Talk:Belinda Stronach/Archive 3

message: Ms Stronach's article has recently been included in the category feminist.  So, to be added to this list, should someone be a prominent theorist of feminism, or a prominent advocate of feminism?  Or is it enough to be merely a prominent person who is supportive of the principles of feminism?  If it is the former, what notable things has she written about feminism?  Which notable speeches as she given, what notable actions as she taken?  --  Geo Swan 15:45, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
:Good guestions.  I don't see her as being notable as a feminist, and don't think she belongs in that category. Sunray 16:18, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)
Ditto with "LGBT Activist". If voting for SSM is enough to qualify one in that category we're going to have to include the entire Canadian Cabinet (including Paul Martin) and (likely) a majority of MPs and Senators as LGBT activists. AndyL 13:03, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A feminist ? 

message: Again, with the ftlcomm link that was just the subject of a couple reversions, Michaelm brings in a site that despises and insults Ms. Stronach ("intellect... reminded me of Paris Hilton... appalling lack of forethought... nothing short of reckless... nonsensical")... apparently to support his argument that political observers see her as a social democrat and a plausible member of the NDP.
We've been through this before, and again, all these sites are doing is attacking them all at once, and you seem to be asking us to believe them when they compare her with the NDP, but to disbelieve them on their main arguments that she's a dangerous idiot. I did not rush to join the group who have endorsed the RFC, and I'm not endorsing it now. But this is exactly what many others have said you do – you keep reverting and we keep getting into discussions where the consensus disagrees with you, and you may eventually go along with consensus ('OK I'll stop'), but then you'll put all the editors through much the same argument all over again about another sentence or source. This has been going on constantly since late last year.
Michaelm, do you think you could fundamentally change the way you make your decisions about how to edit this article, so we don't go keep running over these same circles again and again? Samaritan 02:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet flames as sources, and the endless cycle of edits

message: replacing the paragraph on the Mercer show to "In Parliament, Stronach has been a prominent supporter of a push by MPs, across party lines, to lower the voting age in Canadian federal elections to 16.", with the edit summary "actually, I"m going to argue that a politician appearing on a politics-oriented TV show is non-notable. a new sentence about her advocacy with other MPon the voting age *is*." ...wasn't "minor." It was going to be minor but I got ahead of myself and didn't remove the checkbox. I'm sorry! I didn't mean to mislead. Samaritan 01:49, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: My last edit,

message: I never noticed this before!
Curiously, none other than Michaelm reverted it just a few minutes later... Samaritan 23:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Curiosity

message: From the passage in Political positions, "On social issues, Stronach is generally to the left of her Conservative caucus colleagues. She supports abortion rights, feminism, gun control and same-sex marriage," I removed feminism.
To the that extent Stronach is concerned with the rights of women to vote, work, be taken seriously for senior positions, etc., which certainly she is, most or all of her Conservative caucus colleagues would agree with her. To the extent support for abortion rights and same-sex marriage can be seen as feminist positions, those are already covered, are supported by some other Conservative MPs, and can be supported without any gender analysis. The article shouldn't leave the impression that she offers a critique of gender relations as a major part of her politics, or that she's associated with what people would understand as the Canadian feminist movement (Judy Rebick, etc.).
Of course, the information that she was considered one of "the world's most powerful women in business" stays. Samaritan 18:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Feminism

message: Although the correct Canadian spelling is "honour" (instead of "honor"), when dealing with the word "honorary", this is always the correct spelling.  See Dave VE7CNV's Truly Canadian Dictionary of Canadian Spelling for a reference.  I also checked Merriam-Webster OnLine.  "honor", "honour", and "honorary" are all listed, but "honourary" does not appear.  -- JamesTeterenko 20:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, it seems. That spelling looks unexpectedly odd.  Mindmatrix 20:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I have personally probably spelled it wrong more often than I have spelled it right.  Unfortunately, he English language isn't usually logical.  -- JamesTeterenko 21:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  honorary vs. honourary