Talk:Jim Flaherty

Husband and Wife share same electoral district

Christine is the member for Whitby-Ajax, not Whitby-Oshawa. There hasn't been a provincial election in Whitby-Oshawa yet so they cannot share the same riding.

---

Transplanted little box/table thing from the Tony Clement page. Not sure about the "28th Ministry" business -- can someone figure that out and alter it if appropriate?--206.248.133.87 17:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs a Photo

We need a image of Flaherty. Does anyone have one? PS- has anyone noticed the resemblance between Flaherty & Lou Costello? GoodDay 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Costello was taller. Given his performance as the Finance Minister I wonder if he is overcompensating for his shortness. Perhaps he suffers from this DSatYVR 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear Flaherty's really short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chtimi (talk • contribs) 06:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Links to blog material and other sources

I have removed some questionable material linked to a blog and some other material. Are there any more reliable sources for this material? TIA --Tom 14:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

None of your deletions are blog related. Check again TIA DSatYVR (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do they have "blog" in the link? --Tom 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Diane Francis references

I've had the following references deleted. Why?

Reason 5: Tory Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, December 29, 2007

Canada Under Seige: Thanks Harper and Flaherty

DSatYVR (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

More on Diane Francis as a reference

More on Diane Francis as a reference

Please feel free to add your comments on the WP:BLP page linked above. DSatYVR (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

________________

I'll insert this commentary from the above WP:BLP page.

One editor in particular deleted citations from Diane Francis based on the fact the citations had the word 'blog' in the url. "Blog" in this case seems to be more of a newspaper marketing ploy than anything else. Here is another example of a "Blog" attached to a newspaper: Freakonomics

My point is the interpretation of WP:RS is too narrow in these cases.

Who Diane Francis is:

Diane Francis, Editor-at-Large of the Financial Post, is an entrepreneur, author, broadcaster, speaker and columnist. She became a columnist with the Financial Post in 1987, joined its Board of Directors in 1988 and became its Editor from 1991 to 1998 when the paper was bought and incorporated into the National Post. Diane has been a columnist for 25 years with the Toronto Star, Maclean's, the Southam newspaper chain and Sun newspaper chain as well as a regular broadcast commentator on business and politics.'

IMO Diane Francis answers to someone within the the National Post organization she works for should therefore be considered a reliable source in the same way as any other reporter in a reputable newspaper. I am seeking comments from other editors.DSatYVR (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The portion of WP:SPS which states "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." seems to apply here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Diane Francis is certainly a reliable source. In my opinion, however, Wikipedia an WP:RS in particular needs to be updated to reflect the realities of 2008. While it used to be generally an accurate stereotype to consider blogs as unreliable diary-like creations with no accountability, more and more blogs are being considered RS as more and more of them are being put together with the same sort of due diligence as "traditional" journalism. The above referenced Diane Francis blog is a prime example of this. I'm not saying all blogs should be rubber stamped, but I do feel restricting acceptability to those with third-party publication is simply not realistic in 2008. 23skidoo (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think whether this is a blog or not is the real issue. The real issue here is going around to find quotes attacking the subject of this article. Do printed encyclopedias do this? There are plenty of other citations from economists that one can draw on that take the other side on income trust taxation. I worked in the Department of Finance at the time and I know.Bdell555 (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Send Ontario's Homeless to Jail

The following citation was deleted from the "2002 Ontario PC leadership Bid" section. Not sure why. I've reinserted it for now pending an explanation.

Send Ontario's Homeless to Jail

DSatYVR (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"Conscientious Objectors" to "Wars Not Sanctioned by United Nations"

Greetings user 142.68.234.58

Yesterday you made a speedy deletion without giving a reason and without starting a discussion to explain your reasons for the deletion. Please read this link before you attempt to make any more speedy deletions:

Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion

You would also be well advised to carefully read about Wikipedia's rules governing vandalism at this link:

Wikipedia:Vandalism

Boyd Reimer (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

October 31, 2006 income trust announcement

"Nevertheless, the income from ordinary corporate stock is of course also taxed, and the companies that converted to 'income trusts' from corporations were taking advantage of tax rules designed to benefit retirees rather than ordinary stockholders who became the beneficiaries of the new trusts. It was causing a reduction in estimated government revenue even when future tax revenues were factored in; the advocates for the rule change argued that income trusts were not meant to be a new label for something that effectively acted as a corporation." What does this mean? It needs to be rewritten or deleted IMO because it makes no sense. DSatYVR (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the material for the time being pending a rewrite and a properly sourced explanation. Comments welcome... DSatYVR (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added additional material to this section regarding the central argument of the issue of "Is there tax leakage or not?" I've also deleted one sentence not central to the topic discussed. Further comments welcomed DSatYVR (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Federal Politics Section

I have serious concerns about the federal politics section. I have tried to balance out the piece with factual edits, but they have been repeatedly challenged and deleted. There are people dedicated to keeping this artcle one-sided. In the Income Trust section there is clearly a problem with the negative tone and biased slant of the piece. For example, take the passage below:

Diane Francis, editor-at-large for the National Post, urged that the rule changes be recanted, arguing that there were flaws in the policy which hurt ordinary, hard-working Canadian investors.[8][9] Francis pointed out that the root of the problem is that the decision was based on analysis by federal officials who regard RRSPs and pensions as tax "exempts" even though they are merely deferral mechanisms. So the tax leakage analysis numbers are incorrect when it comes to taxes paid by Canadian income trust unitholders.[10]

This section clearly uses language that is partial, with phrases such as “hurt ordinary, hard-working Canadian investors” which is meant to engage the sympathy of the reader. The overall language is clearly not impartial, such as the use of “pointed out” instead of more impartial language, such as “contends” or “argues.” It also clearly states that “tax leakage analysis numbers (are) incorrect” without clearly pointing out that Diane Francis argues this.

Furthermore, this further edit sounds like a pamphlet more than an article. Language such as “numerous gross errors that were made by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.”

Tax leakage, which served as Flaherty’s central policy justification for his 31.5% income trust tax, was addressed during the Goodale Income Trust public consultation process of Fall 2005, during which time HLB Decision Economics worked collaboratively with the Department of Finance and published their findings in paper entitled “The tax revenue implications of income trusts”, dated November 24, 2005. [8] The study, available to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty prior to his October 31, 2006 decision, concluded that there is no tax leakage from income trusts. The author of the study, Dennis Bruce, went on to testify at the Finance Committee’s Public Hearings on Income Trusts in February 2007 and issued a press release following his first day of testimony entitled "Independent economists discredit govt tax leakage claims" which outlines the numerous gross errors that were made by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and the government in asserting the claim of $500 million in annual tax leakage. Bruce concluded the ongoing tax leakage, post 2010, after taking into account legislated tax changes, is $32 million per year, about five percent of Flaherty's figures.[9]

So far in this section, we have one line explaining the argument for taxing income trusts and then a mini-rant for the rest of the section. This is completely different than the public record, which was split on this issue, with such notable economists as Don Drummond and Provincial Finance Ministers coming out in support of the decision. I have tried to reflect this in previous edits, adding other notable economic analysts opinion, yet they are repeatedly taken out, while such obviously biased language as the above continues to be the norm. This whole section needs to be rewritten to reflect the actual debate, and not just POV-pushing. This is actually the problem with the entire “Federal Politics” section. Am I to believe that Minister Flaherty's only accomplishments over the past four years are an income trust decision, a public comment on “potholes” and an issue with office contracts? Can anyone with a straight face actually call this encyclopaedia quality? Clearly this is an example of undue weight. I would edit the piece myself and note all of Minister Flaherty's achievements, but it would seem that some people are only interested in ensuring this article remain critical and one sided.

It is important to note that in the Income Trust section it should reflect the fact that income trusts in Canada have fully recovered their value and are now performing slightly better than stocks. Please see attached link:

http://www.thestar.com/mobile/business/article/883317

(192.197.54.28 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)).

I agree with you that the article is a bit one-sided, but what edits did you make that were reverted? This IP never edited this article. There was a similar IP that made a number of edits in February 2010 that were reverted. Were those the edits you are refering too? If that's the case, then it may have had more to do with the style of the edits that you posted. Those edits changed almost the whole article, naming him Mr. Flaherty, and Minister Flaherity, and a large number of other WP:MOS violations. I also believe there was some copy and pasting there as well, which isn't allowed. If those are the edits you made, then that's why they were reverted, not because you toned down the article. If those were not your edits, can you please direct me to them. Cmr08 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not signing in the last time, I am just new to the process. I was just trying to add some information to the Income Trust section in an attempt to balance it out. In terms of the Federal Politics Section, it should be updated to reflect some of the major decisions and events in Minister Flaherty's term of office. If you think about it, he has now been Finance Minister for over four years and has delivered five national budgets, five fall economic statements and attended numerous international economic meetings. It may be advantageous to organize this section around budget achievements considering their central importance to the Department of Finance specifically and the government generally. Many of Minister Flaherty's achievements have simply been omited such as Tax Free Savings Accounts, Registered Disability Savings Plans, his successful opposition to an internationally imposed bank tax and his response to the global recession through the canadian economic Action plan. In terms of the current federal politics sections (income trusts, potholes, contracts) I believe they should be shortened as they are (with the exception of income trusts) pretty minor in the grand scheme of things and there is an obvious case of undue weight. Earlier in this discussion, another contributor also suggested the income trust section be summarized. When you compare Minister Flaherty’s page to that to federal Cabinet Minister John Baird it is clear just how poorly written the Flaherty entry truly is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baird_(Canadian_politician)) This situation should be corrected, not just to add balance to the Flaherty pages, to preserve the credibility of Wikipedia. (ThePosterMan (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)).

Great recession section

I have deleted the section for undue weight, poor sourcing, original research and POV. This article is meant to be a biography, not a recent history of the Canadian economy, and this section wasn't really about Flaherty. More problematic are the sourcing/POV/original research issues. For example, the sentence Flaherty's leadership during the Great Recession and budgetary measures helped pull Canada out of the recession is sourced with an article that does not mention Flaherty at all. It is therefore original research, and possibly POV-pushing, to credit Flaherty. The sentence Since coming out of the recession, Flaherty's measures have helped create "over 1 million net new jobs" is sourced to an article that mentions and even quotes Flaherty, but does not say that it was his measures that created the jobs. Again, it's original research, and apparently in promotion of a POV.

The article has been hugely expanded recently, and some of it is still problematic for the same reasons as this section. In the spirit of bold, revert, discuss, I hope we can discuss this here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Universal Childcare Benefit

I've removed the Universal Childcare Benefit section because of sourcing and original research - the only citation was to a primary source, and that source does not mention Flaherty. Primary sources are not ideal, and of course, it is original research to add this to a Flaherty bio if the source doesn't mention Flaherty. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There is too much detail about each of the various measures that have been introduced by Flaherty. We should just highlight them. TFD (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you - I'm working on it slowly. I also think its important to keep the language neutral (right now, a lot of it isn't) and to use secondary sources (right now, a majority of the sources are primary.) Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

puff, argumentation, and useless stuff

OK -- I trimmed a bit - trying to make it readable and useful for the readers. Collect (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It is easier to read now. There is still a lot of unnecessary detail, such as an entire section about abolishing the one cent coin. TFD (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Alas -- I find the penny story interesting as it has been in the US news lately. Collect (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess it is interesting and should be mentioned. I just wonder how much detail it deserves. Canadian penny#Abolition does not even mention Flaherty. TFD (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

And unlike other nations - Canada did not demonetize the coin. In fact, it could, theoretically, start making them again. Collect (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Universal Childcare Benefit

I recently re-posted this section, made appropriate changes and changed the sources to trace it to Jim Flaherty and it was immediately deleted. May I ask why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmfmo (talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

That a party sought legislation does not automatically make that legislation relevant to each and every politician in that party. Thus it is "stuff" when added to such BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

But Flaherty implemented it in his first Budget. It was one of the cornerstone's. Also, out of curiousity what does BLPs stand for? Thanks Jmfmo (talk)

You need to read the Wikipedia policies particularly neutrality, reliable sources and biographies of living persons (BLP). While it is fine to mention that Flaherty brought in the child care tax credit, if you want to go on about how this was an achievement, you need to mention that it was meant as a compromise with advocates of state-funded child care, and that the Conservatives held a minority government at the time. Similarly, it is fine to say he was voted best finance minister in 2009, but if you want to go on about how great an achievement that was, you need to mention that Canada was the only major country where the banks did not fail, and that the result would have been the same no matter who was Finance minister.

The other problem with the article is that it contains too much detail. We should have articles about each budget for anyone who wants that information.

20:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Registered Disability Savings Plan and other issues

I agree with other editors on this page, that there is excessive detail in the article, and problems with the references. I have made a few edits accordingly. I have deleted the section, Registered Disability Savings Plan. There are no secondary sources cited for the info in this section. The first of the two paras of this section is ref'd to a primary source, a government website. That might be OK if the information was also ref'd to a reliable secondary source, but it isn't. The 2nd para of the section is also ref'd to non-compliant sources: 1) the website of an advocacy group and 2) a press release from Mr Flaherty's ministry office. These problems could be overcome with a bit of homework to find appropriate sources. EMP (talk 23:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Similar problems with the section, Tax-Free Savings Account--no secondary sources. However, I did note a secondary source (an article in the National Post) contained in the website of your final ref, the CD Howe Institute (not itself an RS). I have verified that article from a database of Canadian media articles that I have access to. So I have substituted that for your the CD Howe reference. That National Post article also verifies most of the points mentioned in the first two paras of the section, so I have left them, even tho they are ref'd to primary sources.

For the section, Department of Finance contracts questioned, I have made no deletions there, because altho several points are ref'd to a non-compliant sources--such as the website of the Liberal Party of Canada, and a government of Canada websit--because all of the points are corroborated by the Toronto Star and other secondary sources that follow. EMP (talk 00:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Deleted section titled, Building Canada Plan, because it was referenced only to a press release from the office of Mr Flaherty--obviously not a RS. EMP (talk 00:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

FATCA controvery

Since I first inserted information here on 19 January 2014‎ about the American Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, we have had a bit of activity on this article which has not been updated since 15 August 2013‎. Looks like some feathers were ruffled, but the end result, at least so far, is a return to the version of 19 January 2014 with a bit of an update at the end of the section:

On February 5, 2014, Flaherty signed Canada on as a participant to FATCA through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).

Is everyone happy with this version? Does the material inserted here by others really not belong here? Please voice your opinon. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"Others" = you, and much of what was added was defamatory opinion, or not related to Flaherty, but only to the agreement. Per WP:BURDEN, the person adding material has to justify its reliability and relevance. Personally, I don't think even the section I restored should be there, but it's not controversial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

skin conditions are medical in nature

And no matter how tempting, do not belong in giographies of living persons. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. It has received coverage in mainstream media and may lead to his early retirement. TFD (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And I demur -- let's see how others feel about details of medical conditions being in BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

The article on Lucien Bouchard says he had flesh-eating disease, the article on Jack Layton said he had cancer, and the article on Rob Ford says he has weight and substance abuse problems. And Flaherty himself disclosed his condition when the symptoms began to appear. TFD (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

First you well know "otherstuffexists" is a very weak argument to make. Second, we are only dealing with the case at hand. Third, in what way is having a skin disease actually important to his notability? I submit, by the way, that having a skin disease, even a melanoma, is not exactly comparable in any way to "substance abuse" so I toss that one right out. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

That one sentence Collect removed is a prime example of WP:NOTNEWS. It might just as well have said his hair started going grey at 50. Medical conditions should be in BLPs only if they had a notable impact on the subject's life (e.g., Lance Armstrong's cancer). If the subject had to retire early because of a condition (sports athletes come to mind), then the condition should be mentioned. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, not a perfectly straightforward call. On the one hand, the skin ailment is not life-threatening, and Flaherty claims it will not prevent him from running again in the next election. Moreover, he says that it does not even hinder him in doing his job as minister. On the other hand, the illness was widely reported in Canada a few weeks ago, and it has affected his appearance in recent months, due to the strength of the medication. Also, it did provoke some speculation that he may not run in the next election[1]. So it’s neither a very important detail nor a trivial one. What makes the difference for me is remembering that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and as such the bar is higher re: how significant to a subject’s life an item must be in order to be worthy of mention [2]. Seems to me that if this skin problem were to be noted at all in this article, it should be in a later section, if an appropriate one were to be found. Putting this information in the lead puts undue emphasis on its importance. EMP (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Someone's face turning red, their appearing tired and working fewer hours are different from one's hair turning gray. People don't give press conferences about their hair color and it does not lead to discussion of retirement. It is only fair to the subject to provide an explanation. Collect, you said medical details were irrelevant to BLPs of politicians - I provided three examples where they were all of which were announced by the subjects themselves and received media coverage. In each case they led to discussion of resignation. TFD (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

One of which is a "BDP", and one of which is a condition which affects the person's acts ... sorry TFD, there is a solid reason why we do not list everyone's medical conditions in their biographies. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is your problem here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We put in what rs find important. If you think Flaherty should not have disclosed this information and MSM should not have reported it, then that is a problem with what MSM find important, and you should complain to the Press Complaints Council. TFD (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We summarize what rs find important. One politician where I live vowed to stop smoking as part of one of those "Get Healthy" campaigns. It was reported on. He failed. It was reported on. Does it belong in his biography? No. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

It depends. We normally do not report on whether individuals are smokers, although Fidel Castro's giving up cigars and asking Cubans to stop smoking is mentioned in his article. TFD (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

We also mention that Jean Chrétien has Bell's palsy, facial paralysis and is deaf in one ear. None of that stopped him from becoming prime minister and holding the office for over a decade. TFD (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that this is a non-debilitating skin condition readily treatable with no adverse effect on anything much at all? Not "deafness" or "cancer" or "paralysis" or the like. Do you see the difference? Ought we report in Wikipedia's voice that Bill Clinton had acne? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

>>> Flaherty's skin condition has been common knowledge and is in the public domain. Bullous Pemphigoid is a serious condition, and can be very serious, occasionally life-threatening, so comparisons to acne are not fitting. Wikipedia guidelines do not oblige censoring health information in BLPs. In fact, it's very common to have find BLPs contain health details (such as Diane Finley's eye condition). The standard is about being neutral and brief, ie, "Flaherty has a skin condition called Bullous Pemphigoid" as opposed to "Flaherty has a skin condition called Bullous Pemphigoid that's gross and everyday he goes through a routine that involves x, y, z, ...". Written in a neutral tone while avoiding elaborate details remains entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy. Realistically, however, can Wikipedia policies ever keep up with dedicated partisan editors? Cheers.