Talk:George Johnson (Manitoba politician)

NPOV
The current edit isn't so much a bio piece as a hagiography. I agree that George Johnson was a good administrator and all, but ... come on.

I'm putting up this notice to remind myself that it needs to be changed. CJCurrie 00:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The writer CJ Currie is singularly uninformed about Manitoba politics and the achievements of Dr. Johnson. To call a man with a legacy like Dr. Johnson's a 'good administrator' is a an insulting and patronizing put-down by somebody who is clearly biased against Dr. Johnson (and own't admit it). (Indeed, in an earlier version, this same CJCurrie took pains to diminish Dr. Johnson by pointing out that Dr. Johnson did not win the leadership of the Manitoba PC Party, even citing the number of votes he received.) The achievements of Dr. Johnson, as cited in the revised biography, are accurate and because of these achievements, he was indeed one of the most important politicians in Manitoba in the twentieth century. The implementation of medicare in Manitoba stands as the most important social and medical innovation in Manitoba history. This was managed by Dr. Johnson. The establishment of the Universities of Winnipeg and Brandon, and what is now Red River Community College, along with the expansion of the University of Manitoba and the implementation of 'shared services' in the schools, stand as the most important educational achievements in Manitoba in the twentieth century. These achievements were realized under Dr. Johnson's watch. I could go on and on about Dr. Johnson's achievements but I think I have proven my point. In the end, the revised bio of Dr. Johnson is fully accurate and it is a pity that uninformed amateur historians like CJCurrie want to distort history. As far as I am concerned, anything CJCurrie says should be considered disputable, given his apparent lack of knowledge of what he speaks. And the fact that he has to 'remind himself' that he should change the content (of what is now an accurate bio) does not speak well of his intellectual faculties. [unsigned]


 * As a point of fact, Dr. Johnson failed to win the PC Party leadership in 1967. He finished last in a field of four candidates.  I fail to see how mentioning this makes me an "amateur historian".  In any event, I have no problem with your decision to provide more information on Johnson's role in implementing medicare in Manitoba.  What I object to is the glowing, almost blushing prose in the current edit.  CJCurrie 21:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As the one who corrected Mr. Currie's first version on Dr. Johnson, which greatly understated Dr. Johnson's achievements, I will concede that while everything I wrote is true, a few of my adjectives may be seen as non-objective (especially by persons like Mr. Currie, who has denigrated Dr. Johnson, intentional or not.) Hence, I will re-edit the piece so that it is more purely objective, while still properly reciting Dr. Johnson't many achievements. Regarding Dr. Johnson's achievements, I invite Mr. Currie to consult the Manitoba history: in Tom Peterson's (widely respected socialist and former U of Manitoba political science professor) articles on Manitoba politics, including the long piece in 'Canadian Provincial Politics', he cites Dr. Johnson as the leading reformer in what is conceded to be the most progressive and effective provincial administration in Manitoba history. Other writers, including longtime political writer and editor Nicholas Hills, have said the same thing. Logically, if Dr. Johnson was the one presiding over the most significant reforms (e.g. in health and education policy) in the most reformist government in Manitoba history, then it follows that he is the "leading reformer" of that administration, which makes him one of the leading reformers of the century (by definition) in these policy areas. This is not exaggerated nor is it biased. It is fact.  Nor is it disputed by historians or by politicians of all affiliation.  Indeed, if you ask Gary Doer (who is not a Conservative, but rather the current socialist NDP Premier of Manitoba) who the great reformers in Manitoba history have been, he will put Dr. Johnson at, or very near the top, of the list. And this is from an NDP premier!  Finally, while Dr. Johnson may have finished last in the 1967 Manitoba PC race, this means nothing of itself (a fact I pointed out in my first edit).  By citing this fact without any context, Mr. Currie does indeed diminish Dr. Johnson, as the unsigned writer has pointed out.  The indisputable fact (which can be confirmed by talking to Sterling Lyon, who was an opponent of Dr. Johnson in this race, and later became Premier) is that Dr. Johnson finished fourth only because he was very late in entering the race. He was by far the most popular 'second choice' of delegates at the convention.  (Mr. Currie should consult the stories on the leadership race in the Winnipeg Tribune and Winnipeg Free Press, during October and November 1967, which verify this assertion of mine).  Had Dr. Johnson gathered a mere handful of additional votes and survived into the second ballot, it is very likely he would have become Premier, given that supporters of Mr. Lyon would have shifted over to Dr. Johnson to stop Walter Weir (who won in a last ballot victory over Mr. Lyon) who was seen as too rural-based and too right-wing by many Lyon delegates.  I was involved in that leadership race and was on the floor of the Winnipeg Auditorium on the day of the vote. As noted, my view of events is shared by virtually everyone with whom I have subsequently spoken to about the convention, including Mr. Lyon.  So, Mr. Currie, check out my revised edit and if, after doing so, you don't remove the 'disputed' claim on the biography then I will be asking the Wikipedia people to remove it and to relieve you of any status you have as a so-called 'expert' on Manitoba politics.  Nothing personal, sir, but you don't know the history like I do, and you are not being fair.  Dr. Johnson may no longer be with us, but those of us who long admired his skill and compassion will not permit people to trivialize his achievements or diminish him.  - Jimmyu

With respect, I think you're taking this much too personally. I haven't "denigrated" Dr. Johnson's legacy by reporting that he finished fourth in the 1967 convention, nor was I intending to diminish his historical status in my original edit. I appreciate the additional information you've provided concerning his health and education reforms, although I also stand by my criticisms of your draft. It might surprise you to know that I have a fair bit of respect for Johnson's legacy; I simply don't want to turn this page into a promotional site.

I'll remove the NPOV notice for now, and edit the page in more detail later. CJCurrie 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Currie: Any further 'edits' by you to the piece, as it now stands, will be reviewed by me for accuracy and fairness. The bio as it stands is hardly a 'promotional site'; indeed, it is far too parsimonious in its recounting of Dr. Johnson's legacy. Still, I can live with it as it stands, but it does not need any more editing by you. I will be watching. And I am not taking this personally; I am merely trying to get you to be fair and not so patronizing in your comments. You denigrated Dr. Johnson's legacy by contemptuously referring to him as merely a "good administrator" in your first bio article. (And now you are saying that this wasn't a put down. So much for your purported objectivity.) There is a colossal difference, sir, between a good adminstrator and a man of ideas like Dr. Johnson who achieved substantive and historic policy achievements for Manitoba. In sum, the piece as it now stands does not need any more input from you. And by the way, as the self-appointed authority on Manitoba politics, perhaps you could tell me what your academic and political credentials are, given the way you have treated Dr. Johnson and other Manitoba politicians. I really don't think you know much. -Jimmyu, November 21, 2006

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)