This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
CAMH affair
No reasons were given for changing the duely referenced paragraph on McKenzie's intervention in CAMH. The original paragraph more accurately described the issue at hand as well as its ideological background while also avoiding the managerial jargon substituted for it. I therefore restored the paragraph's text.Retal (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV?
A passage describing McKenzie's intervention at CAMH was again removed invoking NPOV. This is clearly abuse of the term NPOV, since the passage was factual and duly referenced. One might question the qualification of the external review as "shoddy", but if a review includes misleading information, surely the term "shoddy" is not misplaced? Or would one rather have "misleading"? Fine with me.Retal (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
