Talk:Michael Ignatieff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as b-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: The edit warning at the top of Talk:Michael Ignatieff applies equally here and to any other editing related to Michael Ignatieff. Tyrenius 12:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC) At present, the neutrality of this article is disputed. While it is a decent overview of Ignatieff's life, writings, and political career, a serious student would find much to be desired. Thus, I would classify it as B grade, working towards a GA grade. Because it is about an important Canadian politician (and international scholar), I would classify the article as being of High importance. A cynic could make the argument for Mid level importance. Specific suggestions for improving the article include proper wikification of references and links, as well as cleaning up instances of pro- and anti- Ignatieff wording. Undue weight is also an issue, as is length. Additional comments to follow. -- 198.20.40.50 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Contents 1 F- 2 Neutralizer, Ottawaman, Canuckster et al 3 Iggy loses in spite of his followers 4 Religion 5 Clarification for Neutralizer 6 Clarification 7 By-Election Info 8 NPOV 9 Criticism Section [edit] F- This article rates an F for failure in every possible way. It has been continually censored and controlled by contributors who only want to maximize anything positive about the subject and minimize or delete anything negative. The most prolific current contributer even resorted to using offensive templates which ridicule disabled children as a way to pressure editors in his direction. Now that same editor and 1 other delete talk page discussion topics they do not want to see addressed by the community. In short, this article sucks,big time and at this point has been completely hijacked by contributors with a pro-Ignatieff pov who are blatantly instilling that pov into the article. Ottawaman 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (edit)

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (major fields): Philosophers

Michael Ignatieff has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to 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 on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Political parties and politicians in Canada WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

	This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. 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 contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.

[edit] Neutralizer, Ottawaman, Canuckster et al

The person behind the Neutralizer, Ottawaman, Canuckster, BarbWatts, Methodology, etc accounts and Bell Sympatico dynamic IPs has been community banned. They have promised they will not edit WP again, but if they do, all their edits can be reverted and such reversions are exempt from 3RR. Sockpuppets are listed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Neutralizer. Sarah 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iggy loses in spite of his followers

in spite of his followers lying about Iggy, he still lost.

142.150.48.149 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Dr. Research

[edit] Religion

I notice that the religion part of the infobox has been of the recent activity here. Checking the link, what I saw was from sufficient in my opinion. Valpy's "I think he sometimes goes to a service" is far from evidence that is needed here. It might be the best we've got but we shouldn't just put in the best that we know when we don't know very much. So, does somebody have a better source on his religion? If not, it should be removed from the infobox. --JGGardiner 08:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification for Neutralizer

This is just a clarification for Neutralizer and his various personas that I am not a former admin or a former editor. Neither is Daniel Bryant. We have simply had our usernames changed to User:Sarah and User:Daniel. We both still monitor this article. And will file the abuse report with your ISP if you start up again. Sarah 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Biography: Should it not read From 1964 to 1975, Ignatieff worked as a journalist at The Globe and Mail newspaper.

Instead of from From 1964 to 1965??? Jhcarleton 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] By-Election Info

I'm against including too much about the by-elections. Although the accusations did have impact, that isn't really relevant to Ignatieff himself. A rumor is important if it affects someone but we don't know that it really affected Ignatieff and we don't know that it was true so I wouldn't include it here. Although it does have a place in some other articles perhaps. --JGGardiner 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The section stating, "The Liberals were badly defeated in all ridings, most notably their former stronghold of Outremont. Ignatieff has since urges his party to come together, says "united we win, divided we lose"." is clearly POV as it uses subjective terminology, further it is has misspellings and creates a box separate from the text. Clearly a poor edit. Further, the text above that statement writes that the "Globe and Mail suggests..." which is original research and violates the fact that Wiki is not a news tabloid. These edits are obviously unencyclopedic and only included by an editor who wises to use Wiki as his/her Soapbox. This is a textbook case of poor editing where the spelling is incorrect, incorrectly formatted, improperly cited per WP:CITE, and highly subjective. --Strothra 17:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Strothra. The current wording is poorly written and POV. It needs revision or deletion. I will see if it can be reworded in a more neutral manner. Sunray 17:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at it, attempting to make the wording more neutral. I'm not all that happy with it, however the media did engage in considerable speculation about Liberal in-fighting and the section reflects that. It may, or may not, have any enduring importance. Sunray 18:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that media speculation is still not encyclopedic regardless and, in any event, against WP:NOT. However, I think you did much to make the section much more neutral. Thank you. --Strothra 23:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with Sunray's rewording, however it must be noted that the extensive media speculation deserves mention, as it influenced action events. The Globe interviewed campaign workers after the article came out, that is fact. Furthermore, saying that the media tried to find more signs of...that is not appropriate. GoldDragon 14:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You have the burden of proof in your assertion that media speculation influenced events. Moreover, the article is about Ignatieff, not the party in question, its successes/failures, or campaign workers beyond Ignatieff's direct involvement in those matters. Speculation is not encyclopedic nor is it appropriate for an article that must adhere to WP:BLP. Wiki is not a news outlet. As the article is in its current form, it is giving far too much undue weight to campaign issues rather than biographical detail. --Strothra 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The media speculation did influence events. Ignatieff called up Dion in response to the Halifax Herald report being published. But even then, there is nothing wrong with including speculation if it is backed up by mainstream sources. There is nothing wrong on including speculation of the potential 2006 Liberal leadership contenders, like John Manley, Frank McKenna, or Allan Rock, even if they didn't file papers yet and ending up if they never entered the race. GoldDragon 17:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the anon editor who is inserting financing and campaign manager details, the blog does reference reliable sources. However, it is better if the anon editor actually uses the news articles directly; for instance the Montreal Gazette and Canada_com. So you have to be careful about what you consider and delete as POV, because this can be construed as vandalism. GoldDragon 17:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not allowed per WP:RS unless they were created by notable and a recognized expert in his/her field such as the blog by Juan Cole. Again, inserting the speculation of a news source into the article is simply adding opinion, not fact. It is original research. --Strothra 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

These additions are perfectly consistent with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. And as speculation is permitted for the Liberal leadership convention... GoldDragon 00:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, blogs are not permitted as sources. Again, speculation is not encyclopedic. If you would like to suggest ways to neutrally integrate factual material that is properly cited from reliable sources, then please suggest it. --Strothra 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

<edit by banned user removed per WP:BAN>

You are correct. In fact, if we used the canada.com source directly, that would give Strothra no excuse to delete it. GoldDragon 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that since this is a biography of a living person (WP:BLP) that blog citations will be removed immediately as they are clearly not reliable sources per WP:RS. Per WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." --Strothra 01:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Montreal Gazette and Canada_com are reputable sources. End of story. GoldDragon 17:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That may well be, but forums and blogs are not reliable sources in general and specifically not for a BLP. If you have material you want to add, please find some reliable sources to cite, otherwise the material is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Sarah 23:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, we will have to cite them directly. GoldDragon 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section

He has been heavily criticized for often calling himself an American, among other things. I think the very least is to put a "Criticism" section at the bottom similar to almost every other major wikipedia Biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.185.94 (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

        I second that. - signed Ghyslyn

Well I'd like to think that we can do better than the very least. I suggest that we do a full-blown insertion of the criticism within the relevant context and appropriate section of the article. That is would be more proper for an encyclopedia than those "criticism" sections which I'm sure exist only within this one. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection, we've already done that. The identification as an American, requested above, is in the "Political career" section. Well kudos to us. Barnstars all around. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)