Talk:Rodney MacDonald

Wait until February 24th, 2006

Rodney MacDonald is scheduled to become NS premier Feb.24/06. Let's wait until that date arrives before we edit him into office, after all it's assumptious to say he'll still be alive & well by then. GoodDay 15:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Religion

Read somewhere he is personally pro-life but will not seek to write his personal beliefs into law or overturn consensus. Must be Catholic since he attended St. Francis Xavier. How lucky the Canadian pols are not to be threatened with excommunication like in the U.S.A. Rosemary's Baby 05:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Attending St. FX doesn't automatically make you a Catholic. It's a public university, and has students of all religious beliefs. I myself know at least 10 people who attend St FX, none of whom are Catholic. I agree, though, it's great that religious beliefs are non-issues in most Canadian political arenas. I hope that it stays that way! Gortex99 23:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Separation from Lori-Ann

It has been reported in Frank multiple times that there is speculation of infidelity on his part. It is accurate to report the speculation, rather than the fact, as it is politically pertinent. WayeMason 22:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Mention of the MacDonald's infidelity (or the accusation of infidelity) is regularly deleted from the page. It should be retained, as it was politically pertinent, he has not denied the charges, and it reflects on his political platforms, particularly his passion for 'family values.'

Assessment

I have assessed this as Start Class, as it contains more detail and organization than would be expected of a Stub and of low importance, as I do not feel that many people outside of Canada would be familiar with the subject of the article, despite the fact that he is a current premier. Cheers, CP 17:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Politician and Educator"

Is it really necessary to say that Rodney MacDonald is an educator in NS at the top of the page?

Such information is peripheral to the reason why he's in WP - because he's a premier. We might as well state in the first sentence that he's also a musician, an excellent step dancer, is married to Lori Ann, is married, is RC, etc etc.. I'm not suggesting WP should not state that he was a teacher so much as I'm saying the value of the info is definitely subordinate to his role in politics. It should be put in a sub-section later in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.238.153 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

General Quality Issues

User:Nscotian, despite the raft of edits you've made in the past day or so, I still see a lot of issues with the Political Career section. It remains poorly sourced, reads as a general indictment of MacDonald's tenure as premier (I was tempted to tag the entire section NPOV), contains too many weasel-words, speculation, and uncited facts. I will grant that it is modestly improved from earlier this week when I first tagged it but this has got to be better than just adding half a dozen URLs.

For the record, I'm from Nova Scotia and while I'm no fan of MacDonald, this article isn't supposed to be a way of saying "Look how bad he is." His record's got to be presented in a factual, NPOV fashion, with proper quotes/citations for and/or against it. Habfan29 (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's true that not all people believe every rumour they hear, but as long as some people believe a rumour, then its noteworthy enough to be included in an article. The senate rumour about Rodney MacDonald is pretty far fetched, but as long as some people believe it, as the editor states in the article, then it must be included in the article which is why I reverted the previous edit as vandalism. To those who don't believe this type of information belongs, I say get a life, the rumour is in the article and that's where it is staying.142.68.229.123 (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Habfan29 the scandals and blunders that I have mentioned of the MacDonald Government are a matter of record. I have cited legitimate sources (under references)such as the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), CTV (Canadian Television), and The Chronicle Herald (Nova Scotia's largest daily newspaper). I am not deleting the positive things said about Rodney MacDonald, just adding facts. I have refrained from going into rumors such as possible infidelity as these are just rumors and cannot be backed up. For those who keep deleting the "scandals and blunders" information (along with the above mentioned references), I have one wood for you: CENSORSHIP. After all, why is it you feel that things must be sugar-coated and the CBC, CTV, and Chronicle Herald reporting simply be deleted?? The article is not suppose to be a way of saying "nice infomercial for Mr. MacDonald". The article should show any positive and negative facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nscotian (talk • contribs) 13:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag

It looks like there is enough controversy around this guy that there should be a few negative items in the article. Not all the sources have been good enough for a BLP, but there must be a way to include some of this information from a neutral point of view. --Onorem♠Dil 15:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

My breakdown of the sources being used for negative info:

• "Why do you think Rodney MacDonald and the Conservative party are in last place in the polls?" - Didn't appear to be used to source any info, just added as another negative tidbit. Might be able to source the bit about being at the bottom of the polls, but the forum chatter at the bottom would not be a reliable source.

• "Cabinet Minister Ernie Fage is Charged" - To me, not relevant for a biography on MacDonald.

• ATV's For Kids article - might be something here.

• Cabinet Minister Threatens to Withold Public Money - Doesn't mention MacDonald.

• "You Take A Bus - I'll Take A Helicopter" - Op-Ed...probably not the best source.

• Nova Scotia Provincial Nominee Scandal - might be something here

• The Atlantic Accord - could be used as a source, but not to call it a scandal or blunder

Just initial thoughts...my opinion could probably be easily swayed either way on some of them. --Onorem♠Dil 15:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Insights on the added info

I have been following the edit war in this article for the past couple of weeks, and have some views on the information that was added and deleted too many times to count. First off, I'm not an expert when it comes to Nova Scotia politics, but through researching the info added to this article, I do have some insights as to the topic at hand. If an article here on wikipedia is going to be a factual up to date article, then all info must be considered, both positive and negative. I find it strange when an account is created for the sole purpose of editing one article and one article only, and in doing so is used to add every bit of negative info the editor can find to the article at hand. What this tells me is that the editor is only interested in painting the subject in a negative light, not improving the article. When the same editor refuses to reconsider any of the info and keeps adding all of it back into the article, then after being banned, creates a number of sock puppet accounts to keep adding the same info, this only goes to confirm what I believe.

While I do have problems with some of the info that was added, its obvious that some of the info should be included if the article is going to be fair, and neutral. What I do have problems with...

• The editor keeps stating that MacDonald and his wife are separted, and has even stated they have been separated since 2006. This is untrue, as they did separate shortly after the 2006 election but reconcilled several months later.

• For some reason the editor included as a reference, a viewpoint page from CBC asking for opinions on why MacDonalds party is last place in the polls. Why would this be included except to paint a negative picture, when more up to date polling numbers have been released since this article was published in June 2008. The latest polling numbers released in December 2008, show that MacDonald's party is in 2nd place, 4% points behind the NDP. The same poll shows that the satisfaction rate with the government is at its highest in two years (59%).

• After researching the "Take the bus issue", I have to ask...Where did the editor find the quote that was included in the article, and attributed to MacDonald? The source provided is an op-ed critical of MacDonald, and not the actual article where the quote was made. Maybe the editor didn't include the article because he already knew what I found in researching the issue, and that was MacDonald never made the quote that the editor attributed to him. The actual quote that MacDonald made was "The most important thing that we as a government can do, and all Nova Scotians can do, is to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles and to take up the opportunity for transit,". The media then interpreted the quote to mean take the bus, as the headline shows. No matter how a quote is interpreted, or the meaning behind it taken, the fact is that the quote made and the quote attributed to MacDonald in the article are not the same. If someone is going to put a quote in a wikipedia article, and attribute it to the subject of the article, shouldn't the quote be one that the person made? I would think so. I also must ask, why was the title of the op-ed included as a reference changed when the editor added the reference. The actual title of the article is "When is the last time Rodney MacDonald rode a bus?" , however the editor has the title in the reference section as "You Take A Bus - I'll Take A Helicopter". Looks like another attempt to paint the subject in a more negative light.
• The reference article in regards to Ernie Fage has also had a title change when the editor included it in the article. The editor has the title listed as "Cabinet Minister Ernie Fage is Charged", while the actual headline reads "Former N.S. cabinet minister Ernie Fage charged" This may not be a major change, but the editor is playing it off as a member of MacDonald's cabinet bing charged, when it was actually a former member of the cabinet being charged. Didn't MacDonald take the step of getting rid of this guy when the incident occured, and will not allow the man to run for the party again?
• Anyone who watches CPAC or sees coverage on the news of Parliament or Legislature sittings would know that heckling is something that goes on at all levels of government. Often times, its hard to hear the speaker because of the noise other members around them are making. What I would like to know, is when did heckling become something put in an encyclopedia? All members are guilty of it at one time or another, so why should info be put in the wikipedia page of a party leader when someone in his caucus heckles another member in the House of Assembly. Its getting very trivial when MLA's run to the media because someone heckled them, and then even more trivial when an editor puts what was heckled on a wikipedia page. There has to be a line drawn somewhere as to what is encyclopedic and what is not.

I know these are just my opinions, so it would be better for the article if everyone who edits the page comments on what belongs and what doesn't belong in the article. I am interested in reading the views that you guys have on some of these topics I raised, as well as the ones that I haven't touched on yet.Islander at heart (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Still Premier, for the next few days

In spite of the 2009 prov election results. MacDonald is still Premier, until he resigns. His resignation will occur, whenever Premier-Designate Dexter is prepared to be sworn in as the new Premier. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Darrell Dexter has officially been sworn in as Premier of Nova Scotia. I hope its ok to change the text of this and other articles. The ceremony was held about 1 1/2 hours ago, and brodcast on the news. 142.167.231.13 (talk) 22:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Name

So on Still Standing, he claims that his full name is Rodney Alec Angus Kenny Sandy Finley MacDonald. Huh? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Zanimum (talk) 00:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

His name is sourced as Rodney Joseph MacDobald. Cmr08 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe all of those names refer to his ancestry - listing father’s name, then grand father’s name, then great grandfather’s name, etc - in the old Scottish tradition. For example one of my great grandfathers was Allan John Allan MacDonald (last name is coincidence). So he was Allan - son of John - who was son of Allan MacDonald. And of course Mac Donald means son of Donald if you go back that far. PattyMac3 (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

West Mabou Beach summary

I made some recent edits to the West Mabou Beach section to better align the wording with the cited sources. In particular:

• Changed “lobbying” to “community liaison,” which reflects how the role is described in the sources
• Removed wording suggesting a purchase of protected land, as sources refer to a potential lease
• Adjusted phrasing around opposition and impacts to avoid wording not directly supported by the sources

My goal was to ensure the section complies with Wikipedia’s BLP and NPOV standards by closely reflecting what the sources explicitly state.

I’m happy to discuss specific wording if there are concerns with these changes.

@MediaKyle: MediaChex (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it looks fine now. You went a bit too far with removing sources and details so I partially reverted your changes. If anything, we should be adding more detail, not removing it. There's plenty of coverage about this which hasn't yet made it into the article. MediaKyle (talk) 11:58, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look — I appreciate the feedback.

Just to clarify, I didn’t intend to remove sourced content, but rather to tighten the wording so it more closely reflects what the sources explicitly state, particularly given BLP considerations.

I’m definitely open to adding more detail where it’s clearly supported — I was just trying to avoid including interpretations or phrasing that go beyond the sources.

If there are specific details you think should be added back in, I’d be happy to look at those and see how they can be incorporated in a way that aligns closely with the sources. MediaChex (talk) 12:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Just following up here. I made a change from “Cabot Group” to “Cabot Cape Breton” to reflect the cited sources. Open to discuss if needed. MediaChex (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Also added citation for Provincial Parks Act. I remain open to respectful discussion if needed. MediaChex (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

We usually avoid citing primary sources, and it was serving no purpose, so I removed that citation. MediaKyle (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying regarding primary sources, but in this case I only provided the citation for the existing sentence about the park being protected under the Provincial Parks Act. I’ll take a second look and add a secondary source if you prefer. Thanks. MediaChex (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I just noticed the wording was also changed from “Cabot Cape Breton” back to “Cabot Group”, when several CBC articles clearly identify the developer as “Cabot Cape Breton” including in relation to Cabot Links and Cabot Cliffs. I’m suggesting that using Cabot Cape Breton would keep it consistent with the sources and attributing Cabot Group, where it only appears in opinion or commentary. MediaChex (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

I changed it to "on behalf of Cabot Cape Breton", you undid my edit changing it back to "for Cabot Group". Perhaps that was a mistake. MediaKyle (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

After taking another look at the current version, I also wanted to flag a few specific points where the wording may not align closely with the cited sources:

• The reference to a “purchase of the protected area” — sources appear to describe a potential lease rather than a purchase
• The wording “development on the beach” — sources refer more generally to land within the park, not specifically the beach
• The mention of a “post-COVID housing crisis” — I wasn’t able to find this stated in the cited sources

Happy to work toward wording that keeps the level of detail while staying closely aligned with the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MediaChex (talk • contribs) 12:36, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

It appears you are using AI to write these messages, and I have no interest in talking to a robot. Let me know if you'd like to discuss in your own words. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

I’d prefer to keep the discussion focused on the content and sources. The points I raised above relate to specific wording that may not be directly supported by the cited sources.

If you feel the current wording is accurate, could you point to where the sources support:

• the reference to a “purchase” rather than a lease
• development being described specifically as “on the beach” rather than within the park
• the mention of a “post-COVID housing crisis”

I’m happy to work toward wording that reflects the sources as closely as possible.

MediaChex (talk) 12:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

I’ve requested a third opinion to help resolve the wording question here:

Wikipedia:Third opinion#Talk:Rodney MacDonald § West Mabou Beach summary 13:01, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

There is not really a content dispute here -- if you're not willing to take the time to write out your own messages I'm not going to take the time to read them. For those just joining us, this editor also posted at BLPN here, and their post was hatted as an LLM output. As I've said before, the tone could be adjusted, and actually an entire section could be written about this, especially around the lobbying aspect (Questions raised about whether former N.S. premier was lobbying for new golf course, CBC News) ... I'll see if I can attract some interest. MediaKyle (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

@MediaChex, I agree with @MediaKyle that your edits appear to be LLM-generated. See WP:AITALK - this is discouraged. I recommend taking the time to consider what you want to say. There is not much for a third-opinion-giver to do here until you engage in person. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi Ganesha811, thanks for taking the time to respond and I appreciate the review. I want to clarify that I wrote the edits myself, with the intent of improving the article to better reflect the cited sources and ensure the wording aligns with BLP standards. I have been working through the sources and trying to keep the phrasing as close to them as possible. If there are particular phrases that seem to go beyond the sources, I’d appreciate you flagging them so I can tighten the wording. MediaChex (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

Provincial Parks Act paragraph

I made a few changes by adding a secondary source citation discussing the scope of the Provincial Parks Act since it directly pertains to the paragraph's subject matter. I also made a couple of minor wording adjustments (ex: affect habitat vs destroy habitat). I think these changes make the content appear more neutral. I also changed the park name to its correct official title and removed unsourced material that didn't match the sources. Hoping these changes can be respectfully considered to improve the article. InvCoHist (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

You never replied to my message on your talk page. Are you MediaChex? MediaKyle (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm InvCoHist. Please focus on the article edits so it will become more neutral/accurate.

InvCoHist (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

You're being rather opaque. Please see WP:SOCK and consider being honest. Thanks, MediaKyle (talk) 12:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

@InvCoHist, please consider this a final warning: if you have been editing while logged out, you must cease doing so immediately, and if you are the same person as MediaChex, please disclose this connection before editing any further—if you do not, there is a very strong chance that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Best, GoldRomean (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

I am InvCoHist and this is the only account I use to edit Wikipedia. I don't make any article edits while logged out. I'd like to continue editing constructively and focus on improving articles, ensuring that sources support content. Of course, I'll follow any guidance provided by administrators regarding editing conduct or account use. InvCoHist (talk) 21:59, 31 May 2026 (UTC)