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 November 12, 2006

Broken Link

Could someone with access to this article fix the link to Ignatieff's talk "The Lesser Evil" (in External Links)? The correct address is http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/4370.html. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.25.150.134 (talk • contribs)

Done --Strothra 18:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Bringing in outside editors

I think unprotecting this article and bringing in outside editors via peer review, etc. should solve any edit disputes. Sockpuppetry and vandalism can be dealt with through typical dispute resolution channels. Antonrojo 14:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I am still unable to understand what is going on here. I unprotedted the article. After that some information has been added and again the article has been protected. Shyam ^(T/C) 17:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives

I've archived all the comments that were here. If anyone wants to revive a specific discussion, all the comments are in archive 8. I think the article protection needs to stay in place at the moment due to the ongoing sockpuppet activity, but that does not need to prevent us from making changes to the article. If anyone has any edits in mind, please make suggestions on this talk page. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 18:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious why the typical process for dealing with vandalism and sock puppets won't suffice in this case. If there is one editor making POV edits, even if they are using multiple accounts, I'd think that WP:3RR and the normal dispute resolution channels would resolve the problem. Asking editors to read the archives and get their changes approved adds a high barrier to participation which I think is more likely to isolate outside editors. Antonrojo 20:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "asking editors to read the archives and get their changes approved". I'm explaining where the previous comments on this page went and I'm suggesting that if there are people interesting in making changes to the article, they start talking. This has been done previously with this article and I see no harm in doing it in the interim while the article is protected. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't notice this is an sprotect and not a protect. Carry on. Antonrojo 15:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits are being made to the article without discussion here. Please explain? Reportersue 22:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, edits made since the sprotect have been extremely minute in nature. The sentiment of "discuss on talk page before making edits" is generally not extended to typos. -Joshuapaquin 00:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

npov

Article has been sanitized to exclude mention of important blunders and outrageous self contradictions made by Ignatieff. 70.48.204.223 04:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This source is the reputable [1] Toronto Star wherein Ignatieff says in reference to the killing of many Lebanese children "This is the kind of dirty war you're in when you have to do this and I'm not losing sleep about that." This is just 1 of many news making blunders by Ignatieff which have been sanitized from the article. The article is pov and the tag should not be removed. 64.229.28.107 14:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree that their should be a mention of his initial Lebanon comments in the article. There is already a fair bit about the fallout from his later "war crime" comments. Although that section will obviously take some care and I'm not looking forward to writing it myself. --JGGardiner 11:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility issue

( uncivil comment removed) Antonrojo 04:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a lot of sympathy for editors who feel that their input here is overlooked. But I think that all of this uproar is not going to get you anywhere. And in the end it will probably hurt your cause more than it will help and cause everyone a lot of grief along the way. I really mean this as a bit of friendly advice: if you want to actually see positive change in the articles, this isn't the best way to go about it. Thanks. --JGGardiner 10:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Knock it off, Ottawaman. You're a blocked user evading a block. Under the blocking policy, all your edits can be reverted on sight. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you a Montrealer? Or going to the convention otherwise?

If so, leave me a message ASAP on my talk page. I'm looking to get someone into the convention with a camera. You'll have the opportunity to photograph the candidates, hopefully one-on-one. (I think I can pull a few strings with some of the key players.) -- Zanimum 20:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Russian translation

Can someone who speaks Russian confirm this is legitimate, and not a hidden obscenity? CJCurrie 05:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Quebec as a nation

While I don't know for sure about the Quebec Liberal motion regarding Quebec as a nation, I do know that the motion by the Harper Government is regarding the Quebecois people, and not the province itself. DB 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinion on the Kyoto Protocol

The article on the French language Wikipedia simply states that "he is against Kyoto", like that. I suspect great nuances on his part and numerous esoteric debates by commentators, if it has any ring of truth. Can someone shed some light on this? --Liberlogos 14:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

His views and words are Orwellian coupled with the standard american leader's "Bullshit Baffles Brains" approach. Once you see them in that way there is no more confusion. Canuckster 19:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff loses Liberal Leadership Campaign

What's Ignatieff going to do now? Anybody know? Shouldn't there be more interest here about Ignatieff's loss? Or at least a link to the convention item? Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006? What's going on? Canuckster 05:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Ignatieff and Rae have announced that they will run for the next Liberal leadership [2] [3]. Since Ignatieff has a seat in the House of Commons he will probably hang onto it. Should this be added to the article? FellowWikipedian 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, those news articles indicate that they will be running in the next election - they say nothing about the next leadership race. -Joshuapaquin 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I misunderstood the articles. But, should someone add that Ignatieff will hang onto his seat in the House of Commons? FellowWikipedian 15:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That's surprising news, considering Ignatieff has said that he will not run as an MP in the next election if he does not win the Party leadership.

Rae and Ignatieff have both said that they will run in the next election.[4]

Oh, I realise that. I was alluding to earlier comments by Michael. But thanks.

• Since no one has responded to my question I have added info on Ignatieff's loss. Feel free to add to it. FellowWikipedian 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hijacking of this article by political agents?

What's going on is, Michael Ignatieff's supporters, who hijacked and spun this article for the better part of a year, have stopped, now that their candidate has lost the Liberal leadership race. There is nothing more for them to do.

I've watched this article from the beginning, and it's the sickest case of political manipulation, masked as a legitimate article, I've seen on the internet thus far. And I don't exaggerate that statement.

Good riddance to them.

I happen to agree with the anon above; nevertheless, if that's true should not the article still be npoved? Canuckster 19:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think that there should be some analysis of this article by some authority at Wikipedia to see if there has been an administrative influence in support of the pov agenda which the anon references. It did seem to me that the anti-Iggy crowd were all blocked for behaviour which the pro-Iggy crowd were exercising freely.Canuckster 20:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty annoying that all the people whining about the article are not helping when such an important development happens. Canuckster 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Civility issue

( uncivil comment removed) Canuckster 19:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie's and Strotha's edit removals

These [5][6] removals of sourced information without discussion are out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.71.122.107 (talk • contribs)

You inserted POV and speculative information. Other editors removed it. See WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Stop reinserting those speculations. Also, familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. In the future, remember to sign your comments. Consider registering instead of hiding behind an IP. Do not accuse established editors of being "out of line." Cease engaging in your edit war now. It hasn't gone unnoticed that you've been trying to insert your bias since, at least, December 2. --Strothra 22:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What's with the adhominem response? Obviously there should be discussion before removal of sourced updates.

Is this edit ok ? "Media reports that Ignatieff's 30-year absence from Canada and his initial support for the US-led invasion of Iraq played against him. [7]If not, please explain what the problem is. 70.48.205.75 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That one comment made in the article states that it is based on what "our correspondent says" yet does not give his/her name or credentials. It's hardly a reliable source. It's not Wikipedia's place to adopt the speculation of its sources. Please stop POV pushing. --Strothra 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying the BBC is not a reliable source? Please advise what part of this article is admissable in your view. To me it seems as if only edits complimentary to Ignatieff are being welcomed by yourself and a few others; there is virtually nothing about the uproar in the human rights community related to his support for the invasion of Iraq and what he calls American Empire. I agree with the anon above who states the article is inherently biased and censored; are you saying that editor, who I think only edited once, is also being "noticed" ? What's going on with this veiled personal attack of "It hasn't gone unnoticed" ? Is this wikipedia methodology now to intimidate editors with whom one disagrees? 70.48.205.75 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Is Strothra an administrator? Does anyone know? 70.48.205.75 15:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources based on factual information are reliable (ie not speculation). You are trying to cite a quote from the BBC article which is not by the author of the article nor a provable reliable source. Again, stop editing anon and register already. Also, I am not an admin nor have ever claimed to be so. --Strothra 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You can not take a single media account and describe at as representative of the media in general. However, I think that it would be a fair comment that his position on Iraq may have played against him. But it would have to be described properly as speculation from some media sources. Also please remember civility. CJCurrie and Strothra's edits were not out of line. Editors will disagree, we just have to resolve it properly. It is also generally better to refer to edits rather than editors. --JGGardiner 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)