Talk:Gatineau Park

Stumbled across this. Good start, but a stub in need of structuring and expanding, so I marked it as such.

Added a sentence on administration by the NCC, since it was not clear what sort of park Gatineau is. But someone could expand on this as well. Martinp 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Fact tagging

I have fact tagged this whole article as it has no references at all. It has been tagged with a header for some time but that hasn't motivated anyone to add references.

Hopefully the fact tags will help editors identify where the refs are needed. For anyone who doesn't think it is important for Wikipedia to be scrupulously referenced, I suggest that you read this CBC article.

Please do not remove the fact tags unless you are replacing them with references. At least they will alert readers that the information in this article is unreliable. - Ahunt (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

- Just about all these "fact tags" could be referenced from the official Gatineau Park website (http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/bins/ncc_web_content_page.asp?cid=16297-16299-10170&lang=1)

I'm not an editor of this page and am not going to cite the article, but it is pretty much all there for someone with time to spend.. 99.240.198.86 (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have now completed that work on the "sites" section. The remaining tagged items I could not find refs for. Perhaps another editor can supply those?

I would say that this campaign to better reference this article has been very successful. Thank you to everyone who has contributed refs!- Ahunt (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial section

User 192.197.82.203 has added the following statement to the article which I have moved to here:

Gatineau Park has been described as the essential feature of a great monument dedicated to all Canadian soldiers who died defending Canada's democratic values in World War II. Unfortunately, it remains, ironically enough, the least democratic federal park in the country, since much of its administration is carried out behind closed doors, and without the full knowledge and approval of Parliament <ref>In his preface to the Gréber Report, William Lyon Mackenzie King dedicates the National Capital Plan to all Canadian soldiers who died during World War II. Two years later, in his September 25, 1952 report to the Federal Disstrict Commission, Mr. Gréber says that "Gatineau Park is the essential feature of any plan for developing the national capital." Therefore, Gatineau Park is the essential feature of a monument (plan) dedicated to our soldiers who died in World War II.</ref>.

I have a couple of problems with this paragraph. First that isn't a reference. A reference complies with Wikipedia:Citing sources in that it isn't a narrative about a publication but either cites a website where it can be found or an actual paper publication by title, author, date, publisher and ISBN or catalog number. The key thing here is verifiability. A reader has to be able to find the reference and check it. As Jimbo Wales says at Wikipedia:VER#Burden_of_evidence:

I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.

–Jimmy Wales

Secondly the source (sort of) cited, if it can be taken at face value, would only support the first part of the claim that the park was intended as a monument to those who died in WWII. It wouldn't support the controversial claims about the NCC and closed door management. That claim definitely requires a source. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. - Ahunt (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for suggesting more rigorous references. I believe the references I have added will meet with your rigorous requirements. (JPM) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.82.153 (talk) 18:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The second ref is cited as "See Senate of Canada, debates on Bill S-210, May 2, June 6, June 13, June 15, October 5, November 6, 2008" I couldn't find any of these debates on www.parl.gc.ca. How can those dates be right? On Oct 5 2008 the Senate had been dissolved and Nov 6, 2008 is in the future??? - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That was a typo, which has been corrected. 2006 was the year in question (JPM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.82.203 (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Neutrality dispute

User:99.149.84.135: thanks for tagging this as NPOV. I read through the changes introduced by User:70.51.188.11 and came to the same conclusion. This is actually a continuation of the section above. As far as I can tell the refs cited seem to support some of the basic facts, but not the opinions expressed here, although not all refs are easy to find. More to the point the article is now very biased, unbalanced and seems to be pushing a political reform agenda of some kind. I would recommend that either the sections added by User:70.51.188.11 be amended to reflect a much better balance of the issues or else the inserted text be removed as WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but I would like to hear from other editors watching this page. - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

All facts are verifiable

Hi, I made the changes and counter your claim that the article is biased and unbalanced. All the claims made are supported by the references. The article helps cut through the misinformation peddled by the NCC (true or not: the NCC had written park founder Percy Sparks out of the official story, until a concerned citizen dug up and publicized the facts; true or not: the NCC has been caught on several occasions misrepresenting the facts on the park's boundaries--see Senator Spivak's question of privilege (Senate Debates, November 25, 2005, pp. 2132-2134); true or not, Queen's University scholar Alissa Apostle has argued that the NCC has erased and re-written the story of Gatineau Park ("National Park Culture and Gatineau Park," Queen's University, Department of History, 1997, pp. 5, 110, 118, 119)?

I suggest anyone challenging the accuracy or balance of this article provide specific examples to prove their point, as opposed to broad and fuzzy generalizations. Ergo: show, don't tell.

Finally, the article highlights an important debate currently taking place, and helps readers really understand what is going on. Besides, to claim that the official information on the park is neutral and objective is to completely miscontrue the situation. The record on this is easily found on the public record. (JPM-August 26, 2009). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has indicated that the NCC position is correct, but it is not mentioned in most of the items you have added, hence the lack of balance in these controversies. Where is the NCC response to these issues? It needs to be included to provide a complete picture and make the article not seem like a simple anti-landowner and anti-NCC rant. The article is unbalanced and it needs to be fixed to remove that tag.

I also have some uneasiness in that none of the refs you have added are easily publicly available, except one. The one single web-based ref indicating Hartzog's statements is US in origin and does not mention Gatineau Park at all. As far as I can determine you have cited it because Hartzog says: "Privately owned lands within our older National Parks and Monuments (usually those established prior to 1960) constitute a serious and growing threat to the integrity of our National Park System." He is a US official reporting to the US government on issues in US Parks 40 years ago. While what he says may have some general applicability to parks in other counties, connecting that statement to Gatineau Park in 2009 is more than a little stretch. I may have other problems with the other refs you have cited not supporting the positions given but they are not available, so who knows what they say. I think you need to post quotes here from these refs that support the positions. - Ahunt (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I should add too that when challenged under WP:V it is up to the editor adding the material to provide acceptable refs that can be verified, to support the material. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All quotes are verifiable

Wikipedia's rules stipulate that references must be verifiable. The references I have included are all verifiable. That you may find them difficult to find in no way makes them unverifiable. They are all on the public record. All of them... (Do you challenge the Encyclopedia Britannica because their references aren't available online???).

As for privately held lands in Gatineau Park, look up all the NCC's master plans on the issue. They all agree with Hartzog's views on inholdings (if you wish, I will send you a brief I have written on the issue detailing what NCC master plans have said on this -- gppc-cppg@live.com).

As for adding the NCC's position: they have a web site and a communications budget running in the millions. Their views are well known.

Moreover, Hartzog's position is consistent with that held today by the US National Parks Conservation Association (See America's Heritage for Sale: a Lack of Federal Funds threatens Loss of Significant Parklands, April 2008); that held by CPAWS (see their newsletter, Wilderness Advocate, spring 2009, p.2); and let's not forget section 5(1)a of the Canada National Parks Act which forbids all private inholdings in parks. Ergo: it's no stretch at all to say that Hartzog's comments apply to Gatineau Park inholdings (moreover, see all the press over the last 2 years about the problems caused by Gatineau Park inholdings).

That you may disagree with these facts, and the references backing them up, in no way invalidates them.

Your comments seem either ideologically motivated, or self-interested. You should perhaps declare whether your beliefs motivate your challenges, whether you, your family or friends have private inholdings in the park.

As for me, I am defending the public interest and the environment by telling the truth about Gatineau Park. A truth long concealed by the NCC and the self-interested few.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the NCC's "views are well known", they have to be incorporated into this article to provide balance, otherwise the article will remain tagged as User:99.149.84.135 tagged it. Because your refs are paper and hard to locate there is the danger that another editor will remove the material you have added to restore the balance, rather than try to find them all. One of the key pillars of Wikipedia is that articles are required to represent a Neutral Point of View, which this one currently does not. The other side of the story needs to be incorporated. - Ahunt (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Also: from your e-mail address and your mention of a paper, it would appear that you may be in a Conflict of Interest over this article. As that guideline requires can you please explain your connection to this issue? "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." - Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

No conflict of interest

There you go again, making broad generalizations without backing up your point. I am not in a conflict of interest—either financial, legal, autobiographical, self-promoting, or promoting on behalf of clients, or campaigning (I am an individual in pursuit of the facts), nor do I have a close relationship with anyone who could benefit from what I have written.

Perhaps you could ask the NCC to incorporate the other side of the story, or do it yourself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay let's talk about conflicts of interest first then. Sure I am happy to discuss my connection to the park. I live in the south part of the City of Ottawa and occasionally ski and hike in the park. I have biked in the park once. In 2007-08 I bought a season ski pass, because it snowed a lot that winter. I don't own property in the park or know anyone who does, other than one canoeist I met while hiking near Meech Lake about five years ago, but we only had a short conversation about the subject as he was paddling by at the time and I was on land. As a long-time Wikipedia editor my interest in this article is to ensure that is it balanced and complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as I do with all the 2855 articles I currently have on my watchlist.

As you say "As for me, I am defending the public interest and the environment by telling the truth about Gatineau Park. A truth long concealed by the NCC and the self-interested few." So, as you indicate, you represent the GPPC and oppose the NCC. I would suggest that you post future changes to the article here on the talk pages for other editors to consider for inclusion in the article.

As far as as "telling the truth about Gatineau Park" goes I think Wikipedia:The Truth covers that subject best.

This leaves us with the task of restoring balance to the article. To do this we need to either add the counter points of view or else remove the edits already made. I would much rather work with you to add the other points of view, since in your work with GPPC you probably have many of those documents and websites already bookmarked. I wouldn't encourage the NCC to edit this article, because like groups opposing them, they would be in a conflict of interest in editing this article. Wikipedia is not a POV battleground. The key thing to remember here is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not the NCC website nor the GPPC website.

So, please let's work together to restore some balance to this article - your resources will make that task easier. - Ahunt (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

NCC views included and working together

Well, I'm always one for working together.

I have made several additions, in an attempt to place the NCC's views, claims, positions in the text, with footnotes. I have not expanded, but included statements that accurately reflect their position(s).

The NCC's position is now present with respect to what it says on private lands (references to pages of 3 master plans); it position(s) on ownership of lac La Pêche parklands has been included (with references); as well as its support for Bill S-210. I believe this may address some of your concerns (trouble is with the NCC: what it says and does are different--it says everywhere that acquiring inholdings and preventing development are management priorities. Yet, as we speak, a new house is going up in the park, illegal lakebed constructions are going ahead, etc.).

I am open to your further suggestions.

As for the truth: I don't claim to possess it, only to pursue it. I don't claim to hold the truth about the park, only strongly held opinions based on hard facts. And I don't work for the GPPC (it's a convenient label--all volunteer, no funding, no web site, no employees, no ties to any organizations, etc.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I am reading your changes as you are adding them, but to be honest I don't see any balance being added there at all, in fact it is getting to be very one-sided and a lot of very POV language. But let's just let you finish what you want to do there and then see what can be done with it at that point. I am just concerned that the way it is going that someone will just revert your whole effort from the start as unsalvageable. Perhaps you can drop a note here when you are finished and I can see what can be done. - Ahunt (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes complete

I have removed some POVs from titles, cleaned up punctuation and streamlined language and references. In my view, the NCC positions are presented, even when they are obviously contradictory, and I have tried to remove any tendentious language.

What I have placed in this entry represents a very accurate picture of the situation. I don't for a minute believe anyone will find it unsalvageable, since it presents truthful, referenced information which is found nowhere else in one location. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Avoiding the issue about whether the refs actually support the contentions made for the moment, since I can't check them, the article is now severely unbalanced and fails WP:NPOV. There are numerous cases of weasel words where things are quoted, but not attributed to who said them, etc. These changes introduce severe problems in the article. I will attempt later on to today to at least tag where the problem are, although I don't have access to the material needed to provide the balance required to the article. I am afraid it will have to remain tagged as unbalanced until it can be properly fixed to comply with WP:NPOV. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay I have tagged it to show where improvements are needed. Please do not remove the tags without the improvements being incorporated or else gaining consensus here on the talk page that the tags are not justified. I have to admit I am not happy with this tagging solution, but I do not have the information to fix these problems. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Invited discussion

I think that sources may be available through the use of OPL library resources on the NCC. Canada Newstand for one. I have to agree that there is a large amount of controversy surrounding the NCC's activities and the Park. It would be inappropriate to remove it so I think that tagging is the appropriate measure I think. I would have to agree that the article has content that is negative to the NCC. But, the NCC is notoriously difficult to get direct information on any project or plan and it may be difficult to present their side here. I recall that from when they wanted to build a highway interchange at the north end of Island Park. This is also made more difficult under the current Harper government which wants to control information. I think that you could almost argue that the NCC is an agency hostile to the local public and that is a long-standing complaint of Ottawans. Anyway, I will start looking for newspaper sources through Canada Newstand, which does have the Ottawa Citizen going back before 1980. I am sure it will not be hard to find people critical of the NCC for the record. To the IP user, I would suggest creating a Wikipedia account when you are working on an article extensively. I welcome coverage of controversy, and energy on an article is good too. Alaney2k (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Alaney2k: Thanks for diving in here - your help is greatly appreciated! I agree that the subject is controversial and that it should be covered in this article. - it just needs some balance, which can be a challenge with the NCC, as you note. I think with a group of editors who know how to find the information for refs we can balance the article out and remove the tags as the work progresses. I would much prefer to see that, than the extensive good faith work done by User:70.51.188.11 removed. - Ahunt (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words removed, additional references provided

I have added several new references, some of them electronic where available, and removed weasel words, replacing them with what I feel to be more balanced terminology. I have also removed the tags, but left the top notices in place pending your approval, or suggested changes.

Much of the information is available on the parliamentary web site. Other documents at the national library. Will provide any information required, if I have it.

I hope this meets with your approval. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we are slowly getting there. The lack of balance still remains in some sections where the NCC is criticized without response. It is possible that they have not responded in which case this could be stated, but let's see if other editors can find that first. Otherwise I have made some edits, including replacing all the weasel-worded 'critics have said' etc, with whom I presume the critics are. The key thing with weasel words is to avoid making unattributed or vaguely attributed statements. Let me know if I got that wrong in attributing those statements. I have also removed the weasel tag since I removed all the weasel-wording. - Ahunt (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Getting there

Good changes. Yes you have attributed statements correctly. I have also added many electronic references to facilitate verifiability.

Well done. The entry is much stronger as a result of your efforts and advice. Will continue adding any electronic references I can find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding those weblinks is a great help! Wikipedia's 'anyone-can-edit' collaborative process of building articles can be a bit frustrating at times, but it does actually work and with a group of editors we get better quality articles than if any one person wrote them alone. - Ahunt (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

More balanced

I have added any available NCC reactions or comments throughout, and I believe this may meet with your requirements for greater balance. Also have added other weblinks. So, I believe we have resolved most of the issues you have raised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.188.11 (talk) 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I am happy with the way it reads now and so I have removed the tag. However I was not the editor who put the tag up, so if anyone else thinks it is still unbalanced please do reinstate the tag and indicate where more work is needed.

I do want to thank user:70.51.188.11 for all his work on this article. I think the additions are worthwhile and tell a story that is important. It went through a process of becoming unbalanced and back to a better balance, but you did almost all the work to bring it back to a more encyclopedic article. Thanks for all your work on this! I hope you will open a Wikipedia account and continue to work on articles like this one - you obviously have the knowledge and the references to make Wikipedia more complete and more accurate, which is why we are all here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to you

You are very rigorous and a tough taskmaster. Thanks to your advice, the story of Gatineau Park is much more accessible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneacres (talk • contribs) 16:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It is all part of the collaboration process - makes for better articles! - Ahunt (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You folks have been very busy. It's much better. I was not yet even started on looking for sources. The article still needs a lot of work, though to be considered good. The sections are somewhat disjointed. You need to work chronologically through the history, at least in summary, with the issues, or split out the issues. Alaney2k (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It has evolved well! I do agree that more work needs to be done, particularly to make the sections read better and relate more coherently to each other. Any refs you can find to expand the story would be helpful. - Ahunt (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Very well done--major improvement since I tagged it a few days ago. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal

The political aspects of the article, including all the new photos, are starting to dwarf the park descriptive aspects of the article. It seems like the political controversies will only add to the article over time, while the descriptive aspects probably will not get a lot larger. I am wondering if it isn't time to split the article into this one (as a park-descriptive article) and a new one, perhaps entitled Politics of Gatineau Park, which would, of course be linked from this article and vice-versa. I'd like to hear from everyone watching this article, if you have an opinion. - Ahunt (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the recent attempt to put a construction photo as the lead info box photo for the park's article shows that this split is really needed as the political issues are really starting to totally dominate this article. Not to diminish their importance, but there is more to be said about the park than the political and development problems.- Ahunt (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I aprouve your demand of a split. Is kind of stange to read a article of a park who have 90% about his statut and quasi none of what it protect. --Fralambert (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

Since we have a consensus, I have carried out the split. The new article is Politics of Gatineau Park.- Ahunt (talk) 00:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be having a bit of a disagreement in the article, so perhaps I can clarify here. The intention of the split, which I thought was well explained above, was to remove the vast majority of the political text and refs and move them to the new article Politics of Gatineau Park, while leaving the current article as predominantly a descriptive article, focusing on the physical aspects of the park, plus a bit of its history as an introduction. The intent in these types of splits is to keep the overlapping text (that which appears in both articles) to a minimum and instead direct readers of one article to the other for that information. Also as per Wikipedia:Wikilink#Repeated_links we normally only provide one link from an article to another one, except where one link is in a navbox, infobox or table. In the case of this article there are currently four links to Politics of Gatineau Park (two in History and politics, including a high-visibility see main template, one in see also and one in the navbox), which in a short article like this one should be more than sufficient. - Ahunt (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like User:70.31.216.199 is determined to edit war to get his or her changes into this article. Please stop reverting and explain here why you think this duplicate text is required in both articles and why there should be five links to Politics of Gatineau Park, included a hat note. - Ahunt (talk) 01:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the Banff article, or any encyclopedic article on US or other Canadian parks. You will see a discussion of the several issues that may be controversial. Moreover, for example, any credible article on Jasper would be incomplete without a discussion of the mysteriously disappearing water, which may be caused by poor park/hotel management.

There are only 2 links to the Politics article, not counting the political controversy link. I have respected most of your changes. And since I wrote most of the article, and completely overhauled the very poorly written and factually incorrect sites and activities section, you should respect my changes. Besides, much of what you are trying to remove you had previously approved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneacres (talk • contribs) 01:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the article is simple, we have nothing on the wildlife, the flora, the forest, the geology, the hydrology and the climate. So we have a article with 90% about the menace of the park, but nothing on what it protect. --Fralambert (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong, my dear Fralembert: Ahunt split the article and achieved what he felt to be a "balance." So we now have an article with a "snapshot" of previously hidden park history (Alissa Apostle in her 1997 Queen's University Thesis says the park's history was erased and re-written--and my research pretty well confirms her conclusion.) as well as a brief discussion of sites and activities. Moreover, there was almost nothing on the "wildlife, the flora, the forest, the geology, the hydrology and the climate" before I edited the article. So why did you not make a point of it when the article was very poor/sketchy? Besides, you are free to add such material, should you be so inclined.

And where else, in the whole world, will you find such a clear and condensed overview of the park's history as well as threats facing it? The point of my contribution is to help wikipedia visitors understand what is "really" going on in Gatineau Park.Somehting you won't find on the NCC's Web site, although it spends millions of taxpayer dollars on "communicating" with the public.Stoneacres

There is no problem with adding more on the geography, flora and fauna of the park, in fact more should be added to this article on those sorts of subjects! As far as the history goes we can add to that too, but it is important not to just duplicate text from Politics of Gatineau Park. Obviously there needs to be some overlap in the two articles, because the subjects overlap, but please let's avoid having the same text appear in both articles as much as possible as it diminishes the value of the encyclopedia. To this end I will retain the currant para that was added, but I will re-write it to change the language so it fits the article better and uses different wording.

As far as links to Politics of Gatineau Park go we had four in the article which is greater than normally allowed in the MOS. There is no need for a link as a hatnote as well as two in text, the navbox and a see also. - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay as a compromise I have reworked the last para in History and politics to differentiate it and also added links to New Woodlands Preservation League and Gatineau Park Protection Committee as well, since I think they should be linked in this article. I have also removed the hatnote link. This still leaves four links to Politics of Gatineau Park in the article:

• one "main" template at the head of History and politics
• one in text of History and politics as [[Politics of Gatineau Park|public controversy]]
• one under See also
• one in the Template:Parks in Quebec which appears as a nav box on the page and also links the Politics of Gatineau Park article to every other existing Parks in Quebec article.

As you can see Politics of Gatineau Park is now pretty well linked across Wikipedia.

- Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will agree to your reworked paragraph, only correcting a faulty noun-verb agreement. However, I insist on keeping the hat note. That way it is clear from the start that there is an issue with the way the park is administered. If you wish, you might remove one of the other links--maybe the controversy one.Stoneacres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.216.199 (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we can make that work then. I have changed the hatnote by using a standard template and removed the section see main as they would be the same in a short article. Hopefully that will work for everyone? Thanks for fixing my bad grammar, too! Now hopefully this article can be expanded with some more physical geography, climatology, flora, fauna and other physical information, while Politics of Gatineau Park will grow with more text and refs in that area. - Ahunt (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Stoneacres —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.216.199 (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahuntand I had a consensus on the hatnote. So it is placed at the beginning.--Stoneacres (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware previously that it conflicts with the article formatting guidelines at Wikipedia:SUMMARY#Basic_technique - so User:M.nelson is right it has to go below the section heading. I have fixed it as per the guidelines. The article is also linked from a new "Gatineau Park" nav box that I have added to all related articles, so the article gets lots of exposure anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Those guidelines are prescriptive, not restrictive. Besides the editing guidelines advocate being bold, and allow up to ten links per article. I have inserted a hatnote.

My feeling is Ahunt and M.Nelson are trying to suppress facts. Might they have friends/family with private park inholdings, an ideological bias, friends/family who work for the NCC,etc.? Seems many of their changes are purely whimsical. Perhaps they are power tripping. Their timing seems rather interesting. Gatineau Park is on everyone's mind, and viewer figures confirm many people are checking this page out.

Their tactics are reminiscent of Disruption 101 and trying to control information the public has access to.

They keep threatening and warning me. I've heard the NCC and park landowners are past masters at that. I know Inclusionists would, and have already, defended this article as worthwhile and necessary. And that was before I added all the requested references, and more.--Stoneacres (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted to having the hatnote only in the section, per guidelines (which I incorrectly named as "policy" in edit summary). As they are guidelines, we should follow them. What justifies having the hatnote at the top of the article? It does not provide further insight to Gatineau Park as a whole (for instance, geography); only to the politics of the park. Please provide justification to override the guidelines before reverting once more. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You are arbitrarily changing edits that make the text more streamlined and user friendly. Please say if you have a conflict of interest, since you appear to be trying to protect the status quo, NCC and inholders. --Stoneacres (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

New controversy section

From the way discussion is progressing at WP:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park, it seems likely that Politics of Gatineau Park will be deleted, and this article will be expanded (within reason) to cover the controversies deemed notable in the Politics article. Since the editing of these articles in itself is controversial, all major changes should be determined by consensus on the talk page before adding to the article.

• First off, I propose splitting the following into a sub-section of "History and politics":

Controversy

Today the park is administered by the National Capital Commission, a body that has attracted considerable public controversy for its policies on park boundaries, private land ownership and allowing construction in the park.

Building on the work of the predecessor Federal Woodlands Preservation League, the modern-day New Woodlands Preservation League and its Gatineau Park Protection Committee advocate for public access and use of the park and oppose private development in it.

Comments

• The upper part of the "History and politics" section will need to be cleaned up to move 'controversial' bits from there to the 'controversy' section (for instance, "Gatineau is the only federal park not protected by the National Parks Act, largely as a result of former Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King's caution, fear of criticism and desire for privacy."). As well, all the GPPC/NWPL references will need to be reevaluated, replaced or supplemented by third-party reliable sources.
• Note that these changes should only be put into place once a decision is made at WP:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park (though the article is always open to improvement, particularly in improving references and reducing POV). -M.Nelson (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well that's a start. I have reverted your move of the picture, since you did not act on consensus, as you had said should be done. As well, I think the picture was fine where it was. However, I will respect your edit of the caption.--Stoneacres (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• I was about to post a note that I'm fine with the consensus of picture location (though I prefer otherwise), but that I would change the caption back. The reason I didn't act on consensus was that I thought it was a relatively minor edit, but I have no opposition with discussing for anything in the slightest bit controversial, as the image move was. Thanks for being accommodating here. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to wait until the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics of Gatineau Park was closed before I commented here, as the outcome there was germane to this discussion. The closing admin there left some very specific instructions for this article, based on the consensus in the AfD debate, as he said "The result was delete. POV fork. If the salavagable content has been spun out of the main article then it does not need a redirecd and we are well rid of this. SPAs please not that wikipedia is not a forum to advance your opinions but a colaborative encyclopedia. If there is ongoing edit warrinbg in the main article then let me know or see semi-protection. (sic)" The clear consensus from the deletion debate was that this article should have only a couple of paragraphs on the political controversies, that the POV content that was in Politics of Gatineau Park is not to be dumped back into here and that the POV and SPA editors are to adhere to the consensus decision or else they will be prevented from editing this article.

Otherwise I agree with what User:M.nelson has proposed above, including that all substantive changes should be discussed here first. I will also be sending invitations to everyone who participated in the AfD debates to contribute here, yes including the SPAs, and removing the redlinks created by the AfD decision. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Since any park is essentially two things, I suggest the paragraphs should concern 1)boundaries; 2) what's inside the boundaries, i.e., land management. I suggest that the NCC's master plans might be referenced saying private property is a non conforming use of the park.

However, a discussion of the current issues affecting the park and legislation would be important for the public -- from a neutral point of view, of course... --Stoneacres (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would support that as long as it was kept to the consensus of two paragraphs in length and that it is well supported by reliable, third party references, but let's see what other editors have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ahunt; two paragraphs as described by Stoneacres should be able to provide an NPOV view of all relevant issues. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Gatineauparc.ca ref

I undid Ahunt's revision, because the article mentions the GPPC's activities, and more importantly, because the page of the web site http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html provites a referenced article illustrating the point made in the Wiki sentence. --Stoneacres (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this specifically should be used as a reference, since the gatineauparc.ca presents its own viewpoints using external links as sources. Gatineauparc.ca isn't itself a reliable source, but the links it uses as references may be (similarly, Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source, but its references are). If we were trying to add references to this statement, it would be okay to use those that are references at gatineauparc.ca, but since the statement is already well-referenced, we don't really need any more. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:M.nelson on this, the website completely fails WP:RS and does not qualify as a reliable source. While some of the sources it cites may be useful, the website itself is a collection of personal opinions and cannot be considered "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". It is very strongly pushing a particular agenda. That is fine that it does that, it is your website so you can print whatever you want, but that mitigates against it being used as a source for articles on Wikipedia. Please see WP:REDFLAG and Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The fact that you are trying to insert it into the article to support already well-supported text after having tried and failed to insert it as an external link runs the risk that some editors will conclude that you are just trying to use this Wikipedia article to advertise your website and bring you more traffic. Please see WP:SPAM. - Ahunt (talk) 13:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You have not demonstrated the unreliability of http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html. In fact you are expressing a personal view that it is not reliable. It provides sources and documents you will find nowhere else. That is why it should be included as a reference.

Besides, you mention the organization in the article and do not provide any reference to it. So I suggest you either delete the unsupported reference to the GPPC and NWPL, or add a refererence to http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html.

You are suppressing reliable and verifiable information in support of a Wikipedia article. This should be denounced as a violation of the letter and spirit of encylopedic knowledge.l--Stoneacres (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Finding that your WP:SPS website does not meet WP:RS, WP:SPAM or WP:EL is not "suppressing reliable and verifiable information", it is maintaining this article in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Wikipedia is not obliigated to link to your personal opinions, no matter how many times you ask. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are misleading all Wikipedians: in no way does http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html constitue spam. The site informs the public about confirmed problems, with accurate and verifiable sources. It does not advertise. You are displaying bad faith, poor judgement, and a lack of understanding of the rules. You interpret them to suit your POV. And that must be denounced by all honest men and women.

In what way, is http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html not a reliable source? The burden of proof is on you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stoneacres (talk • contribs) 21:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

That is where you are incorrect. You want to add this content, so as per WP:BURDEN the burden of proof is on you to show that this is a reliable source not on others to disprove it. I should point out that adding your own website to Wikipedia is a WP:COI issue - you need consensus here to include it. I would also advise you that, as you have been advised in the past, if you want to convince other editors to include your own website then personal attacks are not the way to proceed. So far you have a consensus here not to include your website as an external link or as a reference. - Ahunt (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahunt's bad faith

Ahunt, you are misleading all Wikipedians: in no way does http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html constitue spam. The site informs the public about confirmed problems, with accurate and verifiable sources. It does not advertise. Ahunt you are showing bad faith, poor judgement, and a lack of understanding of the rules. You Ahunt interpret them to suit your POV. And that must be denounced by all honest men and women.

In what way, is http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html not a reliable source? The burden of proof is on you Ahunt.

And there you go again playing the victimology card: my comment wasn't a personal attack: it is a description of a fact: you interpret the rules to suit your ideological agenda, you are suppressing reliable and verifiable sources, and are displaying bad faith as a result.

Your shame is held up for the entire world to see. --Stoneacres (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see bad faith on either side and suggest a simple solution. Keep the text paragraph discussing what the GPPC has advocated as well as the footnotes (in English and French) that currently support that sentence. Then add a new footnote to that sentence citing the GPPC website. Under WP:SELFPUB an organization's website or newsletter is a reliable source about that organization's views. For example, the sentence "Planned Parenthood advocates a women's right to choose." could be supported by the Planned Parenthood website as a reliable source. Of course, one should avoid puffing and not repeat advertising claims, but that would not apply here. Our goal in revising the Gatineau Park article is to keep it objective and balanced, it is neither to overly glorify nor condemn to obscurity the GPPC. Readers have the right to know that there are controversies regarding park boundaries and the private development within those boundaries. Identifying the key players in the controversy (without taking sides) is also allowed. I hope this helps. Racepacket (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Note to File: User:Stoneacres was blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks. - Ahunt (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Racepacket: Thanks for your input. My only thought is that the existence of the GPPC is already referenced in the article to a number of reliable third party refs and so that doesn't really justify adding a first party ref as a source. - Ahunt (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I see your point. However, during the deletion debate, I tried to convince User:Stoneacres that his efforts would be better devoted to a separate website instead of just repeatedly expanding Wikipedia's coverage of these subjects. Perhaps a fair end point to this matter would be to find a way to allow him to have a link to his website in exchange to his focusing his primary attention to developing that website. I understand that an external link may be elevating his site over what is appropriate, but I could live with a link as a footnote to the sentence describing the role of the GPPC. I think that the world would be a better place if Wikipedia somehow acknowledges the GPPC's role and then leaves Stoneacres free to tell his story outside the constrants of Wikipedia's rules. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I was also one of the editors here who encouraged User:Stoneacres and the GPPC to start their own website to present their own point of view and I am very pleased to see that they have done so. I have read through the whole thing and while it has some references to some documents to support some of the content there, it also contains a lot of very strong personal opinions and, unsurprisingly given the proliferation of personal attacks here, it also contains unsubstantiated personal attacks against people they perceive as their opponents. That is fine, it is their website and they can write what they want, subject of course to the limits of Canadian libel laws. However the character of their website renders it as unsuitable under WP:RS to be used as a reference on Wikipedia, except to support statements of opinion of the GPPC itself. Since we haven't quoted any here I don't see any justification to include it as a reference and I am concerned that the website may be used as a ref to add more GPPC theories and opinions of the type that were deleted by a large consensus in the AfD of Politics of Gatineau Park. So while I am pleased that the GPPC now have their own website, I don't see any justification for linking it from here as an external link or as a reference. I would like to hear the opinions of other editors watching this page on this subject, to see what the consensus on this subject is. - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay I thought it would be helpful to summarize where were are on this issue:

• Having failed to get a consensus for an external link User:Stoneacres wants to include a link to his own website as a ref for this article. Because this is a clear WP:COI he needs to gain a consensus here on the talk page to include it.
• User:Ahunt and User:M.nelson are opposed to including it
• User:Racepacket has suggested including it once as a ref
• 66.173.140.100 has suggested making a deal with User:Stoneacres to include the link as a ref once in exchange for not trying to place any further GPPC content or links into this article.

So far then there is no consensus to include a link, but I am interested to hear User:Stoneacres response to 66.173.140.100's idea when he gets unblocked. I am also interested to hear from other editors watching this page to gain a broader consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• You are correct. The ball is in Stoneacres's court. I think that Wikipedia's role should be to decide whether the references support the proposition in the article text, not whether the referenced sources are SOAPBOXy. So the sentence, "Building on the work of the predecessor Federal Woodlands Preservation League, the modern-day New Woodlands Preservation League and its Gatineau Park Protection Committee advocate for public access and use of the park and oppose private development in it." should have a footnote to the GPPC website either after the words "Protection Committee" or at the end of the sentence. And I would ask Stoneacres to comment specifically on this proposal. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for jumping the doghouse fence by editing this page without signing in. For the record, I am user Stoneacres editing without signing in.

I concur with [User:Racepacket|Racepacket]]'s suggestion that the sentence mentioning the GPPC should provide a reference to the GPPC web site: http://www.gatineauparc.ca/home_en.html

As for not including any GPPC material on Wikipedia, Ahunt and MNelson already should know that I agreed not to add any park content on Wikipedia, before running it by them for agreement/modification on the discussion page. So, that's already agreed. Adding a reference, as far as I'm concerned, is not adding content -- only helping to support and illustrate it.

Moreover, Ahunt, MNelson and I agreed that two more paragraphs needed to be added to the Gatineau Park article: one on boundaries; one on land management. And I'd add that a third, brief, paragraph should mention that legislation has been introduced recently in both houses to address the problems related to boundaries and land management. In fact, that paragraph might be not much longer than the preceding sentence, just to let readers know something is going on and to wrap up the two paragraphs nicely.

Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to submit those paragraphs to the discussion page for approval, since I was dealing with other matters.

Begging your indulgence for breaking the doghouse curfew by editing without signing in, I remain, your, Stoneacres. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.234.69 (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for adding 2 paragraphs

I suggest Gatineau Park article might be edited as follows (3 last paragraphs before Sites), to comply with a past agreement. The first paragraph is a slightly tweeked version of the current one. The second paragraph ties in the legislation issue in tight summary. And the last paragraph is exactly the current one. I believe it flows nicely and fits with criteria set out above by Ahunt and MNelson.

Today, the National Capital Commission manages the park, along with all federal lands and buildings in Canada's National Capital Region. It has attracted considerable public criticism for its policies on park boundaries, land ownership and management as well as for allowing residential construction in the park.

To address these issues, several private members’ bills have been introduced in the Senate and House of Commons since 2005. The federal government also tabled its own Gatineau Park legislation in June 2009.

Building on the work of the predecessor Federal Woodlands Preservation League, the modern-day New Woodlands Preservation League and its Gatineau Park Protection Committee advocate for greater public access to the park while opposing residential development inside it.

--Stoneacres (talk) 04:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall I don't have a problem with the wording you are proposing here, but the unresolved question is the references to cite for it. Can you respond specifically to User:Racepacket's proposal above to add one ref to the GPPC website and agree to not add any more refs or links to it after that. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As for User:Racepacket's proposal, I agree that one ref. to the GPPC website should be included, and agree to not add any reference, content or links after that without specific agreement from wikipedia editors on this talk page. --Stoneacres (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First off, I'm not sure about the word "Considerable", because we will need a reference that specifically states that there has been "considerable criticism", which is unlikely. However, if it only reads "criticism", then all we really need is one (or more) refs criticising it, as one ref counts as "criticism" but not "considerable criticism".

As for references, could you put some in if you can? I think that the article at gatineauparc.ca should suffice as a reference for the 3rd paragraph, as it basically states the GPPC's position (in "[advocating] for greater public access to the park while opposing residential development inside it"). I've taken a few refs from the main article and put them in myself, though these will need to be looked over too (for instance, the Spivak ref may be more appropriate in the second paragraph than the first). -M.Nelson (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Text with references

I think the references you placed are in the right place. Below, is the text with "controversy" replacing "criticism". As well I have added references as suggested.

Today, the National Capital Commission manages the park, along with all federal lands and buildings in Canada's National Capital Region. Its policies on park boundaries, land management and ownership as well as on residential construction in the park, have been the subject of controversy.

To address these issues, several private members’ bills have been introduced in the Senate and House of Commons since 2005. The federal government also tabled its own Gatineau Park legislation in June 2009.

Building on the work of the predecessor Federal Woodlands Preservation League, the modern-day New Woodlands Preservation League and its Gatineau Park Protection Committee advocate greater public access to the park while opposing residential development inside it.

--Stoneacres (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have opened the edit window and looked at the references in the three paragraphs above. To get this to a conclusion, I would change "It has attracted consderable controversy for..." to "Controversy surrounds..." I don't think that NCC should be the subject of the sentence. Making 'controversy' the first word of the sentence avoids M.Nelson's objections on characterizing controversy as "considerable." Other than that, I hope that the three paragraphs would bring this entire matter to a close, so that Stoneacres can focus on his new website. Racepacket (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the new sentence could read:"Its policies on park boundaries, land management and ownership, as well as on residential construction in the park, have been the subject of controversy.

I have included the change in the proposal above. --Stoneacres (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. In its present form, as amended, it looks okay to me, although the refs will need some standard formatting. I can accept that the GPPC website can be used a a sole single ref for tis statement given the growing consensus to do that here. - Ahunt (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't dare make the change without a definite okay from you or MNelson. And if it's okay with you, I'd like to remove the redundant "King donated his 600-acre..." Because it's said twice in the sites section.

I never found any reference anywhere about the Ryan Tower. --Stoneacres (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Well there is no rush, let's see what User:M.nelson has to say at this point. - Ahunt (talk) 12:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I have editted the redundancies in the sites section. When I rewrote it last year, to give it a little more oomph, I had let my focus on the park's politics make me overlook such a stylistic blunder. Begging the indulgence of the committee, I remain, sincerely, --Stoneacres (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Will Make Change

On rereading the sections and proposals above, I believe the latest proposed text takes into account MNelson's edits, and Ahunts approval. Therefore, I will edit the main page with the text as follows:

Today, the National Capital Commission manages the park, along with all federal lands and buildings in Canada's National Capital Region. Its policies on park boundaries, land management and ownership, as well as on residential construction in the park, have been the subject of controversy.

To address these issues, several private members’ bills have been introduced in the Senate and House of Commons since 2005. The federal government also tabled its own Gatineau Park legislation in June 2009. None of the bills tabled so far has been enacted into law.

Building on the work of the predecessor Federal Woodlands Preservation League, the modern-day New Woodlands Preservation League and its Gatineau Park Protection Committee advocate greater public access to the park while opposing residential development inside it. --Stoneacres (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a look over it and it seems okay to me - just formatted a couple of refs. - Ahunt (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes look good to me too. My only concern is that there may be too many references-- but that isn't actually an issue; it's just my personal opinion. Do we still intend on moving these paragraphs to a ===Controversy=== subsection? I don't really mind either way. -M.Nelson (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Mnelson: I agree that a string of reference numbers may be distracting to readers; however, since we are venturing into new territory, I believe it safer to leave them.

As it stands, I wish to thank all editors. Though we have had our slugfests, so to speak, I believe the article as is offers an excellent, accurate primer to anyone wishing to find out what's going on in Gatineau Park. Our several clashes, I believe, have given birth to something important. And I believe we have achieved the balance, in relation to sites and activities, which Ahunt had rightly said was missing (when the article was sort of an on-going journal of issues related to the park).

In juxtaposition with the GPPC web site, I believe the public now has excellent tools to assess fairly what ails Gatineau Park.

Note: with regard to the dimension of the park: we say 361 sq. km, AND 363 sq. km. According to my best information, the latter figure is correct...

Much thanks.

--Stoneacres (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The NCC's Gatineau Park website gives 361 sq km (which in fact is not one of the values in the article), this Prov of Quebec report gives 361.31, and your best information says 363. I have no idea which of these is more correct; as you are most familiar with the park's details, I'll trust your judgement on which should be used (it must be sourced, of course!). -M.Nelson (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to all for getting this matter resolved. Racepacket (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Need Help with Reference

I just noticed that footnote 29 is wrong. It talks about beaches, whereas it is supposed to illustrate NCC policy on motorboats. Any help/advice would be appreciated. --Stoneacres (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Request your views on reinstating photo of glass/garbage

I have written a text presenting a balanced view of the Gatineau Park trail trash issue. Are you okay with reinstating the deleted photo? Stoneacres (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Initially I removed the picture because there was no explanation about what this was about, but I see you have added some explanatory text in. In reviewing the text and I am inclined to think this probably doesn't belong in the article as per WP:NOTNEWS as it seems to be a short-lived news item more than encyclopedic content, but I am interested to hear what other editors think, so we can come up with a consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I take your point; however, some encyclopedia's do cover recent events. That's why they're updated every few years. As for being short lived, I have found glass/garbage on five park trails, which suggests the problem has been going on for some time (the contractor only rehabilitates a few trails a year). Stoneacres (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It's okay to start a paragraph/sentence with a conjunction

Note: The subject of this discussion is this edit, this subsequent edit and this reversion. - Ahunt (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope the following will help Ahunt understand why I undid his change. And why you can start a sentence/paragraph with a conjunction.

This is what R.W. Burchfield has to say about this use of and: at the beginning of a sentence:

“There is a persistent belief that it is improper to begin a sentence with And, but this prohibition has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initial And is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues.” (The New Fowler's Modern English Usage,edited by R.W. Burchfield. Clarendon Press: Oxford, England. 1996).

And here’s an example of its use from one of the masterpieces of English literature, the King James Bible: Genesis 1:3:

“And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. “9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

“14And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: 15And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 16And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

“20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

“24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

“26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. 29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so. 31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

And I would add there are countless references supporting use of conjunctions at the beginning of paragraphs/sentences, and dispelling its prohibition as myth … And arbitrary practice.Stoneacres (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't the stylistic use of conjunctions in works of fiction, which as you point out has been done and in fact I have used in my own published works of fiction. The problem is that no matter how it starts a paragraph is supposed to contain a coherent topic and that one doesn't, because it isn't even a sentence, it is a dependent clause. It may be acceptable in works of fiction but it is not an appropriate style in an encyclopedia, but let's see what other editors watching this page have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought the edit by Ahunt was a good one. Not only did it repair a paragraph starting with "and" but it eliminated a one sentence paragraph. The latter should only appear in newspaper articles. It is true that a sentence can start with "and" but how is it appropriate to start a paragraph that way? The Bible is hardly an appropriate source for modern writing style. Remember the "begats". Dger (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the following excerpts from various authoritative sources clarify the issue:

1. Chicago Manual of Style Online

http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/CMS_FAQ/Usage/Usage156.html

"CMOS includes Bryan Garner’s opinion that there is “no historical or grammatical foundation” for considering sentences that begin with a conjunction such as and, but, or so to be in error (see paragraph 5.206). Fowler’s agrees (3rd ed., s.v. “and”), citing examples in the OED that date back to the ninth century and include Shakespeare. The conjunctions or and nor can be added to the list. None of this means that it is not possible to abuse the privilege. Sentences should begin with a conjunction only when the result is perfectly clear and more effective than some other alternative. What about academic writing, then? Good academic writing is of course difficult to produce, and there is no guarantee that allowing sentence-starting conjunctions improves matters. But the alternative—enforcing a baseless restriction— probably doesn’t help."

2.Merriam-Webster's dictionary of English usage (1994), p.93:

“Everybody agrees that it’s all right to begin a sentence with and, and nearly everybody admits to having been taught at some past time that the practice was wrong. Most of us think the prohibition goes back to our early school days. Bailey 1984 points out that the prohibition is probably meant to correct the tendency of children to string together independent clauses or simple declarative sentences with ands: ‘We got in the car and we went to the movies and I bought some popcorn and....’ As children grow older and master the more sophisticated technique of subordinating clauses, the prohibition of and becomes unnecessary. But apparently our teachers fail to tell us when we may forget about the prohibition. Consequently, many of us go through life thinking it wrong to begin a sentence with and.

“Few commentators have actually put the prohibition in print; the only one we have found is George Washington Moon:

‘It is not scholarly to begin a sentence with the conjunction and – The Bad English of Lindley Murray and Other Writers on the English Language, 1868 (in Baron 1982).’

“Phythian 1979 does advise following the ‘old rule,’ but as a general guideline. Many commentators advise not using and at the beginning of a sentence. It is perhaps overuse that led to this criticism:

‘The book has another distinction in that practically every other sentence begins with one of those suspended, capital-letter “Ands” which are becoming so popular – Saturday Rev., 12 Feb. 1927.’

“The Literary Digest seems to have had so many inquiries about the propriety of beginning a sentence with and throughout the 1920s that its editors came up with a stock answer. Here is the version of 5 April 1930:

‘The practice of beginning sentences with the conjunction "And" dates from 855, and can be verified from The Old English Chronicle (Parker M.S.). The use may be found also in Shakespeare’s King John (act iv, scene 1), the Gospel of St. John, xxi:21; Grote’s History of Greece, and Kingsley’s Hypatia.’

“Here are two contemporary examples of initial and. In the second example, it even begins a paragraph.

‘He didn’t believe I found the cart abandoned at a tilt in an alley. And then I turned over into his hands the cash receipts. To the penny’ – E.L. Doctorow, Loon Lake, 1979

‘”Now boys,” he said, “I want you to read an essay. This is titled ‘The Art of Eating Spaghetti.

‘And he started to read. My words! He was reading my words out loud to the entire class – Russell Baker, Growing Up, 1982.’”

3. William Safire, in his book How not to write: the essential misrules of grammar (pp.76-77), provides additional arguments illustrating it’s fine to use conjunction to begin sentences/paragraphs:

“’And the earth was without form, and void.’ That’s from the second verse of Genesis, in the translation into English by some of King James’s heavy hitters.

“’And the war came.’ That’s the saddest short sentence Abraham Lincoln ever wrote, resonant with resignation.

“And that’s not all, as the pitchmen say. [...] The usagist Fowler found no error in beginning a sentence with and. He derided any objection to the practice as ‘a faintly lingering superstition.’

“So it’s incorrect to start a sentence with a conjunction? No; it’s OK [...]"

4. And from Cliffsnotes: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/Section/Is-it-ever-okay-to-start-a-sentence-with-the-word-but-.id-305408,articleId-113643.html

"There is nothing grammatically wrong with starting a sentence with a conjunction like but, and, or or. But this answer comes with a warning.

"The idea that you shouldn't begin a sentence with a conjunction is one of those "rules" that really isn't — along with some others you've probably heard, like "never split an infinitive" and "don't end a sentence with a preposition." Your writing won't be automatically bad if you break these "rules," and the greatest writers of English have been breaking them for ages." Stoneacres (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you are addressing the wrong question here. No one questions that it may be acceptable in some circumstances to start a sentence with a conjunction. The real issues are that it is not acceptable to start a paragraph in an encyclopedia with a conjunction, not a sentence, and also why would an entire paragraph consist only of a dependent clause? It is plain poor grammar and in this context the paragraph as a stand-alone set of ideas, is incoherent. So far we have one other editor who agrees with that, let's see what others watching this page have to say. - Ahunt (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate your providing sources supporting the claim that it's not acceptable in an encyclopedia article to start a paragraph with a conjunction. The sentence in question is not a dependent clause; it's a transitional paragraph. I wrote it as such because it expresses an idea different from the preceding paragraph -- which deals with James Harkin writing to Charles Devlin about creating Gatineau Park. Moreover, you say this is not a coherent sentence, but I argue that it is, i.e., that it has a subject, verb and predicate: subject: Government of Canada; verb: to tend: to have the care of; watch over; look after: tend a child; predicate: tend to other important things.

Please explain how this is incoherent... Stoneacres (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay we note that you think it is fine as is, let's wait and see what other editors have to say so we can gain a consensus on this issue. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

While this minor sentence structure issue hasn't gained much attention, we have a consensus to combine the paras, so I have done so. - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I suspect whatever the rules somebody would remove the And at some point only because it just looks wrong. I am not sure that it actually makes sense as it doesnt explain how the Candian government was involved, the rest of the paragraph is talking about the Quebec government. MilborneOne (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The para starts off dealing with Cory and Harkin, (both Federal govt) and discusses the federal level (Harkin) writing to the Quebec provincial level (Devlin) about creating a park. It now ends with the federal govt not following up on the matter due to more pressing concerns (WWI). I think in that context it now forms a complete thought. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Largest urban park in the world ?

Can anyone find something to back up the fact that at 90,000 acres, Gatineau Park is the biggest urban park in the world ? The next closest is Table Mountain National Park in South Africa at 60,000 acres. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that Gatineau is not an urban park. It bounds an urban area in one corner, but the park itself is not urban in nature and doesn't match the description at Urban park. Most of it is undeveloped bush and almost all of it bounds very rural areas of farmland and bush. Furthermore the NCC does not describe it as such. - Ahunt (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You can maybe consider Gatineau as a national park, he was treated like it in the book Québec’s National Parks. But I don't think Gatineau is a urban park, even if the Lac des Fées sector have the caracteristic. A urban park have to be mostly amenaged, a sort of great garden, or at least closed in urban area. ANd urban park goal is generally recreation and not preservation. --Fralambert (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that i'm not sure how many cities could hold a 90,000 acre park entirely in it's urban core. Many of the parks listed on the urban parks article cover both urban and rural areas. The urban park description "Common features of municipal parks include playgrounds, gardens, hiking, running and fitness trails or paths, bridle paths, sports field and courts, public restrooms, boat ramps and/or picnic facilities, depending on the budget and natural features available." describes many of the features in Gatineau park. I'm not sure why the following parks would be included as "urban parks", but Gatineau is excluded.

• Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge, a swamp on the edge of town in New, Orleans, LA.
• Rouge Park, a conservation area with much of it's area in rural and agricultural lands, in Toronto/Markham, ON.
• Jefferson Memorial Forest, a forrest on the edge of town in Lousiville, KY.

Makes no sense to include some, but not others. Gatineau park offers far more park like activities than many on the urban parks list. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As per WP:V though you need a ref that shows that someone reliable considers this an urban park. The NCC who operate the park certainly don't as their documentation doesn't use the term. It also doesn't fit the definition of an urban park espoused within the Urban park article, although that is unsourced there as well and is likley WP:OR. Without a ref that says that someone reliable considers this an urban park we would be running afoul of both WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. - Ahunt (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gatineau Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.canadascapital.gc.ca/data/2/rec_docs/1768_Master_Plan_e.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gatineau Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725124028/http://www.imperatif-francais.org/bienvenu/telechargements/bulletin-ensemble-d-imperatif-francais/2009.html to http://www.imperatif-francais.org/bienvenu/telechargements/bulletin-ensemble-d-imperatif-francais/2009.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623124455/http://www.xtra.ca:80/public/Ottawa/Rain_hasnt_kept_gays_from_Meech_Lake-5230.aspx to http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/Rain_hasnt_kept_gays_from_Meech_Lake-5230.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gatineau Park. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011093729/http://canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=a78f8c04-48f2-49f6-873f-8a17580583bd to http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/city/story.html?id=a78f8c04-48f2-49f6-873f-8a17580583bd
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101213020822/http://campfortune.com/en/summer/aerial/home.php to http://www.campfortune.com/en/summer/aerial/home.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xtra.ca/public/Ottawa/Rain_hasnt_kept_gays_from_Meech_Lake-5230.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)