Talk:Belinda Stronach/Archive C
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. |
Contents |
A feminist ?
Ms Stronach's article has recently been included in the category feminist. So, to be added to this list, should someone be a prominent theorist of feminism, or a prominent advocate of feminism? Or is it enough to be merely a prominent person who is supportive of the principles of feminism? If it is the former, what notable things has she written about feminism? Which notable speeches as she given, what notable actions as she taken? -- Geo Swan 15:45, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
- Good guestions. I don't see her as being notable as a feminist, and don't think she belongs in that category. Sunray 16:18, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
Ditto with "LGBT Activist". If voting for SSM is enough to qualify one in that category we're going to have to include the entire Canadian Cabinet (including Paul Martin) and (likely) a majority of MPs and Senators as LGBT activists. AndyL 13:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Stronach detained (detaining social democrats)
I re-iterate the question I posed in the comment line when I made my most recent change: is the fact that she was detained for a few minutes for her identity to be verified during Bush's visit to Canada really noteworthy? We're talking about a member of Canada's supreme legislative body. I think that there are a lot of things that she does that are more important than this little bit of trivia. Does anyone agree with Michaelm that this should be in the article? Or can I take it out? Kevintoronto 22:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I agree and have deleted the passage out. - SimonP 22:38, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I also support the passage's removal (as does Sunray, apparently). Completely unremarkable. -- Hadal 04:29, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree fact is Bush did not wont Jack Layton and Belinda Stronach ther but its strange that Gilles Duceppe was not detained fact is Bush dous not like Social Democrats. - Michaelm 04:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That's pure speculation on your part; hardly a fact, as you put it. I dislike Bush as much as the next leftist twentysomething, but I know to keep my musings regarding Bush's intentions to myself. We're building an encyclopedia here, Michael—not an op-ed rag. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and related policies before making any further edits. -- Hadal 05:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Michaelm why don't you listen to Kevin? He spends an amazing amount of time trying to talk to you about your edits. The point Kevin makes is that this matter is trivial and not something that should be in an encyclopedia. Now you have SimonP, Hadal and me all agreeing with Kevin. That's consensus. Your editing of these political articles is a problem because of your strong POV. Please take Hadal's advice and re-read about NPOV before more editing. Sunray 07:02, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)
Ok I will stop
Michaelm 08:52, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Internet flames as sources, and the endless cycle of edits
Again, with the ftlcomm link that was just the subject of a couple reversions, Michaelm brings in a site that despises and insults Ms. Stronach ("intellect... reminded me of Paris Hilton... appalling lack of forethought... nothing short of reckless... nonsensical")... apparently to support his argument that political observers see her as a social democrat and a plausible member of the NDP.
We've been through this before, and again, all these sites are doing is attacking them all at once, and you seem to be asking us to believe them when they compare her with the NDP, but to disbelieve them on their main arguments that she's a dangerous idiot. I did not rush to join the group who have endorsed the RFC, and I'm not endorsing it now. But this is exactly what many others have said you do – you keep reverting and we keep getting into discussions where the consensus disagrees with you, and you may eventually go along with consensus ('OK I'll stop'), but then you'll put all the editors through much the same argument all over again about another sentence or source. This has been going on constantly since late last year.
Michaelm, do you think you could fundamentally change the way you make your decisions about how to edit this article, so we don't go keep running over these same circles again and again? Samaritan 02:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Vandelism?
Look, Michaelm I don't know how you think I vandalized by mentioning that her wealth is her only source of political power, but it is a fair thing to note, Nlsanand
- "Vandalism" was overstating it, but I'd agree you did add inappropriate POV to the article. Your edit served substantively to add this sentence:
-
- Overall, Stronach's appearance on the Canadian political scene has raised worries about rich children being able to enter the political world without truly deserving it. Stronach was only able to join the board of directors at Magna due to her father's ownership of the company. Her rise seems to indicate an Americanisation of the Canadian political scene, specifically that money will buy influence in a party.
- To some extent, this adopts and repeats views of Stronach already discussed a few sentences earlier in "Conservative leadership race." In that you seemed to be banging on this drum, you were injecting POV. That she's Frank Stronach's daughter and Stronach is the chairman of Magna International is made clear at the beginning of the article. Further judgement should be up to the reader. The wording about "truly deserving" a political career is way overstated, concerns about Americanization were not prominient even in criticism of Stronach – heck, she was running against Stephen Harper in the party that had elected Brian Mulroney... move along kids, nothing new to see. Speaking of kids, "rich children?" She's 39 years old and a mother herself.
- Let's trust readers to judge the evidence, presented fairly and evenly, and form their own opinions of Ms. Stronach. Samaritan 02:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- A York dropout being considered for leader of the opposition, because she's a leader of business? THe comment was fair, Nlsanand
-
- Why don't we have such troubles over at Stockwell Day? :p Samaritan 07:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
My last edit,
replacing the paragraph on the Mercer show to "In Parliament, Stronach has been a prominent supporter of a push by MPs, across party lines, to lower the voting age in Canadian federal elections to 16.", with the edit summary "actually, I"m going to argue that a politician appearing on a politics-oriented TV show is non-notable. a new sentence about her advocacy with other MPon the voting age *is*." ...wasn't "minor." It was going to be minor but I got ahead of myself and didn't remove the checkbox. I'm sorry! I didn't mean to mislead. Samaritan 01:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Curiosity
I never noticed this before!
Curiously, none other than Michaelm reverted it just a few minutes later... Samaritan 23:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Feminism
From the passage in Political positions, "On social issues, Stronach is generally to the left of her Conservative caucus colleagues. She supports abortion rights, feminism, gun control and same-sex marriage," I removed feminism.
To the that extent Stronach is concerned with the rights of women to vote, work, be taken seriously for senior positions, etc., which certainly she is, most or all of her Conservative caucus colleagues would agree with her. To the extent support for abortion rights and same-sex marriage can be seen as feminist positions, those are already covered, are supported by some other Conservative MPs, and can be supported without any gender analysis. The article shouldn't leave the impression that she offers a critique of gender relations as a major part of her politics, or that she's associated with what people would understand as the Canadian feminist movement (Judy Rebick, etc.).
Of course, the information that she was considered one of "the world's most powerful women in business" stays. Samaritan 18:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
honorary vs. honourary
Although the correct Canadian spelling is "honour" (instead of "honor"), when dealing with the word "honorary", this is always the correct spelling. See Dave VE7CNV's Truly Canadian Dictionary of Canadian Spelling for a reference. I also checked Merriam-Webster OnLine. "honor", "honour", and "honorary" are all listed, but "honourary" does not appear. -- JamesTeterenko 20:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- My mistake, it seems. That spelling looks unexpectedly odd. Mindmatrix 20:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. I have personally probably spelled it wrong more often than I have spelled it right. Unfortunately, he English language isn't usually logical. -- JamesTeterenko 21:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
