Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Archive 1

message: A general question- why is Ignatieff listed as a philosopher?  His degree is in history, not philosophy, he doesn't teach in a philosophy department, he's not considered a philosopher by professional philosophers, and while some of his work might be "philosophical" it can't properly be called philosophy.  It might be better to place him in a different category.
-RESPONSE: Ignatieff is listed in every major book store in the philosophy section. Political philosophy is philosophy. He is also an expert in 18th century philosophy, and has taught on this subject. Hume, Locke, etc. = philosophy. The Rights Revolution is a modern philosophy. If he is not a philosopher than neither is Noam Chomsky, yet I see no questioning of that. 
-Similarly, Ignatieff's "A Just Measure of Pain" is widely cited as a companion to Michel Foucault's "Discipline and Punish." They are equally philosophical works and Foucault is undisputedly considered a philosopher. We must not allow political concerns of a time-bound nature to re-shape our perception of reality. Human rights as politics and idolatry is also a philosophical work. This is reaching ridiculous proportions (this debate).
Another general question about the bias in recent edits of this (and indeed in the current one). Many of these critics are Gerard Kennedy supporters. I reccomend someone compare these two entries, to see just how much Ignatieff supporters are "putting in the fix" as it is suggested. More importantly, look at how Kennedy's page only speaks of his accomplishments. He doesn't have failings you say? Well, would a conservative not say he believes in a socialist vision of the country, or even colleauge Dwight Duncan say he would've taken Ontario into the poorhouse and is fiscally irresponsible? Can't conservatives now point to his success with the teacher's unions and say well he is caving to special interests? I think the answer is no to all these questions. These criticisms range from absurd to unecessary in such a forum. They are not facts, they are opinions. Yet with Ignatieff's entry they dominate. Kennedy's page lists every single supporter, Ignatieff's lists none (this would be seen as too promoting!) and even listing a positive accomplishment is criticized. This is all the evidence in the world. The critiques of Kennedy I gave above I'm sure strike you all as things that would be suprising to find on a wikipedia entry. Yet why a double standard for Ignatieff? Looking at it in this light you see how ridiculously biased these attacks have become. If it is only fairness and accuracy these people seek why have they not destroyed that entry as well? I hope they don't, though I could see them now doing so to prove a point but that would prove nothing as it is only with my pointing it out. And it certainly has not been a site unvisited before based on its enumeration of supporters (when they are not well known they are not relevant to an encyclopedia). I also encourage Ignatieff supporters not to deface this site though they have not yet despite their supposed deceitfullness.   This speaks volumes!
:Let's not speculate about the motives of other editors.  Please remember to assume good faith.  --JGGardiner 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General discussion 

message: I was speaking to a few people and feel that the statements in regards to Ignatieff's support for the Iraq invasion are a bit simplistic.  Necessary caveats are omitted and should be added to clarify Ignatieff's position.  He supports the invasion on Iraq from a theoretical standpoint, but let's make no qualms about it - he did not support the US invasion of Iraq...
From his "Lesser Evils" article in the NY Times:
"We need national and international rules to control such wars. This may require both Congressional legislation and United Nations resolutions. Pre-emptive war can be justified only when the danger that must be pre-empted is imminent, when peaceful means of averting the danger have been tried and have failed and when democratic institutions ratify the decision to do so. 
If these are the minimum tests pre-emptive war has to meet, the Iraq war failed to meet all three."  slaman 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraq Controversy 

message: Can someone flag this article, asking that it be cleaned up and conform to a higher level of quality?
As written, it could be a poster child for Wikipedia's shortcomings. It's lttle more than a poorly written cut-and-paste job from a hodge podge of newspaper sources. The persepctive is also skewed -- too much on the lead up to Ignatieff's entry into politics ad not enough on his human rights work.  
Can we have a bit more on his academic career? It goes beyond Iraq and torture. Thes entinel 05:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's Start Over.... 

message: That's all very well but how do you pronounce his name? ZephyrAnycon 18:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just asked him his name (I didn't recognize him; he seemed annoyed at that) and he said it four simple syllables, stress on the second: ig-NA-tee-eff. Does that belong in the article?  moink 04:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronounce

message: Here is a link to the controversial excerpt from Ignatieff's book Blood and Belonging about Ukraine: .
t seems worthy of inclusion in some fashion, but as the entire argument centers around whether it was taken out of context, it seems POV to just stick it in verbatim.  Any ideas? --Saforrest 03:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's weird; can't the reader tell from the book what the context is? Ignatieff,like most politicians, lies...as in "I'll live in the riding if I win the MP spot". 70.48.207.187 03:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Ignatieff's book 

message: Strange that this has so little about MI in the UK - where he lived for most of the last 30 years ... Charles Matthews 13:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and where are his kids living and did he just abandon them when he went to Harvard? The kids have not been in Canada at all, as far as anybody can tell. 70.48.207.187 03:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: In the UK?

message: "According to a press release by members of the riding association, a nomination meeting was set for November 30, 2005 by the Liberal Party leadership, mere hours after the resignation of Liberal MP Jean Augustine was announced on Friday November 25, with the deadline to file as a candidate in the nomination meeting set for 5 pm the next day. Despite such short notice, two candidates other than Ignatieff managed to obtain the necessary number of signatures and fill out the nomination papers. "The two candidates delivered their nomination documents to Liberal Party headquarters in Toronto, only to find that the office was locked before the 5:00 p.m. filing deadline. Liberal party staffers could be seen through the second storey windows, but they refused to answer repeated knocking on the doors and phone calls to the office,"[4] according to the press release."
*This reminded me of a common western media theme during the Iranian election. All western media and their mother claimed the religious group over there prevented some people from reistering as candidate. THat is even when they had more candidates than most of the western counties. Well, they whined and whined and the poor decided to vote for someone who can take care of them, fuck those crowns who kept promising liberal social policy when they were fiscally conservative. Ha, I haven't heard of someone who eat liberal social policy for super just to emphasis what is more important. This case is close to what happened in Germany in second world war. Some people ensured that most germans were dirty poor, and they responded by electing who ever promised to take care of their poverty issue, however wacky he is.
*Sorry for drifting away from the topic, but I am finding it hard to see how its acceptable. I would replace the religous group in Iran with western govenment PR ..ehh sorry, I meant to say media and the whole thing would make sense. But, the hypocrates in the west would like us think this is only some Arabs issue. It makes me irratated and can't help whining a bit.
This "press release" is just a blog entry by a professional spin-man, Warren Kinsella. Unless a reputable citation can be found, I recommend it be deleted.
: That whole section needs cleanup, though from a strictly balanced perspective, it is accurate that Ignatieff's nomination was controversial at the time, and it is accurate to document the allegations at the time by some that his acclamation was orchestrated.  I intend to do some work on that part of the article soon if no one else does it. --Chris Thompson 02:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is really odd - how is it different from Iran claim 

message: While Ignatieff's grandfather or even his father may have been White Russians (as in pro-czarist) I don't see how one could classify him as one, as he obviously wasn't alive until the Cold War.
If we are to label children by the political sentiments of their ancestors, well, there's a good I'm probably a Jacobite, though I just don't know it yet. :) --Saforrest 06:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Russians 

message: In reference to the "info request" above, it does seem that what MI says today has little relevance to what he says tomorrow. The Ignatieff supporters I've met have been surprisingly cultlike in their defense of Ignatieff and the "lie" word is quick to come from the Ignatieff camp.A Toronto Star columnist wrote an article referring to Ignatieff's on the record support for, what the columnist called  "torture light". It wasn't long before that large newspaper was issuing an apology, not withstanding Ignatieff's New York Times Op-ed contents; "Here we are deep into lesser-evil territory. Permissible duress might include forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress.". A "key Ignatieff backer"; David Smith is Chairman of one of the most powerful "cross border" law firms in Canada(550 lawyers), so Canadian media may tred lightly from now on. I suppose that Ignatieff might say that his methods of "duress" do not fit the definition of torture. I would be more interested in what Ignatieff's wife's legal status in Canada is (visiter? immigrant?) as that might shed some light upon their long term committment to the country, but Toronto reporters are not known for their inquisitiveness, imo, and Ignatieff's backers are not likely to leave that criticism uncovered; however, the living in the riding lie (if it is one) may indicate a certain Bush type arrogance creeping in. It certainly looks to me as if Ignatieff is unstoppable and that his team knows how to push the right buttons"This is how I envisioned it being used when I helped write it." :) 67.71.122.115 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is really lying? 

message: The "fix is in" is not just some people's imagination. I am in Toronto and I know that Ignatieff supporters are making these edits here already. 
The negative stuff about Ignatieff is also being well kept out of major Canadian media. This sentence; "To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war."in his Times Op-ed is enough to sink him in Canada but it is not being reported at all. Even when the demonstrators brought it up at the Univ. in Ottawa meeting the media reported that Ignatieff "dispelled the notion" that he would support torture in any form. Also, a very serious lawyer I know in Toronto told me Ignatieff has so much "heavyweight American juice" supporting him, even the other Canadian party leaders are afraid of him. Neutralizer 12:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment; Here's the weight, from the websites of Iggy's 2 biggest backers;
Below show his 2 primary backers' cross border business
ambitions which tell us they both are likely to be big
winners financially regardless of whether American wannabe
Ignatieff or Bush's pal Harper leads Canada; By them putting Ignatieff in as Liberal leader, the upcoming election becomes a win-win for these 2 powerhouse backroom bagmen.
Re; David Smith,
"FMC Leadership: An Interview With Senator
David P. Smith. 
‘As part of a 'Special Focus on Canada', Metropolitan
Corporate Counsel featured an interview with FMC Counsel and
Chairman Emeritus, Senator David P. Smith to discuss his
distinguished career in public service, leadership in law
and the ever-strengthening future of the largest bilateral
trade relationship in the world - the U.S. and Canada.’”
*Senator Smith is asked in this interview; 
"What are the ultimate goals that you have for the firm?"
 
His answer is; 
"I would like to see our firm increase the presence we have
today in cross border transactions and trade deals."
________
 
*Re; Alfred Apps;
http://www.fasken.com/WEB/FMDEMPPROF.NSF/0/043960C1C9DB7DFE85256FC50059574C?OpenDocument]
"At The REALM, he completed one of the largest first-round
private equity financings (US$132 Million) during the year
2000 in the United States. Since returning to Canada and
legal practice in 2001, Alfred has completed a number of
significant cross-border acquisitions, divestitures and
financings.”
64.229.65.236 00:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  Mr. Ignatieff's supporters are allowed to edit this page.  I would suggest that you focus on the content rather than speculate about the author.  You may be new to WP so I should let you know that virtually every political page is edited by their own partisans.  Get used to it.  --JGGardiner 00:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, yes, that's true - I was referring to the "very serious lawyer" bit, and should have clarified that. -Joshuapaquin 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Fix is in- that's a fact 

message: I don't know much about the edit wars going on here, but the list of external articles is getting out of hand; most of the links are showing only the URL with no reference to source or author. The citation system should also be cleaned up: Is there a reason why both footnotes and embedded links are being used? 
--Pastricide! <I>Non-absorbing</I> 23:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: I'm guessing it's safe to remove the "future election" tag at this point. That election was three months ago. --Pastricide! <I>Non-absorbing</I> 23:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations: Please Wikify 

message: I realize that opinions diverge about this candidate, but the 'controversies' section rapidly degenerated into a hatchet job of dubiously-selected quotations.  Just adding the paragraph alone that each came from changed the tone immensely.  
A serious issue with this page will be that critics of Ignatieff will want the "controversies" section to dominate the page - as it already does in length - and it's difficult to prevent that without heavy-handed editing on the part of pro-Ignatieff contributers.  As I am a relative newb to wikipedia I've done very little here; I removed the gratiutous "granta" bit which was obviously just meant to sauce-up the rather silly "first person plural" argument which was already stated plainly enough in the preceeding passage.  Other than that I added in Roth's statement in the Star to balance out Gearty's claims (Which I find highly academically dubious; the Bush administration's mentality on torture has been developed wholly independantly of any academic discourses, and then again within the academic discourses, Ignatieff is highly anti-torture both in absolute and relative terms.  The arguments might be made about Alan Dershowitz, but even then I think that the administration's paper trail (now a matter of considerable investigation) has little reference to legitimate academic opinion.  Please pardon my inadvertant newbishness vis a vis the wikipedia interface. Jason Townsend 00:27 GMT April 14
:Comment Re; above- "Ignatieff is highly anti-torture both in absolute and relative terms." is simply not true; In Ignatieff's own words; “To defeat evil,  we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war.” Ignatieff advocates “a lesser evil approach” in which legislation would permit coercive interogation  including "forms of disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress."  70.48.207.187 04:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While those academics clearly disagree with Ignatieff, that does not make him unimportant.  Indeed, they make the point that Ignatieff is too important.  Gearty is clearly suggesting that Ignatieff lends credibility to Rumsefeld et al because he is an "important" academic, as our article now says.  Gearty called him "probably the most important" of those figures which he describes as the "'cerebral praetorian guard,' protecting the masters of Guantánamo Bay".  Aguirre makes the same point, that despite his objectionable views, Ignatieff has a lot of credibility, perhaps too much:
Ignatieff employs two tools in his complex job. First, his credentials: he is the director of a prestigious academic human-rights centre, a skilful writer known for advocating a humanitarian intervention in the Balkan wars, the biographer of the heterodox thinker Isaiah Berlin, and a contributor to the New York Times and New York Review of Books. (from the link in the article)
You see, Geary and Aggy disagree with Iggy but suggests that the problem is that Ignatieff is actually very important and that is why he is a problem as he lends his intellectual cache to Rumsfeld and others.  Perhaps Ignatieff is outside of the mainstream of his colleagues but that doesn't make him unimportant or less of a figure in his discipline.  Indeed, the authors cited above suggest that Ignatieff leads an important and powerful, albeit morally wrong, faction in the discipline.--JGGardiner 04:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have seen noone here suggest Iggy is unimportant; and I have also sen nothing here to show that he "leads an important faction"; in fact I know of no other human rights leader who agrees with Iggy that "we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war.". All the info I've seen depict him as a rogue Human Rights professional now being shunned by most of that community but with a few (very) loyal defenders who try to decipher Ignatieff's doublespeak in as friendly a way as possible. 67.71.123.220 12:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So then why is there an NPOV tag on the "Recognition" section?  The only thing that the other anon. mentioned was that other academics disagree with him.  Even if we accept that completely, I don't see how that is contradictory to the section. --JGGardiner 16:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that some editors like above are imagining that Ignatieff "leads an important faction" or else are trying to impose a falsehood as being fact. 64.229.65.236 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you meant me, I have only edited the article once, to remove a premature notice of his announcement to run.  My words that you took from above were a just paraphrasing of the sources provided by another poster, not my own image of Ignatieff.  My full quote (though it is just slightly above) was preceded by "Indeed, the authors (from the links) suggest that..."  That said, tags should reflect content, not editors.  What is the exact falsehood in the text, of the "Recognition" section now?  --JGGardiner 00:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added NPOV tag, restored context to most quotations in 'controversies" 

message: Ok, I wish the partisan editors would stop importing their judgments and "spinning" and let quotations, yes, that includes FULL quotations in FULL context, speak for themselves. You do not need to use emotionally charged adjectives; let people read the quotes and come to their own conclusions. Yes, this means you cannot "by accident" leave out parts of passages where Ignatieff clearly supports a ban on torture. People are free to disagree with his views, but not influence others through intellectual dishonesty.
:It is fine to complain about content that you find troublesome but please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith.  Thanks.  --JGGardiner 18:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that JGGardiner. Point noted.  --[[User:] 18:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End the Partisan Editorializing 

message: Fixed up the portion about Ignatieff's "expertise" and removed the NPOV. There appears to be some objection to viewing Ignatieff as a "world reknowned expert", and while I think this is probably the case, I understand why some might object. Done.
-this is unbelievable. He is an expert, just because people take offense at two sentences does not mean he can be written off. Before these partisans had something to gain by his failure he was world-renowned, used in university courses worldwide, served on international commissions (such as in Kosovo), and more. If I think Chomsky is worthless can I erase his expertise in linguistics? No.
I also added some more information about the texts mentioned in the "Recognition" paragraphs. There was no information indicating what the books were about, nor what the awards were for.
:Thanks.  And I hope that soon we can remove all the NPOV from this article :) -Joshuapaquin 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed "Expertise" Paragraph and some of the uninformative shotty writing in the "Recognition" section 

message: Someone added this article to the category "Jewish Canadians".  Is there any citation for this?  A quick Google search turned up speculation at... er... Stormfront, which doesn't quite cut it in my book. -Joshuapaquin 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought about removing that myself but I waited for someone who knew better than I do.  His paternal grandfather was the son of the notable anti-semitic Czarist minister, with the grandmother a Russian princess who I assume was not Jewish.  On his mother's side, the Grants were not Jewish.  So I suppose that leaves his maternal grandmother.  But if she was Jewish one would expect it to be mentioned in the George Grant article which it is not.  --JGGardiner 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion? 

message: I know this because I just broke up with one of those organizers. They have 2 employees assigned to spin and complicate all references to Iggy's documented support of invading Iraq, torture, reducing civil and human rights, and american expansionism. 67.71.121.208 10:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  There are plenty of partisans editing articles here.  There are certainly Ignatieff detractors who have edited this article also.  That happens.  In fact, there is no actual policy against editing an article about yourself (although the guideline calls it unproper).  If you've seen an editor do something wrong, fix it.  That's the way it is supposed to work.  If an editor is consistently problematic, there are ways to address that also.  --JGGardiner 15:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Over the last week the ratio seems to be 25% neutral, 25% anti-Ignatieff, 50% pro-Ignatieff.  In particular, didn't think the comment about Stephen Harper shaking Ignatieff's hand after the Afghanistan vote was meant as a non-neutral hatchet job, though the person who added it didn't explain it well.  Harper shook Ignatieff's hand because 15 out of the 24 Liberal votes in favor of the Afghanistan extension came from Ignatieff campaign supporters -- without the Ignatieff bloc, Harper would not have been able to carry the vote.  There have been a couple edits this week by Ignatieff supporters who clearly have not read his writings.  Fortunately, the record is clear, and it should be straightforward to keep the article neutral.  The biggest challenge will be accurately representing both Ignatieff's neoconservative, hawkish stance from 2002-2004, and his softer stance promoted since the campaign has begun.  Ignatieff himself is not wholly independent, since some of Ignatieff's public statements during the campaign have misrepresented his earlier writings, e.g. he now talks all the time about Halabja being at the root of his advocacy of the war in Iraq, when his actual writings at the time never mentioned Halabja, even though one would assume it would have been a potent argument. --Chris Thompson 00:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignatieff's Paid Organizers are sanitizing this Wikipedia entry 

message: Just removed the following:
:Jean Augustine was a well-liked, long-serving MP, and was the first Black woman elected to the House of Commons. Some viewed the fact that Ignatieff's nomination to her riding aws hasty and covert as evidence that, "the fix was in", and controversy continues to this day. But Augustine publicly supported Ignatieff's candidacy, stumping for him on the campaign trail and lending her volunteers.
There are a few things here that should be taken issue with:  First, that the nomination was 'covert', second, that the 'controversy continues to this day', and third, the idea that Augustine didn't genuinely support Ignatieff (suggested in the modification from previous wording).  Anyone well-informed about the Etobicoke-Lakeshore situation has seen plenty of evidence contrary to each of these statements, so until there's a credible source for any of them, I've reverted it. -Joshuapaquin 04:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augustine 

message: Striking13 is sending unsigned notes to my talk page and seems to want to pov this article in favour of the candidate for Prime Minister,Ignatieff. 64.229.31.222 04:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm attempting to maintain a balanced article. I have a personal interest in human rights scholarship, and am familiar with Ignatieff's work. Unfortunately, Ignatieff's controversial opinions attracts a lot of partisan editors like yourself. Striking13 04:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignatieff stated this in the NYTImes article of May 2,2004;"We may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war." and his apologists wish to pretend he did not say that or mean that or else they make vague "out of context" denials without substantive explanations as to how the words are out of context. That pov makes the Iggy apologists' edits quite partisan, it seems to me. 64.229.28.213 14:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I absolutely agree with you, that such quotes should not be removed. However, such quotes must be in their full context. If you'd actually take a moment and read the article, you'll see that the quotation you cite is present under one of the "Lesser Evil" headings. However, it is important that such quotes be excerpted in full context, to understand the origins and direction of the discussion, rather than "half" citations. Striking13 14:45 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The talk page is for work on the article.  If there is an occurence of pov (including partisan) content on the page either edit it or bring it here.  It is unhelpful to simply accuse another editor of bias.  They aren't going to get banned for that.  You're just going to have to learn to live with each other.  Please, comment on content, not on the contributor.  --JGGardiner 05:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Striking13 Striking13] appears to be sanitizing 

message: I reverted the recent edits by 69.158.188.26 as they were blatantly pro-Iggy Pov and completely one sided concerning the nomination process; that editor deleted crucial and documented reports and sanitized the controversy regarding the nomination. 64.229.28.213 12:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 69.158.188.26 

message: Certainly, Ignatieff's views on torture and Iraq have been "controversial", but I know of no big controversy about those particular citations previous noted re: Rule of Law and privacy rights. Rather, they were simply passages from one of Ignatieff's article where he does his typical "back and forth" discussion on various positions to explain his Lesser Evil analysis. So, I've created a "Lesser Evil" section under "Ideas" which essentially incorporates the ideas from those sections.
I've also moved the "Afghanistan" extension from the "controversies" section, to the more apropriate "Political career" section. It is not NPOV to say Ignatieff's support for the extension was "controversial", one could easily posit that the failure of people to support the extension was controversial but Ignatieff was being principled. Striking13 05:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lesser Evil Approach and other edits 

message: Um, to the anonymous editor who's been doing this, please don't delete things with the comment "see the talk page" unless there actually is relevant discussion on the talk page about that topic.  Thanks.  --Chris Thompson 02:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See the talk page" 

message: Someone inserted a link in the "Opponent Sites" category to a webpage that has a retitled version of "The Burden," with the new title "Empire Lite."  I'm taking it out for the following reasons:
1) There's already a link to "The Burden" (indeed, it's the first link under "Articles").
2) I don't see how the annotated version is an opponent site.  The pull quotes are decent and for the most part they don't take things out of context or quote selectively.  Would an opponent site end with the final pull quote:  "The case for empire is that it has become, in a place like Iraq, the last hope for democracy and stability alike"?  That seems like an accurate description of what Ignatieff is trying to say in the article.  If I were writing an opponent site, I would have chosen to quote the sentence from that section implicitly (not explicitly) linking the impending invasion of Iraq to Sept. 11.  For the most part, the site would only seem like an opponent site if the reader has some knee-jerk reaction to the term "empire"... but there is enough context in the pull quotes for people to realize that Ignatieff's use of the term is not purely jingoistic (or even fundamentally neoconservative for that matter).  If anything, I'd suspect that site was set up by Ignatieff's campaign team to deflect allegations of neoconservatism.  (I did a whois lookup and the actual site creator is shielded by a domains by proxy privacy service, so my ownership comments are just speculation.)
3) The article's renamed title, "Empire Lite," is confusing, since Ignatieff has a book published in 2003 by Penguin also called "Empire Lite." --Chris Thompson 07:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  A pristine copy is preferred to an annotated one.  --JGGardiner 07:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Empire Lite" aka. "The Burden"

message: I noticed in many press releases Ignatieff's 2 children (Theo and Sophie) are mentioned in passing. They are no press reports of them being with him in Canada. They were young teenagers when Ignatieff divorced their mother in London England and then he relocated to the USA. Is it not just a little odd that they have not been involved at all in his campaign? They would be in their late teens or early 20s I think. I also think it's odd for a father to move 6,000 miles away from his teenage kids, even when divorced.
This normally would be nobody's business; but this guy might well be the leader of a G-8 country; shouldn't we know more about his personal life? Also, we know he lied about moving to the riding if elected as MP; so perhaps everything he says should be checked out. His new wife, what is her status in Canada? Is she an immigrant? Could Canada have a PM with a wife who is not a legal resoident? I heard that Ignatieff still uses his Masssachusetts drivers license. Is any of this important? I think so, but perhaps not in the eyes of today's encyclopedia writers. Please lmk what others think about the lack of information about Ignatieff's first family and his current wife. 65.95.149.123 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has a policy of No original research.  That means information should be sourced and cited appropriately.  These things you are suggesting; that Ignatieff is a "deadbeat dad", etc., are outrageously personal - and, if untrue (which I would imagine they are) - libellous.  Not appropriate for this article at all.  I've removed the lines about the kids' status. -Joshuapaquin 14:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Obviously it's relevant to mention he has two kids.  It's only relevant to mention where they live or what they do if that information is somehow relevant to an article about Ignatieff.  Beyond that, see the Wikipedia policy on No original research.  Unless there are verifiable press or other third party reports about the issues you raise (allegations of being a deadbeat dad, driving with an out of province driver's license, illegal immigrant wife, being a Reptoid ;) , etc.), such allegations should not be in the article. --Chris Thompson 15:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, if you do have a source for the information that his children have never been to Canada, that could perhaps be relevant to the section on his attitude towards Canada.  Point us to some sources if you have them.  --Chris Thompson 15:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are his children important to the article? 

message: It's as if anything to do with Iggy's first family is being censored (kept out of) Canada's mainstream media and this encyclopedia as well? By contrast, look at the Wikipedia detail on John Kerry's first wife and children. 
Here is my concern. I am not a Liberal and, in fact, it would help my party if Ignatieff becomes Liberal leader. However, I have noticed exceptionally misleading information being put out on Iggy to the point where I am a bit worried about my Liberal friends even having access to accurate information about this candidate. The thing with his children seems to me to be quite important and the press reports in Canada can be easily read to give the false impression that they are the children of his present wife; e.g."Family: Father George Ignatieff, mother Alison Grant; married to Zsuzsanna Zsohar; has two children, Theo and Sophie." I would hope that the background info in an encyclopedia would have some basic info concerning a politician's family which obviously includes their children. Now when you state the No original research rule, does that mean that editors here are only to contribute what information they are personally aware of? Also, Joshuapaquin seems to feel that any expansion of even non-original research about the children's whereabouts or citizenship is too personal to even be put in the encyclopedia; is that the general opinion? Also, does the same taboo apply to Ignatieff's current wife's citizenship, for example? I have removed the "deadbeat dad" reference which was merely to make a point and was clearly not an accusation. It seems to have been quickly picked up to be used as a Strawman argument so I certainly hope that will no longer be attempted. 64.229.185.244 17:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't include something that is just your best guess.  Even if it is a really, really good one.  Do you have verifiable information that you would like to see included but is not?  --JGGardiner 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Information in the article needs to meet the tests of relevance regarding the subject of the article (Ignatieff) and verifiability (that does not mean proof; unproven claims made by critics can be documented as such provided there are verifiable third parties making those allegations).  For instance, if one of his children had convictions for drug abuse, that would not be relevant to an article on Ignatieff unless he was somehow involved or some article/policy of his was on the topic of drug abuse.  Such information would instead go in an article about that child, provided s/he was a notable enough figure to warrant a Wikipedia article.  Also, btw, I don't agree with Joshua's comments about libel.  Even though truth is not always an absolute defense in Canadian law, Wikipedia has a no-censorship policy and the servers are in the US, where truth is an absolute defense, so don't be afraid of posting truthful information, as long as it is verifiable.  Finally, if you feel the article is not balanced enough, feel free to expand it, but please, add appropriate citations and references. --Chris Thompson 18:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you; would something like this be worthy for inclusion in the article; "I now feel rooted and happy in London," says Ignatieff. or this "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'." ? source; 64.229.185.244 18:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  I'm just weighing in to defend Joshuapaquin. I don't think Joshua was suggesting that true facts would constitute libel. Rather, if you read his comments, he said such statements "if untrue" would constitute libel, which is certainly true. Chris is right that defamation law in Canada is a bit of a mess, in that truth (or "truthiness" as Stephen Colbert might say ;) ) is not a complete defense (pretty dumb). But regardless of whether you're in Canada or the U.S., making false and damaging claims about a person could constitute libel, which is what, I think Joshua was getting at. -- Striking13 18:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About that, one should remember that WP added the living people category for those reasons.  We are essentially expected to pursue a higher standard in these pages than others.  --JGGardiner 18:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As for the quotes, it depends how you use them.  The first quote seems fine reading it.  But if inserted in certain ways, it would seem to suggest that Ignatieff has dissociated himself from Canada.  However the full quote is "'I now feel rooted and happy in London,' says Ignatieff, who nonetheless calls himself a Canadian writer -- and a writer before a broadcaster." That has something of the opposite effect.  The other quote seems fine but I'm not sure what it adds.  He says that one shouldn't stay in a loveless marriage out of duty.  I would have thought that is the common perception in Western societies these days.  Actually his "you belong to yourself first" message almost sounds like something I'd expect from Dr. Phil.  --JGGardiner 19:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: HA!HA! Very good point about; "you belong to yourself first" being Dr.Philish. I think somewhere else Iggy talks about being destined for public "service" which might seem contradictory to the non-sophisticated reader(like me) as does much else about Mr.I...I suppose if an encyclopedia does quote Iggy's quotes about wanting to be of service to Canada, then ,for balance, we need to also quote "you belong to yourself first" and let the readers figure it out. Likely Iggy's detractors will say he is 2 faced or full of sophistry and his supporters will say his words simply reveal an exceptional level of honesty and self evaluation  for a politician. 64.229.31.93 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi 64.229, could you please point out where, in the article, Ignatieff is quoted as talking about public "service" in Canada? -- Striking13 14:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with that quote in the article generally.  But I think the fox and hedgehog part won't be understood by most readers, who aren't familiar with Berlin's (or Archilochus') usage.  Although it is otherwise worthwhile for readers who do.  --JGGardiner 16:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading references to Ignatieff's children in Canadian Press?