Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Archive 6

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

Archived and Trimmed

The previous talk page was getting really hard to read, due to both length and number of threads. I've removed most of the previous talk page and archived it to Archive5, leaving at least one section for each open topic. If anyone feels that I've snipped too much, please feel free to repost. I'm going to suggest that we try to avoid 12 sections all discussing the same thing - for instance, let's keep all the interview discussions in one section, and refrain from making unsuported accusations. Sub-sections are great too, So please, keep headings short, constructive, and to the point - titles like "NO CENSORSHIP EDITORS!!!111eleventy-one!!11!" don't help anyone! 72.139.185.19 20:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning things up, 72.139.185.19. —Joel Bastedo 21:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
No! It is disruptive to remove others' edits selectively. I request an immediate administrative review of the trimming of talk page comments. 67.71.121.30 22:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Or you could just move the sections you want to see here back from the archives. It's not biggie. —Joel Bastedo 00:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. Just go the archive, clip the section of text that you feel was unfairly archived, and repost it here. It's not a big deal. 198.20.40.50 18:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations

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

Undue Weight

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

Ideas, Controversies, and Nation Building

This subsection was under the section Ideas. It didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the subsections, and the title doesn't seem to have much to do with the content. Perhaps someone can work on it to make it fit, if it's necessary?

Nation building
As a human rights scholar, Ignatieff has written extensively on the subject of international development and peacekeeping. Citing Kosovo and Rwanda, he has argued for a more active involvement by Western nations. More specifically, he has been critical of the "casual-aversion syndrome" practiced by NATO; that air strikes are used more often than land deployment because they present a limited risk, rather than an effective means of peacekeeping.

Joel Bastedo 18:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is crazy, but what if we combined this with BMD and Iraq to form a single section on "International affairs"? -Joshuapaquin 00:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not crazy at all. I think, though, that his position on Iraq has been high profile enough to merit its own subsection, whether as part of an Ideas or an International Affairs section. Joel Bastedo 05:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. I mean, in a way, all of Ignatieff's writings are tied into IR - at first glance, it seems that what separates BMD/Iraq/Nation building from the other Ideas sections are that these are normative issues, whereas the rest (e.g. "Canada has a distinctive human rights culture) are positive matters. The "Lesser Evil" is sort of a grey area in that it has both philosophical bases and immediate policy implications.
I'm kind of inspired by this section] of Ignatieff's profile at contemporarywriters.com. They break down his major writings and give a summary of each. Their article isn't organized by the abstract interpretation of a reader; it's organized by the actual printed volume. Not a bad idea for talking about his literary work.
One more thing - I decided to check out an article on another academic who has become reknowned for political involvement - Noam Chomsky. Let's just say that the results there are definitely less than ideal. -Joshuapaquin 15:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
When I merged the sections, I was envisioning something along those lines - the "As a human right scholar..." bit was originally under "International Development" or something to that effect. "Nation building" isn't the best title for it, but I was trying to find some way of including it under the same category as the Iraq war and the ballistic missile defense. They fit the same theme, at least within Ignatieff's writings. But I like the contemporary writers / Noam Chomsky style. So I'm game for a re-organization / re-titling. 198.20.40.50 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok, I see where you were going. So the content under "Nation building" was intended as an introduction to the subsections dealing with International affairs? For balance, then, I suppose we should have a similar introductory paragraph for the ideas dealing with Rights? Mind you, this article is already too long, so maybe there's a better way. Joel Bastedo 02:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Re: I'm kind of inspired by this section of Ignatieff's profile at contemporarywriters.com.... by -Joshuapaquin -- This really is a good summary. Thanks for pointing it out, JP! 72.139.185.19 02:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Ideas vs. Controversies

  • As per the discussion above, I don't think it helps to list Ignatieff's writings under "controversies". We should definately mention the criticism these views attract, but it adds an inherent bias to label them as "controversies" insteda of "ideas" or "writings". Controversial writers should have their views explained, but not pre-judged. Please share any arguments for or against below. 72.139.185.19 21:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

A quote from Wikipedia's policy on the Biography of living people....

In a nutshell: Articles about living persons require a degree of sensitivity and must adhere strictly to Wikipedia's content policies. Be very firm about high-quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. Responsibility for justifying controversial claims rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons, which require a degree of sensitivity, and which must adhere strictly to our content policies:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. [1] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles. The responsibility for justifying controversial claims in Wikipedia, of all kinds, but especially for living people's bios, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person making the claim.

Given the above, I don't see any way that the ex-wife interview can be included. 198.20.40.50 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am really confused. If this interview with Barrowclough is verified as being accurate and Ignatieff never responds to her statements, would the interview be disallowed? Ottawaman 12:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If this edit is true, then it would appear that some editors here are grossly mis-stating or mis-representing wikipedia policy in efforts to control content in this article. I suggest that no more references to restrictive policies be made except by administrators. I am wondering how many other times policy has been mis-stated in this article in order to keep out information which is not in Iggy's favor. 70.48.206.115 14:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't say you never get listened to. I am pleased to fulfil your request forthwith. Tyrenius 06:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Including Barrowclough's interview

I'm not referring to verifiability or anything. Let's assume it's all true. So, the question is: why should it be included? Other than recognizing her existence and the names of the children, it seems ... so unneccessary. That and the facts about her reviews being used by universities seems shockingly irrelevant. --Hamiltonian 15:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I suppose we could have a brief mention of her occupation, e.g. "and has two children from his first marriage to British film reviewer Susan Barrowclough". Nothing more than that is relevant, though. -Joshuapaquin 20:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. Apparently, the article has been deleted due to unverifiability. FYI. [1]

Strange and selective objections

  • Very strange objections above. Why do the 2 editors above not remove the 13 lines of similar family information in John Kerry's article devoted to his first wife and their children?
  • And if those 2 editors will not do that on Kerry's article, why do they insist upon doing it here? 65.95.150.236 00:04, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The state of one article has nothing to do with the state of another. Additionally, the Kerry paragraphs are based on legitimate published sources, not a phone-taped interview posted by an anonymous contributor to Wikinews. --Hamiltonian 00:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Kerry article is 75 KB long; that's not a good model to follow. If we were writing a book-length biography on Ignatieff, details about his relationship with his ex-wife would be relevant. But we're not. Rather, we're trying to maintain a brief, encyclopaedic entry on the man as a public figure, and as his private relationships have not become part of the public discourse, they are irrelevant. A good rule of thumb, I think, is to ask yourself what information the average person would need if they heard Ignatieff's name mentioned in the news and went to Wikipedia to find out who he is and why he is being talked about. Which universities use his ex-wife's movie reviews, and what his ex-wife thinks of his parenting skills will not help to answer those questions. —Joel Bastedo 06:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems odd to me and completely arbitrary that you have determined Ignatieff's bio should be shorter than John Kerry's. Ottawaman 12:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
John Kerry was the democratic nominee for the President of the United States. I hardly see how you could ever compare them. --mboverload@ 12:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you feel the democratic nominee for the President of the United States is a big deal but I certainly do not. Imo, the likely next PM of the wealthiest country in the world is a much more important personage. 67.71.121.30 22:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
My view is that the old section reads like The National Enquirer or some other form of tabloid journalism. The current JB version lists the relevant information, but does so without the rhetoric. 198.20.40.50 18:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Entire article needs a major review

I do not think we can have confidence that the previous edits on the article were done well. This is perhaps the most widely read article Ignatieff ever wrote ( a 9 PAGE Op-ed for the New York Times Magazine) and it was deleted from the list of references although the article refers readers to the reference list in relation to the 9 page New York Times piece. In addition I just received a talk page warning of some type from some anon who was stalking my edits. I am, of course, reinstating the link to the all-important NY Times Ignatieff article titled "Lesser Evils". Please address the removal of that reference here before removing it again. Ottawaman 21:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain why the original link disappeared, but I've re-added to the list of articles by Ignatieff and wikified the style to match the rest. Should be good to go. 198.20.40.50 18:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Correction: Actually, Ottawaman, you were the one who removed the link to the Lesser Evils article in your 21:56, 6 August 2006 (removed inoperable link) edit. See the before [2] and after [3]. As far as I can tell, the previous link worked fine. 198.20.40.50 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I am correct about this; the previous #11link was to a different op-ed; not the all-important "lesser evils" op-ed. Ottawaman 13:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope. Check the 7th link under 'Articles by Ignatieff' in the before [4] and after [5]. -- 198.20.40.50 16:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty funny. I think this is the first time I've seen someone proclaim bias in an article based upon their own edits. - Finnegans wake 03:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Organization

In previous discussions, now moved to the archives, we have been working toward consolidating the ideas and controversies sections as much as we could to make the article more concise and readable. user: 72.139.185.19 reinserted much of the content that was consolidated into an "International affairs" subsection of ideas in edit, and I have since tried to strike a balance between the two versions. I'm not concerned too much about the section headings, as long as they accurately reflect the content of the sections. What concerns me is the tendency in this article to be long winded and use far more lines and sections than we really need to communicate the basic information. Please have a look at the most recent version (Revision as of 21:47, 6 August 2006), which is much shorter than the previous, but I think contains all the same information. If I'm wrong, let's thoughtfully add the necessary bits that I've overlooked, rather than blindly adding back in five or six paragraphs that basically say the same thing. Thoughts? —Joel Bastedo 21:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well done. The article is much, much too long - we need some editors to trim this to encyclopedic standards. An excellent start. 198.20.40.50 18:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Barrowclough stuff

A few points:

This is a biography of a living person. We must, therefore, be especially careful. The inclusion of this information, which has not been reported in the mainstream press seems simply sensationalistic and, in my mind, like a cheap shot.

This interview has not been multiple-sourced. How do we know what she says is true? Why was she so happy to talk to an anonymous Wikinews contributor?

Who cares about John Kerry's article in relation to this one? --Hamiltonian 13:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. And that paragraph about which univerisities have film courses that use her articles is completely random and irrelevant. Let this be a standing explanation, because I'm going to revert that puppy on sight. —Joel Bastedo 13:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
As a further point, I vigorously oppose here and elsewhere the use of an anonymously-contributed single-sourced unpublished telephone interview from Wikinews as a source here. --Hamiltonian 13:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm on board with Hamiltonian on this one. The current Family section by Joel Bastedo works much better than the yellow journalism / tabloid-like section from before. 198.20.40.50 18:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree, too. Any reference to the Wikinews interview should be shot on sight per WP:BLP and WP:RS. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I also agree, I just reviewed that wikinews article and the anon attack (with multi-stage objections) on the article seems to have worked beautifully; I also note that our own anon 72.139.185.19 who vandalizes user talk pages here (with extremely offensive ridicule of disabled children) on Wikipedia, made substantial contributions to the demise of that wikinews article. As horrid as i find it to be, I must also take the position that none of that wikinews article should go in here from now on. Ottawaman 13:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. Apparently, the article has been deleted due to unverifiability. FYI. [6]

Further analysis

This article has been hijacked

this edit, a quick and non-discussed deletion, proves my point. No point in trying to add real facts to this Ignatieff campaign bio. 64.229.64.116 21:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read my edit summary, I said that while Ignatieff referring to himself as a Martian is funny, it isn't a controversy. Also, the substance of your edit (that he's been out of the country) is covered above. 198.20.40.50 21:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course the edit belonged there. It shows in a very poignant way how big of a controversy it is when he himself referred to himself as a "martian outsider". Let the readers read the book or scan to decide for themselves; who appointed you censor? 64.229.64.116 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Shall we vote? Who thinks that Ignatieff joking about being a Martian is news? Anyone? 198.20.40.50 21:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, please don't create new section heads for every comment. I've condensed your previous ones into this one. 198.20.40.50 21:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
NEWS????? "Who thinks that Ignatieff joking about being a Martian is news?" he asks above. I didn't know this was wikinews???? 64.229.64.116 22:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes we should vote; after people have time to read the section with this new information in it as well as my response to you below. 64.229.64.116 22:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Doubts about his national self-identity

Of course the comments Iggy himself made about his lack of time and experience in Canada belong in a section titled "Doubts about his national self-identity". It shows in a very poignant way how big of a controversy it is when he himself addressed it. Let the readers read the book or scan to decide for themselves; who appointed you censor? Don't try these deflective article control excuses on me; I see right through them. 64.229.64.116 21:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The full quote, in context, does not suggest to me that he is "addressing controversy". Someone posted an image of the page to Commons here. I look at this and see the author explaining his narrative to be unique because of a different perspective. -Joshuapaquin 02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what he wants to keep out

of the Doubts about his national self-identity section;

Ignatieff even referred to himself as "a martian outsider" in regards to Canada in Ref.#2 "The Rights Revolution"; "I am writing about the rights talk of a country of which I am a citizen, but in which I have not resided since 1969....I want to alert readers that I am a Martian outsider."[7]

  • Once again, please don't create new sections for every one of your comments. They're now melded together here. 198.20.40.50 22:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

Ottawaman, what is it about this version that you find better and more neutral than the previous? I see that the version you prefer has a section on the Ukranian Canadian issue, but the other version deals with that topic more succinctly in the Political career section. Isn't that sufficient? I also notice the version you prefer doesn't have the new intro to Writings. I'm not sold on that part either -- it's too long, but outright deletion might be too extreme. Isn't there something you can work with there? More confusingly, why don't you want to identify "Harper" as "Conservative Prime Minister Steven Harper"? Why don't you want proper formatting for the references? And why do you need the redundant paragraph on being a Martian outsider, when doubts about Ignatieff's national identity are already dealt with at length? I think editors are getting too trigger happy on the reverts and are not really looking at what they are doing to the article. Can we all just make whatever edits we feel will actually improve the article, rather than blindly reverting out of hand, often for no better reason than that we suspect a certain editor of bias? —Joel Bastedo 02:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the Ukrainian Controversy

To be honest, I'm not certain this is even an issue any more (or ever was, for that matter). A google news search shows no articles on the subject, and even the UCC (Ukrainian Canadian Congress) has dropped it. The only reference I could was the November 27th press release, which seems to be related to the arguments Ignatieff had with the other nominees. Any thought on removing this section? 198.20.40.50 16:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I take it you're referring to the "controversial comments", and not the nomination process. Yeah, I'm thinking that compared to the other matters raised in the section ("Doubts about Canadian identity", "Criticism of the Lesser Evil", etc) the Ukrainian thing is really small potatoes. Are there really people out there who still think Ignatieff hates Ukrainians? I doubt it. -Joshuapaquin 17:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I thought this was an encyclopedia. Do you 2 want to keep updating the article like a news story? I can imagine also that the Ukrainians haven't forgotten. Ottawaman 18:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I knew you'd be against it. But anyone besides Ottawaman? -- 198.20.40.50 18:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm really just concerned about Undue Weight. It seems a reasonable assumption, to me, to say that things in the "Controversies" section should be things that are currently controversies. Otherwise, maybe they should get a line in "Political Career" or whatever. -Joshuapaquin 00:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I've trimmed the section and moved it to the politcal career section; I've tried to keep the spirit of the original, but please edit as desired. -- 72.139.185.19 01:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Worthington article link gone

Why

I believe that was Ottawaman's edit. I've restored. 198.20.40.50 18:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I read over the article, and it's pretty much just an endosement of Ignatieff. Thus, I think we should consider removing it, though I suppose it does provide some balance to the numerous critical articles in the external links section. Thoughts? -- 198.20.40.50 18:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
No; no endorsements in the article. 70.48.207.175 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to ask for user input besides that of Ottawaman and his alternates. 198.20.40.50 23:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Current List of Articles

I thought we could expand this discussion into which articles should actually be inlcuded. So far, they've pretty much been added willy-nilly, with no thought or discussion as to whether they should be here. So, here's the list:

Commentaries and Reviews

I'll start by commenting on The Walrus article - I think it's a thorough and NPOV piece and should be kept. I think the No More Mr Nice Guy and Ignatieff stands above... articles should be removed. They're pretty much just anti- and pro- Ignatieff, respectively. -- 72.139.185.19 02:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

More comments: Canada asks Ignatieff... is all right, but dated and nothing special. I vote remove. Ditto for But where's the context? and Getting a read on Michael Ignatieff. The James Laxner blog (The Trouble with Ignatieff) is a little anti-Iggy, and while I respect General Dallaire immensely, his support of Ignatieff is inconsequetial. I vote keep on the CTV article, since it's decidely neutral. 72.139.185.19 02:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
This might help too: WP:EL.

Combining Canadian Identity and Equal Rights

Both of these sections are based on The Rights Revolution and could be merged into one section without harm. Any objections? 72.139.185.19 02:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I got a little carried away with testing how it might look, and made a few bold changes. Please give the new article a look-over and fix up any sections that might need work. 72.139.185.19 03:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits, JB! I'd still like to mention "Trudeau's moral revolution", as Ignatieff uses exactly that language. But you're right - the new version reads much smoother. -- 72.139.185.19 06:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Do you think Trudeau's moral revolution could go in the first paragraph of that section? (ie. Firstly, on moral issues, since Trudeau's "moral revolution" in the 1970s, Canadian law has become secular and liberal, approximating European standards more closely than American ones.) I don't have my copy of Rights Revolution with me this week, so I'm not sure if that's a fair representation, but I can see it working there more easily than in the revised second paragraph. —Joel Bastedo 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?

I reading through the history logs. Was a compromise made, or did User:Ottawaman just insisting a compromise was made? Pete Peters 23:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The latter. 72.139.185.19 23:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk page deletions?

Hi, I am a newbie but I wonder why talk page comments and entire topics are being deleted? [8] [9]? They do not appear to me to be vandalisms and I was told Wikipedia has free and open discussions? Could someone please explain to me the process? I had some comments to make myself regarding the topics deleted but if don't want to waste my time if those topics have been decided out of bounds for some reason. BarbWatts 18:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

They have been transferred to the involved user's talk pages because they do not relate to the article Michael Ignatieff. As the first link you cite states, this talk page is for discussing issues related to this article. Inter-personal issues do not belong here and are only serve to escalate conflict. If you want to discuss another user, please use your or their talk page. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to also reply toBarbWatts here on the talk page. I feel this discussion is particularly important and must remain on this talk page because of the many edits 72.139.185.19 continues to make regarding this article. Ewart's argument is ridiculous for a wiki platform; and she applys that argument quite selectively as she leaves this entire section on the talk page; completely and utterly biased deletions are not welcome here. Ottawaman 00:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)talk
I am quite shocked that my inquiry was summarily deleted. I have no issues with any particular contributor here but I do believe in free speech and feel as though my comments were simply thrown off like garbage. I am not interested in 1on1 debates on user talk pages; I wanted to express my opinion on the community topic of talk page deletions which was within this talk page for quite some time with a number of contributors discussing it right here. It makes no sense to me that then someone moves it away from this talk page. Quite concerned about all of this. BarbWatts 00:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, perhaps someone with more experience can direct me toward wikipedia policy concerning a contributor removing the edits of other contributors (non-vandals of course). BarbWatts 00:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure either why the edits keep getting deleted. Usually when discussion pages get long and unweildy, an editor will shunt irrelevant sections off into an archives section. I don't know why that practice isn't being followed here. I think the intension was to focus the discussion on issues directly related to the subject, but the decision seems to have had the effect instead of prompting this smoldering debate over discussion pages censorship. Perhaps the editors will reconsider? —Joel Bastedo 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I am glad to see the "Talk should not be amended or removed" reference at the top of the talk page now. Hopefully the editors who were breaking the policy will have learned their lesson and not try to do it again. Ottawaman 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That last comment is unnecessary and provocative. If comments of that kind are made again, I will consider them as disruptive, and block the editor. This is a workshop for people that enjoy co-operating towards writing encyclopedic articles according to wikipedia policies. I'm not allowing that to be violated by anyone who doesn't have the best interests of the encyclopedia and fellow editors at heart. If any editor wishes to discuss any issues with me, they are welcome to contact me on my talk page or privately by email (link in bottom box on the left of my user page). Thanks. Tyrenius 21:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments Removal

To all editors, please do not remove comments by other editors. Unless the comments are offensive, or other obvious reasons. And Please do not Remove Comments and place them into users Talk page. Pete Peters 02:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Pete Peters 13:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Comments

[I have refactored this section to save wasting time and space. I questioned the existence of the above page. It's actually an integral part of WikiProject Biography. Thanks to Joshuapaquin for pointing this out, and Ottawaman for copying comments across. Apologies for the inconvenience. Tyrenius 18:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)]

Removal of topic heading

I'd like this topic heading removed which was placed over my edits and which characterizes them in a way I disagree with. I'd also like Ignatieff's own reference to his absence from Canada included in the article section dealing with his absense from Canada. Ottawaman 18:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", Jimmy Wales, May 16, 2006 and May 19, 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Ignatieff/Archive_6&oldid=1084075045"