Talk:Belinda Stronach

message: We have one, but its bad: :Image:Belinda Stronach at Leadership convention 2006.jpg. Bawolff 04:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It got better, replacing (well slightly). Bawolff 23:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why can't we use the images from the Parliament of Canada website? NorthernThunder 16:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair use cannot be used just for convenient decorative purposes. We have a free image, so any fair use rational is automatically invalid. Rama 07:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free picture

message: :Image:18516.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we can use that picture. The idea that we have any sort of obligation to change our pictures every single time an article subject happens to change her hair colour is outrageously ridiculous. We do not have to stop using the picture just because she's blonde again. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true.  Charles Tupper looks much worse now than he did in the picture we use in that article.  --JGGardiner (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just added an infobox caption to give the photo some time and place context. That should help discourage any assumptions that the photo represents her current appearance. Dl2000 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Heh. Nice one. Bearcat 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:18516.jpg

message: This issue can be settled once and for all and MichealM, Mantion and Freelancedave can have their way and put the "social democrat" claim in the article by doing one simple thing: provide a reliable reference that says that Belinda Stronach is a social democrat. It is just that simple. Until then, we'll just be engaged in this time-wasting edit war that they will lose because their actions violate all sorts of Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Ground Zero | t 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This post is not in keeping with WP:CIV. Please keep your comments civil, or they will be deleted. Sunray 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Arguments don't matter and aren't relevant or valid sources — some people will claim that anybody remotely to the left of Stephen Harper is a social democrat or a socialist, but that doesn't make it so. Per our verifiability rules, the only acceptable sources for characterizing Belinda Stronach as a social democrat are (a) a personal statement out of her own mouth indicating that she identifies that way, or (b) a reliable media or political science source characterizing her that way in an objective critical evaluation of her politics. Some socon crank from Leduc who thinks she's a social democrat just because she doesn't foam at the mouth every time she hears the word "homosexual" simply doesn't cut it; that's not even close to what social democracy is all about. And to all available evidence, for the record, you're the only one here with a Belinda Stronach fetish. Bearcat 01:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Not to mention that after doing that quick google search you suggested, I can confirm that every single statement out there on the web in favour of characterizing Ms. Stronach as a social democrat is — o shock of shocks — signed either "Michael M." or "M. Miyamoto". Army of one, or army of two? You decide. Bearcat 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, good advice from Bearcat and JGGardiner, Michael. And please don't use sock puppets to speak for you. Sunray 06:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Social democrat?

message: Because of repeated and persistent vandalism by newly created users, I have semi-protected this for one week so those of us on vandal patrol can take a break. Ground Zero | t 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be numerous sleeper accounts, registered months ago, that have less than a dozen edits each but meet the requirements for editing semi-protected articles. We should also check What links here, because I've found numerous links in the past that included Stronach, usually pages related to Social democracy. Mindmatrix 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: I know we're all getting a little tired of our idiot friend who keeps misinterpreting the postnominal "PC" as Progressive Conservative instead of Queen's Privy Council of Canada, and consequently changing the pipetext to "Liberal". They've even ignored a continually more and more prominent hidden note explaining why this change shouldn't take place. As a consequence, since the intro paragraph already links to both Member of Parliament and Queen's Privy Council of Canada anyway, I've now taken the postnominal initials out of the body text entirely. Hopefully this foolishness will stop now. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Privy Council

message: Once again, someone has added this bit of irrelevancy. The source is a Vanity Fair blog post, which doesn't verify the claim that she has spent time with Clinton. It simply states that the tabloids have made those claims, to the dismay of Clinton's aides. That isn't anywhere close to the same thing, and isn't sufficient for inclusion, per WP:RS and WP:BLP. Quit adding this junk. Mindmatrix 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a blog post; the link you posted is the full article from the July 2008 issue of Vanity Fair, a quite reputable American magazine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStarhead (talk • contribs) 12:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is indeed an article, not a blog post. However, the point remains that the author did not verify the claim that Stronach has spent time with Clinton. Mindmatrix 15:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm removing this bit. Rumors are swirling about what may or may not be in discussed in Game Change. Best to insist on sourcing here. Ronnotel (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Dinner with Clinton

message: In the "Characterization in the media" section, several sentences which fail self-referential integrity appear.
Stronach herself had stepped over several other women in her political career trajectory. She had defeated Lois Brown in the Conservative nomination election and barely won her seat in an extremely tight race against Martha Hall Findlay.
Apart from the fact that the above has no attached citations, it doesn't really support its own claim that "Stronach herself had stepped over several other women in her political career". Instead, these demonstrate that other women lost elections when opposed by Stronach, which seems like a legitimate career advancement. I'm going to remove this text unless someone can justify its continued inclusion. Mindmatrix 15:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kill it forthwith. It's blatant POV to suggest that winning an election against a female challenger is inherently "stepping on other women". For one thing, it's the voters who decide who wins and who loses in any given electoral race, not Stronach. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it had a source, that would be one thing...but as is, remove it. --Padraic 16:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyediting - remove this text? 

message: Its unfortunate that her views on Health Care were only touched on briefly inthis article.  It seems that to discuss what she rails against the "two-tier system" in health care would show her to be the self serving person she is.  After all if the health care she got here in the U.S. was good for her why not replicate it in Canada.  It seems this hard socialist view she has is the reason only the elite in Canada can afford the best. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Views on Health Care 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Belinda Stronach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330164614/http://www.canada.com:80/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=1184e345-8003-45f4-9c7a-89cbcc6d468d&k=43779 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=1184e345-8003-45f4-9c7a-89cbcc6d468d&k=43779
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330164614/http://www.canada.com:80/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=1184e345-8003-45f4-9c7a-89cbcc6d468d&k=43779 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=1184e345-8003-45f4-9c7a-89cbcc6d468d&k=43779
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009045259/http://www.nafla.ca/images/clientupload/BS%20SD%20Letter.pdf to http://www.nafla.ca/images/clientupload/BS%20SD%20Letter.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it now as unverifiable. Kraose (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Long recognized as an emerging leader with vision, " is unsourced and doesn't belong in anyone's biography, whatever you feel about her politically. 203.218.215.26 (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it now as unverifiable. Kraose (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Puffery

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Belinda Stronach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151102061812/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/news-for-the-mulroneys-is-simply-grand/article746676/ to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/news-for-the-mulroneys-is-simply-grand/article746676/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050221100551/http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/expressnews/articles/ideas.cfm?p_ID=5562&s=a to http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/expressnews/articles/ideas.cfm?p_ID=5562&s=a
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.realwomenca.com/alerts.htm
*Added  tag to http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1115128357918_22?hub=topstories
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060114095037/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116347413338_5/?hub=TopStories to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116347413338_5/?hub=TopStories
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Belinda... the company you keep and do business with can define your character.  Santa Anita Horse Race Track, NOW, commonly referred to as the "Death Track" defines anyone who allows, permits and condones a business of killing their entertainment with NO REGARD is ABHORRENT and I wish you had to hear like I do... it ruins my whole day. That guy that was killed out of the Triple Crown for failing DRUG TESTING OF HIS HORSE, is now at YOUR FAMILIES DEATH TRACK, HIS HIRSE JUST DROPPED DEAD OF A HEART ATTCK ON YOUR FAMILIES RACE HORSE TRACK... SICK, CRUEL AND ABHORRENT! FIX IT! GROSS! 47.37.162.195 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Santa Anita Death Race Horse Track