Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Archive 5

message: The previous talk page was getting really hard to read, due to both length and number of threads. I've removed most of the previous talk page and archived it to Archive 4. If anyone feels that I've snipped too much, please feel free to repost. Otherwise, I'm just going to bask in how blissfully short this page is. (For now, anyway...) 198.20.40.50 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived and Trimmed 

message: I've cleaned up a few of the references, but the article could use the help of a dedicated wikipedian or two to get some consistency in the format and style of the links. Any brave souls want to volunteer? 198.20.40.50 19:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV#Undue_weight is the policy on undue weight; I think it's valuable reading given that this is still in large measure the "Ignatieff Controversy Article" given the title Michael Ignatieff.  The policy seems fairly clear; random IPs and the Etobicoke Lakeshore NDP riding association are not prominent adherents.  I'm not sure if there's a specific tag for 'undue weight,' but I can't find it if there is. --Haligonian Lucullus 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue Weight

message: Originally, I was planning to flush out the "List of articles by Ignatieff" but have discovered that he's a more prolific writer than I originally thought. Thus, there are lots of articles by him - maybe too many to list under this entry. So, here's the question: Which ones should we link to and/or list? I'm tempted to say "Important Ones", but that's a can of worms I'm not certain I want to open. So should we list all of them? Only ones that are on-line? Only the controversial ones (and risk undue weight)? I've included a version that goes back to 2002 - suggestions on where to take this would be much appreciated. Ideally, I'd also like to find a solution that doesn't involve triplicate "References/External Links/Biography" links. 198.20.40.50 18:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of articles by Ignatieff 

message: Please know you're not fooling anyone. 70.48.204.147 00:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Iggy influence on this article is obvious and laughable 

message: And whether you agree or not, the references which might cause some people to believe that can't be just swept under the carpet because the "constant editors" here seem to want to put Iggy's views in the best possible light by rationalizations and psuedointellectual dismissal. 70.48.204.147 00:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yawn. 72.139.184.107 03:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some editors feel Iggy's views are bizarre to say the least

message: Susan Barrowclough, Iggy's first wife, and mother of his children, likely knows him better than most other sources quoted in the article. Her statements are not slanderous in any way and since her phone number is also included in one of the sources; any efforts to continue to revert her comments should be seen as pov pushing. 70.48.205.4 02:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. If her comments are true then we should leave this in the article. FellowWikipedian 02:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, they're not true, and unsourced. Thus, no inclusion. 198.20.40.50 04:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iggy's first wife's comments 

message: * I think it's well established that Ignatieff has a few (very) vocal critics. At least one of these is a Bell sympatico user with a dynamic IP address, who consistently tries to add an Anti-Ignatieff slant to this article. (If you want to see for yourself, do an ARIN whois lookup on the anonymous Anti-Iggy edits and you'll find that nearly all of them come the same block). Now, he's making foundless accusation. Joel Bastardo, JGGardiner, and a few others have been consistently balanced in trying to create a neutral POV in this article, whereas this anonymous Bell user spews nothing but bias. Feel free to ignore his rantings - I know I will. 198.20.40.50 19:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bell Sympatico is the largest ISP in Canada and likely has a million or more users just within the Toronto megalopolis (4 million people total); I myself use sympatico.I don't know that much about multiple accounts but I would endorse a complete check-user scan of all contributors who have made more than 5 edits on this article. I myself am suspicious that even a few of the  non-anons are sockpuppets of each other. Ottawaman 00:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think checkuser is generally reserved for more serious matters than this.  Admins like to err on the side of privacy, and rightly so. -Joshuapaquin 01:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ottawaman - I've got a static IP address and if you check my edits, you'll see I've been a Wiki contributer for a long time. Same with most of the long-time editors here. So I'm skeptical that Ignatieff was clever enough to plant us before even becoming a candidate. 198.20.40.50 04:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No, he doesn't.

message: Antignatieff.blogspot.com is a simple POV, please Joel Bastedo... B. Huot
::A blog with a single post - an imaginary interview of the candidate?  No, we can't reasonably include that in the article. -Joshuapaquin 21:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. 198.20.40.50 22:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't get it. Why did you say "please Joel Bastedo"? —Joel Bastedo 23:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes...

message: A quote from Wikipedia's policy on the Biography of living people....
In a nutshell: Articles about living persons require a degree of sensitivity and must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page.  Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.
Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies:
* Verifiability
* Neutral point of view
* No original research
We must get the article right.  Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", Jimmy Wales, May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006 These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles.  The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.
Given the above, I don't see any way that the ex-wife interview can be included. 198.20.40.50 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am really confused. If this interview with Barrowclough is verified as being accurate and Ignatieff never responds to her statements, would the interview be disallowed? Ottawaman 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If this edit is true, then it would appear that some editors here are grossly mis-stating or mis-representing wikipedia policy in efforts to control content in this article. I suggest that no more references to restrictive policies be made except by administrators. I am wondering how many other times policy has been mis-stated in this article in order to keep out information which is not in Iggy's favor. 70.48.206.115 14:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia policy

message: Why was Barrowclough's name removed? and why were these edits removed? (which I believe had been in the article peacefully for months) Ottawaman 12:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. I was trying to remove the link to the SB article and took more than I was supposed to. 72.139.185.19 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the other edits, you'll see they've been moved the ideas section. I've removed your edits, as they left the same block of text appearing twice. 72.139.185.19 18:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I think the lesser evils and torture sections of "controversies" do belong there as they are the most controversial aspects of Ignatieff's career thus far. You may remove them from the ideas section if you wish. Ottawaman 19:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the permission. However, if you take a look above, you'll see that consensus was reached some time ago about including these ideas under the ideas section. And don't create more work for other people - at least finish your edits properly (i.e.: remove the duplicated text), rather than just reposting the same bit of text twice. 198.20.40.50 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Barrowclough's name and other edits 

message: :::Can't you post the audio file on Wikinews or Commons?  Is there a technical reason why you can't?  It's not that I don't believe the file exists, just that it really needs to be publically accessible if it's going to be counted as "verification".  Also, I certainly hope that Ms. Barrowclough was informed that her comments were being recorded. -Joshuapaquin 01:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  First you assumed it was "an imaginary interview of the candidate? No, we can't reasonably include that in the article. -Joshuapaquin 21:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not that technically adept but if someone will tell me how to post it on commons and I would be glad to do so. I am getting this message at commons "".wav" is not an allowed file format. See Commons:File types for more information." Or, I could email it to anyone here who would like it and maybe they could convert it to the correct format for Commons. 65.95.151.40 01:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're referring to something completely different, my comment on the "Anti-Ignatieff blog" that someone kept putting in the article.  The blog had a single entry, which was an (admittedly) fake interview.  This should have been pretty clear given the context, and I don't feel compelled to apologize for anything.  Anyway, get that audio file posted, please, if you want it to count toward the credibility of the Wikinews article. -Joshuapaquin 02:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Posting the Audio file 

message: I have set up the email address Barrowcloughinterview@yahoo.com for anyone who wishes to receive the Barrowclough interview verification audiofile; just email me there. 65.95.151.40 01:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just Wikipedia editors that the verification must be available to; it should be clear to readers as well.  That's only feasible if the recording is made publicly available.  I'm sure that the folks at Commons or Wikinews will help you find a way to make that happen. -Joshuapaquin 03:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it makes no difference whether an audiofile of an interview obtained by a wiki editor is available to the general public or not -- it's still original research, and in this case, it still has nothing to do with the article. If you wish, 65.95.151.40, you could start a wiki entry entitled "Susan Barrowclough's private criticism of her ex-husband" in which you can include the entire transcript of the interview, or any portions you find most juicy. It would be fun to see how long that would last before being deleted, but in the meantime, the information would be in the appropriate place. The appropriate place is not in this article, no matter how well documented the interview becomes. (Unless it is picked up by mainstream media and becomes an important factor in the leadership campaign.) Remember, this isn't investigative journalism! —Joel Bastedo 23:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Special email set up for the audiofile 

message: Joshuapaquin is insisting that it be posted on commons or here; would someone who knows how (I don't know how either) please email the address they set up Barrowcloughinterview@yahoo.com and get it and post it? good grief. (btw; I got the audiofile and listened to it; it is completely legitimate and says exactly what was put into the articles by the interviewer) Ottawaman 20:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone help with the posting of the audiofile? 

message: I'm not referring to verifiability or anything.  Let's assume it's all true.  So, the question is: why should it be included? Other than recognizing her existence and the names of the children, it seems ... so unneccessary.  That and the facts about her reviews being used by universities seems shockingly irrelevant.  --Hamiltonian 15:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I suppose we could have a brief mention of her occupation, e.g. "and has two children from his first marriage to British film reviewer Susan Barrowclough".  Nothing more than that is relevant, though. -Joshuapaquin 20:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Including Barrowclough's interview 

message: ::*Very strange objections above. Why do the 2 editors above not remove the 13 lines of similar family information in John Kerry's article devoted to his first wife and their children? 
::*And if those 2 editors will not do that on Kerry's article, why do they insist upon doing it here? 65.95.150.236 00:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The state of one article has nothing to do with the state of another.  Additionally, the Kerry paragraphs are based on legitimate published sources, not a phone-taped interview posted by an anonymous contributor to Wikinews.  --Hamiltonian 00:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems odd to me and completely arbitrary that you have determined Ignatieff's bio should be shorter than John Kerry's. Ottawaman 12:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: John Kerry was the democratic nominee for the President of the United States. I hardly see how you could ever compare them. --mboverload@ 12:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange and selective objections 

message: You two ever think of taking turns, each turn to last 2 days, make all the additions you want? Proposed deletions must be quoted on discussion page before deletion? WP:CITE and WP:V kind of suggest this sort of useable approach in a problematic area. Sheesh, I thought I had problems where I'm editing ! Terryeo 03:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Taking turns

message: Tyrenius has twice deleted comments made by Terryeo. This is contrary to Talk page guidelines which state, under the heading "Behaviour that is unacceptable":
Don't edit others' comments: Refrain from editing others' comments without their permission (with the exception of prohibited material such as libel and personal details). It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.
Whatever Tyrenius may think of the appropriateness of the comment is really not the issue; nor is he the arbiter of talk page standards. Sunray 15:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of another user's comments