Talk:Jim Flaherty

message: Christine is the member for Whitby-Ajax, not Whitby-Oshawa. There hasn't been a provincial election in Whitby-Oshawa yet so they cannot share the same riding.
Transplanted little box/table thing from the Tony Clement page.  Not sure about the "28th Ministry" business -- can someone figure that out and alter it if appropriate?--206.248.133.87 17:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Husband and Wife share same electoral district

message: We need a image of Flaherty. Does anyone have one? PS- has anyone noticed the resemblance between Flaherty & Lou Costello? GoodDay 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Costello was taller. Given his performance as the Finance Minister I wonder if he is overcompensating for his shortness. Perhaps he suffers from this DSatYVR 17:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs a Photo

message: I have removed some questionable material linked to a blog and some other material. Are there any more reliable sources for this material? TIA --Tom 14:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: None of your deletions are blog related. Check again TIA DSatYVR (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do they have "blog" in the link? --Tom 18:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to blog material and other sources

message: I've had the following references deleted. Why?
Reason 5: Tory Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, December 29, 2007
Canada Under Seige: Thanks Harper and Flaherty
DSatYVR (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diane Francis references 

message: The following citation was deleted from the "2002 Ontario PC leadership Bid" section. Not sure why. I've reinserted it for now pending an explanation. 
Send Ontario's Homeless to Jail
DSatYVR (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Send Ontario's Homeless to Jail 

message: Greetings user 142.68.234.58
Yesterday you made a speedy deletion without giving a reason and without starting a discussion to explain your reasons for the deletion.  Please read this link before you attempt to make any more speedy deletions: 
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
You would also be well advised to carefully read about Wikipedia's rules governing vandalism at this link:
Wikipedia:Vandalism
Boyd Reimer (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Conscientious Objectors" to "Wars Not Sanctioned by United Nations" 

message: "Nevertheless, the income from ordinary corporate stock is of course also taxed, and the companies that converted to 'income trusts' from corporations were taking advantage of tax rules designed to benefit retirees rather than ordinary stockholders who became the beneficiaries of the new trusts. It was causing a reduction in estimated government revenue even when future tax revenues were factored in; the advocates for the rule change argued that income trusts were not meant to be a new label for something that effectively acted as a corporation." What does this mean? It needs to be rewritten or deleted IMO because it makes no sense. DSatYVR (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the material for the time being pending a rewrite and a properly sourced explanation. Comments welcome... DSatYVR (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added additional material to this section regarding the central argument of the issue of "Is there tax leakage or not?" I've also deleted one sentence not central to the topic discussed. Further comments welcomed DSatYVR (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 31, 2006 income trust announcement 

message: I have serious concerns about the federal politics section. I have tried to balance out the piece with factual edits, but they have been repeatedly challenged and deleted. There are people dedicated to keeping this artcle one-sided. In the Income Trust section there is clearly a problem with the negative tone and biased slant of the piece. For example, take the passage below:
 
Diane Francis, editor-at-large for the National Post, urged that the rule changes be recanted, arguing that there were flaws in the policy which hurt ordinary, hard-working Canadian investors.[8][9] Francis pointed out that the root of the problem is that the decision was based on analysis by federal officials who regard RRSPs and pensions as tax "exempts" even though they are merely deferral mechanisms. So the tax leakage analysis numbers are incorrect when it comes to taxes paid by Canadian income trust unitholders.[10]
 
This section clearly uses language that is partial, with phrases such as “hurt ordinary, hard-working Canadian investors” which is meant to engage the sympathy of the reader.  The overall language is clearly not impartial, such as the use of “pointed out” instead of more impartial language, such as “contends” or “argues.”  It also clearly states that “tax leakage analysis numbers (are) incorrect” without clearly pointing out that Diane Francis argues this.
 
Furthermore, this further edit sounds like a pamphlet more than an article.  Language such as “numerous gross errors that were made by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.”  
Tax leakage, which served as Flaherty’s central policy justification for his 31.5% income trust tax, was addressed during the Goodale Income Trust public consultation process of Fall 2005, during which time HLB Decision Economics worked collaboratively with the Department of Finance and published their findings in paper entitled “The tax revenue implications of income trusts”, dated November 24, 2005. [8] The study, available to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty prior to his October 31, 2006 decision, concluded that there is no tax leakage from income trusts. The author of the study, Dennis Bruce, went on to testify at the Finance Committee’s Public Hearings on Income Trusts in February 2007 and issued a press release following his first day of testimony entitled "Independent economists discredit govt tax leakage claims" which outlines the numerous gross errors that were made by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and the government in asserting the claim of $500 million in annual tax leakage. Bruce concluded the ongoing tax leakage, post 2010, after taking into account legislated tax changes, is $32 million per year, about five percent of Flaherty's figures.[9]
So far in this section, we have one line explaining the argument for taxing income trusts and then a mini-rant for the rest of the section.  This is completely different than the public record, which was split on this issue, with such notable economists as Don Drummond and Provincial Finance Ministers coming out in support of the decision.  I have tried to reflect this in previous edits, adding other notable economic analysts opinion, yet they are repeatedly taken out, while such obviously biased language as the above continues to be the norm.  This whole section needs to be rewritten to reflect the actual debate, and not just POV-pushing.  This is actually the problem with the entire “Federal Politics” section.  Am I to believe that Minister Flaherty's only accomplishments over the past four years are an income trust decision, a public comment on “potholes” and an issue with office contracts?  Can anyone with a straight face actually call this encyclopaedia quality?  Clearly this is an example of undue weight.  I would edit the piece myself and note all of Minister Flaherty's achievements, but it would seem that some people are only interested in ensuring this article remain critical and one sided. 
 
It is important to note that in the Income Trust section it should reflect the fact that income trusts in Canada have fully recovered their value and are now performing slightly better than stocks. Please see attached link: 
http://www.thestar.com/mobile/business/article/883317
(192.197.54.28 (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the article is a bit one-sided, but what edits did you make that were reverted? This IP never edited this article. There was a similar IP that made a number of edits in February 2010 that were reverted. Were those the edits you are refering too? If that's the case, then it may have had more to do with the style of the edits that you posted. Those edits changed almost the whole article, naming him Mr. Flaherty, and Minister Flaherity, and a  large number of other WP:MOS violations. I also believe there was some copy and pasting there as well, which isn't allowed. If those are the edits you made, then that's why they were reverted, not because you toned down the article. If those were not your edits, can you please direct me to them. Cmr08 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federal Politics Section 

message: I have deleted the section for undue weight, poor sourcing, original research and POV. This article is meant to be a biography, not a recent history of the Canadian economy, and this section wasn't really about Flaherty. More problematic are the sourcing/POV/original research issues. For example, the sentence Flaherty's leadership during the Great Recession and budgetary measures helped pull Canada out of the recession is sourced with an article that does not mention Flaherty at all. It is therefore original research, and possibly POV-pushing, to credit Flaherty. The sentence Since coming out of the recession, Flaherty's measures have helped create "over 1 million net new jobs" is sourced to an article that mentions and even quotes Flaherty, but does not say that it was his measures that created the jobs. Again, it's original research, and apparently in promotion of a POV.
The article has been hugely expanded recently, and some of it is still  problematic for the same reasons as this section. In the spirit of bold, revert, discuss, I hope we can discuss this here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great recession section 

message: I've removed the Universal Childcare Benefit section because of sourcing and original research - the only citation was to a primary source, and that source does not mention Flaherty. Primary sources are not ideal, and of course, it is original research to add this to a Flaherty bio if the source doesn't mention Flaherty. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is too much detail about each of the various measures that have been introduced by Flaherty.  We should just highlight them.  TFD (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree with you - I'm working on it slowly. I also think its important to keep the language neutral (right now, a lot of it isn't) and to use secondary sources (right now, a majority of the sources are primary.) Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 02:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal Childcare Benefit 

message: OK -- I trimmed a bit - trying to make it readable and useful for the readers. Collect (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  It is easier to read now.  There is still a lot of unnecessary detail, such as an entire section about abolishing the one cent coin.  TFD (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas -- I find the penny story interesting as it has been in the US news lately. Collect (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it is interesting and should be mentioned.  I just wonder how much detail it deserves.  Canadian penny#Abolition does not even mention Flaherty.  TFD (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And unlike other nations - Canada did not demonetize the coin. In fact, it could, theoretically, start making them again. Collect (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  puff, argumentation, and useless stuff 

message: Since I first inserted information here on 19 January 2014‎ about the American Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, we have had a bit of activity on this article which has not been updated since 15 August 2013‎. Looks like some feathers were ruffled, but the end result, at least so far, is a return to the version of 19 January 2014 with a bit of an update at the end of the section:
On February 5, 2014, Flaherty signed Canada on as a participant to FATCA through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).
Is everyone happy with this version? Does the material inserted here by others really not belong here? Please voice  your opinon. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Others" = you, and much of what was added was defamatory opinion, or not related to Flaherty, but only to the agreement.  Per WP:BURDEN, the person adding material has to justify its reliability and relevance.  Personally, I don't think even the section I restored should be there, but it's not controversial.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  FATCA controvery 

message: And no matter how tempting, do not belong in giographies of living persons. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems fine to me.  It has received coverage in mainstream media and may lead to his early retirement.  TFD (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And I demur -- let's see how others feel about details of medical conditions being in BLPs.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on Lucien Bouchard says he had flesh-eating disease, the article on Jack Layton said he had cancer, and the article on Rob Ford says he has weight and substance abuse problems.  And Flaherty himself disclosed his condition when the symptoms began to appear.  TFD (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: First you well know "otherstuffexists" is a very weak argument to make.  Second, we are only dealing with the case at hand.  Third, in what way is having a skin disease actually important to his notability?   I submit, by the way, that having a skin disease, even a melanoma, is not exactly comparable in any way to "substance abuse" so I toss that one right out.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That one sentence Collect removed is a prime example of WP:NOTNEWS. It might just as well have said his hair started going grey at 50. Medical conditions should be in BLPs only if they had a notable impact on the subject's life (e.g., Lance Armstrong's cancer). If the subject had to retire early because of a condition (sports athletes come to mind), then the condition should be mentioned. --NeilN talk to me 22:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, not a perfectly straightforward call. On the one hand, the skin ailment is not life-threatening, and Flaherty claims it will not prevent him from running again in the next election. Moreover, he says that it does not even hinder him in doing his job as minister. On the other hand, the illness was widely reported in Canada a few weeks ago, and it has affected his appearance in recent months, due to the strength of the medication. Also, it did provoke some speculation that he may not run in the next election. So it’s neither a very important detail nor a trivial one. What makes the difference for me is remembering that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, and as such the bar is higher re: how significant to a subject’s life an item must be in order to be worthy of mention . Seems to me that if this skin problem were to be noted at all in this article, it should be in a later section, if an appropriate one were to be found. Putting this information in the lead puts undue emphasis on its importance. EMP (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Someone's face turning red, their appearing tired and working fewer hours are different from one's hair turning gray.  People don't give press conferences about their hair color and it does not lead to discussion of retirement.  It is only fair to the subject to provide an explanation.  Collect, you said medical details were irrelevant to BLPs of politicians - I provided three examples where they were all of which were announced by the subjects themselves and received media coverage.  In each case they led to discussion of resignation.  TFD (talk) 00:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One of which is a "BDP", and one of which is a condition which affects the person's acts ... sorry TFD, there is a solid reason why we do not list everyone's medical conditions in their biographies.   And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is your problem here.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We put in what rs find important.  If you think Flaherty should not have disclosed this information and MSM should not have reported it, then that is a problem with what MSM find important, and you should complain to the Press Complaints Council.  TFD (talk) 01:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We summarize what rs find important. One politician where I live vowed to stop smoking as part of one of those "Get Healthy" campaigns. It was reported on. He failed. It was reported on. Does it belong in his biography? No. --NeilN talk to me 02:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends.  We normally do not report on whether individuals are smokers, although Fidel Castro's giving up cigars and asking Cubans to stop smoking is mentioned in his article.  TFD (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

text: We also mention that Jean Chrétien has Bell's palsy, facial paralysis and is deaf in one ear.  None of that stopped him from becoming prime minister and holding the office for over a decade.  TFD (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it occurred to you that this is a non-debilitating skin condition readily treatable with no adverse effect on anything much at all?  Not "deafness" or "cancer" or "paralysis" or the like.   Do you see the difference?  Ought we report in Wikipedia's voice that Bill Clinton had acne?  Really?  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

text: I don't care what party, country or anything a person is - I have well over 3000 pages watchlisted, and I happen to regard WP:BLP as a non-negotiable Wikipedia policy.   I know a politician with a nasty ingrown toenail, and another who is likely to have a stroke -- and neither belongs in an encyclopedia article.   As for being on "percription (sic) drug in some way or other for the rest of his life" - that applies to an outright majority of people over 60.  (in fact 70% of all Americans, etc.) Really. Collect (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  skin conditions are medical in nature  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Jim Flaherty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081209012219/http://canadianpress.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5icnUoJmXDHEK4LdEVO1eZYb3ir1g to http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5icnUoJmXDHEK4LdEVO1eZYb3ir1g
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Flaherty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160106235956/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=79e62b28-720f-461d-8820-da827d78406f to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=79e62b28-720f-461d-8820-da827d78406f
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810120708/http://www.jimflahertymp.ca/ to http://www.jimflahertymp.ca/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Jim Flaherty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140228160726/http://www.jimflahertymp.ca/jim-flaherty/about-jim to http://www.jimflahertymp.ca/jim-flaherty/about-jim
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140228160726/http://www.jimflahertymp.ca/jim-flaherty/about-jim to http://www.jimflahertymp.ca/jim-flaherty/about-jim
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070325125029/http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=539d04fe-471d-4cfa-9fc6-af81edc7e085 to http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=539d04fe-471d-4cfa-9fc6-af81edc7e085
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414110955/http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnists/story.html?id=67793cff-2765-40f4-b7c4-da81bc190f09 to http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/columnists/story.html?id=67793cff-2765-40f4-b7c4-da81bc190f09
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414121015/http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=23b64120-93fc-4783-84f6-3b70d3a7f0fd&k=97729 to http://www.financialpost.com/scripts/story.html?id=23b64120-93fc-4783-84f6-3b70d3a7f0fd&k=97729
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140517040846/http://tfsa.gc.ca/ to http://www.tfsa.gc.ca/
*Added  tag to http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hC85lSgl9cX-zg9HGBYbVu2QIBaQ
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130802192839/http://www.thewesternstar.com/News/Local/2013-03-22/article-3205324/Greeley-pleased-to-see-new-Building-Canada-plan-in-federal-budget/1 to http://www.thewesternstar.com/News/Local/2013-03-22/article-3205324/Greeley-pleased-to-see-new-Building-Canada-plan-in-federal-budget/1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Flaherty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130918201834/http://www.princeton.edu/canadian/history/CanadianStudiesAnnualReport2007-08.pdf to https://www.princeton.edu/canadian/history/CanadianStudiesAnnualReport2007-08.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414063135/http://www2.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/viewpoints/story.html?id=0186111b-896d-469b-b0f6-43346a03fd3c&p=1 to http://www2.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/viewpoints/story.html?id=0186111b-896d-469b-b0f6-43346a03fd3c&p=1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: WP:SYNTH is important. The section about his personal life and death seems to have a problem.
Current version:
In January 2013, Flaherty announced he had bullous pemphigoid.[58] He was treated with prednisone, a corticosteroid with powerful known side effects.[59]
Flaherty died on April 10, 2014, at his home in Ottawa after suffering a heart attack at the age of 64.[60] One doctor, in commenting on Flaherty's medical condition said: "When you see someone of his age pass away and it was, for all intents and purposes, suddenly, you have to start asking these types of questions [about side-effects]".[59]
---
I looked up citation 59. Nowhere does it say that heart attack is a side effect of prednisone. Therefore, I will modify the passage to read
In January 2013, Flaherty announced he had bullous pemphigoid.[58] He was treated with prednisone.[59]
Flaherty died on April 10, 2014, at his home in Ottawa after suffering a heart attack at the age of 64.[60] 
Disclaimer: until today, I never heard of Flaherty. I am not for or against him because I don't know who he was, as a politician. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:SYNTH