Talk:Michael Ignatieff

Archives Click below to see prior discussions.
	May 27, 2006 June 17, 2006 July 5, 2006 July 14, 2006 August 6, 2006 August 12, 2006 October 16, 2006

Biography Unassessed

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

Link to "anybody but iggy" site

It was agreed long ago to include "Opponent site

Stop Iggy A site established by dissenting Liberals to outline why they disagree with his candidacy."

this,I think. 70.48.207.216 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. If you can cite the archive where consensus was reached, I'll leave it in. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 23:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Ignatieff's World" by Denis Smith

No reference is made to the book "Ignatieff's World", which should be required reading. The author is the biographer of Walter Gordon and John Diefenbaker.

http://www.amazon.ca/Ignatieffs-World-Liberal-leader-century/dp/1550289624

Broken Link in "Articles by Ignatieff"

The article explaining Ignatieff's support for the Iraq War in 2003 and "Empire Lite" is available at: http://faculty.washington.edu/nsingh/ignatieff.htm

The following link is not available: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/burden.htm

Somebody please change this.

Deletions?

Who (and why) is deleting the additions I made about his recent "war-crimes" comments vis-a-vis Israel? [unsigned]

I am, because it's already mentioned elsewhere. CJCurrie 03:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if that is the case, but I don't see it. Reverting in the meanwhile. Sorry, I see it now - removed this from 'International', but I did elaborate on his comments in the other section and added the pertinent citation.

Stop Iggy Link

also, please do not delete the link to the "stop iggy" website. After much discussion consensus was to let this 1 link remain. If you insist I will go back in the history to locate that consensus arrived at when the article was under admin. control. 64.229.30.183 14:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so. I do not believe your claim is correct.

Here it is reference#2. I am quite annoyed you do not assume good faith and also that you insist on pov pushing with your latest edits...plus you do not even bother to sign your comments. Ottawaman 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if include the whole quote? [1]:

1; basically that the "controversies"section be put back to this which was arrived at after much discussion and compromise,imo.

A;that the "controversies" section include Iggy's own comments regarding his time away from Canada in the national self-identity sub-section.
B; that the Ukrainian controversy be put back as it was a very big deal and still is.

2; that the opponent sites subsection be reincluded in External Links since the article offers links to Iggy's campaign offices.Ottawaman 13:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.a) Since the section already sufficiently deals with critics' concerns about Ignatieff's absence from Canada, and the quote about being a martian outsider is neither a response to those criticisms nor a source of controversy (ie. the media hasn't picked up on this quote either as an admission that Ignatieff is out of touch with Canada, nor as a rebuttal to such claims), I don't think it's necessary to include in an already overlong article.

1.b) This issue has been moved into the Political career section. I think that's appropriate, since it only emerged as a point of controversy in the context of Ignatieff's nomination. If some of the content from the original Ukranian-Canadian section should be reintroduced, it could be added succinctly to the Political career section.

2. I see no reason to exclude the opponents' sites section. If it were put to a vote, I'd vote to include. —Joel Bastedo 15:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above

Could we please put this discussion on hold for a moment, as we haven't got the verification points resolved yet. One thing at a time, or it's going to get back to stalemate. There may be different solutions to the "controversies section" and we need to consider policy as a starting point. Tyrenius 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. Ottawaman 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, Tyrenius suggested that this topic be put on hold before any consensus was reached. And you agreed. 67.55.7.195 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please refrain from making personal attacks, or assuming bad faith, as you did when you assumed my edits were POV pushing. A look at your edits, for instance, fails to show a single one that is not anti-Ignatieff. 67.55.7.195 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate - this link does not belong here. 67.55.7.195 12:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how come there are no external links to comments on "Ignatieff"?:

There are pro-Iggys who only want the links to Iggy's campaign website on Wikipedia; but that's not npov so That's not going to happen. 70.48.204.244 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commentaries and Reviews

Ignatieff's Realm, The Walrus. A thorough overview of Ignatieff's academic work and views. Written by Alex Mazer.
No more Mr Nice Guy New Humanist, September 21 2005. An op-ed criticism of Ignatieff by Laurie Taylor.
Ignatieff stands above Grit dwarfs Toronto Sun June 25 2006. Peter Worthington endorsement of Ignatieff.
Canada asks Ignatieff: Are you one of us? The Daily Telegraph, January 15, 2006. A summary of the critiques that have been levied against Ignatieff.
But where's the context? Toronto Star, April 9 2006. A meta-analysis of Ignatieff's critics and supporters.
Getting a read on Michael Ignatieff Toronto Star, May 1 2006. A survey of the issues surrounding him.
The Trouble with Ignatieff A blog entry by James Laxer which discusses the problems Mr. Ignatieff might face as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
Dallaire backs Ignatieff to lead Liberals, Ottawa Citizen, July 3, 2006. General Romeo Dallaire on Ignatieff's leadership bid.
CTV on candidates

I'm somewhat torn on this matter. Several Wikipedia pages permit links critical of the subject, but the sites in question are usually required to have some academic or journalistic credibility -- simply linking to an anti-Ignatieff blog, for instance, would not be allowed.

My feeling, at this stage, it that (i) the "Stop Iggy" link is scurrilous and should be removed, and (ii) supporters of the link should be required to make a very compelling case for its inclusion, if it is to remain. CJCurrie 21:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fit the definition of a blog and is more like an opposite portrayal of Ignatieff's campaign website. One is flattering and the other critical but their structure is similar. Either remove them both or leave them both. Ottawaman 02:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that only blogs should be excluded. On another matter, I'll note that the citations from the Valpy article are the worst instances of quote-mining I've seen in some time. CJCurrie 02:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignatieff's campaign * website, as expected, contains pro-Ignatieff "quote mining" and pov pushing. To be consistent you should be pushing to have that link removed as well, but I do not see you doing that. Ottawaman 13:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We covered this already when Tyrenius was moderating. Using official campaign websites is perfectly acceptable and not considered POV pushing. 67.55.7.195 17:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Ignatieff Hijack

Everyday I come to this page, the more it seems to have been hijacked by the anti-Ignatieff campagin. It seems that anything which is in favour of Ignatieff is taken down soon after it is posted.

Firstly, please add 4 tildes (~) to the end of your comments. It makes them easier to read. Secondly, I removed your edits because they were highly POV and clearly pro-Ignatieff. If you disagree, please discuss your reasons below. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 08:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the page has a very Anti-Iggy spin. I am not just referring to your removal. But the Ukrainian Controversy has been settled. He makes no suggestions of sorts if you were to read his book, and the media too has settled this argument. Their is no rebuttal on the torture issue, so it gives people the idea he actually does support torture.

Semi Protection

The consensus was to keep the anti link. Drive-by anons are deleting it, which is vandalism. Others anons are inserting either pro or anti POV junk to the article. I believe this article may need semi protection. Armon 08:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such alleged consensus does not exist. It never did. If consensus was reached in the past, and I am mistaken, simply reference it. Otherwise, please stop re-insserting. The link is biased and strongly anti-Igantieff. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 08:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Armon. It is pov pushing to allow the campaign website and not the counter site,imo. Ottawaman 02:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind including critical views of Ignatieff but I'd prefer weightier ones. That link says very little, nothing of substance and would only be included to prove that some Liberals don't like Ignatieff. But that is a) already plainly obvious and b) not demonstrated by the existence of the site anyway because of the anonymity of the site's creator (it may have been created by a single non-Liberal for all we know). As I said the first time, all this link does is prove that one person who doesn't like Ignatieff can make a webpage. So as I said when we discussed it then, I oppose inclusion of this link to what is essentially just a fancy blog. But I would welcome the inclusion of more literate criticisms of Ignatieff. --JGGardiner 17:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are dead wrong about the stopiggy movement. They have been at every event in large numbers so their opinion is more useful as they are not paid for their pov as are the people who designed his campaign website. 65.95.149.197 14:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dead wrong. I said the link demonstrates nothing. I've re-checked and it still doesn't. The group may be otherwise important; if they are, mention them in the article. Links should be included for their content. This one has little exceptional content. Links should not be included to prove a point (although citations can be). Nor is the point of the external links to maintain an equilibrium of "pov". In fact, the opposite is intended. Of the four criteria for standard inclusion, one is an official site. Even though it is owned by the subject it need not be "balanced" with a negative link. I don't think anybody would suggest that all articles require negative links to balance official sites. --JGGardiner 17:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense; who decides what is an "official" site? If NKorea has a slanderous "official site" spreading its pov which we provide a link to; are you saying we could not include a link to a site critical of NKorea created by a group of citizens in N Korea? This is patent nonsense in my view. Ottawaman 12:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the linking guidelines: "An article about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to that entity's official site, if there is one." Official sites are an exception to the usual considerations: because they are owned by the subject, readers know that what they say is favourable. In any event, I didn't write the guidelines myself. I also didn't say that we can't include critical sites; in fact above I say that I welcome critical sites. What I said was that official sites need not be balanced with negatives ones. Look at other pages. Most have no negative sites. Even Canadian politicians. The only thing close to negative on Stephen Harper is a page of newspaper cartoons. Same thing with Paul Martin. Jack Layton doesn't have anything negative. I also said that links should be there to provide extra content that readers can use. This link doesn't do that. You say the group is important but I didn't know that from having read their website front to back. The site provides no content and doesn't demonstrate anything about the group, even their existence (of membership). I don't see any reason for inclusion. I accept your point that stopiggy is no more "POV" as the official site but that, like I've said, is granted an exception. --JGGardiner 17:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Locked?

It has been locked in the position of the bias of 1 side in a tame edit "war". Why? I only see a rather tame edit war including ottawa,currie and 2 anons; Please get it unprotected as this is a time sensitive article as an election is underway. 67.71.121.172 16:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]