Jump to content

Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Archive 7/Ancillary

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


Misc

This is shaping up, but I must confess I'm getting a bit lost in the changes. Is it possible to clean up the layout somehow to make it clear 1) what the original text was 2) what the suggested new text is 3) if everyone agrees 4) if they don't, then what is the disagreement. Thanks. Tyrenius 04:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff's Harvard CV is still online.[1] It confirms the employment at the Globe and Mail (64-65) and at UBC (76-78 -- as an Assistant Prof. in history) He had then nine honourary degrees from Bishop's (95), Stirling University (Scotland, 99), Trinity College, U of T (99), UNB Fredericton (01), Queens (01), UWO (01), McGill (02), Regina (03) and Whitman College (in Washington State, 04). It doesn't specify what the degrees were although we hadn't either. --JGGardiner 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the above info go in the relevant sub headings? Delete this note of mine, if the above is moved.Tyrenius 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Possibly. The reason that I put it there is because, like you, I was having trouble following the messy discussion below. And since I thought that you were asking to start over, I was hoping to pre-empt the inclusion of those subjects in a new discussion since they seem well-sourced now (and few objected even before my source). If we're keeping the old one, feel free to move my comments there if you'd like. --JGGardiner 04:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
There are many,many more points (including important self-serving statements) to be verified; I have added some more that are in the writings and other subsections. Obviously anyone is free to re-arrange the format of the discussion as I am doing the best I can with it being of no experience at all in formatting. Ottawaman 12:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it typical for the links to refer to the entire reference list as opposed to a particular reference? It makes it very hard to verify. Ottawaman 13:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

VERIFICATION (first stage)

I did not find verification for these inclusions;

  • Intro;

"Canadian scholar" (resolved)

    • Well, he is certainly a Canadian citizen who is a scholar. Did you want a cite on the Canadian citizen part or the scholar part?
Scholar please Ottawaman 18:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Under the definition of scholar, shouldn't the fact that he has PhD in History be sufficient? (ETA: A cite that he has a PhD is here --Hamiltonian 19:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
He did not acquire his PhD in Canada so that makes the term inaccurate. Perhaps Harvard Scholar? That would be accurate I think. Ottawaman 19:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Canadians who get their PhDs are still considered Canadian (adjective) scholars (plural noun). Those with doctorates are not regularly identified by where they got their doctorate. Sometimes they are identified as to where they teach - but Ignatieff currently doesn't have an active teaching position. His last position was at U of T. --Hamiltonian 19:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I find the term quite misleading; indicating his scholarship has been largely Canadian. Firstly, the few months (if any) he was at the U of T hardly qualifies. More importantly, let me give you an example; in Canada we have many Americans playing in our Canadian football League; some are stars here in Canada but would likely be unknowns in the USA. Under your use of terminology, an article would describe them as an "American football star"..which I think would be very misleading....and I also think for Ignatieff; who was living away from Canada for over 30 years and who got the PhD you refer to outside of Canada to be called a "Canadian scholar" is just as misleading. Actually this little disagreement highlights a lot of the trouble with the article. A lot of things in the article seem to be twisted, imo. Ottawaman 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
How about just "scholar"? If anything, he spent more time in Britain than America, and in places other than Harvard than Harvard itself. Hamiltonian 00:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure, that's fine with me. Ottawaman 00:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you have objections to referring to him as Canadian? A good fix would be "... is a Canadian novelist, scholar and Member of Parliament". I mean, it's important to mention that he is Canadian (by birth, by citizenship and, currently, by residence. --Hamiltonian 00:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty sneaky; your suggestion above again states he is a Canadian scholar. It's hard to negotiate when someone backs out of a deal. It is clear from the rest of the article he is a Canadian citizen. There is no need to amplify that in the opening description but if you insist, I feel that we must simply present the whole picture; eg; "Ignatieff is a Canadian by birth and citizenship although he lived outside the country from 1975-2005". It would be silly to just concentrate on the past year of anyone's life in the opening description; i.e. "Al Gore is a paid political,enviromental speaker and movie actor". Ottawaman 13:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't understand what the problem is. The rest of the article takes great pains to outline the fact that he lived from 1978 to 2005 outside of Canada. Why would you want to mention that again? Michael Ignatieff is Canadian, under every single possible reasonable definition of such. He is an elected Member of Parliament to the Canadian House of Commons; he lives in Canada; he was born in Canada; he has Canadian citizenship. He is not an American citizen; does not live in America (though he did from 2000-2005); and was not born there. He is not a British citizen; does not live there (though he did from 1978 to 2000); and was not born there. How about "Ignatieff is a Canadian Member of Parliament, novelist and scholar." There is absolutely nothing untrue or even biased about that statement. I am going for NPOV. --Hamiltonian 15:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Hamiltonian is right on. I feel like, if Ottawaman gets his way, this article is going to wind up reading "Michael Ignatieff [1] is a man [2]. Some alledge that he may have been born in Toronto [3] in 1947 [4], though little independent verification is available." -Joshuapaquin 16:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this will work; "Ignatieff is a novelist, scholar and Member of the Canadian Parliament." Please refer to my previous edit above regarding the misleading nature of putting the word "Canadian" in front of "scholar".Hamiltonian suggested "How about just "scholar"?" which is still fine with me. Ottawaman 19:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
To Joshuapaquin, we should not be relying on Iggy's campaign website as a single source reference; that's all that's being addressed here. Any truly important information will be available in non-partison sources. Ottawaman 19:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment on above discussion

Just an observation or two here, as to how things should be interpreted. I don't see that there's any doubt that he's Canadian, is there? Just because you live for a time in another country does not change your nationality. There has to be some common sense used here.

The best thing is to say that he has a PhD from Harvard. Stick to the facts and let them speak for themselves. Not everyone with a PhD is called a scholar. That should not be stated unless he now has reputation as a scholar, which is a bit of a vague term anyway. "Academic" might be better. Is he a an art theorist? A lecturer in literature? A writer? If the facts are there, then these terms might be more precise. He's been quite well known on UK TV as a writer and arts critic (that's from rather hazy memory by the way!), so maybe that comes into it.

Please note that a person's web site can be used as a verifiable source about themselves for basic non-controversial information. [2][3] Even if it is controversial, it can still be used to say this is what he claims, but then not necessarily stated as a fact. above comment made by Tyrenius 12:19, 14 August 2006

change to "He is an academic with a PhD from Harvard" per discussionOttawaman 23:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
As long as the adjective Canadian is used elsewhere to describe Ignatieff (which he is by birth, citizenship and residency), then I'm fine with this change. --Hamiltonian 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I strongly oppose removing his nationality. It is something that is included in nearly every bio article that is not a stub. I think that with holding it in this case would read as a POV omission. --JGGardiner 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
No thought of removing his nationality; as Hamiltonian states, we include "Canadian" elsewhere. Ottawaman 22:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I only meant from the intro, which was the section in question. Obviously whatever we put there will have to be included elsewhere, including where he got his PhD. But you haven't given a reason why you want to change it. Including the nationality as in "X is a Canadian Y" is virtually standard here and I don't see a reason presented for why we should deviate from that. --JGGardiner 22:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Please review lengthy discussion re; "Canadian scholar". No objection to stating in the intro that he is a Canadian or Canadian citizen. Ottawaman 04:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd read that when it was up here and, to be honest, I wasn't entirely sure what you wanted. I think Hamiltonian had the same problem when he proposed something which you were unhappy with. But as I understand it, you are fine with describing Ignatieff as "Canadian" and as a "scholar" but not as a "Canadian scholar". Is that correct? --JGGardiner 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes,that is correct. However,Tyrenius made a good point,imo, that "academic" is a better word choice than "scholar". But for me, as you say, I am fine with describing Ignatieff as "Canadian" and as a "scholar" but not as a "Canadian scholar". Ottawaman 11:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I still disagree, for all the reasons I mentioned earlier. To recap: he was born in Canada; his BA was completed at the University of Toronto; his first teaching assignment was at the University of British Columbia; he has always possessed Canadian citizenship; his last appointment was at the University of Toronto. I honestly don't know how else you could fairly describe him. And I do prefer the word "academic" to "scholar", incidentally. --Hamiltonian 12:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I also prefer "academic" to "scholar". Would you agree to "Canadian academic"? Or does it have the same problem for you? --JGGardiner 15:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
"Canadian academic" is alright by me. Sunray 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Would we be referring to Arnold Schwarzenegger as an Austrian politician if he returned to Austria to retire? Since Iggy's higher levels of scholarship and academic achievements were at Harvard(PhD & 5 years teaching) and England as well as the vast majority of time spent in scholarship/academia (30 years to 2(undergrad isn't "scholar" qualifications)), it seems misleading to say Canadian scholar or Canadian academic. What about "Michael Grant Ignatieff, M.P., (Canadian citizen born May 12, 1947 in Toronto) is a scholar and novelist who,after living abroad for 30 years, returned to Canada in 2005 and was elected as a Liberal Member of Parliament in the Canadian House of Commons. Ottawaman 19:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course we wouldn't refer to Arnold as an Austrian politician, because he is an American citizen. If he renounced his American citizenship, returned to Austria, became an Austrian citizen, and then won elective office, then maybe. --Hamiltonian 19:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually Arnold is a good example. His intro currently reads "is an Austrian bodybuilder, actor and Republican politician, currently serving as the 38th Governor of California." That's because these things generally read person-identity-profession. Even though Arnold never acted in Austria, he's still an Austrian actor. It isn't meant to suggest that he learned to act in Austria or ever worked as an actor there but it is what he is, an Austrian actor, not an Austrian-trained actor and not an actor employed in Austria but an Austrian who is an actor. For the American part, the second sentence says that he is a naturalized citizen of the US although the alternative would have been to say "Austrian-American" in the first sentence which is also done in the JK Galbraith article for example (as "Canadian-American"). --JGGardiner 20:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The way the intro reads right now one could easily get the impression Iggy has lived in Canada all his life. I think it is important to include the 30 year absence in the intro as it is such a crucial aspect of his history and to not include it is pov by omission (implying an exagerated lifetime within Canada). I agree Arnold is a good example (He still has Austrian citizenship btw). The intro only includes "Austrian" in front of bodybuilder which makes sense as his bodybuilding career was primarily accomplished in Austria. Note how "politician" has a different descriptive before it. What is wrong with the suggestion I made in my last edit? Or, I suppose we could use Arnold as a template and say; "Michael Grant Ignatieff (born on... ) is a Canadian citizen and an international academic and novelist who, after living abroad for 30 years, returned to Canada in 2005 and was elected as a Liberal Member of Parliament in the Canadian House of Commons." Ottawaman 00:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, so what about: "Michael Ignatieff (born etc.) is a Canadian politician, academic and author"? --Hamiltonian 12:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think the international nature of his experience and accomplishments should be in the intro. I still prefer my suggestion that is directly above yours. Ottawaman 23:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside comment The use of "Canadian" is essential and standard for articles. If he had lived in Australia from the age of 10, it would still start by describing him as Canadian. The lead section is meant to be the article condensed and to contain key facts (it should actually be longer than it is at the moment, but let's leave that alone for now). It is notable that Ignatieff has spent a considerable amount of time in other countries, so it should be in the lead section, but to put it in the first sentence is laboured, artificial and giving it more significance than it merits. The word "Scholar" in the Longman dictionary has the first meaning of "pupil" or "student". It can also mean "learned person", but as he is not still a pupil, it is best to remove the ambiguity by using "academic".

I propose the following as a solution:

  • "Scholar" is replaced by "academic" in the first sentence.
  • The second sentence should read "He lived in (names of countries) for 30 years, and returned to Canada in (year date).
  • The current second sentence then becomes the third sentence.

If you agree to this please sign below. Tyrenius 02:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree. Ottawaman 11:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd agree to that as acceptable. However, looking at the current intro, it is already lengthy and choppy, with minor details such as his particular constituency and critics duties, etc. And this would add another sentence. I prefer to see concise intros, so I'd drop the political line to something like "elected MP in 2006 and is currently running for the Liberal leadership". But that's more of a readability issue so I'm fine with Tyrenius's suggestion. --JGGardiner 17:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree, both to Tyrenius's suggestion and to JGGardiner's modification. Otherwise, the intro gives relatively too much weight to the details of his political career (three and a half sentences) compared to his longer and more internationally significant scholastic career (which gets a few words -- "...a Candian academic, novelist..."). The best solution I think would be to limit the political info to the bare essentials as suggested by JGGardiner. —Joel Bastedo 01:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that Ignatieff's time abroad is better covered below. As JB and JGG point out, adding another sentence will leave the section even choppier than it is now. So my vote is to leave it be.

As for the scholar question, I suggest we add the following citation:

http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/050826-1591.asp

If the Dean of Arts and Science at U of T calls you "an outstanding writer and scholar", we can probably label you as such. -- 72-139-185-19 17:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with 72-139-185-19's proposed changes/additions to Tyrenius's suggestion and concur with Bastedo and Gardiner to limit the political info to the bare essentials. Ottawaman 21:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

New proposal (sans-wikilinks or citations - the addition of degrees after the name seems to be standard form of many academic-politicians; see Stephane Dion; John Godfrey):

Michael Grant Ignatieff, MP, BA, MA, Ph.D. (born May 12, 1947 in Toronto, Ontario) is the Canadian Member of Parliament for Etobicoke--Lakeshore and an academic, author and documentarian who has held a number of international academic positions (including at Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard). He is currently running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. --Hamiltonian 16:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Tyrenius that; "It is notable that Ignatieff has spent a considerable amount of time in other countries, so it should be in the lead section" and also "The second sentence should read "He lived in (names of countries) for 30 years, and returned to Canada in (year date)." so my adjustment would be "Michael Grant Ignatieff, MP, BA, MA, Ph.D. (born May 12, 1947 in Toronto, Ontario) is the Canadian Member of Parliament for Etobicoke--Lakeshore and an academic, author and documentarian who has held a number of international academic positions (including at Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard). He lived in Britain and the USA from 1978-2005 when he returned to Canada to live. He is currently running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. Ottawaman 18:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the addition is redundant - I don't think anyone would imagine that he was commuting. How about this change?: "...who has held a number of international academic positions in Britain, including at Cambridge and Oxford, and the United States, at Harvard University's Carr Center for Human Rights. He is currently running ..." --Hamiltonian 18:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
It is misleading by omission not to mention in the intro his 30 year absence from Canada when his Canadian political activity is mentioned in the intro. Your wording would cause the typical reader to see him as a lifetime Canadian who had short,temporary stints in foreign universities. Ottawaman 18:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
How about "...who, over a twenty-seven year period, held a number of international academic positions ..."? --Hamiltonian 18:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the best compromise I can come up with; "Michael Grant Ignatieff, MP, BA, MA, Ph.D. (born May 12, 1947 in Toronto, Ontario) is the Canadian Member of Parliament for Etobicoke--Lakeshore and an academic, author and documentarian who has held a number of international academic positions (including at Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard). He lived in Britain and the USA from 1978 until 2005 when he returned to Canada to enter politics. He is currently running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada." I have just discovered this reference which seems to indicate he is likely to return to Harvard when his "run in politics" is over. “If I am not elected, I imagine that I will ask Harvard to let me back,” Ignatieff said. “I love teaching here, and I hope I’ll be back in some shape or form.” Canadian members of Parliament can serve for up to five years, but standard leaves of absence from the Kennedy School of Government (KSG) are limited to two years. Exceptions to the KSG policy may be made under “extenuating circumstances,” KSG communications director Melodie Jackson said in September. “He is still affiliated with the Carr Center and will remain so,” said Executive Director Fernande Raine. “We hope he will come back at some point depending on how long this run in politics actually takes.” There is no way his intro can be left to imply he has been in Canada most of his life. Ottawaman 23:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well done Ottawaman. I like that! It reads well. Two small things: I don't understand what is meant by documentarian, and I privately object to using the word academic in place of scholar because while the two words mean essentially the same thing, unlike scholar, which is always a noun, academic is more frequently used as an adjective. Note that it is used as an adjective later in the same sentence; to avoid this grammatical ambiguity and the uncomfortable repetition of the word, I'd rather use scholar. But even with that minor objection, this is the best intro I've seen. —Joel Bastedo 23:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I added "documentarian". I think it's important to include his work at the BBC, which took up much of the time he spent in Britain (probably just as much as academia). Perhaps "documentary film maker"? "Television personality"? Maybe instead of "scholar" or "academic", how about just "university professor"? To be fair, Ignatieff claimed his comments to the Crimson were in jest (though I suspect that "in humour, truth"). I also think we should specify which years he lived in Britain, and which years he lived in the United States because many assume that he spent 27 years in the United States and the current intro does nothing to dissuade this assumption. So, the "new" version is ...
"Michael Grant Ignatieff, MP, BA, MA, Ph.D. (born May 12, 1947 in Toronto, Ontario) is the Canadian Member of Parliament for Etobicoke--Lakeshore, and a university professor, author and documentary film maker. Living in Britain from 1978 to 2000, he worked at both Cambridge and Oxford and as a film maker for the BBC and in the United States from 2000 to 2005 as the director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. He returned to Canada in 2005 to take a position at the University of Toronto and he is currently running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada" --Hamiltonian 23:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Hamiltonian, I am also fine with this (some may find it too long, but I do not); just 1 little clarification is needed at the end; "He returned to Canada in 2005 to enter politics and take a position at the University of Toronto." Ottawaman 12:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
As silly as it sounds, I've never seen any real confirmation of this - while I know that this is true and you know that this is true, all the news reports that I can find at the time seem to deal in rumour. It's a similar case to the "had to give up his position". It's pretty obvious to me that all the leadership candidates had to give up their positions - even though the press releases indicate otherwise. If you can find something saying "to enter politics" (and seriously, I'd be interested in seeing it) I'd be happy to have it included. --Hamiltonian 12:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I prefer a slight modification of Hamiltonian's original proposal. "Michael Grant Ignatieff, MP, BA, MA, Ph.D. (born May 12, 1947 in Toronto, Ontario) is the Canadian Member of Parliament for Etobicoke--Lakeshore. He is an author, journalist, documentary film-maker, and has held a number of international academic positions (including at Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard). He is currently running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada." Ignatieff's time abroad is better covered below. -- 72-139-185-19 15:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Hamiltonian has convinced me and I prefer his wording to 72-139-185-19's change. Ottawaman 01:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I still don't think this belongs in the opening paragraph. It's well covered below and placing it here is equivalent to ignoring the undue weight policy completely. 72-139-185-19 04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose "Michael Grant Ignatieff, M.P., B.A., M.A., Ph.S. (born May 12, 1947 in Toronto) is the Canadian Member of Parliament for Etobicoke--Lakeshore. He is an author, journalist, documentary film-maker, and international scholar, holding positions at Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard. Ignatieff was named associate critic for Human Resources and Skills Development in the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet on February 22, 2006. However, he left this position after announcing on April 7, 2006 that he would stand as one of the Liberal Party of Canada leadership candidates." to blend this and other objections. 72-139-185-19 05:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I still think Hamiltonian's is better;"Michael Grant Ignatieff, MP, BA, MA, Ph.D. (born May 12, 1947 in Toronto, Ontario) is the Canadian Member of Parliament for Etobicoke--Lakeshore, and a university professor, author and documentary film maker. Living in Britain from 1978 to 2000, he worked at both Cambridge and Oxford and as a film maker for the BBC and in the United States from 2000 to 2005 as the director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. He returned to Canada in 2005 to take a position at the University of Toronto and he is currently running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada." Ottawaman 18:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that I've personally had enough of this debate. But I would note that we should specify that the Carr Center is at Harvard. The average reader won't know that. --JGGardiner 20:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; "Harvard's Carr Center..."; I'm also succombing to dialogue fatigue on this one. Ottawaman 12:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can kindly state a finalised agreed text below, I will put it in the article and finalise this section. Thanks. Tyrenius 18:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is the finalised agreed text;"Michael Grant Ignatieff, MP, BA, MA, Ph.D. (born May 12, 1947 in Toronto, Ontario) is the Canadian Member of Parliament for Etobicoke--Lakeshore, and a university professor, author and documentary film maker. Living in Britain from 1978 to 2000, he worked at both Cambridge and Oxford and as a film maker for the BBC and in the United States from 2000 to 2005 as the director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. He returned to Canada in 2005 to take a position at the University of Toronto and he is currently running for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada." Ottawaman 20:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe consensus has been reached on this one, though I agree with JGGardiner that this is getting silly. I think something like "Michael Grant Ignatieff, M.P., B.A., M.A., Ph.S. (born May 12, 1947 in Toronto) is the Canadian Member of Parliament for Etobicoke--Lakeshore. He is an author, journalist, documentary film-maker, and international scholar, holding positions at Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard. Ignatieff was named associate critic for Human Resources and Skills Development in the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet on February 22, 2006. However, he left this position after announcing on April 7, 2006 that he would stand as one of the Liberal Party of Canada leadership candidates." works better, because it describes him far more than the version that talks about his time outside of Canada right away. Can we find some way of blending this with your preference? 72-139-185-19 14:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Isn't this discussion supposed to be about validity, and not prefered wording? What's in doubt here, anyway? 72-139-185-19 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made the change to the article based on the last version above, but I may be mis-reading the consensus. Please feel free to revert if I've got it wrong. One thing that struck me is that the lead is very short compared to most Good articles. I propose to add a paragraph along the lines of that proposed in Ottawaman's last version, above. It would read as follows:

Ignatieff lived in Britain from 1978 to 2000, where he worked at both Cambridge and Oxford and as a film maker for the BBC and in the United States from 2000 to 2005 as the director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. He returned to Canada in 2005 to take a position at the University of Toronto and enter politics.

If no one objects, I will add that. We might also think of a third paragraph that would summarize his international status as an author and thinker. Sunray 16:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree and disagree. The intro is short and needs to be expanded. But adding that paragraph to the one already written just repeats some info. I don't object to adding this information - but it would need to be part of a re-written set of paragraphs. This objection is solely stylistic. --Hamiltonian 16:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. Sunray 17:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If we broke the opening paragraph so as to give a brief overview, and then placed the rest of the information in temporal sequence, providing some additional details, I think we might bridge the various concerns that have been raised, without being repetitive. Here's how it might look:

Michael Grant Ignatieff, M.P., B.A., M.A., Ph.D. (born May 12, 1947 in Toronto) is the Canadian Member of Parliament for Etobicoke—Lakeshore. He is an author, journalist, documentary film-maker, and international scholar who has held positions at Cambridge, Oxford, and Harvard.

Ignatieff was based in the United Kingdom from 1978 to 2000. During this time was on the faculty at both Cambridge and Oxford Universities and worked as a film-maker and political commentator for the BBC. He lived in the United States from 2000 to 2005 where he was director of Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. He returned to Canada in 2005 to take a position at the University of Toronto and enter politics.

Ignatieff was named associate critic for Human Resources and Skills Development in the Official Opposition Shadow Cabinet on February 22, 2006. However, he left this position after announcing on April 7, 2006 that he would stand as one of the Liberal Party of Canada leadership candidates.

What do you think? Sunray 19:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. - Finnegans wake 22:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey all. I haven't been on in a while, but some of the older editors here will recognize me as a regular contributer to the Ignatieff article. In any case, I think that most of Sunray's suggestions look good to me, this one included. 198.20.40.50 19:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"had to give up this position"

    • Cite here.
      • Sorry; I see no reference there to him being forced to give up his position in the shadow cabinet. Please identify the location of that. Ottawaman 18:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
        • It's right in the very first paragraph. "Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Bill Graham, today announced the appointment of new opposition critics, who will take over the duties of their colleagues who are stepping aside to focus on their campaigns for leadership of the Liberal Party." --Hamiltonian 19:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment on the above discussion

This seems to be a very good point, as we should not state something unless it is verified. Unless "had to" or "chose to" are verified, it can easily be stated neutrally as "left" his position (along with the other leadership candidates - to put it in context). Wiki emphasis the use of this kind of neutrality as the optimum approach. Present the facts; don't interpret them.

English/French/Russian fluency (resolved)

:*"Ignatieff is fluent in both English and French, and has a basic knowledge of Russian"

Please provide the link then. Ottawaman 19:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link to CTV covering the same story. --Hamiltonian 19:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I struck that one off. Ottawaman 00:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Pearson/York South/Trudeau (resolved)

  • 3 change the second sentence to read "He also worked for the Liberal Party in 1968 as a national youth organizer and party delegate for the Pierre Elliot Trudeau campaign." Ottawaman 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "As a high school student, he worked for Lester B. Pearson, canvassing the York South riding for the 1965 election. He continued his work for the Liberal Party in 1968, as a national youth organizer and party delegate for the Pierre Elliot Trudeau campaign."
Comment on the above

This seems fairly run of the mill stuff, which I would feel was not a problem to use his own site for. Naturally the reference would have to show clearly that this was the case. If anything, his site is more likely to be accurate over these kind of details than a newspaper(!). Don't forget this site is available to all, so inaccuracies would easily get hightlighted by e.g. the media and/or political opponents, so it is in his interest to get it right. The dubiousness of using someone's web site is not so much this kind of mundane detail, but more in terms of evaluating their status, e.g. if the site said he was the most influential, innovative, popular contemporary politician, then that is not at all reliable... Tyrenius 12:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

change to "He also worked for the Liberal Party in 1968 as a national youth organizer and party delegate for the Pierre Elliot Trudeau campaign." the word "continued" indicates an ongoing involvement between 65 and 68 whereas there was none we know ofOttawaman 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the word "continued" implies work between 65 and 68. It says he worked in 65. He continued working in 68. "... canvassing the York South riding for the 1965 election. He continued his work for the Liberal Party in 1968..." So I oppose this change. --Hamiltonian 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure which version I prefer. I think that both points have merit. However, I'd like to comment that we should remove the "national" part of the description. Like most readers, I'm not aware of all of the Liberal Party's terminology and I don't know what exactly it means. --JGGardiner 20:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the structure of the party either, but I think most readers would assume that "a national youth organizer" means someone responsible for organizing the youth wing of the party at a national level. If that's not what Trudeau did, then yes, this should be changed or omitted, but if that is what he did, I don't think a more specific title is necessary -- a generic description like "national youth organizer" is simple and understandable and doesn't require inside knowledge of the party to appreciate, I think. —Joel Bastedo 05:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The current wording: "As a high school student, he worked for Lester B. Pearson, canvassing the York South riding for the 1965 election. He continued his work for the Liberal Party in 1968, as a national youth organizer and party delegate for the Pierre Elliot Trudeau campaign."

I agree with Hamiltonian that there's really no confusion here. As for the "national youth organizer", I've found two citations that use the words "national youth organizer": http://www.michaelignatieff.ca/en/about_history.aspx and http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20060410_124769_124769

I say we cite the Maclean's article and leave the current version as is. -- 72-139-185-19 17:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think "continued" should be there because it implies a continual involvement between 1965 and 1968 which is not verified. "national youth organizer" is ok as far as I'm concerned. Ottawaman 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
"Continued" does leave room for ambiguity IMHO. Surely it's not too hard to think of a phraseology that clarifies things? Ottawaman? Tyrenius 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
What about "resumed"? Or does that imply a cessation of activity that we are equally unable to document? By the way, isn't this a sort of silly quibble? Volunteer work is not the same as paid employment. If you quit a job, even if only for a week, and then resume it again, you have ceased to by an employee, however briefly. But with volunteer work, you might do no work for a day, a week, a month, even a year, without ever ceasing to "work for the party" in anyone's estimation. I guess Ottawaman's original suggestion is the best then: Ignatieff did this work one year, he did that work some time later. It give no indication one way or the other about what happened in between. I like that. It's simple. —Joel Bastedo 23:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Resumed works for me. While I think "continued" is better, I'm tired of arguing this point. Can we try "Michael Ignatieff grew up in Toronto, attending Upper Canada College. As a high school student, he worked for Lester B. Pearson, canvassing the York South riding for the 1965 election. He resumed his work for the Liberal Party in 1968, as a national youth organizer and party delegate for the Pierre Elliot Trudeau campaign." -- 72-139-185-19 15:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It's important not to give the impression his work for the party continued after 1968/69. Mine was clearer I think. Ottawaman 18:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The more that I think about this, the more I think that it is trivial to mention anything at all in this regard. It really only matters in the context of his current political activities. And even then it is fairly unimportant. Other figures, even political ones, don't have this kind of information included. Chretien for example has no mention of being a young liberal even though I gather he was more active than Ignatieff. I don't have a serious objection if the consensus is to include something but as long as it is accurate, I'm finished with this point. --JGGardiner 20:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I should mention that my problem with "national" is that it can have various meanings, like the "studied" example below. It generally implies that one worked in the central campaign but it can also (and perhaps more often) mean that one worked for the campaign at-large. In one case it implies a certain importance where in the other it is a kind of unimportance and merely means that one is unnatached to a constituency association (which is often the case for young liberals). --JGGardiner 20:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I also think it is trivial to even mention this in a CV of Ignatieff. Ottawaman 23:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Chretien went on to become PM; if you take a look at the other Liberal contenders, youth activism is much more the type of stuff that's included. If Ingatieff become PM, this can be removed, but even then, Harper's bio includes his youth work. 72-139-185-19 15:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems that there is a consensus about using the word "resumed." Also, a strong argument has been made to leave out the word national. However, some people have questioned whether we should mention this at all. So shall we go with "resumed... youth organizer" or leave it out all together? Sunray 16:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually I the Valpy article which Hamiltonian linked the other day says more specifically what he did. He was indeed a high level youth organizer who briefly served as the top national youth organizer. I'd prefer dropping the adjective and saying specifically what he did. But I'm happy with whatever consensus is on this point. --JGGardiner 19:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That certainly sounds significant enough to be in the article. So then the proposed wording would be:

"As well, Ignatieff volunteered for Lester B. Pearson during the 1965 Federal Election by canvassing the York South Riding. He resumed his work for the Liberal Party in 1968, as a youth organizer and party delegate for the Pierre Elliot Trudeau campaign."

If there is no objection to this wording, I will add it to the article. Sunray 21:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Also looks good to me. 198.20.40.50 19:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Studied with Berlin (resolved)

  • 3 I actually think this is campaign twisted fact because although Iggy interviewed Berlin, there is no other mention of Ignatieff ever having studied under him (which one would expect to be mentioned in the many descriptions of the booke.g.. Should be changed to "interviewed Berlin over a 10 year period" Ottawaman 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "where he studied under the well-known historian and philosopher Isaiah Berlin,"
change to "where he interviewed philosopher Isaiah Berlin over a 10 year period"

References show Iggy interviewed Berlin many times which is not the same thing as "studied under " him. Ottawaman 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree - it's more to do with the vagueness of the term "studied under", I think. --Hamiltonian 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should removed "studied under". Maybe he did but we don't have a reference for that. But I think we should just drop the Berlin reference entirely then because it is no longer connected to the sentence or the section. --JGGardiner 20:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, Ignatieff didn't study under Berlin. But apparently his father did. I don't think I'd bother noting that in the article. Interestingly, the Bob Rae article says that Rae studied under Berlin when he went to Oxford. There's no source on that claim. But wouldn't that have been about the same time? Since they were undergrad roomates. --JGGardiner 15:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Can we agree to removing Berlin from the Oxford studies section? While Ignatieff later interviewed Berlin, it seems to have nothing to do with that period of his life. --JGGardiner 17:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree to the removal of Berlin from the Oxford studies section.Ottawaman 17:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I'm pretty sure Ignatieff never studied under Berlin, only later became acquainted with him over a 10 year period. - Finnegans wake 05:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Based on what Finnegans Wake has written in the Writings section below, I disagree with removing reference to Berlin here. It may need to be modified, but if much of Ignatieff's scholastic output has been devoted to applying Berlin's ideas, then the Background section ought to provide the context for that. —Joel Bastedo 05:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is safe to say Berlin's ideas heavily influenced Ignatieff's earlier works in "Needs of Strangers" and "Blood and Belonging" with some traces remaining in his other works on ethnic nationalism, mainly "Warrior's Honour." However, Berlin is less important to Ignatieff's later writing on liberal interventionism, human rights and, more recently, terrorism. (But I can see how some might read Berlin's idea of "belonging" into Ignatieff's views on equality and recognition in "Rights Revolution" - Finnegans wake 05:59, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, Ignatieff did study under Berlin. I suggest we add the following citation:

http://www.michaelignatieff.ca/en/about_teacher.aspx -- 72-139-185-19 17:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite confident that Ignatieff did not study under Berlin. At least not directly. In a discussion about Berlin and the interviews he says "That was how this book began in September 1987. I was not a former student or surrogate son: he seems to have been born without a paternal instinct. I was simply there, initially, to interview him."[4] This does seem at odds with the other source so I suggest that we not include the point without this being resolved. --JGGardiner 19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I am pretty certain only Rhode Scholars officially study under Berlin. Remove. Pete Peters 19:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ignatieff did not study under Berlin. In this article [5] he describes himself as a "Berliner", but contrasts himself with Ramin Jahanbegloo, the Iranian-Canadian academic, as a "student" of Berlin, whereas he says he simply wrote Berlin's biography.
However, it is not true that only Rhodes Scholars studied under Berlin. Neither Ramin Jahanbegloo nor Canadian theorist Charles Taylor were Rhodes Scholars, and both studied under Berlin at Oxford. - Finnegans wake 20:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the disagreement we're having here is about the nature of the words "studied under". There's no doubt that Ignatieff considers himself a student of Berlin (in the philosophical, if not the literal, sense). So why don't we use a wording that's appropriate to that? Say "After completing his undergraduate degree, Ignatieff took up his studies at Oxford University, where he studied with the well-known historian and philosopher Isaiah Berlin, and about whom he would later write. From 1964 to 1965, Ignatieff worked as a journalist at The Globe and Mail newspaper." We've dropped "studied under" to make it seem less like Berlin is Ignatieff's academic supervisor and it reads just as well. 72-139-185-19 15:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
JGGardiner and Finnegans wake seem sure he did not study under Berlin. I think we have a consensus to leave this topic and "studied with" seems like forcing the point to me. Ottawaman 01:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Ahem. I think we're still debating what "studied under" means. We all agree that Ignatieff is an advocate of Berlin, and that he spent a great deal of time studying Berlin. We're simply trying to find a wording that represents that. That's the only consensus I understand, or are you proposing something else? 72-139-185-19 04:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, why not just say that then? Ignatieff is an advocate of Berlin, whose work he studied or, preferably, an improved version thereof. Tyrenius 17:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tyrenius and propose we go with his simple statement as is. Ottawaman 18:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry - so how do we see the current section reading? This sentence won't make sense in the context of Ignatieff being at Oxford while studying/interviewing Berlin. This is a historical statement, right? 72-139-185-19 15:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
How about: "where he studied, and was influenced by, the well-known historian and philosopher Isaiah Berlin." Sunray 16:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
fine with that - Finnegans wake 22:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ditto. Works for me. 198.20.40.50 19:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Globe & Mail

Comment on the above

Per my previous comments, I don't have a problem with this. Tyrenius 12:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

UBC prof

  • 3 per Tyrenius and Gardiner's harvard bio change to;

:*"He was an assistant history professor at the University of British Columbia from 1976 to 1978."Ottawaman 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the above

Per my previous comments, I don't have a problem with this. However, it has to be used precisely. It could be he had a prestigious post, or it could be that he had occasional minor teaching roles during that time. It doesn't say, so nor should we. Nevertheless, it does say he was teaching there, so this would seem to justify a description of "an academic" for him. Tyrenius 12:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Jobs (resolved)

*"where he held a Senior Research Fellowship at King's College, Cambridge until 1984. He then left Cambridge for London, where he began to focus on his career as a writer and journalist. During this time, he travelled extensively. He also continued to lecture at universities in Europe and North America, and held teaching posts at the Oxford, the University of London, and the London School of Economics, as well as the University of California and in France."
    • Cambridge cited here

:***Dispute; Iggy's Campaign site is a self published and partisan source which requires an independent secondary source,imo. Ottawaman 18:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Honorary Doctorates

List of honorary doctorates

  1. McGill University, 2002
  2. University of Regina, 2003
Comment on the above

If in doubt, a simple solution would be to say "several" honorary doctorates. Tyrenius 12:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Marriage (resolved)

*"married to Hungarian-born Zsuzanna M Zsohar" Ottawaman 13:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
The policy on self-published articles states that "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves". The exceptions are only controversial things. Is there credible reason to doubt that Mr. Ignatieff is married to Zsusanna Zohar, held the Fellowship at Cambridge, etc? The partisan and self-published source is fine unless the information is contentious. -Joshuapaquin 18:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I read it policy differently. I read it to mean that either partison or self-published sources are suspect and should have secondary source confirmation; and Iggy's campaign website is both self published and partison. Even so, I certainly think that for Wikipedia to draw any information solely from a highly partison campaign website during a campaign makes Wikipedia an accessory to that campaign, or at least may be seen to be an accessory to that campaign. I am also very suspicious as to why Wikipedians would be going to Iggy's campaign website in the first place to draw information for this article? Is this normal? I just looked at George W. Bush's article and do not see his campaign website being used as a reference at all. ? Of course I doubt that Iggy is married and has all the credentials he said he did. His campaign has already been caught in many fibs ranging from important to innoculous. If necessary I can provide a big list of proven lies told by his campaign. Nothing in the article should rely solely on his campaign office; especially since it is not even listed as a reference nor should it be one. Ottawaman 19:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I went there because it was convenient and well-organized. Now, is this an accurate quote, or did you just mistype? "Of course I doubt that Iggy is married". Because this confuses me immensely. (That is, I don't know why anyone would doubt this.) --Hamiltonian 19:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
If you read this you will see that Iggy's campaign admitted to giving out false information about the health of his mother-in-law. That, in addition to their obvious partisonship, tells me their information is unreliable and should not be relied upon as the sole source for anything at all. Ottawaman 19:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
You're correct, actually. Ignatieff is not married to Zsuzanna M Zsohar. He is instead married to Zsuzsanna Zsohar.  :-) --Hamiltonian 19:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Good work; but I'm not even sure about that. There are at least 2 other spellings floating around. Ottawaman 19:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Zsuzsanna Zsohar appears to be the preferred spelling in The Guardian, Harvard Magazine, the Liberal Party website and, yes, Ignatieff's own site. --Hamiltonian 20:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I'll strike it off. Ottawaman 00:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Recognition

Does most of the "recognition" material also come from Ignatieff's election campaign? The material below I did not see in the reference grouping. Ottawaman 01:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • 2 This falls clearly under the self serving prohibition of material within self published sources. Ottawaman 00:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) "Michael Ignatieff is an internationally recognized scholar and historian, and has written extensively on the subjects of international relations and nation-building."
  • 1 Ottawaman 00:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC) "His 1998 biography of Isaiah Berlin was shortlisted for both the Jewish Quarterly Literary Prize for Non-Fiction and the James Tait Black Memorial Prize."
  • 1 Ottawaman 00:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)"His text on Western interventionist policies and nation building, Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond, studied the NATO bombing of Kosovo and subsequent aftermath. It won the Orwell Prize for political non-fiction in 2000. He also worked with the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in preparing the report, The Responsibility to Protect, which discussed the role of international involvement in Kosovo, Rwanda, and the Darfur region of Sudan."
We can change Canadian scholar to Harvard scholar and I have struck one objection. With this much contributor interest we do not need to rely upon Iggy's election campaign site as the sole reference for any information regardless of how convenient and well organized their package of information is. Obviously all of the information which came solely from Iggy's election campaign should be second sourced or removed,imo. Ottawaman 19:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with finding non-Ignatieff site cites for everything else. I vigorously oppose changing Canadian scholar to Harvard scholar, since it is not standard form to refer to someone as being a "<school where they earned their PhD> scholar" and he is no longer on the faculty of Harvard's Carr Center. --Hamiltonian 19:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Under "Writings"

  • Igatieff has been described as "an extraordinarily versatile writer", [4] in both the style and the subjects he writes about.

Michael Ignatieff travelled to the Balkans and Kurdistan while working as a journalist, witnessing first hand the atrocities in each. --> ...witnessing the consequences of modern ethnic warfare (resolved)

delete as reference#4 does not say this. Ottawaman 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
He clearly did travel to those places, as a journalist. It is in his book Blood and Belonging. I don't personally own the book so I'm not sure about the atrocities part but I'd leave the rest of it. --JGGardiner 21:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
This should be left. Ignatieff travelled to those places and wrote about it in his major works like B&B, Warrior's Honour and Empire Lite. He did witness some atrocities personally. The introduction to "Warrior's Honour" begins: "Between 1993 and 1997, I traveled through the landscapes of modern ethnic war, to Serbia, Croatia, and Bosnia; to Rwanda, Burundi, Angola; and to Afghanistan. I saw the ruins of Vukovar, Huambo, and Kabul; the bodies in the church at Nyarubuye; and the orphans of Mazar al Sharif." In "Virtual War" he talks extensively about his time in the Balkans, and was present in Prizren and Djakovica when Louise Arbour and other War Crimes investigators were unearthing the mass graves left by Serbian death squads. - Finnegans wake 05:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't say he witnessed atrocities but rather "ruins","orphans" "mass graves"and dead bodies. You could see all of that in Lebanon today; doesn't mean there were "atrocities" and cetainly not personally witnessed atrocities. Ottawaman 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This must be semantics, as I hope you are not seriously questioning that atrocities occurred in either Kurdistan and the Balkans? The the atrocities committed by Hussein in his Anfal offensive in Kurdish Iraq [6] and the Serb's actions in places like Srebrenica[7] are well documented. Your point must be that did not sit there and witness the atrocities himself, rather he saw the *results* of the atrocities? That is a rather trite point. Would you also say that Allied soldiers who entered Nazi death camps in 1945 and saw mass graves and piles of rotting bodies, could not be said to have "witnessed the atrocities" committed by the Nazis? Rather than deleting the line, then it should read "As a journalist, Michael Ignatieff has travelled to war torn areas such as Serbia, Rwanda, and Kurdish Iraq, witnessing first hand the carnage resulting from modern ethnic war." - Finnegans wake 16:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I must agree. This does seem like splitting hairs. I'm fine with the original or Finnegan's version. I'd oppose deletion. --JGGardiner 19:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Ottawaman has a good point, I don't think he witnessed the atrocities firsthand. The second half of the senctence needs to be changed, that;s all. I disagree with Finnegans wake revised version, I don't think Wikipedia entries should sound like story telling. Pete Peters 19:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Please elaborate what you mean by "storytelling". My suggested revision is a concise reformulation. If you are going to weigh into the discussion, please provide justification for your description of my suggested revision, rather than one line of POV. And, if possible, do not ignore the balance of my comment above. No one is saying Ignatieff witnessed atrocities taking place first hand, but he certainly witnessed carnage resulting from atrocities. - Finnegans wake 20:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Me engineer, me like straight to the point. Carnage, too vague, me not get. Pete Peters 21:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems we all agree that "witnessing first hand the atrocities in each" is a non-verified embelishment. I sense Peters feels much as I do that what he calls "storytelling" comes across like a flattering campaign brochure with embelishment and manufacturing of Ignatieff's accomplishments. I propose; " Michael Ignatieff saw the results of modern ethnic war when he visited Serbia, Rwanda, and Kurdish Iraq." The way it was written before was as if he was on some grand enlightenment/humanitarian/charitable mission when actually he was simply doing his journalistic work. Did he actually do anything for the people in those countries while he was there? That would make it more relevant. I don't see where these trips belong in this CV at all; it would be like saying Donald Trump went to Australia to look at some luxury apartment buildings; so what? Ottawaman 21:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's the full paragraph: "Ignatieff has been described as "an extraordinarily versatile writer", [4] in both the style and the subjects he writes about. Indeed, his fictional works, Asya, Scar Tissue, and Charlie Johnson in the Flames cover the life and travels of a Russian girl, the disintigration of one's mother to neurological disease, and the haunting memories of a journalist in Kosovo, respectively. In all three works, however, one sees elements of Ignatieff's own life coming through. For instance, Michael Ignatieff travelled to the Balkans and Kurdistan while working as a journalist, witnessing first hand the atrocities in each. Similarly, his historical novel, The Russian Album traced his family's life in Russia and subsequent exodus."

The above sentence serves to explain that Ignatieff's fictional writings (in this case, "Charlie Johnson in the Flames") are based on experiences in Ignatieff's own life. I think that any rewrites that are being proposed need to keep the original context in mind. 72-139-185-19 15:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless we are now to be in-depth book reviewers I think we should avoid designing this CV to accomodate what we think motivates the author to write certain things in certain ways. Ottawaman 18:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
No, but it's acceptable to summarize Ignatieff's writings. Otherwise, there'd be no way to describe them, right? And it warrants mention that Ignatieff has been in the very situation that his fictional characters have been in as well. Or are you arguing that this is unimportant? -- 72-139-185-19 19:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Pleases be accurate in critique. It doesn't say that is what motivated him. It just sees we see elements of his life in the books, which, judging from the text above, is blindingly obvious. It could possibly be toned down slightly if desired, simply saying something along the lines of subjects/themes which parallel or overlap his own life experiences. Tyrenius 08:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
So the current section reads "His fictional works, Asya, Scar Tissue, and Charlie Johnson in the Flames cover, respectively, the life and travels of a Russian girl, the disintegration of one's mother due to neurological disease, and the haunting memories of a journalist in Kosovo. In all three works, however, one sees elements of the author's own life coming through. For instance, Ignatieff travelled to the Balkans and Kurdistan while working as a journalist, witnessing first hand the atrocities in each. Similarly, his historical memoir, The Russian Album, traces his family's life in Russia and their troubles and subsequent emigration as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution." Suggestions on how to reword? 72-139-185-19 15:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How about:

"His fictional works, Asya, Scar Tissue, and Charlie Johnson in the Flames cover, respectively, the life and travels of a Russian girl, the disintegration of one's mother due to neurological disease, and the haunting memories of a journalist in Kosovo. In all three works, however, one sees elements of the author's own life coming through. For instance, Ignatieff travelled to the Balkans and Kurdistan while working as a journalist, witnessing first hand the consequences of modern ethnic warfare. Similarly, his historical memoir, The Russian Album, traces his family's life in Russia and their troubles and subsequent emigration as a result of the Bolshevik Revolution." [Italicized words represent suggested change].

As has been pointed out in the discussion, he didn't actually witness the atrocities (and probably not the carnage either), but he did tour the war zone. Can we go with this modification? Sunray 20:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Though I think many objections to the original formulation are unnecessary and semantic, I'm ok with this version. - Finnegans wake 22:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Consequences is cleaner, though maybe we could do "the consequences of modern ethnic cleansing". While I haven't read Charlie Johnson (yet), I understand that it's more about the latter. But either version works. 198.20.40.50 19:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


show the influence of Berlin on Ignatieff (resolved)

Ignatieff's own philosophical writings include The Needs of Strangers and The Rights Revolution, where he explores social welfare and community, and show the influence of Berlin on Ignatieff.

delete as not verified by reference #4 Ottawaman 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine deleting that. Although someone may want to rewrite the section on Ignatieff and Berlin, as there is clearly quite a bit that is actually written in that regard (including in the CW link). I assume that the editor inserted the link to reference only the last sentence, Ignatieff's writings, and simply left the rest unsourced. --JGGardiner 21:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You can't have an Ignatieff article without reference to, or some understanding of, Berlin. Berlin's ideas, particularly his concept of "belonging" (from Two Concepts of Liberty) runs throughout Ignatieff's work. "Needs of Strangers" deals with Berlin's concept of belonging, in the domestic context, between strangers. I think the reference to "Rights Revolution" in this context can be removed, however, as that text is concerned more with rights development in the Post-War Period, particularly in Canada, and not welfare and community. - Finnegans wake 05:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that information should be included. I saw Ignatieff refer to himself as "a Berliner" actually. But it should be rewritten. I'm not familiar enough with the topic to do it myself but I do hope that somebody else will. I'm fine with the first part but the suggestion that certain books show that influence is specific and requires a source. --JGGardiner 19:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Berlin was a strong influence on Ignatieff, and we need a way of working in their similar outlooks. I'm open to rewrites on how we do this, but the point needs to be made. -- 72-139-185-19 19:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If there is no alternative suggested, then the current text will remain by default. Tyrenius 19:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternative; "In addition to The Russian Album, Ignatieff's historical novels include a description of prisons during the Industrial Revolution, called A Just Measure of Pain, and a biography of celebrated philosopher Isaiah Berlin." instead of "In addition to The Russian Album, Ignatieff's historical novels include a description of prisons during the Industrial Revolution, called A Just Measure of Pain, and a biography of celebrated philosopher Isaiah Berlin, who made a strong impression on Ignatieff." Ottawaman 20:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
There are several problems with your alternative formulation. First, "Just Measure of Pain" is not a "novel". It is a PhD history dissertation that was published. It is not a novel or fictionalized account. It is an historical work. Second, I do not understand why you wish to disassociate Ignatieff's work with that of Berlin. While it is clear that Ignatieff did not study under Berlin (at page 6 of the Biography Ignatieff writes that he was not a "former student"), as I have written elsewhere in these discussion pages, you cannot understand the evolution of thought in Ignatieff's work without reference to Berlin. For example, both were concerned with the challenge communitarianism posed for liberalism. Berlin dealt with this conflict in his "Two Concepts of Liberty", a classic work that explained the difference between positive liberty (Rousseau's General Will) and negative liberty (similar to Locke's notion of liberty). Ignatieff also addressed the communitarian/liberalism divide, but in a more concrete social sense, in "The Needs of Strangers". Ignatieff explicitly links this work to Berlin's. - Finnegans wake 06:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The current wording is:

A historian by training, he wrote A Just Measure of Pain, a history of prisons during the Industrial Revolution. His biography of Isaiah Berlin, reveals the strong impression the celebrated philosopher made on Ignatieff...

Is this OK? Sunray 20:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me. 198.20.40.50 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm also going to suggest we change the third sentence to "The latter work explores social welfare and community, and also shows Berlin's influence on Ignatieff." for cleanliness. 198.20.40.50 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hearing no objections, I will add the above sentence to the article. Sunray 01:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • These tie closely to Ignatieff's political writings, as well, such as those on national self-determination and the imperatives of democratic self-government. Ignatieff has also written extensively on international affairs


  • All of Canadian culture and human rights

Under "International Affairs;

  • "Ignatieff has written extensively on the subject of international development, peacekeeping, and the international responsibilities of Western nations. Critical of the limited-risk approach practiced by NATO in conflicts like the Kosovo War and the Rwandan Genocide, he has argued for a more active involvement and larger scale deployment of land forces by Western nations in future conflicts in the developing world."

Under Lesser evil approach

  • "Ignatieff attempts to balance citizens' rights to privacy and civil liberties against the state's need for surveillance to investigate terrorist activities"

We may have a big problem

Iggy's campaign website, which is shown above as the source of all that background info. in the article, is not listed as a reference; it is only listed as an external link. Ottawaman 19:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the above

Clearly it now needs to be a reference. Tyrenius 12:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but is it an acceptable reference while Canada is, right now, smack in the middle of the election(for leader of the Liberal party) campaign ? Ottawaman 14:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
There are guidelines for that sort of thing. This material all fits in there. --JGGardiner 15:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Better yet, when you doubt a source, find a new one. These were all from first-page google searches.
  • Macleans who's who (U of T news digest quoting and Toronto Star story)[8]
  • Jewish Quarterly (from them) [9]
  • James Tait Black (likewise) [10]
  • Orwell Prize (BBC news) [11]
  • ICISS report (from the ICISS) [12]
I would note that the ICISS report preceded the Darfur crisis (which is mentioned above). Although it was prepared for situations such as that. --JGGardiner 16:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Self published sources are acceptable in wikipedia guidelines.[13] We need to take a common sense, balanced view. It would not be a reliable source for an evaluation such as "Michael is considered one of the world's leading experts in democracy, human rights, security, and international affairs", as we would need a secondary source for verification. On the other hand, it can be useful for facts such as "has served on the International Commission on Kosovo, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, and the World Economic Forum, where he led panels on citizenship and minority rights, Afghanistan, and the future of the Balkans" (unless of course it can be proved that he never served on the International Commission, but I think that would be all over the press by now, if he were making such false claims). We shouldn't let the leadership campaign interfere in the fact that we're writing an encyclopedia article, which will endure when the campaign is long done. We have established protocols to work to, and we must do so, as fairly as possible. I suggest looking at some political featured articles as a model. Tyrenius 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Not meaning to belabour the issue, but if, as JGardiner suggests, all of this background is available from other references, would it not be better to start from scratch and use those references? This political campaugn has been filled with dirty tricks and falsehoods; some coming from the same campaign officials who control campaign websites. I would also not assume the Canadian media have the resources to fact check as much as British or US media do; Canada has only 28 million people after all. To back up this point, it is true that Ignatieff's campaign fibbed about his mother-in-law being ill (as a justification as to why he was on vacation and unavailable for interviews on the Israel/Lebanon conflict).which indicates to me that they would not hesitate to fib about things on his resume which are difficult to fact-check.[14]"...campaign director Ian Davey telephoned to say Ignatieff's mother-in-law was ill in Hungary.'He's overseas — there's an illness in the family,' said Davey, adding he wouldn't contact Ignatieff about a phone interview. Last week, however, back in Toronto, Ignatieff told the Star his mother-in-law was, in fact, not ill."There is no health crisis," he said. "There never was. Anybody who said there was, was not authorized to say that. I never purported to say that."
I really do not understand why we have to use any information at all which comes from his campaign website, especially while the campaign is ongoing. If JGardiner is correct, then it should not be that difficult to find better sources for Ignatieff's background; however, it might be almost impossible to prove a negative (e.g. that Iggy did not serve on the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in some obscure capacity). Ottawaman 19:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We need not be so pessimistic. Just because the information is not at hand does not mean that it is unknowable. The ICISS point is exactly the kind of thing that we can prove. The ICISS was a commission. He was one of the commissioners (there were 12). You can see that in the link to the report which I included above or find it here[15]. You have to remember that a citation is included so that fact can be checked. We still have to check them. --JGGardiner 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
An amusing thought struck me about this situation: if you say that Davey lied about Ignatieff's mother-in-law (it seems as if they certainly have competing stories), and with you doubting that earlier that Ignatieff even has a wife, then are you imagining that Davey was claiming that Ignatieff was visiting a mother-in-law that doesn't even exist? Eh, the possibility made me laugh. --Hamiltonian 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ottawaman, you are confusing original research into truth, with wikipedia's acceptance of verifiable sources. Wiki doesn't enquire into the truth: it reports what people say the truth is. Check it out here. These protocols are deeply established in wikipedia, and we can't change them for just one article. If Ignatieff's campaign manager says one thing and he says another, we don't try and work out who's right; we just report what they both said. Until proven wrong, it is acceptable to use his site as a source for information, with some exceptions such as obviously self-aggrandising statements. If there is another source as well, then that's even better. Also don't forget this is a wiki — it's not set in stone and can be constantly upgraded. Tyrenius 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's my relative lack of experience with this platform. When I read the instructions you gave; "As it is non-negotiable to work with policy, it might be an idea to kick off with one, which is easy, namely VERIFY. I wonder if there is any material in the article which is not verified with a reliable source, as any editor is entitled to remove that." That is precisely the task I set upon. I simply feel that Ignatieff's (or any campaign website) is not a reliable source in the midst of a heated campaign and I believe the wikipedia policy concerning self-published and partisan sources can be read to expect a certain amount of common-sense application. To me it is not reasonable to rely upon single source information from his campaign site when we do not have to do it. As far as it being a wiki, you would not be here if the process was working as it should,istm. I feel as if this almost falls within the "emperor has no clothes" category. I, as well as others, have suggested that the article has been written and controlled with pro-Iggy POV. I thought that before realizing so much material was taken straight from his campaign website. Imo it is not in keeping with NPOV to allow that material to remain without confirmation from other sources. Ottawaman 00:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right about the peculiarities and particularities of the platform. However such they are. I have copied and paste here the relevant section from the "non negotiable" policy, VERIFY:

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

  • It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
  • It is not contentious;
  • It is not unduly self-serving;
  • It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

So there is nothing to stop material from his site being used. This is not at all a bar to other sources being used, so if you have other sources, please cite those and whatever they say. If it contradicts what is on his site, then we will show the contradiction, but non-judgementally (this doesn't bar including judgements made by those other sources). In fact it is the model of NPOV to allow material from his site to stand; the only reason not to allow it is a POV. You are making arguments that are not in accord with policy, however cogent they might be for other platforms. As far as overall POV bias in the article, that will be the next stage, once the verification stage above is resolved. Tyrenius 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is similar to the Ottawaman's; I think that some the background material fits the prohibition you listed above of being "unduly self-serving" and I think that "reliable source" and "campaign website" are mutually exclusive propositions. I have copied and pasted here a relevant section from the "non negotiable" policy, VERIFY:
  • "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers". Are you taking the position that a campaign website is a reputable publisher?BarbWatts 02:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm still intrigued as to how doubting whether Ignatieff has a wife and then pointing to his own website is either self serving, or unreliable? We're not using his website to say that "Ignatieff is the best" or "Ignatieff is attractive", but that he has seven honorary doctorates; or that his wife exists. Small-time stuff.
Comment; Hamiltonian; please stop with the Strawman argument. The "has a wife" matter was dropped long ago. Ottawaman 11:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, this wasn't an argument. Just something that amused me. --Hamiltonian 12:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I am wondering why you,Hamiltonian, did not list the campaign website as a reference since you admit using it as such? Ottawaman 18:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Because I never wrote any of those sections. I only properly became involved in the article because of the edits over the information some anon editor wanted about his ex-wife. I thought what they were trying to include was an example of the absolute worst of Wikipedia. You'll note I've never substantively touched the "controversies" section. Just the ex-wife stuff. --Hamiltonian 19:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

BarbWatts, you have stated the beginning of WP:VERIFY. The policy then goes on to give specifics of how this should be interpreted and amongst these specifics is the use of self-published sources which I have copied above. Please don't take things in isolation and out of context without understanding how it operates as a whole. The campaign website obviously falls under the category of "self published". Yes, we do take a person's website as being a reputable publisher, on the basis that they should know what they've done in their life. Is that clear now? What exactly do you consider "unduly self-serving"? Please be specific and don't quote serving on an international committee, because that is stated as factual. Also check out WP:LAWYER. This talk is not constructive and it is not helping to get the article improved. It is having the reverse effect and proving very obstructive. Thank you. Tyrenius 03:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As someone who has edited several political biography pages on Wikipedia, I can affirm that campaign websites (or brochures) are fully acceptable sources for biographical information. We have to be cognizant of the promotional nature of such works, of course, but there is absolutely no reason to discount their informative value -- particularly as regards basic c.v. material.

I'm a bit surprised that we're even having this discussion. CJCurrie 04:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you would provide a link or 2 to these political biographies where campaign websites were the sole source of numerous bits of biographical information. I have been looking and have found none so far. Ottawaman 11:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't continue this particular discussion. It's a waste of time.Tyrenius 12:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Hamiltonian kindly pointed out this lengthy bio for Ignatieff. I propose we simply use this instead of the campaign website for background and recognition material. Ottawaman 12:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not an either/or discussion. We use all available acceptable sources. Ignatieff's campaign site is acceptable. Ignatieff's personal site is acceptable. The site you've just mentioned (The British Council) is acceptable. Newspapers are acceptable. Etc. It is quite obvious that you're waging a POV campaign to exclude Ignatieff's website. Could you please not put forward your own personal ideas, but stick to policy. Some allowance is made for new users, but when the same thing is pointed out three times and still ignored, then that behaviour starts to count as disruptive, and will be treated as such. Tyrenius 13:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, I'll drop that issue. Sorry if I was too pushy about it. Ottawaman 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

VERIFICATION (second stage)

Introduction

had to give up this position Cr

change to "left his position as did other leadership candidates" per discussionOttawaman 23:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --Hamiltonian 19:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with that too. --JGGardiner 20:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. As I understand it, the proposed sentence would read: "However, he soon left his position as did other leadership candidates after announcing on April 7, 2006 that he would stand as one of the Liberal Party of Canada leadership candidates." This is ungainly and produces an awkward repetition of "leadership candidates." It could also cause confusion if it were read to imply that all the candidates announced their intensions at the same time.
I struggled for a while to come up with a better way of including all that information in one sentence, but came up empty. Then I realised that it really isn't important that other candidates also left their positions. The point of the sentence is that Ignatieff left his position and also ran for leadership. The fact that he is running for leadership is indisputable. The fact that he left his position is amply documented in the reference provided. What more need be said? I therefore suggest: "He left this position after announcing on April 7, 2006 that he would stand as one of the Liberal Party of Canada leadership candidates." —Joel Bastedo 01:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Bastedo's change ok with me. Ottawaman 16:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Shorten this to "left". I prefer the wording "However, he soon left this position after announcing...." because it flows better, but it's not a big deal. Can we mark this as consensus reached? -- 72-139-185-19 17:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that Joel's version sounds better although I was fine with the first if that had been consensus. --JGGardiner 18:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
We'll go with Joel's, then: "He left this position after announcing on April 7, 2006 that he would stand as one of the Liberal Party of Canada leadership candidates." -- 72-139-185-19 19:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Consensus reached 72-139-185-19 19:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Background

He went on to teach at the University of British Columbia from 1976 to 1978Cr

change to "He worked as an assistant professor of history at the University of British Columbia from 1976 to 1978". btw, some assistants teach sometimes and some do not; reference does not indicate he actually taught.Ottawaman 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
While I suspect that he probably did teach (generally, at least now, it's post-docs that don't teach), I'm fine with this. --Hamiltonian 19:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
He did teach at UBC and mentions it fairly extensively here.[16] --JGGardiner 21:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Gardiner is correct, however it is better to state his exact positon. Change to; "He worked as an assistant professor of history at the University of British Columbia from 1976 to 1978". Ottawaman 00:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
That's fine. Although I'd probably just say "was an assistant prof." --JGGardiner 15:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Consensus reached Tyrenius 02:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
In a discussion yesterday I noticed this which Iggy wrote in 2000 (page 10 of The Rights Revolution) in reference to Canada; "I have not resided here since 1969".[17] Perhaps if he,himself, wrote that, we can not say the UBC teaching has been verified as we only have his word for the assertion and in one of our references he contradicts that. I checked the UBC website for a decisive reference but their faculty alumni lists do not show him unless he used the first name of Leonid at the time.[18] Ottawaman 23:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I found something in the UBC archives"45-45 Ignatieff, Michael - History". So that settles that; please ignore everything between here and the consensus designation. Ottawaman 23:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
These posts accept consensus as above.

Writings

Igatieff has been described as "an extraordinarily versatile writer", [4] Cr

in both the style and the subjects he writes about.

delete as reference#4 contains no such quote Ottawaman 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does. Michael Ignatieff is an extraordinarily versatile writer, both in terms of the kind of writing he does well and the subjects he writes about.
Sorry, I see it now. Leave it as is. Ottawaman 04:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Consensus reached Tyrenius 02:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

International Affairs

Ignatieff has written extensively on the subject of international development,Cr

peacekeeping, and the international responsibilities of Western nations. Critical of the limited-risk approach practiced by NATO in conflicts like the Kosovo War and the Rwandan Genocide, he has argued for a more active involvement and larger scale deployment of land forces by Western nations in future conflicts in the developing world.

delete as non-verified opinion of the contributor. Ottawaman 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Again, this brief KSG bibliography[19] clearly demonstrate his "extensive writing" on internation affairs. As for the remainder, that is actually a pretty good description of Ignatieff's work in "Warrior's Honour", "Blood and Belonging" and "Virtual War". In the intro to "Virtual War" Ignatieff ties this "trilogy" together. - Finnegans wake 05:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's non-verified added flattery Ottawaman 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. It is a description of someone's body of writing. This is fairly standard for encyclopedia entries. For example, if you examine the article for Will Kymlicka[20] another Canadian social theorist (whom would be a good comparator for Ignatieff), says he is a "leader in the field of philosophy of multiculturalism" and says he has "written and edited several books on culture, race, minority language rights, and politics; these, and his other works have been extensively translated" - Finnegans wake 17:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree (with Finnegan). I think that we are allowed a certain latitude to describe his work, subject matter and arguments, etc. Just the same as we sumarize the arguments in the anti-Ignatieff articles without needing another source to explain them. --JGGardiner 19:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
If it's verified by the sources as an accurate description, then it's a standard and valid approach to summarise or introduce in this way. Are you prepared to accept this Ottawaman, or else please specify the exact grounds (bearing in mind the sources) for rejecting any particular point(s), stating your alternative text. Tyrenius 23:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I agree to leave this. Ottawaman 23:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus reached 72-139-185-19 04:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Lesser evil approach

lesser evilCr

I am against this title. Did he invent the term lesser evil. This should be changed to something more straightforward. I am confused, as I am sure many readers are too. Pete Peters 03:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Please suggest an alternative. Tyrenius 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Pete - this is actually the title of Ignatieff's article. He wrote a piece on when free and democratic societies might need to do very unfree and very undemocratic things. It's not that long, but getting across the feel of the article has been a major sticking point. Try giving it a read (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/ignatieff_less_evils_nytm_050204.htm) - it's not that long and it's a much better source than anything we can summarize here. -- 72-139-185-19 16:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well as long as the page is edited with an entry like so, [21], giving a direct understanding of his what Lesser evils means, than the title can stay. Pete Peters 02:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. I'll mark this as CR and we can discuss the content of TLE below. 72-139-185-19 05:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Consensus reached 72-139-185-19 05:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff attempts to balance citizens' rightsCr

to privacy and civil liberties against the state's need for surveillance to investigate terrorist activities.

delete as non-verified opinion of the contributor. Ottawaman 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the deletion, not because it is a non-verified opinion (it is a fair summary of the thrust of Ignatieff's "Lesser Evils" address, although it doesn't go far enough since the address also deals with the need to detain suspects indefinitely, to use coersive torture, to assisinate, etc.), but because it doesn't add anything to the previous sentence. —Joel Bastedo 13:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Consensus reached Tyrenius 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not disputing the consensus, I'm only suggesting that if the sentence is deleted, we should move the two-sentence paragraph that's left into the previous one. -- 72-139-185-19 16:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Political Career

Jean Augustine, the well-liked, long-serving Liberal MPCr

of that riding, stepped aside and endorsed Ignatieff's nomination.

delete no reference Ottawaman 19:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Augustine not only endorsed him, she officially nominated him [22] --Hamiltonian 19:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That means that we should keep it, no? FellowWikipedian 23:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure if she was well liked. I know the David Peterson Government didn't like her. Just too bad I can't verify.Pete Peters 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
The reference above states Augustine was "retiring" not stepping aside. It does say she nominated him which is not the same as endorsing the nomination. What about "Jean Augustine, the former MP of that riding, nominated Ignatieff." all the rest is puffy,imo. Ottawaman 00:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The Augustine reference was originally included, if I recall correctly, because it was speculated that she was pushed out to make room for Ignatieff. The current one is really there to refute the older one. My feeling is that the facts don't really demonstrate anything either way and she probably isn't worth the space in the article to demonstrate nothing. Unless something new comes up, I'd just delete the reference to her entirely. --JGGardiner 15:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree to that. Ottawaman 17:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I think we can lose this sentence. It was the result of a compromise with earlier editors who wanted to imply that Augustine had been pushed aside by Liberal brass to make room for a star candidate. —Joel Bastedo 02:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Consensus reached Tyrenius 07:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OTHER

Suggestions

Not to jump ahead but I have a few suggestions I wanted to get down as I may be away from a computer for awhile;

Controversies section

We can look at this aspect when the present debate is finalised. Tyrenius 17:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • 1; basically that the "controversies"section be put back to

this which was arrived at after much discussion and compromise,imo.

  • A;that the "controversies" section include Iggy's own comments regarding his time away from Canada in the national self-identity sub-section.
  • B; that the Ukrainian controversy be put back as it was a very big deal and still is.
1.a) Since the section already sufficiently deals with critics' concerns about Ignatieff's absence from Canada, and the quote about being a martian outsider is neither a response to those criticisms nor a source of controversy (ie. the media hasn't picked up on this quote either as an admission that Ignatieff is out of touch with Canada, nor as a rebuttal to such claims), I don't think it's necessary to include in an already overlong article.
1.b) This issue has been moved into the Political career section. I think that's appropriate, since it only emerged as a point of controversy in the context of Ignatieff's nomination. If some of the content from the original Ukranian-Canadian section should be reintroduced, it could be added succinctly to the Political career section.
2. I see no reason to exclude the opponents' sites section. If it were put to a vote, I'd vote to include. —Joel Bastedo 15:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment on the above

Could we please put this discussion on hold for a moment, as we haven't got the verification points resolved yet. One thing at a time, or it's going to get back to stalemate. There may be different solutions to the "controversies section" and we need to consider policy as a starting point. Tyrenius 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Ottawaman 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

General discussions

Page protection

It seems that editors have been making considerable progress on getting consensus. Since the page has been protected for over a week, I recommend that the article now be unprotected (or semi protected) in accordance with the policy on page protection which states that pages "should not be left protected for very long." Would we be able to manage if it is unprotected? Please discuss. Sunray 18:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you can see the progress being made. However, it was not protected by consensus: it was an admin action. And it will not be unprotected by consensus. I will do that when I think it will be the most constructive time for the article. And if I don't, then it will be another admin who makes that decision and takes the responsbility for doing so. There is currently no need for it to be semi or unprotected, because material is not yet ready to be placed in the article, as the discussion is still working towards consensus.
I am surprised that you are making this statement, as you have not been a long-term active editor on this page anyway, and yet this is the second time you have made an intervention based on process. I would have thought that the first time, which caused needless kerfuffle, and a statement from one of the editors of how unhelpful it was, would have demonstrated that there is a good team effort in progress and there is not seething dissatisfaction in the ranks with my part in it. This intervention is again a distraction. The thing to be discussed is the content, not process. I have suggested to you before that a helpful contribution to this page would be by aiding the discussion reach consensus, but you have again chosen to ignore this. Once may be understandable as a good, but misguided, faith action. It now begins to look rather less understandable.
I trust you will read this soon, so I can archive it and keep the page for a better purpose.
Tyrenius 19:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note: my post above was made before I created this ancillary page for such debates, and this now takes the pressure off the main talk page, so my points should be read with that in mind. Tyrenius 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the intent of my query on page protection. Obviously this page is not one to be permanently protected. Therefore, sooner or later, it is going to have to be unprotected. To do so, given the pattern of interaction, it would be advisable to get buy-in from the key editors of the article. Yes, I am into process when it comes to disputes. That's why we have policies and guidelines: to assist us all. Without underestimating the value of the contribution of admins, Wikipedia has been built on the contributions of its editors. It is these folks that will continue to assure its success.
As to whether I am a "long-term editor" of this page: My first edit was in July 2005 and I have made a total of over 20 edits since then. While not a high contributor, I like to think that my contributions have been of value. Most of my contributions to Wikipedia over the years have been substantive. However, I have mediated many disputes and have found the policies invaluable in that. Here's another one for you to think about: Assume good faith. Sunray 20:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I would argue that the reason that discussion remains constructive and things do not digress into more edit wars is the existence of page protection. It should be left in place. If you examine the history of this article since, roughly late 2005, early 2006, there has been a lot of anonymous edit warring, evidence of sockpuppetry, personal attacks, accusations, etc. I think a lot of people were afraid to get involved in the discussion, fearing they would be labelled as having this or that agenda or accused of being a "paid operative." The page protection has raised the level of discourse and moved things forward. That's why its available for use by admins, and why it should remain here. - Finnegans wake 23:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I see your point. However, I don't think that this page qualifies for permanent page protection. So how do we get to a more manageable situation without page protection? Sunray 06:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where you've got the idea of "permanent protection" from. It's only been protected 9 days, during which there has been ongoing constructive debate on the talk page, working towards a time when consensus is reached and it can be unprotected. Sunray, you have not been a recent major contributor. You are not contributing to the current debate. I don't see why you're so concerned. It's not affecting you, and those it is affecting seem quite happy with the situation. Even when editors tell you they find my actions advantageous, you still won't accept that, and continue with your counter-argument. I do indeed assume good faith, but what I see is bad judgement. If it carries on in the face of the evidence, it will begin to constitute disruption. You seem rathe too keen on process and the letter of the law, rather than actual achievement and the spirit of the law. Tyrenius 16:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It affects me because I cannot edit the article. I'm not involved in the current discussion because these are not aspects of the article that relate to edits that I want to make. I realize that the editors are making good progress on consensus and recognize that you are performing a good service in that regard. I have no problem waiting for consensus to be reached. However, I believe my question is legitimate. Getting to a stable article will ultimately depend on agreements between editors about the process after consensus is reached on the substantive issues under discussion. I understood that was (in part) what this ancilliary page was for. I agree that the spirit of the law (or rather policies) is very important. Now, would anyone like to tackle the question: how do we get to a more manageable situation without page protection? Sunray 20:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad it's protected and I feel all changes should go through this process for the time being. "I would argue that the reason that discussion remains constructive and things do not digress into more edit wars is the existence of page protection"-FinnegansWake. I would ditto that. Also, the campaign dirty tricks are getting nastier by the minute and you can bet they'll be pouring in here from both sides asap. I think it's harder for the pov pushers to work collaboratively on a discussion page; it's much easier for them just to keep editing the article every hour or so. Ottawaman 20:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I do see that it is working now. Do you think that if there was a unified core of editors watching the page, it could control the POV pushers in the future? Also, if it failed to do so, could we not go to partial page protection which seems to work for George W. Bush (and I doubt that the Ignattieff article is more contentious than the one on Bush)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sunray (talk • contribs) .

I have every wish for the page to be unprotected or at least only semi-protected. I feel the debate is constructive, albeit protracted, and editors agree on the process that needs to take place. Comments above from the editors themselves and their endorsement of protection makes me reticent to take precipitate action, as does Sunray's wish to edit the article directly. I have no problem with the latter if the proposed changes are acceptable to all the other editors, but it seems to me that this is unlikely, bearing in mind the current debate. Perhaps Sunray could say how he intends to make changes that will prove acceptable to all parties. Tyrenius 21:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I am have been both a writer and editor professionally. I do both for Wikipedia, though I tend not to add new content to political articles such as this one. Hence, it is very unlikely that my edits would be contentious. However, this article needs editing. There are many grammatical and syntactical problems with it (probably a by-product of the edit warring) and it once that is attended to it will need a good copyedit. Sunray 21:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I have semi protected the page to allow the technical edits which you specify. I'd be grateful if you could do these asap. Note to other editors: I trust other changes will not be made until consensus has been reached in the discussion. If editors not involved in the discussion make any changes, I invite you to revert them if you disagree, and invite the user to participate on the talk page. Tyrenius 22:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. That was unexpected, but much appreciated. I've done an initial pass through the article, but there are more changes needed. Unfortunately I will now be away for a few hours. However, perhaps this will be a good test of whether we get further disruptive edits. Sunray 00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
It's the first time you've put forward the request to copy-edit. Tyrenius 08:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Ignatieff/Archive_7/Ancillary&oldid=1140389404"