Talk:Elizabeth May

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is part of WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada, 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.

Elizabeth May is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page. Nomination date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{GAnominee|insert date in any format here}}

Contents 1 POV Check 2 Clean up 3 Re-name? 4 Hunger strike—unsuccessful? 5 Semi-protection 6 Revisit NPOV check? 7 Requested move 8 Spelling of Daughter's Name 9 Residence 10 Citizenship? 11 2006 Green Party result in Central Nova

[edit] POV Check

I seriously think this article needs an NPOV check. While I don't see any problems, I'm almost certain they exist here. Ardenn 06:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed and edited to conform to WP:NPOV. —GrantNeufeld 09:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

am i the only wikipedian who sees serious problems with the sentence "While I don't see any problems, I'm almost certain they exist here" ... ? Lotusland

No, you're not the only one, I scratched my head over that one too. It's not the most helpful comment I've ever seen. -Will Beback 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean up

I re-added the clean up tag as the article doesn't seem to comform to the Manual of Style. Ardenn 17:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've performed cleanup for the article and would like to remove the tag. I've also sourced most of the citations but am still looking for one or two more. Comments? --Suttungr 17:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-name?

Should this be re-named to Elizabeth May (politician) or something else even? Ardenn 18:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Presumably she is still an enviornmentalist. BTW, the other Elizabeth May is an athlete from Luxemburg. WE could call this one "Elizabeth May (Canada)". -Will Beback 20:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

She is better known as an environmentalist than a politician. If she ever gets elected, then maybe. --Suttungr 14:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be renamed to (politician) now that she is GPC leader. Think about it... if you mention her name to someone who has heard of her, do you think they will say "oh, you mean the environmentalist?" or "oh, you mean the Green Party leader?".Wolfchild 22:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think it should be renamed. She is the fifth biggest party leader, that is now the most notable thing about her. --Arctic Gnome 16:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hunger strike—unsuccessful?

I reverted the edit yesterday by 134.117.196.61 (talk • contribs) which referred to May’s 2001 hunger strike (currently paragraph 5 of the History section) as “unsuccessful”. The use of that term by itself is POV. For it to be not POV, you would need to cite who consider's it unsuccessful and/or by what measure of success it is being deemed to have failed (e.g., something like “Her hunger strike was seen by Person/Group X as being unsuccessful in leading to the desired clean up.(citation)”). —GrantNeufeld 19:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The text now says:

• In 2001, May went on a 17 day hunger strike to protest the government's failure to clean up the Sydney tar ponds in Cape Breton. As a result the Federal government pledged to relocate people living nearby to a safer location.^[1]

That makes it appear to have been sucessful (htough one can always argue that the government action wasn't due to her hunger strike). Due to other edits, I think "unsuccessful" may have been added as a reference to her weight, rather than her politicla achievements. -Will Beback 17:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Does she look like she lost weight based on the hunger strike? Ardenn 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The hunger strike had nothing to do with her body weight. It was a political action. Success or lack thereof can only be measured by any political outcomes (or lack thereof) that can be tied to her action. —GrantNeufeld 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen a vandalism edit become permanent before this. The initial edit that I removed phrased it sarcastically: "As you can see by the picture, the strike had considerable impact on May's physique". It is easy to miss but one must remember that the hunger strike and the photograph happened five years apart. One can't seriously expect the effects to last so long. I can only assume that detail was overlooked because I missed it myself initially. I can't otherwise see why a reputable editor like Ardenn would support this inclusion. --JGGardiner 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In their edit comments, 206.191.33.161 (talk • contribs) makes the implication that my involvement with the Green Party must mean that my edits to the article must be POV. So, I feel obliged to explain the particular edit.

206.191.33.161's addding the text "Her hunger strike was unsuccessful" to her photo is inappropriate because:

• The hunger strike is far from the most significant aspect of her life, so doesn't need to be represented in such a prominent position.
• The photo has nothing to do with her hunger strike, which occurred years earlier.
• It is non-encyclopedic to refer to the hunger strike as unsuccessful without clarifying by what criteria it is considered unsuccessful (particularly since there are also criteria by which it may also be considered as having been successful).
• The inclusion of the text with her photo is clearly intended as an insult regarding her body weight.

Any of those reasons is sufficient to strike the text from inclusion with the photo in the article without having to make any POV statements. —GrantNeufeld 15:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I requested and received semi-protection for this page due to the recent spate of vandalism. I suggested that it be retained until after the Green Party leadership convention. Semi-protection only bars anonymous users from editing. It still allows regular editors to update. --Atrian 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The convention is in August. I honestly cannot say that it should stay semi-protected that long. Besides, if someone really wants to vandalize, all they have to do is register, and make a few edits. Ardenn 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've requested that it be unprotected. Ardenn 19:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see it remain protected for a day or two to try to discourage the vandal(s?). —GrantNeufeld 19:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Grant, you don't have any POV/conflict of interest, being head of a provincial Green Party and all. Or is that stuff justy for right-wingers?209.217.66.179 21:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And Ardenn, who says on his user page: "Is a member of the Green Party of Canada, and believes that David Chernushenko is the best choice for leader." Now, why would anyone get the idea that these two are very interested in preserving the POV of this article?209.217.66.179 21:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the disputed edits? Let's discus the content, not the contributors. -Will Beback 22:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

POV needs to be addressed. There are rules...Marie Tessier

The POV of edits needs to be addressed, not the POV of editors. The editorial matter is why someone would add the text "The hunger strike was unsuccessful" when the evidence is that it was successful. No one has contradicted her success. Can you defend the edit? If not, there's nothing to discuss. -Will Beback 03:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to keep a cool head, and assume good faith. Ardenn 03:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quit accusing me of making a persobal attack. I simply noted a fact: that this entry has primarily been written and edited by Green Party activists.209.217.66.179 04:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you are welcome to fix and re-write the article. Just make sure to cite your sources and ensure everything you include is verified. Ardenn 04:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents in... I cleaned this article up about a month ago and added references for all but one of the statements. I am not a Green Party member, nor have I ever voted for same. I just like to clean articles up and this one needed it. 'nough said. --Suttungr 04:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And if the Green Party gatekeepers don't like what you say, they will, of course, revert you. Welcome to the New Fascism.209.217.66.179 12:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revisit NPOV check?

Despite the excellent NPOV work that's been done on this article already, I still have trouble with some of the vaguer positive statements. Can we find more specifics, one or two more citations, and do a hearsay check? The bits that feel wobbly to me are:

Once in Cape Breton, her family suffered a reversal of fortune due directly to involvement in protest against an environmental abuse.

Without more specifics here, this sentence feels as if it was designed less to convey facts than to cast May and folks as martyred heroes. I'm sure they are! But in the interest of being encyclopedic we really should have those specifics.

May rallied and repeated her conversion feat... Goodale announced "the greenest budget ever" with May at his side...

Seems inappropriate to congratulate May so much without a very rich citation... The citation provided for this section doesn't say anything about the actual extent of May's influence over Goodale, and indeed mentions her only to quote her.

She was the person, reputedly, who invited Clinton and convinced him to come.

Reputedly?

—Ho Pan Yao 09:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I definitely don't like the "due directly to..." line, it is hardly NPOV and needs a citation as well. Padraic

[edit] Requested move

Now that she is the leader of the Green Party of Canada, May is more notable than that athlete and should have the main name space. --GreenJoe 16:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I support the move. Atrian 09:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been moved. —Cuiviénen 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of Daughter's Name

May's daughter's name is Victoria Cate, not Victoria-Cate. This has been changed. Monkeyfinger 03:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Residence

What does it mean that she "has a home in Margaree Harbour, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia"? Does she live there? Does she own a piece of property? I don't know what that means. I would hope that isn't an attempt to demonstrate her fitness to run in a Nova Scotia riding. I also don't like that New Edinburgh, which I'd removed before, is included. As I said in my edit summary, NE is just a neighbourhood in Ottawa. So the link really adds nothing besides being unsourced and will one day become untrue without our knowing it. --JGGardiner 17:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is true that people do move around. I don't think it's a big thing. Federal politicians tend to keep two addresses, one for Ottawa and one for their home town. So maybe the Nova Scotia address should be more appropriate to list and say that the Ottawa address is just her temporary residence. Atrian 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that many parliamentarians do that but May is not one yet. A few months ago she wasn't even a politician. In any event, I've done some looking and I'm quite certain that she does not live in Margaree Harbour but had as a child and her family continues to. If somebody has a source on that, I'd be happy to see it. So I'm removing Margaree and New Edinburgh again. I know it's a small thing but why risk including false information on WP for a small thing? --JGGardiner 18:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to look harder. I found both addresses at www.Canada411.ca. Nova Scotia residence: Margaree Harbour, NS B0E 2B0. Ottawa residence: 22 Rideau Terr, Ottawa, ON K1M 2A1. Atrian 21:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you probably shouldn't publish May's address, or indeed anyone's address, on Wikipedia. Second, I'm uneasy using a phonebook as a source. How do you know that those Mays are indeed this May? For example, there are no "Elizabeth Mays" listed in Ottawa, only "E Mays". How do you know which of two listed is her, if any? Even if the assumption is correct, I think that this would constitute an [[WP:NOR|NOR] problem. You can't make assumptions, even if they are good ones. Is that the only source that there is? --JGGardiner 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that it should be published in the article, but that is in fact her correct address. I happen to be well-acquainted with her daughter. Monkeyfinger 04:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that the information is readily available. I propose that the page say that her home address is in Margaree harbour but she lives in Ottawa as part of her Green Party leadership duties. Atrian 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The phonebook entry isn't good enough for me and I don't think that it is really good enough for WP either. But if you want to keep it I won't fight it. Although I would appreciate it if somebody could find a real source that confirms that. But I think that if one address is her prime address it is Ottawa. Her residence there predates her time as leader or indeed her membership with the party. As I understand it, she has been living there since the 1980s. I don't think that she commuted to her job as Sierra Club director from Nova Scotia. --JGGardiner 18:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citizenship?

She was born and raised in Connecticut. Does anyone happen to know whether she is still an American citizen? --Saforrest 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Green Party result in Central Nova

I think it is relevant and topical to this article that May chose a riding with negligible past Green Party support. There was considerable talk of May running in Ottawa (where she lives) before she settled on Central Nova. The Greens received 7.5% of the vote in Ottawa Centre in 2006, which was one of their highest percentages in Ontario (and highest raw vote total at 6,766). The Greens also received 5% of the vote in Ottawa West—Nepean, where May could have run against Environment Minister John Baird, which would have made some sense. For that matter, if May was after the best chance of winning she could have parachuted into a B.C. riding like Saanich—Gulf Islands where the Party took 10% of the vote in 2006 (and almost 17% in 2004). But instead she chose Central Nova, a riding where the Party's vote was almost nonexistent before. If she's able to make a significant improvement, that would reflect well on her as leader. If she's not, this may have been a strategic blunder. Either way, it's noteworthy. Robbie dee 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not relevant, and people can go to the article on Central Nova to check up on it if they really want. GreenJoe 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that it is probably decent analysis and I quite agree with it. But it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about May. I think that we should talk about what she has done and not what she has not. And besides, if she only wanted to get elected she should have joined a bigger party. =) --JGGardiner 05:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate both of your comments, however I do note that in other political articles we include analysis of other parties' and leaders' political decisions and prospects for achieving their goals. I mean, politics is their job - it's what their noteworthy for - so it should also be noteworthy whether or not they are good at it. I tried to briefly put some of my above analysis into the article itself. What do you think? Better or worse? (I also corrected the spelling of "Foreign Affairs, which I think we all can agree on). Robbie dee 13:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That sort of analysis violates WP:NOR. GreenJoe 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an original observation, it's been made in several media sources and by May herself. See e.g. James Rusk, "May vs. MacKay," Globe and Mail 3/19/07:

In an interview after she announced her candidacy at an Antigonish café, Ms. May acknowledged that "there are some ridings where I have a much better shot, quite candidly." While polling showed that she would have had a better chance of winning in some B.C. ridings or in London North Centre, where she ran second in a by-election, she said these would have been expedient choices. "But I really didn't feel very good about choosing a riding based on my best chance, as opposed to where I felt I most belonged," said Ms. May, whose Nova Scotia roots are across the Canso Strait in Cape Breton Island.

Also, the election results in 2006 are a matter of public record. I could drop a link to the Globe and Mail article if you think it would be helpful, but I really don't think Rusk and May's observations are unique, they are almost self-evident. Likewise, I could drop a link to the Elections Canada results to support the statement the Greens "received less than 2% of the vote" in Central Nova in 2006, but those results are already available in the Central Nova article wikilinked earlier in the same section. Robbie dee 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't feel that it is NOR. If anything it is a problem with NPOV in weighting. If we point out the problems in her decision without showing the counter-arguments, which are obviously there, we are essentially saying that she made a bad decision. If we do show the counter arguments, we'd be devoting way too much space to an already long section on her choice of riding in one election. --JGGardiner 21:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)