry tells review panel agency should have greater say in planning of capital region, By Patrick Dare, Ottawa Citizen, November 10, 2006. p. F1. Mentions McDermott, Murray and NWPL. NCC Anarchy Lambasted. By Rowan Lomas, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, November 15, 2006, pp.1-2. Mentions Murray, Mc Dermott and the League (and their presentation before the NCC mandate review panel as the NWPL). Gatineau Park bill passes second reading, by Ian Lordon, Low Down to Hull and Back News, December 20-January 2, 2007, pp. 1-2. Mentions Murray and the League. Hello election, goodbye Gatineau Park bill, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, April 18-24, 2007, p. 12. Mentions Murray and the League. Gatineau Park bill ‘gutted’ by Tories, by Ian Lordon, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, July 11-17, 2007, pp. 1-2. Mentions Murray and the League. Don’t ban Gatineau Park land sales: Cannon Minister says Senate bill ties NCC’s hands; selloffs fly in face of ‘master plan,’ critic says, by William Lin, The Ottawa Citizen, Friday, July 13, 2007, pp. F1 and F7. Mentions Murray and the League. A5 extension to run through Gatineau Park: activist, by Josh Clipperton, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Sept.26-Oct.2, 2007, p. 3. Mentions Murray and the League. Activist wrong, A5 won’t touch Gatineau Park, letters, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Oct. 10 – Oct. 16, 2007, page 5. Response from Minister Lawrence Cannon to NWPL on Highway 5. Parkland ownership a puzzler; NCC, federal, Quebec governments bicker over part of Gatineau Park. By Dave Rogers, Ottawa Citizen, January 22, 2008, p. B1. Mentioning Murray in his role as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member. NCC unaware of Gatineau Park housing plan; Owners have right to build, Chelsea mayor says, By Dave Rogers, Ottawa Citizen, January 25, 2008, p. H1. Mentioning Murray in his role as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member. This land is your land, this land is our land, from Lac La Peche, to Hull’s French CEGEP: NCC, activist in dispute over who owns Park land, By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Jan. 30-Feb. 5, 2008, p. 1-19. Mentioning Murray and NWPL. NCC unaware of Gatineau Park development. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Jan. 30-Feb. 5, 2008, p. 3. Mentioning Murray and NWPL. Gatineau Park boundaries laid out in Bill S-227. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, March 5-11, 2008, p. 2. Mentioning Murray in his role as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member. Gatineau Park supporters lobby minister to step in, By Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, March 7, 2008, p. F3. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member. Bill to boost park’s status urged, By Laura Czekaj, The Ottawa Sun, April 3, 2008, p. 21. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member. Gatineau Park plea rattles NCC meeting, By Katie Daubs, Ottawa Citizen, April 5, 2008, p. D-1. About a speech Murray made as NWPL president before the NCC board. “Everything was going according to plan until Jean-Paul Murray got up to speak… It was Thursday night, and interest groups were having their annual chance to make a presentation to the National Capital Commission’s board of directors. .. The meeting had the air of a Toastmasters session as each presentation was timed with a red light… Then Mr. Murray got up to speak. When he finished his five-minute plea to stop private development in Gatineau Park, the Panorama Room at the National Arts Centre erupted in applause.“ Mobilisation à Chelsea. Le Droit, 8 avril 2008, p. 4. About Murray and the League. Gatineau Park group calls for development freeze. CBC Radio Ottawa. April 8, 2008. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member. “Jean-Paul Murray of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition told the meeting that the National Capital Commission should enact a law forbidding any development in the park.” Gatineau Park is like “Swiss cheese”: private landowner. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, April 9-April 15, 2008, p. 3. Mentioning Murray and NWPL. Group argues for legal protection of Gatineau Park. By Patrick Dare, The Ottawa Citizen, April 22, 2008, p. D3. Mentioning Murray and NWPL. NCC buys former Carman Trails site to stop development. By Rachel Dares, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, May 28-June 3, 2008, p. 7. Mentioning Murray as member of the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition, i.e., as NWPL member. Gatineau Park would cost ‘significantly more’ as national park. Monday, July 28, 2008, CBC News. Interview with Murray as park activist, i.e., as NWPL member. Parc de la Gatineau, Le Téléjournal de Radi-Canada (Ottawa), le 28 juillet 2008. TV interview with GPPC member Jean-Paul Murray over the mudding of Meech Lake. Too much Meech mud . By Laura Czekaj, The Ottawa Sun, July 29, 2008, p. 4. (Also broadcast on the Canadian Press News Wire and picked up by the North Bay Nugget). Quotes Coalition member Murray, ergo as member of NWPL. Federal investigation launched into environmental damage at Meech Lake, CPW, July 29, 2008 (Published in the North Bay Nugget, July 29, p. A4, with title: “Feds investigate Meech Lake damage: Lake treated like ‘garbage’ can – coalition”). Quotes Coalition member Murray, ergo as member of NWPL. Group fears new homes are muddying Meech, By Jean-François Bertrand, The Ottawa Citizen, July 29, 2008, p. C-1. Quotes Coalition member Murray, ergo as member of NWPL. “‘On paper’ group says it does heavy lifting to protect park: another Gatineau Park Senate bill tabled,” by Cynthia Vukets, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, Feb. 11-Feb.17, 2009, p. 7. Profiles NWPL. NCC, Quebec in tax fight: Bickering over who should pay property taxes on CEGEP, Lac la Pêche land, by Laura Czekaj, Ottawa Sun, March 17, 2008, p.14. Quotes Murray as GPPC co-chair. “Quebec drops tax fight with NCC: Resolution reached over payments for land bordering Gatineau Park,” by John Willing, the Ottawa Sun, March 21, 2009. Quotes McDermott as GPPC co-chair. “Watchdog claims victory in spat over portion of Gatineau Park: Disputed land at CÉGEP belongs to province,” by Laura Payton, The Ottawa Citizen, March 22, 2009, p. A5. Quotes McDermott as GPPC co-chair. Fin d’une longue dispute, Radio rock détente, Gatineau, le 23 mars 2009 Source : Info Astral Media « La fin d'un méli-mélo au lac La Pêche», par Charles Thériault, Le Droit, le 28 mars 2009, p. 22. “Ottawa MP tables motion to protect Gatineau Park,” The Low Down to Hull and Back News, April 29-May 5, 2009, p. 5. “Surprising moves,” by Nikki Mantell, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, May 13-19, 2009, p. 4. Mentions Murray and League. “Manitoba senator emerges as saviour of Gatineau Park: Mira Spivak fighting to give Crown jewel federal protection,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, May 18, 2009, pp. A1 Gatineau Park bill draws flak,” by Laura Czekaj, Ottawa Sun, June 10, 2009. Quotes GPPC co-chair McDermott. Un « pas dans la bonne direction », par Patrice Gaudreault, Le Droit, le 10 juin 2009. La Commission St-Onge, le mardi 9 juin 2009, Tag Radio X, 96,5, Gatineau, entrevue, 12h14-12h20. Radio interview with Jean-Paul Murray as co-chair of GPPC. “All in a Day,” CBC Radio Ottawa, 91.5 FM, June 9, 2009 “Gatineau Park.” Interview between Adrian Harewood and Gilles Paquet, NCC Mandate Review chair. Jean-Paul Murray quoted as co-chair of GPPC. “Cannon’s Park Gatineau Park Bill Controversial,” by Julie Murray, The West Quebec Post, June 12-18, 2009, p. 1. Names Murray and McDermott as GPPC co-chairs. “Meech Lake boat ban earns praise,” Ottawa Sun, Sunday, July 12, 2009 (also on Sherbrooke Record’s Web site). Talks about GPPC praising NCC policy. « Moins de bateaux motorisés sur le lac Meech : La CCN entend mieux protéger les écosystèmes du parc de la Gatineau », par François Pierre Dufault, Le Droit, le 13 juillet 2009, p.5. « Moins de bateaux sur le Lac Meech », Radio énergie, 104,1, Gatineau, le lundi 13 juillet 2009 (aussi diffusé sur les ondes de 94,9, Rockdétente). “NCC motorboat restriction earns park protectors’ praise,” by Trevor Greenway, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, July 15-July 21, 2009, p. 10. “Harper, Charest announce Highway 5 extension to Wakefield,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, August 15, 2009. Quotes McDermott as co-chair of GPPC. « Projet de loi C-37 portant sur l’avenir du parc de la Gatineau: les groupes écolos promettent de réagir », par Philippe Orfali, le Droit, le 25 août 2009. Half-page article about the GPPC and its paper on Bill C-37. “New house in park has protectors crying foul,” by Mark Burgess, The Low Down to Hull and Back News, September 2-8, 2009, p. 3. About GPPC. “Home goes up inside Gatineau Park,” by Lily Ryan, The West Quebec Post, September 4-10, 2009, p. 3. About GPPC. “NCC blamed for failing to protect Gatineau Park,” by Dave Rogers, The Ottawa Citizen, September 4, 2009 p. B3. Featuring Murray breaking the news of another Master plan violation and construction inside the park. |
- And there are others, relating the story of the League, Percy Sparks. You might look at the study “The Creation and Early Development of Gatineau Park,” by Filion and Gagnon. Commissioned as a result of the League's first presentation to the Board, the study mentions Murray and the League on pages 5, 6, 25 and 26.--Stoneacres (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, it was I that reviewed the article and the related Gatineau Park Protection Committee and recommended deletion. I have no dispute that the organisation exists and has an admirable purpose but I failed to find any significant secondary coverage of either organisation. Although campaigns by the two individuals identified with the group have been referenced (although mainly COI self references) these are already mentioned in the Politics of Gatineau Park. It is not the only organisation campaigning about the park but COI editing means none of the Gatineau Park articles have a balanced point of view from all involved. This is an article about the New Woodlands Preservation League/Gatineau Park Protection Committee and such fails to provide any significant coverage of the notability of that organisation. MilborneOne (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The 2,000 word response by the article's creator and the confirms my feeling that this is and the GPPC article are WP:SOAPBOX. "And what have you done for your country lately?" kind of sums it up. Wikipedia doesn't exist for the purpose of doing something for your country. Mandsford (talk) 18:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notification of WP:AFD nomination Politics of Gatineau Park - Several contributors to this debate have asked about this article. Following the recommndations of User:MilborneOne it has been nominated for deletion. Interested editors are invited to participate in the AFD debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park. - Ahunt (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahunt, the manic, and his little lynch mob ride again.--Stoneacres (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Stoneacres: please read WP:CIVIL, which says: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." You are required to be civil hereand your insults and personal attacks are not acceptable. - Ahunt (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By creating, I meant creating a link to be filled in. And I didn't do that. And if you didn't then I withdraw the claim.
- However, bottom line, Ahunt has been on a rampage to out members of the GPPC/NWPL. And I still believe he has been canvassing to have the articles deleted--even if the evidence clearly contradicts his main argument: that they are not notable.
- I have provided ample notability evidence; yet Ahunt keeps saying they are "superficial."
- Wow... --Stoneacres (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please review WP:RS and WP:N. If there is substantial coverage by a non-local news organization, list it and I will consider changing my vote. Racepacket (talk) 12:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. CBC, CTV, the Ottawa Citizen, The Ottawa Sun, Radio Canada, etc. Which part of these national organizations which have covered the NWPL/GPPC is not notable. Have you read the list I provided? Or have you just jumped onto the deletion bandwagon?
- According to the Wikipedia references above, that list more than confirms the notability of the organizations. The GPPC/NWPL are not notable in terms of how many members they have; they are notable in terms of what they have achieved, both in terms of effective change to a sorry situation, and in terms of providing the public an accurate picture of what is going on.
- Have they served the public interest? Yes. Have they broadened knowledge of an issue? Indubitably. Would it serve knowledge to expunge them from Wikipedia? You decide.
- And let the darkness fall all round...--Stoneacres (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the sourcing does not show notability for this group -- Whpq (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete" (I've removed my previous comment, as no one else has commented on it yet). While the Senate committee records are somewhat persuasive, they alone are not enough to establish notability. And the NCC honours and Citizen cite for Sparks in no way establish notability for this organization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, I was about to comment that though the Citizen article does credit Murray with a role in recognising Percy Sparks, but it does not appear to mention the NWPL in any way. Note that I can't find the entire article, but this quote shows that, as far as the Citizen is concerned, the NWPL was not involved. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes at this point there seems to be more of a case for an article about Murray as a notable activist and historian. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mnelson: If you read the sources I provided, you would have seen that NCC Chairman Beaudry mentioned the NWPL in his speech dedicating the Sparks Hall. The whole reason the NCC dedicated the Sparks Hall was as a result of the presentation the NWPL made to the board in 2003. Ergo: the Citizen article is about the achievement of the NWPL. Although it mentions Murray, it is mentioning his activities as NWPL member.
- Radically changing the official history of Gatineau Park, not notable? 50 news articles, not notable?
- Below is the full article on the Sparks Hall dedication. Recognizing Murray's contribution as NWPL member--though not mentioning it by name. And Murray's guest column which the Citizen article references below was signed "Jean-Paul Murray is vice-president of the NWPL."
- Not notable? You should do proper research before making unfounded statements advancing your ... point of view--Stoneacres (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Ottawa Citizen: "Gatineau Park visionary gets his due" |
|---|
|
Gatineau Park visionary gets his due: The NCC is finally recognizing Roderick Percy Sparks’ key role in preserving the capital region's finest piece of greenspace, writes Patrick Dare. The Ottawa Citizen, Saturday, July 9, 2005, p. E3 In the 1950s, Roderick Percy Sparks used to gather his grandchildren at “Big Pine,” an old-growth white pine tree in Gatineau Park, and have them join hands around the tree's massive trunk. Yesterday, Jean-Paul Murray stood against the same majestic old tree and closed his eyes in triumph. Mr. Murray has fought for years to have the former Ottawa businessman's role in the founding of the 36,000-hectare Gatineau Park recognized. He spent years sifting through archives, and then argued in a 2003 Citizen guest column that the National Capital Commission had mistakenly ignored Mr. Sparks in its literature. That historical oversight was corrected yesterday when NCC chairman Marcel Beaudry named the exhibit hall at the Gatineau Park visitor centre in Chelsea after Mr. Sparks, a well-known member of Ottawa's business community from the 1930s to the late 1950s. The NCC had commissioned a study into the history of the park that concluded Mr. Sparks played a major role in its creation, though singling out one person as park founder was not possible. NCC officials and a number of descendants of Roderick Percy Sparks, including his eight-year-old great-grandson, Adrian Sparks, gathered at the visitor centre and remembered a man who loved nature. “He taught me when I was very young, if I was ever worried or agitated or upset, I could always go into the woods and I was surrounded by nature, which was really my best friend. The park is a testament to that set of values,” said Sandy Crawley, a grandson. “He taught that to me when I was four years old and it still serves me now that I'm 57. He had a profound appreciation for nature.” Many of Mr. Sparks' grandchildren wrote brief tributes to him. Michal Anne Crawley remembered “Pop” as a tree-planter and a forest path-maker, someone who showed children how to appreciate the natural world. “We were never afraid to wander at will,” she wrote. Mr. Sparks built a dam on a creek that ran through the family's Meech Lake Road farm property, creating a pond that the children would skate on in the winter. When Mr. Sparks gathered children around the big old-growth pine tree to join hands, it was “five children embracing the natural world that gives them life,” wrote his grandson, Rod Crawley. Mr. Sparks was a fervent advocate for the protection of natural areas. When logging in the Gatineau Hills was common during the Great Depression, as a leader of the Federal Woodlands Preservation League, Mr. Sparks fought for protection of key parts of the Gatineau forests. In the early 20th century, there had been talk of a federal park to protect the Gatineau Hills. Mr. Sparks, however, presented then-prime minister Mackenzie King in 1937 with a detailed plan for the creation of a park. Though Mr. Sparks and Mr. King argued on some subjects, they were on the same page about the need for a Gatineau Park. The government set aside $100,000 for the purchase of lands, and the park was created on July 1, 1938. A 1949 report by an advisory group led by Mr. Sparks said this about what the park should be: “Preserve for all time the natural beauty of the lakes and wooded hills as an inspiration to those who can enjoy them, whether residents of the surrounding district, or visitors from other parts of Canada, or from foreign lands.” Mr. Sparks died on March 29, 1959. Mr. Murray, a fierce NCC critic, yesterday heaped praise on Mr. Beaudry for his willingness to set the record straight. Mr. Murray believes much has yet to be done to make Gatineau a properly protected federal park, including stepped-up efforts to get the remaining private lands into the hands of the NCC so more private building doesn't take place. But he said recognizing the contribution of this committed conservationist is a positive turn. “By recognizing the man, by putting up his picture, I think this is a watershed in the park's history,” said Mr. Murray. Sandy Crawley, who spoke on behalf of descendants gathered yesterday, said many family members have moved far from the Gatineau Hills, but they treasure the memory of Percy Sparks and “this wonderful gift” that all Canadians may enjoy. |
- Thanks for posting the entire content of that article.
- I stand by the Citizen not identifying the NWPL as the source of the NCC's action. Even though at one location it says that Murray caused the change, and at another says that Murray is the vice-president of the NWPL, it is synthesis to connect the two (from WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources"). It is not explicitly stated by any single source that the NWPL caused the NCC to recognise Sparks. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MNelson: You are way off. How can you say it is synthesis, when I provided you with evidence that the Sparks Hall was dedicated as a result of NWPL efforts?
- Here it is again:Notes pour une allocution de Marcel Beaudry, président de la Commission de la capitale nationale, à l’occasion de l’inauguration de la Salle Roderick Percy Sparks, Le vendredi 8 juillet 2005, Centre des visiteurs du parc de la Gatineau, 10 h 30
| Marcel Beaudry speech |
|---|
|
“I would like to take this opportunity to thank the New Woodlands Preservation League, especially Mr. Andrew MacDermott and Mr. Jean-Paul Murray, for highlighting the role of Mr. Sparks [emphasis added]during our various public meetings and our meeting with the NCC Board of Directors. As a result of their comments, we commissioned a study to examine the influence of interest groups and the socio-political context around the Park’s creation. “Mr. Murray more particularly, was involved and consulted throughout the process and as a result of the study, we are here today to recognize the important role of Roderick Percy Sparks in the establishment of this magnificent national treasure.” |
- Note: the professors did not conclude that Sparks had a dominant role in creating the park, since their study was terribly flawed. Mr. Beaudry saw the evidence the NWPL presented and contradicted the study to acknowledge the NWPL was right. You might read the study yourself to see I'm right, or continue making unfounded claims.
- Below is Murray's critique of the professors study. His research was presented to the NCC as NWPL research. --Stoneacres (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Jean-Paul Murray: "Give Credit to Park's Founder", Ottawa Citizen |
|---|
|
Give Credit to Park's Founder By Jean-Paul Murray, Ottawa Citizen, December 22, 2004, p. D4
The true story of Gatineau Park has long been a secret surrounded by a mystery shrouded in a myth. And the just released study into the park's origins conducted for the National Capital Commission by two Quebec university professors perpetuates the misrepresentation of that story. While the body of the document provides a fairly accurate depiction of how the park emerged, from concept to fruition, showcasing the leading role played by Percy Sparks, the study's conclusion contradicts the evidence presented and seriously distorts the picture. The professors wrap the issue in the thickest fog of sophistry and disregard the facts they present by concluding that “circumstances” and a “series of actions by various individuals” created the park, for which they say they can't “provide the date of founding and the name of the founder.” If Sparks did more than anyone else to create the park, as they demonstrate, then why can't he be considered the founder? If money for purchasing the first park land was voted in the Commons on June 29, 1938, as they say, then why can't this be considered the founding date? The claim that everyone and no one was responsible for creating the park is a cop out and betrays the professors' collectivist bias. A bias they reveal when they downplay the impact individuals can have on society, saying that “regardless of their influence, [individuals] generally hold a power which they wield collectively.” The spirit of this statement warps the study by forcing the spurious conclusion that many individuals share equal responsibility for creating the park. That several people and organizations played a role in the park's creation is a commonplace. However, assessing and comparing their contributions helps identify the key players and determine how much credit each deserves. Something the professors failed to do, preferring to lump together a variety of individuals, reports and organizations in an amorphous mass. Credit for the idea of Gatineau Park belongs to Frederick Todd, who proposed it in his 1903 plan for the national capital. The idea was advocated as well by the plans that followed it: the Holt Report in 1915, and the Cauchon Report in 1922. Although these documents recommended creating a park in the Gatineau Hills, they spoke of it only in the briefest and most general of terms. None of them provided blueprints for the park or action plans for setting it up. As well, the study wrongly credits the Ottawa Ski Club with a leading role in the park's creation. Even if the ski club was instrumental in developing skiing facilities, I've found no evidence in the club's various publications that confirms it played such a role. Instead, a passage from the January 1935 issue of the Ottawa Ski Club News suggests it was only an interested bystander: “The Ottawa Ski Club watches with keen interest the efforts made by the Federal Woodlands Preservation League to stop the wholesale cutting of trees in the Gatineau Hills.” Moreover, neither of the two histories written about the club by former presidents, C.E. Mortureux and Herbert Marshall, mentions that the Ottawa Ski Club took an active part in creating the Federal Woodlands Preservation League or in lobbying for the park. When the story of Gatineau Park's creation is stripped of its various myths, the only two men left standing are Mackenzie King, who had to have his arm twisted, and Percy Sparks, who did the twisting. According to the Ottawa Journal of April 12, 1949, King essentially “set the seal of approval on plans [...] submitted to him by far-sighted and public-spirited men of the Woodlands Preservation League.” And, as I've demonstrated elsewhere, the leading force behind the league, and Gatineau Park, was Percy Sparks, who did most of the researching, organizing, lobbying and designing that led to its creation and initial development. Finally, the study’s most serious flaw is that it has failed to address the issue of why Percy Sparks was completely omitted from all previous histories of Gatineau Park. In any event, the upshot of this story is that NCC chairman Marcel Beaudry had the wisdom and vision to see through the professors' ramblings and recognize Sparks's “significant contribution” by naming an exhibition hall after him. Although the chairman's bureaucrats still need to grasp the nature of that contribution, we commend him on his fine gesture. |
- As I mentionned before, the Citizen still does not identify the NWPL as the source of the NCC's action.
- The NCC's chairman Beaudry does credit the NWPL as "highlighting the role of Mr. Sparks". However, the Beaudry is clear that "as a result of [the NWPL's] comments, [the study was commissioned]", and that the NCC is recognizing Sparks "as a result of the study". Though Beaudry says that "A resulted in B" and "B resulted in C", he does not say that "A resulted in C"; as such, a proper summary would be that "due to NWPL efforts, the NCC commissionned a study (later criticised by Murray) that resulted in the recognition of Sparks."
- I don't think that this determines notability; the recognition of Sparks seems to be a relatively minor event (no major news coverage; Google News archive searches [1][2][3] show no items relating to this Percy Sparks, let alone his recognition), and as I explained earlier, the NWPL was not directly responsible for his recognition (the study was). -M.Nelson (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay MNelson: prepare to apologize for uttering a falsehood. You should research before talking. Read the study: and then I dare you to say that the study was responsible for the recognition of Percy Sparks.http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/data/2/rec_docs/1663_gatineau_study_e.pdf. Do you ever read stuff before jumping to illogical, unfounded conclusions?
- You did not explain that the NWPL was not directly responsible. You claimed it without any evidence or logic. The study was commissioned as a result of NWPL research and presentation to the board. The NWPL handed all its voluminous research to the NCC following its May 2003 presentation to the board. The professors took all that research, adding almost nothing that the NWPL hadn't given them, and changed the conclusion that Sparks was a significant player--being paid $23,000 for using our research. Had you read the material I sent you, instead of pushing your deletion agenda, you would have realized this.
- Even the Citizen, in an editorial, recognized the NWPL work. That you can't find a good deal of news coverage on this only testifies to your limited research skills.
- Your latest contribution lacks logic and credibility.
- Whim and prejudice are no substitute for facts and truth... --Stoneacres (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (outdent) I find it laughable that you consider my latest contribution to lack logic and credibility; since you have not done anything to disprove my points, I'll simply reword them in hopes that you'll understand what I'm getting at.
- I have explained that in the Citizen item, "It is not explicitly stated by any single source that the NWPL caused the NCC to recognise Sparks." Using two separate conclusions (Murray caused the NCC to change; Murray is vice-president of NWPL) to reach a third conclusion (NWPL caused the change) is synthesis. This third conclusion is "not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (from WP:SYNTHESIS, please read!).
- Beaudry's speech does not say that the NWPL was directly responsible for the recognition of Sparks; if you have read the speech, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. As I clearly stated before, Beaudry says that the NWPL resulted in the study's commissioning, and the study resulted in the recognition of Sparks. This is what I refer to as being 'indirectly responsible'. He did not say that the NWPL resulted in the recognition of Sparks, which would make it direct.
- Even if the NWPL was directly responsible for the recognition of Sparks (as I have explained above, sources say it was not), one Citizen article is not "significant coverage" per WP:NOTABLE, and an editorial carries even less weight. From WP:RELIABLE, "An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact".
- Though I am honoured to be treated to similar ad hominem attacks as Ahunt (whose editing I greatly respect), might I recommend that you refrain from such comments in the future (my "limited research skills"); they do nothing to advance the discussion, and some editors might consider you to be a bit uncivil. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.