Talk:Stockwell Day

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.
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.
Political parties and politicians in Canada

Contents

[edit] What?

'The Liberals' attacks on Day ending up decimated the NDP and Progressive Conservatives.' I don't even know what this is trying to say, whoever wrote it should write it over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.199.152 (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] miscellaneous comments

Hey folks, I just made a change and forgot to document it (sorry, new user and figuring things out!) The chocolate milk incident actually occurred at Conestoga College in Kitchener, not the University of Waterloo... (Inchim was, however, a UW student). I was actually at the event in question, and it can be verified at http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/story.php?f=2&t=734&i=&v=f&story=734 and http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca/2000/oct/06fr.html. Theolad 19:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Good catch. HistoryBA 01:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This is one of the most embarrasingly non-NPOV articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It doesn't belong with serious articles about public officials. Sad to see Wikipedia hijacked in this way.

His propsed referendum law was 3% of the electorate, not 4%.



149.99.162.182 please explain how all these things you have deleted are 'serious factual errors' when many of them a quite easily verifiably true. SimonP 20:25 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

MLA? Kingturtle 02:51 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

I was just coming here to ask that question. What does MLA mean? RickK

Member of the Legislative Assembly, I guess. FearÉIREANN 05:36 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Yeah, Member of the Legislative Assembly...but I'm not sure if there is a difference between that and a Member of Provincial Parliament. Maybe MPP is just an Ontario thing (it seems that way from a very brief Google search) Adam Bishop 05:39 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The representatives are MLAs in all provinces except Ontario, Quebec (Member of the National Assembly) and Nfld-Lab (Member of the House of Assembly). - Montréalais


Note: Simon will repeatedly edit pages to re-insert serious factual errors. He apparently knows these things are errors, but hopes to propagate them in order to further his personal biases on various subjects. --149.99.164.172

I do aknowledge the article did not say much good about Stockwell Day, but what it said was the truth. Could you please demonstrate how the facts were in error? The article could certainly use more editing, it definetaly has more about Day's failures than his successes. The article would be stronger if you would add positive facts about Day, rather than just delete any negative facts you ma not like. SimonP 20:51 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)


They are not 'facts.' They are lies, they are false. Since you have to couch your language in phrases like "reportedly implied," to cover-your-ass with these non-facts you are obviously aware of this. --149.99.164.172
I'm not a Stockwell Day fan, but you are simply slandering the man.
I repeat: What facts are you questioning? Why don't we have a discussion, then I can find sources to prove what can be proven, and if anything is found to be false we can remove them. Rather than you just deleting valuable content while adding nothing of your own. SimonP 02:01 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
P.S. While I do support the content here I did not write most of it, it is a colabarative work of many people from all over the political spectrum. I did not, for instance, remember the specifics of the lawsuit, someone else wrote that bit, but I do believe it to be correct.
OK, then, start with the lawsuit. Start by firming up the 'reportedly implied' comments. I personally wouldn't recommend you waste your time looking, personally... --149.99.164.172

I removed the lengthy paragraph about Kinsella's dinosaur joke. It was a minor incident and we already have more than enough embarassing Stock Day incidents. - SimonP 00:45, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Uh, where did the picture go?

Digging.holes 02:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. The best guess is that it was deleted for improper citation. CJCurrie 03:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Funny. I'll try uploading it again. Digging.holes 05:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Left-Wing Bias

My Grandfather, Stockwell Day Sr. was not openly anti-Semitic. While he held views that were most popular in the mid 20th century, and sometimes expressed them, it went as far as that. Whilst he stated many things that could be considered "racist", he made many strides against racial inequality such as hiring East Indians, Blacks, Asians, Arabs, as well as Jews in addition as being quite open to the east indian members of his community. Who wrote that segment, as well as the rest of the article? The Aspers and the CBC? user:samr

Well, I'm neither an Asper nor do I work for the CBC, but I wrote some of the "2000 election" section...do you have any problems with that section?Habsfannova 19:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do. It goes above and beyond violating the Wikipedia:NPV regulations. A negative tone, and mild cynacism run rampant in the piece. user:samr
  • Well, the negative tone can be attributed to the fact that the election was a major disappointment...can you provide some concrete examples?Habsfannova 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The article concentrates on the negatives, not the positives. Its pretty easy to see. user:samr

Well, then please provide examples. It's pretty hard to concentrate on "positives" in an election where the Alliance pretty much fell on its face.Habsfannova 20:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"My Grandfather, Stockwell Day Sr. was not openly anti-Semitic."

Interesting choice of words. Are you admitting he was privately anti-Semitic? Wasn't he quoted a few years ago expressing doubts about the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust?Homey 01:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • No I am not implying that, I am only using words that were used in the segment. Even if he did express doubts, what does it matter? Inquiry into a historical event is not a misdemeanor. user:samr

That is however what it seems to imply. If you had said "not anti-semitic" it holds much more weight. Saying "not openly anti-semitic" certainly leads one to believe you're holding the door open to the possibility that he was "privately anti-semitic."

Well, Holocaust denial goes somewhat beyond historical inquiry. In any case, the paragaraph doesn't even tough on Stockwell Day, Sr.'s anti-Semitism (which is well documented), it simply mentions that he was associated with far-right causes, Social Credit and the Western Canada Concept without going into detail about his more extreme views. It's interesting that you are objecting to the mention of something that isn't even stated in the article.Homey 06:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thats because I edited it out of the article because it wasn't true. You didn't know the man, so don't make false statements about him. user: samr

I didn't put in the article, did I? However, if he was a Holocaust denier then that's worth mentioning.Homey 07:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


  • He wasn't a holocaust denier. You wikilefties are stupid, you make such claims based on poor facts you dig up in places with no credibility. user:samr
Don't leap to conclusions. He didn't say that Stockwell Day Sr. was or wasn't a Holocaust denier; he said that if he was, then it's worth mentioning. In any case, it should be noted that, in order to qualify for Holocaust denial, it's not necessary to claim that no deaths occurred.
By the way 70.67.163.34, if you're going to sign comments with a unique name (User:Samr), you should actually create the account in question. --Saforrest 10:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I do have an account, but I do not have a page with it set up. samr

I'm sorry, samr, but while I do not know whether or not your grandfather was a Holocaust denier I do know that he associated with Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites and was a follower of Doug Christie. These facts may be inconvenient and embarassing but it is not evidence of a "left wing bias" to say so, particularly as there are plenty of right-wingers who oppose Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism. If anything, it's a "left-wing bias" to claim that only those on the left care about such things. Instead of trying to cover up your family's history you should consider being frank and contrite about it. Rather than trying to excuse it by saying his views were "popular at the time" you should consider coming out and saying something like "I love my grandfather, he was a good man in many ways but he had a number of distasteful and shameful views which I do not hold." Homey 16:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Whats wrong with Doug Christie? Hes a defender of free speech and a critic of the hypocritical Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And why must the paragraph that raises some "negative points" about Stockwell Day Sr be in this article? Sounds like a subtle bias to me. user:samr

Honestly, I don't think, given your relationship to both Days, you can really expect anyone to see you as an objective judge. Homey 05:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to say, for the moment, that it is clear to me that if Stockwell Day, Sr. was antisemitic, then this would certainly be worthy mentioning here. This is especially true because Stockwell Day is, by most accounts, one of the most pro-Israel politicians in Canada (see e.g. this article [1] from Canadian Jewish News).

What evidence do we have that Stockwell Day, Sr. was antisemitic? He has certainly identified his views with those of Doug Christie (see here for a quote from Day where he calls Christie his 'captain'), but Christie has not been labelled as antisemitic in Wikipedia's article on him. I could reasonably guess that he is, since he founded a far-right party and seems to like defending Holocaust deniers. But unless he's said something himself (about Jews or the Holocaust, etc.) the most we can do is mention opinions other people have about him.

Anyway, back to Stockwell Day, Sr.: I agree that we shouldn't exaggerate his negative traits when they were shared by society; this is why we don't describe Tommy Douglas as anti-gay even though he described homosexuality as "a mental illness" and "a psychiatric condition". However, I'm not so convinced about the level of antisemitism in 1950s-1980s Alberta. Just as we don't praise Tommy Douglas for not being an antisemite, though he too was a Westerner of the era, we shouldn't excuse Day's antisemitism if it existed. --Saforrest 07:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


  • What I'm trying to say is: The paragraph about Stockwell Day Sr, and his supposed antisemitisn is not necessary for a bio about the career of the Jr. While it may hold its place in an article written about the Sr, it certainly does not need to be placed in this article. user:samr
To quote myself from before "it is clear to me that if Stockwell Day, Sr. was antisemitic, then this would certainly be worthy mentioning here. This is especially true because Stockwell Day is, by most accounts, one of the most pro-Israel politicians in Canada."
By "here" I meant the page Stockwell Day. It doesn't need to go in depth about Sr.'s alleged antisemitism, but it should be mentioned. --Saforrest 21:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarified why Day wrote the letter regarding Lorne Goodard

I made it clearer as to why Day felt compelled to write the letter regarding Lorne Goodard. It also helps explain way there was little negative reaction the letter in Alberta or Red Deer.(Progressive Conservatives were re-elected in a massive landslide in the next election dispite the Liberals attempts to make the letter an issue).

Possibly he was compelled by the same bad judgements he showed while he was leader of the party. His basic lack of meaningful education is also probably a contributing factor.

[edit] 2000 election

I think that the account of the 2000 election needs some editing. First, I wonder whether we might not dispense completely with the chocolate milk incident, which imo is not significant enough to justify the space. Frankly, I feel the same with the Ottawa high-tech event and the Niagara Falls gaffe. Can't we shorten this to something like "some staged events turned out poorly" Bucketsofg 23:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the Conservatives from the sentence "The Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives would use this to their advantage: The former campaigned on Day having a "hidden agenda", and the latter would title their campaign "Change You Can Trust"." Not, of course, that this wasn't true, but was the slogan solely about Day, or the Reform/CA movement generally? And was this about the 'hidden agenda'? or the agenda as presented? Also, I'm not sure that even if it was true, that it adds enough to the article to justify including it. Bucketsofg 02:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted "The result of the campaign Day's credibility and popularity would soon wane under the media and opposition accusations, and he proved unable to show Eastern Canadians that the party was not simply Reform revamped. Many in the Alliance Party, and other Canadians, condemned the "Campaign of Fear" they said was being run against Day." I'm not sure what this paragraph aims at. Saying that Day was harmed by the campaign? Surely no one would deny it. But it's far from clear how credible and popular before. 'Eastern Canadians' is not NPOV. Yes, 'many in the Alliance' condemned the '"campaign of fear"', but 'other Canadians'? Maybe there is something to be salvaged here. But shouldn't it be added to next section? Bucketsofg 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Personal water craft footage

I think that a clip from the water craft footage should be added. It has certainly had a big impact and seems to get used whenecer Stockwell Day is mentioned on several Canadian comedy shows. Kc4 00:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


RE MILK No, you should keep the chocolate milk in and expand it to include his reaction to "homo" milk. Was it Mary Walsh or Cathy Jones who ambushed him again? - Vaudree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.58.47 (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear

In the sentence: "He attended the University of Victoria and Northwest Bible College in Edmonton, AB (formerly), but did not graduate from either," what does "AB (formerly)" mean? Adam 07:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The AB means Alberta, Canada, and I think the "formerly" refers to the fact that Northwest Bible College is now known as Vanguard College. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted. Adam 12:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Stockwell Day spells 'maroon' with one 'o' Chris66 15:43 October 17 2006

[edit] ACE curriculum controversy

As I remember it, the controversy over the ACE curriculum had to do with anti-semitic lessons. This is not to say, of course, that Day is/was an anti-semite, which my edit doesn't mean to imply but some may misinterpret. Can anyone improve it?

[edit] 22 Minutes

I think it's a stretch to say that had Day's proposal for national referenda been in effect at the time, the "Doris" proposal would have gone up for a vote. My recollection is the "signatures" for the 22 Minutes campaign were submitted by Internet. Ballot petitions generally require backers to go out and get the physical signatures of registered voters. -- Mwalcoff 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Exactly right. The law would only apply to petitions that collected real signatures, not Internet petitions that can be signed multiple times. (Four of the "signatures" on the 22 Minutes petition are mine.) I'm removing the sentence.
--The Invisible Hand 13:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

It is important to keep the right balance between acknowledging the various controversies ("brain drain", Doris, dinosaurs, etc.) that attached themselves to Day in 2000 while simultaneously not overplaying them. The appropriate response to this imperative, however, is not to bury everything remotely unflattering or controversial in a "trivia" section at the end of the article. In fact, Wikipedia policy is quite explicit that "Trivia" sections are not appropriate in most articles, and have to be integrated back into the main article body.

The appropriate solution here is to acknowledge these matters in the article, but not to dwell on them. We do need to mention them as briefly and neutrally as possible, but obviously we shouldn't insert meaningless, unverifiable hypotheticals about whether Elections Canada would really have approved a Doris referendum or not. WP:NPOV doesn't mean this article has to be a flattering puff piece that buries anything that anybody might read as even remotely unflattering to him; it means we have to acknowledge the facts without interpreting them. Bearcat 05:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wording

Do other editors believe that this wording is appropriate:

The Liberals used this tactic in order to drive NDP and Progressive Conservative-leaning voters into voting Liberal, though at no stage in the campaign did polls suggest that the Canadian Alliance would form a majority government needed to implement such policies.

I would argue that "used this tactic in order to drive" is a rather clear instance of "weasel-wording", while the second part of the sentence seems to violate our policies against Original Research. Do others agree? CJCurrie 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This is detailed in this article: 2006 Liberal Party of Canada election ads. Jack Layton himself described the Liberal tactics as "scaremongering" GoldDragon 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't know exactly which voters it was aimed at. Perhaps it was aimed at libertarian voters who are turned off by social conservatism. There were many of those in the urban and suburban ridings where the Liberals competed with the Alliance.Or maybe just turning people away from Day generally. Or maybe they just saw a weakness and attacked there. I don't remember the last time a political party held back when they saw a perceived weakness in an opposing party leader. I'd want to see a source from a Liberal insider to make that kind of inference.Otherwise I suppose there could be something that is clearly attributed to a particular commentator.

As for the second bit, I think that one has a slight POV problem because it implies that ads were wrong in their conclusions which is not necessarily the case. I don't see why we need to editorialize about what the Liberals were thinking. We should just describe what they did. Readers can come to conclusion the same way that we do. --JGGardiner 21:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why no mention of his blog, and the skeptical comments about global warming therein?

That information is valid and relavent to who Mr. Day is. It used to be here, and has since been scrubbed. Is messege control at work here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.229.105 (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)