Talk:2011/Archive 6

Jack Layton
warning, CountingStars500 and EmilyPhillipson are all the same |same person..

Is Layton internationally notable enough to be included in Deaths? Jim Michael (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was a leading figure in Canadian foreign policy. As stated on his Wikipedia page. He was more powerful than Paul Martin and Stephen Harper (prior to 2011 election). Both Martin and Harper needed Layton's input to pass any legislation; only becoming moot after 2011 election. Canada's policies in regards to Iraq and Afghanistan were the workings of Layton. It's important to know a thing or two about the person you're trying to discredit as "not notable". - CountingStars500 (talk)
 * His article doesn't say that. It doesn't say how he changed Canada's foreign policy and it only briefly mentions his input into foreign policy. As you can see, I'm not trying to discredit him, nor am I claiming he's not notable. The question is clearly whether or not he's sufficiently internationally notable, not whether or not he's notable. Jim Michael (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In reviewing Jack Layton's article CountingStars500 is correct:

As stated on Layton's page: "With the ruling Liberal Party being reduced to a minority government, revelations of the sponsorship scandal damaging its popularity to the point where both the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois were pressing their advantage for a snap election, the prime minister approached the NDP for its support. Layton demanded the cancellation of proposed corporate tax cuts and called for an increase in social spending. The ensuing compromise in the NDP's favour was protested by the other opposition parties who used it as a pretext to force a non-confidence vote. On May 19, two such votes were defeated and Layton's amendments went on to be passed on its final reading vote on June 23. As a result of this political coup and his apparent civil behaviour in a spitefully raucous parliament, many political analysts noted that Layton gained increased credibility as an effective leader of an important party, becoming the major second choice leader in many political polls – for example, polling second in Quebec after Gilles Duceppe, despite the low polls for his party as a whole in the province."

It continues: "On September 24, 2006, he met with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to discuss the NDP position. After the meeting Layton stated that Canada's role should be focused on traditional peacekeeping and reconstruction rather than in a front line combat role currently taking place.

I don't know why you deny these passages in the article? - EmilyPhillipson (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That first para has nothing to do with international affairs. The second merely says what he said Canada's role in Afghanistan should be, not what actually happened. Jim Michael (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The first para wasn't supposed to be about foreign affairs, it was supposed to be in regards to Layton directing governmental policy, which you denied he ever did. In regards to the second, your insistence that he never met with international leaders was clearly incorrect that was my point in regards to Karzai and Afghanistan policy. Anyways, Canada never got involved in Iraq even after Harper got into power, because of Layton that actually did happen, Canada never entered the Iraq War, prove that wrong. - EmilyPhillipson (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your insistence that Wikipedia is the sole arbiter of the structure of the Canadian government is not true. When sources say that he is indeed an influential figure in foreign policy such as Canadian media and international-based media and you retort with "It's not in his Wikipedia article" that's not an argument. There's so many articles on Wikipedia that doesn't mention key details about individuals check the English version of Horst Eckel compared to his German version. A Wikipedia entry of someone isn't evidence of their international notability. - CountingStars500 (talk)
 * A WP bio doesn't determine its subject's level of notability, but it should portray it well. Jim Michael (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "A WP bio doesn't determine its subject's level of notability, but it should portray it well." If that was the case how come other sources are more in depth about Layton's international contributions but the only source you're referring to is Wikipedia? - EmilyPhillipson (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reuters and Encyclopedia Brittanica has a much more thorough information in regards to Layton's international notability in regards to foreign policy. - CountingStars500 (talk)


 * Oppose - we’re pretty clear about who we include in terms of political figures, and who we make case by case exceptions for. Nobody denies that Layton was a highly significant figure on the Canadian political scene (and, personally speaking, I’m very much a fan and think it was a terrible shame that he passed so soon after becoming Opposition Leader following the 2011 election), but at the end of the day he was predominately a domestic political figure and the head of a (normally) third party. We rarely include main Opposition party leaders who never became heads of government/state as it is, and having some influence on foreign policy in a parliamentary setting is insufficient grounds for inclusion. To include Layton on those grounds would be such a significant breach to our political figures criteria, and would set a precedent where a far higher number of Opposition leaders or even backbenchers who campaign strongly on foreign affairs issues in committees and such are argued for inclusion. 2011 in Canada is the place for Layton, much as I hold him in high regard personally. TheScrubby (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But, you already have included people who were opposition leaders and mainly domestic, not to mention that Layton passes those people. You lack consistency, also who gave you ownership over Wikipedia? EmilyPhillipson (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We’ve had a political figures criteria set in place since around April (I welcome you to read through the history of the Talk:2021 page, where there has been lengthy debate on who ought to be included through various categories), and it has served us well and has significantly cut back on removing predominately minor, domestic politicians (and after somebody tried to make an argument in favour of somebody by citing John B. Anderson’s highly mistaken inclusion on the 2017 page, something had to be done). As for the inclusion of mainly domestic Opposition leaders in 2021, I don’t know what you’re referring to. Bob Dole is not included, Walter Mondale was included as a borderline case for his role in greatly expanding the US VP’s powers and making it more relevant domestically and internationally, and Andrew Peacock as already explained was not included because he was Opposition Leader, and that the vast majority of Peacock’s time in government was spent dealing with foreign policy related matters, be it as Army minister during the Vietnam War, (most crucially) playing a central role in laying the groundwork for the independence of Papua New Guinea and granting it self-government as External Affairs minister, and for being one of Australia’s most prominent and longest serving Foreign Affairs ministers. Predominately domestic Peacock was not, and we generally give more leeway to those who served in Foreign Affairs/Secretary of State portfolios than we do Opposition Leaders or Deputy heads of government/state. TheScrubby (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't determine the policies of Wikipedia as stated Wikipedia is "Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia, created and edited by volunteers around the world and hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation" you can't hijack it for your own pet-project (as you have). Bob Dole had an impact on foreign policy and should be included as has Jack Layton. I'm not opposed to the standards you're suggesting. My issue is that you're not aware that the people you are discrediting as not notable meet the criteria YOU are suggesting. You don't have the full influence of the background of these individuals and starting from a conclusion. You as an individual don't control Wikipedia. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 23:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate the bad faith implication that I somehow think I own or determine the policies on Wikipedia as some form of “pet project”. The political figures criteria came as a result of lengthy debate between multiple users (including and not just limited to myself and Jim Michael) on the Talk:2021 page (and in general there has been lengthy debate over the months about who should be included from other categories, such as entertainment and sports), and the consensus that was reached as a result was what now comprises the political figures criteria. That is how consensus works; if you don’t like it then feel free to start a discussion thread on Talk:2021 and make proposals for what you want to see changed with regards to the criteria, and seek to change consensus. Furthermore, at the end of the day I always respect consensus once it is reached. I argued against the inclusions of Mondale and Norm Macdonald, but consensus went against me and I accepted and respected that. Regarding Bob Dole, when it comes down to it nobody has given a sufficient response to the key question: had Bob Dole been a figure from any other country than the United States, and had he achieved precisely the same positions of power and had the exact same record in his career, would anybody have argued so strongly for his inclusion? TheScrubby (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * How can you say that consensus has been reached when you overlook dissenting voices? Not to mention that the people who take part in the 2021 talk page are not representative of the editors of Wikipedia overall. You even discredit people who meet the standards you claim are consensus. I've researched these individuals on multiple sources to show that they are notable. I agree with you that Johnny Isakson and John B. Anderson shouldn't be included but Dole and Layton do meet your own standard. EmilyPhillipson (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @EmilyPhillipson Maybe representative sampling of Wikipedia's overall editors hasn't crossed TheScrubby's mind? But, I agree when 5 people are in the discussion and 3 agree x person isn't notable that's not consensus of Wikipedia editors overall. Thousands of people edit Wikipedia. - CountingStars500 (talk)
 * We definitely acknowledge that there’s dissenting voices, yet at the same time their suitability for inclusion (Dole’s especially) has not been sufficiently proven. First of all I should point out that I did recently start a discussion on whether or not Opposition leaders from G20 nations ought to be included even if they never became head of government/state - this would have led to Dole and Layton being easily included. All but one user expressed their firm opposition to it (well, I expressed that I leaned against it rather than firmly opposing it. Only one user expressed support for the proposal). When we make case by case exceptions for political figures, they really do have to be exceptional, i.e. having a direct, key role and being a central play in something of major international consequence. To use 2021 examples, we included Donald Rumsfeld because he was a central figure in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan (which is also why Colin Powell was immediately included, though he had an advantage anyway as he served as US Secretary of State). Peacock was included not because he just influenced a government’s foreign policy, but because he was the central figure as the key minister directly responsible for changing the government’s policy in favour of independence for the PNG and away from colonial paternalism, and as the minister directly responsible for helping bring in self-government - and that’s putting aside his stint as Foreign Affairs minister. People have attempted to claim that Dole’s role with Kosovo (which ultimately became the central claim used in favour of his inclusion) was practically the same - I don’t think going on a goodwill tour on behalf of the US and giving Kosovo public support in his country is at all comparable. already put it best when she said “Hundreds of politicians around the world have this "foreign policy expertise". Even very unknown mayors and politicians” and that “if being the head of a delegation and visiting the country means that he is a leading figure of this transition, it's an insult to those Kosovars who did make that struggle and to other people who were transcendental in the sovereignty processes of other countries”. I again ask the question: if Dole held the exact same positions of power and achieved the exact same record in his political career that he did, except instead he comes from any other country besides the United States, would anybody have strongly pushed for his inclusion? Or made comments such as “Bob Dole is obviously notable” and “(insert entertainment figure) is included but not Dole?” without backing them up in any way?
 * As for Layton, he was cited as being the decisive figure in opposing Canadian involvement in the Iraq War. What I worry about is what kind of precedent that would set if predominately domestic political figures are included on that sort of basis. Michael Foot was invoked on the Talk:2021 discussions. Would we also deem him sufficient for inclusion on the grounds that, as head of the UK Labour Party and as Leader of the Opposition, he gave bipartisan support to Margaret Thatcher and her government with regards to military action in the Falklands War? Then we have Ed Miliband. Would we include him for opposing military intervention in Syria in 2013 and not giving David Cameron the parliamentary support to do so? Unless it is somebody who is a central, key figure with direct involvement in an internationally notable and consequential event, I don’t think we should make case by case exceptions, and I personally don’t think these are sufficient grounds for it (although if consensus goes the other way with regards to whether or not opposition leaders who give support or oppose/block proposed military interventions, I will respect that consensus and agree to include figures on that basis). Now, I’m not attempting to discredit either Dole or Layton - both were substantial domestic political figures within their own countries (Layton arguably more so than Dole), and I think I made that clear in my initial response to this thread. Alsoriano,, and many others have their reasonings behind their views on this, and I’m not going to attempt to speak on behalf of them, but for me at least what’s incredibly important is what kind of precedent we set when we make case by case inclusions on these pages. I’ve now given my two cents, and again I don’t intend to get mired in another prolonged debate, given that the holiday season is upon us and I’ll have a lot going on in my personal life over the coming fortnight or so. However the trajectory of the debate as it continues from here and whatever the ultimate outcome is in terms of this discussion, I wish you all a happy holidays. TheScrubby (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * “We definitely acknowledge that there’s dissenting voices” then it’s not consensus. Consensus means unanimous support, or close to unanimous as possible. In regards to Peacock he had a role in PNG but it wasn't much, roughly equivalent to Dole (Kosovo/Armenia) and Layton (Iraq). Now in regards to comment about “Hundreds of politicians around the world have this "foreign policy expertise". That’s erroneous, the only time a mayor would have foreign policy experience is if they held a diplomatic post prior to assuming a mayoralty. It’s a rarity for non-federal politicians to hold foreign policy experience. Foot and Milliband should be included ONLY if it changed the trajectory of the UK’s policy. For example, Harper supported the Iraq War Layton’s opposition changed the trajectory of the government’s policy. Also, you know who agrees with me in regards to Layton holding influence on government policy from 2004 to 2011 two guys named Paul Martin and Stephen Harper. Those are two guys who'd probably know more about Canadian government then both of us combined. Also, Happy Holidays to you to. Enjoy! - CountingStars500 (talk)
 * I'm Canadian, and Jack Layton had essentially all the power from 2004 to 2011 (apart from Gilles Duceppe who also held a balance). Paul Martin and Stephen Harper had to get Layton's backing for legislation, he was not purely a domestic figure. The 2005 budget was an NDP budget, the first in Canadian History. Jack Layton should stay considering he impacted both domestic and foreign policies. - CountingStars500 (talk)
 * Include - He was the NDP leader who led his party to a record # of seats (103) in the Canadian House of Commons (in 2011) & thus make it the official opposition for the first time in Canadian history, from 2011 to 2015. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, his 2011 accomplishment caused the Liberal party to end up as neither government or official opposition, for the first time in Canadian history. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)