Talk:Stéphane Dion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Environment Minister section

I should probably explain why I've chosen to remove this section, which was created a few hours ago by Eric1960:

1. Much of the information appears to be original research extrapolated from primary source documents. There is no evidence that Dion's predecessors (by which I assume is meant David Anderson) had "unrealistic" goals for the environment, nor does a single speech on a government page prove that Dion favoured stronger links with the corporate sector.
2. While an effort has been made to ensure balance, the section is still weighted against Dion. Most of the information is critical, and a brief comment extrapolated from a John Ivison article does not seem to be a fair rebuttal.
3. The parliamentary motion referenced in this section (Division 40) was split along party lines, with the NDP and Bloc voting in favour and the Conservatives and Liberals opposing. Singling out Dion for criticism seems highly questionable, particularly when no evidence has been provided that any reliable secondary sources directed such criticism against him.
4. The language is more than a tad biased. (Or am I to accept the premise that describing an environmental initiative as having "gone up in smoke" due to Dion's actions is a neutral summary of events?)

This article should have a section on Dion's record as Environment Minister, but I don't believe that the previous edits made the grade. Comments welcome. CJCurrie 02:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll address CJCurrie's points one by one:

1. What I wrote was "sought a collaborative relationship with big business rather than a confrontational one." This concept plays a central role in Dion's vision for environmental policy; read his first speech before the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, or for 'secondary' sources, try the Macleans interview of Feb. 22, 2005 entitled "Rocky ride for Dion?: The environment minister still hopes he'll get agreement from automakers on his Kyoto plan" (http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20050228_95665_95665).

Note also the many comments in this article about how Dion's style contrasts with that of David Anderson ("Where Anderson tended to clash with cabinet ministers preoccupied with the economy, Dion has worked in his dogged way to make common cause with them.")

Another article, published on Oct. 12, 2004 in the Globe and Mail entitled "An Environment Minister of another colour" (http://www.sustreport.org/downloads/Dion_globe.doc - the reference is added at the main article), makes similar points:

Mr. Dion, famed for his years as intergovernmental affairs minister, handling the difficult national-unity file, is bent on transforming the environment dossier from the traditional tree-hugger's last stand into a forward-thinking economic portfolio that, he argues, must lie at the heart of Canada's future prosperity. Sources say he has already presented this to his cabinet colleagues. The new direction is so dramatic that Mr. Dion acknowledged in an interview last week in his barren office that even a name change, from Environment to the Department of Sustainable Economy, is possible.

"The department is ready for that," he said.

It's an about-face from his predecessors and a frank repudiation of the reign of former environment minister David Anderson, a fierce environmentalist who prided himself on being a purist rather than a pragmatist.... Under Mr. Anderson, environment was in constant counterpoint to big-money areas such as finance, natural resources, trade and transportation.

"I saw David arguing with everybody," [Dion] said, adding, "I had the opportunity to admire the man but also [to] see that the situation was not optimal."

My edit cites the G&M article, notes the comparison with Anderson, and draws attention to Dion's approach to the business sector. We don't need to provide the extensive detail that appeared in your version, and we certainly don't need to engage in hyperbolic extrapolations. CJCurrie 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

2. The response from environmental groups regarding the "Green Program" in late April 2005, the comments in the Gelinas report in Sept. 2005, and the report from Pollution Watch in Oct. 2005 -- all well-documented in the newly added material -- were all highly critical of the Canadian government's environmental performance. "Balance" means representing things in a way that reflects what actually happened. To remove well-documented and pertinent facts simply because they are "critical" smacks of revisionism.

My edit indicates that the Program was criticized by environmental groups, without providing unnecessary detail. CJCurrie 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

3. Dion voted against the motion, and whether or not it was for partisan reasons, as the minister of the environment of course he was singled out for criticism. For a secondary source criticizing the way Dion caved to the auto industry on the fuel emissions file, see the Louis-Gilles Francoeur article in Le Devoir (documented in the newly added material).

I haven't looked into this matter in detail, but I see from Hansard that both the Liberals and Conservatives voted as a block against the bill. I don't believe we should include this reference unless there's some outside verification that the actual vote was a matter of importance. The Francoeur article might be acceptable, although we'll need to use it with caution if it was an opinion piece. CJCurrie 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

4. Ok, "gone up in smoke" becomes "dashed". As for the rest, it is restored.

That's no better. CJCurrie 06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gone to reasonable lengths to check facts so that erroneous or misleading information doesn't slip in. I don't claim to be infallible, and if you find lacunae in my documentation or incorrect data, by all means, make a revision or deletion. But a blanket erasure of the facts in the name of 'balance' is, to put it mildly, unreasonable.--Eric1960 07:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The sources may be accurate, but the wording was not. CJCurrie 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I'll deal with these remarks one by one.

1. With exception of the word "quixotic", I see no "hyperbole" or unwarranted "extrapolation". But I like the idea of including a citation, so your opening is incorporated (which gets rid of "quixotic") -- plus a citation for the sake of precision, which seems to be a concern for you.

2. "without providing unnecessary detail..." Why not just say: "Dion was Minister of the Environment" and leave it at that. Why include any detail at all?

3. "The Francoeur article might be acceptable, although we'll need to use it with caution if it was an opinion piece" Louis-Gilles Francoeur is THE environmental reporter in French Canada. He is the most highly respected journalist in this domain -- a Francophone version of David Suzuki, one might say -- and appears regularly on media shows when major environmental issues are debated. The article I referenced is Francoeur's retrospective on Dion's term as Minister of the Environment, and I cannot think of any source I would trust more to give an accurate and germane account. If you want to dig further, vehicle and industry emissions were a major bone of contention in early 2005 and there were numerous articles about whether Dion would give in to corporate pressure (and pressure from John Efford).

4. So "dashed" is no good either, and you don't like my wording.... Here's a suggestion: why not produce some NEW material instead of always cavilling and whittling away? You seem to think that the material I post focusses too much on the negative aspects of Dion's ministry. This suggests that you are aware of more positive aspects... why not add some material about that?--Eric1960 11:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Its better to tag this section instead of removing it entirely. I'll plan to examine it in further detail. GoldDragon 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned about the new material myself. I'm most concerned that there is a lot of extrapolation from one or two anecdotes. I think, for example, that the Calgary speech shows a couple of ordinary, non-controversial platitudes. If somebody reads that as accomodation, that's fine. Maybe you're smarter than I am but that seems like original reaserch to me to include it here, even if it is top-notch insight. I think there is also more than a little overstatement in the last paragraph which portrays ordinary criticism, which every env. minister/government receives (i.e. from the Env. Commissioner) and environmentalists. as unusually harsh. Environmental groups are rarely happy with the government and the EC's job is to be critical. It is fine to include some criticism but I think that our characterization of it has to be rather more detached. But I am glad to see that there is a desire on everyone's part to expand the section. And thanks for your contributions Eric. I'd just like to see some tweaks for inclusion.

Well, I've added some new material to further support the most general statements (what you term 'extrapolation'). But regarding that speech, think about it: for his first public address, the minister of the environment goes to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and gives his blessing to a booming oil and gas sector. Now, tell me that isn't being "accomodating". As for "ordinary criticism, which every env. minister/government receives (i.e. from the Env. Commissioner)", I disagree: the type of comprehensive report that was issued by Gelinas in 2005 was by no means 'ordinary'. Granted, some of the other criticism I've documented is more 'typical', but so are many other details in this article (academic background, candidatures, appointments, performance in polls, etc.). I agree that we don't want reams of insignificant detail, but this is hardly insignificant. On the contrary, it is an element that is essential in constructing an accurate picture of Dion's environmental ministry. We need more detail here, not less. The whole environment section -- a crucial year and half in Dion's political career -- is about the same length as the section detailing the events of the last month!--Eric1960 11:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Dual citizenship question

This was an issue for what... one week? If even that. Do we really need such a long sub-section on it? It's currently bigger than the rest of the section on Mr. Dion as Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, which is somewhat ridiculous. Would anyone object to the dual citizenship question sub-section being trimmed down a bit? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sima Yi (talk • contribs) 05:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the content in "The dual citizenship question" section could be condensed somewhat, but I think it is too soon to write it off as an issue. In the coming year, I think we will hear a lot more in the news about the issue of Canadians with dual citizenships, e.g., possible changes to their rights and obligations. Que-Can 06:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this issue need not be extensively emphasized, but in looking over the section, I don't see anything obvious to cut. All the current information is useful and relevant. Instead of cutting the citizenship material, let's add more content to the section on his actions as Leader of the Opposition: perhaps his commentary on Harper's latest cabinet shuffle? --Saforrest 06:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The appearance of yet another article in the Calgary Sun (http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Jackson_Paul/2007/01/04/3155237.html) about this issue suggests to me that the issue is going to linger on. The comment from Dion aide Jennifer Mowbray (via Dymaxion blog - http://dymaxionworld.blogspot.com/2006/12/ugh-more-on-citizenship.html) suggests that Dion's French citizenship was completely passive; i.e. he never did anything to get it or to confirm it. It does seem that the French citizenship based on 'filiation' is automatic -- but of course that is in the abstract. To take advantage of the privileges associated with citizenship (e.g. access to government services) in France, one has to confirm one's citizenship in some way (but I don't know the procedure). My guess is that Ezra Levant put two and two together: Dion lived in France for 5 odd years, so he must at some point have confirmed his citizenship. Still, that isn't proving it....

Just to provoke some thought, here is a hypothetical question: If Quebec eventually separated, how would Quebeckers feel about dual Canada-Quebec citizenship? How would the rest of Canada react to the idea? Who would be eligible for such dual-citizenship? Strange, isn't it, that no one has made any links between the dual-citizenship question and the national unity issue.... --70.83.114.137 07:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't do the research/writing ourselves, see WP:NOR but if you come across a good source who does discuss just that it might be worth including. --JGGardiner 06:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

On the citizenship question, I'm not sure what is meant by the sentence that says his citizenship was conferred "honorarily at birth". It is also speculative and seems to come from a blogger who claims to have called Dion's staff to ask the question. Does anyone have a better source on that? --JGGardiner 06:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Lapsed Catholic

When we say "lapsed' Catholic, do we mean a lapsed Christian, that is, someone who was raised Christian but has converted to, say, humanism, or do we mean someone who believes in Catholic teachings and just not go to Sunday Mass? I read the globe article and although it said he was lapsed, it did not say which way. --Sicamous 04:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it means that he's an apostate that has no business being in politics. I'd sure like to know where they found this guy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:72.39.175.193 (talk • contribs)

For my part, I can't help but wonder if describing him as a "lapsed Catholic" in the infobox is appropriate. The term is technically accurate, but it's not widely used and is open to some misinterpretation. Perhaps "secular Catholic" or "non-practicing Catholic" would be more suitable. CJCurrie 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That's why I dislike infoboxes. If you could explain things appropriately with one word questionnaire answers, you wouldn't need an encyclopedia. --JGGardiner 02:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

GoldDragon

Could I please request that other contributors review GoldDragon's latest edits very carefully, and remove/restore what obviously shouldn't have been added/removed?

In particular, could I request:

• that someone correct the wording for the Lapierre section
• that the NPOV notice for the Environment section be restored
• that the "Sponsorship Scandal" header be switched to something more appropriate (the previous version was "Sponsorship Scandal exoneration"; I recommended "Gomery commission")
• that Dion's comments on the departures of Khan and Lapierre be returned

I'm making a concerted effort not to get trapped in an edit war with this contributor. Thank you, CJCurrie 06:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie

Problems with his version.

The Gomery Comission is not the sponsorship scandal, it was rather setup to investigate it. At the same time, Paul Martin and Jean Chretien don't have a heading in their articles that says "sponsorship scandal exoneration". That is why both headers are inappropriate.

Also, it is Martin's view that only members of the Liberals were implicated in the scandal. Other Liberals and opposition parties say that the entire party is corrupt. So the latter view was more prevailent at the time of the 2004 election. It was not until after the election that blame was assigned to specific members.

We cannot indefinitely leave the NPOV in the environment section, as it has not been debated for weeks. In any event, it is significantly improved from the initial version put forth by Eric1960. GoldDragon 22:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We can't forget the Parti Quebecois' part in the scandal. They took illicit contributions too. See: [1] This aspect of the whole mess is definitely under-reported. Too me, the Dion article already has too much "Sponsorship/Scandal/Gomery" content. The topic is covered fairly well on other pages. Dion never supported the sponsorship program (and advised the PM against it, but then he wasn't the boss at the time. Que-Can 22:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

GoldDragon: Your last edits put you over the 3RR. Please self-revert before someone reports you. CJCurrie 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My response to GoldDragon:

1. Dion was not implicated in the Sponsorship Scandal, but testified before the Gomery Commission. The latter is the more appropriate subject header.
2. It is neither fair nor balanced to have a header screaming "Sponsorship Scandal" in a biographical piece about someone who was not implicated in the sponsorship scandal.
3. The "opposition parties" argued that the Liberal Party was corrupt for obvious political purposes. There was never any doubt that certain figures associated with the Liberal Party were implicated in the scandal, but no-one seriously cast blame on the party as a whole.
4. The Environment section is improved, but still flawed.

I have a feeling that none of these arguments will make any impact. For readers who are unfamiliar his history, please note that GoldDragon has a habit of reposting the same edits over and over and over, even if no-one else agrees with him. CJCurrie 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

More mudslinging from CJCurrie...I prefer to stick with the critique of his article.

Ironically, Sponsorship Scandal Exoneration stands out as more biased than Sponsorship Scandal, as if the original author had to make it too obvious to profess innocense before the reader could even go into the text. It is also misleading to say that Gomery Inquiry is an alternate term for sponsorship scandal, when they are different things.

Martin argued that only some members of the Liberal Party were corrupt, for obvious political reasons. On the other hand, we have several unrelated parties, the Conservatives and Shiela Copps, blamed the Liberals as a whole, saying it was a culture of entitlement. And since the Gomery Inquiry was in its infancy as of the 2004 election, we can't draw conclusions. GoldDragon 02:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

GoldDragon: Could I request that you refrain from reverting the article text until such time as there is consensus support for your view on the talk page? CJCurrie 03:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure this argument wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference, but I never suggested the the "sponsorship scandal" and the "Gomery commission" were the same thing. I suggested that the latter title was more appropriate. CJCurrie 05:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Harper eats babies for breakfast

This statement, while patently untrue, certainly gets your attention while looking at the edit summary, or the table of contents. Is it something that should be in the table of contents of an article? Of course not. Similarly, putting "Sponsorship Scandal" as a heading in the Stephane Dion article is surely inappropriate since he had no role in the scandal. This is an article about Dion, not about the Liberal Party or the "culture of entitlement". Ground Zero | t 06:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "Gomery Comission" is that its like just putting "Tokyo Trials" to head the section instead of "Bataan Death March". The Comission, like the Trial, is something that happened at the end. Second, "sponsorship scandal" isn't any more or less provocative than "sponsorship scandal exoneration"; indeed the latter heading professes innocense before the reader could even go into the text. GoldDragon 22:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The profession of i-n-n-o-c-e-n-c-e was accurate, in this case. I suppose "Gomery Inquiry" is acceptable, however. CJCurrie 00:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're trying to get the reader to think that Stephane Dion may have been involved in the Sponsorship Scandal, then using using that as the heading would make sense. Since we now know that he was not, using that as the heading is misleading. We have the benefit of knowing how things turned out in writing this part of the article, so we don't have to be coy about the ending. Ground Zero | t 13:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete "Miscellanea" section?

Is it time to delete the Miscellanea section? It is not a standard section for political leaders, and it does include (invite?) some drivel, e.g., names of people who have a dog named Kyoto. Que-Can 20:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Colour-blindness

In one of the January 2007 Macleans articles, they mention that Mr. Dion is colour-blind. Would this be worthy of a main article mention, or should it just be relegated to the trivia?--72.45.87.123 00:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it puts the green scarves in a new context.  ;) Seriously, I don't see the harm in including this. CJCurrie 01:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what type of colour blindness he has but I had thought that it was a relatively common condition. It seems pretty trivial to me. --JGGardiner 09:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Poll Results

This morning, having a bit of time on my hands, I consolidated the poll results that have been cited in the "As Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" section, presenting them in table form at the end of the section. This represents an attempt to resolve the problem of dealing with poll statistics that are continually being updated. In table form, the data is much more revealing, since figures can quickly be interpreted in terms of historical trends.

This table will obviously become unwieldy very rapidly if people try to include every poll result made available, something I don`t think is necessary or desireable. But regardless: if and when it does become unwieldy, it can simply be moved to its own wikipedia page (along the lines of the Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2006 page).--Eric1960 14:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember what Diefenbaker said about polls? Had something to do with canines. GoodDay 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the biography pages of other Canadian party leaders a few moments ago, to see if their articles included poll charts akin to the one in this article. Here's what I found:

• Stephen Harper - no
• Jack Layton - no
• Gilles Duceppe - no
• Elizabeth May - no
• Dalton McGuinty - no
• John Tory - no
• Howard Hampton - no
• Jean Charest - no
• André Boisclair - no
• Mario Dumont - no

A pattern would seem to be evident. Could someone please explain the logic of including a poll chart here? CJCurrie 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... this may be the answer I was looking for: [2]. CJCurrie 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've answered your own question. But as I mentioned at the outset, the polling info will eventually become unwieldy, at which point the table should be moved to its own page. If that point has arrived, would someone care to suggest a name for the page (does "Opinion polling in Canadian federal politics" sound ok?) --Eric1960 02:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the polls should be placed in this article, maybe more in the future Canadian elections article, that would make more sense to have it there. Putting it in Dion's article looks a bit POV to me.--JForget 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dion on Facebook

The fact that M. Dion has recently entered the realm of the online site popular online site "Facebook" should be mentioned in this article. The URL of his facebook profile is: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=537315240

Jacobsethan 07:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Ethan Jacobs

Pie face image

What purpose does this image serve to the article. It doesn't illustrate the subject of the article at all (almost impossible to identify Dion behind all of the whipping cream). It doesn't illustrate a significant event in his life. Note the Wikipedia:Images states that Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic).

Does the image serve some purpose that I am not aware of ? Please do not re-add it without explanation on this talk page. -- No Guru 22:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, No Guru. Many well-known people have been assaulted by pies, but I don't see photos of the incidents on their articles. I too wonder why some people want to give Mr. Dion this special attention (denied others) by having the pie-face photo on the Dion article. I also question why Wikipedia would feature a picture with their article on the Entartistes. Why put on display the nasty work of these criminals and their assaults? Que-Can 03:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

To get some critical balance in the imagery, one of Serge Chapleau's famous Dion caricatures is the natural choice. Placed in the Clarity Act section it would be of obvious relevance and notability. The question is: can a thumbnail scan of one of these drawings be deemed "fair use"?--Eric1960 04:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the picture should not be in the article. But I don't think that Golddragon's insertion was vandalism, as was noted in an edit summary. Incidentally, there has been a picture of Stockwell Day getting sprayed with chocolate milk in that article since October. --JGGardiner 07:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, my insertion of the pieing pic would have most appropriately gone in the Intergov Ministry section, as the act was for a political reason during his time there.

Regardless, so the Day chocolate milk picture will be removed, to be consistent with the stance on Dion. GoldDragon 01:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sense of Perspective: Encyclopedia, not a Newspaper

I hope that at some time(s), the breathless reporting of Dion trivia (pro and con) is toned down: readers of the future don't need to know about every poll or every pie. Bellagio99 13:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember what Diefenbaker said about polls? Had something to do with canines. GoodDay 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

On CJCurrie's Return

CJCurrie: I wondered what had happened to you. Over two weeks without any postings -- you had me worried. Anyhow, I'm glad to see you back -- even if it means having to deal with more of your less-than-endearing efforts to rehabilitate reality. So to celebrate the occasion, here's a point by point response to your latest salvo of modifications/deletions:

4:01 to 4:04 - The funds are not earmarked for a "service". You might want to reread the relevant documentation.

4:36 - More wholesale deletions? You know, an encyclopedia is supposed to help disseminate information, not suppress and censor it. The dual citizenship thing was a hotly debated issue, which was the subject of editorials right into January -- over a month after the initial disclosure. It may have receded from the spotlight for the moment, but once an election is called, count on it to be batted around some more. That said, the size of the section could be reduced... but with many other changes to address, reworking it will have to wait. For the moment, back it all goes intact!

4:45 - "it's not clear they opposed these limits in principle" CJ, we've gone over this before. You distort things, and then try to use the distorted truth as an excuse to delete. Reread the passage -- it says nothing about "in principle". It states the position that Dion and others took when the measures were put to a vote. Try ADDING facts, not censoring them!

4:46 to 4:49 - "2003"?? Please. The commissioner's report accounts for available data up to and including all of 2004, plus, in most instances, the first half of 2005 (see: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c20050900ce.html ). Also note that this report has been central to virtually every in-depth report on Dion's tenure as Environment Minister. Why would you want to suppress this info?

4:52 - "The remaining link doesn't work..." So -- you remove all the WORKING links (no justification), and leave one single NON-working link. Then you complain about that one, and remove it. Oooh... tricky!! But no dice. Working links are restored.

4:54 - "removed biased commentary" "commentary"? What you have removed/modified is connecting material that reinforces contextual and stylistic coherence. If the connecting words aren't salutory from Dion's point of view, it isn't because of "bias"; it is because of the facts which are being connected.

5:08 - "brief" tenure? Dion was environment minister for over a year and a half -- above average, I'd say. Most are shuffled within a year. Rona Ambrose, for example.

Again, good to have you back. À votre tour, M. Currie!

--Eric1960 16:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Eric,

Since you arrived on Wikipedia, you've done little other than post dubious information about Stéphane Dion. Your preferred version of this page is a POV nightmare, and reads more like a series of Conservative Party talking points than an encyclopedic biography. I'm prepared to compromise on individual points, but I'm not going remain silent while this page is systematically ruined. CJCurrie 21:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the parliamentary vote, I think it may be of some significance that it was an opposition motion, and that both the Liberals and Conservatives voted against it. Striking down an opposition parliamentary motion doesn't necessarily represent opposition in principle. CJCurrie 21:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Also problematic was Dion's inability to make significant progress" ... "the program was immediately denounced" ... "a series of damning reports" ... "Perhaps the most scathing" ... "the government's poor record".

Would anyone seriously argue that these quotes represent a neutral, balanced series of events? CJCurrie 21:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Whenever a Wikipedia contributor focuses on a single topic (to the exclusion of all others), and has one slant or point of view, it loses credibility. It becomes "spin." To me, the best contributors treat Wikipedia like an encyclopedia and not a web log (blog). I would like to see Eric1960 apply his evident genius to topics other than Stéphane Dion.Que-Can 01:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Try this: judge the facts, not the people posting them.

--Eric1960 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Eric1960. I try not to judge people. My point is, there are other subjects (besides Mr. Dion) that could use your expertise and hard work: Mr. Harper, and Mr. Layton, for example. Some people are naturally reactive (me) and some are proactive (you). You dig up a variety of news and opinion from sources and add it to the Wikipedia pages. I appreciate that you endeavour to avoid bias, which is hard when you are obviously passionate about a subject. As I mentioned, the pages of the other federal leaders need fresh perspectives, so you might want to try your hand there too. Just a friendly suggestion... Que-Can 03:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

CJCurrie,

I've spent most of my time ADDING documented information to this article -- not simply deleting and spinning it, which is mostly what I see you doing. Of course a lot of info I've posted reflects poorly on Dion, and this elicits cries of 'bias' from you. But if you paid closer attention, you would notice that I've also added many details that reflect positively. Curiously, we never hear a peep from you about 'bias' in those instances. So it looks like your problem is that there are a lot of facts that just don't make Dion look too great. Typically your response has been to try to censor or to delete.

I've said this before, but it's worth saying again: deletion of documented facts in the name of 'restoring balance' is unacceptable. If you want to see things 'balanced' more in Dion's favor, you'd better start looking for FACTS that back up such an orientation. But beware: that means doing some WORK, something I rarely see you doing much of. Think about it: when was the last time you actually provided a paragraph of material based on FRESH documented sources? Not your style, eh? You prefer to leave the time-consuming tasks -- the grunt work of marshalling material -- to others. You prefer to drop in periodically in order to delete, modify, and spin things to suit your view of how things ought to be. Well, I think it's time you considered changing your strategy.

Now, regarding that rhetorical question of yours -- "Would anyone seriously argue that these quotes represent a neutral, balanced series of events?" -- let's look at few of the quotes themselves.

"Also problematic was Dion's inability to make significant progress"

-A perfectly reasonable summary. Dion was committed to doing something and didn't get it done, and that is "problematic". Other adjectives could be employed, but would you like them any better than "problematic"? I doubt it. You don't really have an issue with the choice of adjective; what you have an issue with is the FACTs giving rise to the adjective.

"the program was immediately denounced"

-the program was indeed "denounced", but once again, you ostensibly don't like this choice of word. But would it really make any difference if we used "panned" or "condemned" or something else? Your real source of discomfort is the FACT that the Suzuki foundation issued a comprehensive report condemning Project Green.

"the government's poor record"

- the government's environmental performance regarding Kyoto was documented and it was well below expectations. But again, your problem is not really the choice of words... it is the FACTS that they describe.

When you claim that the page is being "systematically ruined", one wonders what it is you are worried will be "ruined". Your own unrealistic image of Stephane Dion, perhaps?

My concern is that by suppressing relevant facts -- regardless whether they reflect positively or negatively on the subject of this article -- we end up "ruining" the goal of credibly representating historical realities.

By this standard, I think it's you, CJCurrie, who is out to "systematically ruin" things.

--Eric1960 02:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop the nonsense, Eric. I can't seriously believe that you would protest your neutrality and objectivity, after edits like this and this.

Wikipedia policy may require editors to "assume good faith" toward other contributors, but it doesn't compel us to remain silent when we're confronted with obvious partisanship. CJCurrie 22:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, uhm, I think this thread is a good place to say the following: the "Environment Minister" section is pretty bad. It's not an encyclopedia entry. It's an essay. And not a very good one, either. It's an essay with NPOV problems. Huge ones. Watchsmart 05:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The practice of using systematic deletions to promote user-POV

The edits you point out have sound sourcing. It is regretable that the source material reflects poorly upon Dion, but that just brings us back to the comments I made earlier. If you don't like the overall impression generated by certain facts, you should be out looking for others. Rather than compulsively deleting whatever displeases, look for info supporting alternative views via search engines or print media. If you would just TRY it I'm sure your efforts would be worthwhile. There is room in Wikipedia for more than one 'take' on reality, so long as the disparate views are soundly documented. If everyone just whittled things down all the time to achieve their personal POV objectives, Wikipedia would eventually become little more than a dictionary with a lot of proper nouns. But the bottom line is: removing documented material to achieve a desired 'balance' is unacceptable. --Eric1960 13:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said before: stop the nonsense. Your "additions" to this article are selectively-sourced spin. You may want to review WP:NOR and WP:NPOV before restoring them again. CJCurrie 23:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There are many dozens of articles mentioning Stephane Dion every week; obviously no one here wants all of them referenced. A selection of the most pertinent ones is necessary. However I disagree strongly when you suggest that the selections I make constitute an artificially fabricated 'spin'. I post items that reflect both positively and negatively on the subject of this article, and if it seems that negatives outnumber the positives, it is a reflection of prevailing reports about Dion's activities and of your own presumptions. It isn't 'spin' to mention that Dion had Comuzzi kicked out the party, it is a significant fact (which some would applaud, some would condemn). It isn't 'spin' to mention that Dion has endorsed 'hard caps', it is a significant fact (which, once again, some would applaud, some would condemn). If you don't like the 'balance' of the facts, start posting material rather than expunging.--Eric1960 03:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not spin to mention that Dion oversaw Comuzzi's expulsion from the party; it is spin to write about it in these terms. It isn't spin to reference criticisms of Dion's tenure as Environment Minister; it is spin to load the first four paragraphs of the section with criticism, and throw in phrases like "failed policy" and "also condemned". I'm sorry, but your past actions seem as variance with your current spirit of compromise.

To your last point -- I've been meaning to add material to this page for some time, but I have several other things on my plate. In any event, I don't need to justify my removal of tendentious sections. CJCurrie 03:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Eric1960 says Curry PO

On March 24, Eric1960 did an edit and commented "Curry PO." What is this?? A new editing term? Explain please.Que-Can 19:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an editing term with many variations, but always the same meaning:

User fumbled onto 'enter' key before comment was completed. :o

--Eric1960 13:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Eric1960. Wikipedia editors can have healthy differences of opinion, but it's always best to avoid rude and disrespectful language (and acronyms). Cheers. Que-Can 16:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Renouncing French citzenship

A French citizen who obtained his citizenship based on French parentage cannot renounce his citizenship except in the 12 months surrounding his 18th birthday. Dion could say that he has renounced his French citizenship, but it would have absolutely no effect. --Deregnaucourt 07:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

According to a French government website devoted to questions of nationality(http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/les-francais-etranger_1296/vos-droits-demarches_1395/nationalite-francaise_5301/index.html):

"Des cas de répudiation de la nationalité française sont prévus par le code civil, sous certaines conditions, en faveur, notamment, des enfants nés à l’étranger d’un seul parent français ou nés en France d’un seul parent né en France."

So Dion could renounce if he wished. Nevertheless, the renunciation could theoretically be refused by the French government. An instance where this would likely happen is if someone were renouncing in order to escape legal prosecution as a French citizen.--Eric1960 12:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The statement you make is true, but the "certaines conditions" are limited to what I've said above (see article 19-4 of the Code Civil). There may also be an out for someone holding a foreign office who is required to renounce their French citizenship. One the whole, however, it is very difficult to successfully renounce French citizenship.--Deregnaucourt 13:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The idea that it may be difficult -- or even impossible -- for Dion to renounce his French citizenship seems pretty bizarre. I mean, imagine for a moment, a Prime Minister:

-subject to extradition to France; or

-exempt from diplomatic immunity in France...

Someone out there must have solid legal expertise in this area. Is renunciation really all that difficult? And if renunciation is not feasible, what other legal ramifications are there? To what extent are French citizens beholden to France???

Please advise!!--Eric1960 02:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So Long?

Why is the Mr. Dion article getting so long? Surely the frequent contributors to the Dion article could find creative ways to summarize their "tomes" without sacrificing the essential facts. Next, please consider deleting or replacing the many citations that are now "pay per view." Finally, if there is a topic in the article that is really a side-issue (IMHO: "dual citizenship" ... many, many Canadian MPs are dual citizens.), then please consider moving the content to a "subtopic article." Que-Can 18:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "opinion polls" section and replaced references to it in the article with the phrase: "see "Opinion polls" section of 40th Canadian federal election article" (the data there is actually more comprehensive than what we had compiled here). Also, some of the more peripheral info in the leadership race section was transferred to the 2006 Liberal leadership bid by Stéphane Dion article.

I disagree that the article is too long. It is shorter than the articles for many other Canadian politicos (Bob Rae and Stephen Harper for instance), and only slightly longer than that of Michael Ignatieff.

Also, I oppose deleting citations simply because the online links have become "pay per view". Many articles of a similar nature (once again, take a look at Stephen Harper and Bob Rae) are buttressed almost entirely by print references that (for the most part) don't include online links. Well obviously the references with "pay per view" links in this article (primarily canada.com links) are also from print sources originally. The online links are an added convenience for those who have a canada.com subscription, but there's always the print edition (microfilm, or whatever is available at your library) for those who don't.--Eric1960 07:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Eric1960 for explaining your previous work to trim down the Mr. Dion article. (I must say that your singular attention to the Dion article is quite impressive, even astounding.) I think as well that some of the Gomery investigation text has been cut or moved since it didn't relate too much to Mr. Dion. I grant you that other articles you mentioned are long like Mr. Dion's, but one could say that they suffer as well because they are "too long."

As a contrast, if you look at Tony Blair's article, it appears to be shorter than Mr. Dion's. Tory leader David Cameron's article is bloated by comparison, e.g., much more text, and 176 external links vs. only 36 external links for Tony Blair. It makes no sense. Either Mr. Blair's article is too small, or Mr. Cameron's needs to go on a diet.

With regard to the long list of external links, I would agree that having some citation to support the text (whether the citation can be read online or not) is usually better than nothing. Perhaps, however, it would help if the Dion article denoted for each external link whether the link can actually be read vs requiring the reader to be a "subscriber" to access it. In viewing the list of 67 external link citations, readers may then quickly choose to click on the citation links that do not denote "Subscriber Only" and skip over the other ones. Adding this handy feature to the external links list something to consider.

Do other readers of the Mr. Dion article find that it's too verbose, or perhaps includes too much minutiae? Long articles like these may be a symptom of a Wikipedia affliction (...can...not...stop...writing...!), but I think we could do a better job summarizing (or moving) the day-to-day stuff and focusing more on the big picture.Que-Can 08:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Keating, Bingera Associates?

I reviewed the Dion article's "Notes and References" and I checked to see if the links were either okay, not available, or available for a fee of some kind, and I added some notations where the access to the citation was restricted in some way. One curious citation (presently no. 23 - "An Environment Minister of another colour") did not have a newspaper link per se. Instead, you click to download an MS Word document that was purportedly prepared by a "Michael Keating, Bingera Associates" from an old Globe and Mail article. The problem with using a Word document citation rather than a true link to the original newspaper article is that the Word document could have been manipulated (changed) from the original text. I am not saying that this has happened in this case. It would be nice, however, if whoever supplied the citation (Word document) could see if they could get a better link to the (original) Globe and Mail source. I don't know if this can be done, but perhaps it's worth a try. Thanks.Que-Can 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The original article -- "An Environment Minister of another colour" by ALANNA MITCHELL -- is found on page A7 of the print edition of the Globe and Mail of 12/10/04. It is a key article for those seeking to understand Dion's larger objectives during his tenure as environment minister. A 'pay per view' version of the article is accessible via the Globe and Mail archives (see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/templates/hub?searchText=An+environment+minister+of+another+colour&searchDatePreset=pastYear&searchDateType=searchDateRange&FromDay=07&FromMonth=10&FromYear=2004&ToDay=13&ToMonth=10&ToYear=2004&sort=Score%2Csortdate%2Csorttime&hub=Search&searchType=Advanced&from_date=&to_date=&start_row=1&current_row=1&start_row_offset1=0&x=14&y=13 ). There's also a free html reprint available at: http://www.waterkeeper.ca/content/fish/original_content_7077.php

Btw, many thanks, Que-Can, for taking the time to go through all those references and sort out which ones require fees, etc. --Eric1960 01:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Changes within the "As Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition" section

GoldDragon: I just needed a bit more space than the "edit summary" bar to explain my most recent (19:21, 15 April 2007) edit.

I removed the poll stuff that you added (again) because while you've been away, a sort of consensus has been reached to exclude poll data from this article and, instead, to refer to the 40th Canadian federal election article when making statements that hinge upon opinion poll data (see the "So long" section above for some of the discussion on this). I agree that the lingering "surge" data was an anomaly (all other poll data had been removed), so to be consistent, these last numbers have been removed as well. Note that all the data (general polls, leadership poll data, etc.) is nevertheless preserved and accessible at the 40th Canadian federal election article.

Regarding the May/Dion deal, I agree that some additional commentary is called for; I just felt that it should be focussed less on NDP reactions and more on Liberal ones....--Eric1960 19:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Poor English?

An article in a recent edition of The Economist (not the one referred to in the "Dion's Charisma, or lack of it" section above; one just a week or two ago) referred to poor English as one of Dion's problems. Is that true? If so, it seems surprising from my outside viewpoint (the UK) not to see it mentioned in the article. 86.136.253.203 22:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What does the Economist mean by "poor English"? For many people who speak English as their second language, learning how to accent the syllables is quite difficult. Mr. Dion is working on that, and it is improving. In the meantime, the listener has to concentrate to understand the spoken English. His English grammar is good, but that is a work in progress too.Que-Can 04:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think after 10 years of Chretien, Dion sounds pretty good to most Canadians. --JGGardiner 07:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Poor English can be an asset that adds an extra dimension of personality. Bush uses it to give the impression that he's a 'man of the people' (and not the priveleged scion of the elite which he actually is). Jean Chretien benefitted from it too, using it to reinforce his 'street scrapper' image. But I don't know about Dion. The only way he seems to benefit from poor English is by occasionally using it to obfuscate.

Like here: "My loyalty is 100 per cent to Canada first." Does it mean that "100% of his residual (second) loyalty goes to France"? Or that "he is 0% loyal to France"? Or that he is 100% loyal to the 'majoritarian' (anti-immigrant) group, CanadaFirst (http://www.canadafirst.net)?

Who knows.--Scarborite 07:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dion's spoken English is articulate, but awkward. He speaks intelligently but with a highly pronounced inflection (one that is very common amongst Francophones who learned English later in life, as Dion did). I'm not sure the term 'poor' is applicable, as it would imply a lack of understanding of the language and inability to express. Dion understands English perfectly and can express himself well, but to the Anglo ear he sounds awkward.

The mess that is the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition section.

Alright, I've noticed that this section has become more of a newspaper than a proper part of a encyclopedia article. Why is it that every little thing regardless of how historically insignificant it will obviously be is added? Like why is there a paragraph about Joe Comuzzi when his defection was an issue for like 48 hours? I went to Mr. Harper's article and found no mention of Garth Turner, so why am I reading about Mr. Comuzzi here at Mr. Dion's article? It doesn't make sense. And of course there's other little things like notes about Jean Lapierre resigning, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, and about half a dozen other things that hold little real importance to Mr. Dion as Leader of the Opposition.

Even worse again is the way this section is organized where the entire thing seems like it is made up of a dozen 3-5 line paragraphs. I added the cleanup template because of that. If a lot of people aren't opposed to this over the next few days, I think we should seriously consider chopping this section down so that only the really relevent material remains.

All opinions on this are welcome. Thanks. Sima Yi 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't averse to the idea of reorganizing and trimming materials in this section... until it was revealed today that what you really had in mind was a vast erasure of just about every fact which has been compiled and debated by dozens of editors over the past 9 months, leaving nothing but a few tidbits of your own selection remaining. You've got some nerve.--Eric1960 01:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You're using filler argument to try to hide that I removed non-relevent content. If a dozen people stack mud for 9 months, that doesn't make it a castle. Now I'm not saying everyone was making horrible edits. Just a few people who decide they want to turn this article into a Liberal Party Newspaper where every little event regarding any Liberal gets added. The information I removed had almost nothing to do with Dion or his current role as Leader of the Opposition. Considering you dodged the questions I asked before, I'll ask them again. Why am I reading about Jean Lapierre and the IPCC on Mr. Dion's article? There's also the matter of double-standards. The people who watch Stephen Harper's article are very good at spotting information that doesn't belong there, and they would remove any mention of Garth Turner in an instance, because Garth Turner isn't relevent to Stephen Harper. Understand? For that same reason, we shouldn't be reading about Joe Comuzzi on Stephane Dion's page. Now I'm all open for discussion, so we can do that while this page is protected for the next week. (Also, don't take this personally. Your comments in the article's history page seem to be pretty hostile. Maybe you should relax a bit?) Sima Yi 21:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that we have to go so much trimming as there is, as we can used tier-3 headers (===) in that section, although tier-4 would have been too much detail. Its less of an issue of jumbled material with Stephen Harper as they have spun off articles for his PM section; Dion might get such treatment if he ever becomes PM. And I think that its better that everyone discuss, as unilaterally removing what you consider to be irrelevant is bound to trouble the waters.

The least controversial trucations are the floor-crossings and retirements. Dion's comments on Lapierre aren't significant, so you can mention his retirement and Turner's addition on the same sentence. Wajid Khan and Comuzzi, we should make a reference since Dion did play a role in forcing them out, but we don't need to elaborate; i.e. ending the advisory agreement that Bill Graham had agreed upon, breaching caucus solidarity though it provided a benefit to his district. GoldDragon 00:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of Lapierre, Khan, Commuzzi, or Turner's retirements or floor crossings are particularly relevant to Stéphane Dion or his time as Opposition Leader. People aren't going to look back at those things as important moments. Ummcke09 04:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. It would be different if one of these guys had some sort of personal relationship with Mr. Dion (like Mulroney/Bouchard), but that isn't the case. The only relation that these individuals had to Mr. Dion is that they were all in the same caucus at some point. Now I'm not suggesting the information doesn't belong on wikipedia. Just that it doesn't belong on Mr. Dion's article. All of this stuff should go on the article's of the individuals in question. Again, any opinions from others reading this would be appreciated. Sima Yi 23:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Lapierre was Quebec lieutenant and a frequent critic of Dion, so his resignation certainly had significant bearing. The others less so. But if you (Sima Yi) want to move all the Lapierre/Khan/Commuzzi/Turner material to their respective pages, go ahead. Just don't delete here until it's safely moved.

As for other material... the Kyoto-related and anti-terrorism material should stay. This material offers some concrete info to the casual reader about the hot issues of those first six months of parliamentary activity. In your stripped version, the only thing mentioned is the budget rejection along with its broad rationale, i.e. a reiteration of the "three pillars" ("economic prosperity, social justice and environmental sustainability") previously seen in the leadership race section.

Then there's the by-elections. You've erased info on the outcome of two out of three. Info on the outcomes plus links to those ridings in question (so that the reader has access to further info if needed) should be restored.

Most of all, mention of the adoption of the 2008 GHG "hard caps" policy by the Liberals must be restored. In concrete economic and environmental terms, this is the most significant policy change Dion introduced since the beginning of his tenure as party leader.

Lastly, I'd like to know this: Your posting history shows that you began participating in Dion page editing in January 2007, and you have presumeably been cognizant of additions of material as they were made since that time. If you were so radically opposed to many of those additions, why didn't you make this known as the material was being debated and modified?

And an afterthought: In future, why not consider becoming more of a 'contributor' and not primarily a 'reverter'/'deleter'? Yes, contributions require more research and some composition effort, but ultimately Wikipedia's expansion ... well, I'm sure you can figure it out.--Eric1960 12:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I do agree that the attempted cleanup was made with too much haste and not sufficient debate.

Aside from that, some differences. Lapierre was a rival to Dion back under Prime Minister Martin before the 2004 election, but much less so after that so Dion's comments on Lapierre's departure are not needed. A sentence for Khan and Commuzzi is needed and is sufficient, since Dion did drive them from caucus. GoldDragon 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

@Eric
Mr. Lapierre was not a "frequent" critic of Mr. Dion. He did criticize Dion many times BEFORE DION BECAME LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION. You forget that the Leader of the Opposition section is in concern simply to Mr. Dion's run as Leader of Her Mejesty's Loyal Opposition. If you want to add something about Jean Lapierre not liking Dion to a different section where it's appropriate, then give that a try. Don't take events that have nothing to do with the Leader of the Opposition section and add them in. The only thing Mr. Lapierre did since the end of the leadership convention was resign, and he did that gracefully with no criticism of Dion. As for terror/Kyoto/GHC caps, etc are PARTY POLICY. The Liberal party has caucus comittees that do most of the work here, and those policies are then buffed up by the shadow cabinet and then finally put into policy by the leader after consoltation. The fact that 99% of the work was done by the party means that it belongs on the party's page. The Liberal party does have an article, and it does have a recent history section. Mr. Dion is the leader of the Liberal party. He is not the Liberal party! If you'd like, you can over to the liberal.ca and read the party's constitution. Again, I'm not suggesting that the info has no place on this site. Just not in Dion's Leadership section. Lastly, what does my contribution page have to do with anything? It sounds like you're slowly moving from attacking my edits to attacking me. Ad hominem is never a good debate tactic, remember that. Don't try to use weak personal smears to make up for a weak argument, please. Thanks. One more thing, there's a reason why this article is stranded at B-class status. It's because of the jumbled mess of irrelevent paragraphs that have little do to with the article itself. If you think the previous versions were so great, then why don't you take a copy over to the assessment page, and ask for that version to be upgraded to A-Class. Don't feel bad if they laugh at you.

@GoldDragon
You seem to have some helpful suggestions here. Please elaborate. Sima Yi 21:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

To reiterate: "if you (Sima Yi) want to move all the Lapierre/Khan/Commuzzi/Turner material to their respective pages, go ahead. Just don't delete here until it's safely moved." If you want to move the Lapierre info, no problem. As for GoldDragon's wish to keep a reference to Khan/Commuzzi, I agree; it was, after all, Dion's call in those cases.

Ah, Dion is not the Liberal party, no, but he does represent the party. Like Harper represents the Conservatives. And if you go to Harper's main page, you will find examples of "Harper said this" and "Harper said that", most of which are in fact pronouncements which derive from Conservative policies (some new, some old). The sites of these leaders would be pretty uninformative if we were to ban all policy representations. As for this idea of moving all policy references to the Liberal Party of Canada page, if this is really the way you thought things should be done, WHY DIDN'T YOU DO IT?

.... well, I can answer that for you. Because the Liberal Party of Canada page only refers to the 2006 party platform; it really isn't the place to include evolving interim policy positions.

Now to the ad hominem stuff.... I'm criticizing your behaviour here at this WP page, not your sexual orientation or your body odour. You deleted the work of others in a manner that was underhanded. Yes it is an ad hominem attack -- a justified one! So I'd still appreciate if you would respond to what I asked earlier, namely:

Your posting history shows that you began participating in Dion page editing in January 2007, and you have presumeably been cognizant of additions of material as they were made since that time. If you were so radically opposed to many of those additions, why didn't you make this known as the material was being debated and modified?--Eric1960 01:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, most of the info you want moved is already there on the pages on the invididuals in question. Yes, it is as poorly written there and it was here. Maybe I'll look into after for you because you requested it. Secondly, because Mr. Dion represents the party, does not make him the party. Stephen Harper allows John Baird to represent the government. I wouldn't turn his article into a Tory newspaper though. Heck, Ralph Goodale is a "representative" of the Liberal party, and yet his article is pretty good. As for the why didn't I move it, I'll get to that in a second. Onto the ad hominem, I'm glad you admit that. And in doing so, you admit to engaging in logical fallacies.

Now on your what you asked earlier. I don't browse wikipedia 24 hours a day, nor am I obligated to. I do not make any more edits than I feel like making, nor am I obligated to. Trying to improve this article does not obligate me to improve a dozen others if I don't want to. Editing a few times over half a year ago does not obligate me to question every single edit on the site as soon as they are made. One more time so we have this straight: I am not obligated to do any work I don't feel like doing. I enjoy occasionally helping to improve these articles, and I do it as a small pass-time. It is not my job however, and and have no responsibility to police every article from the beginning of time til time's end, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Now that I've answered your question, you can answer one for me, if you wouldn't mind. Why are you trying to bury this article in a B-Class grave. Our goal shouldn't be fill articles up with as much text as we can. It should be to IMPROVE the articles, so that they can slowly move up to GA, and if we work hard enough at it, even maybe A-Class status.

Back on topic, I'm now convinced that Wajid Khan does deserve a mention in the section, but it needs to be re-written. I'll look into that for you. Joe Comuzzi still shouldn't be here. Mr. Comuzzi was removed from caucus for breaking a Three-line whip. Karen Redman is the MP who sets lines on votes, not Mr. Dion. Yes, Mr. Dion stamped the ejection from caucus, but keeping that in mind, his involvment was limited. Mr. Comuzzi knew what was coming when he voted against the party on a budget vote, and any action because of it would be almost automatic regardless of who the leader was. Sima Yi 03:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

So you don't intend "to police every article from the beginning of time til time's end." That's a relief... but who made you the "police" anyways? Contributors work for months, adding contributions so the place is up to date and informative; then one day you swoop in and half the material vanishes. How about engaging with material in a timely and responsible fashion instead of trying to play the vice squad?

And why are you so hung up on A-class, B-class...? Wikipedia is about building a useful knowledge resource, not a chest-full of medals. "We don't need no stinking badges!"

But getting back to the nitty gritty, my bottom line is this: restore Dion's announcement of the hard-caps policy and plug the gaps in the Sept. 18 by-elections info. The rest suddenly looks less important with the emerging situation. If the throne speech is defeated, there's going to be heaps of new material to deal with.--Eric1960 14:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't "police" anything. That's something you made up all by yourself. Saying I just came in one day and deleted things is a down-right lie. I made a post here making my intent clear. 5 days later when no one had any objections, I made the edit. Secondly, if you really need the class question answered, then you really need to do some reading. Try WP:NOT. Wikipedia is NOT an indescriminate collection of information. The hard-caps policy doesn't need to restored unless you can find a source that directly relates it to Dion any more than any other small announcement that's made by the party every week. The only by-election on 9/18 that was significantly related to Dion was the Outremont by-election. The other two were barely even note-worthy. I remind you again that the Liberal Party of Canada has an article with its own recent history section. Use that. Sima Yi 22:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"5 days later"? You never wrote anything about "5 days". What you wrote was: "If a lot of people aren't opposed to this over the next few days, I think we should seriously consider chopping this section down". So here we are -- considering. Your post wasn't framed as an ultimatum, even if you subsequently tried to use it as one (and you went on your deletion rampage 4 days later, I might add, not 5... do I have to verify your fabrications now too?).

As for the hard caps source, there was a properly referenced, major Toronto Star article cited, but you deleted it along with all the rest. But now you expect ME to go around looking for it. Are you morally inept? YOU deleted it -- YOU restore it.--Eric1960 14:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Although much of the information could be fair game for either Stephane Dion or the Liberal Party article, it turns out in practice that many editors tend to put it on Dion and not the Liberal Party article. The same goes for Stephen Harper which is favoured by editors over the Conservative Party, and other first ministers over their parties. GoldDragon 04:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

@Eric You are in clear violation of WP:CIV. If you don't tone it down, someone is going send you one of those handy warning templates. Secondly, you misread my post. The point was that I waited many many days for someone to say "Don't do this. Don't chop ___." No one did. Lastly, you misread my post a 2nd time. I asked for a reference that shows the caps thing is relevant to Dion. That's what counts here. Of course that was just a courtesy question. There is no reference that will prove that, because the issue in question is barely notable in relation to Mr. Dion.

@GoldDragon Okay, you seem to be the only one who wants to gets any contructive edits done here, so let's work on this. Wajid Khan needs to go back in, but what else? Sima Yi 22:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've actually convinced me on Joe Comuzzi. So most of the MP floor-crossings and retirements are best put in the Liberal Party article, as long as it isn't significant to Dion. However, as many editors tend to turn to Dion rather than the Liberals, when it comes to such a policy stance, I believe that this material should stay here. GoldDragon 02:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well we can only speculate on the activities and preferences on silent editors, and even if that's the case that not a reason to keep things unrelated to Dion's leadership decisions/policies in the Dion leadership section. On another note, I'm also convinced that your argument as to why the material in the "Efforts to remove Dion as Liberal leader" section is also good. So what material from there should also go in? Sima Yi 03:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I would restore the Sept 18 by-election as I originally put it, including the Halifax Chronical report which caused Ignatieff to make the phone call and demoralized volunteers. Also, I plan to add Jamie Carroll's comments there, as it pits Dion against his Quebec wing. GoldDragon 17:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

All excellent suggestions, GoldDragon. Seconded!--Eric1960 18:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay Gol,d I brought back Mr. Khan, and a small mention of the other two by-elections (let's keep it small, eh?). I'm not sure exactly what you wanted done with Mr. Ignatieff, and Carroll, so I'll leave that one to you. Sima Yi 00:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for another week of protection was just filed. May I humbly suggest that we really make an effort to be reasonable this time -- and yes, in making this suggestion, I include myself too. No rash personal attacks, no threats, no accusations....

Ok. Judging from your latest revert, Sima Yi, it looks like the hard caps policy is the lingering bone of contention. So let's unpack this. There are only three people discussing here, and two of them feel the inclusion Dion's interim policy announcements (i.e. between election platforms), is recommended, in part because this type of material is not routinely documented at the Liberal party website, but also because Dion chose to use it front and centre as a strategic way of bolstering his leadership.--Eric1960 15:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

At least mention the cross-country tour that Dion did in response to his flip-flopping, its not unlike Kim Campbell and Stephen Harper's tours. The hard caps isn't controversial either, so it could stay as well. GoldDragon 17:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

We should note that Khan had accepted his position with the gov't before Dion was leader. The crisis wasn't really his own making. Personally I think whoever won the leadership was going to have to ask Khan to pick gov't or opposition and Dion's only fault was that he was an unattractive choice for Khan. Also we should remember that Carroll is now gone, for the checklist for when this article gets unprotected.

As for the bit that was removed, I'm also a little concerned that we say clearly that Dion's tour is a last-minute thing to respond to his troubles. Is that true? I don't know one way or the other. Maybe we could have some source on that. We also attribute his problems to policy reversals when I think it is just plain policies, along with leadership, etc. The problem is that he's low in the polls and I don't think that is directly attributable to his flip flops, most Canadians probably don't even know about them. We actually don't have a great source on that issue either, we say he faced criticism but really the article only shows it came from Harper which is an everyday thing in Ottawa. Generally though I'm okay with the section, it is just little things.

I haven't followed this along the whole time so I'm not sure what Sima Yi's problem is about the hard caps. --JGGardiner 18:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the hard caps thing is alright, but all this about his tour, and it being because of flip-flopping? There doesn't seem to be much foundation for the flip-flopping bit, and a tour of of the country for an opposition leader is the norm, not an interesting note. Ummcke09 14:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph does not actually state that Dion's tour was because of the flip-flopping, diminished support, etc. so there is no problem with it. GoldDragon 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the sentence in question: "Facing criticism over perceived policy reversals Dion initiated a 2 1/2 week cross-country tour on March 2 which culminated in the unveiling of a new environmental policy endorsing the implementation of "hard caps" on greenhouse gas emissions by 2008." I think that it could be read either way but most readers would think the implication is that he initiated the tour because he was facing criticism. I read it that way. I don't know if that was the intention but if it can be read that way we should write it in a way that does read like there is an implication. It isn't a big deal but that is my preference. --JGGardiner 18:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I removed the section was this. Now I don't know what you guys would do, but if I was looking for unbiased and fairly balanced information about the Leader of the Opposition, the last person I would ask would probably be the Prime Minister, and for obvious reasons. Let's get the main thing out of the way. Obviously it's a partisan assault, and the entry into the article itself makes no mention that the "criticism" in question is coming from Dion's biggest political rival who criticizes him on EVERYTHING. If Harper taunting Dion is now a worthy of a paragraph you may as well expand the section to include every single issue ever. Because Mr. Harper criticizes Mr. Dion on pretty much every single issue. Secondly, obviously partisan hackery has no place in the article. It's one thing to get criticism articles from pundits, news websites, etc, but political rivals? Come on now. There has to be a limit. Sima Yi 14:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that. If the criticism is coming just from a political opponent, we should be clear to note that. --JGGardiner 00:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Harper citation had served in a former version to underscore the partisan origin of the word "flip-flop". Since the "flip-flop" expression was removed from the article, the Harper quote has served no purpose. Another article is cited ([3]) in that sentence detailing all the policy reversals anyhow.--Eric1960 11:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

In this case, then we should state "a Nationa Post columnist criticized Dion for flip-flopping on several issues". GoldDragon 17:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Outremont allegations

I was in Montreal at election time and there was much media discussion of the allegations made in Globe and Mail and other papers.[4] [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.164.130 (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationality

I don't think the tab about his nationality is appropriate for the id box. First it is an ambiguous term. Does it mean his citizenship, as in Canadian and French? Or could it be a non-legal Québecois nationality? Combine the ambiguity with the lack of knowledge on what Dion considers to be his nationality and that's enough for its removal, as far as I'm concerned. Also, the listing of nationality is also uncommon among political figures on wikipedia, particularly Canadian ones. Just browsing around Stephen Harper is the only one I can find from Canada. What for example would Gilles Duceppe's nationality? Seems to me that his birthplace is enough. The bit about his dual citizenship is mentioned later in the article as well.Ummcke09 05:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Unless, someone has a really good explanation for keeping the nationality thing, something that there is no source for or is evidently correct, I will remove it once the protection is removed. Ummcke09 20:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Efforts to remove Dion as Liberal leader

This is a developing news story that should be noted early in the article. [[6]] 204.152.239.216 18:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the problem I was talking about before. This article is really not a newspaper, sir. The fact right now is that there is no named Liberal trying to get rid of him, which means its speculation. A better word for it would be gossip. Sima Yi 23:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Whether its fact or speculation, it is permitted in the article as long as there is a reputable source. In fact, many mainstream sources have noted the speculative infighting surrounding the Sept 19 2006 by-elections, and Liberal national director Jamie Carroll. GoldDragon 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well sir, you have to remember that this is a BLP article. Just because some speculation is sourced, doesn't make it well sourced. You know? If you read the top of this discussion page, you'll even see that poorly sourced material is supposed to be removed. I remember a funny little diversion where people were claiming that Hilary Clinton was a lesbian sometime in the past week. If I grabbed one of those links and added "There is speculation that Clinton is a lesbian <ref>[link here]</ref>, how fast do you think I would be reverted? Sima Yi 21:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This is certainly not poorly sourced and it is noteworthy, so its perfectly acceptable in a BLP as long as it is clearly stated. For instance, theres nothing wrong on including speculation that John Nunziata was going to challenge Mel Lastman in 2000, even if Nunziata didn't file papers yet and ending up if he never entered the race. In fact, this infighting speculation definitely merits inclusion because such reports influenced actual events; after it was published, Ignatieff called Dion to reassure him of his support, while riding volunteers reported being demoralized by the article. Also, based on the speculation around Jamie Carroll's comments, Dion is sticking by him while the Quebec wing wants him to resign. GoldDragon 00:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that there are pieces in there that deserve inclusion. It is important to understand that he is an embattled leader. Sure there are no MPs calling for his resignation but that isn't done. But from the moment he wakes up until the morning he goes to sleep every day, pretty much all the Dion does is deal with his difficult position. I think that we have to be careful to avoid speculation and not consider simple gossip but there is certainly something in this topic that deserves some inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGGardiner (talk • contribs) 18:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}Here are some important articles that should be added: [[7]] [[8]] [[9]]

Thanks!--Heresiark 14:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

 Not done per "this template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request." If the edit you are requesting is controversial I won't make the change unless a consensus in support exists first. Please make sure anything you propose includes no original research or personal opinion and is cited to reliable sources. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, here's something more up to date: [[10]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heresiark (talk • contribs) 14:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Attenion: references in this article require FULL CITATION format

When referencing sources, Wikipedia Guidelines stipulate that either full citation format or inline format are possible (see: WP:REF): for inline sourcing, a full citation is required at the end of the text in an alphabetized list of "References", while full citation format generates an entry automatically in the reference system. In order to maintain a consistent appearance, USE FULL CITATION FORMAT in this article.--Eric1960 02:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by the same editor

Since this editor has being repeatedly posting libelous and other miscellaneous nonsensical edits for months, and not to mention all the problems Dion did/is/will faced/facing/face in the coming weeks, this page is locked to anon users for 6 months.--JForget 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Translation

Je me suis assis = I sat down, not I was seated. As a non-established user I can't make this minor change (or be bothered to log in). 209.29.100.30 00:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "delusion" should be replaced with the word "paranoia" in the political cartoon as this is plainly the correct translation and does impact the meaning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.15.92 (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Retire the Cartoon?

I fail to understand why the political cartoon is included with the Dion article. We don't see political cartoons with the articles of the other political leaders. To me, they should all have a cartoon, or (my preference) the cartoon in the Dion article should be deleted. Can anyone say why Dion deserves a cartoon and the others (e.g., Harper, Layton, Doucette) don't? Generally speaking, I like political cartoons, but maybe the cartoons belong with the "editorial cartoons" article instead.Que-Can 02:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have an alternate suggestion: why don't we add the follow-up cartoon from the 2006 leadership contest, wherein Dion was depicted as removing his rat costume and developing a new identity. CJCurrie 02:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on, that cartoon does not belong in an encyclopedia. Misterip 23:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How do we arrive at a consensus to remove the cartoon? Misterip 11:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on removal (or not) may be achieved on the Talk page. Failing consensus, someone could just remove the cartoon, someone else would then add it back, and then it would be deleted again, and so on, and so on... Let's see if we can find consensus.Que-Can 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, editorial cartoons are actually more notable in regards to some politicians than others — it really depends on the individual circumstances. The difference has to do with how notable the cartoons are for their own sake; fairly or not, public perception of some politicians has been significantly influenced by their depiction in editorial cartoons, and it would be a disservice to our readers to talk about their depiction in cartoons but not show an example. Dion-as-rat is, unfortunately, a significant example of that. Whereas for some other politicians it would just be trivia — there simply aren't any editorial cartoons of Harper or Layton that qualify as inherently notable examples of their depiction in the press, so it would just be including a cartoon for the sake of including a cartoon. Conversely, however, there are some other examples of where we should probably find copies of the relevant cartoons: Joe Clark (whose public image was very disproportionately defined by his depiction in editorial cartoons), some of the Dalton McGuinty-as-lizard panels, Gilles Duceppe in his hair net (notable because it was still standard practice to draw a hairnet on Duceppe's head in cartoons years after the hairnet incident), Aislin's Mulroney-as-assface cartoon (arguably the single most famous editorial cartoon in Canadian media history). Bearcat 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting observation by Bearcat. I don't quite agree with the opinion "there simply aren't any editorial cartoons of Harper or Layton that qualify as inherently notable examples of their depiction in the press." I'd say there are plenty out there already. But...do we want to litter the Wikipedia articles with editorial cartoons, or do they belong together in a separate article?Que-Can (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Harper and Layton aren't depicted in editorial cartoons. But for neither of them has their representation in editorial cartoons ever (a) become notable for its own sake, or (b) turned into a defining feature of how they're perceived by the public. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My old "World Book Encyclopedia" often included cartoons in politicians' entries, so there's nothing new about finding them in an encyclopedia. Actually, I remember as a kid how they were a main attraction that got me interested in lots of articles. The image of John A. Macdonald pocketing money from the Pacific Scandal sticks in my memory, for example. The real criterion should be whether the image is of significance: is it 'iconic'? does it graphically illustrate an important controversy? etc. etc.

The answer here is clearly "yes". From the get-go, Dion was regularly portrayed as "the rat" in LaPresse (Quebec's biggest circulation newspaper). This particular cartoon epitomizes why that rat image stuck so tenaciously. In pushing through the Clarity Act, Dion stirred up a vast and deeply felt enmity among many if not most francophones. For years he could not show his face publicly in the province without being heckled. There were anecdotes about Dion being booed at hockey games, shouted down at meetings, and for one period he even needed some police protection. So the cartoon is actually a lighthearted way of conveying what must have been a very disturbing daily reality for Dion. In short, the image is relevant and significant; it definitely deserves to be kept.--Scarborite (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan

Should there be a section on his position? Misterip 13:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there one yet? --soulscanner (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Stéphane_Dion#Parliamentary_Opposition

Too many one sided op-ed pieces here from conservatives in the National Post. They should either be removed and replaced with relatively neutral description of events, or balanced with opinion pieces more favorable to Dion's postitions. --soulscanner (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from "taunts" -- which I reverted to "criticism" -- and the one-sided view on anti-poverty measures (which is, after all, just one person's evaluation of a specific policy), the material here is not inherently POV. There were important perceived policy reversals and a significant and long-term drop in leadership support, and we have adequate documentation of this. There's no reason to label this section POV (at least, no more reason than for any other section).

If there are POV concerns, they are presumeably based on OTHER information which hasn't been supplied. What is that info? Please get some documented information which either negates the info already posted or rebalances it in some way before labelling things POV. Otherwise, we could pretty well label everything in a politcally charged article like this 'POV'.

Before signing off, I'd like to praise Soulscanner's reorganizational efforts in the "Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs" and Gomery Inquiry sections. The text flows more logically (and chronologically), the headers make more sense, and there are improvements in wording and perspective. It's the biggest improvement in the article as a whole that we've seen in quite awhile.--Eric1960 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Taunts is the word used in the article, not mine. This indicates a highly partisan debate in the Commons. Lets represent what is written, and not what we'd like to see. There's no problem giving partisan criticism (the Prime Minister's opinion is noteworthy) as long as it is identified as such.

The POV concerns stem from the fact that the indicated sources are all op-ed pieces from authors routinely critical of the Liberals, and not identified as such. Generic "criticisms" are not particularly noteworthy when they come from sources routinely critical of the subject. They need to be balanced by op-ed pieces more sympathetic to the person. The article says "flip-flop", not "perceived policy reversal", which itself is somewhat telling of the overall tone of the article. It is a partisan screed and shouldn't be presented as an objective review of the political climate.

As for the economic analysis, it is valid, but politically biased. The absolute measure of poverty is prefered by neo-conservatives, and relative measures prefered by social democrats. Both are legitimate measures. Presenting a conservative view as objective fact not balancing it with a social democratic view (which would be more sympathetic to Dion's leftish views) is POV. I ask not that it be removed, but that it be presented as a criticism by someone ideologically hostile to Dion.

I'll ask you to leave on the tags until we have discussed these issues further. The tag clearly stays if there is a NPOV dispute, and this definitely qualifies [11]. Edit wars with NPOV tags are not cool. --soulscanner (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the section a little. Added some summaries of Dion's positions, as well as some criticisms all found in the articles. Op-ed pieces still need balancing, though. Perhaps we can ask for a refernce or a hird party opinion on whether they constitute POV in the absence of balancing opinions. --soulscanner (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dion stephane051128.jpg

Image:Dion stephane051128.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

CJCurrie and POVicide...

Dear powers that be...

CJCurrie has once again been demanding that I "revert" information, claiming "3RR" and "POV" and whatnot. All of this is déja vu, as you can ascertain for yourselves by going into the archives of the talk page of this article.

As in the past, what the issue really boils down to is this: CJ seems to believe that he (well, possibly "she", though I doubt it) has the right to erase any new info on the grounds that it is "POV". The fact is, we are dealing with political events, and the outcomes are always going to seem "POV" to some degree. This is not a reason to delete information. Wikipedia's general policy must promote the preservation of significant information by encouraging editing practices that support a neutral presentation. Deletion of significant information is really just a form of vandalism; if an editor sees a need to present material more neutrally, either he or she must be committed to doing some editing work to rebalance the presentation, or else he or she should leave the information alone.--Eric1960 (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insult our intelligence with comments like this. Anyone who takes the time to look through your contributions will understand what's really going on here. CJCurrie (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Anyone who takes the time to look through your contributions..."

Hey, I absolutely encourage people to investigate this claim. They will discover that while I contribute, edit, balance ... CJCurrie primarily deletes. This is a pattern that has gone on for almost two years now. I contribute -- and then CJCurrie deletes, CJCurrie whines and accuses, and when he doesn't manage to expurgate everything that doesn't suit his peculiar tastes, he demands that the editorial equivalent of martial law be imposed. The people who have been around ... GoldDragon, etc. -- will know what I'm talking about. For others: please, by all means, check out the archives.--Eric1960 (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Policy on the Iraq War

Today, I provided Wikipedia readers with some information on the above topic. Less than five hours later the entire section was deleted without any explanation for the deletion. Nor were there any tags used to help me understand the nature of the disagreement. The protocol in Wikipedia is to use the discussion page to explain why edits are made. I graciously invite all editors to do so. Perhaps we can work something out that we can both agree on. This will prevent an endless and unproductive series of edits and counter edits. Thank you for listening and have a good day.Boyd Reimer (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you used the Liberal Party's "Policy on the Iraq War" as the foundation for a rather slanted commentary on war resistors. Why you'd decide to target Stephane Dion on this point is something of a mystery. CJCurrie (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings CJCurrie, I am not sure if it was you who again deleted the entire section. Correct me if I am wrong, but I will assume it was you. Why would you delete the entire section, title and all? Do you feel that the Iraq War is not a large enough issue for someone who has been the leader of Official Opposition in Canada since December, 2006? Boyd Reimer (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What you're adding is not an WP:NPOV summary of Dion's position on the Iraq War, but a very slanted and context-deficient guilt-by-insinuation screed on what you believe his policy should be, using one particular war deserter named Corey Glass — who's only just been fresh news within the past few days — to illustrate a POV essay. While a neutral, properly-worded section on Dion vis-à-vis Iraq could possibly be perfectly valid content for this article if somebody were to add one, what you're attempting to add simply doesn't clear that bar. I'd also be very curious to know why you think a POV statement about Corey Glass is somehow more relevant to Stéphane Dion than it would be to, say, Stephen Harper, Maxime Bernier, Rob Nicholson or somebody else who was actually in a position of power to do anything one way or the other about Corey Glass. (Granted that Bernier was a little bit, um, distracted. But he was still External Affairs minister when the ruling came down.) Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As usual, Bearcat does a better job of writing my thoughts than I do..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)