Talk:Belinda Stronach/Archive 4

Stronach's break with the Conservatives

Some of the statements in the article seem to me to be beyond what we should be including in an encyclopedia. Consider these two paragraphs:

Ontario Progressive Conservative Member of Provincial Parliament Bob Runciman made himself the target of Liberals and media alike when he told CFRB, a Toronto radio station, that, "She sort of defined herself as something of a dipstick, an attractive one, but still a dipstick." [1] Asked to retract his statement or to apologize, he refused. He did elaborate that in his opinion, Stronach failed to adequately express her reasons for defecting from the Conservative Party.

Alberta conservative Tony Abbott made even more disparaging remarks, saying Stronach had "whored herself out for power." [2]

This isn't a newspaper and I don't think what these fine gentlemen say about her in a moment of anger really needs to be included in an article on Stronach. Lots of other people in the Conservative and other parties have made comments, do we care? Do others share my concerns? Sunray 18:55, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

I believe that quotes from your harshest critics is valid way of showing all POVs -- JamesTeterenko 19:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. I think I side with James: the comments show the intensity of the reaction to her switch. And, it they also show that sexism is not dead in Conservative Canada. Ground Zero 19:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Sunray, I wrote both of those paragraphs, so I suppose I should explain their inclusion. I think it's appropriate to include information pertinent to the discussion; with time, those statements may be edited out, but they are useful right now. However, I don't think including all such statements is useful. There were plenty of other comments made by conservatives which don't merit mention here. As mentioned by JamesTeterenko and Ground Zero, they also demonstrate the degree of response to the situation. I think it would be appropriate to include more moderate conservative sentiments too, since there were some who considered her a Red Tory and quite likely to quit the party. Mindmatrix 20:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ground Zero that these comments are certainly sexist. But they are not notable. I could go out on the street and get similar comments from passersby. Do they shed any light on anything? Also, they are from individuals that are pretty much unknown outside their respective provinces (citys?). In BC we heard comments (less incendiary and somewhat more thoughtful) from local MPs here. But who cares? My point is that this is an article on Belinda Stronach. Just because some get thinks she's a whore is not reason to put that in an encyclopedia article. There has been a full spectrum of reaction (both positive and negative) to her move. Let's find a way to modify the tone of this. Sunray 20:38, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

I agree that the tone should be changed; I never implied that the paragraphs should be left as-is. However, when provincial politicans, especially those who have held high positions (eg - Runciman; I know little about Abbott), make such statements, I think that the way in which they are perceived, by the media and public, should at least be mentioned. The statements were in all the major Toronto media today, and surely in other parts of Canada, so they have some relavence.

Note that the statements have a POV, but I tried to write about them in a neutral tone. I've made a minor modification, though I doubt that's sufficient. I think we may need to create a section covering the reaction to the switch, so that we can get a more balanced perspective. Mindmatrix 21:20, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I feel these statements should stay as the controversial reaction to Stronach's switch has become part of the story. - SimonP 21:30, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

O.k. let's work on it. I think I will start by adding her statement of her reasons for making the move. I like the idea of a separate section on reaction. However, I assure you that Runciman and Abbott get no play in BC. Sunray 21:35, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Turns out these bad boys have received a fair amount of reaction, so I now think it is perfectly justified to keep their comments and have added some of the reaction to them. Sunray 22:46, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

I like your changes and additions; that section is quite fluid now. BTW Sunray: I can understand if this wasn't prominent news in BC as it was here in Ontario; you had other things to discuss, after all... Mindmatrix 00:46, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, we did have other political fish to fry. Stronach's move was front page, though. Sunray 00:50, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Passport stuff

I can't see any purpose in including this paragraph, so I've removed it:

When she became a cabinet minister she was automatically made a member of the Privy Council of Canada which will allow her to travel under a special diplomatic passport under the Queen of Canada until the death of Queen Elizabeth II.

If true, this would be true of any cabinet minister, so there's no special reason to mention it here. I see that this is a remnant of an earlier paragraph which contained some weird speculation that she defected to the Liberals for this special passport.

In any case, why on earth would the death of the sovereign matter in the slightest? If a former cabinet minister can retain this special passport for the duration of the Queen's life, why wouldn't this privilege be automatically re-granted under her successor? --Saforrest 11:35, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that. It was bothering me, too. Cabinet ministers receive lots of stuff: cars with drivers, cell-phones, letterhead, etc. I saw no reason to make specific mention of this here. Ground Zero 12:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree too; danke! Samaritan 23:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Additions

I've added a few notes about media response and Abbott's apology. Could someone edit them; the wording bothers me. Mindmatrix 12:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It looks good to me. Sunray 01:49, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Stronach comes alive

One way or another we are all Stronach watchers here. Has anyone noticed changes in Ms. Stronach lately? Take a look at the picture at the beginning of the article compared to the one in the Move to the Liberals section. She's different. Did anyone see her interview with George Stoumboulopolis on CBC Newsworld's The Hour last night? Her grasp of the relevant issues was impressive. I will see if I can get a transcript to add something to the article. Sunray 18:47, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Could it be said to have been her first real political risk? Samaritan 06:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

turncoatbarbie.com

Michael Coren plugged this site on the radio this afternoon. Should it be included in the main article as a post-move anti-Stronach site? I'll leave this to the community's judgement. Samaritan 21:22, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't include it. Nothing notable here. Sunray 05:42, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

It's funny, but incredably sexist, and in poor taste. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:44, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is in poor taste. But so are many of the comments from the Tories. I think the page is an accurate reflection of what some people's opinion of her are. However, I am somewhat indifferent as to whether it should be in the article. -- JamesTeterenko 15:39, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, we have covered the *sexist* angle pretty thoroughly... Sunray 18:33, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

"enabled the government to survive"

Contrary to what's stated in 'Move to the Liberals', I don't think we can say with certainty that Stronach's defection kept the government alive. Neither Kilgour or Cadman had made up his mind at the time of her defection (at least so far as they said publicly).

In particular, Kilgour claimed to be very unimpressed with Stronach's move and the government's complicity in it. He ultimately voted against C-48 (i.e. with the Tories); who's to say that Stronach's defection wasn't what pushed him over the edge to vote that way?

I wouldn't bet on it, but I wouldn't say it's certainly false. --Saforrest 00:14, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

It is true to say that many political pundits and observers credit Stronach's move with saving the government.AndyL 01:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It may not be absolutely certain, but it's certainly a reasonable statement. DJ Clayworth 06:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

'Firsts for Canadian media and politics'

I'm removing the sentence "The very sudden and public end of their romantic relationship marked several firsts for Canadian media and politics, which normally avoid discussing the romantic lives of politicians." There's already a sentence about Canadian media and the private lives of public figures in "Conservative leadership race". I can't think of first this can claim that wouldn't be very limited: for high-profile politician's breakup, Pierre and Margaret Trudeau; for "intra-caucus dating where they stopped dating", Shelley Martel and Peter Kormos; heck, for "high-profile intra-caucus relationship meets floor-crossing amid controversy", Gordon Wilson and Judi Tyabji... But I could be missing something. Samaritan 06:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

tami stronach?

Is Belinda Stronach related to actress Tami Stronach?

Email her and find out? --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 04:01, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I left a message on her web contact form; awaiting response. Phr 3 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)

Unlikely. Stronach's father was born "Franz Strohsack" in Austria in 1932, so any relation with Tami Stronach or her father David Stronach would likely be coincidental. --Saforrest 21:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Michaelm

Hey Michaelm, my entry on her use of cannibis is fair and cited in a CBC article. It was wrong of you to call it vandilism. 03:36, 7 October 2005 Michaelm (Vandelism by Cafe Nervosa) Cafe Nervosa 21:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it ok to remove this part of it "but subsequently stated that she's against its decriminalization" because its pass tents however I should not of removed the cannibis part of it. I was wrong by removeing it from the page. Michaelm

A civil reply, but Michaelm did repeatedly made edits he now admits were wrong and leaves the edit summary blank or misleading. Shame.

"pass tents": That's funny. Cafe Nervosa 19:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

"should not of" funny aswell ---12.10.219.39 02:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you were right and you were wrong... Samaritan 16:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

So now that she's joined the Liberals, will Michaelm vote Liberal? Ground Zero 18:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes Indeed I will vote Liberal Federaly. Michaelm 06:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Repeat after me...the Liberals are not a social democratic party...the Liberals are not a social democratic party... (*grin*) Bearcat 22:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I know. Michaelm 06:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

She has to be leader if I will ever vote for the federal Liberals. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Belinda -- there was a better way -- if you are really sincere that you were doing this for Canada -- just cross the floor and sit as an Independent -- You could have staved off the Vote of Non Confidence and retained your dignity and moral fibre. A pretty self serving disgusting performance the way you did it.

I disagree. I hate the Liberals, but she belongs there more than anywhere else. Belinda for PM! -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

disagree aswell, if she quit conservatives and sat as an independant it would have been career suicide. The way she did it she got to a senior level position in days. less moral more smarterer--Olsdude 02:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Languages?

Is she proficient in French or not? In one place it says she is, in another it says she can understand it but can't read it. Also, there is duplication regarding other languages she speaks. Can someone please clean this up? Thanks. --66.117.43.150 04:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Languages

Belinda Stronach answers questions from French media with the assistance of a translator. She did the same during French language debates when running for the leadership of the Conservative Party. If she has any knowledge of the French language, she certainly isn't showing it.

bias

this page is horribly biased, and was obviously written by a supporter of the liberals. Will a moderator please make an annotation that the neutrality of this page is disputed? (unsigned comment by User:Mistercooker)

There is certainly some bias, but you seem to be the source of it. This article has been edited by people of verying political persuasions, and some who have no political affiliations, so it has acquired a decent balance of perspective. If you want to be taken seriously, please list the points you find biased, and why you think they are biased. Moreover, there are no moderators for articles. You could add a {{neutrality}} or {{accuracy}} tag yourself. Mindmatrix 15:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing your edits to this article, I have decided to revert all of them. If other users disagree, they can re-institute your changes. My decision was based on the following:

• You removed information that had clearly cited sources: here and here
• You introduced clearly biased, unsourced information: here
• You introduced an edit that breaks flow, duplicates information, and some of which is inherently unverifiable: here

Your accusation that others are biased is somewhat ironic, given your edits to this article and the above images you submitted to Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 15:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I do find it troubling that any mention of the many accusations of bribery and other impropriety have been entirely stripped from the article. There's nothing left in the article that suggests her move the the Liberals was at all controversial. --Llewdor 01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess that's because they would just be that: accusations. If there were evidence that she made a deal for crossing the floor, criminal charges could be laid since it is legal to bribe a member of parliament. But no charges were laid. Including unproven accusations would not improve the article. Furthermore, there is commentary about how members of the Conservative Party reacted to her move. See the section on Belinda_Stronach#Reaction_to_Stronach.27s_move. I do not see how you can say that there is nothing left to indicate that the move was controversial. Ground Zero | t 01:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)