Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Archive 3

message: I'm curious if anyone has feelings (either way) about including prominent caucus members who support(or criticize) Ignatieff's leadership bid. For instance, senator Roméo Dallaire, who headed the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, is backing Ignatieff. Any thoughts? 72.139.184.107 15:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Caucus supporters are listed along with the candidates at Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006.  A more detailed list, including prominent supporters outside of the federal Liberal caucus, exists at Endorsements for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006.  Methinks that might be enough. -Joshuapaquin 15:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are those links provided in the article? Joel Bastedo 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporters in caucus 

message: So we're having problems with this section:
:Ignatieff has written on Middle Eastern and Balkan affairs but is best known for his scholarship on human rights. Much of his work in this area explores the challenges of ethnic conflict and genocide for the concept of universal human rights. One such challenge being the dangers of nationalism in a post-cold war world. More recently, Ignatieff has proposed that western liberal societies may have to compromise their democratic ideals in order to fight the war on terrorism; "To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war."
Neutrality is only part of the problem. More importantly, this paragraph is part of the "Recognition" section, which is meant to describe things Ignatieff has received recognition for. The lesser evil approach is described in greater detail in the "Ideas: The Lesser Evil Approach" section, and the controversy these ideas has caused is described in the "Controversies: Torture" section. Keeping that in mind, how about reworking the section as I have done in the article?  Joel Bastedo 07:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think what you wrote is very good.  It's concise, and the clipped content is pretty well explained elsewhere in the article. -Joshuapaquin 07:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; well done,Joel. 65.95.149.62 13:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recognition and Lesser Evils 

message: I wonder if someone can expand on the "multiple identities" section. Is this an important idea of Ignatieff's? As it sounds, it seems like just a turn of phrase he once used when describing himself. If that's all it is, perhaps it can be removed?
:Indeed, I was just thinking the same thing yesterday.  As it stands, it's rather small to be a section in itself.  If it can't be fleshed out, let's zap it. -Joshuapaquin 22:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed re; multiple identities. 67.71.121.74 22:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Multiple Identities? 

message: There seems to be some dispute as to whether we need this in the article — some people edit it out, some people revert those edits as "vandalism." It seems to me an interesting bit of trivia, but hardly worth disputing over. I'd say we can lose it. Thoughts?
:Media tidbits
:According to Jane Taber of The Globe and Mail:
::Late last spring (2005), André Boisclair, now the Parti Québécois Leader, graduated from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, where Michael Ignatieff was teaching. As Mr. Boisclair was coming off the stage with his diploma, Dr. Ignatieff was there to shake his hand. "So are you going home?" Dr. Ignatieff asked the Quebec sovereignist. (Former PQ leader Bernard Landry had just surprised everyone by announcing his resignation.) "I think so. Will I meet you there?" asked Mr. Boisclair, who served as a minister in PQ governments. Said Dr. Ignatieff, "We'll see."
Joel Bastedo 15:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed a while ago; .  It was certainly tolerable when the article was still small and the leadership had not yet heated up; it wasn't 'substantive' but nonetheless interesting.  Now, I think, the article has matured to the point where that which isn't substantive really should go. -Joshuapaquin 06:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That was me questioning it in earlier:  (I have opened an account since then). It's neither substantive nor interesting and is more suited to a tabloid than an encyclopedia. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just deleted it. Joel Bastedo 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Media Tidbits": In or out? 

message: I've just cut the following out of "Ideas: On Canadian rights culture" because it seems unrelated. If this information should be in the article, would it be better in the Controversy section? Or perhaps we need to make a new section for "Things about Ignatieff that We Don't Like"? (Kidding, but seriously, let's try to keep our contributions encyclopedic and informative, not calculated to harm or help someone's political campaign.)
:In other writings. Ignatieff has drawn fire for comparing Quebec to Haiti, in his novel "Blood and Belonging". He has futhermore refused to eendorse Medicare or the Kyoto Protocal, instead, preferrring the "home-grown" solutions of Prime Minister Harper and U.S. President George W. Bush. 
Joel Bastedo 16:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  Yeah, that's reaching.  Google News searches on ignatieff kyoto or ignatieff haiti turn up, well, nothing at all to substantiate those claims.  Also, Blood and Belonging is not a novel.  -Joshuapaquin 06:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haiti and Kyoto 

message: To those who keep reverting and citing lack of consensus: consensus is achieved here, on the discussion page. Most of the edits that you think have been censored by "pro-Iggy" or "anti-Iggy" editors have really been moved here and are waiting to be discussed. Other edits you are reverting involve gramatical, stylistic, or organizational corrections which have nothing to do with your imagined polemic debate. So rather than charging in with your reverts and your accusations of censorship ablazing, how about reading through the discussion and helping to work toward that consensus you demand? Joel Bastedo 01:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On consensus 

message: The following passage has been removed several times from the Background section, but it keeps getting reverted back without explanation. Can anyone justify having it in there?
:The November 11,1998 Publisher's Weekly article said; "Ignatieff obliquely acknowledged the breakup of his own marriage some five years ago and the burden on his two children. 'One place I felt conflict between incommensurable moral values is in my own life.' Staying in a difficult marriage, he says, 'is misdescribed if it's simply seen as a conflict between selfishness and duty'."
Joel Bastedo 06:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this doesn't seem particularly helpful.  More like quotation for quotation's sake; the biographical details are relevant to the article, but these comments aren't. -Joshuapaquin 07:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should stay because there is nothing else at all about his children. 65.95.151.150 11:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked the entries on the other leadership candidates for comparison, and none of them provide any more than the number and sometimes the names of the candidates' children. Bennett's two children aren't named and neither are Dryden's. Bevilacqua's two children are named, as are Kennedy's and the four Volpe children, but no more details are provided. The other entries don't mention offspring, and the articles on Dion, Fry, and Hall Findlay don't discuss their personal lives at all. Already, we say that he is married to one woman and has two children from a previous marriage. Do we really need a quote explaining that the first marriage was difficult and the divorce was a burden on the children? Wouldn't most readers assume as much? —Joel Bastedo 15:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It does seem unusual. Attempts to focus on the private life or children of public figures is unseemly and I could not see any modern encyclopedia doing so. Kind of reminds me of those American style smear campaigns, like those aimed at Bill Clinton back in the early 1990's (or John Kerry more recently). For a period, there was a concerted effort to dig up some "dirt" on Chelsea Clinton, or Clinton's capacity as a father, even before his Lewinsky shenanigans. -- Finnegans wake 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I sort of doubt it's a smear in the Canadian context or a POV issue.  It's a bit in depth for a short bio.  Let's not start turning on pov shadows here.  I'm the pro-Ignatieff editor here, if any is to be found suspicious, and this is no biggie. --Haligonian Lucullus 00:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just checked out our article on John Kerry; it has lots of info on his children and 1st.wife  so....?It really seems like any information about Iggy's personal or professional past which isn't glowing is seen as being a smear and not relevant by some editors.Iggy predicted terrorist interference in the 2004 US presidential election within his Times "lesser evils" op-ed. To me that is quite a dramatic thing to predict for a level headed liberal academic yet it isn't even specifically mentioned in the article. I'm really surprised to read opinions that the article is too negative or a "smear". To me it looks like something Iggy's campaign staff put together with a token attempt to APPEAR npov. 65.95.150.229 00:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OMG!! YOU'RE RIGHT!!! PRO-IGGY STAFFERS SANITIZING AGAIN!!!! I would suggest actively engaging in discussion and justifying your POV, 65.95.150.229 as repeating conspiracy theories and hurling accusations everywhere just don't cut it. My point was not that that particular quote or article was a "smear", obviously not. My point is that focusing on a public figure's private life is unseemly in encyclopedia articles. I'm not sure John Kerry is a good comparator for Canadian politics. Wouldn't the wiki articles of other leadership candidates be more appropriate? -- Finnegans wake 01:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't misrepresent; I do not think there is any conspiracy; I simply have the opinion that the article is quite POV in favour of Iggy and I really don't know or even care why that might be. No, Kerry is a much better comparable as he was the leader of the "opposition" in the last US election and it's very likely Iggy will be the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada as most analysts agree he is far and away the front runner. I certainly feel his own comments about his family are more relevant to the man than the titles and achievements of his ancestors; but I respect everyone else's opinion to feel that stuff is important. I think that there has been too many superlatives thrown around in the discussion "toxic","smear","conspiracy theories" etc. and I suggest these quite derogatory references impede the collaborative process, I think. Please remember that assuming good faith "is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. 64.229.31.49 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 64.229.31.49, please see my above response to FW and weigh in on the issue.  Ironically we both appear to feel the article is inappropriately POV in opposite directions, but I think creating a new article would enable both fair proportional balance in this article and free expression for those feeling that the controversies are a major topical interest.  If it merits dominating this document, it merits its own document, does it not? --Haligonian Lucullus 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflections on marital breakdown.