Talk:Mark Warner (Canadian politician)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Added Reverse Domain Name Hijacking[edit]

It seems this decision pre-dates the case mentioned in Wikipedia's article on Reverse_domain_hijacking, and as far as I can tell is the earliest out there. Feel free to search yourselves. The wording on the Hijacking article doesn't claim its cases to be the earliest, but I think it implies they are the earliest, so I'm not sure whether I should add Warner's decision to that article or not... Any experienced Wikipedians want to weigh in (I guess on my talk page or the Hijacking talk page..)? I put a note + link re: the decision on that article's talk page. --Grandmasterkush 03:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Article[edit]

OK cool.. A start on a new article.. Thanks for the work Reginald Perrin. Note there are some factual inaccuracies that I'll do my best to correct. For example, Warner is stated as currently practising with Fasken Martineau DuMoulin but I think he might have gone full time candidate (I'll confirm this via email -- his email address is on markwarner.ca). Working at a big firm is usually too time consuming and hence not conducive to running for office so a lot of lawyer/politicians take on smaller work during their candidacy. It would make sense for accuracy's sake to fact-check to be sure. Also, I think the inclusion of his full educational background is highly relevant to a biographical piece, especially on a politician (eg: Georgetown L.L.M. has been removed). I recall looking at the previous article's history and noticed you previously deleted chunks of Warner's personal history and educational background. Please comment if you think this is not relevant to a biographical piece about Warner. I notice including this information is the norm on other politician's articles (including ones you have an edit history with where these details were left alone!). Also, birthplace/immigrant information has been omitted, which is obviously relevant so I'll add it. --Grandmasterkush 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what you are suggesting would be considered "original research" (see WP:OR). We're not allowed to rely on emails from the subject of the article but must depend instead on "reliable sources" that are generally published third party sources. (Published memoirs notwithstanding). It's not a matter of whether or not I think information is "relevant" to a biography but whether or not we can cite the information via reliable sources. A biography published on the candidate's website isn't generally considered a "reliable source" until and unless the information is published somewhere else such as a newspaper or magazine. The reason I didn't include the Georgetown LLM is I couldn't find a source for it. Reginald Perrin 01:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving to one side the fact that the norm on most other articles here on politicians (including ones you have an edit history with where these details were left alone, as noted above) is not to source this information (for the nth time, see Bill Graham and Mark Warner), at some point you should read the third-party, independant source cited at Footnote 1 of both this and the previous version of the article, as others have. The article refered to there is not an aticle published on the candidate's web site, and repeatedly stating that inaccuracy will not make it true. --Canam1 02:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Perrin, I didn't know about WP:OR. Thx: I'm still new to the dark bureaucracy side of Wikipedia. That considered, how would one keep the tidbit regarding the law firm accurate unless you contacted Warner himself or the firm? Its not like every time someone quits / takes a leave from a job that a published source writes a big article. Would you rather have Wikipedia be inaccurate?!?!? Either way, I'm sure you'd agree the current wording in the article "most recently of the firm..." is safest regardless of current status.

Now, regarding what you say are reliable sources, I think its unfortunate you managed to press the delete key enough times to have spent equivalent effort typing "Mark A A Warner" into Google. Had you bothered, you'd find numerous sources verifying Warner's education. Ranging from bio's from presentations, a bio from the University of Cape Town, http://www.internationallawoffice.com/directory/Biography.aspx?r=1063939 ("Official Online Media Partner of the International Bar Association")... Not to mention, ExpertGuides has a full bio on him (BTW: this is a relevant and respected source published by EuroMoney (which is a monthly periodical), and lists experts on various legal topics, which, BTW, was listed as a source in the original piece http://www.expertguides.com/default.asp?page=2&egaBOBID=&CountryID=103&ExpertOfficeID=21340&GuideID=158&fcIndex=1575&fIndex=687). Perhaps you didn't notice you managed to do this, but I'm sure you'd agree its not the greatest optics in the world when you go ahead and delete (and then later omit in a new article) a published source and then allege there are no credible sources to back up Warner's education. That same Google search reveals all sorts about Warner: for example, presentations and panels he's presented to at the Federal Trade Commission and other US government bodies...

Finally, regarding your comment about using Warner's campaign website as a source, I'm not sure that makes sense. Warner is both a lawyer and Conservative candidate, and his bio is backed up by his firm in various documents / articles / presentations submitted while he was affiliated with Faskin. I would assume you realize the ramifications if a lawyer/major law firm were lying about education!

--Grandmasterkush 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said I couldn't find a source for the LLM, not that one didn't exist. Remember, I rewrote the article from scratch using the sources I could find. Just because you were able to find a reference and I couldn't doesn't make me a bad person. Please also read the Assume Good Faith policy. The wording in regards to Fasken is fine but the fact remains emailing someone and then putting what you learn in an article is original research and is therefore not permitted, at least not for inclusion in the article. Saying "most recently" works but saying, for instance, he left Fasken on May 17, 2007 and using an email you received from the firm as evidence is a no-no just as it's not acceptable to include the fact that Warner's favorite food is souvlaki and using a conversation you had with him at the Taste of the Danforth Festival as a source isn't acceptable. As for not using the campaign website as a source, you may not think that makes sense but the practice is that personal blogs and campaign websites are not considered Reliable Sources as a rule. We have no way of knowing whether or not a website for a local campaign is backed up or not. Warner's may well be but many are not so the practice is to find third party sources where possible. Reginald Perrin 02:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you've taken AGF offence, but I was careful to not accuse you of anything. At worst, I was suggesting you were lazy for not typing his name into Google, not acting in bad faith, and commented about optics so perhaps you'll be more diligent in future. I do appreciate your effort re-drafting this article. --Grandmasterkush 03:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW (add-on to previous comment). I did take your comment about WP:OR into account and as a result left the wording as per my original edit (adding "most recently") and am happy you agree with it. I am still new to the bureaucrap side of Wikipedia (lol) so I expect you'll help me with more things. That's why I started contributing to this talk page along with edits instead of just posting them. Cheers :) --Grandmasterkush 03:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Post[edit]

Note to Readers: The original article was speedily deleted as a G11, an action that was opposed by numerous admins (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Mark_Warner_.28Canadian_politician.29_.28closed.29). The comment below was added to the talk page during that time as an early response to the debate:

  • The above is a bit of a misrepresentation of the discussion. A number editors thought the wrong process was used to delete the article and that an AFD should have been used instead. Others felt there should be an article but not the article that existed before. I believe only three individuals supported the previous article and two of the three are associated with Warner. Reginald Perrin 01:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, the action of "speedy deletion as a G11" was "opposed by numerous admins" ... Thanks for the clarification :) --Grandmasterkush 23:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted the original article and am not Mark Warner (disclosure: I received biographical information from Mark Warner by email to write the article, and used his site markwarner.ca for material).

Mr. Warner is mentioned in articles and blog posts, and is running in a riding in Toronto (Toronto Centre) that has been covered more extensively in the press than other ridings. Many Canadians (so far politics geeks!) are watching Toronto Centre with interest and are interested in its candidates (search google for blog articles and discussions). Not only is this a large and diverse riding in Canada's largest city, but the interest is also largely due to the fact that Bob Rae, the Liberal Party candidate running in the riding, is the former premier of Ontario and also unsuccessfully ran for the leadership of the Liberal party. It'll be really interesting to see who takes the riding! Mr. Warner, of the Conservative Party, and El-Farouk Khaki, of the NDP party, are "Wikipediaworthy" in the sense that Canadians are interested in finding more about them. They are mentioned in articles about the riding, articles about Mr. Rae, and have articles explicitly about them as well. I would defend the existence of both candidate's articles on Wikipedia. Neither are spam.

To respond to GreenJoe, I'd say both of the other contenders for Toronto Centre, Mr. Warner and Mr. Khaki are of similar levels of notoriety. Both are well known in their own respective communities. I notice the Green Party candidates who have articles by GreenJoe are truly "nobodies" compared to Warner and Khaki. Media and blogs are interested in Warner/Khaki because of a) the riding they are running in and b) who they are running against. It seems nobody is challenging the existence of Khaki's article, but that couldn't have anything to do with any bias among some users here (see history of edits and the related profiles and also the disclosed NDP affiliations of a local admin) now could it? Again, I think all candidates in this riding should have Wikipedia articles. It would be nice if everyone wasn't trying to use wikipedia's rules to sabotage the articles of candidates other than the one they are supporting.

-- Grandmasterkush 06:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Article Move back to "Canadian politician"[edit]

Bearcat, Reginald Perrin, and Admins-At-Large,

I noticed Mark Warner was changed from "Canadian Politician" to "Canadian Lawyer", but I'm not sure that the politicking is over WRT to the fallout from Warner being ousted as a Candidate. I would imagine that the majority of people searching for information on Mark Warner at this point in Wikipedia are looking for a politician first, and lawyer second. I undid the change, for now, but of course, you guys are free to weigh in. In this case, I'd seek Bearcat's (a frequent editor of this article) and other admins' collective wisdom as they are the more experienced Wikipedians of the bunch.

To the point that the politicking isn't over, just this month Dion was publicly proclaiming "his Party is ready to roll out the welcome mat for Mark Warner" (Torstar). Since Deborah Coyne has stepped down in Toronto Danforth, there are rumours flying all over the blogosphere about Warner potentially running for the Liberal party in Toronto Danforth. A Google search for "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22mark+warner%22+%22toronto+danforth%22" turns up all sorts of blog articles for your enjoyment (in case you're feeling lazy, here's one: http://spacing.ca/wire/?cat=31 : "it’s likely Mr. Warner will appear on my doorstep again in the future")

More importantly, I've seen speculation in more traditional media as well (eg: "Coyne making room for Mark Warner?" -- a Google cache of the page (not requiring login credentials) is at: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:Apxh5-_3diEJ:www.nationalnewswatch.com/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26task%3Dview%26id%3D21931%26Itemid%3D41+%22Coyne+making+room+for+ousted+Tory+Mark%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca&client=firefox-a).

To top it all off, Warner himself has quotes in published sources where he remains open to the idea of accepting Dion's offer to run for the Liberals: "Warner said the same day [he received news of Dion's invite] that he was flattered. 'It is nice to be wanted. It is something I’d consider'" (http://www.towncrieronline.ca/main/main.php?direction=viewstory&storyid=6403&rootcatid=&rootsubcatid)

While Reginald's reasoning for making the change is logical, I think its clearly premature. All this news is "hot" in that it has all happened WITHIN THIS MONTH. By keeping Warner's tag as "Canadian politician", Wikipedia stays current and easy-to-search for a key player in an "open" issue and point of interest for the residents of Toronto-Centre, Toronto-Danforth, and anyone else interested in politics. I mean this guy was first slated to be running against Rae, and in TO Danforth, he'd be running against Layton!

I'll agree with Reginald's change when the Liberals find another candidate for TO-Danforth (provided it isn't Warner!). At that time, it would be more appropriate to reclass Warner as a lawyer, but certainly not yet.

By the way, kudos to both Reginald and Bearcat for their edits when Warner was ousted as a candidate. I took a peek a couple times and thought there were some pretty solid contributions.

Cheers, --Grandmasterkush (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd have to agree he should be disambiguated as a politician first — as of today, being ousted as a Conservative Party electoral candidate is by far the thing he's most famous and most notable for. And as Grandmaster Kush notes, the possibility of his being nominated to stand in another riding for another party is still very much open, so he's not officially out of politics yet. This can certainly be moved at a later date if need be, but it would essentially be original research for Wikipedia to declare that Warner isn't a politician anymore until such time as Warner rules out any future electoral candidacies.
Though I will make the minor point that most people looking for a Wikipedia article on Warner would just search for "Mark Warner", hit the dab page, and get directed from there to the correct article no matter what title it was at — and the politician title would continue to exist as a redirect to the lawyer one anyway. So the title isn't really going to make a meaningful difference in whether people can find the article or not. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with taking a wait and see attitude - the issue should be revisited in the future however (perhaps once there's an election) if time has passed and Warner's political career hasn't been reactivated. If in a year or two he's active as an international trade lawyer and possibly writing articles, teaching, and being quoted as such it would be odd and possibly damaging for him to be stuck with the "politician" label because, for one year of his 20 some years of professional activity was spent as a politician rather than a lawyer. Reginald Perrin (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Liberal Candidacy[edit]

The news articles that stated Warner was thinking of running are a few months old. The National Post article appeared today and quotes Warner directly. His website hasn't been updated for awhile so the news article is more current. Please don't remove properly sourced material from reliable sources. You can't unilaterally decide that a news article isn't reliable because you personally disbelieve it. Are you alleging the Post made up the quote? If so, see if there's a correction in the paper tomorrow. If there is - then you can remove the cite. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The post on Warner's website is dated January 18, 2008. The article in the Post appeared today. Again, if it's wrong there will be a correction tomorrow. Otherwise there's no reason to challenge it. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald, Warner web site was recently updated. The date of the intro letter is January 18th. There are other recent articles that are consistent with Warner's web site and that indicate Warner is considering running. See: http://www.eesti.ca/main.php?op=article&articleid=18750&PHPSESSID=e9424e778d794aed7a95bc14d7544508 (January 17th); http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/villager/article/39252?thePub=villager (January 16th) and http://insidetoronto.com/news/NorthYork/article/39595 (January 18th). On the basis of this, I suggest that you are putting to much freight on one article in the National Post. Also, the quote from the Nat Post does not indicate that Warner has abandoned running. That appears to be the reporter's conclusion. What is the rush in changing this in light of the countervailing sources? I am not seeking a fight with you so I respectfully hope you will consider these comments seriously. --Kibomt (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you think the quotation in the Post is wrong and on what basis are you removing it from the article on Warner? Wikipedia isn't the place for wishful thinking - the quotation says what it says. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as I said, the article is dated 29 January - the website letter is 18 January so the article is more recent. If you are right and the Post somehow misquoted Warner then we'll see a correction or clarification tomorrow or the next day. Otherwise, there is no reason whatsoever to disregard today's Post article. Reggie Perrin (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The National Post story has been corrected. See: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/Story.html?id=275289. I have amended the article. --Kibomt (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well what do you know? Fair enough. Reggie Perrin (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark Warner (Canadian politician). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mark_Warner_(Canadian_politician)&oldid=1210915033"