Talk:Paul Martin/Archive 1

message: Rt. Hon. Paul Edgar Philippe Martin
                     	
Rank:                	21st Prime Minister of Canada
First Term of Office:	December 12, 2003 - February 6, 2006
Predecessor:         	Jean Chrétien
Successor            	Stephen Harper
Birth:               	August 28, 1938
Place of Birth:      	Windsor, Ontario
Spouse:              	Sheila Martin
Profession:          	CEO
Political Party:     	Liberal
Religion:            	Roman Catholic
No need for Leader of the opposition box, just a mention. 20:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just in case

message: Martin resigned from cabinet as far as I know.  However, when I made that change, The Tom reverted it.  How about some discussion on this?  The thing is, he was organizing a leadership campaign--that we know for sure.  Chretien obviously took a dim view of that.  However, whether he jumped or was pushed from cabinet depends on one's perspective.  We do know that he resigned. I would like to just state that. Sunray 01:32, 2003 Dec 25 (UTC)
The most widely held and accepted beliefe in Canada is that he was pushed, and indeed based on the way Chretien frequently behaved this is the most likely of the two to be true.--Meanie 17:45, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Did he jump or was he pushed?

message: Hi, I have heard from many people who don't like Prime Minister Paul Martin that because of the locations his ships sail from (The Canadian Steamship Lines) do not require him to pay taxes to his own government. Is this true, and is he what you would call a tax evader?
: I'm not exactly sure, but I do believe that some things that may seem to be "tax evasion" to poor and middle-class people are perfectly legal for the rich. If you want to find out more, I recommend reading Robert Kiyosaki's Rich Dad, Poor Dad. --Metric1031 01:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tax evasion is an illegal activity.  Tax avoidance, which is what Martin's former companies have done, is perfectly legal.  HistoryBA 13:20, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Martin a tax evader?

message: It is prudent that you find a more high quality and better looking photograph. Must I compare it to Bush's? --Vancouver123 20:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the official photo from the Privy Council Office website - if you can find a higher-resolution version of it, go ahead and put it up.  I put it there to replace one of a series of unflattering photos that were chosen to make him look bad (admittedly, he doesn't photograph well). Geoff NoNick 04:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me - certainly gives a better impression of what he looks like than mine. Geoff NoNick 18:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not a huge fan of this photo - I realize it's official, but it's damned unflattering.  Any objections if we go back to the campaign photo (smiling in from of the Liberal banner)? Geoff NoNick 02:57, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Just FYI that if the anonymous IP user reverts the photo once more on 6 November he/she will be in violation of the Three Revert Rule and can be blocked for a period of time. 23skidoo 21:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: I added a paragraph regarding Martin's unexpected appearance tonight on Corner Gas. I am 99% certain my statement that he is the first sitting PM to appear on a sitcom is correct, but am willing to be corrected if anyone can find evidence that any PM before him did likewise while in office. I believe Chretien and maybe Mulroney appeared on Air Farce or 22 Minutes or some such show during their terms, but those aren't sitcoms. 23skidoo 06:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Corner Gas

message: This revert war regarding the photo is ridiculous. The close-up shot is better than the long-shot and it is the official bio photo to boot. If people keep messing around perhaps it might be time to lock the article from editing for awhile. 23skidoo 19:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Time to lock the article

message: The photo the anonymous IP user keeps adding in makes him look like a cross between someone in front of a firing squad and a dummy in Madame Tussauds. (It is also off centre.) Please stop adding it in before we get sued by him for visual defamation! lol user_talk:Jtdirl 00:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't help but wonder if there isn't an anti-Martin agenda at work regarding the photo. The close-up shot is a perfectly reasonable headshot that is also consistent with the format of other prime minister photos in Wikipedia. The shot of him up against the wall is uncomplimentary, makes him look like he just farted, and on top of it all is not consistent with the way the PM photos are treated. 23skidoo 01:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Photo of Adolf Hitler added by IP:192.245.224.238 to replace portrait photo. Another user reverted the article to correct the problem. --Adam Clark(User_Talk) (email) 00:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo debate

message: I'm concerned about the removal of the "goddamn Red Book" quote. If it's a genuine quote, it should be there. If it was said in a "fit of anger" as HistoryBA says, then this context should be provided as a footnote. My concern is that by removing this quote this article could be seen as displaying a bit of pro-Martin/pro-Liberal bias by trying to remove a "wart" from his profile. I'm no conservative supporter so there's no agenda here on my part...but I just came back from voting to defend an article on criticisms of Wikipedia (currently up for AFD) in which Wikipedia is being criticized for alleged bias. If the quote is fictitious, then by all means delete it. If it's not, and if it has been printed in other media, it needs to be kept, and if there is doubts as to its veracity, then this should be noted. I'm not desiring to start a revert war so I'd rather see discussion and consensus about this. 23skidoo 17:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not have a strong opinion over whether the quotation should be included.  I do, however, strongly believe that the context (including Martin's propensity for shooting off his mouth in fits of anger and saying things that he does not believe) must be included. Whether or not it is a "genuine quote" seems irrelevant to me.  After all, we don't include everything Martin has ever said, only things that we believe are relevant. HistoryBA 21:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the quote (and I have seen it before, just don't know where but in print media I know for sure) merits being included in the article in order to give a balanced view of Martin and his "propensity for shooting off his mouth" as HistoryBA put it is part of him. Put context in with the quote to reflect it being said in anger but don't sanitize his record by omitting it for that reason.--Kalsermar 22:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is unfair to suggest that I am wanting to "sanitize his record."  I am merely asking that we only include items that are significant and that we put them in a proper context.  We should portray the man in a generally accurate way, warts and all, and not include details that, however accurate, would create a false impression.  HistoryBA 22:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Another solution might be to include a section in the article itself on Martin's temper.  The quotation could be included in that section as an illustration.  It could also say that his staff members called his tirades "beatings."  HistoryBA 01:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the above solutions sound fine. To HistoryBA, I wasn't singling you out in the least when I said sanitize his record, I meant it in a general sense.--Kalsermar 02:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Fair enough, but at the same time, I hope you understand that I would naturally assume you were responding to me when I was the only one questioning the inclusion of this quotation, the specific issue we were discussing.  HistoryBA 02:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Next time you add quotes, make sure you don't put them in a way that they could be misread.  I've put the quote in context and added what was said after his first statement.  I'd rather they be removed, however.Habsfannova 03:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Martin quote

message: Does anyone know his religion? Mikeee
RC.  HistoryBA 21:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  His religion? 

message: I think that they are entirely in the wrong order, I have never known LLB, as a academic title come after MP. Plus, Martin isn't a peer so why is it necessary to have PC as a post nominal also. --David_Ferrers 18:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Membership in the Canadian Privy Council confers only the "Hon." style. In Canada "Rt. Hon." (with a couple of exceptions) is only for GGs, PMs, and Chief Justices. All of these Rt Hons are PCs (probably), but the Canadian custom is to use both "Hon"/"Rt Hon" and the PC postnomial. Indefatigable 19:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  His post nominals are a mess on the site 

message: ::I have taken the time to expand, revise, correct and update the article on the Prime Minister. As the article is an "off the top of the head" article, I have attempted to make it sound more professional and comprehensive, and in addition to enure that it is completely NPOV. I have updated the sections on the Atlantic accord dispute, the crossing of the floor by Belinda Stronach, the 2004 Federal Election, the Gay Marriage vote, and the current election campaign dispute between Martin and the US in order to expand the knowledge contained in this article. I feel that these edits provide a more comprehensive look at the events referenced, and that they provide a diversity of views from various sources on all the issues, which will help maintain the neutrality of the article (which, as you all know, is always difficult to do in an article about politics and politicians). If you have any suggestions as to the corrections and to the expansion of the knowledge contained in the article, I would be happy to discuss them here with you. These edits are completely NPOV and all information provided can be backed up upon request, so do not revert the article because of partisan politics. John Hawke 04:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion, Corrections, and Revision of Article 

message: An anonymous editor has deleted the line about Martin being of Metis ancestry. Does this mean this is incorrect? I personally had never heard of this before, but I haven't heard it's not true, either. 23skidoo 05:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Metis ancestry

message: ... not because I want to see Martin lose, but with any luck it'll put an end to all those morons who keep vandalising this article. 23skidoo 05:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I'm afraid I agree with you. I just wish these vandals would realize they're making everyone - Liberals, Conservatives, and NDP supporters alike - look like fools. 23skidoo 15:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: January 23rd can't come fast enough

message: Well, this isn't going anywhere. Let's take it off the Current Events list and have it locked. At least then we will not be undoing vandalism every other day--CNSW 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's wait 36 hours first till the election is over. 23skidoo 20:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's probably worth mentioning at this point that Martin will remain the Prime Minister for up to a month following the election, during which time he may be able to cobble together a coalition government with another party even if the Liberals don't get a plurality of seats .  All this to say, that infoboxx won't be changing any time soon no matter what happens today. Geoff NoNick 19:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock this article?