Talk:Tom Mulcair

CJCurrie and Osama bin laden statement controversy

CJCurrie, you said you wished to delete the Osama bin laden statement controversy section because you think the matter will die down in the coming days [1]....Um WHAT? So surely by that account, one should remove under Bev Oda's Wikipedia page the contempt of parliament section because the controversy has died down? Can you cite on BLP that says sections containing controversial statements by Wikipedia people should be deleted after the controversy has died down?Sleetman (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a complete misinterpretation of my comments. I said that the *headline* should be removed, not that the content should be deleted (and I'd be willing to compromise on a less sensationalistic title for the headline, like for instance "May 2011 CBC interview"). CJCurrie (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple of quick issues here: when I meant you wished to delete the osama bin laden statement controversy section, I should have wrote you wished to delete the osama bin laden statement controversy HEADLINE. So I stand corrected. And second, you're free to adjust the comments on the condition that you allow me to adjust the comments as well in response to your adjustments. Sleetman (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've changed "rumoured" to "possible," which is consistent with the source and (I trust) removes the need for the templates. I should add that my original use of "rumoured" was simply an instance of clumsy wording, which I suppose is ironic in this context.

Anyway, I still don't think this matter is of enough long-term significance to justify the long-term inclusion of a separate headline. If there's a consensus against me on this point, I'll drop the matter (though I'd still prefer the title to the changed, for the reasons mentioned above). If you don't think "May 2011 CBC interview" is descriptive enough, feel free to make a counter-offer. CJCurrie (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: I can't remove the templates myself because it would be a technical 3RR violation. CJCurrie (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Headline for the recent controversy

Do other editors agree that "May 2011 CBC interview" is a more appropriate title for the recent controversy (now dying down) about Mulcair's comments? I believe there's a general consensus that Wikipedia articles should avoid sensationalism and an undue reliance on recent headlines; as such, I would suggest that "Osama bin Laden statement controversy" is inappropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that title whitewashes the whole issue of what was controversial about the interview. I should also add that many Canadian sources (including some in cited in that section) use the word "controversy" to describe the issue. [2], [3], [4], [5].Sleetman (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As I've written below, if you don't think "May 2011 CBC interview" is descriptive enough, feel free to make a counter-offer. I still think "Osama bin Laden statement controversy" is sensationalistic and, as such, inappropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've proposed "May 2011 interview controversy" as a new headline for this section. Does this meet with the approval of other editors? CJCurrie (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes this heading is fine with meSleetman (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

A la this edit [6], why is the Osama bin Laden incident reduced to a subsection (without a heading i might add) of Mulcair's federal politics section? I thought we had agreed a title for the controversy was already agreed upon?Sleetman (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

We have agreed on the title, and I didn't change it in my recent edits. I'll also note that I haven't removed the headline -- I've just changed the formatting into something less sensationalistic (which has been my goal all along). We are, after all, supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.

Given that Mulcair's "controversy" seems to have dissipated rather quickly, I don't think there's any reason to keep this as a separate section. I look forward to any argument you might have to the contrary. CJCurrie (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, the fact that a controversy you think seems to dissipate rather quickly doesn't make that controversy any less of a controversy. On Bev Oda's page, her KAIROS controversy has its own section despite the fact that the KAIROS controversy has dissipated for a long time now so does that mean it shouldn't be given a separate section? There's nothing "sensationalistic" about giving the May 2011 interview controversy by Mulcair, can you tell me how giving this interview controversy a separate section violates anything in WS:BLP. Also there's two more things I'd like to point out, one you were the one who created the section in the first place and second, your reformatting is not ideologically neutral either as by removing the section it reduces the significance of the incident....which given the amount of news coverage on the subject suggests that the news is significant, is noteworthy and thus worthy of its separate section. Sleetman (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

First, let's clarify the record: I didn't create the section. You did, here. I then removed it, here, and you returned it with the more sensationalistic title here. I suggested the altered title in a bid to avoid a full-fledged edit war; I never agreed to keep it as a section divider.

I can understand, up to a point, the argument that the "controversy" deserved a section divider during the brief period when it was a news item. That time has now passed, and I don't believe there's any reason to keep it in that format any longer. Thomas Mulcair has been in public life since 1994, and it seems bewildering to me that his article should be divided into the following sections: "Early career," "Politics," "May 2011 interview controversy," "Personal," "Family," "Electoral record," "References," "External links." At least one of these does not belong; the "May 2011 interview controversy" matter surely belongs as a sub-section of "Politics." Having it as a separate section is a pretty clear instance of both undue weight and an inappropriate focus on recent events.

I can't speak to the situation on the Bev Oda page, as I haven't been active there recently -- I will, however, look over that page once after I'm finished here. (Update: [7] CJCurrie (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)) One way or the other, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally regarded as a weak argument.

Btw, I think this edit of yours might also be noteworthy in this context. Without speculating as to motive, I believe that I'm within my rights to point out that there's a discernible pattern of editing behaviour here (even if Mulcair and Davies are on different sides of this particular issue). Could you explain why you chose to add a section divider there and nowhere else? CJCurrie (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The incident certainly merits mention in the article, but it hardly needs to be given its own special section as some sort of uniquely towering issue that overshadows his entire career up to this point. I have to agree with CJCurrie's presentation, which acknowledges the controversy without overly sensationalizing it. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I should have been a little bit more clear; when I said create this section, I meant the creation of this section under the new heading that you proposed (from Osama bin Laden controversy to May 2011 interview controversy) and the fact that you kept the section as a section divider [8]. Do you deny doing this?

I've also asked you how the creation of a separate section of Mulcair's interview violates WS:BLP. You've yet to give me a response that is more than "it's undue weight." (and without any evidence as to why that the reportage of his controversy is undue weight)...Also, I have no idea where you are getting the idea that just because a controversy has passed (and in any case the jury is definitely out on this one yet, his remarks could very well provide helpful motor for an anti-Thomas Mulcair political advertising campaign in the next election), if you look at nir rosen's page the controversy of his remarks about Lara Logan have since dissipated, but that hasn't made the controversy section disappear. Sleetman (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason giving it a whole separate subsection constitutes undue weight is because it deliberately creates the impression that this particular incident, by virtue of being treated so differently — own section, reams of detail, etc. — than any other issue he's ever been involved in one way or the other, is somehow the single most uniquely important thing for the reader to know about his entire political career up until now. When in reality, it was a relatively minor blunder, blown wildly out of proportion because the media are going out of their way looking for things to nail the NDP to the wall with right now, and which he took ownership of and corrected quickly. It merits mention, yes, but within the existing section covering his federal career, not as a dedicated subsection in its own right. I'm not going to speak to the Nir Rosen issue, though, as I've never been involved in editing that article one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In response to Sleetman,

• (i) I have no interest in getting into a semantic discussion on this point, but my initial "compromise change" was only concerned with the title and was not intented to endorse retention the section divider; there's nothing to "deny";
• (ii) evidence that the controversy has more-or-less disappeared from the public radar can be derived from this;
• (iii) it's possible that the Liberals or Conservatives might try to resuscitate this matter in the future (as might a rival leadership candidate, I suppose), but that's not relevant to the present discussion;
• (iv) I have absolutely no interest in weighing developments page against developments on the Nir Rosen page. When you raised a balance question of regarding this page and the Bev Oda page, I addressed it. Now, you've turned to Nir Rosen. This is not a good technique of argumentation; you can't simply keep raising problems on other pages to justify your activities here.

By the way, I see that you once again restored your contentious headline to the Libby Davies page, without offering anything in the way of an explanation. This is not (I'm choosing my words carefully) behaviour that seems calculated to build up my confidence in your approach to this project. CJCurrie (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems with failed verification and WP:OR

I was aiming to clean up the redundancy of some of the references in the 2011 internview section. What I found is that the sources do not independantly verify the claim that his remarks were "criticized by Canadian politicians". If we want the article to say this, we should find a source that says this. Here is what the sources DO say:

• TS - The New Democrats worked fast to distance themselves from Mulclair’s comments. A statement from NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar said the party fully believed Obama’s version of events.
• CBC - Chris Alexander, newly elected Conservative MP and former Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan, said there's no reason to doubt U.S. President Barack Obama's account of what happened. "We've heard lots of people who are denying the facts in this case," Alexander said. "It's an insult to everyone's intelligence to propagate that kind of conspiracy. We have seen the president of the United States ... give a very compelling account of what this mission was about, what the result was. I don't think anyone has any reason to doubt the veracity of that". NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said the party does not doubt the U.S. government has photos. "We have no reason to doubt the veracity of President Obama’s statement," Dewar wrote in an emailed statement.
• G&M - Minutes later on CBC, incoming Conservative MP Chris Alexander, who served as Canada’s ambassador in Afghanistan, characterized the comments as “an insult to everyone’s intelligence to propagate that kind of conspiracy.”
• NP - “I almost fell out of my chair when Mulcair said he doubted the existence of Osama bin Laden photos,” tweeted Marc Garneau, the astronaut and Liberal MP for Westmount-Ville-Marie. In a subsequent tweet, he admonished the deputy NDP leader’s comments. “Sanity check please: Osama bin Laden is dead and photos were taken. To suggest otherwise is a serious lack of judgment.” ... In a statement, Paul Dewar, the NDP foreign affairs critics, said the incoming opposition party didn’t question the existence of the photos. “We have no reason to doubt the veracity of President Obama’s statement,” he said. “I understand that the U.S. government has photos, but decided not to release them as they do not want them used as trophies. This is a legitimate concern. We agree these types of photos shouldn’t be used as propaganda tools.”

While I don't doubt that it is accurate to say that he was "criticized by Canadian politicians", I don't think it is verifiable given the sources used, particularly the Toronto Star. If anything, I think we should be using the verifiable statement that NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar released a statement saying that the party does not doubt the existence of the photos. DigitalC (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)