Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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

Archived and Trimmed

The previous talk page was getting really hard to read, due to both length and number of threads. I've removed most of the previous talk page and archived it to Archive 4. If anyone feels that I've snipped too much, please feel free to repost. Otherwise, I'm just going to bask in how blissfully short this page is. (For now, anyway...) 198.20.40.50 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Previous order of article

Here's the previous (non-merged controversies and ideas) order of the article. Discussion on how to merge the sections is below. 198.20.40.50 20:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Contents
1 Background
2 Recognition
3 Ideas
3.1 On Canadian rights culture
3.2 On equality rights
3.3 The Lesser Evil Approach
4 Political career
4.1 Leadership bid
4.2 Extension of Canada's Afghanistan mission
5 Controversies
5.1 Doubts about his national self-identity
5.2 Invasion of Iraq
5.3 Ballistic missile defense
5.4 Torture
5.5 Remarks about Ukranian-Canadians
6 Bibliography
6.1 Fiction
6.2 Non-Fiction
7 References
8 External links
In fact, this was never *quite* the order, at least, not for more than a couple of hours. In this outline, "Political Career" is before "Controversies", while the opposite is true in the article. Is there any sense that they should be reversed? Joel Bastedo 06:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Combining Controversies and Ideas

Regarding my suggestion made under Invasion of Iraq, I'm thinking in particular of these three subsections:

4.2 Invasion of Iraq
4.3 Ballistic missile defense
4.4 Torture

With slight modifications, Torture could be combined with The lesser evil approach, while Invasion of Iraq and Ballistic missile defense could be combined in a subsection called something like "On foreign policy" or "Empire lite." How about this?

3 Ideas
3.1 On Canadian rights culture
3.2 On equality rights
3.3 The lesser evil approach (including 4.4 Torture)
3.4 Empire lite (Including a brief (one sentence) introduction of his idea of "empire lite" and a description of the implications of that idea in terms of American foreign policy, including 4.2 Invasion of Iraq and 4.3 Ballistic missile defense)
4 Controversies

Introductory paragraph explaining that several of his ideas have incurred criticism from human rights scholars and other observers, particularly those that seem to endorse American expansionism, with citations as appropriate. Then some kind of blurb saying that, with Ignatieff's entry into elected politics in the fall of 2005, new criticisms have been levelled against him from his political opponents, regarding his national self-identity, and his opinions on Ukranian Canadians (and possibly the ethics of his nomination?). Then we'd have the two remaining sections from Controversies to explain:

4.1 Doubts about his national self-identity
4.2 Remarks about Ukranian-Canadians

How does all that sound? Joel Bastedo 15:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would read much cleaner. 198.20.41.74 21:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. It seems like you've put a lot of thought and time into it. Sometimes it is easy to forget how much an article can suffer from disorganization. Although I think that it will require some care on the last part to avoid "POV" accusations. --JGGardiner 02:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. -Joshuapaquin 03:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the effort. Is the intended length on controversies going to be roughly the same? As much as reorganization would clean things up, my undue weight issue with the page is still based on the disproportionate size of the controversy treatment as compared to treatments elsewhere and with reference to the standards of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weight --Haligonian Lucullus 18:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I imagine it would be considerably shorter for two reasons. First, there is currently some repetition between the ideas and controversies sections. Second, some of what is now in the controversies section (notably the War in Iraq subsection) isn't really controversy (it's just an idea which many people disagree with), so although most of the information will remain, the recategorization will help provide the balance you're looking for. Joel Bastedo 22:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of starting the merge. At present, the "Nation Building" section needs the most cleanup. "Lesser Evils" could probably use a trim, too. Though I really like using the quote at the start of the section, like the rest of the ideas.
Great work! It's looking better already! Sorry, I started cleaning up the "Lesser Evils" section before I read what you said about liking the quote first -- feel free to undo my edits. But personally, I don't think that quotes should ever be left to 'speak for themselves' -- this is an encyclopedia, not a book of aphorisms, and I think we need to explain and contextualise, not simply regurgitate. I assumed that all the other sections with just quotes were waiting to be fleshed out or paraphrased. As far as the "Nation Building" section, I don't really know what it is about. Are "Invasion of Iraq" and "Missile Defense" subsections of "Nation Building" as the formatting suggested? (If so, I made a mistake by reformatting the headers, please correct.) But what does missile defense and the invasion of Iraq have to do with nation building? For that matter, what does the "casual aversion syndrome" have to do with nation building, and what does nation building have to do with Ignatieff? I wonder whether the "Nation Building" section can be rewritten or deleted? Joel Bastedo 06:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
No problems with the changes. I had the quote first simply because that was the format as the previous Ideas. Personally, I'd prefer re-writes as well, but if we were going with straight quotes, I liked the stylistic similarities. As for the subsections / what-do-they-have-to-do-with-each-other questions, I think it's well summarized in the "Nation building" discussion, below. But basically, I was trying to find a way of tying together Ignatieff views on international relations. 198.20.40.50 21:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, after a long break, I've finally gotten around to looking at this article again. Here's what I came up with based on these suggestions. What do you think? My concern is that, now that I've merged them, I'm not sure that BMD is really as related to international intervention as was suggested. I haven't edited this in the article, wanted to get some feedback first. —Joel Bastedo 01:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I think we're going to have to deal with a slew of NO CENSORSHIP PRO-IGGY EDITORS!!11!1! until we get the current family matter dealt with, but I like going your route as far as improving the article goes. 198.20.40.50 04:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

International affairs

Ignatieff has written extensively on the subject of international development, peacekeeping, and the international responsibilities of Western nations. Critical of the limited-risk approach practiced by NATO in conflicts like the Kosovo War and the Rwandan Genocide, he has argued for a more active involvement and larger scale deployment of land forces by Western nations in future conflicts in the developing world.

In this vein, Ignatieff was a prominent supporter of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, a position that was controversial among Liberals.[1] He argued that America had inadvertently established "an empire lite, a global hegemony whose grace notes are free markets, human rights and democracy, enforced by the most awesome military power the world has ever known." The burden of that empire obliged America to expend itself unseating Iraqi president Saddam Hussein in the interests of international security and human rights. Containment through sanctions and threats would not prevent Hussein from selling weapons of mass destruction to international terrorists, Ignatieff asserted, erroneously believing those weapons were still being developed in Iraq.[2] Moreover, according to Ignatieff, "what Saddam Hussein had done to the Kurds and the Shia" in Iraq was sufficient justification for the invasion.[3] [4]

In the years following the invasion, Ignatieff has reiterated his support for the war's aims, if not the method in which it was conducted. "I supported an administration whose intentions I didn't trust," he averred, "believing that the consequences would repay the gamble. Now I realize that intentions do shape consequences."[1]

Also controversial for many Liberals is Ignatieff's support for a ground-based North American Missile Defence Shield.[5] While admitting that opposition to the proposed shield is a popular position among many Liberals, Ignatieff has proclaimed the need for a principled commitment to coordinated North American defence. "We don't want our decisions to fracture the command system of North American defence," he told the party at a national policy conference.[6]

Citations

I've cleaned up a few of the references, but the article could use the help of a dedicated wikipedian or two to get some consistency in the format and style of the links. Any brave souls want to volunteer? 198.20.40.50 19:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Undue Weight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weight is the policy on undue weight; I think it's valuable reading given that this is still in large measure the "Ignatieff Controversy Article" given the title Michael Ignatieff. The policy seems fairly clear; random IPs and the Etobicoke Lakeshore NDP riding association are not prominent adherents. I'm not sure if there's a specific tag for 'undue weight,' but I can't find it if there is. --Haligonian Lucullus 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

List of articles by Ignatieff

Originally, I was planning to flush out the "List of articles by Ignatieff" but have discovered that he's a more prolific writer than I originally thought. Thus, there are lots of articles by him - maybe too many to list under this entry. So, here's the question: Which ones should we link to and/or list? I'm tempted to say "Important Ones", but that's a can of worms I'm not certain I want to open. So should we list all of them? Only ones that are on-line? Only the controversial ones (and risk undue weight)? I've included a version that goes back to 2002 - suggestions on where to take this would be much appreciated. Ideally, I'd also like to find a solution that doesn't involve triplicate "References/External Links/Biography" links. 198.20.40.50 18:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nation building

This subsection was under the section Ideas. It didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the subsections, and the title doesn't seem to have much to do with the content. Perhaps someone can work on it to make it fit, if it's necessary?

Nation building
As a human rights scholar, Ignatieff has written extensively on the subject of international development and peacekeeping. Citing Kosovo and Rwanda, he has argued for a more active involvement by Western nations. More specifically, he has been critical of the "casual-aversion syndrome" practiced by NATO; that air strikes are used more often than land deployment because they present a limited risk, rather than an effective means of peacekeeping.

Joel Bastedo 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is crazy, but what if we combined this with BMD and Iraq to form a single section on "International affairs"? -Joshuapaquin 00:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not crazy at all. I think, though, that his position on Iraq has been high profile enough to merit its own subsection, whether as part of an Ideas or an International Affairs section. Joel Bastedo 05:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. I mean, in a way, all of Ignatieff's writings are tied into IR - at first glance, it seems that what separates BMD/Iraq/Nation building from the other Ideas sections are that these are normative issues, whereas the rest (e.g. "Canada has a distinctive human rights culture) are positive matters. The "Lesser Evil" is sort of a grey area in that it has both philosophical bases and immediate policy implications.
I'm kind of inspired by this section] of Ignatieff's profile at contemporarywriters.com. They break down his major writings and give a summary of each. Their article isn't organized by the abstract interpretation of a reader; it's organized by the actual printed volume. Not a bad idea for talking about his literary work.
One more thing - I decided to check out an article on another academic who has become reknowned for political involvement - Noam Chomsky. Let's just say that the results there are definitely less than ideal. -Joshuapaquin 15:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
When I merged the sections, I was envisioning something along those lines - the "As a human right scholar..." bit was originally under "International Development" or something to that effect. "Nation building" isn't the best title for it, but I was trying to find some way of including it under the same category as the Iraq war and the ballistic missile defense. They fit the same theme, at least within Ignatieff's writings. But I like the contemporary writers / Noam Chomsky style. So I'm game for a re-organization / re-titling. 198.20.40.50 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok, I see where you were going. So the content under "Nation building" was intended as an introduction to the subsections dealing with International affairs? For balance, then, I suppose we should have a similar introductory paragraph for the ideas dealing with Rights? Mind you, this article is already too long, so maybe there's a better way. Joel Bastedo 02:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Iggy influence on this article is obvious and laughable

Please know you're not fooling anyone. 70.48.204.147 00:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Some editors feel Iggy's views are bizarre to say the least

And whether you agree or not, the references which might cause some people to believe that can't be just swept under the carpet because the "constant editors" here seem to want to put Iggy's views in the best possible light by rationalizations and psuedointellectual dismissal. 70.48.204.147 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yawn. 72.139.184.107 03:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Iggy's first wife's comments

Susan Barrowclough, Iggy's first wife, and mother of his children, likely knows him better than most other sources quoted in the article. Her statements are not slanderous in any way and since her phone number is also included in one of the sources; any efforts to continue to revert her comments should be seen as pov pushing. 70.48.205.4 02:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If her comments are true then we should leave this in the article. FellowWikipedian 02:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
However, they're not true, and unsourced. Thus, no inclusion. 198.20.40.50 04:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

References to Ignatieff's first marriage to Susan Barrowclough need expanding

13 lines in John Kerry's article is devoted to his first wife and their children. Last autumn there were about a dozen google and yahoo references to Iggy's 15 year marriage to Susan Barrowclough, who is an actress and writer in her own right. Now there is only 1 reference I could find for their marriage. Here are some more links related to Iggy's first wife and her accomplishments which may be useful for the needed inclusion and expansion of this 15 year segment of the candidate's personal history.[1][2][3][4] 70.48.205.4 02:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Also look here. FellowWikipedian 02:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Definitely this article can include more about his first marriage and children, but I'm really really wary of using Wikinews as a source (the article is "Under development", and it seems sketchy to me to publish Ms. Barrowclough's telephone number on the internet). In fact, the guy who claims to have spoken to her doesn't even have a user account there. Also, the links provided here don't really say anything except that she exists and has had a career. To quote "the policy in a nutshell" for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:
Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives..
-Joshuapaquin 02:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikinews articles get published either the day its made or the day after. FellowWikipedian 02:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't ease my concerns about the content, I'm afraid. -Joshuapaquin 03:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Joshuapaquin must have mistakenly removed this topic heading as it addresses the need for article expansion covering the subject's first marriage and children, which Joshuapaquin agrees needs to be included.Here are some links to more info regarding Ms. Barrowclough [5] and I suggest we include a section in the article itself with a section title like the one referenced above "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry#Family first wife". 65.95.151.241 12:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Er, yes, the fact that anyone can "verify the contents of that interview" is exactly what I'm afraid of. Did Ms. Barrowclough give permission for any internet user to just call her up and chat about her marriage? Look, the policy of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is big on protecting privacy and making sure that anything negative - for example, an insinuation that the article subject abandoned his family and now avoids them - must be very well-sourced. This isn't. If we can't get anything better for this section, I'm going to call in some admin help to ensure adherence to policy. -Joshuapaquin 12:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Joshuapaquin, you seem to be on this article 24/7. Please allow some other editors a few moments to correct their edits. Perhaps you could help with this aspect by working on the expansion of the article into including more information on the first family which you yourself say is needed? 65.95.151.241 13:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If Susan Barrowclough is notable in her own right, then she deserves her own wiki article, rather than a paragraph in ex-husband's, no? I know nothing about her, so I just cut the info from this article and put it as a stub in her own. Please expand it if anyone has more to add. I certainly do not feel obliged by the John Kerry article to go on at length about Ignatieff and Barrowclough's private familial difficulties -- Americans are notoriously fascinated with the dirty laundry of their public figures; that does not mean that Canadians -- or Wikipedia -- ought to follow suit. Joel Bastedo 19:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No. And Bastedo has no consensus for his censorship in this regard. Even Joshuapaquin says above "Definitely this article can include more about his first marriage and children" so Bastedo's deletion edit is disruptive and without any support whatsoever. 67.71.121.206 23:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
And please,Bastedo, do not try to engineer confrontation between americans and canadians here; your anti-american comments are unwelcome, inappropriate, and, at the least, deflective of the matter at hand. You should apologize for those comments,imo.67.71.121.206 23:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean to sound anti-anybody. First, let me rephrase: I don't think we ought to model the content of this article on that of an American presidential candidate. Ignatieff is a scholar, a Member of the Parliament of Canada, and a contestant for the leadership of the Liberal Party. It would be better to model the content of this article on the articles of other comparable figures from those fields. As has been discussed here previously (now in archives), none of the other leadership contestants' articles go into detail about private lives. Where relevent, the names of spouses and children are usually (but not always) provided. I think that's all we need.
Second, if a brief biography of Michael Ignatieff really requires more information about his personal life than that provided for comparable Canadian public figures, so be it. However, I challenge anyone to justify including a list of universities that use articles written by a public figure's estranged wife in a biography of said public figure! Besides being completely irrelevent, this can only be the product of original research. My edits in this regard having nothing to do with NPOV, but with trying to maintain relevance. —Joel Bastedo 01:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Bastedo confuses Citing sources with original research. There are 2 children from the first wife and the 3 of them are obviously as important to this article as which universities John Kerry's children attended are to his biography. If Bastedo feels such information should not be in Wikipedia biographies then he should remove the 13 lines of references to Kerry's first wife and children as well. It is ludicrous to try to prevent sourced information about Ignatieff's past life from being presented in the article. 64.229.31.128 02:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have misread the section in question, and to have misunderstood my intentions. I have never suggested taking Ignatieff's children or his former wife out of the article. And if you know which unversities Ignatieff's children attend, by all means, add that information. I was objecting to this line:
Ms.Barrowclough is a movie reviewer whose work is used in film courses at Queen's University as well as the University of Waterloo and she has written movie reviews for the Oxford Journal.
This would be (arguably) relevant in an article on Ms. Barrowclough, but it has nothing to do with Ignatieff, nor with his children! —Joel Bastedo 02:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
This page has a very anti-ignatieff slant. I find his positions on torture have been blown far out of context. 31, July 2006(utc)
To be honest, these recent additions to the family section are hearsay, and negative hearsay at that. Find me a newspaper article and we can cite it. The alleged wikinews article uses this article as its source and this article uses the wikinews article as a reference. It's a circular citation and there's no original source to quote from! 198.20.40.50 04:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Joel Bastedo might work for Ignatieff's campaign?

This constant editor (on this article) began editing November,2005 (the same month Iggy was nominated to run for MP) and has been consistently editing the article with pro-Ignatieffpov ever since and with no respect for consensus at all. Just today in Canada's major newspaper was an article concerning how some of the Liberal campaigns are trying to influence wikis and this contributer seems to be trying to do that right here in a most blatant way. In fact, Joel shows no other interest at all in politics in his contributions, which only began when Iggy was nominated to run for parliament.67.71.121.206 23:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC))

Gee, ya think this might be a little more credible if you weren't an anonymous editor? Well, actually, it wouldn't be, but at the very least it would reduce the irony level. -Joshuapaquin 01:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
If user 67.71.121.206 had read the discussions associated with those edits, he or she would know that I am, in fact, Ignatieff's mom. —Joel Bastedo 01:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
PS — If Ignatieff has been paying me to bolster his Wiki Image since November, I've been going about it in a curious and I think rather inefficient way. Before June 17, my edits were limited to articles on the War of 1812, the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act, and similar articles about North American colonial history. Ah, but maybe I was inserting pro-Iggy POV into the epic battles of Canada's past? Who knows to what lengths these wiley politicians will go to boost their profile! If no one puts a stop to my POV edits soon, Wikipedia will be recording Michael Ignatieff leading a contigent of happy Ukranian-Canadians to victory on the Plains of Abraham. —Joel Bastedo 02:22, 31 July 2006(UTC)
Just stop with the article control ; there is nothing wrong with including information about Ignatieff's 15 years of marriage in England and his two children from that marriage. Certainly common sense dictates no credible biography would exclude children of the subject. In fact, perhaps Bastedo can contribute some edits regarding them since he does not like the ones that were contributed by others. 64.229.31.128 02:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking something along the lines of "Michael Ignatieff is married to Hungarian-born Zsuzsanna Zsohar and has two children, Theo and Sophie, from his first marriage to Susan Barrowclough." Perhaps we could add that the two children live with their mother in England. Again, I suggest the articles on other leadership candidates as a guideline for the amount of detail we ought to include on personal lives. —Joel Bastedo 02:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
No.Please see FellowWikip edits above which support the edits you just removed. Please do not do that again; you have no consensus to do it! 64.229.31.128 03:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
What? But you yourself invited me to make the edit. I quote: "In fact, perhaps Bastedo can contribute some edits regarding them since he does not like the ones that were contributed by others." —Joel Bastedo 03:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned about all this material that comes from Wikinews. I don't think that it is a "reliable source" (the same as WP) at the best of times. A few anonymous posts, claiming an interview, answers to questions, etc. I'm not doubting the accuracy per se but I don't think that it meets the standards for sourcing here. --JGGardiner 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the wikinews article in question has no source. The only reference listed for the alleged comments is this very article! 198.20.40.50 04:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, this is an issue, given WP:BLP. If the Wikinews link keeps popping up, I'm going to revert it on sight. -Joshuapaquin 22:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to re-add the Wikinews link. FellowWikipedian 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No, he doesn't.

  • I think it's well established that Ignatieff has a few (very) vocal critics. At least one of these is a Bell sympatico user with a dynamic IP address, who consistently tries to add an Anti-Ignatieff slant to this article. (If you want to see for yourself, do an ARIN whois lookup on the anonymous Anti-Iggy edits and you'll find that nearly all of them come the same block). Now, he's making foundless accusation. Joel Bastardo, JGGardiner, and a few others have been consistently balanced in trying to create a neutral POV in this article, whereas this anonymous Bell user spews nothing but bias. Feel free to ignore his rantings - I know I will. 198.20.40.50 19:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Am I the only one to see the irony of the edit above also being an anon edit?
Bell Sympatico is the largest ISP in Canada and likely has a million or more users just within the Toronto megalopolis (4 million people total); I myself use sympatico.I don't know that much about multiple accounts but I would endorse a complete check-user scan of all contributors who have made more than 5 edits on this article. I myself am suspicious that even a few of the non-anons are sockpuppets of each other. Ottawaman 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I think checkuser is generally reserved for more serious matters than this. Admins like to err on the side of privacy, and rightly so. -Joshuapaquin 01:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ottawaman - I've got a static IP address and if you check my edits, you'll see I've been a Wiki contributer for a long time. Same with most of the long-time editors here. So I'm skeptical that Ignatieff was clever enough to plant us before even becoming a candidate. 198.20.40.50 04:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes...

Antignatieff.blogspot.com is a simple POV, please Joel Bastedo... B. Huot

A blog with a single post - an imaginary interview of the candidate? No, we can't reasonably include that in the article. -Joshuapaquin 21:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. 198.20.40.50 22:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it. Why did you say "please Joel Bastedo"? —Joel Bastedo 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Creation of separate biography disruptive

The creation of a separate biography for Susan Barrowclough by Bastedo was a misuse of Wikipedia. Anything related to her at this stage of her career(s) belongs here. Ottawaman 11:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Barrowclough bio has now been deleted by an administrator which only goes to show how out of bounds that behavior was (creating a separate article as a means of controling content here). Please can we try do do things by consensus here?
  • I agree with FellowWikip and the anonymous editor(who is welcome here btw) that the material on Ignatieff's family belongs in his article and also with Joshuapaquin that there needs to be more material about his first wife and children. It does seem suspicious that a quick review of the history of this article shows the same small group of editors keep popping in to remove or "spin" any edits which are not complimentary of Ignatieff. The sanitizing of the "Lesser Evil" controversy is particularly worrisome and the creation of the Barrowclough bio shows a very pushy approach which includes misusing Wikipedia. I propose the family information remain in the article until someone can find other sources.
  • Have any of you ever edited on Wikinews? They are extremely diligent in their adherance to NPOV and I have complete confidence in using them as a reliable source. Ottawaman 12:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, please explain to me how creating a separate bio about Barrowclough is a "misuse" of Wikipedia. I just accepted the opinion of other editors who felt the info about her was sufficiently important to be included on wiki, and that being so, I created a stub for her. If the stub was deleted, that indicates that the content was subpar (it was) and perhaps that she is not notable enough to have her career details (which amounted to which university film courses use her articles) on wiki. I'm not surprised.
Now, if you and others will kindly stop casting dark aspersions and start assuming good faith of other editors as you ought to, you'll see that my editing has the intended effect of creating a smoother, more readable, and better balanced encyclopaedia article. I have no political stake and frankly don't care either way about the political fortunes of Mr. Ignatieff. I am willing to assume -- vandals aside -- that we're all just trying to make this article better; please do the same.
As regards the info on Barrowclough's movie reviews etc., I don't see how her career details could be construed as hurtful to Ignatieff, so why are my attempt to cut them being seen as pro-Iggy POV? It's just irrelevant that University of Western Ontario and Queen's use the movie reviews of Ignatieff's ex-wife in their film courses! How inane to think that cutting that is politically motivated! —Joel Bastedo 15:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think the Barrowclough stuff is even relevant, but if people are keen to see it on Wikipedia, then it should at least go in its own page, as opposed to here.72.139.185.19 07:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Barrowclow is part of Ignatieff's family background and belongs here; just as the information about John Kerry's first wife and children is in his article. 65.95.151.130 12:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ottawaman and 65.95.151.130. There should be more material about Mr. Ignatieff's first wife and children. FellowWikipedian 16:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason for deleting the entire family section and the deleters are not assuming good faith at all. Since Barrowclough's phone number is provided ( 011442072265344 ), assume good faith unless the interviewee is contacted and denies the interview. Btw, I have an audiofile of the entire interview which has already been sent to a lawyer because of death threats. This interview is real; it happened and it's not going to disappear. 65.95.151.130 17:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The family section should stay. FellowWikipedian 17:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The only source for this allegation is an unverified interview by an anonymous user. How about we wait until the interview is shown to be true before we start quoting it? 198.20.40.50 18:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is creating a seperate biography disruptive? The details of Ignatieff's ex-wife's life are really not relevant to an already overly-long article about Ignatieff himself. If people need to see information about her, then create a seperate article for it. 198.20.41.74 18:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

A quote from Wikipedia's policy on the Biography of living people....

In a nutshell: Articles about living persons require a degree of sensitivity and must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim. Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. [7] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

Given the above, I don't see any way that the ex-wife interview can be included. 198.20.40.50 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am really confused. If this interview with Barrowclough is verified as being accurate and Ignatieff never responds to her statements, would the interview be disallowed? Ottawaman 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If this edit is true, then it would appear that some editors here are grossly mis-stating or mis-representing wikipedia policy in efforts to control content in this article. I suggest that no more references to restrictive policies be made except by administrators. I am wondering how many other times policy has been mis-stated in this article in order to keep out information which is not in Iggy's favor. 70.48.206.115 14:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Barrowclough's name and other edits

Why was Barrowclough's name removed? and why were these edits removed? (which I believe had been in the article peacefully for months) Ottawaman 12:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

My bad. I was trying to remove the link to the SB article and took more than I was supposed to. 72.139.185.19 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
As for the other edits, you'll see they've been moved the ideas section. I've removed your edits, as they left the same block of text appearing twice. 72.139.185.19 18:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think the lesser evils and torture sections of "controversies" do belong there as they are the most controversial aspects of Ignatieff's career thus far. You may remove them from the ideas section if you wish. Ottawaman 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the permission. However, if you take a look above, you'll see that consensus was reached some time ago about including these ideas under the ideas section. And don't create more work for other people - at least finish your edits properly (i.e.: remove the duplicated text), rather than just reposting the same bit of text twice. 198.20.40.50 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Barrowclough interview audiofile just emailed to 4 Wikinews administrators

    • I just sent a verification audiofile to Eloquence,Chiacomo, Craig Spurrier, Nyarlathotep as well as a few other regular contributers of wikinews. I will also send the audiofile to any other regular contributor here who requests it and provides an email address. 64.229.185.16 23:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see the Wikipedia policy on the Biography of living persons. You'll see that original research is not to be included. 72.139.185.19 01:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Verified Wikinews interview is cited for the Barrowclough edits here; that means it is not original research for wikipedia purposes,istm. 64.229.30.128 10:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see the following policies: [6],[7],[8],[9]

Posting the Audio file

Can't you post the audio file on Wikinews or Commons? Is there a technical reason why you can't? It's not that I don't believe the file exists, just that it really needs to be publically accessible if it's going to be counted as "verification". Also, I certainly hope that Ms. Barrowclough was informed that her comments were being recorded. -Joshuapaquin 01:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
First you assumed it was "an imaginary interview of the candidate? No, we can't reasonably include that in the article. -Joshuapaquin 21:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)" How about an apology? Or at least assume good faith from here on out.
I am not that technically adept but if someone will tell me how to post it on commons and I would be glad to do so. I am getting this message at commons "".wav" is not an allowed file format. See Commons:File types for more information." Or, I could email it to anyone here who would like it and maybe they could convert it to the correct format for Commons. 65.95.151.40 01:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
You're referring to something completely different, my comment on the "Anti-Ignatieff blog" that someone kept putting in the article. The blog had a single entry, which was an (admittedly) fake interview. This should have been pretty clear given the context, and I don't feel compelled to apologize for anything. Anyway, get that audio file posted, please, if you want it to count toward the credibility of the Wikinews article. -Joshuapaquin 02:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Special email set up for the audiofile

I have set up the email address Barrowcloughinterview@yahoo.com for anyone who wishes to receive the Barrowclough interview verification audiofile; just email me there. 65.95.151.40 01:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not just Wikipedia editors that the verification must be available to; it should be clear to readers as well. That's only feasible if the recording is made publicly available. I'm sure that the folks at Commons or Wikinews will help you find a way to make that happen. -Joshuapaquin 03:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it makes no difference whether an audiofile of an interview obtained by a wiki editor is available to the general public or not -- it's still original research, and in this case, it still has nothing to do with the article. If you wish, 65.95.151.40, you could start a wiki entry entitled "Susan Barrowclough's private criticism of her ex-husband" in which you can include the entire transcript of the interview, or any portions you find most juicy. It would be fun to see how long that would last before being deleted, but in the meantime, the information would be in the appropriate place. The appropriate place is not in this article, no matter how well documented the interview becomes. (Unless it is picked up by mainstream media and becomes an important factor in the leadership campaign.) Remember, this isn't investigative journalism! —Joel Bastedo 23:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone help with the posting of the audiofile?

Joshuapaquin is insisting that it be posted on commons or here; would someone who knows how (I don't know how either) please email the address they set up Barrowcloughinterview@yahoo.com and get it and post it? good grief. (btw; I got the audiofile and listened to it; it is completely legitimate and says exactly what was put into the articles by the interviewer) Ottawaman 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Including Barrowclough's interview

I'm not referring to verifiability or anything. Let's assume it's all true. So, the question is: why should it be included? Other than recognizing her existence and the names of the children, it seems ... so unneccessary. That and the facts about her reviews being used by universities seems shockingly irrelevant. --Hamiltonian 15:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I suppose we could have a brief mention of her occupation, e.g. "and has two children from his first marriage to British film reviewer Susan Barrowclough". Nothing more than that is relevant, though. -Joshuapaquin 20:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Strange and selective objections

  • Very strange objections above. Why do the 2 editors above not remove the 13 lines of similar family information in John Kerry's article devoted to his first wife and their children?
  • And if those 2 editors will not do that on Kerry's article, why do they insist upon doing it here? 65.95.150.236 00:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The state of one article has nothing to do with the state of another. Additionally, the Kerry paragraphs are based on legitimate published sources, not a phone-taped interview posted by an anonymous contributor to Wikinews. --Hamiltonian 00:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Kerry article is 75 KB long; that's not a good model to follow. If we were writing a book-length biography on Ignatieff, details about his relationship with his ex-wife would be relevant. But we're not. Rather, we're trying to maintain a brief, encyclopaedic entry on the man as a public figure, and as his private relationships have not become part of the public discourse, they are irrelevant. A good rule of thumb, I think, is to ask yourself what information the average person would need if they heard Ignatieff's name mentioned in the news and went to Wikipedia to find out who he is and why he is being talked about. Which universities use his ex-wife's movie reviews, and what his ex-wife thinks of his parenting skills will not help to answer those questions. —Joel Bastedo 06:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems odd to me and completely arbitrary that you have determined Ignatieff's bio should be shorter than John Kerry's. Ottawaman 12:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
John Kerry was the democratic nominee for the President of the United States. I hardly see how you could ever compare them. --mboverload@ 12:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Taking turns

You two ever think of taking turns, each turn to last 2 days, make all the additions you want? Proposed deletions must be quoted on discussion page before deletion? WP:CITE and WP:V kind of suggest this sort of useable approach in a problematic area. Sheesh, I thought I had problems where I'm editing ! Terryeo 03:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of another user's comments

Tyrenius has twice deleted comments made by Terryeo. This is contrary to Talk page guidelines which state, under the heading "Behaviour that is unacceptable":

Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.

Whatever Tyrenius may think of the appropriateness of the comment is really not the issue; nor is he the arbiter of talk page standards. Sunray 15:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)