Talk:C. D. Howe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject:Civil Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of civil engineering. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

[edit] Multiple issues

This is an oddly written article. It presents a very positive view of Howe, and doesn't really explain why he was so hated by many people across the political spectrum. Parts of it sound more like boosterism than an encyclopaedia:

Howe knew that what Canada lacked was not money or resources but “managerial skill.” From all over Canada, he recruited his “boys.” The press called them the “buck-a-year men,” but they were the best in the business and now the business was winning a war.

It makes various, bold opinions without sourcing:

The pipeline project, the first for Canada at that time, was eventually built, and proved to be completely sound in every respect.

At least one passage seems to be plagarised.

Unemployed workers of the "Dirty '30s" built airstrips across the country, and Trans-Canada Airlines, Air Canada's predecessor, was established as a Crown corporation. Howe helped to establish the National Harbours Board and centralize the administration of ports. He reformed the debt-laden CNR and created the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.

appears to be taken from Transport Canada's biography. The article would benefit from more in-line citations. The positive slant may be due to Bothwell and Kilbourn's biography and not the Wikipedia authors themselves. Additional, contrasting sources would be of benefit, as would review by editors with a good grap of Wikipedia's POV policies. 128.100.52.93 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

These issues seem very broadly tossed about with claims of plagiarism thrown in. I have removed the multiple issues tag as unjustified at present and replaced it with a need for referencing improvements. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC).