Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Archive 3

This is an archive of discussion that previously appeared on Talk:Michael Ignatieff. The conversations here terminated on or before June 29, 2006. For previous discussion, see Archive 1 or Archive 2.

Merged "Attitudes about Canada" and "Americans as 'we'"

The second section was basically a repeat of the first. Joel Bastedo, June 17, 2006

Controversy: doubts about Canadian identity

I tried to understand 64.229.184.210's reinsertion of redundant material that I removed earlier, but cannot. I have removed and rephrased the section in such a way as to avoid repetition. 64.229.184.210, if you can explain why this paragraph

The Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson was more emphatic than Newman in his article titled "Mr. Ignatieff's subliminal Canadianness", wherein he reported Ignatieff references to himself as an american two years ago: "Being an American is not easy. It is hard. We are required to keep some serious promises. We are judged by a high standard, one we crafted for ourselves in the founding documents of the republic. . . . We need to live by this, at home and abroad, and it is just about the only thing we can do to face the hatred of those who want to destroy us."

needs to be kept when this paragraph

Ignatieff has also come under fire for writing essays and op-eds from the perspective of an American. For example, in a New York Times Magazine article discussing his "Lesser Evil" approach to fighting terrorism, Ignatieff used "we" and "us" 43 times throughout the article in reference to America. [1]. Also when addressing the graduating class of Whitman College in May 2004, Ignatieff took the point of view of an American, speaking of "our Constitution." He told the class that "Being an American is not easy...We are judged by a high standard, one we crafted for ourselves in the founding documents of the republic."[2]

already contains much of the same information, please do so. Joel Bastedo 20:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Joel in the mainb but including "without compromising their democratic ideals" is quite pov,imo, as many Americans like me feel Ignatieff's lesser evils position does exactly that (compromise our democratic ideals). 67.71.121.88 11:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the rule whereby testimony should have probative value rather than merely prejudicial effect. It seems to be that the purpose of introducing all of this is to cast into doubt something which is not encyclopedic in nature - the inner feelings of Michael Ignatieff - largely because everyone knows that Canadian identity is a sensitive issue and "Americanness" is a political kiss of death. So, in a brief article on a politician, is this sort of psychological guesswork particularly informational, or does it make more sense as a bit of trivia intended to discredit the man with Canadians doing a bit of internet research on a politician they've just heard of?Haligonian Lucullus

NPOV

Thanks for the NPOV tag. I wonder whether counting the number of times Ignatieff uses "we" and "us" in an article about Americans counts as original research? Much of this article seems like a researched-on-the-fly smear campaign. Remember people: encyclopedia, not soapbox! Joel Bastedo, June 22, 2006

To me, most of the article is a puff piece stating as accomplishments various activities by the subject which seem to mostly be exagerated or mis-represented as accomplishments. In addition, if anything, some of the factual events which would normally be presented as blatantly undemocratic and nonsensical were they to have happened in Iran or Cuba (the riding nomination and "lesser evil" theories) have been fairly well sanitized,imo. So, perhaps the article is in the happy middle ground if the editor above and I have such opposite views of the pov bent. 70.48.206.61, June 22, 2006

Actually, I shouldn't have said that the article seems like an attempt to smear the guy; it doesn’t. There have, however, been several attempts to insert irrelevant and uncomplimentary information, but with the help of vigilant editors, the article has remained fairly balanced. True, other writers have attempted to focus the article on his ‘accomplishments,’ and perhaps they are guilty of spin doctoring. Yet it seems to me that when you look up someone in an encyclopaedia, you are asking, "Why is this person significant?" In the case of a notorious public figure, whose significance lies in his misdemeanours, it makes sense for an encyclopaedia to focus on those missteps. With someone like Ignatieff, whose status as a public figure long precedes his run for public office, and whose greatest claim to fame, thus far, is his contributions to academic discourse, it seems appropriate to dwell more on those contributions than on the jeers of his political detractors, or at least to give the two equal attention.

PS - I haven't the slightest care one way or the other about who wins the Liberal leadership race, so if I appear to have been trying to colour the article a cheery pink, I was just overreacting to what I thought was an opposite slant. Sorry. Joel Bastedo 04:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with much of what Joel says. However, Ignatieff is one of the most confusing and controversial figures ever to hit the political arena. Whereas his distant history shows someone who the international human rights community felt was a standard bearer; today most other "human rights" activists are trying to disassociate themselves with his post 9/11 "lesser evils" theory/ideas. His 2004 article for the New York Times magazine (when one actually reads it) uses the exact same fearmongering tactics; "We can confidently expect that terrorists will attempt to tamper with our election in November." then using those injected fears as justification for stripping away civil rights; "To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war." That article's construction, in the view of many, is almost identicle to that of the format of many of Bush's speeches; which is fine in a free speech environment but here's the rub; the end result is that Ignatieff's actual written words since 2001 and the controversial events relating to his meteoric rise in Canadian politics are so stunningly compelling that they quite naturally overtake,in importance, all of his academic and other achievements prior to 9/11 at least to the point where they deserve "equal time" in an encyclopedia, it seems to me. 65.95.148.32 13:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the NPOV tag. Even the highly contentious articles on George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and Stephen Harper get by without one. May I suggest a POV-check tag instead? 72.139.184.107 13:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the neutrality of the article has improved. Can we remove the POV tag? Thoughts?

This article isn't remotely in the same category of NPOV as the other articles you mentioned; if it were NPOV, it would be far shorter, probably a ~50-50% split of his pre-political and political lives, with a paragraph or so for the 'controversies.' Instead, this is essentially an attack piece on a political candidate, with an overwhelming emphasis on purported 'controversies' and unmistakable NDP bias. Having followed its evolution at a distance, I realize that the only way it would be remotely NPOV would be for Ignatieff to assign staffers to fix it non-stop; since this clearly hasn't happened, the best thing is just to put a 'toxic waste dump' warning on the top and hope too many people don't take the day's libelous edits as encyclopedic.

I'm sorry to people who feel strongly that it's NPOV or have made efforts in that direction, but honestly, leaving an NPOV tag on is the absolute least that can be done in terms of adding a fig-leaf to a real failure of wikipedia's NPOV mission. If you need any evidence, scroll up and see the "porn tags" "controversy." Honestly. That the encyclopedié of our time could become a vehicle for this sort of slander politics is deeply depressing.Haligonian Lucullus

Above objections do not seem collaborative in intent. However, I will try to address some of them; the controversies are real and are not "purported". I do not think the article has an NDP bias and most Canadians would say that the NDP would like nothing more than to have Iggy lead the Liberals since he and Harper are identical on the most important issue in Canada today; the Afghan mission(hence many liberals would likely flow to the NDP at election time with Iggy leading the Libs). The "porn" stuff is not on the article page just as the "toxic waste dump" reference above is not there either. The NPOV flag is not supported by the statements above,imo. 67.71.121.74 22:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to be "collaborative" with people determined to use a wiki article as a political attack vehicle. The NPOV problems are not easy to address since chief among them is a grossly disproportionate emphasis on the supposed 'controversies,' which are here given the sort of emphasis that can only otherwise be found on partisan weblogs and January's NDP election pamphlets in Toronto.

In order to make the article NPOV one would either need to drastically cut the "controversies" or else expand the article very greatly in order to balance the amount of attention paid to them. Since the article is already overlong given Ignatieff's stature, and cutting people's pet polemics would only trigger an edit war, I've put in an NPOV tag. The sort of radically anti-Ignatieff viewpoints that inform this article cannot be found anywhere else - where, for example, libel laws would apply and writers are not shielded by a cloak of anonymity.Haligonian Lucullus

I looked at the Wikipedia entries for some other contestants for the Liberal leadership race, and have to agree that this one waxes unusually long on the details of his political career, especially considering how short it has been compared to some of the others. Compare, for example, Scott Brison's entry. Brison has caused no little controversy, but the article just mentions them briefly. He also no doubt has received endorsements from other MPs, and has a campaign manager of his own, but the article doesn't mention all that. I think we could cut out an awful lot of extra information to bring the political side of this article into line with the others. Joel Bastedo 00:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the "consensus-reflecting" removal of the NPOV tag. Consensus among whom?Haligonian Lucullus

I agree, Joel. In fact, the length of that Brison article (or somewhat larger, for his pre-political career) is probably the appropriate size for the LPC leadership candidates. However, if you see above, some of the more strongly anti-Ignatieff people disagree and feel it should continue to be the 'controversies of Ignatieff' website. Thus, I'm hesitant to embark on any large scale revamp of the article for fear of an edit war.Haligonian Lucullus

Joel, you may not be aware that "Political analysts consider Michael Ignatieff the clear front-runner among the 11 Liberal leadership candidates" ; the point being that his article would naturally deserve more content than others in the crowd of 11. 64.229.186.143 02:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I resent 142.177.91.237's combative comments ('toxic waste dump') as well as assumptions about "ndp" and "anti-Ignatieff people" as I would not be assuming that that editor is pro-Ignatieff nor that he belongs to a neo-conservative political party. I must suggest that the editor in question try to refrain from name calling as that won't help the collaborative process at all and only shows a lack of willingness to collaborate and I particularly don't like his suggestion that the "only way it would be remotely NPOV would be for Ignatieff to assign staffers to fix it non-stop" which is saying explicitly that pro-Iggy control of the article would be NPOV. The answer to that is NO WAY! 64.229.186.143 02:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I strove to keep snarkiness out of my comments, but I suppose toxic waste dump is pejorative language indeed. However, please understand, I did find the evolution of this article to be somewhat offensive to a candidate who I like; and to be clear, my contention is that the systemic attempt to attack Ignatieff on this website would have to be countered by an opposing viewpoint (EG, a full time Ignatieff person) if the past edit history is any indication. With that said, removing the NPOV tag really doesn't serve any purpose. I find Joel's comments constructive, and my suggestion is, if people are serious about an NPOV approach here, that we look at forming a smaller article with a less disproportionate amount of attention paid to controversies. These could, for example, be gathered into a sub-article which they would be more central to.

As it is, I think it's a neutral statement to say this is one of the two least friendly trafficked websites to Ignatieff out there; I don't think we can dispute that there is a POV dispute here, and as such, taking the tag down doesn't seem fair. However, I appreciate that I offended the last editor, so let me say I'll endeavour to be more respectful with my comments in future. I put the NPOV tag back.Haligonian Lucullus

Well, I won't remove the tag again but the edit history on this talk page shows we've been able to work through many issues to find consensus without having to resort to a tag. The tag is, in fact, quite late,imo, and no longer appropriate. 64.229.186.143 03:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I think part of the issue has been that most of the people working on the page have shared a fairly critical view of the subject and the view that the controversies warrent the time spent on them here; and there has been a lot of fine-tune editing; I appreciate that my intervention is late. However, I've basically avoided it because I'm not an expert wikipedian (I've lost my password, as you can see) and I didn't have the resources to dedicate to a serious clash of perspectives here. Do you (or others) have thoughts about what I mentioned above, having a more matter-of-fact and briefer page for the candidate and then a seperate article for discussing the controversies (which, as a news story, could reasonably merit treatment on their own page as much as here?) If so, I can probably work up an outline tommorow and see what people think.Haligonian Lucullus

Supporters in caucus

I'm curious if anyone has feelings (either way) about including prominent caucus members who support(or criticize) Ignatieff's leadership bid. For instance, senator Roméo Dallaire, who headed the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Rwanda, is backing Ignatieff. Any thoughts? 72.139.184.107 15:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Caucus supporters are listed along with the candidates at Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006. A more detailed list, including prominent supporters outside of the federal Liberal caucus, exists at Endorsements for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006. Methinks that might be enough. -Joshuapaquin 15:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Are those links provided in the article? Joel Bastedo 15:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Recognition and Lesser Evils

So we're having problems with this section:

Ignatieff has written on Middle Eastern and Balkan affairs but is best known for his scholarship on human rights. Much of his work in this area explores the challenges of ethnic conflict and genocide for the concept of universal human rights. One such challenge being the dangers of nationalism in a post-cold war world. More recently, Ignatieff has proposed that western liberal societies may have to compromise their democratic ideals in order to fight the war on terrorism; "To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war."[3]

Neutrality is only part of the problem. More importantly, this paragraph is part of the "Recognition" section, which is meant to describe things Ignatieff has received recognition for. The lesser evil approach is described in greater detail in the "Ideas: The Lesser Evil Approach" section, and the controversy these ideas has caused is described in the "Controversies: Torture" section. Keeping that in mind, how about reworking the section as I have done in the article? Joel Bastedo 07:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think what you wrote is very good. It's concise, and the clipped content is pretty well explained elsewhere in the article. -Joshuapaquin 07:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree; well done,Joel. 65.95.149.62 13:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

On Multiple Identities?

I wonder if someone can expand on the "multiple identities" section. Is this an important idea of Ignatieff's? As it sounds, it seems like just a turn of phrase he once used when describing himself. If that's all it is, perhaps it can be removed?

Indeed, I was just thinking the same thing yesterday. As it stands, it's rather small to be a section in itself. If it can't be fleshed out, let's zap it. -Joshuapaquin 22:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed re; multiple identities. 67.71.121.74 22:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Cuts

In an effort to cut back the length of the Political Controversy section (see discussion at #NPOV), I've cliped some bits and moved them back here. I've offered some explanations, but if people aren't satisfied and feel this information is vital, stick it back in and explain.

1. He might go back to Harvard when he retires. That doesn't seem to be at the heart of the controversy, and was just making the section long and unweildy. SNIP?

During the 2006 election, Ignatieff told the Harvard Crimson, "If I am not elected, I imagine that I will ask Harvard to let me back," where he would teach in "some shape or form."[4] However, Ignatieff later clarified these comments, saying if he lost he would "continue teaching at the University of Toronto" and would return to Harvard "in the future, only when his political career ends."[5]. Joel Bastedo 04:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

2. After saying Ignatieff came under fire for adopting an American perspective, the article offered two examples: his speech to the graduates, and the following sentence. I thought one was sufficient, especially since this one just reiterates that Ignatieff took an American perspective... it doesn't really expand on the idea. SNIP?

For example, in a New York Times Magazine article discussing his "Lesser Evil" approach to fighting terrorism, Ignatieff used "we" and "us" over 100 times throughout the article in reference to America. [6]. Joel Bastedo 04:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

3. This is from the Torture subsection, which was really long. I suppose detractors will want this information left in the article, but it seems to me that it goes beyond relating the circumstances of the controversy, to actually engaging in the controversy, which we should not do. Basically, the fact that Grearty and Aguirre criticize Ignatieff has little to do with the controversy -- they're just critics, and we've already established that the position is criticized, and why. SNIP?

Citing the "lesser evil" approach, Conor Gearty, professor of human rights law at the London School of Economics, accused Ignatieff and other liberal intellectuals of giving United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld "the intellectual tools with which to justify his government's expansionism" and creating an atmosphere in which torture ordered by the US government might be condoned. Gearty also said that Ignatieff is "probably the most important figure to fall into this category of hand-wringing apologists for human rights abuses." Similarly, Mariano Aguirre, co-director of the Fundacion para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Dialogo Exterior (Fride) in Madrid wrote a prominent condemnation of Ignatieff's views, stating that he "mixes history and propaganda" by ignoring historical precedents regarding US government human rights abuses. Joel Bastedo 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Joel - Good job cleaning up this article. I visited it last week for the first time in a while, and it was full of fourth rate writing and endlessly repeated information and quotes. I got a real laugh out of the "multiple identities" section, where it looked like someone quoted Ignatieff's discussion of Isaiah Berlin's "fox and hedgehog" distinction in order to try to show he has some kind of multiple identity problem. You've balanced out the content well, cutting out unnecessary "Pro-Ignatieff" parts of the recognition section whilst removing unnecessarily repeated quotes and POV language from other sections - Striking13 04:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for saying so! Not only has the article improved, but it has also helped me to put off working on my thesis! Sigh. Back to work. Joel Bastedo 05:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

4. I removed these paragraphs from the "Leadership bid" subsection for three reasons: A) the speech took place before Ignatieff declared his candidacy; B) the first paragraph reveals nothing about what his vision for Canada *is*, it just says he outlined it, which isn't really useful; and C) if the signs and costumes of protestors are to be reported in Wikipedia, every entry on every politician will become unreadably long. Does anyone object? The second paragraph is probably good, but it isn't really related to the leadership race; perhaps it could be rephrased and put in the "Background" section?

Before announcing his candidacy, Ignatieff gave a speech on March 30 2006, to a packed room at the University of Ottawa entitled "Canada and the World". In it, Ignatieff outlined his vision for Canada, including, among other things, his views on citizenship, foreign policy, federal-provincial relations, and the environment. Some protesters attended the event, wearing hoods and orange jumpsuits, similar to those of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib detainees, holding signs alleging Ignatieff supports torture. Ignatieff acknowledged their presence and right to protest, but denied their claims in his speech.

When taking questions from the audience following the speech, Ignatieff refused comparisons to Pierre Trudeau, indicating that while he admired Trudeau, Sir Wilfrid Laurier was his political hero. Ignatieff said he wished to strengthen national unity by inspiring commitment to civic values and the indivisibility of Canadian citizenship.

No consensus for the cuts

Sorry, I am new but have been reading this daily. There seemed to have been a slow but steady effort to reach consensus BEFORE making article substantial changes but this past weekend it seems as if a pro-Ignatieff sanitization has been undertaken in quite a sneaky way. What happened? Was it the one abrasive editor who never signs his edit who suggested that Iggy's staffers take control of the article and then switched to being flattering of any sanitization edits? Is that the method that has been successfully in play? Please abtain consensus BEFORE making such cuts. Canuckster 12:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster, nothing was done sneakily. You just reverted an awful lot of carefully considered edits that were brought into this discussion page. Some of them had been agreed upon, others were still waiting for comments. Rather than reverting, please explain which of the many edits you disagree with and why. For example, what's wrong with moving the controversy over Ignatieff's attitude to Ukrainians into the controversy section instead of the political career section? Why do we need to have a long list of Ignatieff's endorsements, when that list already exists in TWO places on Wikipedia? Those are just a couple of the edits you undid. So I'm going to undo your revert because it doesn't seem very conducive to collaboration. Then we can discuss changes that need to be made. And no, I am not Pro-Ignatieff. I'm trying to make this article read like an encyclopedia entry, and to make it have some logical order. Please respect that that should be ALL of our goals! Joel Bastedo 15:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Canuckster: I was the "abrasive editor" and the only edits I made were to the talk page and to add the NPOV tag and put it back a few times. I'll get my login sorted ASAP if I continue contributing. In fact, I've done nothing but propose things in talk, not editing content at all, since I don't think an edit war serves any purpose. See "collaborative revamp" at bottom.Haligonian Lucullus

"Media Tidbits": In or out?

There seems to be some dispute as to whether we need this in the article — some people edit it out, some people revert those edits as "vandalism." It seems to me an interesting bit of trivia, but hardly worth disputing over. I'd say we can lose it. Thoughts?

Media tidbits

According to Jane Taber of The Globe and Mail:

Late last spring (2005), André Boisclair, now the Parti Québécois Leader, graduated from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, where Michael Ignatieff was teaching. As Mr. Boisclair was coming off the stage with his diploma, Dr. Ignatieff was there to shake his hand. "So are you going home?" Dr. Ignatieff asked the Quebec sovereignist. (Former PQ leader Bernard Landry had just surprised everyone by announcing his resignation.) "I think so. Will I meet you there?" asked Mr. Boisclair, who served as a minister in PQ governments. Said Dr. Ignatieff, "We'll see."

Joel Bastedo 15:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed a while ago; [7]. It was certainly tolerable when the article was still small and the leadership had not yet heated up; it wasn't 'substantive' but nonetheless interesting. Now, I think, the article has matured to the point where that which isn't substantive really should go. -Joshuapaquin 06:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That was me questioning it in earlier: [8] (I have opened an account since then). It's neither substantive nor interesting and is more suited to a tabloid than an encyclopedia. JiHymas@himivest.com 23:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I just deleted it. Joel Bastedo 19:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ballistic Missile Defense

This section has also become the cite of some revision and counter-revision. I've never liked this section because it doesn't really make clear why there is a controversy. I'm especially not a big fan of the last paragraph, and that's the one that's been reverted in and out. Can we fix it? Or should we lose it?

Ignatieff has further spoken on this subject during the past year, telling groups of Liberals he is absolutely opposed to any weaponization of space, or ballistic missile defense, citing his opposition to the process of Paul Martin's decision rather than its content.

Joel Bastedo 15:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The section as I see it right now seems balanced enough; but fundamentally, having even a balanced discussion of a laundry list of 'controversies' which have very little mainstream relevence is my main problem with the article as it stands. (Hence my suggestion that a controversies article be created and linked to in place of the disproportionate controversies section.)

The 'controversies' of Ignatieff - as in, what is actually controversial in the public/political/media discourse on the leadership race right now - amount to the Afghanistan issue (which affects the party at large but him in particular) and his 2003 Iraq stance. Saying, as Ignatieff has, that "we should be at the table for missile defence" is an irrelevency in 2006. I appreciate that any whiff of BMD is anathema to people very concerned about deep integration, but this article isn't really the place for that sort of editorial viewpoint imo.Haligonian Lucullus

Haiti and Kyoto

I've just cut the following out of "Ideas: On Canadian rights culture" because it seems unrelated. If this information should be in the article, would it be better in the Controversy section? Or perhaps we need to make a new section for "Things about Ignatieff that We Don't Like"? (Kidding, but seriously, let's try to keep our contributions encyclopedic and informative, not calculated to harm or help someone's political campaign.)

In other writings. Ignatieff has drawn fire for comparing Quebec to Haiti, in his novel "Blood and Belonging". He has futhermore refused to eendorse Medicare or the Kyoto Protocal, instead, preferrring the "home-grown" solutions of Prime Minister Harper and U.S. President George W. Bush.

Joel Bastedo 16:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Yeah, that's reaching. Google News searches on ignatieff kyoto or ignatieff haiti turn up, well, nothing at all to substantiate those claims. Also, Blood and Belonging is not a novel. -Joshuapaquin 06:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Collaborative Revamp

As I mentioned above (after handily getting into immediate personality conflicts) I think we could improve the POV of the article by consolidating the criticisms of Ignatieff into an article about the controversies, with an explanatory gloss and a link in place of the present controversies section. My reasoning is that, at present, the article as a whole is overlong, and concentrates disproportionately on controversies, many of which are not particuarly controversial in the mainstream Canadian political context.

As guidelines, we might look at the articles for the other Liberal leadership contenders, many of whom (Dion, Rae, Kennedy, Dryden, etc) are very serious contenders for the leadership as well. I think it should be possible to agree on a brief, NPOV biography, bibliography, political synopsis and links list, with a short section on the chief controversies and a link to a main article on that subject.

Unlike Mr. Bastedo, I do support Ignatieff, but I don't think that positive political fluff has any place in a wiki-article either. All I'm interested in is seeing a concise and accurate article leading to information that will allow people to make up their own minds.

(added signature)Haligonian Lucullus

A collaborative revamp sounds like a solid idea to me. I think it would be sort of silly to have an entire wikipedia article devoted to "Controversies surrounding Michael Ignatieff," but if that's what it takes to make this a balanced article, I guess it's necessary. Joel Bastedo 19:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you're Iggy's mom, we'd probably better have some of the more strongly critical editors weigh in on this issue as well. I don't think a 'criticsms article' is exactly ideal either, but it is a possible compromise and relatively encyclopedic given that there have been public discussions on some of these controversies.

(For the record, I'm no relation to Ignatieff. I was being facetious because an edit I had made was being attributed to an Ignatieff staffer, when in fact I care very little about the Liberal leadership race. I might as well confess that if I were a party member, Ignatieff would not have my vote.) Joel Bastedo 00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a wikipedia mechanism for constructing an alternatively structured article in parallel with the old one, and then, after discussion, implementing it? If so that would seem to be the ideal approach, as compared to radically changing the present one experimentally and risking an edit war.Haligonian Lucullus

We've mentioned before that putting facts in an article asserts, to some extent, their notability. Surely doing an entire article about these controversies would be doing so excessively. My suggestion is that we try to strike a reasonable length-balance as a crude way of keeping things in perspective.

As I write this, the "Controversies" section is 1,128 words. Background is 477, Recognition is 179, Ideas is 517, Political Career is 455 (total 2,756). So the Controversies are more than twice as long as any other section, and make up 41% of the entire body text.

Here's just a number I'm throwing out: Let's try to bring controversies to 600 words. It would still be the longest section, and take up 29% of the body text, but it would certainly be much fairer than the present situation. -Joshuapaquin 20:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

My sense, Josh, is that we're faced with a tradeoff. Creating a seperate article for controversies does give the impression that they are particularly notable; on the other hand, I think that without a division into a matter of fact article and one on controversies, the controversies will tend to creep into the text simply because feelings on the matter are too strong. In addition to overall word-count, the controversy discussion also tends to enter into other parts of the article as well.

The advantage to two articles we could have a really encyclopedic, NPOV article acceptable as neither fluff nor attack, without stamping on people's firmly held (albiet, imo, mistaken) criticisms of Ignatieff; something along the lines of the other leadership candidates' articles. The disadvantages are twofold: one, it tends to legitimize the importance of the criticisms (from a pro-Ignatieff point of view) and it could be seen as segregating the criticisms out of sight (from an anti-Ignatieff point of view.)

But I think it's a legitimate compromise that I think could help the article deservedly lose the NPOV tag and become a neutral information source for a lot of people looking into Ignatieff.Haligonian Lucullus

Seems like the Iggy staffers have indeed taken over this article and discussion after the editor above suggested such; "I realize that the only way it would be remotely NPOV would be for Ignatieff to assign staffers to fix it non-stop". However, I doubt the rest of the community will put up with such a transparent attempt to rationalize a one-sided article here on Wikipedia. 67.71.123.9 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

67.71.123.9: I'm not 'an Iggy staffer" and I rather doubt Josh Paquin or Joel Bastedo are. I'm afaik the only actually pro-Ignatieff editor here (and the only one who knows 'Iggy staffers') and as I said, that comment of mine is hardly as sinister in its original context as you're making it out to be. -If- it were to be a continual edit war, Ignatieff's campaign would have to have someone on it all the time. I'm suggesting a way to compromise and asking for people who disagree with me to give their thoughts. Please just comment on the suggestion or at least cool it with the conspiratorial rhetoric.Haligonian Lucullus

NB: I still haven't yet touched the content of the article, either. I'd think that'd be evidence of good faith here.Haligonian Lucullus

You raise a good point, Haligonian (if I may be so bold?): The controversies do creep in to the rest of the article. If readers with an axe to grind are unprepared to read the entire article to find that there is an entire (large!) section devoted to the controversies, and instead feel obliged to insert that information throughout, what are the chances that that will stop if there were a seperate article for the controversies?

I am inserting notes into several strategic parts of the article advising editors to check the Controversies section and the Discussion page before reverting or adding controversy related information they think is necessary. Hopefully that will channel more of the dispute away from the article and into this forum. Joel Bastedo 01:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Joel: I don't know whether or not one is allowed to include such notes in the article body. Regarding people not posting in the seperate article if they don't now post in the seperate section; two things. First, it would solve the matter of article length and disportionate focus, and second, it would enable people to gently redirect political debates to the controversy page without it being an issue of censorship or freedom of expression.Haligonian Lucullus

The notes were added as comments in the article source - they're only visible to people who have hit "edit this page". It's an inelegant solution, and one that I have not seen do much good when I used it at Google Maps, but it's certainly better than nothing. -Joshuapaquin 02:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Joel has a good point about the fact that, on this subject, people will continue to put POV into the main article even if we have a separate controversies one. The only advantage I can think of is that it will be easier for us to spot POV stuff that can be reverted outright, but I still expect it would turn into a revert war.

Also, from a principled standpoint, it seems to me that using a separate page would be a retreat on the policy of NPOV. We either make NPOV work in our articles, or we don't. Balkanization of articles like this one would be a most unenyclopedic thing to do. -Joshuapaquin 02:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned, it would both address the length and emphasis issues, and provide a fair rationale for keeping the overwhelming emphasis on controversy from entering into the matter of fact discussion of the subject's personal and political bios. I don't really think it's balkanization unless the controversy itself was deemed to be unworthy of seperate discussion (and thus, worthy to be merged back into this document.) It's kind of a catch-22 I suppose; if it's unworthy of a seperate article, it shouldn't be nearly so central to this one; and yet if we accept that contention, it's unlikely we'll find a consensus on a proportionate (eg, far smaller) emphasis on controversy.--Haligonian Lucullus 03:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

On consensus

To those who keep reverting and citing lack of consensus: consensus is achieved here, on the discussion page. Most of the edits that you think have been censored by "pro-Iggy" or "anti-Iggy" editors have really been moved here and are waiting to be discussed. Other edits you are reverting involve gramatical, stylistic, or organizational corrections which have nothing to do with your imagined polemic debate. So rather than charging in with your reverts and your accusations of censorship ablazing, how about reading through the discussion and helping to work toward that consensus you demand? Joel Bastedo 01:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Article gutting

I agree with the anon that the gutting of critical information is being done without consensus by 2 edit names, 1 of which clearly stated they wanted Iggy staffers to take control of the site. Please get consensus approval first. Canuckster 12:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I will also say that I do not like the manipulative approach of Haligonian Lucullus which,it seems to me, has been to use basic psychological steering to develop meat puppets to do his bidding on the site. His initial edit presented himself as a pissed-off detached observer which we can now see he is anything but. Canuckster 12:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

First, what anon? Second, I am the one who said (Let's get this right - does misrepresenting this four times make it any eviler?) that Ignatieff staffers fixing it would be the only way to keep in NPOV in the context of equally biased people using it as a tool - and I said that clearly isn't happening. As it clearly isn't. Yeah, at the time, I said it in the context of slapping an NPOV tag on and walking away - but people responded saying that wasn't a collaborative approach, and the point was well taken.

Once more, I haven't made a single edit. I am on the talk page, asking for your views on compromise. How, exactly, is that gutting critical information? As for "psychological steering" and "meat puppets," that's really not the kind of person I am. And you might notice that noone has yet agreed with anything that I've proposed and that I'm the only one here who supports Ignatieff.

Please consider the possibility that your interpretation of my behavior is unfair. My first post here was criticized as being uncivil and uncollaborate, so I've posted by best efforts at civility and collaboration. People are concerned about unilateral, non-collaborative edits and I've yet to touch the content. So I'm being polite, sticking to the talk page, and making suggestions. One interpretation is the insidious brainwashing plot, but tbh, do you find that plausible? If I were out to behave maliciously there would be far less inconvenenient ways.--Haligonian Lucullus 13:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Meat puppets? Where? I do not think it means what you think it means -Joshuapaquin 15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC).

Canuckster: Please remember that assuming good faith "is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism." This fundamental principle of Wikipedia is crucial to the collaborative process, and is one which accusations of coersive plots clearly violates. Joel Bastedo 15:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, the edits you have just reverted include myriad technical corrections. Yes, you undid many substantive changes as well (some of which I'm sure you would agree with if you took the time to look at them, since they include, for example, the removal of a long and redundant list of endorsements for Ignatieff and a more prominent featuring of the controvery over Ignatieff's remarks about Ukrainians), but those substantive changes have been brought into this discussion page and are waiting for feedback. You have yet to address a single one of the direct requests for feedback on the edits you are erasing. It seems obstructive and unhelpful to demand consensus and then refuse to participate in the contructive process of collaboration. Joel Bastedo 15:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reflections on marital breakdown.

The following passage has been removed several times from the Background section, but it keeps getting reverted back without explanation. Can anyone justify having it in there?

The November 11,1998 Publisher's Weekly article said; "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'."

Joel Bastedo 06:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this doesn't seem particularly helpful. More like quotation for quotation's sake; the biographical details are relevant to the article, but these comments aren't. -Joshuapaquin 07:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should stay because there is nothing else at all about his children. 65.95.151.150 11:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the entries on the other leadership candidates for comparison, and none of them provide any more than the number and sometimes the names of the candidates' children. Bennett's two children aren't named and neither are Dryden's. Bevilacqua's two children are named, as are Kennedy's and the four Volpe children, but no more details are provided. The other entries don't mention offspring, and the articles on Dion, Fry, and Hall Findlay don't discuss their personal lives at all. Already, we say that he is married to one woman and has two children from a previous marriage. Do we really need a quote explaining that the first marriage was difficult and the divorce was a burden on the children? Wouldn't most readers assume as much? —Joel Bastedo 15:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It does seem unusual. Attempts to focus on the private life or children of public figures is unseemly and I could not see any modern encyclopedia doing so. Kind of reminds me of those American style smear campaigns, like those aimed at Bill Clinton back in the early 1990's (or John Kerry more recently). For a period, there was a concerted effort to dig up some "dirt" on Chelsea Clinton, or Clinton's capacity as a father, even before his Lewinsky shenanigans. -- Finnegans wake 23:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I sort of doubt it's a smear in the Canadian context or a POV issue. It's a bit in depth for a short bio. Let's not start turning on pov shadows here. I'm the pro-Ignatieff editor here, if any is to be found suspicious, and this is no biggie. --Haligonian Lucullus 00:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I just checked out our article on John Kerry; it has lots of info on his children and 1st.wife [9] so....?It really seems like any information about Iggy's personal or professional past which isn't glowing is seen as being a smear and not relevant by some editors.Iggy predicted terrorist interference in the 2004 US presidential election within his Times "lesser evils" op-ed. To me that is quite a dramatic thing to predict for a level headed liberal academic yet it isn't even specifically mentioned in the article. I'm really surprised to read opinions that the article is too negative or a "smear". To me it looks like something Iggy's campaign staff put together with a token attempt to APPEAR npov. 65.95.150.229 00:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OMG!! YOU'RE RIGHT!!! PRO-IGGY STAFFERS SANITIZING AGAIN!!!! I would suggest actively engaging in discussion and justifying your POV, 65.95.150.229 as repeating conspiracy theories and hurling accusations everywhere just don't cut it. My point was not that that particular quote or article was a "smear", obviously not. My point is that focusing on a public figure's private life is unseemly in encyclopedia articles. I'm not sure John Kerry is a good comparator for Canadian politics. Wouldn't the wiki articles of other leadership candidates be more appropriate? -- Finnegans wake 01:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent; I do not think there is any conspiracy; I simply have the opinion that the article is quite POV in favour of Iggy and I really don't know or even care why that might be. No, Kerry is a much better comparable as he was the leader of the "opposition" in the last US election and it's very likely Iggy will be the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada as most analysts agree he is far and away the front runner. I certainly feel his own comments about his family are more relevant to the man than the titles and achievements of his ancestors; but I respect everyone else's opinion to feel that stuff is important. I think that there has been too many superlatives thrown around in the discussion "toxic","smear","conspiracy theories" etc. and I suggest these quite derogatory references impede the collaborative process, I think. Please remember that assuming good faith "is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. As we allow anyone to edit, it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. 64.229.31.49 05:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

64.229.31.49, please see my above response to FW and weigh in on the issue. Ironically we both appear to feel the article is inappropriately POV in opposite directions, but I think creating a new article would enable both fair proportional balance in this article and free expression for those feeling that the controversies are a major topical interest. If it merits dominating this document, it merits its own document, does it not? --Haligonian Lucullus 16:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)