Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Archive 10

Neutralizer, Ottawaman, Canuckster et al

The person behind the Neutralizer, Ottawaman, Canuckster, BarbWatts, Methodology, etc accounts and Bell Sympatico dynamic IPs has been community banned. They have promised they will not edit WP again, but if they do, all their edits can be reverted and such reversions are exempt from 3RR. Sockpuppets are listed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Neutralizer. Sarah 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Iggy loses in spite of his followers

in spite of his followers lying about Iggy, he still lost.

142.150.48.149 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Dr. Research

Religion

I notice that the religion part of the infobox has been of the recent activity here. Checking the link, what I saw was from sufficient in my opinion. Valpy's "I think he sometimes goes to a service" is far from evidence that is needed here. It might be the best we've got but we shouldn't just put in the best that we know when we don't know very much. So, does somebody have a better source on his religion? If not, it should be removed from the infobox. --JGGardiner 08:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification for Neutralizer

This is just a clarification for Neutralizer and his various personas that I am not a former admin or a former editor. Neither is Daniel Bryant. We have simply had our usernames changed to User:Sarah and User:Daniel. We both still monitor this article. And will file the abuse report with your ISP if you start up again. Sarah 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Biography: Should it not read From 1964 to 1975, Ignatieff worked as a journalist at The Globe and Mail newspaper.

Instead of from From 1964 to 1965??? Jhcarleton 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By-Election Info

I'm against including too much about the by-elections. Although the accusations did have impact, that isn't really relevant to Ignatieff himself. A rumor is important if it affects someone but we don't know that it really affected Ignatieff and we don't know that it was true so I wouldn't include it here. Although it does have a place in some other articles perhaps. --JGGardiner 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

The section stating, "The Liberals were badly defeated in all ridings, most notably their former stronghold of Outremont. Ignatieff has since urges his party to come together, says "united we win, divided we lose"." is clearly POV as it uses subjective terminology, further it is has misspellings and creates a box separate from the text. Clearly a poor edit. Further, the text above that statement writes that the "Globe and Mail suggests..." which is original research and violates the fact that Wiki is not a news tabloid. These edits are obviously unencyclopedic and only included by an editor who wises to use Wiki as his/her Soapbox. This is a textbook case of poor editing where the spelling is incorrect, incorrectly formatted, improperly cited per WP:CITE, and highly subjective. --Strothra 17:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Strothra. The current wording is poorly written and POV. It needs revision or deletion. I will see if it can be reworded in a more neutral manner. Sunray 17:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at it, attempting to make the wording more neutral. I'm not all that happy with it, however the media did engage in considerable speculation about Liberal in-fighting and the section reflects that. It may, or may not, have any enduring importance. Sunray 18:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that media speculation is still not encyclopedic regardless and, in any event, against WP:NOT. However, I think you did much to make the section much more neutral. Thank you. --Strothra 23:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with Sunray's rewording, however it must be noted that the extensive media speculation deserves mention, as it influenced action events. The Globe interviewed campaign workers after the article came out, that is fact. Furthermore, saying that the media tried to find more signs of...that is not appropriate. GoldDragon 14:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You have the burden of proof in your assertion that media speculation influenced events. Moreover, the article is about Ignatieff, not the party in question, its successes/failures, or campaign workers beyond Ignatieff's direct involvement in those matters. Speculation is not encyclopedic nor is it appropriate for an article that must adhere to WP:BLP. Wiki is not a news outlet. As the article is in its current form, it is giving far too much undue weight to campaign issues rather than biographical detail. --Strothra 15:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The media speculation did influence events. Ignatieff called up Dion in response to the Halifax Herald report being published. But even then, there is nothing wrong with including speculation if it is backed up by mainstream sources. There is nothing wrong on including speculation of the potential 2006 Liberal leadership contenders, like John Manley, Frank McKenna, or Allan Rock, even if they didn't file papers yet and ending up if they never entered the race. GoldDragon 17:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the anon editor who is inserting financing and campaign manager details, the blog does reference reliable sources. However, it is better if the anon editor actually uses the news articles directly; for instance the Montreal Gazette and Canada_com. So you have to be careful about what you consider and delete as POV, because this can be construed as vandalism. GoldDragon 17:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not allowed per WP:RS unless they were created by notable and a recognized expert in his/her field such as the blog by Juan Cole. Again, inserting the speculation of a news source into the article is simply adding opinion, not fact. It is original research. --Strothra 23:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

These additions are perfectly consistent with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. And as speculation is permitted for the Liberal leadership convention... GoldDragon 00:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, blogs are not permitted as sources. Again, speculation is not encyclopedic. If you would like to suggest ways to neutrally integrate factual material that is properly cited from reliable sources, then please suggest it. --Strothra 00:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

<edit by banned user removed per WP:BAN>

You are correct. In fact, if we used the canada.com source directly, that would give Strothra no excuse to delete it. GoldDragon 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that since this is a biography of a living person (WP:BLP) that blog citations will be removed immediately as they are clearly not reliable sources per WP:RS. Per WP:BLP: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." --Strothra 01:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The Montreal Gazette and Canada_com are reputable sources. End of story. GoldDragon 17:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That may well be, but forums and blogs are not reliable sources in general and specifically not for a BLP. If you have material you want to add, please find some reliable sources to cite, otherwise the material is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Sarah 23:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, we will have to cite them directly. GoldDragon 23:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Environment

Can we also have a section on the environmental platform during his leadership bid, and mention his advocacy for a carbon tax? this is notable because it became a central plank of the party platform in the 2008 election —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.58.150 (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Lester Pearson

The article states that Ignatieff volunteered for Lester Pearson in the York South riding, yet for his entire career Pearson represented Algoma East. Is what is meant that Ignatieff volunteered for the Liberal Party? fishhead64 (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Template of Liberal party Leaders

Unless interim leaders are added to that Template, it (the template) should be removed from this article. Ignatieff is not the Leader of the Liberal Party; he's interim leader. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This guy betrayed his russian blood by siding with the albanians "nation building" while they kidnapped Serbs and stole their organs. Shame on you Ignatieff!! You do not deserve such a noble Russian name you coward! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.96.186 (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This needs something...

The paragraph about the leadership succession is obviously missing certain current events:

==Interim Leader of the Liberal Party===

Ignatieff held a news conference on November 13, 2008 to once again announce his candidacy for the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada. On December 9, his only remaining opponent for the Liberal Party leadership, Bob Rae, withdrew from the race, leaving Ignatieff as the presumptive winner. On December 10, he was formally declared the interim leader in a caucus meeting.

I'm not in the mood to do the legwork and dig out his position statements re the Coalition, and the op-ed pieces that say he's cool to it, or what he's said since etc; when the coalition first was announced it was also assumed - briefly - that it would be either Ignatieff or Rae, I mean by mentioning that that that's citable [huh don't know how to punctuate that, if at all..]; this pragraph currently comes off like Bob Rae had no other reason to bow out than Ignatieff booking in...he did announce before all the turkey-dancing started didn't he?Skookum1 (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Support for Bush policies

I've read that he supported the Bush war against iraq,& he supported the Bush "soft" torture. Perhaps worthy of mention?

His life has been that of an observer and a joiner. What he has joined is telling. When the George Bush administration (with Britains Tony Blair) was building the Iraq weapons-of-mass-destruction-lie in order to invade, Ignatieff joined the bad guys. We remember the air was hot with disagreement about invasion, and Ignatieff supported the Bush side arguing to invade Iraq.

Almost worse when, more recently, the argument about Terror and Torture was aflame, Ignatieff not only supported George Bushs so-called policy of soft torture (activity that Barack Obama has since categorically ruled out) but he did so in one of his books that is there for all to read.

Ignatieffs published position in that book is ugly. He has rejected both of those positions since. Fine. But in the Canadian parliament he voted with the Harperites to extend Canadas role in Afghanistan, and he won his nomination in Etobicoke-Lakeshore by a setup what one might describe as unsavoury manipulation.

In the light of all that we have to ask what he will approve of and then live to regret among the Stephen Harper policies he endorses? Having helped wreck Canadian democracy, an apology and retraction from Ignatieff some time in the future will be of little use or comfort.

Winston Churchills basic statement about parliaments still stands: the role of the Opposition is to oppose. Ignatieff has brushed that rule aside in his first weeks as Liberal leader.

"To defeat evil we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interogations, targeted assasinations, even pre-emptive war" Micheal Ignatieff New York Times op-ed piece May 2, 2004

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.3.220 (talk) 03:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Power and the Status Quo

I understand that he usually sides with those in power and is a big appeaser (domestically) as well as in the want to maintain the Status Quo. In saying so I would bet much of my earnings that he would not arrest George W. Bush if he came into our borders again, which is what Canadian law calls for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.197.222 (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum. This page is for trying to improve the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Honourable" Prefix?

Since he's leader of the opposition, doesn't he get the prefix before his name? Or is that just once the house comes back? --72.38.3.14 (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

you are correct he does have "The Honourable" as leader of the OO RP459 (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Lesser Evil approach

Any reason why this section should be removed? Sounds neutral and Sounds well sourced with a reference form the NYT magazine, so I don't see why it should be removed. JForget 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it belongs, as it is sourced etc.Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I also think it should stay. However, I don't think the sources used for the first (and most inflammatory) sentence are very good: An interview with Linda McQuaig, and an unsigned editorial in The New Internationalist that actually cites Wikipedia. Neither really substantiates what the sentence is claiming. If we're going to assert that Ignatieff argued something, isn't it most sensible to cite him? Well, we do - after the next sentence. So I think we should remove the first two cites in the paragraph, and rewrite the beginning of the paragraph to more accurately capture what was being argued in the Lesser Evils article. -Joshuapaquin (talk) 00:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Education

We know that Ignatieff definitely has a BA in history from Trinity College at University of Toronto and a PhD from Harvard University. Those two facts are well known and documented. But the infobox also lists Oxford as an alma mater and I can't find any source that mentions an Oxford degree. In fact, the Canadian Who's Who (published by Toronto) actually says he has an MA from Cambridge, but that date is later than his Harvard PhD. So which is correct, Oxford or Cambridge, both or neither? 209.195.107.124 (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Language

I can't edit the article because it's semi-protected. It says Ignatieff speaks English and French fluently, but it doesn't say which is his native language. Having heard him speak both languages, I presume it's English. 67.150.252.101 (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I've actually been fortunate enough to have heard him speak several different languages in person. English is his native language and he is a gifted speaker and an extraordinary writer in that language. His second language French is excellent, fluent, extremely literate, virtually flawless, and of near-native quality.

He also knows how to say some basic Russian sentences too and his accent is pretty good. Mardiste (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Behind the scenes

The whole second paragraph of "Interim Leader of the Liberal Party" section is cited by a source that not only doesn't verify the content but says the opposite about Ignatieff's feelings about the coalition. Is there a source for this or is it rumour mongering and OR? DoubleBlue (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Good observation. There might be a source for this material but it certainly is not the one cited. I'll remove the material for the time being until someone can provide a truer source. 70.27.146.177 (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

"After Parliament was prorogued, delaying the non-confidence motion until January 2009, Ignatieff and other party insiders put pressure on Dion to resign immediately." I'm not sure how anyone can verify this quote unless it was written by a "Liberal insider." It certainly isn't corroborated by the cited source [64]. I move to have it reworded to read: "After Parliament was prorogued, delaying the non-confidence motion until January 2009, Dion eventually stepped down of his own accord."--Garyedgar (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Family

The sentences "Andrew wrote that when he was 12 and Michael was 17 that Michael was two-faced with him, nice when adults were around and mean when they were not; "We went for a walk, and he said, 'I want to make one thing absolutely clear to you. When we're at Aunt Helen's house or Aunt Charity's house [Charity Grant, their mother's sister], you can say whatever you want to me. But if you ever see me on the school grounds, you're not to talk to me. You're not to recognize that I'm your brother. You don't exist as far as I'm concerned. Do I make myself clear?'" LACKS CONTEXT. The reference link was broken but I found a copy. The article does not support the age difference given, Michael it seems would have been 15 (or maybe 16). Without the context I read the statement incorrectly as more recent than 1993, and as just 2 high school boys separated by significant age differences. But reading the article leads one to different views more along the line of first born ("God") vs second born (self described "fat prick"). In this case a direct selective quote is useless. And the discussion archives have already pointed out that these sort of pieces don't fit in wiki standards. Personally I feel it just pollutes the article, but if his relations with his brother are to be included, other context (separation, feeling of a lack of Fatherly attention, ineptness, low social and self esteem) on the part of his younger brother would be needed as well. And the statement "Andrew wasn't interviewed. However, he told Ms. Martin(1992) that, when their father died, his own resentment toward his brother vanished.", would tie up the loose ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.158.95 (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC) ( Update: While I was typing this somebody else deleted the offending sentences for other reasons) The line - ignoring his prominent New Brunswick roots - is confusing and lacks contexts. Unless there is some reference to be linked to I would suggest removing it. And unless someone can produce attribution to the lengthy section on Ignatieff's New Brunswick roots I'm not sure it should stay either.--Garyedgar (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm also at a loss to understand why a book review is cited as a credible source and not even linked to. I'm in favour of deleting this passage as completely irrelevant to this section (and this profile):

New criticism finds fault with Ignatieff's account of his mother's ancestors claiming that he ignores the women in the story:

"As a historical biography though, the book falls woefully short. In reading "True Patriot Love" one wonders why Ignatieff completely ignores the women of the Grants (Ignatieff's maternal family name) whom he presumes us to believe had no role whatsoever in the development of his family. If Ignatieff's choices of whom he focuses his attention on is a reflection on him, then Ignatieff wants to be seen as the stiff academic patriarch who prances around in privileged elite circles, the all-male Upper Canada College clique." (20 May 2009, Amazon.com book reviews)--Garyedgar (talk) 15:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Better Intro

I realize it's inevitable that everyone is going to focus on Ignatieff's political stuff, but I think his personal story is just as interesting, and perhaps more interesting, in the long run.

Given that, I felt that introducing a brief life timeline in the opening para gave a better picture of the man:

"Ignatieff lived abroad from 1978 till 2005, holding senior academic posts at the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, and Harvard University. In 2005, he returned to Canada to teach at the University of Toronto before entering Canadian federal politics in 2006."

I'm a decent writer, and I believe that makes the opening a stronger one.

It keeps getting reverted though within micro-seconds, and i'm not going to fight it. I realize that this is a partisan battleground here, and I have no interest in expending energy in this way. So I'll let you all duke it out; with any luck, sometime we can get a more rounded picture of the man as a man, with nothing to do with all your politics. I'll use my energy elsewhere. Randal Oulton (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We tend to focus on the significant, notable events that occur in lives of the subjects of the biographies. Moving tends to be arduous logistically, but is not usually that big of a deal in relationship to the accomplishments, failures, and so forth that make up a notable figure's biography. It provides detailed context, but for most folks, simply saying that someone has taught at the Sorbonne would generally convey that they were probably present in France. Likewise for Stanford and California, and so forth.

All of this to say, the lede, as it is currently written, outlines the important "accomplishments" of Michael Ignatieff. If he has any significant failures, they, too, can be mentioned duly in the lede. Otherwise, where all he has lived should be detailed in the content of the article, along with other context.

This doesn't reflect on your writing skills, or the prose you presented. I agree, it does make an interesting story. The difficulty here is that we need to try and maintain as balanced and concise a lede as possible, and the current version manages that with greater brevity and focus on key "accomplishments" than does the proposed variation. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The article currently asserts his last name is pronounced /ɪɡˈnɑːtʃəf/, but isn't /ɪɡˈnætɪəf/ more common? That is, with four syllables instead of three, with the a as in cat rather than as in father, and with no ch sound? Maybe the pronunciation in the article is the Russian one, but we need to have the usual Canadian English pronunciation. Indefatigable (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends what question you're asking. If you're trying to suggest that we use the correct Russian pronunciation, then you're always going to run into the problem that Michael Ignatieff can't speak Russian and therefore can't pronounce his own name properly in that language. So maybe we should simply accept the Americanized version of his name that he himself uses. I think that's just basic respect. Mardiste (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Indef. is (or was) trying to say the opposite. We currently have the Russian-y one up. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed the article to the Canadian English pronunciation a few weeks ago. Indefatigable (talk) 20:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rocco Rossi's Initiation of Ignatief's Recruitment

This source [1] says that it was actually Rocco Rossi who initiated the recruitment (by referencing Keith Davey's assessment of Ignatieff's abilities). I think that deserves mention as well. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Alfred Apps was excluded from the trip to Cambridge section

Not sure why Alfred Apps would have been excluded from the trip to Cambridge report (when it is widely reported [2] that he went with Davey and Brock), except it must have just been an oversight. Even the source originally given [3] says "Davey and two Liberal lawyers". Is there some reason Apps was left out of the trip to Cambridge, is there another source saying he did not go? I have included it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Opposition" in lede

Yesterday, User:Miesianiacal made an edit to the article replacing "Leader of the Official Opposition" in the lede to "Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition," with an edit summary of "proper name." I undid the change, which he or she then reverted with an edit summary of "not in common use doesn't mean unusable." While I think that's a fair statement, the vast majority of reliable sources refer to Ignatieff as "Leader of the Opposition" or "Leader of the Official Opposition" as opposed to the proposed change (over 650 mentions for the former two, less than 30 for the latter). While we could mention both his common and formal titles in the lede, that seems contrary to our style directive to be clear and concise, and, in any event, the matter is covered a link away at Leader of the Official Opposition (Canada). If there's consensus for such a change, I certainly wouldn't oppose a revision, but even as a staunch monarchist, I feel as though this isn't an edit that improves this article, given that it's completely contrary to common use. jæs (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Support using Leader of the Official Opposition. Common usage makes sense here. No one uses "Her majesty's". EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Leader of the Official Opposition is preferred. GoodDay (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Relation to Nick Clegg

According to this article, Michael Ignatieff is a distant relative of the current UK Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg. If so, would it be worth mentioning in this article (and/or in Clegg's for that matter) and how best should it be noted? --Nerroth (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Honourary Degrees

The list is nine long, not eleven.

Would anyone else support my changing the title of this section of the talk page to "Honorary Degrees" so that the word is spelled correctly? I think it may have been written by some semi-educated Canadian who believes that since "honour" and "honor" are both valid spellings (British and American), there also exists an English word spelled "honourary". (The word doesn't exist. It doesn't exist in the US or in the UK and it also doesn't exist in Canada.) I don't want to be mean, but is this really the kind of person we want counting honorary degrees (haha sorry, I meant "honourary degrees") and then posting his thoughts on Wikipedia? Mardiste (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.153.68 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Using this bio as a campaign ad

Ignatieff with US President Barack Obama in Ottawa on February 19, 2009

I strongly object to placing campaign type photos like Obama sitting with Ignatieff in this article. If the photo is not notable enough to go in Obama's article it is also not notable enough to go into Ignatieff's article. 70.29.76.101 (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you don't like the photo. This does not necessarily make it non-notable. Notability for photo use should be anlyzed based on Wikipedia criteria. I am not sure if there are guidelines specifically for photos but we can look in the general guidelines. For example, during Obama's visit to Ottawa his meeting with Ignatieff received considerable national news coverage and some international coverage. The fact that Obama spared some time to meet with Ignatieff by itself confers notability on the event regardless of anyone particular political beliefs. But I will let the Wiki editors at large voice their opinion. Support or Oppose? (I support). EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not it belongs in Obama's article is irrelevant. That being said, it *would* be notable in the Obama article under a section on his relationships with foreign politicians if not for the fact that there are already images of him with people of greater power. That is merely an editorial decision, not a question of notability. In terms of Ignatief's article, meeting with the American president is a notable event of his career, and I do not find this to be a campaign-type photo at all. Between this, and a derth of photographs in this article, I would support its inclusion. Resolute 17:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say it should go in Ignatieff's article. It is a little bit of a campaign photo, but I think we should keep it. Why? Because it is a notable part of anyone's life if they happen to meet the sitting President of the United States. You can't just dismiss that it didn't happen, so it should be mentioned. Everything is better with photos, and since we have a PD photo of them together then it is totally relevant and should be included. That is my reasoning. -Royalguard11(T) 18:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

American copyright releases federal government works into the public domain, which is always preferred in WP. So many articles have photos of people with American Presidents. Look at the pictures in If you look at the ones with the President with one other person, most will be in articles. I think that it is a reasonable illustration for the Liberal leader section. I don't really understand what the "campaign type" objection is anyway. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

POV is gushing here,imo. I don't think a 15 minute courtesy meeting is notable but it doesn't need to be ignored; it just does not deserve a campaign type photo. I'd like someone to explain why it should go in this article and not in Obama's? 70.29.77.31 (talk) 22:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, I can see the opinion here is that the office of President of the USA is so important that any type of brief meeting with him "is a notable part of anyone's life" (according to the editor above) but that,to me, seems to be a classic case of POV pushing rather than encyclopedic analysis. It's pretty weird to think that everyone who meets with the leader of the USA or China or Russia for a few minutes at an airport should have a photo of that event in their biographical article and it almost fits into the same category as "meeting the Pope" or some other semi-religious type of encounter. I don't think the majority opinion here,thus far,has been thought through very well. Are the pictures of Obama meeting with all the other Canadian officials on their respective bios? Why is it not on Harper's bio? 70.29.77.31 (talk) 22:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to your last question, the only free image of him with Harper isn't very good, which is why it isn't used. There are only a few available free images of Ignatieff, so we add what we can (in contrast, there are hundreds of Obama, so you can be choosier) and if there WAS a free image of him with the pope or president of Russia, it would likely be in the article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've checked the White House gallery and there is a good photo of a Harper and Obama discussion right here where they are sit probably in one of the Parliament's Room. Not sure if someone though have already uploaded it via Commons or on Wikipedia itself. But it can be used in whatever Harper article - maybe the foreign policy or the Harper as Prime Minister article. There is a good one also that can be used for the Michaelle Jean article. --JForget 00:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for what it's worth, the Leader of the Opposition always gets to have some face time with visiting foreign dignitaries; it doesn't mean that Obama chose to single out Ignatieff as somebody he was going to make a special effort to meet outside of standard protocol for this type of thing. But I digress.

I genuinely don't see a single compelling reason why this photo should be an issue at all — any good-quality photo that's uploaded to Wikipedia under a freely-usable license can be added to any article where it's relevant and desired, case closed. There's simply no debate to be had here, and I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that I have more than enough years of experience as a Wikipedia administrator to know that anonymous IPs whose very first Wikipedia contribution is to raise a strong objection to a situation like this are never genuinely disinterested parties — anybody want to take bets on which political party's partisan objections to an Ignatieff-with-Obama photo Mr. or Ms. 70* is trying to disguise as a high-minded concern for objectivity? Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your first sentence is dead on. There are only two photos in the article at the moment, and one of them is of very poor quality - so it's not like the Obama photo would be crowding out other useful images. -Joshuapaquin (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bearcat, but with two caveats - (1) during an election campaign, the abuse of the open-image policy as described should be very carefully monitored and some measures, informal as they may need to be, are needed to keep Wikipedia articles from being made political brochures. (2) overtly POV photos, or photos advancing a particular agenda in a controversy, as happened on whatever 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute is titled now, can also not be treated as if innocent in origin or purpose. The current image is NPOV in nature, really just a press-op photo of the usual kind; different if it were Obama in front of an "Elect Ignatieff" poster....Skookum1 (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think if this article were already overflowing with photos, then we could debate whether this one should be included. But there is a dearth right now (especially given Ignatieff's public profile), so it should stay in. --Padraic 15:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just my two bits, but;

1. There do seem to be a fair number of other images 2. The image is not relevant to any discussion in the article 3. The image is what I view as polarizing (some will see it as photo-op, others as a back-handed allusion to his being more loyal to the US). Either way the image should go.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

Criticism Section

He has been heavily criticized for often calling himself an American, among other things. I think the very least is to put a "Criticism" section at the bottom similar to almost every other major wikipedia Biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.185.94 (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I second that. - signed Ghyslyn

Well I'd like to think that we can do better than the very least. I suggest that we do a full-blown insertion of the criticism within the relevant context and appropriate section of the article. That is would be more proper for an encyclopedia than those "criticism" sections which I'm sure exist only within this one. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

On closer inspection, we've already done that. The identification as an American, requested above, is in the "Political career" section. Well kudos to us. Barnstars all around. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is not enough in depth, honest criticism of Ignatieff's policies and positions. After reading the Ignatieff article what immediately came to mind was it seemed to be a whitewash of him, leaving out the many controversies, criticisms and mistakes he's made along the way. Unfortunately Wikipedia biographies (like this one) read more like rose tainted promotional profiles rather than objective biographies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.65.24 (talk) 22:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I am baffled that there is no criticism/critique section...and what is there seems to be removed time and again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.166.221 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia - it reads like one of his official biographies.. and it probably is - give me a break... Mykyta (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

time outside of canada

curious why there is no mention (or it is well obfuscated) that iggy was out of the country for the better part of 30 years? 207.216.253.134 (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

No mention? It's pretty obvious in the University professor, writer, broadcaster section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.248.255.247, 27 March 2011

I just want to mention that he received an honorary doctorate from Trinity College, University of Toronto, in September 1999. I was in the audience (I was matriculating on the occasion).

"Honorary Doctorate of Laws, Trinity College, University of Toronto, September 1999."

173.248.255.247 (talk) 05:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: Even though it is endlessly repeated throughout the Internet that Mr. Ignatieff has received at least 11 honorary degrees, I have been unable to find reliable sources that verify your particular assertion. Please provide a verifiable source so the information can be added to the article. Thank you. Shearonink (talk) 01:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Canukistan42, 29 March 2011

Please add a new section under the Notable political stances section

Forming of a potential coalition government

During the Spring 2011 federal election, Ignatieff clearly ruled out the formation of a coalition government with the NDP and Bloc parties. Despite criticism from the Conservative party that Ignatieff was planning to form government with the other opposition parties, Ignatieff issued a statement on March, 26th 2011 stating that "The party that wins the most seats on election day will form the government"

Canukistan42 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

References

POV tag

The article is slanted toward being a promotional piece. Just by looking at the discussion directly above whereby negative content which is headlined in 4 major Newspapers is deleted from the bio as being not relevant enough, at the same time the article has content such as "He is also a descendant of William Lawson, the first President of the Bank of Nova Scotia." which is apparently acceptable. Also, there is too little content concerning criticism of Ignatieff's policy positions and his support of the Iraq war. Hopefully it can be rewritten quickly with a more balanced tone and content and then, by consensus only, the tag removed. Itabletboy (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two paragraphs about his views on the War in Iraq. What more do you want in such a short bio? William Lawson has a Wiki article in which it is clearly stated that Ignatieff is his great-grandson (backed up by a reference no less!). Your attempt to prove lack of neutrality here has so far fallen rather flat. --Skol fir (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus already agreed to remove the item about Ignatieff's wife not having received her Citizenship papers on time for this election. I can count. --Skol fir (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, that is not enough Editors. If more Editors do not comment, then we can do a RFC or go to the BLP noticeboard if you prefer. Itabletboy (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You do not make the rules about the number of editors. That is hogwash. Besides, since you returned to Wikipedia you have done nothing but suggest that you are a single-purpose account. That alone is grounds for having you blocked if you persist in your attempts to put bogus issues into this article for political gain. You should know better than that. --Skol fir (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the comment above is against CIVIL and Wikipedia:Assume good faith and should be retracted. Itabletboy (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Either way, the issue was poorly worded. Instead of giving the balance required, you right away focussed on the negative. I never saw an attempt to include the information in the news articles about her not being at fault about the delay. She tried her best and as a wife of the Leader of the Opposition, she is not getting any special treatment from the feds. Makes sense to me that it has no relevance to anything at all about Ignatieff. Are you trying to make this an issue when it is not? I question your neutrality. It is two-faced to request neutrality, but then to turn around and show bias. Shameful! --Skol fir (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Very odd. AGF please. I simply did not feel the topic warranted more than 1 sentence so I focused on the headline. If you want to add Ignatieff's Press Secretary's response, you could have done so and still could. What's with this unfriendly and combative hostility here at this bio? I will not participate in that. Itabletboy (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Remember we have to follow BLP guidelines. His wife is not him. The article is to be about Mr. Ignatieff. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That was precisely my point in numerous statements I made, both in the edit summaries and here. --Skol fir (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've justified the placement of the tag. You only identified one specific thing in this section, the sentence about his wife which is under discussion above and was initiated less than six hours earlier. On the other sections you haven't said anything that is actionable which is your responsibility as the tagger. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

JGGardiner, I want to just point out that we have recently obtained an actionable statement from Canada Hky (see the preceding section, comment about including the sentence, "Ignatieff is married to Zsuzsanna Zsohar, who holds landed immigrant status in Canada as she goes through the citizenship process. She currently holds Hungarian and British citizenship." That might be the solution we are looking for. --Skol fir (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not being the tagger, I wait for him to step forward. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I was too abrupt about this last night I will use the age old "tired" excuse if I am allowed)and I apologise for that. Hopefully we can work out something now that Canada Hcy has put something foreward. Regarding the citizenship, I myself do not think it is important at all, but obviously Canadian major media do, with the matter now being expanded in the Globe and Mail today [5]. So, how do we stand as to consensus regarding whether the matter should be included at all? Then, to what extent? We certainly should not say she is going through the process without attributing the source of that assertion to Ignatieff's press secretary. If you wish to do that and leave it at that, it is fine with me, but now that Bob Rae has jumped into the matter, some Editors may feel his comments are notable as well? Itabletboy (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tag Removal

I see it was removed after 3 hours. Maybe it was premature but surely we all are aware of the great controversy regarding the Subject and his opinions over the past 10 years, yet to read the bio as it is, the extent of the controversy seems to me to be too muted and does not come across. The bio represents him in much too favourable a light in comparison with the content within all of the available Reliable Sources, especially for a politician. Itabletboy (talk) 15:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

National Post and Toronto Sun articles about Ignatif's wife not being a Citizen

This would not be important to me but Canadain newspapers seem to think it is notable in light of the Conservative's "just visiting" campaign. I inserted a small reference but it was removed.[6][7]. Should it be left out?Itabletboy (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I already made my views clear -- I don't think that dragging a wife's citizenship into a BLP is in good taste, since this has nothing to do with Ignatieff, the subject. If you want to take a right-leaning newspaper as a source, that already is suspicious and a red flag. Furthermore, we must be careful in a BLP not to bring in information of dubious value. This is not a tabloid. In the policy for WP:BLP it states clearly that

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.

--Skol fir (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It may violate BLP, and, it is frankly irrelevant, so I would say leave it out. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The Sault Star [8],Ottawa Citizen,[9]Natl Post and Toronto Sun can't be banned as sources as being right wing papers unless the Toronto Star etc. are banned as sources for being left wing. Also, please specify how the content is against BLP policy? Also, these articles are not just mentioning the citizenship issue as an aside, it is the headline of these articles. If you are following the election you will know that anything related to Ignatieff's stay in Canada being non-commital has been a focus point of the Consevative's campaign, which is why this topic is getting headlines. Once a topic does get so many headlines, it deserves a sentence at least in the bio, I think, whether any of us like the topic or not. Itabletboy (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The wife of Ignatieff applied immediately for Citizenship, she is a landed immigrant and this is not an issue about Ignatieff. It is simply "drive-by news hype by headline." Wikipedia frowns on this type of sensationalism. Period. --Skol fir (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine to insert that explanation as well. Itabletboy (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

This subject is completely irrelevant to our article, particularly in that the Citizen piece indicates she is currently is the process of becoming a citizen. CJCurrie (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That is not correct. The Citizen piece does not indicate that as a fact, it merely says that Ignatieff's Press Secretary, Michel Liboiron, is saying she is in the process. As a Canadian you should know very well it does not usually take 6 years to become a citizen when the residency requirement is only 3 years. I do not pretend to know what stage her applicationis in nor when she applied. If you wish to add that Ignatieff's press secretary says she has applied, then add it, but please do not say that the Citizen newspaper indicates that because I don't think that is what the article says. Itabletboy (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The note about her not being able to vote, or its relevance to the Conservative's campaign is likely not needed. Factually, I think "Ignatieff is married to Zsuzsanna Zsohar, who holds landed immigrant status in Canada as she goes through the citizenship process. She currently holds Hungarian and British citizenship." or some equivalent could easily be included without violating BLP policy or eschewing a neutral POV. I'm not planning to add it, but I thought I'd propose as possibly a middle ground. Basic biographical info about a spouse should have a place in an article. Canada Hky (talk) 04:03, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the four users who feel a mention is not needed. If another party had brought this up or it was some sort of controversy then perhaps the need might arise. For now this is just a factoid even if it has apeared in several papers. The NPOV problem is greater if we include it than if we exclude it. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The irony here is that I do not really like it myself, but it does seem to be generating some controversy [10] now. 1 sentence seems needed at this point; if the matter quickly vanishes, the sentence could be removed? Itabletboy (talk) 14:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, the Globe story makes me less inclined to include it. The Globe is basically suggesting that it was an underhanded attack on Ignatieff by the Sun and whoever passed the information to them. If we include it here simply as biographical information, we have an NPOV problem. If we crafted a para about it, we'd have an NPOV WEIGHT problem in my opinion. And possibly an ordinary NPOV problem as well. --JGGardiner (talk) 16:48, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I tend to agree with your interpretation of our options as Editors and the Globe story does throw suspicion into the newsworthiness of the entire matter. I can agree with you now that it be excluded entirely. Itabletboy (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

2 New NPOV issues

Please note that I am bringing this issue here first before trying to edit the Leadership section. Hopefully we can quickly agree on some consensual way to address these 2 points.

• 1: Is there any reason why there is no mention of the headlined issue of his voting in other countries? Is there any objection to including something about it. Its pretty big news, as you can see [11][12][13] [14].
• 2: The Leadership section has content very critical of the other party in the 2011 election and is an obvious WP:COATRACK infraction. This entire content: :..after the government was found guilty of Contempt of Parliament, the first such occurrence in Commonwealth history. As of early 2011, 53 countries are members of the British Commonwealth. The no-confidence motion presented by the Leader of the Opposition was "That the House agree with the finding of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the government is in contempt of Parliament, which is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history, and consequently, the House has lost confidence in the government." is not related to his Leadership per se. Itabletboy (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Any of that "Contempt of Parliament" allegation/charge might be more appropriate for the 2011 federal election article but would still be too biased for that, I think; but it certainly does not belong in this BLP. Itabletboy (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

He voted in elections he was entitled to vote in. This is a non story. I imagine he also paid taxes when he lived in the UK. This is hardly a POV issue. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your point 1 isn't working for me. You point 2 makes sense to me, although I would retain the wording of the contempt citation, as it decisively reflects the subject's perspective in a matter of vast import. I will fix. sternthinker (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Dbrodbeck, I might personally agree regarding the simple voting in Britain aspect, but the attention Canadian media have given it and his promise to vote in America for John Kerry is what makes it notable and the quote "“I am an American Democrat. I will vote for Kerry in November." is highly notable I think and to leave it out is pov I think. Can you imagine if it were just reported widely that Obama had said "I'm a Kenyan Liberal and will be voting for James Smith" what that would do to his political career? Sternthinker, your improvement is acceptable to me for the point 2 aspect. Itabletboy (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The other issue is WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

ummm, that's too other issues, dinkledork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.183.62 (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I tend to think the British voting is more notable than the American. Your first source actually mentioned only the former. As well, the problem is context. As some of your sources noted, Ignatieff was defending himself from accusations that he was a neoconservative Bush supporter. The Herald has kindly reposted the original piece here[15] by the way. Ignatieff would surely contend that as a matter of rhetoric saying "I will vote for Kerry" is just a more powerful way of saying "while I can't vote for Kerry as a non-American citizen, if I could, I would vote for him in November." Not to defend Ignatieff but we can't include something like this without the context which quickly bloats it into a back and forth argument.

On the British voting, I wouldn't support it but I don't think it would be completely unreasonable to include a short NPOv comment including the British voting incident in a section about the Conservative attacks about his time outside of Canada. Personally, I think it is still just a factoid in the news and isn't really part of the controversy unless other parties attack him for it.

On the second, I think there are some problems though it isn't a COATRACK issue. Everything about the Commonwealth should go. I think it is an NPOV issue which takes the mere fact and presents it in a certain light. More importantly, the word "guilty" should not be in there at all. There's no issue of guilt here and it isn't what the source says. Unfortunately most people are familiar with the concept of contempt from the court system and incorporate that language.

It is in the correct section. "Leadership" covers the general narrative of his time as Leader of the Liberal Party. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I took out the "guilty" term since it was bothering me. --JGGardiner (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all, I have removed the tag and I think it is better now. Itabletboy (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Quebec as a nation section

I've removed it as it seemed poorly sourced and not focused on Ignatieff. If you want to add it back in please provide the appropriate sources and more emphasis on Ignatieff's views on this topic would be helpful. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Paul Ignatieff

The article states that

Count Paul Ignatieff served at the last Tsarist Minister of Education (1915-1917), whose reputation as a liberal reformer led to his being spared from execution by the Bolsheviks.

But the article on Paul Ignatieff sais that he died in Canada in 1945. The both articles cannot be true in the same time, I presume. Сергей Олегович (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

"Spared from execution" means *not* executed. I see nothing inconsistent between the statements. -Joshuapaquin (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. IMHO the composition of the phrase is a little bit complicated. What if we state it in the following way: "Count Paul Ignatieff was the last Tsarist Minister of Education (1915-1917). After Bolshevik Revolution hе was spared from execution because of his reputation as a liberal reformer." ? Сергей Олегович (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be a good solution. Or else you could simply look up the English verb "to spare" in any Russian-English dictionary in order to confirm that you completely misunderstood the sentence that you flagged on Wikipedia before suggesting that an entire article be re-written on the basis of this misunderstanding, thus wasting hours of everybody's time because you didn't really understand what the word "spare" means? Mardiste (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I am curious considering the his ancestor Paul was a count would Michael Ignatieff be one as well? Or was the title renounced or given to someone else in the line or some such? Hawjam (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Hawjam
  • I am not familiar with Russian nobility in particular, but in general, European noble titles descend to the eldest son only. So if and only if MI is the eldest son of the eldest son of Pavel I., then he would be a count. We would need to know the birth order of MI's uncles and siblings to be sure. Indefatigable (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• According to Ezra Levant "Michael Ignatieff himself is a count, a title he will pass on to his son,Theo" http://ezralevant.com/2011/03/why-is-count-michael-ignatieff.html assuming he is correct should we not mention that at the beginning of the article? Other Canadians lords like Baron Beaverbrook and Viscount Bennet have their titles referenced at the beginning of the article. Of course their titles are not Russian but were instead granted by sovereigns of Canada so I am not sure what the policy would be for this. Hawjam (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)hawjam
  • An important point being that those titles are still recognized. I don't beleive the Russian government recognizes former imperial titles plus it is more correct to say Ignatieff is a pretender as the title no longer exists. If it was reinstated he would be a count and it would pass to his son Theo.--Wilson (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
• Fair point on the recognition, too bad though. Where in the article do you think that we should mention his rightful pretensions to countship? I think it is important enough that it should be somewhere in the article if not necessarily in the first paragraph. Hawjam (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC hawjam
• Having done some research, it appears that unless the title was granted official acceptance by the British Crown (like Baron de Lonqiuel's title) a foriegn (non-British) title is not inheritable for Canadian citizens. Threadnecromancer (talk) 20:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

chronological order

This article was poorly organized, so I boldly put it into chronological order. This will make it easier to understand his biography instead of having to jump around. It also has the benefits of being the most neutral way to present his life, since at times the article looks like a WP:COATRACK for fans and critics to put undue weight on whatever aspect they're trying to push.

Feel free to make further edits in case I made any errors. But please help keep this article neutral. Dzlife (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Honorifics in Infobox

Noting in passing that a series of recent IP edits, e.g. replacing "last remaining" with "sole" and the like are subtly Tory-flavoured, I'm left to wonder at the titling of the infobox, which seems overdone in an intentionally-pompous kind of way:

The Honourable Doctor

Michael Grant Ignatieff

PhD, MP

No, maybe it's normal that PhDs in international relations (or history or economics or whatever that Ph.D was for) have "Doctor" in hte titling of an infobox, and maybe it's normal to list MP in the same string of alphabet soup as teh Ph.D; and of course it's normal for a Leader of the Opposition to be "Honourable"....but "the Honourable Doctor" seems like somebody's form of real-life sarcasm, as in "Herr Doktor Frankenstien" and the laced contempt behind the speechmakers' "my learned colleague". If this is regular wiki-style fine, but it doesn't "feel" like it is, and is rather a "dig" at Ignatieff's intellectual standing (which certain anti-intellectual elements in this country are indeed making a negative campaing out of...there being a lot of stupid people in Canada who just don't like smart people, period). I'm gonna go look at few other historical Leader of the Opposition boxes....Bob Stanfield was a Ph.D in somthing I believe, not sure about Joe Clark; and Keith Martin was an actual doctor (i.e. medical doctor) and it was customary to refer to him as "Doctor Keith Martin"...anyway maybe it's just ar regularly-overblown honorific; it just seems like a deliberately-overblown one at the moment...Skookum1 (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see Dion's infobox has the same honorific...but looking at Bill Graham's it's not used there, even though he's an LLD (Doctor of Laws). And why does only Harper, out of the four I've looked at so far, have "PC" in the alphabet soup? (Privy Council)? And Stock Day's page has it too....do only Tory Leaders of the Opposition sit on the Queen's Privy Council for some reason? And noting in passing Deborah Grey needs succession boxes...and though Stanfield wasn't, both John Turner and Joe Clark were also LLDs (Doctors of Law) and also therefore "Honourable Doctors".....guess I'll take this up on the WP:PPAP discussion page, as standardization is needed, and various articles in the series of LoO's don't have infoboxes/succession boxes....Turner has his Queen's Counsel shown, and there should be others, not sure who (Herb Grey?).Skookum1 (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And further to all that, I just looked at Keith Martin's article and he is a medical doctor and is regularly addressed/referred to as "Dr. Keith Martin".....Skookum1 (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Official Opposition leaders are usually inducted into the Privy Council (see List of current members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and sometimes other parties leaders as well. I read somewhere that even Duceppe was offered (as Leader of the Official Opposition) induction and turned it down. However, as far as I can tell Ignatieff has received no such induction as of yet, so would not be entitled to the prenomial "honourable" or postnomial "PC". The reason it appears only Tory opposition leaders get it is Dion is the only Liberal Leader who was never PM, and he was already a Privy Councillor as a former cabinet minister. Other Liberal leaders who were oppostion leaders first were PCs as cabinet ministers as well. Sethpt (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Sethpt is right. Ignatieff is not entitled to "the Honourable". --YapaTi (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It is silly duplication and repetition to write both "Doctor" and "PhD" or whatever. In my opinion, the PhD should just be listed amongst the education information but WT:CANADA#Proposal for infobox honorific standardisation suggests that there is no consensus for where they are included. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Any kind of arrangement could work, and for someone who actually is in the PC and has a doctorate (of any kind) could be called "The Honourable Doctor". The main thing is that is should be standardized, which is why I tried to create a set of rules for them at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Proposal for infobox honorific standardisation. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Been following this a bit, and while endorsing hte observatino that "Dr. Michael Ignatieff, Ph.D" is redundant in standard style/usage, "the Honourable Doctor Ignatieff" sounds both archaic and pompous. "Herr Doktor Fasutus" etc....it's true that it's often used in pastiches of courtesies from other languages; my Classics prof when he's in Prague is delighted to be addressed as "Herr Professor" and "Herr Doktor Mirhady" but in conventional English that sort of thing is, again, archaic as well as pompous-sounding; not just pretentious, but pompous. "The Honourable" and "the Right Honourable" are virtually legally-obliged as honorifics; "Doctor" is really just a courtesy nowadays, not a proper formality; only those who sport it as part of their own personal image/public persona should have it in their articles (again, Dr. Keith Martin, for instance, and noting that this owuld tend to be medical doctors as opposed to doctorates of Law, Medicine, Divnity, Music, Kinesiology, etc...makes me wonder if perhaps Doctrix/ice would be appropriate for a Ph.D. in Women's Studies, but...).Skookum1 (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If I was to see him on the street, I'd probably say, "Hello, Dr. Ignatieff!" but in writing, I feel, it should be (eventually) "The Honourable Michael Ignatieff, PhD". DoubleBlue (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Question- Which needs changing the short form for Queen's Privy Council, or the article in wikipedia? Suzanne 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YrHelperInfonut (talk • contribs)

Leader of the Official Opposition since when?

The article content says he was Opposition leader since 2009, yet the infobox says since 2008. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

He was the interim leader of the Liberal Party, and the Opposition, from December 10, 2008 to May 2, 2009. 117Avenue (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but he was Opposition leader since 2008, not 2009. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Fixed? 117Avenue (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't his infobox read like this.

"The Honourable Dr. Michael Grant Ignatieff, PC, M.A, Ph.D, D. Univ (hc), LL.D. (hc), LL.D. (hc), LL.D. (hc), D. Litt (hc), D. Litt (hc), D. Litt (hc), DHL (hc)" 69.9.116.230 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It's all very well to add every single degree that Ignatieff ever received, but in my opinion that is overkill, and actually looks ridiculous. In an infobox, we should highlight the major points, i.e. the Ph.D. is fine, but not the M.A. or the B.A. as they are rather obvious (you usually need the latter to get the former). Furthermore, as I stated in my earlier revert of the "red links" the list of honorary degrees is already in the article proper. There is no need to promote them in the infobox. If someone is interested, they can just look at Michael_Ignatieff#Honorary_degrees. The infobox is not supposed to reproduce everything in the article. Its function is to present the salient facts about Ignatieff, not to tell his whole history, and certainly not with "red links!" --Skol fir (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that JimWae has found a good compromise. He listed on a separate line the internal link to the honorary degrees section of the article. Brilliant, if I may say so myself! --Skol fir (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Another editor has mentioned WP:CREDENTIAL but that only applies throughout the article to usage of the academic title before a name -- (" should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name.") Furthermore, "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name in the first line." That does not exclude using them elsewhere in the article, such as in an Infobox. --Skol fir (talk) 21:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Which, I stated was a mistake. I'm glad you've found a way to use my mis-cited policy as a way to support your side of the argument but it would have been prudent of you to also see the policy beneath which I attempted to cite with a superfluous 's', which made it a redlink. WP:INITIAL clearly defines why the infobox should not include academic degrees and I'd prefer if you don't cavalierly revert me as if I don't know what I'm talking about. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason I reverted your edit(s) was that you were ignoring a discussion following several reverts over the last two days on the issue of honorary degrees. If you would have paid attention to the History of this article you would see that more than 4 editors have been involved in this, and you should not just come in here and revert without respecting the discussion. The policy you refer to says "Post-nominal letters, other than those denoting academic degrees, should be included when they are issued by a country or widely recognizable organization with which the subject has been closely associated. Honors issued by other entities may be mentioned in the article, but generally should be omitted from the lead." So that permits academic titles to be used elsewhere (but not in the lede).

Also, Therequiembellishere, your so-called "dummy edit" was not so "dummy" after all. You managed to remove Ignatieff's middle name in the process. Either that was a slip, or a sneaky way of putting in another edit under the guise of "dummy". --Skol fir (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:INITIAL clearly applies to PC (in 1st line in lede). It does not say anything about academic degrees - honorary or otherwise -- EXCEPT to say it is not talking about them. WP:CREDENTIALS says "Post-nominal letters indicating academic degrees (including honorary degrees) should not be included following the subject's name in the first line." There is nothing that says degrees and honorary degrees should not be in the infobox. The entire section WP:INITIAL#Names is about the first paragraph, and all examples given are for the first paragraph.--JimWae (talk) 22:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Other infoboxes (like Bob Rae's) list all the degrees, including honourary ones. Shouldn't we be consistent? 69.9.97.16 (talk) 22:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The idea of linking the inforbox to the honorary degreees works pretty well.

Hi there, thanks for joining in! As I mentioned at your own Talk Page, we do not use other articles as examples of what to do in this article. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for more on this topic. --Skol fir (talk) 22:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• Also, as a cautionary note, I hope that everyone involved in this discussion is aware of WP:3RR. --Skol fir (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Ignatieff-1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Ignatieff-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Back and forth about when Ignatieff stopped as Official Opposition Leader

Apparently there is supposed to be a discussion about this topic. I don't see one here, so I am starting it. We have put the exact date when Jack Layton became Official Opp. Leader. That is May 18, 2011. Why not give Ignatieff until May 18, 2011, for the length of his term? No one told him he was not leader of the Liberal Party until Rae took over, which was actually on May 25, 2011. He officially held onto his seat in Parliament until Trottier was sworn in one day later. Furthermore, as the outgoing leader of the Liberal Party until May 18, when Jack Layton was sworn in, Ignatieff was still nominally the leader of the Official Opposition. He could have resigned earlier, as 117Avenue stated, but to my knowledge he did not. There is a transition period between Parliaments after an election, which requires that until the elected MPs have been sworn in, everything stays frozen in the state it was before the election. There has to be continuity in the various posts, just like Harper remained Prime Minister throughout the election, even before Parliament reconvened.

That being said, I would not object to just putting May 2011, for Ignatieff's end of term as Official Opp. Leader, and let other people figure it out for themselves. There had been a view expressed a while back in some of the edits that the Off. Opp. post was actually vacant between May 2 and May 18, but that is conjecture. It is probably based on the fact that a lame duck leader like Ignatieff has no claim to be the leader of anything after losing an election in such a resounding fashion, and for all intents and purposes, he could not wield any of the powers entrusted to him as Official Opposition Leader after May 2. --Skol fir (talk) 03:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

With the much discussion at Talk:List of Prime Ministers of Canada#Term dates, I learned that the outgoing PM's term doesn't end the moment the incoming PM takes his oath. Hours before, (or sometimes days before,) the outgoing PM tenders his resignation to the Governor General. I am assuming the Leader of the Opposition works the same, and would like to see a reference saying when Ignatieff resigned, before stating a date here. 117Avenue (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If a crisis (God forbid!) should require the incoming PM to act before he is sworn in, what then? I suppose he would have to be sworn in "on the double." --Skol fir (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If Canada hasn't modified the British system it copied then the answer is a bit confused. Historically it wasn't considered essential to identify who was in charge for every single second - at an extreme there was no prospect of a missile attack requiring an immediate response because there were no missiles. I think a vague convention developed that the outgoing ministers would sign off non-controversial and/or emergency business until their successor was formally appointed but I don't think anyone ever felt a need to codify this, even though there were changes of government (and more frequently of ministers) in the UK during both World Wars, suggesting that the practice was sufficiently developed and non-controversial for anyone to worry about. I suspect also because of the limited scale of time involved that nobody clarified the matter for the sake of salaries beyond ensuring that nobody was being paid twice. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2010-07-e.htm Says when a candidate becomes an MP. There are 5 possible days:

• polling day/election day;
• the day the election writ is returned to the Chief Electoral Officer;
• the day the Chief Electoral Officer sends a certified list of members to the Clerk of the House of Commons;
• the day the member takes the oath of office; and
• the day the member takes his or her seat.

They conclude by stating: "The most accurate conclusion, although perhaps an unsatisfying one, is that members of the House of Commons become members at different times, for different technical reasons."

I guess wikipedia should just pick one and stick with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.186.97 (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, take a look at the third paragraph of List of Prime Ministers of Canada, our laws don't require the PM to take an oath. In the case of an emergency, the Queen or GG could appoint anyone to be our leader (kinda scary). 117Avenue (talk) 20:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

"Let's pick Brigette DePape." She knows what this country needs, at least that is what we are told. :-) --Skol fir (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re USA presidents: John Tyler took the oath April 6, 1841, but his term is considered to have started with Harrison's death on April 4. Zachary Taylor took the oath on March 5, 1849 because March 4 was a Sunday - but his term started Sunday. LBJ became president the moment JFK was declared dead. Several incumbents (Reagan, Ike, Wilson) have taken the oath on Monday when their term started Sunday. Hayes took the oath on Sat & again on Monday because his term started on a Sunday. US presidential terms currently start & end at noon on Jan 20, regardless of time of oath. A hole in power at the top is not allowed. --JimWae (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The US is a completely different system. Here when someone dies, it doesn't fall to the next guy. Everyone is appointed or elected, it's a constitutional monarchy. 117Avenue (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I know that - the point was about the non-necessity of actually taking the oath for the term to start--JimWae (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

John Capobianco

Apparently there are certain people who have a problem with John Capobianco being mentioned as Ignatieff's opponent for his seat in 2006 within the body of this article. I think it is rather rude perhaps even political bias for these people to omit Mr Capobianco's name and only make reference to him as the nameless Conservative candidate. Capobianco was the Conservative candidate for that seat and his name should be refer to as such. The fact that Capobianco was beaten by Ignatieff by 5000 votes is relevant for Capobianco's name being mentioned as it does raise the question about whether the outcome could have been any different if the Conservative candidate was someone else. The fact that Capobianco was beaten by Ignatieff is mentioned in Capobianco's mini-article and so in terms of fairness Capobianco's name should be mentioned within the body of the Ignatieff article. Also I would ask no one send me any messages to my account on this or any other matter. 122.106.80.3 (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Rather than edit warring you might check the section called 'electoral history' which has this guy's name in it. As for your contention, your opinion, and mine, simply do not matter. Sources matter. You know, maybe if it were sunny the day of the election more people would have voted NDP, I just don't know, and neither do you, and until you provide a source AND you demonstrate that the interpretation of the source matters, we will not be including your analysis. How any of this is political bias is beyond me, and such allegations, without any substantiation, are a rather large violation of WP:AGF. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

"an historian"?

Hi all,

I know it may be trivial, but I think the proper form here should be that he is 'a' historian, not 'an' historian.

I'm no expert on WikiGrammar (is that a word?) but I think the argument goes that in British English (and Old English) the 'h' in 'historian' is not usually pronounced. But in North America (Canada included) the 'h' is pronounced as a hard 'h' which suggests the article 'a' is more appropriate.

Now the argument could be made that he gained a history degree from Oxford (where he would have been 'an' historian) but he in fact began his studies in Canada and concluded them in the US. While it could be argued he was "just visiting" North America, he has chosen at present to reside in Canada and is involved in what a few Canadians might view as a slightly important political position (that's right, professional stand-in for Stephane Dion). Sorry for the typically Canadian political humour (yes we spell 'humour' with a 'u' because without 'u' it wouldn't be funny).

In short, as a Canadian, I vote it read that Ignatieff was "a historian." If there is to be a split over this remember that brevity is important and that 'an' has twice as many letters as 'a'.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy

• The pronunciation doesn't matter in this instance. Per my copy of Rampolla at least 'an' is perfectly acceptable in these circumstances for historical reasons, perhaps one shouldn't say it that way, but it is perfectly acceptable to write it that way.
  • "An historian" is correct {{Canadian English}}.Skookum1 (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Michael Ignatieff. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090110164430/http://www.macleans.ca:80/article.jsp?content=n092813A to http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=n092813A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060906085736/http://www.niagara.edu/news/printnews.php?id=1331 to http://www.niagara.edu/news/printnews.php?id=1331

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Ignatieff. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090707223605/http://www.theorwellprize.co.uk/the-award/winners-books.aspx?year=277 to http://www.theorwellprize.co.uk/the-award/winners-books.aspx?year=277

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Comment by User:198.20.40.50 At present, the neutrality of this article is disputed. While it is a decent overview of Ignatieff's life, writings, and political career, a serious student would find much to be desired. Thus, I would classify it as B grade, working towards a GA grade. Because it is about an important Canadian politician (and international scholar), I would classify the article as being of High importance. A cynic could make the argument for Mid level importance. Specific suggestions for improving the article include proper wikification of references and links, as well as cleaning up instances of pro- and anti- Ignatieff wording. Undue weight is also an issue, as is length. Additional comments to follow. -- 198.20.40.50 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Comment by User:Ottawaman This article rates an F for failure in every possible way. It has been continually censored and controlled by contributors who only want to maximize anything positive about the subject and minimize or delete anything negative. The most prolific current contributer even resorted to using offensive =User_talk:65.95.151.166&oldid=68340985 templates which ridicule disabled children as a way to pressure editors in his direction. Now that same editor and 1 other =Talk:Michael_Ignatieff&diff=68821548&oldid=68820070 delete talk page discussion topics they do not want to see addressed by the community. In short, this article sucks,big time and at this point has been completely hijacked by contributors with a pro-Ignatieff pov who are blatantly instilling that pov into the article. Ottawaman 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 23:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Michael Ignatieff. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090102214739/http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061202/liberal_balloting_061202/20061202?hub=TopStories to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061202/liberal_balloting_061202/20061202?hub=TopStories
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207044741/http://www.thestar.com:80/Unassigned/article/259218 to http://www.thestar.com/Unassigned/article/259218
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213025638/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3204056&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2 to http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=222011
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080926040349/http://www2.parl.gc.ca:80/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&DocId=3543213 to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&DocId=3543213#Int-2506938
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091126040806/http://www2.parl.gc.ca:80/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2&DocId=3781662 to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=40&Ses=2&DocId=3781662#OOB-2683958

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michael Ignatieff. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081207044741/http://www.thestar.com:80/Unassigned/article/259218 to http://www.thestar.com/Unassigned/article/259218
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2221709

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)