Talk:John Baird (Canadian politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gay

There is no personal life section, but he is gay. Should this be included (provided we can source it)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.249.251 (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If there were sources, then yes, of course. But good luck finding a valid source. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What, the article in Frank magazine wasn't enough? There was also the recent issue of Now that had the paragraph "He wasn’t the only conservative at Egale’s dinner. Also in attendance was MP John Baird."Nfitz (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspicuously absent from that quote is anything about his being gay. If John Baird wants to tell the world that he's gay, he can. If he doesn't, it's none of our damned business. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote seemed very clear to me. And Frank reported he was gay 3 years ago, so it's not like it's a revelation. Both Globe and Mail and Macleans have been making veiled comments for years. To be honest, I'm hugely anti-Tory, to a great extent it's because of their bigoted position on same-sex marriage. I'd be happier if this wasn't mentioned here, as it makes it more difficult to make them out to be intolerant. But surely that goes against what Wikipedia stands for. Nfitz (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, the quote you provided says absolutely nothing about Baird's sexual orientation. It says that he attended a dinner put on by Egale, which hardly makes him gay. As for Frank, it's a gossip rag that clearly doesn't meet the standard required by WP:BLP. As for "what Wikipedia stands for", it does not stand for outing public figures' sexual orientations against their wishes. This is pretty open and shut: there is no place for tabloid-sourced speculation on people's sexual orientation in Wikipedia articles. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

???? It makes it very clear that Baird is gay. What else could it possibly mean? It's stand-alone paragraph containing 2 sentances. The first says ... hmm ... wait ... I've seen that quoted with the word "gay conservative" elsewhere ... did Now change their website, or has someone lead my astray ... now I'm going to have to grab a hardcopy ... Nfitz (talk) 04:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion on the Canadian Wikipedians Noticeboard (in which you've participated), the hard copy apparently does say "gay conservative". In light of that, I think it's telling that the website doesn't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

... oh, I just read the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#John Baird properly (I plead guilty to skimming) ... I guess Bearcat noticed that the print edition identified Baird as gay, but the web edition doesn't. Hmm, now that's a dilemna ... which takes precedence? Nfitz (talk) 04:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The more conservative of the two, per WP:BLP and the three reasons Bearcat mentioned (especially the first, and even more especially the third). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Belinda Stronach and Olivia Chow were also in attendance, so Wikipedia really can't make the leap that attending an Egale event automatically means that a person is gay. Bearcat (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I would note, for the record, that talk pages are just as subject to WP:BLP rules as the articles are — any statement that couldn't be made in the article without violating BLP can quite validly be removed from the talk page for the same reason, which is the main reason why I started the discussion about NOW's Incredible Disappearing Word^TM on WP:CANTALK instead of conducting it here and listing it under RFC. Bearcat (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:BLP applies there too, so I'm not sure why there is necessarily any better than here - neither's Google indexed, which is important. Anyway, I'd suggest that once we have this resolved, we just blank or archive the offending discussions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Granted. But the difference is that anybody who reads Baird's article has access to this page just by clicking on a tab within the article, whereas CWNB is hidden to casual users. So in a situation where discussion of a sensitive BLP issue is unavoidable, taking it to an internal project page at least has the benefit of keeping it as far away from public consumption, and as close as possible to the Top Secret Salon of Wikipedia Insiders, as possible under the circumstances. But I have no objection to blanking or archiving the discussion at conclusion. Bearcat (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, WP:BLP says:

"Talk pages are used to make decisions about article contents. Contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted, and even permanently removed ("oversighted") if especially problematic (telephone number, libel, etc). New material should generally be discussed in order to arrive at a consensus concerning relevance, availability of sources, and reliability of sources. Repeated questionable claims with biographies of living persons issues not based on new evidence can generally be immediately deleted with a reference to where in the archive the prior consensus was reached."

I think that this discussion should be removed from the talk page quickly.

I agree that when the print version and the web version disagree, we should use the more conservative of the two. In this case, it may be that NOW magazine made a mistake in reporting the quotation, and has corrected it for the on-line version. It may be that NOW magazine has realised that what it put in the print version could expose it to accusations of libel or that it has invaded Baird's privacy. Either way, Wikipedia should not make the mistake that the NOW mag print version made. I don't think that even the editors of Frank magazine would describe it as a reliable source. Ground Zero | t 11:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no statement on NOW's website clarifying that there was an error in the original article, so you can't read into their intentions for not writing the word 'gay' in the online version. It could have been an editorial decision resulting from outraged e-mails from readers, which does not make the original print article any less accurate or reputable, but simply giving in to opposing views on whether outing is appropriate. Until NOW clarifies that the print article was inaccurate, it stands as a source.--Indifferent4 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on describing and categorizing people as gay in our articles, as clarified at WP:BLP and WP:CATGRS, requires that the subject themselves has publicly acknowledged that they're gay. It's not sufficient for a third party to simply assert that the subject is gay if the subject themselves has never actually said so on the public record — for example, no matter what other people say about Larry "wide stance" Craig and Ted "I didn't smoke the meth" Haggard, they cannot be described or categorized as gay on Wikipedia, because they don't identify themselves as such. And it's especially not sufficient if the exact same article exists in two different versions which differ in their inclusion of the word in question.

Again, what our policies require is proof that Baird himself publicly acknowledges his sexuality. One throwaway line that calls him a gay conservative in an article about that's actually about something else wouldn't be a sufficient source even if the publication in question hadn't dialed the line back when reprinting the exact same article in another venue. Not because the publication isn't a reliable source, or because print media isn't acceptable — but because the line itself simply is not good enough for what our policies require regardless of what form of media it appears in. The rule for identifying someone as LGBT in our articles is that the subject has publicly identified themselves as LGBT. Even if 500 newspapers across Canada all ran a photo of Baird making out with Adam Lambert on page one tomorrow morning, we still couldn't describe or categorize him as gay on Wikipedia until such time as we could prove that Baird himself had explicitly said so.

And incidentally, "the statement is permissible until proven otherwise" isn't how reliable sourcing works on Wikipedia — a disputed statement stays out of the article in the absence of evidence that would explicitly permit it, not in the article pending evidence that would disqualify it. The burden of proof is on the include side of the discussion, not the exclude.

In case you're not too clear on this, I'm a gay NDPer, so I have absolutely no interest in protecting John Baird. But until such time as it can be shown that Baird himself has spoken about the subject in his own words, the sentence in question simply is not good enough as a source. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears that WP:BLP and WP:CATGRS are contradictory, as the former says that allegations about someone's personal life published in reputable sources can be included here, and the latter says that allegations about homosexuality cannot be published unless the person admits to it. So even if someone is caught red-handed having gay sex, this can't be published on Wikipedia (this is hardly encyclopedic). I don't know why homosexual affairs are treated differently by Wikipedia than allegations of heterosexual affairs. Frankly I find this heterosexist as the policy doesn't say you can't refer to someone's heterosexuality unless they self-identify. But I'll concede that one Wikipedia policy does prohibit describing someone as gay unless they are quoted self-identifying, so I'll drop this.--216.234.60.106 (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a sensitive and complicated issue, I grant you — but it isn't really heterosexism. The issue is that assertions of homosexuality are still something that people, rightly or wrongly, feel entitled to sue over if the source making the statement gets it wrong or if the subject is determined to stay in the closet at all costs. So insisting on airtight sources for describing somebody as gay on Wikipedia isn't really about protecting them so much as it's about covering our own butts. And heterosexuality isn't addressed the same way at all: we don't normally state that an article subject is heterosexual; we simply mention people they can be reliably sourced to have had relationships with or been married to.

And I think you're misunderstanding: we can say that Ted Haggard got caught with a male prostitute. We can say that Larry Craig got caught cruising in a public washroom. We just can't add a gay-related category, or say that the person is gay, on the basis of the scandal. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

People also sue over allegations of heterosexual affairs. After reading over the policies I agree it's against Wikipedia policy to print that he is gay, but I think it is wholly within policies (especially WP:BLP) to print that allegations exist, especially since the allegation has been made in a reputable source.

Okay, I'll take that as permission to include the allegation, with citation to NOW.--Indifferent4 (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it really isn't the same thing at all. Haggard and Craig actually got caught doing something. It's not just an allegation in either of their cases — it's already been proven as fact that they did those things. Which isn't the same thing as one journalist merely making an unsupported assertion about a public figure's identity. The fact that we can publish properly sourced statements about specific things that people do really has no applicability to whether or not we can publish allegations about what people are. Bearcat (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I misinterpreted your point. Didn't intend to circumvent the discussion. Feel free to revert until agreement is reached. I still disagree with that, though. You are essentially demanding that a journalist publicly cite his sources (likely anonymous) before such an allegation is included in the article. This goes beyond Wikipedia policies for verifiability, which only require that it be published in a reputable publication with a reputation for fact-checking. This is akin to demanding the police who arrested Larry Craig publicly post a video of his conduct before including an allegation in the article.

As for your point about "identity" versus "conduct", you can't really say whether the allegation was about Baird's "gay" identity or his "gay" sexual behaviour.--Indifferent4 (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Has somebody published an allegation somewhere about Baird's sexual behaviour? Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You said we can't include allegations of someone's gay identity, but we can include allegations of gay sexual conduct. My point is that "gay" can refer to either identity or conduct.--Indifferent4 (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Allegations of gay sexual conduct" would entail allegations of specific sexual acts that he may or may not have done, or specific people that he may have had sex with. Simply asserting that a person is gay is, by definition, an allegation of identity, not behaviour, because it doesn't detail any alleged behaviour on his part. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is moot. The Wikipedia policy that applies here (WP:BLP) doesn't distinguish between allegations about identity or behaviour. Any allegation may be printed if it has been published in a source that meets the verifiability guidelines.--216.234.60.106 (talk) 18:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it did; I was responding to an apples-and-oranges comparison between "Person X is gay" and "Person Y had sex with a hooker". And again: the issue here is that the statement in question isn't actually a substantive allegation — it's merely an assertion, made as a snarky aside in an article about someone else, which the publication in question actually walked back when it published the same article to the only venue where 99.99999999999 per cent of the entire world will ever have the opportunity to actually see it, meaning that there are two conflicting versions of the same source. And that's only if you accept that an allegation of homosexuality belongs in the article in the first place, when our policies actually require us to wait until the person openly acknowledges their own orientation on the public record. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The policy of requiring an individual to self-identify only applies to categorization of the article, not to allegations about their sexuality (which fall under WP:BLP). Whether it was an aside or the subject of the article is not relevant; the allegation was made by a reputable, verifiable source in print. There's no evidence to indicate that the source has "walked back" on this statement, either. There is no retraction on the website.--Indifferent4 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no "gay" in the sentence on the website, either. Ergo, walked back. Bearcat (talk) 18:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet there is no retraction or even correction -- simply an omission -- which indicates that this is not an issue of libel or false information. As suggested earlier, it's more likely this was done in the online article due to political controversy around outing. That does not render the print source false.--Indifferent4 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In the case of a dispute about what a source even says, the burden of proof is on the case for inclusion. You're the one who needs to prove (not speculate) what the discrepancy between the two versions of the article is all about, not me. And incidentally, in your last "restate it as an allegation rather than a fact" revision, you readded the category. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, I simply hit 'undo' and made edits (which reverted back to what the original person added in -- I didn't know he had added categories as well).

I don't see why there is a dispute over what the source "says". The print edition is very clear: John Baird is gay. Assuming there is no retraction posted by the publication either in print or on their website (which there isn't), there is no evidence that the publication has "walked back". Just because a publication fails to reprint their article word for word on their website does not make the original article false.--Indifferent4 (talk) 19:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Omitting sensitive information from one version of an article is a form of walking-back. The phrase "walking back" refers to any situation, regardless of the reasoning behind it, where you say one thing and then back off from it afterward. It doesn't only cover retractions or corrections; it means "said one thing in one place and then got skittish about repeating it in another place" too. And you're the one speculating about why the discrepancy might exist — I'm merely saying that it does exist.

And by the way, content in the print publication would have to be corrected or retracted in the print edition, so the lack of a correction or retraction on the website doesn't mean anything. The simple reality is that we don't know why there's a discrepancy. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I am speculating to point out that there may be any number of reasons why the word 'gay' was omitted from the online article. My explanation may be just as valid as yours, but the point is you can't assume that the omission is because the information in the print article is false.--Indifferent4 (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hah! I'm not assuming that it's false; actually, I know damn well that it's true. But outing people is not what Wikipedia is here for — we need legitimate and unambiguous and airtight sources, which this isn't. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So if there is no retraction in the next print issue, will you concede that the source stands?--Indifferent4 (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Outing people is not what Wikipedia is here for, and a one-line passing bit of snark about John Baird in an article about Jaime Watt really isn't a good source regardless of whether there's a print retraction or a web retraction or no retraction at all. And honestly, why is it that critically important to you to have the article talk about his sexuality that you're willing to get into an edit war over it? Seriously, I'm a gay man who's spectacularly uninterested in protecting or defending closeted gay politicians who won't come out — and even I don't think the source is good enough. That's not Bearcat-as-gay-man speaking, because Bearcat-as-gay-man would love to agree with you on this — but Bearcat-as-Wikipedian simply can't, because the source just is not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why participating on the discussion page is seen as an edit war, but I guess I'm too new to wikipedia. This started because I undid an edit you made to someone else's addition, after you gave the rationale that the article had never mentioned the word "gay", so I knew you hadn't read it (I had read the print article, which is what brought me to this article in the first place). Anyways, I haven't edited the article again because I accept democratic decision-making, and I know that when different rationales keep being offered for a decision after each is criticized, it's because the decision has already been made.--Indifferent4 (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Except that I had read the article — on the web, where the word "gay" is absent. Which makes this all very interesting and curious indeed, but hardly my "mistake". And responding directly to points as they're raised is hardly the same thing as "changing your argument every time it's criticized" — I've made the same three core points over and over again through this entire discussion. And the only body on Wikipedia that has any ability to make a decision on a situation like this is a consensus of established users discussing the issue as it arises. This discussion is the process of making the decision — it's just not actually unfolding quite the way you want it to, which really isn't the same thing as the decision already having been made. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, we have three active, longstanding editors (administrators, in fact, though that has no particular bearing on the weight of their opinions) advocating that the information be omitted. On the other side, we have some drive by I.P.s, a borderline single purpose account (besides this subject, the only other edits by User:Indifferent4 are a three from two years ago), and a single active editor in good standing (User:Nfitz). Unless I see the balance of opinions shift meaningfully towards there being a real controversy in the next twenty-four hours, I'm going to close and archive this discussion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed (coming here from WP:BLPN). Disembrangler (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Sarcastic. I think Bearcat has a solid understanding of both the letter of Wikipedia policy on this and its spirit, and I think he has articulated it clearly. I would add that the most current version of the NOW article, the one on the web, has omitted this information. I don't know why Wikipedia would rely on a single newspaper article on this point, especially when the publication's online version has chosen to omit the point, and most importantly, when the subject of the article has not identified himself as gay in the media. Ground Zero | t 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that there does seeem to be some other reference to support this before being in the article. I find it deeply disturbing and homophobic though that one would consider archiving this portion of the discussion without archiving much older sections of the Talk Page. Nfitz (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This section of the talk page discusses details of his private life that he does not appear to want discussed in the public sphere. The other sections do not. This is not homophobic; I'd take the same approach if we were discussing a dubiously-sourced claim that he had had an affair with a female colleague, or something. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm gay and I wholly support blanking this discussion once it's run its course — although I rather hate the fact that such considerations are necessary in the first place, I agree wholeheartedly with the principle that outing people who haven't addressed the matter of their sexuality on the public record really isn't Wikipedia's role. It's not so much homophobia on our part as it is an acknowledgement that there's unfortunately still far more homophobia among our audience than we might wish. Bearcat (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Run it's course perhaps ... but good grief ... the very next time I'm here and it's been archived? I think archiving this portion of the discussion and not the rest is extreme prejudice! I'm completely perplexed why one thinks something like this should be hidden!! Not discussing in the article is one thing ... but trying to hide the discussion itself? All we are discussing are the merits of various sources. How is this any different than the section that has been kept in the talk page of him being a vegetarian? Nfitz (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry to restore this ... but someone objected to me adding the comment in the archive, so I've had to restore the discussion. Though archiving a discussion that's still active isn't right. Particularly when discussions that have been here for years are untouched. Nfitz (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
• Why this this archived within 15-minutes of me placing it here? Doesn't that violate Wikipedia standards on when something is archived? Especially when no clear consensus exists. Nfitz (talk) 04:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It was already noted earlier in this discussion that among established editors whose views actually count in establishing consensus, it's currently four to one for exclusion — apart from you, everybody else arguing the "out him" side in this discussion is an anonymous IP or a WP:SPA user with no established edit history. So we what we really have is 80 per cent against inclusion (which is more than good enough for any normal definition of consensus on Wikipedia), a discussion that's already been open for more than the standard week and really doesn't have any insightful new input being made anymore anyway, and a WP:BLP obligation to get this discussion away from public consumption as quickly as possible. Like it or not, sexuality is still a sensitive matter that we have to treat with utmost "self-identification in an airtight source or nothing at all" discretion — vegetarianism simply isn't in the same league. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Vote Mob comment

I think his comments on the vote mobs have become notable, showing disconnection with the youth.

Removed POV since no specific examples of POV are given. Please feel free to add any positive things observers have said about him. I'll see what I can add. Homey 00:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thought that the picture before wasn't the best one.

You may be right but we can't just copy an image from Baird's website without permission. Homey 02:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The Honourable

Okay, so what's the problem with The Honourable? Members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada are entitled to the prefix, unlike regular MPs. Why remove it? Digging.holes 06:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, nevermind, I just read the relevant part of the Style Manual. I personally feel it is a stupid policy ; nevertheless, I will abide by it until such time as it is changed or I stop caring. Whichever comes first. Digging.holes 06:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see the section of the style book on honorifics. Thanks.Homey 06:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't Mr. Baird have a website? How are his constituants supposed to contact him? Doesn't seem very organized..

Re: See http://www.johnbaird.com/--JForget 18:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lengthy article

This article is very long and may need some serious pruning. Thoughts? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 22:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• It may not come as a complete surprise that I disagree (although I have been meaning to revise this article for a while). CJCurrie 06:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• So most of the partisan attack from columnists is on the delete list. GoldDragon 22:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This a long article and could probably use some trimming. I think many of the political bios are getting off-track with too much criticism of minor things. The "OPSEU member" incident jumps out as an example. And some of the things like Hydrozilla, etc. could probably go too. --JGGardiner 09:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Got to note that everyting that Baird done in his provincial career is negatively criticized here, particularly by the Toronto Star. The Harris gov't policies were controversial, no doubt, but one would get the impression that it was all bad, which is misleading as Harris wanted to cut the deficit. GoldDragon 19:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree that everyt'ing (there is an apostrophe when you pronounce in the Carribean way, mon) is criticized. There is some balance, but not enough. All in all, it does look like someone has made a concerted effort to find criticism for most of the things he did, although I don't think we need shy away from listing his gaffes, of which there were many. I will try to take a look at this soon and suggest ways of making it less POV here on the talk page and see what otehrs think before making changes. Ground Zero | t 20:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree with calling him a "vegetarian". Vegetarians, being one myself, do not eat ANY type of animal, including fish and other seafood. Some vegetarians eat eggs and dairy (lacto-ovo vegetarians). If he eats seafood then he's still an omnivore, plain and simple. I suggest re-working that sentence in the "Trivia" section.

Provincial politics section: first round of suggested changes

Here are my suggestions for improving the balance of the “Provincial politics” section of the article. If we can get consensus on these changes, I’ll make them, and then we can review the revised article to see if more changes are needed. Please place your comments in each sub-section. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (revised 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Resolved issues

#1

“During a televised debate in early 1996, Baird acknowledged that his government's privatization policies would likely result in lower wages for workers, but argued this would be balanced out by lower prices for consumers. REF Thomas Walkom, "Tories would trade good jobs for bad", Toronto Star, 29 February 1996, A25./REF”

– This pops up out of nowhere and with no context. I do not think that this one remarks merits inclusion in the article. A Wikipedia article about a person should not document everything he/she ever said. I recommend that this be deleted. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this call. I wrote this sentence as the conclusion to a much longer paragraph, the rest of which has now been deleted. It doesn't have any particularly great significance on its own, and I had planned to remove it myself. I suspect we can probably just go ahead and delete it now. CJCurrie 22:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So we can move forward on this. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

#2

“REF Jane Coutts, "15,000 fell off welfare in July, Tories say ", Globe and Mail, 17 August 1999, A7 and Caroline Mallan, "Workfare stats elude minister", Toronto Star, 17 August 1999, p. 1. Both articles were extremely critical of Baird's ability to handle difficult questions./REF”

– I think that his words speak for themselves. We do not need the opinions of a couple of reporters here about his ability to handle questions. I recommend that “Both articles… difficult questions.” be deleted. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain where I stand on this one. Baird's first press conference was given extremely poor reviews from both the Star and G&M reporters. When I expanded the article in January 2006, I thought this was significant enough to mention. If others disagree now, I won't object to the sentence's removal. CJCurrie 03:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So it will go then. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The proposal was not to delete the reference, only to delete the descriptive sentence that followed it: "Both articles were extremely critical...." I'll restore the reference. Ground Zero | t 13:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

#4

“Baird opposed the Harris government's plan to amalgamate the city of Ottawa with neighbouring municipalities, but was unable to prevent it from passing the legislature in 1999 REF Dan Nolan, "Tory MPPs talk merger with caucus", Hamilton Spectator, 30 November 1999, A01./REF”

– Individual members of legislative assemblies are very rarely able to prevent passage of legislation. This is an unreasonable standard to set through mention here. I recommend that this be revised as follows:

“Baird opposed the Harris government's plan to amalgamate the city of Ottawa with neighbouring municipalities, which was approved by the Legislature in 1999.” Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Basically a benign change, and not particularly controversial. CJCurrie 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No dispite there. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

#6

“When campaigning for federal office five years later, Baird acknowledged that the syringe event demonstrated "immature judgement" on his part.REF"Baird is the clear choice", Ottawa Citizen, 17 January 2006, B4./REF”

– Are we just ragging the puck here? We’ve already shown what a stupid move this was with Keith Norton’s comments, do we need contrition from Baird here? I think this is not needed and should be deleted. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

When I expanded this article in early 2006, I had some concerns that my personal views about Baird were clouding my editorial judgement. (It will probably occasion very little surprise that my opinion towards Baird is mostly unfavourable, although not entirely so. I doubt readers will have much difficulty determining the limited areas where Baird's views coincide with my own.)

I decided to review my changes around the time of the last election, in order to ensure that I was providing a fair account of Baird's statements and positions. Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently thorough with this process, but that's an argument for another day.

In any event ... when I included the line, "Baird acknowledged that the syringe event demonstrated "immature judgement" on his part", my intent was to demonstrate that he was making a serious effort to move beyond the accusations of juvenile behaviour that dogged his early life as a cabinet minister. In other words, I was attempting to mitigate past criticism instead of amplifying it. Perhaps this didn't work quite as I intended.

If other readers believe that the line only serves to makes Baird look worse, I won't object to its deletion. CJCurrie 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

#7

In the "Opposition member" section:

"Baird and New Democrat Peter Kormos were vocal critics of Speaker Alvin Curling for allegedly favouring his Liberal colleagues, saying that he sanctioned Conservative and NDP members for behaviour he would allow from Liberals. Kormos announced plans to introduce a resolution calling on Curling to resign from the post, and it was rumoured that Baird was considering a similar move. At one stage, Baird described Curling's job performance as an "absolute disgrace". REF Rob Ferguson, "New premium won't be listed separately on pay", Toronto Star, 19 May 2004, A09; "'Dysfunctional' legislature shocks Tory", CanWest News Service, 17 December 2004, A11./REF"

I don’t think old rumours belong in a Wikipedia article. I propose to delete “Kormos announced plans to introduce a resolution calling on Curling to resign from the post, and it was rumoured that Baird was considering a similar move” --- the remainder of the paragraph makes the relationship between the two clear enough. (This is the last change that I am suggesting to the "Provincial politics" section at this time.) Ground Zero | t 13:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did go a bit overboard there on the content when I added it. I agree that that section can be cut. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this should go. CJCurrie 23:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Unresolved issues

#3

“A number of media reports subsequently criticized both the principle and the implementation of workfare in Ontario. REF One political columnist, Ian Urquhart, described the program as "largely a fraud". See Ian Urquhart, "Workfare program a fraud", Toronto Star, 18 August 1999, p. 1./REF”

And I am sure that there were media reports endorsing workfare and its implementation. I do not think that these media reports merit mention in this article, which is a biography of Baird, not an article on workfare. I recommend that this be deleted. Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to argue that this particular reference should be retained. Baird's debut performance as a cabinet minister was the specific impetus for much of the criticism of the workfare program, including Urquhart's piece in the Star. (I'll see if I can find proof of this.) CJCurrie 04:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

He's a selection from Urquhart's article:

WORKFARE IS the Tories' dirty little secret. The truth is that the much-ballyhooed program is mostly a fraud.

That became evident on Monday as John Baird, the rookie minister of community and social services, held an ill-advised press conference to trumpet the latest drop in the welfare caseload.

"Another 15,638 people left welfare in July," Baird boasted. "That brings the total since our government was first elected in 1995 to more than 412,000."

The press conference would have been a non-event if Baird had stopped there. But he went on to attribute the government's success largely to its "mandatory work for welfare" program, and that opened the door to reporters' questions.

Just how many welfare recipients are actually working for their cheques? Baird couldn't, or wouldn't, respond. When the questions kept coming, an aide abruptly ended the press conference and a red-faced Baird scurried out of the room. CJCurrie 05:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Was this criticism echoed across the political spectrum, as this column appeared to be singled out as it was particularly critical? Also as pointed out earlier, We do not need the opinions of a couple of reporters here about his ability to handle questions. I support its deletion. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's another article from the same period:

Mike Harris came to office in 1995 on a wave of parsimony garbed in tough love. Workfare was the hot-button word that went straight to the suit pocket nearest the heart.

"The best social assistance program ever created is a real job, and this plan will generate hundreds of thousands of those," the Common Sense Revolution declared in 1995. Who could argue?

Four years later, the claims are more circumspect.

The Tories' 1999 platform said "we're proud to have helped close to 400,000 get off welfare and put their lives back on track since 1995."

Note that the claim is that their lives are "on track." The "real jobs" have disappeared from the rhetoric.

There is good reason for this. The evidence is becoming overwhelming that workfare is little more than a veneer giving dubious respectability to the reality that people in need are being denied support.

As of July, only 6,000 people were actually on workfare assignments. These jobs last six months, then someone else gets a turn.

This represents little more than 2 per cent of the welfare caseload. Last year's annual total was less than 5 per cent.

It is interesting to even have a number, however.

The previous minister of community and social services, Janet Ecker, managed to float through her entire time in the portfolio without any workfare number ever sticking to her for long.

We can thank her successor, John Baird, for letting the parsimony shine through. Harris himself underlined this yesterday. We shouldn't be focussing on how few got workfare jobs, he said, but how many lost their welfare cheques. So much for the best social assistance program ever created.

(Toronto Star, 18 August 1999) CJCurrie 00:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the left-leaning Toronto Star criticized the program, in two opinion columns. Also, what about the rest of the news sources across the political spectrum? And there must have been benefits to the workfare program too... GoldDragon 18:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that the G&M ran some critical pieces about workfare-in-practice around the same time. CJCurrie 00:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

There must have been supportive articles in the media too... GoldDragon 15:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This article contains next to no personal information, like marital status, upbringing, parents, etc. A paragraph or two of personal information would be helpful.

#5

“Later in the year, Baird announced that his department would spend $26 million on shelters and other funding for the homeless. This decision was praised as a positive step, although opposition members criticized the plan for not providing funds for investment in affordable housing.REF James Stevenson, "Ontario to spend $26 million on shelters and programs for homeless", Canadian Press, 21 December 2000, 17:59 report. /REF”

– This reminds me of a pointless article headline I say in the Kingston Whig-Standard many years ago on the day after a federal election: “Local residents' views on election result: some like it, some don’t”. After the first sentence, the paragraph pretty much says, “Some supported the move, others didn’t.” I think this would be more concise without losing meaning if the paragraph stopped after the first sentence, i.e., that the second sentence be deleted. And Baird ran a ministry, not a department. He runs a department now. (I've made this change.) Ground Zero | t 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain this analogy really works. The Whig-Standard headline was indeed pointless, conveying nothing more profound than the fact that different people held different views about the same thing. With the "$26 million" sentence, I was trying to indicate why opposition members criticized Baird's spending decision: none objected to new money for shelters, but many thought that the government was pursuing a flawed strategy by not including funds for affordable housing under the same (metaphorical) umbrella.

I wonder if it might be better to rewrite this line instead of deleting it ... perhaps "Baird later announced that his department would spend $26 million on shelters and other funding for the homeless. Opposition members welcomed the new spending, but criticized the absence of funds for affordable housing", or something along those lines, would be acceptable.

And I apologize for the ministry/department error. CJCurrie 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Still prefer its exclusion entirely, as the opposition always points out what was not done. This would only be significant if the gov't reversed or fell short on a promise. GoldDragon 21:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Was this edit premature? I believe Point 5 is still under discussion as well. CJCurrie 02:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is still under discussion. The question for is whether is directly relevant to bring up affordable housing in discussing Baird's announcement on a homeless strategy. I agree with the criticism that it is does not make sense to have a homeless strategy without addressing affordable housing, but I recognize that that is my opinion, and that others can argue that you can separate the two issues. Because there will not be agreement, I would leave the reference to affordable housing out. Ground Zero | t 13:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The opposition parties drew a connection between the issues, which may be sufficient grounds for us to mention their reaction in this context. I can understand the objection, though, and I realize that the wording may appear leading to some readers.

By way of another compromise, could I suggest that we include a reference to the opposition parties' criticism (re: affordable housing) in a separate sentence, without a direct link to the homelessness strategy? CJCurrie 03:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Edits

Not overly concerned with the first few points.GoldDragon 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(i)

My edit removes the following sentence: Baird met with NDP leader Jack Layton in Vancouver shortly after his appointment. The NDP has identified climate change and the environment as key priorities to be addressed by parliament. Layton has said that the Conservatives will need to address environmental concerns in their 2007 budget to receive support from the NDP.

Reason: Layton's comments are no longer relevant, given that the NDP have decided not to support the budget. Baird's meeting with Layton is not, in and of itself, of encyclopedic importance.

(ii)

My edit substitutes GoldDragon's text -- Sources say that Conservative plan offers tax credits instead of direct subsidies. -- with the following: Critics argued that the new Conservative measures were similar to measures introduced by the Liberals in their 2005 budget.

Reason: The cited article does not indicate that the Conservative plan offers tax credits rather than direct subsidies, and does indicate that critics drew attention to similar measures in the 2005 Liberal budget.

GoldDragon's assertion may well be accurate, but he should provide an accurate citation if he wants it included.

(iii)

My edit adjusts this paragraph:

Shortly after his return from Paris, the Liberal opposition brought forward a non-binding motion for Canada to renew its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. All Conservative MPs who were present in the House, including Baird, voted against the motion, which passed with the support of the three opposition parties. Baird is a vocal opponent of the Protocol, which he argues would bring about an "economic collapse". Recently, the Conservatives' position has been backed by five independent economists, including Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond. Drummond, who has been consulted by political parties of all stripes, said that the "economic cost [of implementing Kyoto] would be at least as deep as the recession in the early 1980s", agreeing with the results of a study compiled by the environment department. Drummond dismissed the opposition measure as unworkable.[1][2] Representatives of other parties have claimed that these are scare tactics and Liberal environmental critic David McGuinty said that the study was flawed.

To this:

Shortly after his return from Paris, the Liberal opposition brought forward a non-binding motion for Canada to renew its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. All Conservative MPs who were present in the House, including Baird, voted against the motion, which passed with the support of the three opposition parties. Baird is a vocal opponent of the Protocol, which he argues would bring about an "economic collapse".

And adds the following paragraph later in the section:

In April 2007, Baird produced a federal study supported by five independent economists, including Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond, to defend his position that adherence to the Kyoto Protocol would result in a severe economic downtown. In a private letter that was leaked to the media in the same period, Drummond wrote to Baird that the "economic cost [of implementing Kyoto] would be at least as deep as the recession in the early 1980s". Opposition parliamentarians dismissed the report as a scare tactic, while Liberal Environment Critic David McGuinty argued that the study was misleading, as it did not properly factor international emission trading and ignored jobs to be created through the "green economy".

Reasons: I don't think anyone would dispute that the federal study cited by Baird is worthy of mention in this article. GoldDragon's edit, however, seems to use the study to validate the Conservative government's position on Kyoto, while also adding unnecessary information about Don Drummond's credentials.

I could add that (i) the sentence, "Drummond dismissed the opposition measure as unworkable", makes little sense in isolation, (ii) the context of Drummond's statement to Baird is surely worth mentioning, (iii) David McGuinty's specific criticisms of the federal study are rather significant, particularly given that Baird's views on the international carbon market are referenced elsewhere in the section.

It might be possible to restructure the "Environment Minister" section, so as to have all of the Kyoto material in a single sequence of paragraphs. GoldDragon's wording, however, is not suitable for inclusion one way or the other.

Drummond's credentials are important to show that he is not being partisan. Second, the study is not being misused in any sense. GoldDragon 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(iv)

My edit includes the following paragraph:

In mid-February 2007, Baird defended his government's environmental record by quoting former United States Vice-President Al Gore as saying that Canada was "showing moral authority to the rest of the world" in its policies on climate change. Gore responded that his comments were made to encourage the Harper government to participate in the Kyoto process, and said that Baird had "mischaracterized" his words by presenting them out of context. Baird has said that his comments were not misrepresentation.

Reason: I would tend to think that a public dispute between Canada's Environment Minister and the most famous environmental celebrity in North America is worthy of inclusion (especially given their subsequent tiff over the Conservative environmental proposal).

That is getting into POV there since "the most environmental celebrity" is your opinion. Ending up, it results in a "he said she said" incident. GoldDragon 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(v)

My edit changes this paragraph:

Baird released his government's targets for greenhouse gas emissions in late April 2007. The plan calls for Canada to begin cutting its existing rate of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, and for cuts to reach 20% by 2020. Under this plan, Canada will reach its Kyoto targets between 2020 and 2025. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the government plan does not set hard caps on emissions.

To this:

Baird released his government's targets for greenhouse gas emissions in late April 2007. The plan calls for Canada to begin cutting its existing rate of greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, and for cuts to reach 20% by 2020. Under this plan, Canada will reach its Kyoto targets between 2020 and 2025, eight to thirteen years behind schedule. Unlike the Kyoto Protocal, the government plan does not set hard caps on emissions.

Reasons: The fact that the federal government plans to reach its Kyoto commitments several years behind schedule is a point of some significance. Leaving out this information could confuse some readers into believing that the government is still pursuing its Kyoto targets.

The leaked fax was a significant news story, and merits a passing reference in the footage section.

No point in having to mention the fax...I don't think its significant. Second, "behind schedule" is POV because there was no previous legislation that adhered to any schedule. I've implemented an alternative wording. GoldDragon 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

(vi)

My edit changes the following two paragraphs:

Baird's proposal has been met with approval from Canada's oilpatch executives, who described them as the toughest emission regulations in the world, and who feared that more stringent standards would stiffle oil sands exploration. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has been considerably less critical than his brother, having earlier written to Prime Minister Harper on the environmental policy saying "I would like to stress how important it is to adopt a policy that takes into account the North American market in its entirety. The fact is, when it comes to cars and trucks, we live in a continental market – not a national market, and certainly not a provincial market." McGuinty said the Conservatives' environmental plan could have gone further but described the auto emissions part of the plan as "very sensible".[3]

Members of opposition parties have criticized the government's abandonment of Kyoto goals, while David Suzuki described the proposal as a "sham" with "weak targets". Former US vice president Al Gore said Baird's plan was "designed to mislead the Canadian people". Baird responded by defending his plan, and by criticizing Gore's environmental record, noting that no similarly stringent measures were passed during Gore's tenure in office and that the Kyoto Treaty was never submitted to the US Senate for ratification.

To this:

Baird's proposal has been met with approval from Canada's oilpatch executives, who described them as the toughest emission regulations in the world and who feared that more stringent standards would stiffle oil sands exploration. Members of opposition parties have criticized the government's abandonment of Kyoto goals, while David Suzuki described the proposal as a "sham" with "weak targets". Some of the harshest criticism has come from Al Gore, who described Baird's proposal as a "complete and total fraud" that was "designed to mislead the Canadian people". Baird responded by defending his plan, and by criticizing Gore's environmental record while in office.

Reasons: Dalton McGuinty's comments (as cited in GoldDragon's edit) have primarily to do with a separate matter. I would not object to some reference to Premier McGuinty's response, but the wording should be improved.

Dalton McGuinty's comments are relevant, since the auto emissions is part of the whole Conservative plan, and that is where Dalton did influence the federal Tories. Furthermore, I'm prepared to expand that section since the columnist makes a point between opposition critics and governing, using David and Dalton as a contrast. GoldDragon 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore's accusation of fraud was the most widely reported aspect of his criticism, and merits inclusion accordingly. I would be prepared to include Baird's specific criticisms of Gore's record.

Problem is that Suzuki and Gore are saying exactly the same thing, with more detail from Suzuki, so having both of their responses in full doesn't add any salient information. GoldDragon 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments welcome. CJCurrie 04:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: I've made an effort to create a workable compromise. Let's see if it's acceptable. CJCurrie 03:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Holy cow. That entire edit seems to have one goal in mind: to make Baird and the Conservative Party look bad. Maybe that wasn't the intent, but every single modification casts the party in a more negative light than before. yellowjournalism 14:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.239.230 (talk)

An offer to mediate

If both parties are interested, I will try to mediate the remaining issues over the next few days to try to put an end to the edit war. I don't have much time at the moment, but I will try. Ground Zero | t 11:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are my comments on the major issues. There were some other changes that I have no addressed that seem more minor to me.

GD's version	CJC's version	GZ's comments
Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond has described the opposition measures as "unworkable".	-	This is vague, and therefore of little value. Drummond’s objections are better addressed in the following paragraph. I say delete it per CJC.

GD's version	CJC's version	GZ's comments
Recently, the Conservatives' position has been backed by five independent economists, including TD's Drummond. Drummond, who has been consulted by political parties of all stripes, added that the "economic cost [of implementing Kyoto] would be at least as deep as the recession in the early 1980s", agreeing with the results of a study compiled by the environment department. [4] Representatives of other parties have claimed that these are scare tactics and Liberal environmental critic David McGuinty said that the study was flawed.	In April 2007, Baird produced a federal study supported by five independent economists to support his approach to the Kyoto Protocol. Among the five economists was Toronto-Dominion Bank chief economist Don Drummond, who also wrote a private letter to Baird arguing that the "economic cost [of implementing Kyoto] would be at least as deep as the recession in the early 1980s". Opposition parliamentarians dismissed the report as a scare tactic, while Liberal Environment Critic David McGuinty argued that the study was misleading, saying that it did not properly examine international emission trading and ignored jobs to be created through the "green economy".	I prefer CJC’s version here because it explains what David McG’s criticism actually is, instead of providing a vague “it was flawed”. Also, the link to TD Bank follows WP:MOS in CJC’s version, but not in GD’s. As far as “who has been consulted by political parties of all stripes” goes, this seems to be an attempt to provide an endorsement to Drummond. I don’t think it is necessary – his reputation is well-known. David Suzuki has been consulted by political parties of all stripes, too. It doesn’t mean that the politicians have listened to either of them.

GD's version	CJC's version	GZ's comments
Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has been considerably less critical than his brother, having earlier written to Prime Minister Harper on the environmental policy. The Premier had stressed the importance of a policy that considered the North American market as a whole, due to the automotive industry's importance to his province. McGuinty said the Conservatives' environmental plan could have gone further but described the auto emissions part of the plan as "very sensible".	Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said that the plan as a whole "falls short of Canadians' expectations", although he endorsed Baird's strategy for curbing greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles	Here, I prefer GD’s version because it provides additional detail that is worth keeping. CJC’s version is more vague.

I hope this helps. Ground Zero | t 15:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept GZ's recommendations. However, I'm also going to suggest what I hope will be a "constructive synthesis" for the Dalton McGuinty paragraph:

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has been less critical than his brother. The Premier had previously written to Prime Minister Harper on environmental policy, stressing the importance of considering the North American market as a whole, due to the automotive industry's importance to his province. McGuinty said the Conservatives' overall environmental plan "falls short of Canadians' expectations", but described the auto emissions part of the plan as "very sensible".

Would this be acceptable? CJCurrie 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My main gripe is that why do you prefer stuff like "behind schedule" (in describing Baird's revised plan) and "falls short of expectations" in McGuinty, as I don't exactly see it as constructive synthesis. Again, I used the term "considerably less critical" because David dismissed it out of hand entirely, whereas Dalton said it could have gone further but was satisfied that he was able to influence one piece of the plan. (The editorial explains that David is the shadow cabinet critic, so his job is to be criticial, compared to Dalton who instead has some incentive to work with the federal Tories.) GoldDragon 23:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this point by point:

(i) I prefer the term "behind schedule" (referring to Baird's emission targets in relation to the Kyoto Protocol) because it's the language used in the Globe and Mail's coverage of the issue.

However, under the Conservative government's new climate-change plan, the goal of reducing Canada's greenhouse-gas output to 6 per cent below 1990 levels – the targets established in the Kyoto accord – would not be reached until 2025. That's 13 years behind schedule.

(Gloria Galloway and Bill Curry, "Green plan's cost pegged at $8-billion a year", Globe and Mail, 27 April 2007, A1.)

More to the point, it's important that we not provide readers with misleading statements. If we simply state that "the Conservative plan will allow Canada to reach its Kyoto targets by 2025", readers who are unfamiliar with the Kyoto schedule might assume that Harper's government has decided to accept the protocol after all. Adding "behind schedule", removes the confusion.

(ii) "Falls short of expectation" is a direct quote from Dalton McGuinty. I can't see why it would be objectionable.

(iii) The McGuinty brothers' divergence toward Baird's proposal is interesting and noteworthy, but not something that should be blown out of proportion (particularly given that Dalton was also critical of the proposal as a whole). "Less critical" gets the point across without the hyperbole of "considerably".

Incidentally, you might be interested to know that the McGuinty and Harper governments have very similar views on the role of nuclear power, and that Dion's coal strategy hasn't met with a strong reception at Queen's Park. There are serious divisions between the federal and provincial Liberals on these issues; these, however, are matters for another debate. CJCurrie 01:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Toronto Star reports that McGuinty says it could have gone further. So no reason not to stick with that.

Behind schedule is misleading, as there was no existing planned schedule, so that is why I say "takes x years longer than Kyoto".

Well, "considerably" adequately reflects their views towards it, unless you want to go into detail about how David dismissed it entirely... At the same time, considerable does not mean "extreme" but the differences are nonetheless significant; both brothers are not on the same page. GoldDragon 17:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat puzzled by these responses. In the first instance, "Falls short of expectations" is a direct quote, while "says it could have gone further" is a paraphrase. Why you'd prefer the latter is not entirely clear.

Second, the journalists cited above have noted that the Harper government's plan will allow Canada to reach its Kyoto targets 8-13 years behind schedule. Editing this to read "the Harper government's plan will allow Canada to reach its Kyoto targets" doesn't seem entirely forthright.

Finally, "considerably" could be read as POV, given that both brothers opposed the accord. CJCurrie 22:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GA class?

Aside for possibly the trivia section, this article looks well written, well sourced, detailed and quite up to date that it should be considered for a GA candidate. Anyone agrees that it should go to GA soon?--JForget 18:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

ACtually, I think it should a get a shot for GA.--JForget 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The only caution I'd add at this stage is that the article hasn't been updated for a few months. Once that's taken care of, it might be suitable for GA status. CJCurrie 21:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Although I haven't seen very much of articles on CBC since April except one about a UN report that contradicted Baird's claims that Kyoto's plans would hurt significantly the economy. I've added the UN bit plus Baird's rebuttal saying Canada will have its levels of emissions peaked before the UN's target.--JForget 21:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is also this which I think is about the Liberal's private bill forcing Canada to respect the Kyoto Protocol.JForget 21:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. Not that it's a requirement for GA, but have there been any attempts to get a free picture?
2. Trivia sections are not acceptable for Good Articles — the information contained there should either be incorporated into the body of the article or removed entirely.
3. External links should be below the footnotes, or at least below the election results tables.
4. The lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Specifically, it must adequately summarize all the major points in the article and, for an article of this size, that will require at least two full paragraphs, most likely three. For example, it currently mentions nothing about his early life.
5. Some statements require citations:

   "He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Studies from Queen's University in 1992." (Early life and career)

   The first paragraph under "Government backbencher"

   The introduction of "Community and Social Services minister"

   "He was not, but was demoted to the position of Chief Government Whip while remaining associate minister for Francophone Affairs. His replacement in Social Services was Brenda Elliott, who was from the more centrist wing of the Progressive Conservative Party." (Chief Government Whip)

   "Baird was less combative as Energy Minister than he had been in Community and Social Services. The energy policies of the Eves government were controversial, but opposition criticism was often directed at the premier rather than at Baird. Eves took a prominent interest in the Energy portfolio, and sometimes relegated Baird to a secondary role in policy announcements." (Energy Minister)

   "Both Baird and Flaherty left provincial politics in 2005 to campaign for the federal House of Commons." (Opposition member)

   "and was signed into law four days later." (Accountability Act)

   "All three opposition parties have demanded that the environment becomes one of the main points of the government's Trone Speech in the 2007 fall session." (Environmental strategy)

6. The early life section is somewhat lacking. Who were his parents? What was his childhood like? What influenced him to get into politics? How did his childhood experiences affect his later life? You don't have to answer all of these questions, especially if the information is not available, but these are the types of questions that can get you started on how to expand that section.
7. Aside from lacking a citation, the sentence "He was re-elected without difficulty in 1999." under "Government backbencher" is somewhat POV and should be backed up with an objective fact. For example, did he gain a large majority of the vote? That could explain "without difficulty." Without a fact, and certainly without a citation, it seems somewhat subjective.
8. Several paragraphs contain only one or two sentences. These should be merged with surrounding paragraphs or expanded if you feel that they're distinct enough to be on their own.
9. The are problems with some of the prose and the repetition of words. For example, under "2000," you use the verb "announced" and awful lot.
10. The "2001-02," "Minister responsible for Children" and "Chief Government Whip" sections should combined — if not all three of them, then at least two of them. Right now, they're too short to all deserve their own headings. Alternatively, they could be expanded.
11. References #8, #44, #71, #78, #101, #104 and #110 are broken.

To allow for these changes to be made, I am putting the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Also, please note that this is only my preliminary review and that I still have to look over certain things (such as making sure all the citations work etc.), so there may be more to do after I review it a second time. Cheers, CP 18:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I forgot to check this for a while, I will extend the hold so that these last minor changes can be made. Cheers, CP 15:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've expanded the lead to added briefly some of its policies he made such as the social program cuts, and Hydro One sell failure as well as the Federal Accountability Act, and his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol which means it added about 1 kb of text and one paragraph with two more sources including one that includes virtually all the first two lead paragraphs. The broken citations were also replaced and/or resourced. Now the ref numbers are now different since at least two more were added during the changes.--JForget 19:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, I'm ready to pass it for GA Status now! Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 21:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks!JForget 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarian?

Could someone provide a source for the fact that he is a vegetarian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrythemaster (talk • contribs) 14:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I sourced that fact here, but it keeps getting deleted. Maybe there's an appropriate place in the article this could be re-added, now that there's no trivia section? --Padraic 15:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So, that link is now dead (way to go Maclean's), but a quick Google search turns up [5], [6]. They all link to the same story I did, though. --Padraic 15:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source: the Hill Times, [7]. --Padraic 15:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Pamela Taylor

Shoulda known somebody would pounce on it in three seconds flat... Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

LGBT category

As funny as I think it is, adding the LGBT and Gay Politician categories violate WP:BLP as we are dealing in rumours here: Baird has never outed himself. I've removed those categories. freshacconci talktalk 16:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yikes. Didn't even see the actual text in there. Someone removed it in any case. Like I said, we cannot use this text per WP:BLP. freshacconci talktalk 02:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Question: if there are numerous references to someone's political beliefs, religious beliefs, etc., would we not include an appropriate reference in such a person's article? (I assume you can see this coming) Therefore, since we hve numerous references to Baird being gay, why should such a reference not be included in his article? Are we censors? Do we enforce a code of morality here? By not including such reference are we someone how suggesting the issue is shameful? Interested in your thoughts. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

Not really. The actual issue is that in order to categorize and describe someone as being gay in an encyclopedia article, what we normally require is that the person openly identifies themselves as being gay — not because it's shameful, but because for our purposes, what's relevant in an encyclopedia article is the social identity that the person publicly associates themselves with, not the raw physiological responses of their body to sexual stimuli. Bearcat (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good retort. You've convinced me. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

I'm not convinced. Numerous politicians and publications - both gay and straight - have publicly identified John Baird as being gay. Surely the standard of proof has long since been reached. Nfitz (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

But he hasn't, and that's all that counts per WP:BLP. freshacconci talktalk 03:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:BLP that says this. However it's not a simple document. Perhaps you can highlight which section you think means this. Nfitz (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the previous statement by Nfitz. I do not see anything in the WP:BLP which states that a living person cannot be identified with a particular social, cultural, or other group/community unless that person is quoted in a printed material as self-identifying himself/herself with that group. Just because John Baird (or any other person, for that matter) has not given an interview with the media in which he specifically calls himself gay does not mean that he doesn't publicly identify himself within that community. The question arises: What counts as public self-identification? Does it suffice that his colleagues and members of the media - people who have met him and interviewed him and worked with him - publicly identify him as gay following their own direct communications with him? If John Baird openly attends and participates in gay social venues and events within the gay community (which he does), can we exclude him from an LGBT category just because he hasn't given an interview specifically mentioning his sexuality? I believe that Baird does meet the criteria to be included in such a category as there appears to be an acceptable standard of proof. However, I realize that this is all still open to interpretation and I agree that WP:BLP is a very lengthy document which contains a multitude of information. Perhaps another user could highlight some section(s) which clarify this situation for us. Morris1984 (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:BLPGOSSIP is the relevant policy here: "Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject." Baird is a parliamentarian and minister. His sexuality is not very relevant to an encyclopedia article about him. I think that suggests we exclude here, especially given the sources we have. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think self-identification is anywhere on BLP. We can worry about gossip and promoting speculation, but we aren't doing anyone any favors if we refuse to add material to an article because the subject would rather (in the abstract or on the concrete) we didn't. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The relevant policy on this is spelled out at WP:CATGRS. We generally require sources in which the topic is actually on record identifying himself as gay; it would then be relevant because he'd chosen to make it relevant. As things stand right now, however, we simply don't have a satisfactory source that would satisfy the demands of WP:BLP. Essentially, he's in what I refer to as a "glass closet": he certainly lives his personal life openly, but for whatever reason he chooses not to talk about it to the media. He's not strictly "in the closet", because he's not hiding it from his friends and family or claiming to be straight or cruising airport bathrooms with a wide stance or anything like that, but he's not strictly "out of the closet" in the sense that is usually understood when it pertains to a public figure, either. Nobody's trying to help him cover it up on here or anything like that — protecting John Baird, of all people, hardly ranks high on my list of priorities, believe me — but there just isn't a source out there for it which actually meets a properly encyclopedic standard. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, when you go the sources, the evidence amounts to his having been known to eat at a gay restaurant, his attendance at gay pride events, and the fact that everyone "knows" he's gay. Even if we accept the proposition that someone else could out him, that hasn't happened yet. -Rrius (talk) 20:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has. His colleague, Conservative candidate Pamela Taylor, outed him in an interview on CBC radio on Feb. 2, 2010. This was then reported by La Presse <<http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/201002/03/01-945718-le-ministre-baird-sorti-du-placard.php>> and Xtra <<http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/OPEN_SECRET_Conservative_cabinet_minister_John_Baird_outed-8194.aspx>>

204.40.1.129 (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That still fails the criterion that a person has to have identified themselves as gay to be described and categorized as such on here; Wikipedia's job is to rely on reliable sources, not to be a source of political insider gossip. It used to be unsourceable "everybody knows" conventional wisdom that Adam Giambrone was gay, too, and look how that turned out. Which certainly isn't to suggest that Baird is a similar situation — but it does demonstrate why we have to wait until someone actually makes a reliably sourced public statement of their own self-identification. As I've noted previously, when you get right down to it Wikipedia cares about an article subject's cultural and social identification with the LGBT community, not the raw physiological responses of their body to sexual stimuli. Bearcat (talk) 20:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between being closeted and living openly without discussing it with the media. Rick Mercer falls into this category. He lived his life openly gay, I think he'd been in a relationship with the same man for a couple decades, but he never dicussed it with the media until last year. He identified as gay his entire career, just never on the record. From what I understand, Baird's the same. He is gay and he lives his personal life openly. But he hasn't felt the need to announce it to everyone through the press. He's not closeted, he's not pretending to be straight, he's just not answering questions. The question is, does it matter? Half of me thinks, who cares? Makes no difference to me and if he doesn't want it publicly broadcast, even if he doesn't hide it in his personal life, then why should we do otherwise here? Then there's a small part of me that thinks, he's probably the highest ranking non-closeted (i.e. a gay person portraying himself as straight) gay politician in Canadian history. To me that seems important both for what it is and what it could mean for young Canadian gays. It'd be kind of like leaving out the fact that Herb Gray was the first Jewish federal cabinet Minister (and later Deputy Prime Minister) just because he never was photographed at a synagogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.225.27 (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand why him being gay is considered at all in doubt. Go ask Chris Day, one of his assistants, who is also gay. Its been out there in the media. Why is Xtra considered an unreliable source? Its a newspaper, and doesnt publish spurious rumours.... you must be thinking of another certain gay publication.... I feel like this is an anti-gay bias against gay media -- (implying that gay newspapers are not serious enough to be reliable) Ottawakismet (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Baird himself has never come out. He's never publicly stated that he's gay. Therefore, Wikipedia cannot identify him as gay. Xtra is perfectly acceptable as a source. However, in this case, they are just printing what is essentially gossip. Until Baird comes out publicly, Wikipedia won't identify him as gay. freshacconci talktalk 14:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, just because someone says he's gay is no reason to add it into Wikipedia. Is it really that important anyway, we wouldn't have another politician listed as "openly straight". Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Straight is the "default" setting that's automatically assumed in the absence of an explicit statement to the contrary, so it's not necessary for a person to formally "come out" as such — despite that, the fact that a straight person is straight is routinely advertised by their daily behaviour, most obviously when they talk about and/or photo-op their wife and kids. So while it's true that we don't need to make use of the exact phrase "openly straight", we do routinely add information to our articles which clarifies and confirms their heterosexuality. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Xtra! is not an unreliable source in principle; I use it extensively. But Pamela Taylor isn't a reliable source — what that particular article still lacks is John Baird's own words on the subject. Without those, it remains possible that the people who believe he's gay are just plain wrong — unlikely though that may be, Wikipedia still has to wait until we can properly verify that the sources in question are definitely correct and not just probably correct. (The fact that a considerable number of people claim to have insider knowledge is irrelevant, if we can't properly verify that their knowledge is actually correct. As I noted before, "everybody" used to "know" that Adam Giambrone was openly gay, too, until he got caught up in a heterosexual sex scandal — so if we had jumped the gun based on common knowledge without waiting for his own words, we would have been wrong. We need one or more reliable sources in which Baird is quoted on the record talking about his own sexual orientation, because that's the only way we can verify the actual truth of the statement. I trust that you're familiar with the persistent yet entirely unverifiable rumours swirling around Stephen and Laureen Harper's marriage, as well, but in the absence of reliable media sourcing it's not Wikipedia's job to wade into that morass either.)

A politician's sexual orientation is relevant if he publicly identifies himself with the label in question, and not if he doesn't — because again, as I've noted before, for Wikipedia's purposes what we're interested in is an article topic's social and cultural identification with the LGBT community, and not what kind of sexual activity merely happens to make their naughty bits tingle. So until you can add a source in which Baird is quoted on the record identifying himself as a gay man, outing people against their will isn't our job. (And for the record, I can name you at least half a dozen other political figures who should be filed in Category:LGBT politicians from Canada, but aren't because they've never spoken about their sexuality on the public record.) It will be relevant if and when he chooses to make it relevant by talking about it on the record — but until he's actually done so, Wikipedia is not a gossip tabloid or an investigative journalism project; we don't quote insider sources which claim unverified knowledge.

And, lest you mistake this for an anti-gay thing, I'm an openly gay man who is quite actively involved in augmenting the visibility of LGBT topics on Wikipedia — for one thing, I spent a big chunk of last week working on new articles about the new openly gay politicians who were elected to state legislatures in the US election of November 6, and for another, I fervently wish John Baird would actually say it on the record for once so that we can actually stick it in the article and finally put this debate to rest. But I'm also a Wikipedia administrator who's been around here for long enough to know all the reasons why we need to be careful about stuff like this, and to wait until we can actually cite solid sources. I've seen far too many violations of our biographies of living people policies, and far too many cases where people have tried to add unverifiable "insider knowledge" about article topics' private lives that was either inflammatory or entirely wrong — so no matter what I might want this article to say, having a real, airtight source for it has to take precedence.

I mean, seriously. Is there an actual reason why it's so critically important for Wikipedia to describe and categorize John Baird as gay that we keep having to debate the same unsatisfactory references over and over again? Is there an actual reason why we can't just sit back and wait for him to address it on the record in his own time, but instead keep trying to use Wikipedia to push him on the matter? Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

When media and other elected politicians are openly describing Baird as gay it becomes a bit silly for Wikipedia to suppress that information as was done here, particularly when rumours of Tom Cruise's sexual orientation are noted in his article. 64.231.11.160 (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

False comparison. Tom Cruise's article discusses actual, specific, concrete, properly sourced legal actions that he took against media sources which published allegations about his sexuality. It in no way makes any judgement as to the veracity or lack thereof of the allegations, and it wouldn't be in the article at all if the allegations had gone unresponded to — it's the fact that he took action in court against media outlets over the allegations that makes it encyclopedia-worthy, not the mere fact that the allegations existed. That's not at all comparable to the situation here — if Baird ever responds to the allegations in a public fashion, Wikipedia can and will certainly discuss that, but we do not simply document the existence of improperly sourced allegations.

There's nothing silly about it, either. No matter how many people you can source as saying that John Baird is gay, it does not matter — until you can provide a source in which John Baird says that John Baird is gay, nobody else's word on the matter goes into Wikipedia. That's the rules, and they're not up for debate: we describe and categorize living people as gay only on the basis of their own public statements about their own sexuality, and not on the basis of anybody else's unresponded-to allegations. I've said it before, but it bears repeating: "everybody" used to "know" that Adam Giambrone was openly gay too — you could even "reference" it to third parties saying so in published sources — and just look what happened there.

Think back a few foreign affairs ministers, in fact, and you'll hit another one — you know who, trust me — who was also the subject of a lot of open chatter about his sexual orientation that also couldn't be properly confirmed in properly reliable sources which actually satisfied our BLP rules, because he never actually responded to it in a public fashion either. And guess what? We don't go anywhere near the subject in our article about him, either. And then there's the good half dozen other Canadian politicians — some big names, trust me, including a provincial premier (and I don't mean Hatfield, that ship's already sailed) — who we also don't out even though there are Wikipedia contributors who have more knowledge than we can properly source.

It doesn't matter how many sources you can add in which somebody else asserts that John Baird is gay. It's self-identification, in his own words coming out of his own mouth, or nothing. Bearcat (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There appears to be something of a campaign going on now, with regard to Russia, that is urging John Baird to come out as gay. Link: http://dailyxtra.com/toronto/news/come-the-closet-want-help-russian-gays-activists-tell-john-baird?market=210 So I am wondering at what point does it become relevant for Wikipedia to discuss? I agree that pushing Baird to come out through Wikipedia is bad form, but there is now a growing queer activist campaign to push him to do that, and I don't think Wikipedia would be in the wrong to simply mention it, as well as mentioning some of the reasons that the campaign exists (e.g. Pamela Geller's comments in 2010). I think that, as Baird's reputation increaisngly has to do with being a person who "is taking on Russia", or something, this becomes something that is increasingly relevant to mention. I would point out, though, that none of this necessarily means that Baird has to be listed as gay or included in an "LGBT politicians" category. 67.230.146.93 (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the thing is that Wikipedia's WP:BLP rules are extremely strict for a reason...or, more accurately, two reasons. For one thing, our articles can be damaging to people's lives and reputations if they're not very carefully written — and for two, we can get sued for stuff like this. Which is why we insist on airtight, self-identification-only sourcing for the sexual orientation of a living person — it's got at least as much to do with covering our own asses from the possibility of a libel suit as it does with "protecting" the article topic.

And as I've continually pointed out above: Wikipedia does not, strictly speaking, care about his private sex life — we care only about his public identification or lack thereof. That is, until he openly identifies himself with the LGBT community in a social, political and cultural sense, he is not "gay" in the sense that's encyclopedically relevant no matter how homosexually aroused his dangly bits may happen to be. We only care about a person's choice to publicly affiliate themselves with the LGBT community, and not about what is or isn't going on in their private sex life. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Everything you said makes sense, but that's not exactly what I was talking about. I had a question regarding the fact that, regardless of his private life, there now exists something of an informal campaign calling on John Baird to come out as gay. At what point does that campaign, in and of itself, become worthy of reporting on Wikipedia--perhaps even worthy of its own article? I think that clearly isn't the case yet, it's simply not relevant enough, but it COULD become relevant enough that it will be worth reporting regardless of anything John Baird says or does himself. As I said, it would have no bearing on whether he is included in any LGBT category of any sort; only the campaign itself, or the public discourse, would be mentioned. I suspect that this will become the case as we get closer to Sochi 2014 and the media coverage of Russia, John Baird, gays, and whatever else heats up even more. 67.230.141.51 (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Retitled "Support for Oil Sands Project"

Hello, I retitled the section title "Support for Oil Sands Project opposed by 61 First Nations" (or something to that effect). I don't believe the "opposed by 61 First Nations" should be in the title. Any political initiative undertaken is going to be opposed by somebody, and that should be in the body text, not the title. Gaijin Ninja (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)