Talk:Joe Clark

Untitled
I believe that Mr Clark neither completed a law degree nor became a Canadian lawyer and therefore should not be included in that category. Am I wrong about that? kgw 06:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. At least that is what this article says.  Though he has one of those honourary LLDs that PMs seem to collect.  --JGGardiner 07:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau
Um, is the article correct on that? I thought Justin was talking about making fun of Joe, not Catherine (Especially about the "may disagree with" part)Habsfannova 23:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how Catherine came into this either. HistoryBA 00:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Coat of arms
The coat of arms of the Right Honourable Joe Clark maybe found here http://www.heraldry.ca/arms/c/clark.htm user:ctjj.stevenson

Professor Clark
An announcement October 2nd, 2006 from McGill University states the appointment of the Rt. Hon. Joe Clark as a Professor of Practice for Public-Private Sector Partnerships at the McGill Centre for Developing-Area Studies (CDAS). http://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/news/?ItemID=22068 --Akazie 05:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dalhousie alumnus?
Did he actually graduate from Dalhousie for his law degree? The article says he left before completing his degree. Does that still qualify him for alumnus status? If not, could someone remove the tag?Homagetocatalonia 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe Clark Today
Could someone please do a small write up on the company Joe Clark now heads up that harvests underwater forests? Its really interesting, but I am finding it hard to find the details on it.

Karlheinz Schreiber testimony and the 1983 convention
Karlheinz Schreiber said he flew people to the 1983 convention to vote for Brian Mulroney. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Schreiber#States_that_West_German_funds_financed_Clark.27s_fall

Image of Joe Clark
I added a photo I took of Joe Clark when he was campaigning during the 1979 election. It's not a perfect shot, as the top of his head is out of frame, but I think it is decent. However, I do have more photos from the same day if there is a consensus that this photo is not good enough. Canada Jack (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Defeat in 1980
"NDP Finance Critic Bob Rae attached a rider to a budget bill declaring that "this House has lost confidence in the government." The five Socred MPs had demanded the tax revenues be allocated to Quebec and when that was turned down, they abstained, which ensured the vote's passage on a 139-133 margin."

Can we correct this? Riders can be attached to bills in the US, but not in Canadian parliament. In this case, the Conservative government introduced the budget. The opposition did not attempt to amend the budget or attach a "rider". Instead, NDP MP Bob Rae introduced a motion of non-confidence as a reaction to the budget, and his motion passed 139-133.Guinness323 (talk) 06:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.218.103 (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Clark Today thoughts
The section, "Clark Today," seems to need a retitle (i.e. 2006-present) as it seems that many of the accomplishments listed are in the past tense (I count two 'served's and one 'has written'). I have also reworked the first sentence of the section from "Clark continues to use his experience in foreign affairs" to "Clark continues to apply his experience in foreign affairs." It still sounds somehow vague or incomplete as a sentence, but seems a bit better. On another point, the lead sentence reads, "Joe Clark is a Canadian journalist, politician, statesman, businessman,..." Is he still a journalist (i.e. pays dues to a journalist body) or a politician (i.e. campaigns actively for or holds office)? Perhaps rewording with the word 'former' for example, "Joe Clark, an active Canadian statesman and businessman, is a former Canadian journalist and politician, and is ,..."-- Canad iandy  talk  04:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The other second level headings have a name attached to the years. How's "Post-politics 2004—present"? 117Avenue (talk) 04:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent! Thanks, 117Avenue.-- Canad iandy  talk  14:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Education
The infobox currently states University of Alberta; however, per the article text, the situation is actually more complicated. I suggest either using alma mater instead or removing education from the infobox entirely. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Explain how it is "actually more complicated" and rewrite the main text and add a reference. I use the mobile version so I get my info from the infobox, deleting like you did makes him look uneducated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The main text already explains, no rewriting needed. But thank you for elaborating on the problem: someone using the present mobile version will assume he only attended the University of Alberta, when in fact that is untrue. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You just add the missing info, instead of deleting it all, very simple. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * An infobox is supposed to be "very simple", but that approach eliminates that. Details that take more explanation should be explained in text, not reduced to a value pair; it clutters both the view and the data output. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Work at the template talk page to gain consensus to eliminate those fields you think "clutter" the infobox. Explaining an education is no different than explaining why someone has three spouses. Some marriages end in death, others in divorce, some are annulled. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * We're discussing the use of the parameter here, not across all instances of the template, and here the situation is too complex to be explained neatly in a single parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Your revert rationale is incorrect: the use of alma_mater for a single institution name is perfectly in line with the current documentation of both infobox officeholder and infobox person. Since no consensus has been reached in this discussion, the default is the original version - which in this case was University of Alberta. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The instructions at officeholder are empty. "alma_mater alma_mater no description Default empty Example empty Auto value empty." Which means we default back to the rules at the main template, not make up imaginary ones that do not appear on the page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no "main template" - infobox person and infobox officeholder are two completely different templates, and we don't default to using the parameter documentation of infobox person where documentation for infobox officeholder is absent. You've been told this already. Absent a new consensus for this article (pending the RfC we default to the status quo, which is University of Alberta, not "solutions" that repeat a school twice or list a degree that the subject doesn't appear to actually have. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, unless/until the RfC demonstrates a new consensus, the article defaults to the status quo, which is the version using only alma_mater. I'll add the different display options below so people can see them. Also, please don't remove cn tags unless you provide the needed citation. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit-warring. It's not possible for all choices to be viewed in situ in the article, because we can only display one version - until the RfC closes, that should be the original, stable version. You're welcome to expand the samples below to full infoboxes if you feel that's necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no status quo rule. Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, both withdrew from Harvard and have the institution listed in their infoboxes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes there is, plus there's an ongoing RfC below - wait for it to conclude before deciding the result. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * An RFC is not a "status quo rule". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Plus there is an ongoing RfC - in other words, an additional reason for you not to start making that change again. You're making the argument about what other pages do below, but that doesn't automatically mean we must do the same here. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Noting also FTR your canvassing at those two talk pages. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CANVASS "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions". The status quo in Wikipedia appears to be to include per Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Only if messages are neutral and posted in a neutral forum - yours don't qualify. There are similarly multiple examples of articles that don't include such institutions in the infobox, such as Amanda Hearst and Thomas W. Greelish. The status quo for this article is not to include, and thus far no new consensus has emerged to include. Only if the RfC below closes in favour of including, and only after that happens, should your proposed edit be made. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please show me this status quo rule you keep quoting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:CON/WP:NOCON. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I have posted a request for closure of the below RfC at WP:ANRFC - please leave the original version in place until an uninvolved editor can assess the consensus below. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? You started the formal RfC below, I've requested formal closure so that someone uninvolved can assess whether there is consensus and what that consensus might be. Until that happens, please don't try to impose your own reading of the below. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Which of the two fields that contain his school info should be displayed.
Both sides had valid arguments and 3 users (Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), Alansohn, and Light show) supported a change to showing all three universities in one parameter while 4 users (Nikkimaria, Fyddlestix, SMcCandlish, and FoCuSandLeArN) wished to retain only the institution from which he graduated. Consequently, consensus has not changed and therefore the article retains the previous consensus as of September 2016, listing only the institution from which he graduated. DrKay (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Which of the two fields that contain his school info should be displayed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

All three institutions in the "Education" field

 * ✅ All three which is the accurate info. I am not sure why the University of Alberta is listed as his nourishing mother and not his law school. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Because it's not his law school - it's the only postsecondary school from which he graduated. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither being an alumni or having a nourishing mother requires graduation. Alma Mater "is an allegorical Latin phrase for a university or college. It is used to refer to a school which an individual has attended. In English, the phrase is variously translated as "nourishing mother", "nursing mother", or "fostering mother", suggesting that a school provides intellectual nourishment to its students." (emphasis mine). Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, both withdrew from Harvard and have it listed in their infoboxes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ Whether the term is "education" or "alma mater", the meaning is "where they went to school", not "where they went to school and received a degree". The use of education / alma mater parameters in infoboxes for college dropouts is widespread. Then there are articles for individuals such as Thyra Stevenson, J. Matthew Pinson and Ben Connable, who have their Ph.D.-granting institution listed in an infobox, but are in a status of having completed "all but dissertation", which means that they have not actually received the doctorate degree. I prefer "education" to "alma mater", but either way editors are free to list all of those schools that a person attended, whether or not they graduated; no editor should be forced to add any school attended to an infobox nor should any editor be removing entries from infoboxes based on non-graduation status. That's how I always use it and that's how I see it being widely used. Alansohn (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

✅ Education field only, and only for college education.
 * On a separate issue from the RfC question: I'd consider adding parameters similar to the way we list spouses, but with the college name, number of years there (if known,) and whether they graduated. For Zuk, it might show Education: Harvard Univ. (2 years); Gates, Harvard (2 years); Andrew Grove, as shown with actual degrees.
 * Just stating "withdrew" might be too vague, since these are 4-year colleges. If one person left after 6 months and another after 3 1/2 years, those facts are relevant without having to dig through part of an article. If they graduated, then the degree received is also important. --Light show (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I am confused, it reads as if you are supporting adding institutions for which a person has not graduated, and adding even more information (which is even better than my suggestion, showing how many years they actually attended, and even what department, such as B.S. Chemistry), but you placed your !vote in the column to have that information removed. Can you clarify? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Moved it up here, which I assume is correct. --Light show (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Did you have an opinion as to whether to display the law school or the parent university in the education field. There seems to be a mix of both. Harvard Law School v. Harvard University. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would probably note any "law school" as a separate entity.--Light show (talk) 21:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, when I see a lawyer, I expect to see they attended a law school, and a physician a medical school. If I just see "education=Harvard University" I am left wondering where they attended law school, I expect to see "education=Harvard Law School". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Just one institution in the "Alma_mater" field

 * Either this or none. Per above, his educational history was fragmented. U of A is the only school from which he graduated, although he attended and/or received honorary degrees from others. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This seems like a no brainer to me - the infobox should only list institutions that he actually has a degree from. I don't think it matters much whether it's in the "alma matter" or the "education" field - but listing the other institutions and noting that he withdrew just looks odd. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it a brainer for Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, both withdrew from Harvard and have it listed in their infoboxes? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Just the education parameter, with only the institution(s) from which he has degree(s)

 * Any given person might have attended (for some period) any number of institutions before graduating (or without graduating at all). The only one(s) of encyclopedic relevance in most cases are those from which the person holds one or more degrees. There can be exceptions, e.g. if the person's notability began at (or was largely confined to) their period of attendance at a particular institution they did not graduate from and that institution is in some way related to that notability (as might be the case with a collegiate athlete, or a victim of an on-campus shooting).  The   and   parameters are redundant, and the former can be merged with the latter. This also has the benefit of avoiding a latinism that we have to link to explain, and the definition of which not even everyone agrees with. If for some reason consensus wants to keep both parameters (e.g. one for degree(s), one for institution(s)), still only include data for the graduated-from institutions. The rest is trivia, and while it might be contextually relevant to include in the article as background facts, it does not rise to the "key, central facts" level expected in an infobox.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  05:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Is it trivia for Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, both withdrew from Harvard and have it listed in their infoboxes? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes for Gates; Harvard is not important to Gates's overall life story other than he made some contacts there who were relevant years later in the business for which he is notable. It arguably could be included for Zuckerberg because Facebook was created by him and his dorm-mates while at Harvard. I wouldn't fight for its inclusion in the infobox, though, if others objected, since the relevance of Harvard to Zuckerberg's notability is as a location and social milieu. The connection is not the partial education he received there.  I.e., the presence of Harvard in the education parameter is off-base for why Harvard is relevant to Zuckerberg at all.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Both Alma_mater field and Education field filled in

 * (add opinion here)

Survey

 * Summoned here by bot. Per I believe the third option is the most pertinent one (Just the education parameter, with only the institution[s] from which he has degree[s]). Note I do not know much about the person in question, but adding institutions he briefly attended appears to defeat the infobox's purpose to summarise important life aspects and achievements. This brevity criterion is usually followed; I don't know why it's being called into question now, nor do I see any arguments for a deviation from it. The infobox field details state "degree, institution and graduation year, if relevant. If very little information is available or relevant, the |alma_mater=parameter may be more appropriate" - unless there is a reason why the other institutions need to be in there (i.e. because something relevant happened there that is particularly covered in reliable sources), this is a no-brainer. Best, FoCuS  contribs ;  talk to me!  17:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you confused when you read about Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, both withdrew from Harvard and have it listed in their infoboxes? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joe Clark. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1082910779022_14/?hub=QPeriod
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150318112748/http://secretariat.info.yorku.ca/senate/sub-committee-on-honorary-degrees-and-ceremonials/honorary-degree-recipients/ to http://secretariat.info.yorku.ca/senate/sub-committee-on-honorary-degrees-and-ceremonials/honorary-degree-recipients/

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) 10:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Joe Clark. 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/20140511112126/http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=3c274ef7-36d0-47f0-ace0-f4c8bcfd258d to http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=3c274ef7-36d0-47f0-ace0-f4c8bcfd258d

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) 10:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joe Clark. 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/20130508141912/http://canada.berkeley.edu/CAN%20history%20pamphlet%20continuous%20text.pdf to http://canada.berkeley.edu/CAN%20history%20pamphlet%20continuous%20text.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161220114302/https://www.mcgill.ca/secretariat/files/secretariat/hon-alph_5.pdf to https://www.mcgill.ca/secretariat/files/secretariat/hon-alph_5.pdf

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) 05:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Joe Clark Arms.jpg