Jump to content

Talk:Chrystia Freeland: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
reply
Line 100: Line 100:


This section of the article should be rewritten for clarity, and should not use terms like "allegations" and "controversial" without reliable sources. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 20:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
This section of the article should be rewritten for clarity, and should not use terms like "allegations" and "controversial" without reliable sources. [[User:Bruce leverett|Bruce leverett]] ([[User talk:Bruce leverett|talk]]) 20:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
:: Bruce, I agree with you that this part of the article should be rewritten into a more neutral (less flaming) and cohesive part, and concede that some of my edits might have been too hastened. Good day.

Revision as of 04:52, 19 January 2019

Global, not Foreign?

Shouldn't it be Minister of Global Affairs, in the current lexicon? (I still remember External Affairs :)Bellagio99 (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eekahil (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)At the External Links section, the Official Website link took me to an dnssearch page :[reply]

http://www.dnsrsearch.com/index.php?origURL=http%3A//votefreeland.ca/&r=&bc=


Fwiw, I got to Chrystia Freeland's page while reading about plutocracy and Sinclair Lewis' "it Can't Happen Here" so I'm guessing the timeliness of her book and interviews will be sending more traffic this way!

Thanks,

e a h

"Controversy" section needed

In regards to her lying about her grandfathers pro-Nazi history, I think this deserves a separate section in the article, maybe a Controversy section so that it is not associated with "early life" but as a topic regarding her current credibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.162.191 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useful suggestion as Freeland openly acknowledges that she is accused of lying by various media. Indeed, she has recently claimed that reports of her lying about her family and her policy in Ukraine are part of Russian efforts "to destabilize" the US and Canadian political systems. It would be useful to have this public discussion collected together in a separate section. Santamoly (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chrystia Freeland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show where Ms. Freeland's Twitter is prominently linked from [1]. As far as I can tell, the only link is buried in the "Our plan to raise awareness" section of the "Project" under the "Youth Council" tab, which is neither prominent, nor where one would expect to find such a link. In any case, Freeland's official website is a constituency website, and does not cover her ministerial work [2], while she uses her Twitter account for that purpose. [3] Removing the Twitter would remove the only external link to her work as Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister. --- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those pages link to her twitter account, ‘cafreeland’. But even if they did not, that is not an inclusion reason, we only link to multiple official sites in very few limited circumstances. —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the homepage links to twitter and facebook, and both link back to the homepage (but as I said, not that that matters anyway). —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently my ad blocking software blocks the social media icons. I imagine this is a common problem for many users. Regardless, one social media page is for constituency work and does not include her ministerial work, while the other is predominately focused on her ministerial work. This seems analogous to the situation in WP:ELMINOFFICIAL where a company has one website for its corporate work and another that is consumer-facing, especially since the ministerial work is the more encyclopedic and important of the two. I would in fact generally support verified and active Twitter accounts being linked to in all Wikipedia articles. It's of interest to readers and of encyclopedic value: it's a primary source of things the subject is saying. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But here there is only one twitter, the one that is linked from her official site.
What you support is a change in guideline and policy. You would have to take that up at WP:EL. I don’t think we have that consensus. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The official site only has posts about her constituency work, while the Twitter account has everything related to her work as Minister of Foreign affairs, which is analogous to the corporate/consumer website in WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.
Even without that provision, it's absolutely bonkers that because of some ridiculous guideline, you have to first click through to one website, and then find a small button (which might be blocked if you use ad-blocking software) to find the most complete page that details Ms. Freeland's diplomatic work, on an article about Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs. Unless you're saying that Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs does not do any foreign affairs work that is of encyclopedic value/interest to our readers, it seems that we should WP:IAR in this case and have the link. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And with that, you completely violate the pillar WP:NOT. We are not a web directory, we do not provide external links out of convenience. That is why we have WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, WP:ELNO - social networking sites are discouraged, and we only list one official site (not my bolding). And that is a rather longstanding consensus - more than one official site only under very few limited circumstances. Moreover, it is already prominently linked from her official website. I have asked for clarification, and two more editors agree with the removal (one of them just did it). The link does not belong. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that verified and active Twitter accounts should be listed in the External links section. It is one less click to go to her Twitter account directly from wikipedia and also informs the user that the person is an active user on twitter. sikander (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As above, that is against our guideline and policy. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Twitter. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO applies. Including a social media feed, no matter how official, is against our guideline. If her team does not have the ability to link her Twitter feed to her official website, that's not our problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And unless I'm blind, there's a link to her Facebook page and Twitter feed on the right-hand side of http://cfreeland.liberal.ca/ right under the rest of the contact information. It might be in a variable block that only shows if you're signed-in to those two sites, but it's present when I checked her site. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: just to note, that not being linked (which they indeed are, I also note that above and in my reverts of reinsertions) is not an inclusion reason, that is the same pillar violation as here, we are not writing the an internet directory for everything that is related to the subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO does not prohibit the inclusion of a Twitter link; it is a mere guideline, "that is best treated with common sense", and to which "occasional exceptions may apply". In this case, the subject's Twitter account is referred to in two separate parts of the article, so it would be perfectly reasonable to include it in the EL section. Furthermore, such an inclusion is not "against our policy", as there is no policy in place preventing it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun case

I think this brief one-sentence mention of the Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun case is proper weight. It fits into the broader story of rocky Saudi-Canadian relations, it got broad coverage in the press, and the event is pretty rare (the fast-track request, the personal involvement of the PM and Foreign Minister). This all seems to me to be worthy of the short mention. Neutralitytalk 22:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, unimportant unless it leads to something, but I will defer to your judgement. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you deferring on this one. Thanks, Neutralitytalk 16:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early life, esp. Chomiak

The discussion of Freeland's grandfather Chomiak seems somewhat garbled. An IP editor (176.36.181.71) has been trying to fix it, but may have made it worse. I have reverted a couple of that editor's changes, and that editor has counter-reverted once, so I am coming here to avoid an edit war.

If I may try to summarize the chronology as presented in the cited source by Colby Cosh:

Chomiak edited a periodical during World War II under circumstances that can be described as collaboration with the Nazis;
Chomiak emigrated to Canada after the war and died there in 1984;
Chomiak's wartime collaboration was not a secret, but he may not have discussed it with all of his family, and Freeland did not know about it;
Discussion of that collaboration surfaced in the media or on the internet in 2017;
Freeland was surprised by this and speculated that it was Russian disinformation;
Old issues of Chomiak's periodical were found among the family's possessions;
The family turned over this material to Himka, Chomiak's son-in-law, who is a professor of history;
Himka acknowledged the authenticity of the material, and acknowledged the collaboration;
The family, including Freeland, did not dispute Himka's conclusions.

Have I erred in this chronology?

The article says that "these allegations have been repeated by ... Himka ...", but it is not clear whether "allegations" refers to the claim that Chomiak collaborated with the Germans, or to the claim that some circulated material was Russian disinformation.

With regard to the claim of collaboration, Wikipedia would normally rely on the "Canadian press", to which there are several citations, as a reliable source. If claim is only an "allegation", one would expect (see WP:UNDUE) that a reliable source disputing Himka's conclusions could be found and cited. If no such source is available, Wikipedia should not use the term "allegation", but should treat the issue as settled.

The IP editor has not found such a source, but instead has cited an "open letter" written in 2013 complaining about a paper that Himka wrote on an unrelated topic, and has concluded from this source that Himka is a "controversial historian". The IP editor has also cited a Russian-language source described (in the edit summary) as "giving a detailed analysis of the actions of the Russian propaganda machine". I suggest that these are not usable as sources, either to dispute the claim of collaboration, or to support the claim of Russian disinformation.

The family's acknowledgement of Chomiak's wartime activity has rendered moot the claim of Russian disinformation.

This section of the article should be rewritten for clarity, and should not use terms like "allegations" and "controversial" without reliable sources. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce, I agree with you that this part of the article should be rewritten into a more neutral (less flaming) and cohesive part, and concede that some of my edits might have been too hastened. Good day.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrystia_Freeland&oldid=879122696"