Jump to content

Talk:Tom Mulcair/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

CJCurrie and Osama bin laden statement controversy

CJCurrie, you said you wished to delete the Osama bin laden statement controversy section because you think the matter will die down in the coming days [1]....Um WHAT? So surely by that account, one should remove under Bev Oda's Wikipedia page the contempt of parliament section because the controversy has died down? Can you cite on BLP that says sections containing controversial statements by Wikipedia people should be deleted after the controversy has died down?Sleetman (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a complete misinterpretation of my comments. I said that the *headline* should be removed, not that the content should be deleted (and I'd be willing to compromise on a less sensationalistic title for the headline, like for instance "May 2011 CBC interview"). CJCurrie (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
A couple of quick issues here: when I meant you wished to delete the osama bin laden statement controversy section, I should have wrote you wished to delete the osama bin laden statement controversy HEADLINE. So I stand corrected. And second, you're free to adjust the comments on the condition that you allow me to adjust the comments as well in response to your adjustments. Sleetman (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I've changed "rumoured" to "possible," which is consistent with the source and (I trust) removes the need for the templates. I should add that my original use of "rumoured" was simply an instance of clumsy wording, which I suppose is ironic in this context.
Anyway, I still don't think this matter is of enough long-term significance to justify the long-term inclusion of a separate headline. If there's a consensus against me on this point, I'll drop the matter (though I'd still prefer the title to the changed, for the reasons mentioned above). If you don't think "May 2011 CBC interview" is descriptive enough, feel free to make a counter-offer. CJCurrie (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Addendum: I can't remove the templates myself because it would be a technical 3RR violation. CJCurrie (talk) 03:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Problems with failed verification and WP:OR

I was aiming to clean up the redundancy of some of the references in the 2011 internview section. What I found is that the sources do not independantly verify the claim that his remarks were "criticized by Canadian politicians". If we want the article to say this, we should find a source that says this. Here is what the sources DO say:

  • TS - The New Democrats worked fast to distance themselves from Mulclair’s comments. A statement from NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar said the party fully believed Obama’s version of events.
  • CBC - Chris Alexander, newly elected Conservative MP and former Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan, said there's no reason to doubt U.S. President Barack Obama's account of what happened. "We've heard lots of people who are denying the facts in this case," Alexander said. "It's an insult to everyone's intelligence to propagate that kind of conspiracy. We have seen the president of the United States ... give a very compelling account of what this mission was about, what the result was. I don't think anyone has any reason to doubt the veracity of that". NDP foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar said the party does not doubt the U.S. government has photos. "We have no reason to doubt the veracity of President Obama’s statement," Dewar wrote in an emailed statement.
  • G&M - Minutes later on CBC, incoming Conservative MP Chris Alexander, who served as Canada’s ambassador in Afghanistan, characterized the comments as “an insult to everyone’s intelligence to propagate that kind of conspiracy.”
  • NP - “I almost fell out of my chair when Mulcair said he doubted the existence of Osama bin Laden photos,” tweeted Marc Garneau, the astronaut and Liberal MP for Westmount-Ville-Marie. In a subsequent tweet, he admonished the deputy NDP leader’s comments. “Sanity check please: Osama bin Laden is dead and photos were taken. To suggest otherwise is a serious lack of judgment.” ... In a statement, Paul Dewar, the NDP foreign affairs critics, said the incoming opposition party didn’t question the existence of the photos. “We have no reason to doubt the veracity of President Obama’s statement,” he said. “I understand that the U.S. government has photos, but decided not to release them as they do not want them used as trophies. This is a legitimate concern. We agree these types of photos shouldn’t be used as propaganda tools.”

While I don't doubt that it is accurate to say that he was "criticized by Canadian politicians", I don't think it is verifiable given the sources used, particularly the Toronto Star. If anything, I think we should be using the verifiable statement that NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar released a statement saying that the party does not doubt the existence of the photos. DigitalC (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, a good recommendation noting the ambiguity of the citation with the comments (mind you in my initial edit of the paragraph on Mulcair's statements, I did what you're recommending: attribute specific quotes to specific politicians regarding the issue, but it was deleted by other editors because it was a bit too verbose.) I'll make the changes to make clear the attribution of particular quotes to certain politicians, rather than lumping all their comments under the umbrella "criticism" term.
As for your suggestion that only the verifiable statements that the NDP's Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar be reported (why are the other statements not verifiable?), I'd suggest that that is an attempt at hagiography and is inconsistent with NPOV if other (notable) politicians have made remarks critical of the statements, there's no reason why they're views shouldn't be reported.

Sleetman (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We could simply delete the line; it's not exactly noteworthy that a (seemingly) controversial statement by a Canadian politician was criticized by members of other parties. CJCurrie (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
And the criticisms by other Canadian politicians of Mulcair's statement is justified...why?Sleetman (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not stating the other comments are not verifiable, please do not misconstrue my comments (that is an example of tendentious editing). I am stating that there trend from all those sources was mentioning Paul Dewar's statement, so if we are going to bother mentioning something, it seems more relevant to give weight to something that the articles are giving weight to. See WP:UNDUE, which is part of NPOV. The problem with direct quoting everyone who was quoted is that we then also run afoul of weight in terms of giving the section too much weight for the article. DigitalC (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Sir, if you didn't think the other comments were not verifiable, you should have at least made that clear; instead of writing, "I think we should be using the verifiable statement that NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar" you should have wrote, "I think we should be using the verifiable statement that NDP Foreign Affairs critic Paul Dewar in addition to the verifiable statements critical of Mulcair's comments" or something to that effect...I also query how you come to the conclusion that just because the articles report Paul Dewar's statement is automatically means they're giving Dewar's statement more weight that would strike me as undermining the journalistic integrity of the newspaper by giving one opinion disproportionate weight over another one. Sleetman (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The point was that the statement at the time (as well as the current statement) are unverifiable. The wording I suggested was verifiable. 3/4 sources mention Paul Dewar, 2/4 mention Alexander, and only 1 mentions Garneau. Weight becomes an issue, because of 75% of the sources are not mentioning Garneau, why should we?. Please also read WP:SYN because it is applicable in this instance. DigitalC (talk) 19:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Mulcair

Requesting comment as to whether or not Mulcair's statement on the CBC regarding the death of bin Laden warrants a separate section. (Under the talkpage, look under the "Problems with failed verification and WP:OR" and "Headline for the recent controversy")Sleetman (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Clearly and unambiguously not, this is basic WP:BLP territory, giving recent media coverage undue attention to what seems to be fairly trivial detail in a biography. --Errant (chat!) 19:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
How is this "trivial detail"?Sleetman (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • No. The heading gives very much undue weight to a minor incident in a BLP's life that at the moment has already faded into the past. It is possible that in the long run this may become more significant. As I don't see anybody but Sleetman supporting this, and many opposing voices. I am going to remove the heading for now. It is up to any potential restorer to demonstrate that there is consensus for it.--Slp1 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a "minor incident" it's a major incident as it's been reported by many news outlets in the Canadian media as well as the international media. The jury's out as to whether or not the moment's already faded but my guess is most likely not as it's going to make for great anti-NDP campaign fodder....but at this point, until the next Canadian election campaign rolls around this is just pure conjecture. As you rightly point out, consensus is needed in order to restore the section and that is something I don't have...however, that doesn't make the removal of the headline somehow ideologically neutral now as if to give the green light to reducing the importance of the incident to non-significance. As such, I'm going to put the neutrality tag on his biography page to reflect this.Sleetman (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The POV tag is not a "badge of shame" and should be used with caution - i.e. you have to raise a specific problem, and once resolved the tag goes. As it is, yes, this is of minimal significance - for the moment. It is basically WP:RECENTISM - in the grand scheme of his biography it is unlikely to be of much significance. If it develops, we can work on it then. --Errant (chat!) 22:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Of course not. This may seem important at the moment (or maybe even not any more) but from the encyclopedic point of view this is just a minor fact. --Beastieboy (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
And this is a minor fact...how?Sleetman (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Headline for the recent controversy

Do other editors agree that "May 2011 CBC interview" is a more appropriate title for the recent controversy (now dying down) about Mulcair's comments? I believe there's a general consensus that Wikipedia articles should avoid sensationalism and an undue reliance on recent headlines; as such, I would suggest that "Osama bin Laden statement controversy" is inappropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that title whitewashes the whole issue of what was controversial about the interview. I should also add that many Canadian sources (including some in cited in that section) use the word "controversy" to describe the issue. [2], [3], [4], [5].Sleetman (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
As I've written below, if you don't think "May 2011 CBC interview" is descriptive enough, feel free to make a counter-offer. I still think "Osama bin Laden statement controversy" is sensationalistic and, as such, inappropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I've proposed "May 2011 interview controversy" as a new headline for this section. Does this meet with the approval of other editors? CJCurrie (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes this heading is fine with meSleetman (talk) 19:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
A la this edit [6], why is the Osama bin Laden incident reduced to a subsection (without a heading i might add) of Mulcair's federal politics section? I thought we had agreed a title for the controversy was already agreed upon?Sleetman (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
We have agreed on the title, and I didn't change it in my recent edits. I'll also note that I haven't removed the headline -- I've just changed the formatting into something less sensationalistic (which has been my goal all along). We are, after all, supposed to be writing an encyclopedia, not a newspaper.
Given that Mulcair's "controversy" seems to have dissipated rather quickly, I don't think there's any reason to keep this as a separate section. I look forward to any argument you might have to the contrary. CJCurrie (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Sir, the fact that a controversy you think seems to dissipate rather quickly doesn't make that controversy any less of a controversy. On Bev Oda's page, her KAIROS controversy has its own section despite the fact that the KAIROS controversy has dissipated for a long time now so does that mean it shouldn't be given a separate section? There's nothing "sensationalistic" about giving the May 2011 interview controversy by Mulcair, can you tell me how giving this interview controversy a separate section violates anything in WS:BLP. Also there's two more things I'd like to point out, one you were the one who created the section in the first place and second, your reformatting is not ideologically neutral either as by removing the section it reduces the significance of the incident....which given the amount of news coverage on the subject suggests that the news is significant, is noteworthy and thus worthy of its separate section. Sleetman (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
First, let's clarify the record: I didn't create the section. You did, here. I then removed it, here, and you returned it with the more sensationalistic title here. I suggested the altered title in a bid to avoid a full-fledged edit war; I never agreed to keep it as a section divider.
I can understand, up to a point, the argument that the "controversy" deserved a section divider during the brief period when it was a news item. That time has now passed, and I don't believe there's any reason to keep it in that format any longer. Thomas Mulcair has been in public life since 1994, and it seems bewildering to me that his article should be divided into the following sections: "Early career," "Politics," "May 2011 interview controversy," "Personal," "Family," "Electoral record," "References," "External links." At least one of these does not belong; the "May 2011 interview controversy" matter surely belongs as a sub-section of "Politics." Having it as a separate section is a pretty clear instance of both undue weight and an inappropriate focus on recent events.
I can't speak to the situation on the Bev Oda page, as I haven't been active there recently -- I will, however, look over that page once after I'm finished here. (Update: [7] CJCurrie (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)) One way or the other, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally regarded as a weak argument.
Btw, I think this edit of yours might also be noteworthy in this context. Without speculating as to motive, I believe that I'm within my rights to point out that there's a discernible pattern of editing behaviour here (even if Mulcair and Davies are on different sides of this particular issue). Could you explain why you chose to add a section divider there and nowhere else? CJCurrie (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The incident certainly merits mention in the article, but it hardly needs to be given its own special section as some sort of uniquely towering issue that overshadows his entire career up to this point. I have to agree with CJCurrie's presentation, which acknowledges the controversy without overly sensationalizing it. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sir, I should have been a little bit more clear; when I said create this section, I meant the creation of this section under the new heading that you proposed (from Osama bin Laden controversy to May 2011 interview controversy) and the fact that you kept the section as a section divider [8]. Do you deny doing this?
I've also asked you how the creation of a separate section of Mulcair's interview violates WS:BLP. You've yet to give me a response that is more than "it's undue weight." (and without any evidence as to why that the reportage of his controversy is undue weight)...Also, I have no idea where you are getting the idea that just because a controversy has passed (and in any case the jury is definitely out on this one yet, his remarks could very well provide helpful motor for an anti-Thomas Mulcair political advertising campaign in the next election), if you look at nir rosen's page the controversy of his remarks about Lara Logan have since dissipated, but that hasn't made the controversy section disappear. Sleetman (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The reason giving it a whole separate subsection constitutes undue weight is because it deliberately creates the impression that this particular incident, by virtue of being treated so differently — own section, reams of detail, etc. — than any other issue he's ever been involved in one way or the other, is somehow the single most uniquely important thing for the reader to know about his entire political career up until now. When in reality, it was a relatively minor blunder, blown wildly out of proportion because the media are going out of their way looking for things to nail the NDP to the wall with right now, and which he took ownership of and corrected quickly. It merits mention, yes, but within the existing section covering his federal career, not as a dedicated subsection in its own right. I'm not going to speak to the Nir Rosen issue, though, as I've never been involved in editing that article one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Ma'am, there's nothing wrong with "nailing the NDP to the wall" it's called democratic transparency something I understand the NDP is perhaps not used to as they never had a reasonable chance at assuming the mantle of governmentship...but now since they're the official opposition that's not a credible excuse anymore. The issue isn't "blown out of proportion" it's a big issue, a notable controversy (given the amount of media coverage) and for you to say that it doesn't merit a subsection it to basically reduce the issue to a non-issue. Sleetman (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
No, excluding any mention of it from the article at all would be reducing it to a non-issue. Simply stating that it should be dealt with in the existing section about his federal career, instead of being set apart as a separate section which implies that it's some sort of overriding context that towers over everything else he's ever said and done, is simply keeping it in context. Wikipedia is about objectivity and neutrality, not about inserting ourselves into political debate by taking sides — the media is certainly free to "nail the NDP to the wall" all it wants, but our job on Wikipedia is to keep a neutral perspective on the long term context, not to join in the immediate pile-on. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"No, excluding any mention of it from the article at all would be reducing it to a non-issue." Great to see that we can agree on something. Of course not that I would have ever endorse that position as I was the one who wrote the paragraph.
Well if Mulcair's done something particularly praiseworthy, feel free to create a section devoted to reporting on that. It's not my problem that Mulcair's statements on bin Laden was reported widely by the Canadian press, elicited reaction from various Canadian politicians and as such is (rightly or wrongly) what is currently defining the political career of the man. I don't see how not giving the comments he made on the CBC interview a separate section would be a "neutral perspective".Sleetman (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
In response to Sleetman,
  • (i) I have no interest in getting into a semantic discussion on this point, but my initial "compromise change" only concerned the title and was not intented to endorse retention the section divider; there's nothing to "deny";
  • (ii) evidence that the controversy has more-or-less disappeared from the public radar can be derived from this;
  • (iii) it's possible that the Liberals or Conservatives might try to resuscitate this matter in the future (as might a rival leadership candidate, I suppose), but that's not relevant to the present discussion;
  • (iv) I have absolutely no interest in measuring this page against developments on the Nir Rosen page. When you raised an issue of balance concerning Mulcair's biography and the Bev Oda page, I addressed it. Now, you've turned to Nir Rosen. This is not a good technique of argumentation; you can't simply keep raising problems on other pages to justify your activities here.
By the way, I see that you once again restored your contentious headline to the Libby Davies page, without offering anything in the way of an explanation. This is not (I'm choosing my words carefully) behaviour that seems calculated to build up my confidence in your approach to this project. CJCurrie (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
(i) If you're change concerned the title, then why did you in your original edits leave it as a section divider?
(ii) But that doesn't show that the controversy isn't unimportant anymore...nor that it's any less worthy of reporting. I've also yet to get a response from you as to how the creation of a separate section of Mulcair's interview violates WS:BLP.
(iv) If I were you, I'd be a bit more careful about the way I would word my language...accusing somebody of using "not a good technique of argumentation" could potentially be seen as a personal attack, especially as you were in violation of 3RR. As for Libby Davies's Israel remarks, I don't see why it doesn't warrant a separate section...it certainly doesn't belong under her "Life" section. Sleetman (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The section on Davies' article isn't titled "Life" — it's titled "Life and career". While it might be valid to split that into separate "life" and "career" sections, the Israel incident is not in an inappropriate section as the article structure currently stands. Bearcat (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
"The Israel incident is not in an appropriate section as the article structure currently stands" So what is the appropriate section in which that Israel remark paragraph should belong?Sleetman (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Until the article has been expanded enough that singling out the one incident as its own subsection is not giving it disproportionate weight in the context of her career as a whole, the correct section for it is the one it's already in. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
But how are her remarks on Israel expressive of her career? What is the relationship there??!Sleetman (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
You're the one who needs to answer that question, not me, because you're the one who's singling it out as some sort of uniquely important incident in her career. The fact that it isn't a uniquely defining moment in the context of her entire career is exactly my point — you're the one making it into more than it is, not me. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Sir, what are you even talking about? I'm saying the remarks AREN'T expressive of her career, hence the need to create a new section. Sleetman (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Creating a new section for it, by definition, gives it inflated importance above and beyond other aspects of the article. Not because some policy statement needs to spell out that that's how Wikipedia would choose to interpret a topline headline, but because the very structural nature of encyclopedic writing inherently makes a topline headline a Major Issue. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"POV" template

I've removed the POV template from the section of this article that deals with Mulcair's political career. Any editor who adds a POV template to an article is expected to explain their rationale on the talk page; a discussion will then occur, and (in a best-case scenario) a consensus decision will emerge.

In this instance, Sleetman has not provided any new explanation for the POV tag; as such, I can only assume that he intended the tag to refer to the recent "headline" controversy. There has already been a discussion on this point, and a clear consensus has emerged with only one dissenting voice. As such, the tag is inappropriate. CJCurrie (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

"Un-endorsed" sub-subsection

I'm going to remove the entire bullet point "MPs who have un-endorsed Mulcair" in the "Leadership bid supporters" section, as it makes no sense. First of all, is "un-endorsed" even a word? Second, the current wording ends with "has not publicly said she has un-endorsed", which completely moots the whole thing. Third, the section title reads like breathless anticipation of coming defections, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedic biography. This is not a breaking-news site. Comments or suggestions on how to appropriately reword and incorporate the material in a different form are welcome. Franamax (talk) 07:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden section

After being stable for a long time, this section was recently edited by 174.115.250.166, who added a quote from the interview that was unfavourable to Thomas Mulcair. [9] I edited the section further to balance that out with context, some of which is neutral and some favourable to Mulcair. [10].

However, the result is that the section has grown to be much longer than it should be. While there was a short-lived controversy about this, it's enough to read the transcript of the interview to make what happened crystal clear.

Mulcair failed to place the interviewer's question in its intended context, namely that of the controversy about whether to release pictures to prove that bin Laden was dead. Instead, he understood the question from the angle of whether it had been appropriate to kill bin Laden rather than capture him. The ensuing controversy, and particularly the accusation that he was propagating a conspiracy theory, was implicitly based on the idea that, since he was questioning the existence of the photos, he must also have been questioning the fact bin Laden had really been killed. This interpretation, which is plainly contradicted by the transcript of the interview, was never entirely spelt out in the criticism. As a consequence, people were told that he'd questioned the existence of photos, something which is arguably true, though not unambiguously, and were left to infer on their own that he was skeptical bin Laden had even been killed, something which is clearly false.

At the same time, it's also true that Mulcair could legitimately be criticized for apparently having been oblivious to the entire debate on whether to release the photos. His answers made no sense to someone aware of that debate. He later blamed "election fatigue" or something like that, as this was two days after the NDP won their 59 seats in Quebec. I think he must not have been paying attention to the photo controversy, even though the rest of the world was.

I'm having a hard time seeing what the right balance is here. If we include too much context and too many quotes, the section becomes too long. On the other hand, if only the controversial quotes are included, it becomes unbalanced, because the basic idea that he was questioning bin Laden's killing, though demonstrably wrong, goes uncontradicted by the facts.

What are your views? Should the section be trimmed? Should we go back to the shorter, stable version? What information is essential to include? 64.140.121.1 (talk) 06:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be trimmed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonlighter (talk • contribs) 10:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The section is undue weight, as much because there's practically no mention of anything else he's said or done as a federal politician as it is too long.--72.53.37.182 (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Bin Laden

Can the section on the bin Laden comments be made more succinct? The section is almost as long as the section on his leadership of the NDP and, while they got some attention in the 24 hour news cycle at the time this hasn't persisted as a "controversy". Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Dual citizenship

I think theee should be an entry on his dual citizenship as reputable canadian media has begun to question this issue in light of his leadershhip bid (this would be the first time an elected leader could hold alegiances to two different nations) 207.216.253.134 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Well... former GG Michaelle Jean was also a dual citizen prior to taking up her post... and she's the titular Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Military...
not including others have had British citizenship...
65.92.180.131 (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok if it isn't a problem, then there should be no problem in making an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.248.100 (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Unlike the United States, Canada has no legal restrictions on a political leader holding dual citizenship; while it certainly got portrayed as an issue for a while, there's no legal or constitutional reason why it actually is one. Rather, as in the matter of his religion, Wikipedia is not the place to express personal opinions about the optics of a politician's citizenship status. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

huge gap.......................bin laden

I came to wp to read about mulcair and bin laden and find nothing. Please put something in. If it is not, I will but it is likely to be crudely written because I know nothing about bin laden except that he may not be dead, according to mulcair.Stephanie Bowman (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Support for Israel

The "Support for Israel" section is very misleading. Of the 3 party leaders Mulcair is definitely the most pro-Palestine. He actively supported the recognition of Palestine as a state at the UN and the current NDP platform states that if elected, Mulcair will recognize Palestine as a state. Poyani (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have made updates to that section Amorbut (talk) 21:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tom Mulcair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

I ask someone to please show a strong RS about how he identifies religious speaking. Without a RS he can`t appear as a Roman Catholic. That would be original research. Not the best source but he once said that "Christian sexual beliefs go against Canadian principles". [11]78.29.157.211 (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

He doesn`t identifies himself as Roman Catholic in the second source given, its the journalist who calls him that: [12].(talk) 01:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

None of the three sources given are RS. Read: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion. For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate."[13]78.29.157.21178.29.157.211 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The only thing we know is that he is a lapsed Catholic.Tedmosby83 (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Religion

I find no references to Thomas Mulcair actually being a "Roman Catholic." Nor has he stated an opinion that in any way matches Catholic teachings.

Those born in Quebec in the early years are given a religion as the only place to register a birth is in a church. That does not make a person religous or part of an organized religion.

As such, and unless someone can dig up a statement saying otherwise, I think the reference to Thomas Mulcair being a Roman Catholic, and any other references, should be removed.

Jackaman (talk) 23:22 10 Aug 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Either it is a political ploy to get elected in Quebec and he is giving it lip service, or he is a Catholic. Since he doesn't practice Catholicism, then it seems like a fake religious shell game, a cynical act of populism. He doesn't seem like he's catholic to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.248.100 (talk) 16:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Personal attacks (i.e. the one you made against me in your edit summary) do nothing to help your case. I reverted your edits because there is overwhelming evidence supporting the claim that Mulcair is a Catholic. He may not be a "good Catholic" in your books, but that doesn't change the fact that he is one. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Earl Andrew is correct. Wikipedia does not publish assertions of opinion about whether a person seems like a Catholic or not — just like absolutely any other religion, adherents of Catholicism have and hold and express an incredibly diverse range of political and social opinions, and do not necessarily conform to some monolithic groupthink emanating from the Magical Vatican Mind Control Beam. I'd actually be sort of fascinated to know how exactly you presume to know what does or doesn't "seem" Catholic in a public figure, 24, but Wikipedia is not the place to analyze that. And at any rate, your understanding of the world is clearly stuck in the 1940s if you think that religion has anything to do with who Quebec is or isn't likely to vote for, such that anyone of any political stripe would falsely profess Catholicism as a "political ploy" — if anything, in the 21st century openly proclaiming one's adherence to Catholicism is much more of an electoral disadvantage in Quebec, outside of maybe the Beauce, than a "populist" act. Seriously, the only recent political figure I can think of in Quebec whose Catholicism was directly relevant to his political career at all is Raymond Gravel — and even he was arguably elected precisely because he was not a traditionalist Catholic, but more of a character right out of a "Catholic priests gone wild" novel. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with much of the above, but I also do think that the IP is correct that it is important, per BLP, to have a source somewhere in the article for the information that Mulcair is actually Catholic. I have added one that states that he was in the past President of a Catholic council which presumably will fit the bill, though I would prefer something a bit more direct and up to date.
Personally, I would support deleting the information from the infobox. I dislike the way infoboxes get used for random information that is often more or less irrelevant to a person's bio. I mean, since there is nothing in the article about his faith (except the up-to-now unreferenced mention of his position as President,) why is this given such importance in the infobox? Slp1 (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
For the record, in principle I agree with you that religion is not worth noting in most politicians' infoboxes — and that the boxes are overused for trivial information. (I've lost count, for instance, of the number of times I've had to remove WP:BLPNAME-violating additions of the names of notable politicians' non-notable, and unsourced, spouses and kids and grandkids.) But unfortunately, I suspect it would require a much broader consensus to scrap it in general, rather than a Mulcair-specific consensus that it's uniquely irrelevant to him alone — and I find it hard to imagine such a consensus actually arriving anytime soon. Though do feel free to try if you wish. Bearcat (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting that it gets scrapped generally, because sometimes it is actually relevant. Romney and J.F.K's religions were notable parts of their political careers, for example. But it is pretty much irrelevant and arguably fails WP:UNDUE here, and so should go, in my view. That's unless some more sources can be obtained showing how his faith has influenced his life, politics etc. Slp1 (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Cant go to Catholic school if your not Catholic - [14]. That said no need in the box..its spelled out in the article.Moxy (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I support keeping it in the infobox, as I see that kind of thing being relevant, but I do want to dispute the fact that he is Catholic just because he went to Catholic school. Lots of non-Catholics go to Catholic school (especially these days), and nowadays, there are no Catholic schools in Quebec. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Not how it worked back then - secular education is a new thing in Quebec (1999) (still have private schools). As for being admitted to a Catholic school in the 1960 yes you had to prove your religion - could only attend the school if he was baptized - its one of the reasons secular education was introduced because of so called discrimination. Jewish children attended the Protestant school back then because of this. Moxy (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

He's not catholic, you can't find a reliable reference that says he's catholic, this is a BLP, yet you still insist on calling him a catholic. Is that the way the Wikipedia policy on living persons works? You can put things in writing that you can't back up? Ok Obama's a Muslim, Well he did say that. Bad example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.68.87 (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Its needed a strong RS to prove that he still calls himself a Roman Catholic and I can`t find none. I think he fits more the typical secular politician image than otherwise. According to his source he is as much pro-abortion as anyone can think about (much more than Obama) since he doesn`t want any MP of the NDP to be pro-life: "After Trudeau’s announcement Wednesday, New Democrat leader Thomas Mulcair reiterated his party’s policy that all candidates must support legal abortion, and criticized Trudeau for allowing sitting MPs who are pro-life to run in 2015." [15]81.193.24.149 (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Mulcair no longer attends church so it's hard to say what his religious beliefs are. The NDP is a very secular party, so I imagine even if he did have beliefs he would want to keep them somewhat private.Tedmosby83 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tom Mulcair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tom Mulcair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tom Mulcair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Mulcair/Archive_1&oldid=1151296466"