Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Archive 7

EDIT DISPUTE WARNING FROM TALK PAGE GUIDELINES (Please read these guidelines in full. Ignorance will not be accepted as an excuse.) "A talk page is research for the article, and the policies that apply to articles also apply to talk pages. Research and debate should meet the same standards of verification, neutral point of view and no original research ... it is a serious misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements ... Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article." NO PERSONAL ATTACKS A personal attack is saying something negative about another person. See NPA if you want further clarification. If you find yourself writing the word "you", be careful what you follow it up with, and consider substituting the word "the". Deal with facts and issues, not someone else's supposed personal motivations. NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW Continued arguing of personal opinions on the talk page without verification will be regarded as disruption. So will re-inserting non-referenced material in the article after it has been challenged. Non-negotiable policies are VERIFY, NPOV and NOR. Read them and stick to them. DON'T ALTER COMMENTS Talk should not be amended or removed, either your own or someone else's (with the exception of libel, gross abuse etc, when a placeholder giving relevant information such as [libel removed] should be substituted). REPORTING PROBLEMS If you have a problem or another editor is violating policy, report it to me, to another admin or to Administrators noticeboard with the "diff". To record a diff, find the edit in the edit history and copy the URL at the top of the page. Then put a square bracket either end, as in this example: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrenius&diff=63910624&oldid=63910146] BLOCK Violation of policies on this page may result in being blocked without further notice. Tyrenius 04:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

We're starting with a clean slate. All the previous material is in the last archive. Feel free to extract any relevant matter to bring it to attention here. If you haven't looked at wikipedia policies recently, they are well worth a look through, because this page is very keen on them. Tyrenius 01:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Archives Click below to see prior discussions.
May 27, 2006 June 17, 2006 July 5, 2006 July 14, 2006 August 6, 2006

Implementation of policy

As it is non-negotiable to work with policy, it might be an idea to kick off with one, which is easy, namely VERIFY. I wonder if there is any material in the article which is not verified with a reliable source, as any editor is entitled to remove that. The page is protected at the moment, but you can copy and paste anything you want to remove, which is not verified ,onto this page, so that will give someone else to a chance to find a source for it. Tyrenius 02:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, if anyone wants to keep the statements listed as not verified, please provide a verifiable reference underneath each one individually. If there is an existing reference in the article which covers it, you can of course use that. Tyrenius 14:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a look through the discussion to date, and I'm very pleased with the way it's going, as this will help to improve the article and also highlight working practices to show where the some of the editing difficulties occur. My observation is that there is a meeting point which can be achieved by adjustment on both sides. More flexibility is needed on sources, in particular the use of Ignatieff's own site for more prosaic aspects of his CV. More precision by adherence to the known facts is needed on how these are then stated. If we can get this list nailed down, those changes can be made and this discussion archived. Tyrenius 13:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Preparing these points for the article

These points need to be sorted out now. Either:

• 1) Verification has been provided so that should be indicated and it is no longer an issue. If the verification is Ignatieff's site for factual material, then that is acceptable.
• 2) No verification at all: item should be marked as such
• 3) Verification but statement needs to be modified to accord with it. Please suggest modified text.

I am looking to good faith and a collaborative attitude from all from now on. I hope there won't be any sniping and point scoring, brought on by the pressure of it all. However, if there is, I will be pleased to assist with giving the editor a short break from the stresses of editing.

Tyrenius 20:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

/Ancillary

I have put all the existing debate into an ancillary page (it will be properly archived later), where it can be easily accessed. The main article discussion can take place on this page, but the ancillary page will be useful for reference and also for copying across any needed material, but please leave the other page intact. The ancillary page will also be useful for other discussions not directly related to the current content discussion.

Below is the format to follow for the content discussion, so that a coherent conversation can be followed. Indenting should be with : not with *. It's best not to indent too much or the width of the text gets very narrow.

Ballistic missile defence

Also controversial for many Liberals

I suggest changing to "Also controversial for a few Liberals". My reference is - Bloggs, Fred (2006), "Ignatieff's ampaigns", Canada Times July 26, 2006. This says, "A few Liberals objected to". User:Abc.

I think it should read then, "Also objected to by a few Liberals". User:xyz

How about "A few Liberals objected to". User:Hij

That's fine with me. User:Abc

OK. User:Abc

Agreed new text: A few Liberals objected to

Object: I think "Some Liberals have objected to..." works better. "A few" has the effect implying insignificance, whereas "some" is more neutral and doesn't carry a judgement about the significance or insignificance of the criticism. Also, using the simple past ("Liberals objected") suggests a specific point in time, which we do not provide, rather than a general and possibly ongoing objection. —Joel Bastedo 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, this is just an example of the layout which has been adopted now below — it is not a real point of discussion!!! Tyrenius 07:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just helping out with the example, making it more realistic! ;-) —Joel Bastedo 15:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Very successful! I fell for it completely! Tyrenius 17:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Background

Voices on Channel 4

Delete this as there is no reference. User:Abc

Consensus reached

If an agreement is reached, put:

<font color="Red">'''Consensus reached'''</font> ~~~~

underneath that item's discussion, which will read as Consensus reached. If you want to then dispute it, delete the consensus statement and add your edit instead. Tyrenius 01:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be clearer to top it and tail it, so at the same time, this can go by the "title":

<font color="Red">'''Cr'''</font>

To be added (or removed) by the person making the bottom tag. Tyrenius 17:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

If "consensus reached" stays in place for 5 days, I propose to act as a clerk and insert the agreed text in the article, simultaneously moving that particular discussion to the "storage" page, to make things less cluttered. If there's anything that is obviously not disputed, I'll use my judgement to do it earlier. If anyone objects to this, let me know. Tyrenius 17:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

DISCUSSION STARTS HERE

Sorry I've been absent recently. There have been other jobs. I think everything is on a good course, and I've asked Sunray, who's been copy-editing the article to take my place as a "third party". If there are any problems with that, please let me know. I will still be "on call". Tyrenius 19:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to assist. Having re-read the article and this talk page, I think that you have all done a great job in arriving at a more orderly process. Tyrenius has shown initiative and leadership in animating discussion and acting as clerk for decisions. The article is well-written and interesting. It may have the makings of a good article. I note a certain level of "discussion fatigue" in several of the threads, below. Therefore, I suggest that we adopt test for consensus that has often been used on on talk pages: a supermajority of two thirds of those who have commented. If there are strong objections, of course, we would deal with them, but then when the dust settles, the 2/3 rule would abide. OK? Sunray 19:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the 2/3 rule makes sense, Sunray. Thanks! - Finnegans wake 22:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Canadian Scholar --> ...an author, journalist, documentary film-maker, and international scholar... Cr

Text moved to /Ancillary. Article amended per consensus. Sunray 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

had to give up this position Cr

Text moved to /Ancillary. Article amended per consensus. Tyrenius 08:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Background

He continued his work for the Liberal Party --> ...resumed his work... Cr

Text moved to /Ancillary. Article amended per consensus. Sunray 20:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

where he studied under the well-known historian and philosopher Isaiah Berlin --> where he studied, and was influenced by... Cr

Text moved to /Ancillary. Article amended per consensus.

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

Text moved to /Ancillary. Article amended per consensus. Tyrenius 08:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Recognition

Michael Ignatieff is an internationally recognized scholar and historian,

and has written extensively on the subjects of international relations and nation-building.

delete-no reference. Ottawaman 00:05, 16 August 2006

Well, he is internationally recognized as a scholar and historian (see his CV; the various honorary degrees); and see his CV for the books that he's written. So I don't know what the problem is. --Hamiltonian 19:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That seems like a simple description. Although I'm personally not fond of those "internationally recognized" kind of descriptions. It is pretty common at WP. I wouldn't complain if that part was dropped but the rest is fine. --JGGardiner 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this sentence? There are many other references in the article to his specific accomplishments. This sentence is added flattery,I think. Ottawaman 00:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The sentence isn't very useful. It is just above the list of accomplishments. I wouldn't bother to delete such a thing myself but I have no objection to it if that's consensus. --JGGardiner 15:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, for the reasons JGG mentioned. —Joel Bastedo 01:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we need some sort of opening sentence for this section. If we don't want to use this one, an alternative version should be proposed. -- 72-139-185-19 17:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you propose one? Tyrenius 07:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the current version. Ignatieff *is* an internationally recognized scholar (appointments at Oxford, Harvard....) and historian (in addition to his PhD, he's written on 18th century penal institutions, Russian history, and a biography of Isaiah Berlin), and he's also written extensively (see the list of books and articles) on international relations. If it's a question of citation, we can use his CV, as Hamiltonian suggested, or just about any external link that discusses Ignatieff. 72-139-185-19 15:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised this is an issue. Is it possible to say that someone who, among other things, delivered the 2006 Amnesty International lecture in Ireland [1], delivered the 2000 Raphael Lemkin memorial lecture at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum[2], and described by Professor James Turner Johnson[3] of Rutgers as a "wise, informed, and engaged observer of the dimensions of the terrorist threat and of the war on terror"[4], is *not* internationally recognized? And that's just something i found on google in 15 seconds. - Finnegans wake 21:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Imo the point is not that it may be true; the point is it is duplication (well covered with specific accomplishment references) and puffery. Ottawaman 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

So I take it you've changed your original objection - that there was no reference - and now object to this sentence being repetitive? I thought we were just questioning aspect of the article's veracity. And as Finnegan's Wake says, there's really no doubt that Ignatieff *is* an internationally recognized scholar. -- 72-139-185-19 15:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's puffery, repetitious and not specifically verified either. Ottawaman 18:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we're dealing with verification, not style. Ottawaman says it is duplication but also that it's not verified. This is a contradiction. If "specific accomplishment references" are given, it is useful for the reader if they are preceded with a generalisation, so the reader knows what to expect in terms of specifics to follow. "Puffery" indicates that Ottawaman considers that it is overblown for the specifics that follow. Could he please rephrase it so that it is, in his opinion, accurate to the specifics. Please everybody - no criticism of a point, unless you say what should be there instead. Thanks. Tyrenius 19:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The entire recognition section relates mostly to his recognition as an author; so I propose; "Michael Ignatieff is an internationally recognized author." instead of "Michael Ignatieff is an internationally recognized scholar and historian, and has written extensively on the subjects of international relations and nation-building." Ottawaman 20:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, your objecting to it as "puffery" but your formulation leaves out the fact that Ignatieff is an historian. His doctorate is in history. He has published an historic work, and a biography (and form of historeography). Calling someone who has earned a doctorate in history and published in the discipline an "historian" is not puffery. It is called providing information. That's what encyclopedias do. - Finnegans wake 06:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm content to leave this unchanged. 198.20.40.50 19:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Writings

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

Text moved to /Ancillary. No article change required. Tyrenius 08:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff travelled to the Balkans and Kurdistan Cr

while working as a journalist, witnessing first hand the atrocities in each. --> witnessing first hand the consequences of modern ethnic warfare. Text moved to /Ancillary. Article amended per consensus.

who made a strong impression on Ignatieff Cr

Text moved to /Ancillary. Article amended per consensus.

These tie closely to Ignatieff's political writings,

as well, such as those on national self-determination and the imperatives of democratic self-government. Ignatieff has also written extensively on international affairs. [4]

delete; as non referenced opinion of the contributor. Ottawaman 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is really part of the same thing as the previous one. It looks like we're going to have to remove the whole paragraph then. Although, like I said, it could simply be rewritten because there is clearly source material in this area. --JGGardiner 21:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the first part "These tie closely to Ignatieff's political writings, as well, such as those on national self-determination and the imperatives of democratic self-government" is a pretty big leap, so could probably be nixed. But the latter part "Ignatieff has also written extensively on international affairs" should be left. How can anyone take issue with this? This brief KSG bibliography[5]clearly demonstrate his "extensive writing" on internation affairs. - Finnegans wake 05:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

"Ignatieff has also written extensively on international affairs" is just flattery. It adds nothing to the article as his specific accomplishments are already included. Ottawaman 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it ties this paragraph into the next one. 72-139-185-19 17:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, has he written extensively on international affairs or not? Or is there another way of phrasing this, such as "a significant part of his writing/published work has examined international affairs"? Let's try some lateral thinking with these issues. It's not just a yes/no alternative. :) Tyrenius 23:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with "a significant part of his writing/published work has examined international affairs". Ottawaman 23:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, he *has* written "extensively" on international affairs. Just take a look at his Bibliography from the article (and that only covers articles as far back as 2002 - it doesn't even touch his time at The Observer. I mean, come on - he taught this stuff at Harvard! But rather than get into a semantic argument about the meaning of the word "extensively", let's try changing the last two sentences from "These tie closely to Ignatieff's political writings, as well, such as those on national self-determination and the imperatives of democratic self-government. Ignatieff has also written extensively on international affairs." to "These tie closely to Ignatieff's political writings, such as those on national self-determination and the imperatives of democratic self-government, as well his work on international affairs. We've shortened the section without adding commentary or interpretation of what counts as "extensive". -- 72-139-185-19 16:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think 72-139-185-19's suggetion is too verbose. I still prefer Tyrenius' "a significant part of his writing/published work has examined international affairs". Ottawaman 18:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

So what's your proposal on the complete finished wording? We need to incorporate it into the paragraph, and I'm not certain how your suggestion will read. 72-139-185-19 15:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine leaving this one untouched. 198.20.40.50 19:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

All of Canadian culture and human rights

delete as non-verified opinion of the contributor. #5 link does not verify this section. Ottawaman 18:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is. Have you read The Rights Revolution? The above is a (rather short) summary of it. To be honest, I'm thinking we may want to bring back the original version, which didn't gloss over the seperate commentary on Canadian culture and equality rights:

Canadian culture

In The Rights Revolution, Ignatieff identifies three aspects of Canada's approach to rights that give the country its distinctive rights culture. Firstly, on moral issues, Canadian law is secular and liberal, approximating European standards more closely than American ones. Secondly, Canadian political culture is socially democratic; Canadians take it for granted that citizens have the right to free health care and public assistance. Thirdly, Canadians place a particular emphasis on group rights, expressed in Quebec's language laws and in treaty agreements that recognise collective aboriginal rights. "Apart from New Zealand, no other country has given such recognition to the idea of group rights," he writes.

Equality rights

In addition to The Russian Album, Ignatieff's historical novels include a description of prisons during the Industrial Revolution, called A Just Measure of Pain, and a biography of celebrated philosopher Isaiah Berlin, who made a strong impression on Ignatieff. Ignatieff's own philosophical writings include The Needs of Strangers and The Rights Revolution, where he explores social welfare and community, and show the influence of Berlin on Ignatieff. These tie closely to Ignatieff's political writings, as well, such as those on national self-determination and the imperatives of democratic self-government. Ignatieff has also written extensively on international affairs. Ignatieff also discusses the notion of "equality" at length in The Rights Revolution: "How do we generate a world in common? We take actual human individuals – rich, poor, young, old, homosexual, heterosexual, white, black, in between, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew (ie: human beings in all their embodied difference) – and we imagine them as equal bearers of rights... The entire legitimacy of public institutions depends on our being attentive to difference while treating all as equal. This is the gamble, the unique act of the imagination on which our society rests."

So, thoughts on going with the long version instead? I mean, given that Ignatieff wrote an entire book on this, it probably deserves being mentioned. -- 72-139-185-19 16:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternative

If we go back some time, we have the following sections instead:

Canadian culture

In The Rights Revolution, Ignatieff discusses what he calls Canada's "distinctive" rights culture. For Ignatieff, Canada's progressive stance on multiculturalism and recognition of minority and group rights contributes to the uniqueness of Canada's secular liberal society:

"First, on moral questions such as abortion, capital punishment and gay rights, our legal codes are notably liberal, secular and pro-choice. In this, they approximate European standards more closely than American ones. Despite the fact that we share our way of life and our public media with our neighbours to the south, our habits of mind on rights questions are very much our own. Second, our culture is social democratic in its approach to rights to welfare and public assistance. Canadians take it for granted that citizens do have the right to free health care, as well as to unemployment insurance and publicly funded pensions. Again, the comparison with the republic to the south is noteworthy. The third distinguishing feature of our rights culture, of course, is our particular emphasis on group rights. This is expressed, first, in Quebec’s Charte de la language francaise (Bill 101) and, second, in the treaty agreements that have given land and resources to aboriginal groups. Apart from New Zealand, no other country has given such recognition to the idea of group rights."

Equality rights

Ignatieff also discusses the notion of "equality" at length in The Rights Revolution:

"How do we generate a world in common? We take actual human individuals – rich, poor, young, old, homosexual, heterosexual, white, black, in between, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jew (ie: human beings in all their embodied difference) – and we imagine them as equal bearers of rights... The entire legitimacy of public institutions depends on our being attentive to difference while treating all as equal. This is the gamble, the unique act of the imagination on which our society rests."

Still, I prefer the current version over either of these. -- 72-139-185-19 19:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read it; (it's only about 50 small pages with big print) and it says none of the things alleged in either the short or long summaries (except the quotes). Both summaries are non-verified opinions of the contributor. When the article is open again you can include some of Iggy's quotes from the book if you like. Ottawaman 01:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that this source: http://www.isuma.net/v02n03/russell/russell_e.shtml backs up the current version fairly well, but since you've read The Rights Revolution, why don't you propose an alternative summary? -- 72-139-185-19 04:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which version of "The Rights Revolution" you guys are referring to, but the actual printed text for the lectures is not 50 pages, but 141 (not including endnotes). See M. Ignatieff, The Rights Revolution (Toronto: House of Anansi Press Ltd., 2000) - Finnegans wake 23:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not think any summary is necessary and the ones offered are not verified by the "book". Plus, if it's just a book review it should not be part of the CV. It certainly is not a major part of his work. Ottawaman 18:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ottawaman, I have a question - you keep referring to "the CV" (you've done it several times). I obviously know what a CV is, but I'm not quite sure what you mean in this context. Could you explain? --Hamiltonian 18:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should just say subjective book reviews don't belong in Wikipedia articles. Ottawaman 20:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm content to leave the current Canadian culture and human rights section untouched. We can play with the wording/grammar, but I think the current summary is fairly true to the spirit of Ignatieff's writings. 198.20.40.50 19:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

International Affairs

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

peacekeeping, and the international responsibilities of Western nations. Critical of the limited-risk approach practiced by NATO in conflicts like the Kosovo War and the Rwandan Genocide, he has argued for a more active involvement and larger scale deployment of land forces by Western nations in future conflicts in the developing world.
Text moved to /Ancillary. No article change required.

In the years following the invasion,

Ignatieff has reiterated his support for the war's aims, if not the method in which it was conducted.

change to; "In the years following the invasion, Ignatieff has reiterated his support for the war". The rest is the contributor's opinion. Ottawaman 19:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the statement in question refers to the last section of the article cited, The Year of Living Dangerously, in which Ignatieff blames the lack of planning for occupation and the wishful thinking of American policy makers for the problems faced in Iraq after the invasion. Read from "So I supported an administration" on. —Joel Bastedo 05:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Joel is right. Like other "liberal hawks" Ignatieff has criticized Bush's handling of the war while standing by the war's initial aims. I think that is what he's getting at in that article, and what the editor was trying to convey with this line. - Finnegans wake 05:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That line is appropriate, if brief. --JGGardiner 19:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to confirm: The line 'In the years following the invasion, Ignatieff has reiterated his support for the war's aims, if not the method in which it was conducted. "I supported an administration whose intentions I didn't trust," he averred, "believing that the consequences would repay the gamble. Now I realize that intentions do shape consequences."' would be replaced by '"In the years following the invasion, Ignatieff has reiterated his support for the war's aims. "I supported an administration whose intentions I didn't trust," he averred, "believing that the consequences would repay the gamble. Now I realize that intentions do shape consequences."' The flow here no longer makes sense - the quote contradicts the new proposed wording. -- 72-139-185-19 16:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify,I propose that; "In the years following the invasion, Ignatieff has reiterated his support for the war's aims, if not the method in which it was conducted. "I supported an administration whose intentions I didn't trust," he averred, "believing that the consequences would repay the gamble. Now I realize that intentions do shape consequences."[6] be changed to "In the years following the invasion, Ignatieff has reiterated his support for the war". Ottawaman 18:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this last version accepted? Tyrenius 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

No. And "consensus" should not be deemed to have been reached because people have not had an opportunity to respond voiced objections. It is apparent from the above discussion that most editors agreed to the original formulation was correct. Ottawaman has reiterated his initial objection, but this was sufficiently addressed the first time in subsequent comments by myself, Joel, JGGardiner, and 72-139-185-19. The original formulation is more accurate. - Finnegans wake 06:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The suggested change is completely misleading. 198.20.40.50 19:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Lesser evil approach

lesser evilCr

Summary conclusion: title can be retained, but should be explained properly. Text now moved to /Ancillary. Tyrenius 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

More controversially, Ignatieff has written several newspaper articles

about the threat of terrorism. In the pieces, Ignatieff argued that governments might need to take a "lesser evil" approach that finds a middle ground between adhering to the rule of law and sanctioning coercion.

This needs to change for several reasons. First, it implies that writing newspaper articles about terrorism is in itself controversial, which it isn't. Second, the only reference in this section is to a radio address, not a newspaper article. Third, the only piece referenced says nothing about what "governments might need" to do, but addresses specifically what America should do. I suggest the following: "Ignatieff has argued that America should take a "lesser evils" approach to combatting the threat of terrorism, finding an acceptable middle ground between adhering to the rule of law and sanctioning coercion." —Joel Bastedo 13:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Re;"..the only reference in this section is to a radio address, not a newspaper article.."This is under "Ignatieff's articles" and should be in references perhaps. His writings on the "Lesser Evils" approach are extensive. Bastedo's change is opinionated and factually wrong. This sentence in Iggy's 9 page NYTimes magazine Op-ed can not be minimalized into "sanctioning coersion; "To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war." I am agreeable to virtually any changes in this section which includes this quote (and any others from the same article which mitigate it); but I am not agreeable to tailoring the section in such a way as the clear english meaning of the words in that quote are sanitized. No offense to anyone here, just concerned that the end product be factual and not imaginary. Ottawaman 16:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I beg your pardon. That was the reference I meant. For some reason in the notes section it is listed as a CBC Radio archive. I see now that it's reprinted from a New York Times article, so that part of my objection is withdrawn. Grammatically, however, the first sentence in the current version implies that there is something controversial about writing newspaper articles about terrorism. Clearly, that isn't what was meant, but that's what it says. The rest of the edit is just a more clear and concise way of saying what's already there. I don't see how it is any less factual or more opinionated than the current wording, it's just clearer and simpler. I hope you're not rejecting the suggestion out of hand just because you've decided (eroneously) that I have an agenda. —Joel Bastedo 16:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like how this sentence is worded at all. I strongly agree with Ottawaman on this one, To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war. The Coercin line is too vague, the reader is left confused. Ellaborating on the sentence, adds understnading to the reader. Pete Peters 19:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you disagree with something, please suggest your alternative. Otherwise the status quo is maintained by default. Tyrenius 22:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion is; "More controversially, Ignatieff has written several newspaper articles about possible US responses to terrorism. In an Op-ed he wrote for the NYTimes in 2004 [6],Ignatieff argued that governments might need to take what he called a "lesser evil" approach; "To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war."[7]". It might then be useful to add a quote from his more recent contradictory,imo, articles but to try to blend them together is like blending oil and water,I think. Also, to leave this quote out of the CV would be a terrible ommission as this is,to this point, his landmark quote with subsequent references to it being contained within many of our listed references. Ottawaman 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, for the third time, we cannot say "More controversially, Ignatieff has written several newspaper articles...." The fact that he wrote articles about a particular topic is not controversial; it's what he wrote in them that was controversial. —Joel Bastedo 02:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How about: Ignatieff has controversially argued that western democracies may have to resort to "lesser evils" like indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, and pre-emptive wars in order to combat the greater evil of terrorism. These societies must therefore strengthen their democratic institutions to keep these necessary evils from becoming as offensive to freedom and democracy as the threats they are meant to prevent. (Obviously then, we would delete the next sentence.) I think this reflects a more accurate understanding of the Lesser Evils argument, one based on what Ignatieff actually wrote and said, rather than what civil libertarians imagined he meant. —Joel Bastedo 02:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Great work,Joel. I'll agree to this. If possible I would prefer a slight change to reflect that the use of lesser evils is a choice (actually I just have a disdain for the words "have to":)). How about changing "have to resort" to "choose to resort" or "may feel the need to resort" ? Ottawaman 12:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has voiced dissent, I'm going to assume that consensus was reached here and copy into the article. —Joel Bastedo 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the above section focuses on only just a few bits of a much longer article. Moreover, if one reads the entire piece, you'll see Ignatieff actually comes out against several of the topics above. We're just not putting these quotes in the proper context, nor giving them the discussion that Ignatieff does. I'm not trying to whitewash what he says, but Ignatieff really doesn't advocate torture the way the above makes it sound. To try to clear up this point, I've decided to provide a nice, neat summary of the entire Lesser Evils article. Each paragraph, below, summarizes an entire section (there are 7). I figure we can use that as a starting point, and hopefully come up with a wording that does the article justice: -- 72-139-185-19 18:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note great care must be taken with any negative allegations particularly about a living person, so they are not misrepresented. Tyrenius 19:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the above quote is a little misleading - it's what Ignatieff calls "deep into lesser-evil territory". To read above, it sounds like he's endorsing these things, rather than raising the question. 198.20.40.50 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary of The Lesser Evils

"In his 2004 article, Ignatieff questions whether the United States could lose the war on terror. In considering the detonation of a radiological or chemical bomb, Ignatieff states that the resultant loss of constitutional rights would be a true defeat; that the US would endure, but would lose its identify as a free people. He states that considering such an attack is not alarmist, but rather, the best way to avoid defeat.

Ignatieff states that democracies sometimes need to use violence to defend a life free of violence. He also states that they may also require coercion, secrecy, deception, or even violations of rights. Questioning how a democracy can resort to such means, he acknowledges that thinking about such lesser evils in not popular, but may be unavoidable. To defeat evil, democracies may need to traffic in evils. Otheriwse, any victories may be Pyrrhic ones.

Civil liberties, he says, are not pesky legalisms. He argues that the US has a bad record of jettisoning them when scared, and decries the loss of such liberties during times such as the Red Scare or Japanese internments. Similarly, he says it was shameful that many Arab and Muslim detainees were abused after 9/11. But being absolutely right on this issue doesn't make civil liberties right on every other issue, he argues. Citing the failures of the ID system, Ignatieff argues that not all security regulations are wrong, and pushes for a minimum national ID standard that uses biometric identifiers. He criticizes President Bush and the Patriot Act in general, but argues some elements of it - such as those on information sharing - may be a good idea. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - which blocked information sharing between the F.B.I. and C.I.A - was a well-meaning reaction to J. Edgar Hoover's abused, but ultimately hampered the intelligence capacities of the US. Further risk aversion led the C.I.A. to cease investing in human intelligence and to rely too heavily on satellite and signals intelligence, which led to its even greater failures. He says that with operatives in the bazaars and mosques, the US could have killed Osama bin Laden in the late 1990's, but laws against peacetime assassination prevented it. However, he says that dirty hands need not be lawless, and a tough counterintelligence service can strike a balance.

Ignatieff states that finding such a middle ground will not be easy. Nor will it be quick - hence the reason that terrorism's chief impact has been to strengthen the power of presidents and prime ministers. Thus, the question is whether the lawmakers will be able to keep this shadowy world under control. Ultimately, it requires judges who are unafraid to challenge illegal presidential powers, such as the U.S. military trials of enemy combatants. Only if instutitions such as Congress reviews are allowed to work properly can the moral and constitutional hazards of lesser evils be managed.

Even then, these hazards are considerable. Detaining suspected terrorist suspects may require a lower standard of evidence than the 4th Ammendment allows, though no one, citizen or otherwise, should be held without access to public review of his detention. Rules are needed to govern these situations, as the situation in Guantanamo, Iraw, and elsewhere is an open invitation to abuse.

Torture is exactly this type of abuse. Ignatieff states that torture is the vice of tyrannies and its absolute exclusion the mark of free government. However, there is evidence that the United States is creeping back towards this slippery slope. While some feel that physical methods may be inevitable, Ignatieff argues that once you allow exception for ticking bomb cases -- situations in which torture can prevent an imminent calamity from occuring -- little by little, torture may be used when there is no immediate danger. To this end, he discusses the conclusions made by Israel - that physical force against suspects sometimes saves lives - and recommends that the US clearly ban torture and define what constitutes acceptable coercive interrogation. Here, he states, is the depths of lesser-evil territory - permissible duress might include forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress, but what crosses the line into the impermissible would be any physical coercion or abuse, any involuntary use of drugs or serums, any withholding of necessary medicines or basic food, water and essential rest. To ensure such safegaurds, no detainee should be deprived of access to the judicial process, as torture will thrive wherever detainees are held in secret.

All such measures must be subject to a review by Congress and the judiciary, and the rule of law must keep watch to ensure war is fought by democratic consent rather than be presidential decree. Keeping the president in check is difficult, and since Vietnam, Congress has not been able to properly do so. The US needs stronger national and international rules to control a war-mongering president, including both Congressional and UN resultions. Even those such as himself, who supported the Iraq war because "it might bring freedom and democracy to people who had been gassed, tortured and killed for 30 years" must admit that if the vote had been squarely put to the American people, they probably would have voted to stay home. Congress and the media failed to put the president's case for war under scrutiny and this failure hasn't done democracy any good.

Ignatieff closes by stating that regulating a war on terror with ethical rules and democratic oversight is much harder that regulating tradional wars. Terrorism exploits loopholes and will act in a fashion to generate the greatest response. However, when democratic nations lose control of their response - such as the French did in Algeria - the masses rise up and create even more enemies. In Iraq, the US cannot hope to win with harshness alone. A political plan, with democratic scrutiny, is critical to success. A lesser-evil approach may succeed but must be subject to overisight. The war must be less secretive, not more so. The US needs a C.I.A. that understands the dogs of war are needed, but that those dogs need to be on a leash. National security is not a carte blanche for the abrogation of individual rights, and a free press must ask the tough questions. The US is fighting a war whose prize is preserving the identity of democratic society and preventing it from becoming what terrorists believe it to be. Terrorists seek to provoke it into stripping off the mask of law, and the only path to victory is in demonstrating that this rule of law is not a mask or an illusion."

Phew! -- 72-139-185-19 18:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good summary, and useful for editors dealing with this section. I don't think we should make the Lesser Evils section much longer than the two short paragraphs that it is currently, but hopefully having this summary available will help editors to make those few sentences as accurate as possible. I'd especially draw attention to the paragraph beginning with the word "torture" in regards to the discussion taking place elsewhere. Good work, 72-139-etc.! —Joel Bastedo 03:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary of The Lesser Evils, continued

I'm a little worn after summarizing the entire article, but my next project will be to condense that into something that provides a better description of just what this piece actually says. -- 72-139-185-19 18:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall tone of "Lesser Evils"

This NYTimes magazine Op-ed is quite remarkable in 2 ways which I think need to be addressed (perhaps not right now?) in order to put the "lesser evils" issue in full context. One is that the first several pages of the Op-ed lay out Iggy's apocalyptic predictions which some would call "fear mongering"; even including Ignatieff's own prediction that the 2004 US elections would be targeted for disruption by the terrorists; "We can confidently expect that terrorists will attempt to tamper with our election in November." Then those created fears are used to justify the "lesser evils" castration(imo) of civil rights. My point is, the entire 9 page Op-ed reads structually much like a WhiteHouse speech during that time period with Iggy even quoting Condoleezza Rice for corroboration of his predictions. Is this something we can/should address in the CV? It is certainly addressed in some of the references to articles by other human rights activists with Conor Gearty even calling Iggy a "Rumsfeldian". Ottawaman 13:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd describe this summary of "Lesser Evils" as a far grosser mischaracterization. Ignatieff criticizes Bush and his administration *repeatedly* in the article, and you've clearly taken numerous quotes of context. -- 72-139-185-19 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this conversation going off track? The goal at the moment is to examine any statements to ascertain whether they are verified or not. The debate over Lesser Evils might better be handled in a self-contained arena on a sub-page /Lesser Evils. Click on the link if you want to start such a page, in which case the summary and relevant material could be copied there. Tyrenius 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, the arguments are a little long, and definately hard to follow. I'd be strongly in favour of seeing all the "Lesser Evil" discussion moved to a seperate discussion page. Incidentally, why is everyone focusing on the NYT article, instead of the book by the same name? It goes into much further detail than the NYT piece does. 198.20.40.50 19:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff attempts to balance citizens' rightsCr

to privacy and civil liberties against the state's need for surveillance to investigate terrorist activities.
Text in article deleted per consensus. Talk section moved to /Ancillary. Tyrenius 19:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In the of context this "lesser evil" analysis,

Ignatieff discusses whether liberal democracies should employ coercive interrogation and torture.

If we delete the preceding sentence as proposed, then this sentence becomes unnecessarily long. It could change to "In this context Ignatieff discusses whether liberal democracies can employ coercive interrogation and torture." We should also reinsert the reference to "Ignatieff on Torture" here. —Joel Bastedo 13:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the "Ignatieff on Torture" article is it was written much later as a damage control piece; basically asking everyone to ignore what he said in 2004. If it is to be included then we should also insert the preceding articles in the Star (about 4 of them I think) which tore into Iggy for his pro-coersive interrogation position. Ottawaman 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We're just dealing with verification at the moment. Please leave other considerations. I will consider this section closed, unless specific text to be verified is cited. Please keep on topic. Tyrenius 19:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "this section"? From where to where? Ottawaman 20:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

By a section I mean under a heading that has an edit option on the right of the page allowing you to just edit that section in isolation. Tyrenius 00:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

His highly nuanced position has generated significant controversy.

This is vague and leaves the reader wondering what his position is. It should be changed, and I suggest something like: "He argues for an unconditional ban on methods of interrogation that cause stress and duress, but acknowledges that a conscientious interrogator might break that ban in order to save lives." —Joel Bastedo 13:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. -- 72-139-185-19 17:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with Bastedo's interpretation of Ignatieff's words. "..we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations,pre-emptive war" can not reasonably be interpreted as; "He argues for an unconditional ban on methods of interrogation that cause stress and duress, but acknowledges that a conscientious interrogator might break that ban in order to save lives." imo. I think the sentence should be simply deleted as it adds nothing. Ottawaman 21:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

An honest and thorough reading the "Lesser Evils" article rather than one isolated sentence will make it evident that this line about trafficing evils is more descriptive than prescriptive. We will traffic in evils like torture, Ignatieff says, because despite our high ideals, it is sometimes necessary to do so. Yet to do so is wrong. That's why in Section VI. Torture Ignatieff comes down on the side of an absolute ban, saying, "An outright ban on torture, rather than an attempt to regulate it, seems the only way a democracy can keep true to its ideal of respecting the dignity even of its enemies."

Moreover, the edit I propose is a direct paraphrase of a passage in the Star article, to wit: "So I end up supporting an absolute and unconditional ban on both torture and those forms of coercive interrogation that involve stress and duress, and I believe that enforcement of such a ban should be up to the military justice system plus the federal courts. I also believe that the training of interrogators can be improved by executive order and that the training must rigorously exclude stress and duress methods." —Joel Bastedo 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

We cannot say that our subject has strong and controversial opinions on a topic and then neglect to state what those opinions are. It would be worse to provide an interpretation of those opinions based on a single sentence badly misconstrued and removed from the context of his fairly extensive writings on the subject. We have to deal with this honestly and not politically. —Joel Bastedo 16:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the "Ignatieff on Torture" article that Bastedo quotes from is it was written much later as a damage control piece; basically asking everyone to ignore what he said in 2004. We can not quote from it without quoting from the 2004 Op-ed. If the recent Star article by Iggy is to be included then we should also insert the preceding articles in the Star (about 4 of them I think) which tore into Iggy for his pro-coersive interrogation position. Ottawaman 18:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Ottawaman, since the position expressed in the Star article is consistent with that in "Lesser Evils." As I said, the first quote above, where Ignatieff says "An outright ban on torture, rather than an attempt to regulate it, seems the only way... etc." is not from his "damage control" piece, but from his supposedly pro-coersive interrogation period. His position does not seem to change significantly between the two articles. —Joel Bastedo 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Star article position is not consistent with that in "lesser evils".

• "I end up supporting an absolute and unconditional ban on both torture and those forms of coercive interrogation that involve stress and duress." is simply double speak. What forms of coercive interrogation do not involve stress and duress? Also, the 2006 Star article should not be referenced here because it comes too late. It is his attempt to explain away what he said in the "Lesser Evils" works but since this section is about those 2004 works, they must stand on their own. You can add something afterwards to the effect he has added a new revised version of "Lesser Evils" if you wish. Ottawaman 23:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, the quote that begins "An outright ban on torture" does not come from the Star but from "Lesser Evils," the section on Torture which you have either overlooked or misunderstood. There Ignatieff identifies torture as an abuse of the concept of lesser evils, and an example of why America needs bolder democratic institutions capable of enforcing faithful adherence by the military to the democratic commitment not to torture enemies. If you fail to see that, you haven't understood the article at all, In My Haughty Opinion.

As far as doublespeak, Ignatieff does provide examples of interrogation that he considers coercive but not unduly stressful, but that's immaterial. It's not our responsibility to critique his position, but to report it accurately; even if we all decide that any coercive interrogation involves stress and duress and so Ignatieff's position is laughably weak, it's still his position on torture, and that is the issue we're covering here, not our opinions on his arguments. —Joel Bastedo 02:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that "Outright ban on torture" quote is in the 2004 "Lesser evils" torture section but not the long quote you referred to from the 2006 Star article. I think "disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods)", which he includes in the permissable methods categories of "lesser evils" would likely be a method causing "stress and duress" which he rejects all forms of in the 2006 Star article; that is an example of the doublespeak. I am quite willing for us to simply state the differences between his 2004 article and his 2006 article as a way of showing his "nuanced position". I think nuance is quite diplomatic as "confusing" would be more accurate...many people,not just you and I...draw totally differing impressions as to what he is really saying. The section title is accurate about the controversialness of his statements but perhaps it is only because he has such academic status that we accept the position of interpretors (leading to controversial interpretations); perhaps if he were a common man we would simply say his is fickle and confucing in his comments rather than "nuanced". What about "His position has been condemned by some and applauded by others" because this phrase addresses how people respond more than what he actually said. Ottawaman 13:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the full quote is "Yet the Israeli Supreme Court also conceded that physical force against suspects sometimes prizes out information that saves lives in ticking-bomb cases. So it allowed interrogators a justifying excuse. Torture was banned absolutely, but interrogators charged with torture could enter evidence that they were seeking to save lives in order to plead to reduced sentences for breaking the rules. An outright ban on torture, rather than an attempt to regulate it, seems the only way a democracy can keep true to its ideal of respecting the dignity even of its enemies. For that is what the rule of law commits us to: to show respect even to those who show no respect for us. To keep faith with this commitment, we need a presidential order or Congressional legislation that defines exactly what constitutes acceptable degrees of coercive interrogation. Here we are deep into lesser-evil territory. Permissible duress might include forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress. What crosses the line into the impermissible would be any physical coercion or abuse, any involuntary use of drugs or serums, any withholding of necessary medicines or basic food, water and essential rest. Fine idea, you say, but who is to enforce these safeguards? It ought to be the rule that no detainee of the United States should be permanently deprived of access to counsel and judicial process, whether it be civilian federal court or military tribunal. Torture will thrive wherever detainees are held in secret. Conduct disgracing the United States is inevitable if suspects are detained beyond the reach of the law. " Ignatieff is arguing about how Congress might choose to define coercion, as opposed to endorsing it. -- 72-139-185-19 19:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The plain words"we may have to" as in "we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations,pre-emptive war" is not speculating about what congress may do. He could have said "Congress may have to"...the "we" puts him in the decision making loop ala "we the people" thus makes it an endorsement,imo, especially in light of his specific references to sleep deprivation and hooding captives. The words are what they are. Are you ok with ;"His position has been condemned by some and applauded by others"? Ottawaman 19:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This objection is about vagueness and not about verification. I want to put this discussion on hold at the moment, till we've dealt with verification, unless anyone has a different suggestion. Tyrenius 19:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Political Career

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

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

Sentence deleted per consensus. Section moved to /Ancillary. Tyrenius 08:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Doubts about...

The opening paragraph reads "Critics of Ignatieff question his commitment to Canada..." without giving any reference. While I've heard this said of him, I've never actually heard anyone criticize Ignatieff for teaching at Harvard and Cambridge, nor for writing from a first person point of view. He's been asked to clarify these points (as the references state), but that's as far as it goes. Moreover, if we do some simple math, I'm doubting the 30 years figure quoted. Moreover, his exact whereabouts are more specifically mentioned above in his Biography. So I think we should clip and condense this section to read: "Ignatieff has held many international positions which have taken him outside of Canada. During these periods, we wrote editorials from the perspective of both an American, and, when writing for The Observer in the early 1990s, as an Englishman..." -- 72-139-185-19 16:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In the Rights Revolution (you say you read it, I think, so maybe you have it) on page 10 he says about Canada "I have not resided here since 1969". He wrote that in 2000. He moved back in 2005 so that makes 35 years, if we are to accept Iggy's statement. Ottawaman 02:00, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, for starters, he lived in BC to teach....1976-1978... Remember that point? Unless you're suggesting he commuted from Britain. In any case, the section you're quoting from (in TRR) is used to set himself up as an outsider, which gives him a greater strength to argue from. It's not an autobiographical statement. Also, you haven't addressed the criticism point. 72-139-185-19 04:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you choose to bring in side comments(like doubting the 30 year figure) you must accept those side comments being addressed. Perhaps he considered himself a non-resident of Canada while he taught in BC or maybe it was so unimportant to him that he just forgot about it. If he considered himself non-resident from 1969-2000, who are we to claim different. Also, the criticsm statement is just stating the obvious as we have already been doing with statements about his international recognition etc. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Ottawaman 19:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm fine with leaving this section be, too. 198.20.40.50 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

General discussions

To keep this page clear for the current article discussions, I have created an ancillary page, where general discussions can be held. A synopsis of each and a link are below. Tyrenius 20:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Page Protection posted by Sunray 18:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC). A request for debate as to whether the article should be semi- or un-protected. Tyrenius 20:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant article

Almost every dispute might be resolved by reading this brilliant new article by Michael Valpy from the G&M. [8] (It's good reading, otherwise.) --Hamiltonian 14:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it's really well done and almost perfectly npov. Ottawaman 20:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Combining sections

I'd like to consider merging the "Ballistic missile defence" section with the "International affairs" section, and also merging the "Criticism of the lesser evil approach" section with "The lesser evil approach" section. 198.20.40.50 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Archive request

Discussion has been dead for 2 weeks - can we archive this and start fresh? -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 22:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, someone should archive this page :-) FellowWikipedian 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

SEE EDIT DISPUTE WARNING AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE before you write anything. Tyrenius 04:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Link to "anybody but iggy" site

It was agreed long ago to include "Opponent site

• Stop Iggy A site established by dissenting Liberals to outline why they disagree with his candidacy."

this,I think. 70.48.207.216 18:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. If you can cite the archive where consensus was reached, I'll leave it in. -- Gaius Octavius | Talk 23:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Deletions?

Who (and why) is deleting the additions I made about his recent "war-crimes" comments vis-a-vis Israel? [unsigned]

I am, because it's already mentioned elsewhere. CJCurrie 03:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if that is the case, but I don't see it. Reverting in the meanwhile. Sorry, I see it now - removed this from 'International', but I did elaborate on his comments in the other section and added the pertinent citation.

Stop Iggy Link

also, please do not delete the link to the "stop iggy" website. After much discussion consensus was to let this 1 link remain. If you insist I will go back in the history to locate that consensus arrived at when the article was under admin. control. 64.229.30.183 14:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do so. I do not believe your claim is correct.

Here it is reference#2. I am quite annoyed you do not assume good faith and also that you insist on pov pushing with your latest edits...plus you do not even bother to sign your comments. Ottawaman 17:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• Mind if include the whole quote? [9]:

• 1; basically that the "controversies"section be put back to this which was arrived at after much discussion and compromise,imo.

• A;that the "controversies" section include Iggy's own comments regarding his time away from Canada in the national self-identity sub-section.
• B; that the Ukrainian controversy be put back as it was a very big deal and still is.

• 2; that the opponent sites subsection be reincluded in External Links since the article offers links to Iggy's campaign offices.Ottawaman 13:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

1.a) Since the section already sufficiently deals with critics' concerns about Ignatieff's absence from Canada, and the quote about being a martian outsider is neither a response to those criticisms nor a source of controversy (ie. the media hasn't picked up on this quote either as an admission that Ignatieff is out of touch with Canada, nor as a rebuttal to such claims), I don't think it's necessary to include in an already overlong article.

1.b) This issue has been moved into the Political career section. I think that's appropriate, since it only emerged as a point of controversy in the context of Ignatieff's nomination. If some of the content from the original Ukranian-Canadian section should be reintroduced, it could be added succinctly to the Political career section.

2. I see no reason to exclude the opponents' sites section. If it were put to a vote, I'd vote to include. —Joel Bastedo 15:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the above

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

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

In other words, Tyrenius suggested that this topic be put on hold before any consensus was reached. And you agreed. 67.55.7.195 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please refrain from making personal attacks, or assuming bad faith, as you did when you assumed my edits were POV pushing. A look at your edits, for instance, fails to show a single one that is not anti-Ignatieff. 67.55.7.195 16:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

how come there are no external links to comments on "Ignatieff"?:

Commentaries and Reviews

• Ignatieff's Realm, The Walrus. A thorough overview of Ignatieff's academic work and views. Written by Alex Mazer.
• No more Mr Nice Guy New Humanist, September 21 2005. An op-ed criticism of Ignatieff by Laurie Taylor.
• Ignatieff stands above Grit dwarfs Toronto Sun June 25 2006. Peter Worthington endorsement of Ignatieff.
• Canada asks Ignatieff: Are you one of us? The Daily Telegraph, January 15, 2006. A summary of the critiques that have been levied against Ignatieff.
• But where's the context? Toronto Star, April 9 2006. A meta-analysis of Ignatieff's critics and supporters.
• Getting a read on Michael Ignatieff Toronto Star, May 1 2006. A survey of the issues surrounding him.
• The Trouble with Ignatieff A blog entry by James Laxer which discusses the problems Mr. Ignatieff might face as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
• Dallaire backs Ignatieff to lead Liberals, Ottawa Citizen, July 3, 2006. General Romeo Dallaire on Ignatieff's leadership bid.
• CTV on candidates