Talk:Bob Rae

Sunday Shopping
My recollection is that Rae promised to 'keep', not start a 'common pause day' during the election. After the election he switched positions and introduced Sunday shopping. The way this part is written seems a bit too biased in his favour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.218.20 (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Published Books
I'm not sure how I formally go about recommending this, but I think it would make sense to include a section that lists Bob Rae's 4 published books: From Protest to Power: Personal Reflections on a Life in Politics; The Three Questions; Canada in the Balance; Exporting Democracy: The Risks and Rewards of Pursuing a Good Idea

Untitled
I'm at the OUCC conference at Guelph University today and Bob Rae just finished speaking. He mentioned that he was recently introduced as a graduate of Harvard high school in Toronto – which apparently isn’t true. The person doing the introduction had apparently attributed it to Wikipedia. Mr. Rae then went on to say that when he read the article it was way off, but maybe he’d edit it and credit himself with inventing the steam egine. Most of his comments were in jest, but here it is for the record.

Later he was asked what he did about the article and answered that his wife was kind enough to edit it and correct it for him.

-- Matt Clare Mr. Rae twice invoked "the rabbi" in his convention speech. (I am not sure if caps are required in this case.) The first reference was that the rabbi is reported as having said that "If I am not for me then who will be for me?" The second was to the effect that if I am for me, others will be. Rae has been touted as Ontario's first Jewish Premier. Could he have been referring to The Rabbi Yeshua Ben Joseph the Divine Rabbi? If not which rabbi. Moreover, in an overwhelmingly Judaism Obervant family (I was a classmate of Arlene Perley during the Bathurst Heights Collegiate days), how can he be described as Anglican? The issue is not insignificant: I think Mr. Rae displays duality if not bipolarity as to where he stands on the Judeo-Christian continuum. Is it relevant? May be not, but it should be said. To be a Jew is to subscribe to certain ethical and philosophical value that are not shared by all Canadians, even when watered down by so-called secularism. Having said all that, he is still a "good man" and of the available choices the most electable.

Michael Spensieri, J.D., LL.M. Mpp Ret Member: Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians
 * For those curious, his wife's edit may be found here. Some of the changes were necessary and overdue, others were a bit more questionable.  (I'm still puzzled as to why all references to Gerald Caplan were removed.)  CJCurrie 16:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Bob Rae was born in Ottawa. Two different sources tell me so. If it really is Toronto, then I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timc (talk • contribs) 02:27, 8 October 2003 (UTC)
 * According to the Royal Conservatory of Music website, Rae was born in Ottawa in 1948 as you originally stated. L.J. Brooks 19:39, 29 Jan 2006 (UTC)
 * He says the same in his autobiography. Derekwriter 01:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Interests rates in Canada
The article cites Rae criticising the federal government for interest rate policy when the federal gov't in Canada does not set interest rates, rather the Bank of Canada sets the interest rates and the BoC is not run by parliament nor the PMO. Although "If the Minister of Finance disagrees with the Bank's policies, he or she has the right to issue a public directive to the Governor. Such a directive has never been issued." (see latter link) The Bank of Canada was created by Prime Minister Richard Bennett in the 1930's transferring the ability to set interest rates from the federal gov't to the new created crown corporation.DWiatzka (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Zero Inflation policy was openly supported by Finance Minister Michael Wilson, by Brian Mulroney, and John Crow, governor of the Bank of Canada, was Mulroney's appointee. The zero inflation strategy of high interest rates was indeed the policy of the federal government under Brian Mulroney's leadership. To say that the Bank is independent does not change this fact. The federal government endorsed Crow's draconian policies openly and that government put Crow there in the first place presumably in the knowledge that he was going to do such things. Rae legitimately criticised the federal leadership for the economic damage it was knowingly doing.

For a zero inflation policy through high interest rates to be effective, a large increase of unemployment must happen by definition. That is the proof that it's working - the high unemployment. If the rates are insufficiently high to create more bankruptcies and unemployment, it will increase inflation as it increases the price of money. Only by choking off demand through deliberately-engineered unemployment can zero inflation be achieved through a high interest rate policy.

What Rae faced was a federal government determined to cause unemployment and there was nothing he could do to stop it. High unemployment diminished the tax base and increased relief payments, and if this didn't do enough to increase the deficit, the higher interest rates also increased the price of the debts - the high deficits were inevitable. Rae deserved no blame, and Mulroney deserved all the blame, end of discussion. Procrustes the clown (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture
The new picture is nicer but it's also taken about a decade after Rae was premier. We should probably use a picture that was taken while he was Premier or at least when he looked like he did when he was Premier. AndyL 05:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a photo available from his current Liberal leadership run? - TomPettyFan 23:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Damn it. Someone with a camera just go out take a picture of the guy.  --Arctic Gnome 19:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a picture of him skinnydipping floating around. Reportersue 22:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Theres a picture of him at the leadership convention, found at this link http://www.liberal.ca/leadership2006_candidate_e.aspx?id=2. I can't post it myself since I am at work. MickeyK 18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Name of article
Shouldn't this be retitled "Rae, Bob" so it is consistent with other personal names?

gcapp1959


 * I don't see why. Most bio pages start with the first name.  CJCurrie 01:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Make that 'all' pages. Or at least they should; that's what the style guide says. --Saforrest 01:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff and Rae
They were roommates at U of T? This an interesting factoid which I haven't heard before. Can anyone back it up? --Saforrest 20:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been mentioned in the media a few times (eg. in a recent McLean's feature). CJCurrie 01:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maclean's feature: http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20060417_125095_125095, and, for kicks, U of T Magazine: http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/02autumn/school.asp], if you scroll down a bit. - Senning
 * They are good friends. Reportersue 22:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Political Affiliation
Should it really be Liberal Party for his political affiliation? The box cites his political affiliation at the time of the important event (his Premiership of Ontario).Homagetocatalonia 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed the change and was thinking that it should include both. --JGGardiner 23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * He is a Liberal now. Reportersue 22:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

France
How could he have been born in 1948 and been on the first plane to land in liberated France in 1945?


 * His father was on the first plane to land in liberated France. CJCurrie 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image
Please vote in favour of keeping his image here... Deletion review/Log/2006 November 30 --  Zanimum 02:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

edits by "gerard kennedy"
i'd like to flag that someone with the username gerardkennedy is editing this page (see history) but since the edits occurred during the liberal leadership convention it is likely that it is one of his campaign managers. since kennedy was running against rae, and threw his support behind dion, i think there is a large conflict of interest in having him edit this page.Katerg 20:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently, his name is Gerard Kennedy, although he is not the Gerard Kennedy we know of. Talk page comment here. --  Zanimum 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Somehow I doubt that Kennedy's campaign managers would be that obvious.Crisco 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Care
Regarding the dispute between User: Kibomt and User: CJCurrie, while the section may not be perfectly balanced yet, the onus is on CJCurrie to find balancing material rather than completely suppressing it. GoldDragon 18:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Rae's actions as premier in cutting enrollment to medical schools is clearly relevant to a discussion of health care policy under his tenure. Two sources are provided - one from a Queen's Journal quoting a reputable, knowledgeable observer, and another commentary from a media source. Since when did Sunmedia not become a valid source in Wikipedia? Can you please point me to the WP that says that? As for the other material deleted by CJCurrie relating to the Air India Inquiry, it is sourced from the CBC and the Toronto Star. This point is even more so because CJCurrie seeks to restore unsourced promotional material about Rae's purported international activities. CJCurrie seems to be under the misbelief that neutrality requires us to omit the failings of famous men. If Mr. Rae's supposed accomplishments can be mentioned so too must his failures, otherwise Wikipedia will become an encyclopedia of spam, not of relevant knowledge. --Kibomt 13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with including critical information about Rae, including health policy but I have some problems with the current section. First, the Queen's source actually does not say what the nine words that it supports allege. It says Rae "capped" enrollment, the article says "cut". It also says that Ontario's position then was consistent with other provinces, which seems to be the case. I don't think that it is acceptable to use Weston's sarcastic piece to support the second assertion. If Rae's government is indeed so responsible for such a shortage of doctors that it endures today, it shouldn't be hard to find a more reasonable source. --JGGardiner 18:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the text that CJCurrie deleted. The sources for the cut s more than just the Queen's Journal and the Sun media, it is also Mr. Rae's own words from his Torstar interview. This is his legacy, and to write an article about his health policy without mentioning this would just make Wikipedia more absurd than it increasingly is being recognized for being:

"As Premier, Rae placed cut enrollment into medical schools, creating a continuing shortage of doctors in Ontario and adding to the wait-times and treatment delays for patients to access health care in Ontario. Rae's Government actually paid the University of Toronto $10 million a year not to produce as many doctors. Interviewed by the Toronto Star about this period, in 2006, Rae stated that: "Take the doctor situation. You are right that we reduced enrolment....We (governments) didn't take into account the number of people who would leave (the health field) or who would do other things and, second, that the nature of the practice might change. We did not take into account that the number of women coming into the workforce would change, and that changed the pattern of practice: People taking leaves, people taking maternity leaves, people working different hours and so on." " --Kibomt 04:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Air India Inquiry
The added text about Bartleman's testimony has been twisted to make it look like Bob Rae missed something in his investigation. Rae's recommendation for an inquiry actually led to Bartleman's revelation. The new text makes it look like Rae's participation in the affair was somehow inferior. Atrian 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's incredible. He did not interview a key witness, and you don't think that reflects on his judgement? Is that your idea of balance? He gets credit for recommending the inquiry, but not having interviewed a key player at the time was odd, as the references indicate. --Kibomt 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Atrian, at least on the basis of what I've seen. I'm not sure, and the source doesn't suggest, that it was some sort of omission on Rae's part or that he was aware that Bartleman had such information. Maybe that information exists but I'd want to see it before including it here. And I would note to Kibomt that this isn't a character study. We don't have to include information simply because it reflects on the subject's judgement. --JGGardiner 07:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text that CJCurrie proposes to suppress:

"On April 26, 2005, he was appointed to advise Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan on whether or not there should be a government inquiry into the 1985 Air India disaster. On November 23, 2005, Rae recommended further inquiry into the investigation and prosecution. In testimony before the Commission of Inquiry led by Justice John C. Major, former Ontario Lieutenant-Governor, James K. Bartleman indicated that in his prior position as the former head of intelligence for Foreign Affairs Canada he had received information about a specific threat to Air India days before Flight 182 blew up in 1985. Bob Rae later admitted that he never bothered to interview Bartleman, the former head of intelligence for Foreign Affairs Canada while investigating the Air India bombing. "

That is not about charachter, but competence. I have no problem with deleting the reference to the Air Inda entirely. However, if it is retained for completeness, the sourced material about the nature of his investigation should also be included. The whole paragraph is aimed at establishing his weighty chores in his post-premiership. That's fair, but if Wikpedia is about biography, not hagiography, the reference must be complete and balanced. --Kibomt 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. But I haven't seen anything that says Rae was incompetent to not interview Bartleman.  If there is something, I'm happy to include it.  --JGGardiner 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Bartleman is not just a minor witness, on a minor fact. He was the head of intelligence for Foreign Affairs (surely a material witness), and admitted to prior knowledge of the bombing?  When Bartleman revealed this, everyone asked Rae why he had not interviewed him.  No serious biography of Rae that discusses his role in the Air India inquiry will omit this fact, notwithstanding the actions of his on-line hagiogaphers.  If we are not going to have a balanced discussion of his role, the reference to Air India should be deleted in its entirety. --Kibomt 12:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that if Rae hadn't recommended further inquiry, Bartleman wouldn't have had the opportunity to come forward with his new information. Atrian 13:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wonderful! Please show us these serious pieces where he is criticized and I'll be happy to include the info myself, if you'd like.  The problem is that until then a reader might wonder if Rae was incompetent and we can't put a footnote that says he was because user:Kibomt says so.  Just like above, my problem is only that it needs a source.  Although in this case I'm not sure about Rae's incompetence.  I don't find him to be competent necessarily either; I just don't know and without a source can't support inclusion.


 * I also would like to note that it is extremely uncivil to continue to refer to other editors as "hagiographers". Frankly I think it is worse than calling someone a jerk or an asshole to say that the time that they volunteer here is for some illicit purpose.  You'll notice that I've never question your intentions even though I might have my doubts as well.  I doubt if I were to check your edit history that I'd find you were concerned about the hagiography taking place in articles of politicians of all stripes.  And that's fine, that's your business and I don't question which articles you want to change and in what way.  I consider your edits and your proposed edits on their own merits.  And if we disagree, it is a matter of our own opinions on the merit of what was said, and that's all.  --JGGardiner 17:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As noted above, there is already a soure provided for the questions posed to Rae, and his response. If you want to provide a source that says Rae's oversight was an example of competence and skill, then do so. --Kibomt 13:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, it doesn't work that way. You want to add information to the article so it is incumbent on you to provide a source, not the rest of the community to provide a countering one.  There is also a higher standard for the inclusion of negative material in biographies.  It is a policy that Wikipedia has enacted for serval reasons, both legal and, I believe, to maintain a standard more alike an encyclopedia than a mish mash of positive and negative remarks.  In any event it is policy.  If you doubt that, look at the history of the "original research" and simply not allowed here.  I'm still open minded about this one but I need to see a source.  --JGGardiner 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With all do respect, it should work the way I suggested. I supplied a source for the information I added.  If you want to supply a countering source without doing original research, do so. The problem with these wiki biographies is that if the rules are as you state then there is very little balance.  Both positive and negative contributions of a public figure must be included if we are writing a biography, not a hagiography, as much as I know you hate the word.  I would also add that I am not sure much of the content of this "biography" can stand scrutiny against the standard you suggest.  I promise when the article is re-opened for editing, I will start deleting each and every unsourced proposition, and each and every propositon for which the source provided is not exactly on point.  Be careful what you wish for, as the old sayng goes. --Kibomt 17:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleting text en masse from an article is deemed bad editing behaviour and could get you suspended. Rather than do that I suggest you use the citation needed template. That way the original editor (or somebody else) will have a chance to provide a reference. If no citation can be found then the text can be deleted after a reasonable time, say 12 months. Atrian 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The source is just simply inadequate. It does not assert what was in the article text.


 * I'm happy, however, that you agree with my distaste for unsourced and poorly sourced info. Though I'll note that I rarely delete unsourced or poorly sourced text on sight.  I didn't delete yours for example.  I always bring it up on the talk page first, let a discussion among editors work itself through and almost always let another editor do any specific in-text work.


 * Though I agree with Atrian that you could get in trouble for a lot of mass deletions which appear in bad-faith. Especially since you made what looks like a fairly typical point threat.  That's why it is always best to talk things out in my opinion.  --JGGardiner 00:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit request
editprotected When article duscusses the No-confidence motion attached to the budget, "rider" should link wiki's article on rider bills. Rotovia 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CFD Recategorization
editprotected

Category:Ontario premiers needs to be replaced with Category:Premiers of Ontario, due to a speedy rename. Thanks. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Done! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks much. :-) Hers fold  (t/a/c) 06:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ecomomic record
Jbacu1985 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC) CJ Currie - can you discuss your objections here without simply deleting what you personally disagree with.


 * I'm against including a detailed quote from an extremely partisan editor with a background in fringe right-wing politics. For clarification, I should add that I'd also oppose including a detailed quote defending Rae's activities.  It's fine to summarize both perspectives, but quoting Reynolds in this fashion seems to cross the line into advocacy.


 * Btw, I think your assessment of the Toronto Symphony strike is problematic as well. (Should we really call it a "disastrous strike"?)  CJCurrie (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jbacu1985 (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC) it was disastrous - lost talent, lost subscribers and the real possibility that the whole Orchestra wopuld cease to exist - you can't get much more disastrous than that for a symphony orchestra - an opinion I can tell you is shared by most subscribers. The source of the quote is Canada'a most middle of the road newspaper. If you read the article and cheched the calculations against the Stat Can and Ontarion M/F statistics, you'll see that it is completely accurate.


 * It may be a commonly held view that the strike was "disastrous", but it is not a neutral view. CJCurrie (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Rae infobox
Rae's first stint as an MP should be included in the infobox. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

First and only, at least this moment. He has not yet assumed office, as the infobox shows. Nor has he succeeded Bill Graham as that article says nor does he represent Toronto Centre as that article says. People have been elected before and died without being sworn into office. Elections have been overturned, parliaments dissolved, etc. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've altered the wording of the article accordingly. Now perhaps someone who is familiar with infoboxes can add in references to Rae's stint as MP for Broadview (1978-1979) and Broadview-Greenwood (1979-1982) and perhaps also as MPP for York South (1982-1996)? Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob Rae now an MP
This should be updated. I would do it, but not permitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.85.224 (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion
The reference to Bob Rae as an Anglican should be removed. From what I have read he considers himself ethnically Jewish, but is an atheist. He is not a member of any Anglican Church, has not raised his children in this religion, and has never described himself as one. Factcorrect12 (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The references to Bob Rae's religion are completely false and rely on unreliable and incorrect information. Rae did not "explore his own Jewish culture," or date Jewish girls exclusively, nor is he a current member of Holy Blossom Temple. The inclusion of this paragraph (which I've copied below) is completely irrelevant and is based on false information and should be removed. I have tried to remove this section of the biography several times because it is false but someone keeps putting it back in clearly with some sort of strange agenda.

(Rae learned of his family's Jewish origins in 1968. The revelation had a strong impact on him, he sought to explore his Jewish culture, dated Jewish girls exclusively and ultimately married a Jewish woman.[9] Upon his marriage to Arlene Perly Rae, Rae agreed to raise his children in his wife's Jewish faith.[10] Rae is a member of Holy Blossom Temple, a Reform Jewish congregation in Toronto.[11]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.101.144 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is sourced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Family (not related to)
The text about who Rae is not related to should be deleted unless there is some really compelling reason to leave it in. Modal Jig (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits by 24.36.211.85
This stuff, to me, seems not to be about Rae per se but about his government. I do not think it belongs here so much as it might in an article about the government itself. Anyway, please weigh in. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Rae stepping down - "Former" MP
With Rae announcing today that he is stepping down, some contributors will be tempted to revise the lead paragraph to describe him as a former MP. Please do not do so until the news media confirms that his resignation is effective. As best as I can understand from the Rae/Trudeau news conference, Rae has not yet announced when his resignation becomes effective (according to CBC a few minutes ago - "He didn't say when his resignation would be effective."). Even though he is announcing his resignation today, it might or might not be effective today. He could possibly, for example, still be the MP for Toronto Centre for another few days or weeks. Right now, the article says that Rae has announced he is stepping down. Until we have a reliable source saying the he is no longer MP, we cannot go on to describe him as the former MP. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * This, a thousand times. I just removed references to a July 1 date which hasn't been reported in any major, reliable sources. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone just added June 19. I am not watching the news like a hawk, so I have no idea if they have since announced it is effective today.  But absent the provision of a reliable source, we should just keep deleting these revisions.  --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the Toronto Star as of approx 4 p.m. EST today, Rae hasn’t yet settled on a date to make his departure formal. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The Parliament of Canada website is now showing "seat vacant" for Toronto Centre. Rae's parliamentary bio tags his current term with the word "resignation".  No date on either site when the resignation became effective.  Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * And on another page on the Parliament of Canada website he's listed as current. The bio page you linked to could just indicate that Mr. Rae resigned before the next election, not that the resignation is already in effect. For the record, it currently lists 3154 days of service, but I'm not sure if summer recess days are counted, so that could be a useless statistic. Nonetheless, without a firm date, it's better to wait and see than spread misinformation. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just an update, both of the websites listed by Skeezix have resumed reporting that Bob Rae is still the MP for Toronto-Centre. If you check the parliamentary bio of recently retired Vic Towes, you can see it gives the official end term for their time in office, so that's what will be used whenever the resignation for Mr. Rae comes into effect. -- -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Here we have been posting about not jumping the gun on describing "Rae" as former, when it appears that parliamentary staff have been doing just that! The wait continues. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that his departure date is July 31. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added the resignation date to the article. If anyone wants to edit or remove it, that's fine. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Bob Rae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615222211/http://www.bobrae.ca:80/en/news.php to http://www.bobrae.ca/en/news.php#23
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081210161630/http://www.liberal.ca:80/news_e.aspx?type=pressrelease to http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?type=pressrelease&id=12112

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bob Rae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615222211/http://www.bobrae.ca:80/en/news.php to http://www.bobrae.ca/en/news.php#16

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Rae. 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/web/20070313184631/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060405/peterson_rae_060405/20060405?hub=Canada to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060405/peterson_rae_060405/20060405?hub=Canada
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120710183422/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/09/scott-stinson-bob-rae-last-hope-for-liberal-ndp-merger-talk/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/09/scott-stinson-bob-rae-last-hope-for-liberal-ndp-merger-talk/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible Incorrect Information
"Bob Rae was in power for 1650 days, the longest term unique to an Ontario premier since the Second World War."

This sentence was in the Premiership section. I am interpreting this as he was the longest serving premier of Ontario since WW2, but that would be incorrect as Bill Davis was longer served and after WW2. Is this sentence supposed to be read a different way? If that is true, can it be changed so as to be read properly? Imperatorhobbes (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * My best guess is that the sentence was intended to convey the meaning that the 1990–95 legislative term was the longest served by an Ontario premier since WW2. I'm not certain why this point would be especially noteworthy, though. CJCurrie (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, that would make sense. Should the sentence be reworded? Imperatorhobbes (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)