Talk:Tom Flanagan (political scientist)

Beyond the Indian Act

This section briefly mentions the book but instead of discussing its contents and differing reactions instead goes on for a long paragraph dedicated to Sasha Boutilier' criticism of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.232.228.16 (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Notes

Im troubled that there is a description that Mr Flanagan is a 'revisionist'. There is more than one aveune of looking at the 'rights' accorded natives. I would like to see a balanced and nuetral point by point breakdown of his thesis by outside parties, preferably out of Canada and the United States that flatly can prove he is a revisionist. Shot of that im going to remove the remark DRCarroll 22:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Conservative officials named in Cadman bribery allegations

MP Garth Turner has reported the names of the two Conservative officials who allegedly attempted to bribe Chuck Cadman as Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley (National Director of Political Operations, Conservative Party of Canada).

Should this be included as part of the article? Shame

DSatYVR (talk) 05:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody know the bottom feeder who continues to label Flanagan's book First Nations, Second Thoughts as racist? If you do, please email me at jay.unrau@gmail.com so I can track this misguided nitwit down and beat him over the head with my Oxford Concise. I never thought I'd live to see the day when someone's tender feelings trumped the legitimacy of hearing another perspective. This loaded and pejorative descriptor of Flanagan's book is just the kind of jim-crack shit that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Wikipedia, also, seems to protect racist pricks such as Flanagan from being exposed.

Condemnation in Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, 1996

Flanagan was criticized for the decidedly pro-colonial slant of his research 'findings' within the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services 1996), vol. 4, 199-386. Sarchristi (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Assassination talk

Should probably be includedin the article: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Complaint+filed+over+call+assassinate+WikiLeaks+founder/3932805/story.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.11.25.101 (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss the content dispute here, rather than more reversions. This doesn't need to turn into an edit war. Including the facts of his call for assassination are fine, but they do not rise to the level of inclusion in the lead. Please read the policies WP:RECENT and WP:DUE to understand how this works. One quote on a news show does not change the essence of who this man is. Elizium23 (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. He made a comment on the news, and is being investigated by police, but in ten years this will not be THE major point of his career. This is a perfect example of WP:RECENT and WP:DUE, and the burden of proof lies on the adding editor to prove that this material follows these policies. 174.115.241.185 (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the Calgary RCMP follow up on the incitement charges against him, it will be the signal point of his career, or rather the end of it, as seen ten years from now....Skookum1 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the material should not be duplicated in both Political Activism and Call for Assasination sections. 174.115.241.185 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It should not be in the lead as long as the lead is only one or two sentences. It is ok for a lead to mention a half dozen notable things (a full paragraph or two), with this being one item. Let's keep in mind, it's his politics, not his academic career, that makes him notable. The Assange comment is part of that. A good measure of the weight of a topic, is it's coverage by neutral sources. Notice how the bulk of material in "Research and Scholarship" is referenced to Flanagan's own works. Whereas, the assassination story, is obviously referenced heavily by many many reliable third party sources. An article must weight a topic based on how independent reliable sources weight it, not how the subject would wish it to be weighed. If anything in this article is receiving excessive weight, it is the large "Research and Scholarship" section, which is overwhelmingly reliant on works that Flanagan authored or co-authored. Incidently, the Assasination call story has gotten another leg, with the allegation of another related threat[1]. --Rob (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This comment has nothing to do with the WikiLeaks controversy, but ... I should note that Flanagan's biography of Louis Riel is notable in its own right as a rather controversial work (as is "First Nations, Second Thoughts", for that matter). CJCurrie (talk) 23:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course it deserves to be in the lead. His comments in the news are by far the most notable and influential thing he's ever done... in fact, he barely is worth a wiki page as a university prof at a second-tier school in Canada, co-author of college into poli sci text (which is NOT much of a contribution to acadamic poli sci), and one of many witnesses years ago in obscure trials- this isn't especially notable. People interested in 1) Louis Riel and 2) Flanagan's conservative politics made this wiki page into a puff-fest for their causes, with Flanagan as the vehicle. Then the opposites came out, offended by the puffery, and put in their 2c worth.

The fact that he's a prof, a former Harper insider, and created a minor national scandal after appearing on the CBC is about all there is to say about this guy... But last week, his bio even talked about where he was born and what his father's job was. Nuts. Otherwise, his interest and take on Louis Riel is at least a contribution to an area of Canadian history and politics that was somewhat overlooked. However, who the hell cares about Louis Riel these days? I mean, I do, but I studied law and politics for nine years before getting a job... but most Canadians and most people in the world haven't even heard of the guy, and nothing Flanagan did changed that. But they sure as heck heard about the Canadian prof and "former PMO insider" saying the WikiLeaks guy should be assassinated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.133.209 (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The following I consider to be relevent to this article:

If one read a transcript of the interview of Flanagan, is obvious that he isn't joking: a reporter asks him to clarify and he reiterates his statement. For the record:

[Commentator - Evan Solomon] "Clearly Assange is saying there are significant stuff out, Tom Flanagan."

[Flanagan] "Well, I think Assange should be assassinated actually (laughs) I think Obama should put out a contract and maybe use a drone, or something. There is no good coming out of this, I agree some of the stuff is titillating to read, I was quickly struck by the revelations about [inaudible]"

[Commentator - Evan Solomon] "Tom that’s pretty harsh stuff, just for the record that’s pretty harsh stuff." [Flanagan] "Well I’m feeling very manly today[...]"

This is not the extent of Mr. Flanagan's faux paus: according to various media outlets, he threatened a woman by email, when she sent an angry letter to him retarding the interview. According to a CTV article: "Janet Reymond sent an angry email to Tom Flanagan after he mused on a talk show that U.S. President Barack Obama should consider assassinating WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for leaking sensitive documents. The initial email response from the University of Calgary political science professor was short: "Better be careful, we know where you live." (source: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101209/flanagan-apologizes-for-email-101209/20101209/?hub=TorontoNewHome) Flanagan has since apologized to the lady, yet again denying wrongdoing: "I'm sorry that I did not send a more serious response to your email," Flanagan's most recent email to Reymond reads. "I regret that I made glib and thoughtless comments about a serious subject." (source: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101209/flanagan-apologizes-for-email-101209/20101209/?hub=TorontoNewHome).

Charitable individuals may take Mr. Flanagan at his word. It's possible that he has a propensity towards a violent sense of humour. More realistically, however, it seems probable that he said what said what he meant, and meant what he said. Twice.

The above was removed by a user claiming "this is not a political forum." Fine. But the above directly relates to the article on Flanagan and is sourced. You are using the "not a forum" rule to muzzle legitimate discussion. BBrown 15:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

lol most canadians are nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.168.201 (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I would personally just delete the assassination stuff. It was such a non-story. I wouldn't even call it a "minor scandal." At the very least, I would remove it from the introduction of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.129.3 (talk) 18:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It received substantial national attention. It certainly was a scandal. The article can be improved to discuss other things more. But, to completely hide the entire thing, seems utterly absurd. --Rob (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Dab issue

He may have a job as a professor of political science, but the "political scientist" dab rather bothers me, given who he is and who he's worked for and the services he's provided them. Isn't he a "political consultant" or "political advisor" more than he is a "political scientist"?Skookum1 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I've seen dabs, too, for "political activist" though that seems reserved for people from the other side of the political spectrum and/or non-government political spokesmen/consultants.Skookum1 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I like "poltical scientist", as it's more broad, permanent, defining, and uncontentious. His status as "political advisor" or "political consultant" changes from time to time, and it's debatable how important each is. Until there is another notable political scientist with the same name, I wouldn't worry about it. --Rob (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Citizenship

Would someone mind including in the article his citizenship? Did he ever become Canadian, take up dual citizenship, or is he still simply an American? Oghma6 (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Study

How did he study under John Hallowell who died 17 years before he was born? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.46.31.252 (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Books Section

I've made some modifications to the books section to try and standardize the citations. I've noticed there are still missing book editions, so if anyone can add them, that would be great. I also believe we should break up collaboration books and textbooks from books where he is the sole author (One of the textbooks listed has 9 editions). EagleBoss (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)