Talk:Belinda Stronach/Archive A

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This 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.

1 About Belinda Stronach
2 A Social Democrat???
3 Paragraph to work on
4 Quotes from Belinda, Jack Layton, and CAW official
5 Verifiability
6 Fiasco
7 Next Steps
8 Makes sense

About Belinda Stronach

Guys, does anyone else realize that she isn't the leader of the Conservative Party? At least not yet, she's running to be the leader. What were you guys thinking? Also, she isn't a prominent Canadian politician, no one in politics even knew who she was until last week. [That's fixed now.]

Most people realized it before you I'm sure. dave 15:27, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So what's your point? At least I pointed it out... Shawn

I was just confused by your "What were you guys thinking?" question. dave 21:29, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Anyone have a public domain picture of her that we can put in the article? All the ones at belinda.ca are copyrighted. dave 22:11, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Would not the photo in the press section ([1]) have to be copyright-free? -- stewacide 08:16, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Who is the first most powerful woman in business? Carly Fiorina?-戴&#30505sv

Fiorina is the most powerful woman in American business. Here's what Fortune says about the most powerful women in international business, outside the U.S:

Marjorie Scardino, CEO of Britain's Pearson, was ranked the number one woman in international business, followed by Belinda Stronach, CEO and president of Canada's Magna International, Anne Lauvergeon, executive chairman of France's Areva, and Patricia Barbizet, chief executive of France's Artemis. Sunray 06:24, 2004 Jan 24 (UTC)

Although I would'nt generally call Fortune a source, its just a typical who's who list, so I suppose that its nothing to take issue with. ;) -戴&#30505sv 14:21, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Fortune 500, not a source? I'm shocked! Sunray 08:05, 2004 Jan 27 (UTC)

Who removed the picture? dave 21:45, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It was a wikipedia wide problem. I uploaded it again. dave 19:49, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A Social Democrat???

User 24.222.32.250 repeatedly claims that Ms. Stronach is a social democrat. I'm asking for proof of that. She is, after all, a member of the Conservative Party. In Canada, members of the Convervative Party are generally not referred to as "social democrats." It is an absurd notion. Despite the fact that she supports unions and has other progressive ideas, she is not, by definition, a social democrat. If she were to cross the floor of the House and join the NDP, that would be evidence that she was a social democrat. I've tried a couple of alternate wordings (e.g. "her views are to the left of many in the Conservative Party"), but 24.222.32.250 continually reverts my edits. I'm hereby asking 24.222.32.250 to discuss this. Sunray 07:56, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, michaelm. It is clear that you think that Ms. Stronach is a social democrat. I would like to see a record that someone else thinks this and has documented it in print (i.e., evidence). Then, I'm suggesting one further step: That there be some rational argument for stating this (i.e., proof). You say "people do view her as a social democrat." Who has this view? She may not be happy with the conservatives, but as long as she remains in that party, neither she nor any of her colleagues in parliament would be likely to refer to her as a social democrat. So there would have to be some fairly strong documentation (e.g. of a credible political scientist arguing that she is, in fact, a social democrat). Meanwhile, the statement that she is "to the left of many in the conservative party" covers what you are saying, without making an un-encyclopedic leap into the speculative. Sunray 06:15, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

I would like to see some evidence of this as well. Although I can't comment on Belinda's "happiness" in the Conservative caucus, I did get the impression during the leadership run that she was a definite economic conservative - i.e. in favour of big business, across the board tax cuts, "grow the economic pie" economics, etc. She's certainly to the left of most (if not, yes, all) of the Conservative caucus on social issues (abortion, SSM, etc.) but no social democrat would agree with the aforementioned economic philosophies. (These policies imply more limited social advocacy, something Social Democrats disagree with.) It also should be noted that one can still be for the existence of a union / in favour of job rights and a conservative, i.e. one doesn't have to believe all unions/worker rights should be abolished to be a conservative. I would like to see sources on Belinda's union views. -- Matty j 22:08, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. You have assessed some of her stands as being social democratic in nature. But don't forget that the former Progressive Conservative party has taken all of those positions in the past. Whatever her beliefs, she cannot be both a Conservative member of parliament and a social democrat (they would cast her out of the party in a trice). So how about we wait for her to cross the floor and then write her up as a social democrat. Does that work for you? Sunray 07:57, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

I believe the statement that "Belinda put in a trade union (UAW) in the Detroit Magna plant" is almost certainly extremely mistaken; do you have a documented citation? (What's more, why aren't all the rest of the Magna plants she was responsible for unionized?) Corporations and corporate leaders often both give to charity and oppose unions; the first hardly precludes the second. For whatever personal background is worth, I'm in the NDP as well (we Canadian wikipedians seem disproportionately to be) and the claims made and scenario projected would floor the jaws of myself and other New Democrats I know. Samaritan 19:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I went through this whole discussion with michaelm in November - the history section sems to have been wiped out for February to November, for some reason. I asked repeatedly for evidence, and got none. Several other regular contributors participated in the discussion, and refuted his arguments. It seems that Michaelm has nothing to offer but his deeply-held belief and probably a lot of wishful thinking. But that is not enough for an encyclopedia article. Samaritan and others do have the right to change articles to remove statements for which no evidence has been provided. If Stronach were a social democrat, it would have made a lot more sense for her to join the NDP and try to build that party, rather than try to convince a whole party of conservatives to change their views. As I said before, if Stronach leaves the CPC, then we will change the article and acknowledge michaelm's foresight. Until then, or until she says "I am a social democrat", there is no room for such nonsense in the article. Kevintoronto 16:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Samaritan and Kevintoronto each make a strong case for not calling Ms. Stronach a "social democrat." Other users, myself included, have made the same point. To his credit, michaelm has stopped adding that to the article. However, he has been adding other information that doesn't seem to be supported by evidence. Samaritan raises the question of whether there is evidence that "Belinda put in a trade union (UAW) in the Detroit Magna plant." michaelm says this is true, but doesn't provide the reference to support it. IMO, what we need to get this article unprotected is for michaelm to provide that reference or agree to a change in the article and to agree to only make edits that are supported by evidence. michaelm can you agree with that? Sunray 20:22, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Okay... that's great... can you give us a source, michaelm? A website address for example? Thanks. Kevintoronto 21:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[[2]]

I have not edited anybody's comments here. I agree that Magna stopped fighting the UAW before the National Labor Relations Board, and Belinda made a diplomatic comment or two. I would agree to a statement to this effect in the article. It is an enormous jump from here to saying she is a social democrat and likely to join the NDP. Paul Martin had some positive interactions with his workers' unions when he ran Canada Steamship Lines. Brian Mulroney was a charming labour lawyer and to the best of my memory got along awfully well with his workers' unions at the Iron Ore Company of Canada. I await the argument, equally valid with the evidence presented, that Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney are also social democrats and are also liable to join the NDP and steer it to the left. Samaritan 02:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, she is International Trade spokesperson for the Conservatives as we speak. International trade issues are among the absolute most important issues to many members and activists in the NDP and labour, and NDP/labour positions are almost diametrically opposed to Conservative positions. Does she support the NDP/labour positions or the Conservative positions on these issues central to her role in Parliament? Samaritan 03:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Samaritan that this article is not sufificent evidenfce to convince me that she is pro-union, let alone a social democrat. Agreeing to stop fighting against a union is not the same as supporting them. Is Stephen harper that stupid that he would name a supposed opponent of free trade as his trade critic? I don't think so. While I respect your deeply-held beliefs on this issue, michaelm, Wikipedia requires more proof that just what you sense in Stronach. Let me ask you this, if Stronach were editing this article, would she call herself a social democrat? I don't think so. Kevintoronto 15:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heck, I'm all for just about anybody joining the NDP, but this isn't enough to add this assertion to everybody's biography on Wikipedia. :) As to the assertion she's against free trade, see the verbatim speech transcript where she praises the Conservatives as the party that brought us free trade, cited below. Samaritan 05:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph to work on

Besides the "social democrat" question, let's sit down and look at this paragraph in the currently protected version of the article:

At her campaign launch, Stronach surprised many with her opposition to free trade and her support of grass-root politics, lowering tuition fees and make tuition tax-deductible, gun control, same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and public Medicare (positions opposed by most Conservative caucus members).

In this major 2004 speech in Toronto, she praised the Conservatives as the party who brought Canada free trade. The most she may have said, elsewhere, was that certain aspects of NAFTA need review. Support for "grass-root politics" is an empty phrase and nearly impossible to either dispute or verify. Support for gun control is not too surprising for a suburban Toronto moderate, but, yes, is notable in the context of her party. It breaks down again at the assertion public Medicare is "opposed by most Conservative caucus members." A great majority, perhaps all, would never say this. Many may float or advocate two tier, semi-private, etc. systems - something Belinda did herself in her leadership race, talking about companies getting public funds to run healthcare systems for their employees, as I recall.

I suggest: Excluding the sentence, making sure mention of her support for abortion rights, same-sex marriage, gun control and tuition cuts and tax-deductibility (and, as far as documented, reviewing parts of NAFTA) is included elsewhere.

It is unlikely her caucus would follow a lead to support any equality-based legislation.

Overly POV wording.

I suggest: Deleting.

Indeed, she distanced herself from this position by expressing support for a free vote of MPs, cast individually and not along party lines, on these issues.

I suggest: Stronach called for a free vote of MPs, cast individually and not along party lines, on same-sex marriage.

She also supports organized labour, a position that also is opposed by most Conservative caucus members. As a President and CEO of Magna International she did not oppose a trade union (UAW) local being established in the Detroit Magna plant.

Besides the discussion above, I believe this is overbroad and POV towards other Conservative caucus members. As for the union, all the evidence is that she (or the company she ran; blame others, but we can't be a Magna gossip board, and the fact remains she was CEO at the time) did oppose it in some fashion before the NLRB, until she stopped opposing it.

I suggest: Stronach may be more receptive to organized labour than her father, noted for his strong opposition to unions at Magna. While head of Magna, she ceased fighting the United Auto Workers in a dispute before the National Labor Relations Board, and the union organized numerous Magna workers in the United States.

Stronach believes that trade unions are a human right.

I suggest: I'll agree to this verbatim if you have a documented source.

Then she heard that Daimler-Chrysler was going to cut 1000 jobs. She went to the Daimler-Chrysler plant in Ontario and stopped the job cuts retaining the jobs. Such statements and actions may well have helped her chances in Ontario.

Has any independent observer credited Belinda Stronach specifically with saving these 1000 (an oddly round number?) jobs?

I suggest: Delete unless verified with a documented source.

They are also indicative that her politics tend to be to the left of most of the Conservatives.

A general statement that she's to the left of many Conservatives is discussed above and I think agreed to by all.

She has stated that she is against the decriminalization of marijuana for now, though she admitted to smoking it in high school. However, she added that she will research the matter to see if marijuana is safe.

Oooh, comedy sketch coming. ;)

I suggest: Stronach is against the decriminalization of marijuana, though she has committed to investigate the safety of the drug. Samaritan 05:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Great analysis, Samaritan. I agree with the points you've raised and your suggested ways of dealing with them. Problem is, I'm not sure that michaelm will buy it. So where do we go from here? Sunray 07:32, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Quotes from Belinda, Jack Layton, and CAW official

"NDP leader Jack Layton was less generous, however, as he pulled no punches on Stronach's 'very conservative' corporate economic agenda." - From the CTV.ca story on her leadership launch
"The economies of the US, Canada, and Mexico have all benefited from NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement)." - article by Belinda in the Christian Science Monitor calling for expanding NAFTA
Belinda Stronach: I don't have to tell you the fact, to tell you that the healthcare system in its current form will not be there for future generations. So we owe it to Canadians to have that debate, to say how can we now look at providing a better quality healthcare service?

Carole MacNeil, CBC: Private insurance?

Belinda Stronach: At a reduced cost. We need to have that debate.

Carole MacNeil: You're not cutting it out? Private insurance? I can…

Belinda Stronach: We need to have the debate to say, what are the solutions respecting the principles of the Canada Health Act, not compromising that. - CBC News: Sunday interview

CAW economist Jim Stanford jabs at Belinda at caw.ca Samaritan 08:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evidence? Please provide links to support your claims.AndyL 08:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that this meeting happened. Please cite an article or other document.AndyL 04:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Verifiability

We have a broad group of editors here who consider some of michaelm's claims about Ms. Stronach outlandish and implausible on the surface, and we have provided concrete evidence, including linked sources, to back up these concerns. We have repeatedly and, I hope, open-mindedly asked michaelm for references to independent sources other than what michaelm thinks, remembers from somewhere unspecified, and senses in Ms. Stronach. There is a page discussing Wikipedia policy on exactly this type of question, Wikipedia:Verifiability. Quoting from it: "For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources." Belinda Stronach is one of the most widely and heavily discussed politicians to emerge in Canada in recent years. She is referenced widely by major sources on the Internet, in print and broadcast media, on webboards, by her own statements in Hansard, on her political website belinda.ca, etc. michaelm, can you see how at this point, including these contested statements without any sources we can point to besides your own assertions is simply not allowed, and that until we have documented external sources, if Sunray or SimonP or I don't revert such claims out of the article, any old editor guided by Wikipedia standards who came across the article and questioned the statements could do the same? Samaritan 16:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fiasco

You should not have deleted Bearcat's response. [ :The only person making this a "feasco" (it's fiasco, btw) is you. Bearcat 19:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)] As a rule, deleting another person's relevant comments is not appropriate in the context of a talk page. If you feel it's a personal attack, for instance, let it stand as such and let the rest of us make our own judgments. As to blanking this whole page, see Archive rather than delete at Wikipedia:Talk page. Finally, what do you think about Sunray's reasoned proposal below? Samaritan 22:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Next Steps

Agreed that this is a fiasco. The reason for this is more than just the fact that there are different points of view. Different points of view are natural. The point is: We need to find a neutral point of view in order to meet Wikipedia goals and be worthy of the term encyclopedia. Several editors have called for verifyable facts with respect to Ms. Stronach's alledged social democratic tendancies. Here's my proposal:

1. Get agreement from michaelm and other editors to stick to facts we can support.

2: Unprotect the article.

3. Proceed to edit the article along the lines proposed by Samaritan, above.

4. Ban anyone who fails to abide by this agreement for 24 hours the first time and for 30 days if problems continue.

Can we agree on this? Sunray 19:05, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Befor we do aneything we should think it over. people do not shair the same oppeain we need some Transparency that eveyone will agree on. - michaelm

Transparency is what Sunray's process provides. Samaritan 01:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think that the real problem here is summed up in two comments from michaelm: "people have deffent views on things" and "people do not shair the same oppeain". The point is that there is no room for different views or different opinions here. This is an encyclopedia, not a politics discussion group. The only information that belongs here is information that is based on verifiable facts, not opinions. The facts of this matter are clear: B. Stronach helped the merger of two conservative parties in order to improve conservatives' chances of forming a government. She sought the leadership of the Conservative Party. She was elected to parliament as a Conservative. She has been given a high profile critic's position in the Conservative shadow cabinet. She has been clear in her support for Stephen Harper as leader of the Conseervative Party. On the basis of these facts, we can comfortably call her a conservative. Samaritan has kindly provided extensive links to verify these facts. Finally, if Ms. Stonach were here, there is no question that she would not call herself a social democrat. Michaelm, on the other hand, believes that Ms. Stronach has a hidden agenda that she has not revealed to the world, and that the day will come when she will reveal herself as a social democrat. That may be the case, but right now it is just a prediction, not a verifable fact. As such, it belongs on a political discussion website, not in an encyclopedia. If she does leave the CPC for the NDP, at that time it will be appropriate to change the description in this encyclopedia. Kevintoronto 14:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)