Talk:Avvy Go

there were valuable edits in there so I will try to add those in now. Abumoh00 (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually this is difficult, this would be best done by the editor who added changes.

I can't easily find new edits vs. edits of existing sources.

Please ensure any edits are sourced (e.g., "She would face mandatory retirement in 2038." wasn't sourced, "This made her the first Chinese Canadian to be appointed to the Federal Court. She was the fifteenth judge appointed to the Federal Court by the Liberal Trudeau ministry." wasn't sourced.). Abumoh00 (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

For context, @Abumoh00's original comment on revert:

"This added original research re the NatPost op ed and POV wording elsewhere, among other issues. There is certainly edits in this that are good, but making them in one big edit makes it difficult and onerous to sift through. If you could propose edits in Talk or otherwise make safe edits first, and one by one, this would be easier to deal with."

(While I mostly disagree with their assertion of POV/original research, it is not without merit and warrants a seperate discussion, which I addressed in section Fairness of Critism.)

On unsourced statements - note that citations are not strictly required for uncontraversial and easily demonstratable factual statements. Mandatory retirement age for judges being 75 is a widely known fact with many publicly available sources, but I have added a reference to the actual legal provision nonetheless. (I trust the objection of original research is not over simple arithemitic of her birth year plus 75.) The point about first Chinese judge on FC is also not contentious, but I have added a published source nonetheless. The statement about being the 15th judge is not all that important, but the fact is certainly easily demonstratable, unless counting 1 to 14 is considered original research.

On reverting other users' edits, I have separately raised ssue over blanket revert directly with Abumoh00. I generally urge all to be more conscientious with contributions by other wiki users (and also be more self-aware of one's own overzealousness). But in response to technical points raised:

• If certain points require further source, please add appropriate tags
• Blanket revert should be resorted to for appropriate situations like remedying vandalism, or edits that serve a specific purpose contrary with wiki policies or clearly not of good faith. To undo certain problematic edits, partial reversion targeting the objectionable portion should be used.
• On big edit vs small edit, it really cuts both ways. Large number of small edits is a strategy used by some to mask more contentious edits. Even if that is not the intention, it still makes edit history more challenging to review. I tend to limit minor edits to corrections.

Per suggested, I as the editor who made the edits in question went back and undid the revert except for the portion on the National Post opinion piece. But it should be noted that it is actually fairly easy see a list of edits made to the article by using view history. It is also not hard to unwind a particular section (simply go to the version prior to one you have issue with, click on edit source in that version, and copy the section in the pre-edit version and paste to the article). If one finds those those basic tasks difficult, one should perhaps consider whether drastic action like blanket revert is suitable for them to take in the first place.MiltonC (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate your passion and thoughtful message.

Had I known the wording would come off wrong, I would have reworded it. My apologies. I don't want to argue or get into hostilities.

I kept most of the edits, and just added some tags, removed some evaluative language. Everything I edited has a reason, if you see something that doesn't make sense based on the above (e.g., adding less evaluative language, tagging sources), do let me know and I will explain the reasoning. Abumoh00 (talk) 01:53, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Abumoh00 raised issue with additional text I added regarding the 2026 National Post article critical of Go, a reference initially added by Abumoh00 themselves in January. The original statement stated:

"In an opinion piece in the National Post, Jamie Sarkonak argued that Go had made many decisions on immigration cases that harmed Canada's interests."

While not untrue, this statement is problematic for a number of reasons:

• Sarkonak's piece is an opinion piece to start with. I don't think it was the intended purpose, but the statement effected a backdoor inclusion of bias opinion, by saying "someone else said something that was printed on newspaper"
• The over simplification of Sarkonak's criticism of Go unduly exaggerated the severalty of Sarkonak's criticism (when I saw that I honestly expected the piece to parrot classic rightwing troupe about crimes being committed by illegal aliens). Sarkonak's main criticism/premise was that a) Go take a more open/liberal approach to immigration b) such open approach is not shared broadly by society c) but that the cost associated with her decisions is shared by all taxpayer anyway. Point a and b are pure opinion, c is neither here nor there.

While I think Sarkonak's opinion is baseless, it is published by a national outlet (right-wing bias notwithstanding), so rather than just remove the reference, I added language to provide a more proper description of criticism from the opinion piece, and also highlight why it is just one person's opinion by noting the writer relied solely on antidotes and did not provide any objective data point in support of her opinion. (This was done as part of a more extensive edit.)

In a 2026 opinion piece, National Post columnist Jamie Sarkonak argued that Go "show(s) a pattern of leniency for rule-breakers, country-shoppers and, for lack of a better term, bulls–tters" citing selected judicial decisions on immigration matters issued by Go and complained about the financial cost flowing from those decisions. The conclusion was drawn despite the author acknowledging Go having issued numerous decisions in favour of the government and provided no qualitative or quantitative comparison to decisions issued by other judges.

I have re-added other edits reverted by @Abumoh00, but have brought this portion back to a state similar to the original January statement, so to have a proper discussion if anyone want to weight in. I however do not believe the sentence should stay the way it is now for reason noted above, and intend to further edit on a later date. MiltonC (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful message.

Part of the addition to the NatPost section was part of the original research issue; our opinions of other people's opinion's shouldn't be reflected in wiki/the article; we don't get to decide what are valid arguments and what aren't. And that's incredibly important for Wiki to remain a unique repository of info online, in NPOV.

This part " The conclusion was drawn despite the author acknowledging Go having issued numerous decisions in favour of the government and provided no qualitative or quantitative comparison to decisions issued by other judges." is original research.

"and complained about"; there's probably a less evaluative term that's more encyclopedic that we can use. "complain" isn't most precise and can be negatively loaded. Improved: "argued there was a financial cost..." for example.

A broader summary of the NatPost article is fine, although I wouldn't want to give it undue weight; hence the one sentence felt ok. Certainly it can be reworded or expanded though; feel free to propose a edit. Abumoh00 (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)