Talk:Canada 2006 Census/NPOV April 2006
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
NPOV: Controversy
This section must be revised. There is a strong negative bias on (1) the amount of money spent, (2) Lockheed Martin, (3) privacy concerns, and (4) the Statistics Act vs "Natural Law".
Arguably, the government approved use of public funds to promote participation in the 2006 Census is justifiable given the changes in delivery this year and the non-response rates for surveys. In addition, consider the alternative if the article had suggested the $13M could have instead been spent on 200 kilos of cocaine.
The contract award to Lockheed Martin Canada went through public tender. The relationship between Lockheed Martin Canada and its parent company is undisputed. Citing its notability as a "weapons manufacturing conglomerate" is a red herring. There is no conspiracy here.
The privacy concerns and events cited are real, but StatCan has no history of theft or unauthorized copying of confidential data. This section makes allusions to yet-to-exist facts. What distinguishes StatCan from other agencies is its focus on information -- gathering, handling, processing, and dissemination. This is reflected in its security and privacy safeguards, swearing in of employees and contractors to confidentiality (under penalty of law), etc.
The constitutionality of the Statistics Act has not been questioned. The alleged conflict with Natural Law is inflammatory. Robocoder 17:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I've made some changes to mold the existing text to have less bias. I'm reading the official policy of Wikipedia as to follow the expected standards.
As to "The constitutionality of the Statistics Act has not been questioned. The alleged conflict with Natural Law is inflammatory. ", The constitution is a positive law as well and does nothing to change Natural Law. Can we rewrite this section to not be see as inflammatory and yet show there does exist a conflict in the minds of some canadians between codified law and the unwritten desire to live to higher Natural Laws that discourage involvement with agents whose purpose is to serve a different master? 70.77.139.113 20:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Neutrality isn't simply providing arguments from both (or all) sides. As we strive for balance, we should also consider what we cite as references (especially, URLs) to support facts. (WHAT) We also need to be mindful of the words we choose to present those arguments. (HOW) For example, consider what these words connote: "barrage", "perverse", and "spotty".
- Wikipedia isn't a soapbox -- a debate is often out of place here. On the other hand, a discussion on the relative merits of codified law and Law of nature (or Natural Laws) could be advanced on those pages (if not already).
-- Robocoder 04:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
I made a revision creating sections for "Advertising" and "Outsourcing"; moved the costs around (e.g., total is in the summary; specific breakdowns are in relevant sections); and moved the legal requirement to Statistics Act. I deliberately omitted privacy concerns, hoping to discuss it here further. Robocoder 18:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)