Talk:Michael Ignatieff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.
	This article is part of the Political parties and politicians in Canada WikiProject, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Politics in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Archives Click below to see prior discussions.
May 27, 2006 June 17, 2006 July 5, 2006 July 14, 2006 August 6, 2006 August 12, 2006 October 16, 2006 November 12, 2006

Contents 1 Broken Link 2 Bringing in outside editors 3 Archives 4 npov 5 Civility issue 6 Are you a Montrealer? Or going to the convention otherwise? 7 Russian translation 8 Quebec as a nation 9 Criticism of Michael Ignatieff's Record - Human Rights,International Law,War Crimes... 10 Opinion on the Kyoto Protocol 11 Ignatieff loses Liberal Leadership Campaign 12 Hijacking of this article by political agents? 13 Civility issue 14 CJCurrie's and Strotha's edit removals 15 "Our correspondent" or "an anonymous source" 16 Education

[edit] Broken Link

Could someone with access to this article fix the link to Ignatieff's talk "The Lesser Evil" (in External Links)? The correct address is http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/4370.html. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.25.150.134 (talk • contribs).

Done --Strothra 18:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

[edit] Bringing in outside editors

I think unprotecting this article and bringing in outside editors via peer review, etc. should solve any edit disputes. Sockpuppetry and vandalism can be dealt with through typical dispute resolution channels. Antonrojo 14:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still unable to understand what is going on here. I unprotedted the article. After that some information has been added and again the article has been protected. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archives

I've archived all the comments that were here. If anyone wants to revive a specific discussion, all the comments are in archive 8. I think the article protection needs to stay in place at the moment due to the ongoing sockpuppet activity, but that does not need to prevent us from making changes to the article. If anyone has any edits in mind, please make suggestions on this talk page. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why the typical process for dealing with vandalism and sock puppets won't suffice in this case. If there is one editor making POV edits, even if they are using multiple accounts, I'd think that WP:3RR and the normal dispute resolution channels would resolve the problem. Asking editors to read the archives and get their changes approved adds a high barrier to participation which I think is more likely to isolate outside editors. Antonrojo 20:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "asking editors to read the archives and get their changes approved". I'm explaining where the previous comments on this page went and I'm suggesting that if there are people interesting in making changes to the article, they start talking. This has been done previously with this article and I see no harm in doing it in the interim while the article is protected. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice this is an sprotect and not a protect. Carry on. Antonrojo 15:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits are being made to the article without discussion here. Please explain? Reportersue 22:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, edits made since the sprotect have been extremely minute in nature. The sentiment of "discuss on talk page before making edits" is generally not extended to typos. -Joshuapaquin 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] npov

Article has been sanitized to exclude mention of important blunders and outrageous self contradictions made by Ignatieff. 70.48.204.223 04:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This source is the reputable [1] Toronto Star wherein Ignatieff says in reference to the killing of many Lebanese children "This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do this and I'm not losing sleep about that." This is just 1 of many news making blunders by Ignatieff which have been sanitized from the article. The article is pov and the tag should not be removed. 64.229.28.107 14:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree that their should be a mention of his initial Lebanon comments in the article. There is already a fair bit about the fallout from his later "war crime" comments. Although that section will obviously take some care and I'm not looking forward to writing it myself. --JGGardiner 11:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility issue

( uncivil comment removed) Antonrojo 04:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for editors who feel that their input here is overlooked. But I think that all of this uproar is not going to get you anywhere. And in the end it will probably hurt your cause more than it will help and cause everyone a lot of grief along the way. I really mean this as a bit of friendly advice: if you want to actually see positive change in the articles, this isn't the best way to go about it. Thanks. --JGGardiner 10:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Knock it off, Ottawaman. You're a blocked user evading a block. Under the blocking policy, all your edits can be reverted on sight. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are you a Montrealer? Or going to the convention otherwise?

If so, leave me a message ASAP on my talk page. I'm looking to get someone into the convention with a camera. You'll have the opportunity to photograph the candidates, hopefully one-on-one. (I think I can pull a few strings with some of the key players.) -- Zanimum 20:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russian translation

Can someone who speaks Russian confirm this is legitimate, and not a hidden obscenity? CJCurrie 05:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec as a nation

While I don't know for sure about the Quebec Liberal motion regarding Quebec as a nation, I do know that the motion by the Harper Government is regarding the Quebecois people, and not the province itself. DB 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of Michael Ignatieff's Record - Human Rights,International Law,War Crimes...

Ignatieff resigned from the editoral and advisory board of the journal Index on Censorship in 2005 to protest an article by Conor Gearty, professor of human rights law at the London School of Economics, that excoriated Ignatieff and other liberal intellectuals who had, in Gearty's opinion, given Donald Rumsfeld "the intellectual tools with which to justify his government's expansionism."

The Index on Censorship, refused to apologize to Ignatieff (or retract).

Also see the southern mutation: The Tom Friedman disease

Conor Gearty's Wikipedia article has disapeared.

[edit] Opinion on the Kyoto Protocol

The article on the French language Wikipedia simply states that "he is against Kyoto", like that. I suspect great nuances on his part and numerous esoteric debates by commentators, if it has any ring of truth. Can someone shed some light on this? --Liberlogos 14:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

His views and words are Orwellian coupled with the standard american leader's "Bullshit Baffles Brains" approach. Once you see them in that way there is no more confusion. Canuckster 19:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ignatieff loses Liberal Leadership Campaign

What's Ignatieff going to do now? Anybody know? Shouldn't there be more interest here about Ignatieff's loss? Or at least a link to the convention item? Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006? What's going on? Canuckster 05:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ignatieff and Rae have announced that they will run for the next Liberal leadership [2] [3]. Since Ignatieff has a seat in the House of Commons he will probably hang onto it. Should this be added to the article? FellowWikipedian 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those news articles indicate that they will be running in the next election - they say nothing about the next leadership race. -Joshuapaquin 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood the articles. But, should someone add that Ignatieff will hang onto his seat in the House of Commons? FellowWikipedian 15:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's surprising news, considering Ignatieff has said that he will not run as an MP in the next election if he does not win the Party leadership.

Rae and Ignatieff have both said that they will run in the next election.[4]

Oh, I realise that. I was alluding to earlier comments by Michael. But thanks.

• Since no one has responded to my question I have added info on Ignatieff's loss. Feel free to add to it. FellowWikipedian 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hijacking of this article by political agents?

What's going on is, Michael Ignatieff's supporters, who hijacked and spun this article for the better part of a year, have stopped, now that their candidate has lost the Liberal leadership race. There is nothing more for them to do.

I've watched this article from the beginning, and it's the sickest case of political manipulation, masked as a legitimate article, I've seen on the internet thus far. And I don't exaggerate that statement.

Good riddance to them.

I happen to agree with the anon above; nevertheless, if that's true should not the article still be npoved? Canuckster 19:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think that there should be some analysis of this article by some authority at Wikipedia to see if there has been an administrative influence in support of the pov agenda which the anon references. It did seem to me that the anti-Iggy crowd were all blocked for behaviour which the pro-Iggy crowd were exercising freely.Canuckster 20:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty annoying that all the people whining about the article are not helping when such an important development happens. Canuckster 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility issue

( uncivil comment removed) Canuckster 19:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CJCurrie's and Strotha's edit removals

These [5][6] removals of sourced information without discussion are out of line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.122.107 (talk • contribs).

You inserted POV and speculative information. Other editors removed it. See WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Stop reinserting those speculations. Also, familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. In the future, remember to sign your comments. Consider registering instead of hiding behind an IP. Do not accuse established editors of being "out of line." Cease engaging in your edit war now. It hasn't gone unnoticed that you've been trying to insert your bias since, at least, December 2. --Strothra 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What's with the adhominem response? Obviously there should be discussion before removal of sourced updates.

Is this edit ok ? "Media reports that Ignatieff's 30-year absence from Canada and his initial support for the US-led invasion of Iraq played against him. [7]If not, please explain what the problem is. 70.48.205.75 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That one comment made in the article states that it is based on what "our correspondent says" yet does not give his/her name or credentials. It's hardly a reliable source. It's not Wikipedia's place to adopt the speculation of its sources. Please stop POV pushing. --Strothra 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying the BBC is not a reliable source? Please advise what part of this article is admissable in your view. To me it seems as if only edits complimentary to Ignatieff are being welcomed by yourself and a few others; there is virtually nothing about the uproar in the human rights community related to his support for the invasion of Iraq and what he calls American Empire. I agree with the anon above who states the article is inherently biased and censored; are you saying that editor, who I think only edited once, is also being "noticed" ? What's going on with this veiled personal attack of "It hasn't gone unnoticed" ? Is this wikipedia methodology now to intimidate editors with whom one disagrees? 70.48.205.75 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Strothra an administrator? Does anyone know? 70.48.205.75 15:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources based on factual information are reliable (ie not speculation). You are trying to cite a quote from the BBC article which is not by the author of the article nor a provable reliable source. Again, stop editing anon and register already. Also, I am not an admin nor have ever claimed to be so. --Strothra 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Whether Strothra is an administrator is completely irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is your edits violate multiple policies. As you well know. Sarah Ewart 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You can not take a single media account and describe at as representative of the media in general. However, I think that it would be a fair comment that his position on Iraq may have played against him. But it would have to be described properly as speculation from some media sources. Also please remember civility. CJCurrie and Strothra's edits were not out of line. Editors will disagree, we just have to resolve it properly. It is also generally better to refer to edits rather than editors. --JGGardiner 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, I have adjusted the edit to conform to JGGardiner's suggestion; perhaps a better approach would be for adjustments to be made rather than edit removals at least that seems more constructive I think. 67.71.123.101 19:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see Canuckster / Neutralizer / etc and his army of sock puppets have returned (67.71.*.* / 70.48.*.*). I gather we'll be seeing more accusations of "PRO-IGGY EDITS!!!" or "PRO-IGGY POLITICAL AGENTS" like those above against CJCurrie in the very near future, along with the usual endless attempts to incorporate STOPIGGY quotes into each section of the article. - Finnegans wake 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Gingerbread man as well as the anon who brought up the political agents issue are both from different ISPs than Canuckster/Neutralizer from what my admin. friend tells me. Please at least get your facts straight before deflecting discussion in an adhominem direction. Also I see no post election attempts to incorporate the STOPIGGY links. 70.48.204.221 14:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't act shocked that people don't trust anonymous IPs. The only reason you hide behind the anonymous IP is because you can use to edit war. --Strothra 14:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop this right now, Ottawaman. Administrators cannot see users ISPs or IPs. Only 13 people have access to that information and they would not share it with you. Please stop trolling. Sarah Ewart 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Our correspondent" or "an anonymous source"

Strotha has characterized the BBC's correspondent as "an anonymosus source" (source clearly states this view is that of their correspondent[8]). I corrected that but if Strotha wishes to justify his charectorization please do. 70.48.204.227 14:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I see Strotha has changed it back to "anonymous source". I will await discussion rather than engage in edit dispute. Also, Sarah Ewart reverted a grammar correction edit when reverting gingerbreadman's edit; I believe it should read running "in" an election rather than "for"; but again will wait for consensus. 70.48.204.227 14:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How about reading the article and you'll get your justification. The article does not give his/her name thus common sense concludes that person is anonymous. --Strothra 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's see what others think. I have a different opinion as if NY Times quotes it's "correspondent" in the field I think that is different from quoting an "anonymous source"...but maybe others will see it as you do. 70.48.204.227 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article says, in its current form, "anonymous correspondent." That is perfectly accurate - I didn't change correspondent back to source. --Strothra 14:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you are looking at a different article? This one says this; "However his 30-year absence from Canada and his initial support for the US-led invasion of Iraq played against him, our correspondent says." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.48.204.227 (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Actually I don't think there is such a term as "anonymous correspondent"..that's an oxymoron I think. 70.48.204.227 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Many correspondents have names. Also, I went ahead and removed the text due to the policy at WP:NOT#CBALL which states, "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Even if a credible source speculates something, Wikipedia articles should not present that speculation. --Strothra 15:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

CommentThis is a quite combative and illogical approach to first adjust an edit, then move it further down the article, then delete it alltogether. 67.71.122.250 17:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not an oxymoron. A correspondent is simply a job title. Saying "anonymous correspondent" is an oxymoron is like saying "anonymous doctor," "anonymous teacher," "anonymous nurse" etc are oxymorons. Most publications name their correspondents and it is quite relevant when an article refers to an anonymous correspondent Sarah Ewart 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It is more accurate to describe the source as an "anonymous correspondent". To say, "The BBC speculates" is extremely misleading. The BBC didn't speculate anything, they merely reported the opinion of an anonymous "correspondent". Also, the BBC is not quoting their "correspondent in the field." They're merely quoting a "correspondent". These are big differences. Please don't try to manipulate a reference to try to make it seem like it's saying things it isn't or try to word things in a way that add more weight to your POV than the sources actually indicate. Sarah Ewart 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC) By the way, Ottawaman, please stop posting personal commentary about other editors. As you've been told countless times already, this talk page is for discussing the article, not Strothra, not CJ, not me, not anyone else. Sarah Ewart 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No! The source was a BBC correspondent; your attempts to throw in the word "anonymous" are transparent pov pushing and Strothra even misrepresented what the article said or else misread it himself. Please settle down and try to help develop a good article instead of namecalling. Canuckster 18:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That's absurd, you're trying to accuse me of POV pushing?? ha. BBC did not name its correspondent and the article must represent that fact because who knows who that correspondent may have been and whether or not they are reliable. If s/he's not named then s/he's anonymous. Besides, under the aegis of WP:NOT#CBALL it is against the Wiki manual of style to use the article. --Strothra 18:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe Gardner is in favour of including the BBC reference if it is referred to as "speculation". Most of the article's references to the meanings of Iggy's work is also speculation. Has there been an agreement that the BBC source was not identified by them as "anonymous"? 67.71.122.250 17:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say that I was in favour of the sentence in the article, not necessarily the particular source which I honestly hadn't even read at that point. Ignatieff wasn't able to convince a lot of delegates to come to him. Most media noted this was because of his high "negatives" which were most commonly attributed to his foreign policy and time out of Canada. I would probably like to see two sources which say this. And I probably would just drop the BBC one since it is so contentious. But I'm pretty sure that it won't be hard to find two others. If it were, the BBC one would be anomalous and not worthy of inclusion anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JGGardiner (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Either way, WP:NOT#CBALL does not allow for speculation to be included. No one can ever know why he did not when, otherwise you would need to know what was in the mind of the majority of voters. All else is speculation which Wikipedia cannot adopt since speculation is merely origional research. --Strothra 18:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, and noting we are usually on the same side here, I think that it is a misread of "crystal ball": it is really talking about speculation of what might occur in the future. When talking about politics, we have to speculate somewhat. If not for media speculation, how would we know that the NEP was unpopular for example? Or that Brian Mulroney was unpopular at the end of his term? All analysis, some might say all history, is a kind of speculation. The proper route for such an is to note that it is indeed speculation and to note who was doing the speculating. --JGGardiner 18:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I think at this time my problems are this 1) The BBC article is clearly unsuitable because there is no named source (I agree with you about leaving out the BBC source and trying to find another) and 2) It really shouldn't be given undue weight in the article. As a biography there are many more facets to Ignatieff's life to be focused on than the result of one election. Ideas about why he lost the election really only merit one, maybe two, sentances. --Strothra 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. --JGGardiner 19:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could agree to stop the adhominem discussions here and it should be admitted that Gingerbreadman and the anon who made accusations of article bias is not me. 67.71.122.250 17:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, it seems Strothra and Gardiner have now agreed to allow the other 2 article references he previously struck (Harvard News and Globe and Mail); at least in part. I will reinsert them and then Strothra can perhaps whittle them down to whatever small content he feels is appropriate. Canuckster 23:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Strothra's ludicrous assertion that this election is a minute part of Ignatieff's life. It would be like relegating Al Gore's loss in the 2000 election to a smart part of his bio article. In fact, when looking at the Gore bio I see even webblogs are quoted in the 2000 election analysis "The popular political weblog The Daily Howler contends that Gore lost the election due to a relentless media "war,"... which only goes to show that this article has consistently been treated out of normal wikipedia process and ,imo, consistently preferentially in Ignatieff's favour; including his praises/accomplishments and excluding his failures/detractors.Canuckster 23:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't even looked at the Gore article, nor am I concerned with it because this is the article I am working on at the moment. Regardless, I'm from the U.S. have absolutely no personal interest in Canadian politics. The only interest I have in Ignatieff is in regard to his scholarship, which is really what establishes his notability. I would think that it's more solid to argue that the Gore election is covered more in-depth because there is a U.S. bias on Wikipedia. The majority of the editors on here are from the U.S., and Al Gore's notability arises primarily out of his political background. Ignatieff has long had an international public life which existed well before Gore's. --Strothra 23:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are good points but I think that Ignatieff's scholarship has been overemphasized and that his other activities such as journalism and broadcasting have been underemphasized in the article. To me it seems his current political activities trump everything else especially since he seems to be saying he will continue with the politics. Canuckster 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the coverage of journalism is lacking in the article. I'd be careful about adding very current items to the political section though, Wiki is not a news source, but an encyclopedia. That belongs on Wikinews. I know, however, that it is done to a good extent on Wiki. --Strothra 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education

There is a problem with his educational information. Mr. Ignatieff did not attend school in England, but did teach there. His graduate work was done at Harvard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.60.48 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC).