This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Jim Flaherty was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 April 2014. |
Christine is the member for Whitby-Ajax, not Whitby-Oshawa. There hasn't been a provincial election in Whitby-Oshawa yet so they cannot share the same riding.
Transplanted little box/table thing from the Tony Clement page. Not sure about the "28th Ministry" business -- can someone figure that out and alter it if appropriate?--
206.248.133.87 17:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
We need a image of Flaherty. Does anyone have one? PS- has anyone noticed the resemblance between Flaherty & Lou Costello? GoodDay 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I hear Flaherty's really short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chtimi ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed some questionable material linked to a blog and some other material. Are there any more reliable sources for this material? TIA -- Tom 14:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've had the following references deleted. Why?
Reason 5: Tory Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, December 29, 2007
Canada Under Seige: Thanks Harper and Flaherty
DSatYVR ( talk) 07:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
More on Diane Francis as a reference
Please feel free to add your comments on the WP:BLP page linked above. DSatYVR ( talk) 16:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
________________
Diane Francis, Editor-at-Large of the Financial Post, is an entrepreneur, author, broadcaster, speaker and columnist. She became a columnist with the Financial Post in 1987, joined its Board of Directors in 1988 and became its Editor from 1991 to 1998 when the paper was bought and incorporated into the National Post. Diane has been a columnist for 25 years with the Toronto Star, Maclean's, the Southam newspaper chain and Sun newspaper chain as well as a regular broadcast commentator on business and politics.'
Diane Francis is certainly a reliable source. In my opinion, however, Wikipedia an WP:RS in particular needs to be updated to reflect the realities of 2008. While it used to be generally an accurate stereotype to consider blogs as unreliable diary-like creations with no accountability, more and more blogs are being considered RS as more and more of them are being put together with the same sort of due diligence as "traditional" journalism. The above referenced Diane Francis blog is a prime example of this. I'm not saying all blogs should be rubber stamped, but I do feel restricting acceptability to those with third-party publication is simply not realistic in 2008. 23skidoo ( talk) 07:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The following citation was deleted from the "2002 Ontario PC leadership Bid" section. Not sure why. I've reinserted it for now pending an explanation.
Send Ontario's Homeless to Jail
DSatYVR ( talk) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Greetings user 142.68.234.58
Yesterday you made a speedy deletion without giving a reason and without starting a discussion to explain your reasons for the deletion. Please read this link before you attempt to make any more speedy deletions:
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
You would also be well advised to carefully read about Wikipedia's rules governing vandalism at this link:
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"Nevertheless, the income from ordinary corporate stock is of course also taxed, and the companies that converted to 'income trusts' from corporations were taking advantage of tax rules designed to benefit retirees rather than ordinary stockholders who became the beneficiaries of the new trusts. It was causing a reduction in estimated government revenue even when future tax revenues were factored in; the advocates for the rule change argued that income trusts were not meant to be a new label for something that effectively acted as a corporation." What does this mean? It needs to be rewritten or deleted IMO because it makes no sense. DSatYVR ( talk) 03:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I have serious concerns about the federal politics section. I have tried to balance out the piece with factual edits, but they have been repeatedly challenged and deleted. There are people dedicated to keeping this artcle one-sided. In the Income Trust section there is clearly a problem with the negative tone and biased slant of the piece. For example, take the passage below:
Diane Francis, editor-at-large for the National Post, urged that the rule changes be recanted, arguing that there were flaws in the policy which hurt ordinary, hard-working Canadian investors.[8][9] Francis pointed out that the root of the problem is that the decision was based on analysis by federal officials who regard RRSPs and pensions as tax "exempts" even though they are merely deferral mechanisms. So the tax leakage analysis numbers are incorrect when it comes to taxes paid by Canadian income trust unitholders.[10]
This section clearly uses language that is partial, with phrases such as “hurt ordinary, hard-working Canadian investors” which is meant to engage the sympathy of the reader. The overall language is clearly not impartial, such as the use of “pointed out” instead of more impartial language, such as “contends” or “argues.” It also clearly states that “tax leakage analysis numbers (are) incorrect” without clearly pointing out that Diane Francis argues this.
Furthermore, this further edit sounds like a pamphlet more than an article. Language such as “numerous gross errors that were made by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.”
Tax leakage, which served as Flaherty’s central policy justification for his 31.5% income trust tax, was addressed during the Goodale Income Trust public consultation process of Fall 2005, during which time HLB Decision Economics worked collaboratively with the Department of Finance and published their findings in paper entitled “The tax revenue implications of income trusts”, dated November 24, 2005. [8] The study, available to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty prior to his October 31, 2006 decision, concluded that there is no tax leakage from income trusts. The author of the study, Dennis Bruce, went on to testify at the Finance Committee’s Public Hearings on Income Trusts in February 2007 and issued a press release following his first day of testimony entitled "Independent economists discredit govt tax leakage claims" which outlines the numerous gross errors that were made by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and the government in asserting the claim of $500 million in annual tax leakage. Bruce concluded the ongoing tax leakage, post 2010, after taking into account legislated tax changes, is $32 million per year, about five percent of Flaherty's figures.[9]
So far in this section, we have one line explaining the argument for taxing income trusts and then a mini-rant for the rest of the section. This is completely different than the public record, which was split on this issue, with such notable economists as Don Drummond and Provincial Finance Ministers coming out in support of the decision. I have tried to reflect this in previous edits, adding other notable economic analysts opinion, yet they are repeatedly taken out, while such obviously biased language as the above continues to be the norm. This whole section needs to be rewritten to reflect the actual debate, and not just POV-pushing. This is actually the problem with the entire “Federal Politics” section. Am I to believe that Minister Flaherty's only accomplishments over the past four years are an income trust decision, a public comment on “potholes” and an issue with office contracts? Can anyone with a straight face actually call this encyclopaedia quality? Clearly this is an example of undue weight. I would edit the piece myself and note all of Minister Flaherty's achievements, but it would seem that some people are only interested in ensuring this article remain critical and one sided.
It is important to note that in the Income Trust section it should reflect the fact that income trusts in Canada have fully recovered their value and are now performing slightly better than stocks. Please see attached link:
http://www.thestar.com/mobile/business/article/883317
( 192.197.54.28 ( talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)).
I apologize for not signing in the last time, I am just new to the process. I was just trying to add some information to the Income Trust section in an attempt to balance it out. In terms of the Federal Politics Section, it should be updated to reflect some of the major decisions and events in Minister Flaherty's term of office. If you think about it, he has now been Finance Minister for over four years and has delivered five national budgets, five fall economic statements and attended numerous international economic meetings. It may be advantageous to organize this section around budget achievements considering their central importance to the Department of Finance specifically and the government generally. Many of Minister Flaherty's achievements have simply been omited such as Tax Free Savings Accounts, Registered Disability Savings Plans, his successful opposition to an internationally imposed bank tax and his response to the global recession through the canadian economic Action plan. In terms of the current federal politics sections (income trusts, potholes, contracts) I believe they should be shortened as they are (with the exception of income trusts) pretty minor in the grand scheme of things and there is an obvious case of undue weight. Earlier in this discussion, another contributor also suggested the income trust section be summarized. When you compare Minister Flaherty’s page to that to federal Cabinet Minister John Baird it is clear just how poorly written the Flaherty entry truly is ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baird_(Canadian_politician)) This situation should be corrected, not just to add balance to the Flaherty pages, to preserve the credibility of Wikipedia. ( ThePosterMan ( talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)).
I have deleted the section for undue weight, poor sourcing, original research and POV. This article is meant to be a biography, not a recent history of the Canadian economy, and this section wasn't really about Flaherty. More problematic are the sourcing/POV/original research issues. For example, the sentence Flaherty's leadership during the Great Recession and budgetary measures helped pull Canada out of the recession is sourced with an article that does not mention Flaherty at all. It is therefore original research, and possibly POV-pushing, to credit Flaherty. The sentence Since coming out of the recession, Flaherty's measures have helped create "over 1 million net new jobs" is sourced to an article that mentions and even quotes Flaherty, but does not say that it was his measures that created the jobs. Again, it's original research, and apparently in promotion of a POV.
The article has been hugely expanded recently, and some of it is still problematic for the same reasons as this section. In the spirit of bold, revert, discuss, I hope we can discuss this here. Cheers, Dawn Bard ( talk) 18:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the Universal Childcare Benefit section because of sourcing and original research - the only citation was to a primary source, and that source does not mention Flaherty. Primary sources are not ideal, and of course, it is original research to add this to a Flaherty bio if the source doesn't mention Flaherty. Cheers, Dawn Bard ( talk) 19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
OK -- I trimmed a bit - trying to make it readable and useful for the readers. Collect ( talk) 11:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I recently re-posted this section, made appropriate changes and changed the sources to trace it to Jim Flaherty and it was immediately deleted. May I ask why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmfmo ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
But Flaherty implemented it in his first Budget. It was one of the cornerstone's. Also, out of curiousity what does BLPs stand for? Thanks Jmfmo ( talk)
I agree with other editors on this page, that there is excessive detail in the article, and problems with the references. I have made a few edits accordingly. I have deleted the section, Registered Disability Savings Plan. There are no secondary sources cited for the info in this section. The first of the two paras of this section is ref'd to a primary source, a government website. That might be OK if the information was also ref'd to a reliable secondary source, but it isn't. The 2nd para of the section is also ref'd to non-compliant sources: 1) the website of an advocacy group and 2) a press release from Mr Flaherty's ministry office. These problems could be overcome with a bit of homework to find appropriate sources. EMP ( talk 23:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Since I first inserted information here on 19 January 2014 about the American Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, we have had a bit of activity on this article which has not been updated since 15 August 2013. Looks like some feathers were ruffled, but the end result, at least so far, is a return to the version of 19 January 2014 with a bit of an update at the end of the section:
On February 5, 2014, Flaherty signed Canada on as a participant to FATCA through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).
Is everyone happy with this version? Does the material inserted here by others really not belong here? Please voice your opinon. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
And no matter how tempting, do not belong in giographies of living persons. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 04:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
>>> Flaherty's skin condition has been common knowledge and is in the public domain. Bullous Pemphigoid is a serious condition, and can be very serious, occasionally life-threatening, so comparisons to acne are not fitting. Wikipedia guidelines do not oblige censoring health information in BLPs. In fact, it's very common to have find BLPs contain health details (such as Diane Finley's eye condition). The standard is about being neutral and brief, ie, "Flaherty has a skin condition called Bullous Pemphigoid" as opposed to "Flaherty has a skin condition called Bullous Pemphigoid that's gross and everyday he goes through a routine that involves x, y, z, ...". Written in a neutral tone while avoiding elaborate details remains entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy. Realistically, however, can Wikipedia policies ever keep up with dedicated partisan editors? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.106.98 ( talk) 16:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
First read
WP:AGF. Second, your accusation that I and others have biases in Canadian politics is ludicrous. Third, the skin condition is not life threatening in the case at hand, so that implication is also ludicrous. Now can we get back to the norms for
WP:BLP here, and allow that this skin condition is not especially relevant in the biography at hand? Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 16:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
>>>> Someone makes a suggestion that this might be politically motivated only to be challenged with a a response on the grounds of good faith...by a reply that came within 8 minutes!?! I'll pretend that someone who has a WP edit-alert for a conservative minister *isn't* a complete partisan, and just point out that I raised the valid point that health remarks (when neutral and concise) have a long tradition of being acceptable policy in BLPs [that was my key pt -- the one you complete dodged]. Bullous Pemphigoid is a horrible affliction. Taking Prednisone every to treat the condition wreaks havoc on your system, so this is hardly a petty little "skin issue". Meanwhile earlier this week, Flaherty openly confesses to being undecided on running again -- significant news, when a cabinet minister says that. This is a health issue that doesn't just clear up (Flaherty will probably be reliant on percription drugs in some way or another for the rest of his life, unfortunately). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.106.98 ( talk) 18:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It says in the personal details section that he was a Roman Catholic. However, his state funeral is being held at St. James Cathedral in Toronto which is Anglican. That seems to indicate he was a Protestant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.26.192 ( talk) 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
For the record, people can and do change their religious affiliation from one Christian denomination to another, or from one religion to another, or from a religion to none at all. It happens all the time. So indeed, just because a person was born Catholic doesn't mean they remained Catholic for their entire lives — but the funeral being in an Anglican church doesn't, in and of itself, prove anything either. There was also a complicated debate about Jack Layton after his death, because he also had sourceable ties to a church outside of his official denomination too. So it's best not to speculate or assume anything — his religion wasn't a particularly defining aspect of his political career to begin with, so it's not as though it's harming anything to wait until we can properly confirm what church he actually attended and what denomination he actually identified with as an adult. Bearcat ( talk) 06:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jim Flaherty. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Flaherty. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Jim Flaherty. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hC85lSgl9cX-zg9HGBYbVu2QIBaQWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Flaherty. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH is important. The section about his personal life and death seems to have a problem.
Current version:
In January 2013, Flaherty announced he had bullous pemphigoid.[58] He was treated with prednisone, a corticosteroid with powerful known side effects.[59]
Flaherty died on April 10, 2014, at his home in Ottawa after suffering a heart attack at the age of 64.[60] One doctor, in commenting on Flaherty's medical condition said: "When you see someone of his age pass away and it was, for all intents and purposes, suddenly, you have to start asking these types of questions [about side-effects]".[59]
---
I looked up citation 59. Nowhere does it say that heart attack is a side effect of prednisone. Therefore, I will modify the passage to read
In January 2013, Flaherty announced he had bullous pemphigoid.[58] He was treated with prednisone.[59]
Flaherty died on April 10, 2014, at his home in Ottawa after suffering a heart attack at the age of 64.[60]
Disclaimer: until today, I never heard of Flaherty. I am not for or against him because I don't know who he was, as a politician. Vanguard10 ( talk) 04:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Jim Flaherty was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 April 2014. |
Christine is the member for Whitby-Ajax, not Whitby-Oshawa. There hasn't been a provincial election in Whitby-Oshawa yet so they cannot share the same riding.
Transplanted little box/table thing from the Tony Clement page. Not sure about the "28th Ministry" business -- can someone figure that out and alter it if appropriate?--
206.248.133.87 17:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
We need a image of Flaherty. Does anyone have one? PS- has anyone noticed the resemblance between Flaherty & Lou Costello? GoodDay 23:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I hear Flaherty's really short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chtimi ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I have removed some questionable material linked to a blog and some other material. Are there any more reliable sources for this material? TIA -- Tom 14:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've had the following references deleted. Why?
Reason 5: Tory Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, December 29, 2007
Canada Under Seige: Thanks Harper and Flaherty
DSatYVR ( talk) 07:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
More on Diane Francis as a reference
Please feel free to add your comments on the WP:BLP page linked above. DSatYVR ( talk) 16:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
________________
Diane Francis, Editor-at-Large of the Financial Post, is an entrepreneur, author, broadcaster, speaker and columnist. She became a columnist with the Financial Post in 1987, joined its Board of Directors in 1988 and became its Editor from 1991 to 1998 when the paper was bought and incorporated into the National Post. Diane has been a columnist for 25 years with the Toronto Star, Maclean's, the Southam newspaper chain and Sun newspaper chain as well as a regular broadcast commentator on business and politics.'
Diane Francis is certainly a reliable source. In my opinion, however, Wikipedia an WP:RS in particular needs to be updated to reflect the realities of 2008. While it used to be generally an accurate stereotype to consider blogs as unreliable diary-like creations with no accountability, more and more blogs are being considered RS as more and more of them are being put together with the same sort of due diligence as "traditional" journalism. The above referenced Diane Francis blog is a prime example of this. I'm not saying all blogs should be rubber stamped, but I do feel restricting acceptability to those with third-party publication is simply not realistic in 2008. 23skidoo ( talk) 07:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The following citation was deleted from the "2002 Ontario PC leadership Bid" section. Not sure why. I've reinserted it for now pending an explanation.
Send Ontario's Homeless to Jail
DSatYVR ( talk) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Greetings user 142.68.234.58
Yesterday you made a speedy deletion without giving a reason and without starting a discussion to explain your reasons for the deletion. Please read this link before you attempt to make any more speedy deletions:
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion
You would also be well advised to carefully read about Wikipedia's rules governing vandalism at this link:
Boyd Reimer ( talk) 11:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"Nevertheless, the income from ordinary corporate stock is of course also taxed, and the companies that converted to 'income trusts' from corporations were taking advantage of tax rules designed to benefit retirees rather than ordinary stockholders who became the beneficiaries of the new trusts. It was causing a reduction in estimated government revenue even when future tax revenues were factored in; the advocates for the rule change argued that income trusts were not meant to be a new label for something that effectively acted as a corporation." What does this mean? It needs to be rewritten or deleted IMO because it makes no sense. DSatYVR ( talk) 03:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I have serious concerns about the federal politics section. I have tried to balance out the piece with factual edits, but they have been repeatedly challenged and deleted. There are people dedicated to keeping this artcle one-sided. In the Income Trust section there is clearly a problem with the negative tone and biased slant of the piece. For example, take the passage below:
Diane Francis, editor-at-large for the National Post, urged that the rule changes be recanted, arguing that there were flaws in the policy which hurt ordinary, hard-working Canadian investors.[8][9] Francis pointed out that the root of the problem is that the decision was based on analysis by federal officials who regard RRSPs and pensions as tax "exempts" even though they are merely deferral mechanisms. So the tax leakage analysis numbers are incorrect when it comes to taxes paid by Canadian income trust unitholders.[10]
This section clearly uses language that is partial, with phrases such as “hurt ordinary, hard-working Canadian investors” which is meant to engage the sympathy of the reader. The overall language is clearly not impartial, such as the use of “pointed out” instead of more impartial language, such as “contends” or “argues.” It also clearly states that “tax leakage analysis numbers (are) incorrect” without clearly pointing out that Diane Francis argues this.
Furthermore, this further edit sounds like a pamphlet more than an article. Language such as “numerous gross errors that were made by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.”
Tax leakage, which served as Flaherty’s central policy justification for his 31.5% income trust tax, was addressed during the Goodale Income Trust public consultation process of Fall 2005, during which time HLB Decision Economics worked collaboratively with the Department of Finance and published their findings in paper entitled “The tax revenue implications of income trusts”, dated November 24, 2005. [8] The study, available to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty prior to his October 31, 2006 decision, concluded that there is no tax leakage from income trusts. The author of the study, Dennis Bruce, went on to testify at the Finance Committee’s Public Hearings on Income Trusts in February 2007 and issued a press release following his first day of testimony entitled "Independent economists discredit govt tax leakage claims" which outlines the numerous gross errors that were made by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and the government in asserting the claim of $500 million in annual tax leakage. Bruce concluded the ongoing tax leakage, post 2010, after taking into account legislated tax changes, is $32 million per year, about five percent of Flaherty's figures.[9]
So far in this section, we have one line explaining the argument for taxing income trusts and then a mini-rant for the rest of the section. This is completely different than the public record, which was split on this issue, with such notable economists as Don Drummond and Provincial Finance Ministers coming out in support of the decision. I have tried to reflect this in previous edits, adding other notable economic analysts opinion, yet they are repeatedly taken out, while such obviously biased language as the above continues to be the norm. This whole section needs to be rewritten to reflect the actual debate, and not just POV-pushing. This is actually the problem with the entire “Federal Politics” section. Am I to believe that Minister Flaherty's only accomplishments over the past four years are an income trust decision, a public comment on “potholes” and an issue with office contracts? Can anyone with a straight face actually call this encyclopaedia quality? Clearly this is an example of undue weight. I would edit the piece myself and note all of Minister Flaherty's achievements, but it would seem that some people are only interested in ensuring this article remain critical and one sided.
It is important to note that in the Income Trust section it should reflect the fact that income trusts in Canada have fully recovered their value and are now performing slightly better than stocks. Please see attached link:
http://www.thestar.com/mobile/business/article/883317
( 192.197.54.28 ( talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)).
I apologize for not signing in the last time, I am just new to the process. I was just trying to add some information to the Income Trust section in an attempt to balance it out. In terms of the Federal Politics Section, it should be updated to reflect some of the major decisions and events in Minister Flaherty's term of office. If you think about it, he has now been Finance Minister for over four years and has delivered five national budgets, five fall economic statements and attended numerous international economic meetings. It may be advantageous to organize this section around budget achievements considering their central importance to the Department of Finance specifically and the government generally. Many of Minister Flaherty's achievements have simply been omited such as Tax Free Savings Accounts, Registered Disability Savings Plans, his successful opposition to an internationally imposed bank tax and his response to the global recession through the canadian economic Action plan. In terms of the current federal politics sections (income trusts, potholes, contracts) I believe they should be shortened as they are (with the exception of income trusts) pretty minor in the grand scheme of things and there is an obvious case of undue weight. Earlier in this discussion, another contributor also suggested the income trust section be summarized. When you compare Minister Flaherty’s page to that to federal Cabinet Minister John Baird it is clear just how poorly written the Flaherty entry truly is ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Baird_(Canadian_politician)) This situation should be corrected, not just to add balance to the Flaherty pages, to preserve the credibility of Wikipedia. ( ThePosterMan ( talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)).
I have deleted the section for undue weight, poor sourcing, original research and POV. This article is meant to be a biography, not a recent history of the Canadian economy, and this section wasn't really about Flaherty. More problematic are the sourcing/POV/original research issues. For example, the sentence Flaherty's leadership during the Great Recession and budgetary measures helped pull Canada out of the recession is sourced with an article that does not mention Flaherty at all. It is therefore original research, and possibly POV-pushing, to credit Flaherty. The sentence Since coming out of the recession, Flaherty's measures have helped create "over 1 million net new jobs" is sourced to an article that mentions and even quotes Flaherty, but does not say that it was his measures that created the jobs. Again, it's original research, and apparently in promotion of a POV.
The article has been hugely expanded recently, and some of it is still problematic for the same reasons as this section. In the spirit of bold, revert, discuss, I hope we can discuss this here. Cheers, Dawn Bard ( talk) 18:55, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the Universal Childcare Benefit section because of sourcing and original research - the only citation was to a primary source, and that source does not mention Flaherty. Primary sources are not ideal, and of course, it is original research to add this to a Flaherty bio if the source doesn't mention Flaherty. Cheers, Dawn Bard ( talk) 19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
OK -- I trimmed a bit - trying to make it readable and useful for the readers. Collect ( talk) 11:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I recently re-posted this section, made appropriate changes and changed the sources to trace it to Jim Flaherty and it was immediately deleted. May I ask why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmfmo ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
But Flaherty implemented it in his first Budget. It was one of the cornerstone's. Also, out of curiousity what does BLPs stand for? Thanks Jmfmo ( talk)
I agree with other editors on this page, that there is excessive detail in the article, and problems with the references. I have made a few edits accordingly. I have deleted the section, Registered Disability Savings Plan. There are no secondary sources cited for the info in this section. The first of the two paras of this section is ref'd to a primary source, a government website. That might be OK if the information was also ref'd to a reliable secondary source, but it isn't. The 2nd para of the section is also ref'd to non-compliant sources: 1) the website of an advocacy group and 2) a press release from Mr Flaherty's ministry office. These problems could be overcome with a bit of homework to find appropriate sources. EMP ( talk 23:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Since I first inserted information here on 19 January 2014 about the American Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, we have had a bit of activity on this article which has not been updated since 15 August 2013. Looks like some feathers were ruffled, but the end result, at least so far, is a return to the version of 19 January 2014 with a bit of an update at the end of the section:
On February 5, 2014, Flaherty signed Canada on as a participant to FATCA through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA).
Is everyone happy with this version? Does the material inserted here by others really not belong here? Please voice your opinon. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 19:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
And no matter how tempting, do not belong in giographies of living persons. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 04:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
>>> Flaherty's skin condition has been common knowledge and is in the public domain. Bullous Pemphigoid is a serious condition, and can be very serious, occasionally life-threatening, so comparisons to acne are not fitting. Wikipedia guidelines do not oblige censoring health information in BLPs. In fact, it's very common to have find BLPs contain health details (such as Diane Finley's eye condition). The standard is about being neutral and brief, ie, "Flaherty has a skin condition called Bullous Pemphigoid" as opposed to "Flaherty has a skin condition called Bullous Pemphigoid that's gross and everyday he goes through a routine that involves x, y, z, ...". Written in a neutral tone while avoiding elaborate details remains entirely consistent with Wikipedia policy. Realistically, however, can Wikipedia policies ever keep up with dedicated partisan editors? Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.106.98 ( talk) 16:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
First read
WP:AGF. Second, your accusation that I and others have biases in Canadian politics is ludicrous. Third, the skin condition is not life threatening in the case at hand, so that implication is also ludicrous. Now can we get back to the norms for
WP:BLP here, and allow that this skin condition is not especially relevant in the biography at hand? Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 16:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
>>>> Someone makes a suggestion that this might be politically motivated only to be challenged with a a response on the grounds of good faith...by a reply that came within 8 minutes!?! I'll pretend that someone who has a WP edit-alert for a conservative minister *isn't* a complete partisan, and just point out that I raised the valid point that health remarks (when neutral and concise) have a long tradition of being acceptable policy in BLPs [that was my key pt -- the one you complete dodged]. Bullous Pemphigoid is a horrible affliction. Taking Prednisone every to treat the condition wreaks havoc on your system, so this is hardly a petty little "skin issue". Meanwhile earlier this week, Flaherty openly confesses to being undecided on running again -- significant news, when a cabinet minister says that. This is a health issue that doesn't just clear up (Flaherty will probably be reliant on percription drugs in some way or another for the rest of his life, unfortunately). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.106.98 ( talk) 18:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It says in the personal details section that he was a Roman Catholic. However, his state funeral is being held at St. James Cathedral in Toronto which is Anglican. That seems to indicate he was a Protestant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.26.192 ( talk) 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
For the record, people can and do change their religious affiliation from one Christian denomination to another, or from one religion to another, or from a religion to none at all. It happens all the time. So indeed, just because a person was born Catholic doesn't mean they remained Catholic for their entire lives — but the funeral being in an Anglican church doesn't, in and of itself, prove anything either. There was also a complicated debate about Jack Layton after his death, because he also had sourceable ties to a church outside of his official denomination too. So it's best not to speculate or assume anything — his religion wasn't a particularly defining aspect of his political career to begin with, so it's not as though it's harming anything to wait until we can properly confirm what church he actually attended and what denomination he actually identified with as an adult. Bearcat ( talk) 06:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jim Flaherty. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Flaherty. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Jim Flaherty. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hC85lSgl9cX-zg9HGBYbVu2QIBaQWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Flaherty. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH is important. The section about his personal life and death seems to have a problem.
Current version:
In January 2013, Flaherty announced he had bullous pemphigoid.[58] He was treated with prednisone, a corticosteroid with powerful known side effects.[59]
Flaherty died on April 10, 2014, at his home in Ottawa after suffering a heart attack at the age of 64.[60] One doctor, in commenting on Flaherty's medical condition said: "When you see someone of his age pass away and it was, for all intents and purposes, suddenly, you have to start asking these types of questions [about side-effects]".[59]
---
I looked up citation 59. Nowhere does it say that heart attack is a side effect of prednisone. Therefore, I will modify the passage to read
In January 2013, Flaherty announced he had bullous pemphigoid.[58] He was treated with prednisone.[59]
Flaherty died on April 10, 2014, at his home in Ottawa after suffering a heart attack at the age of 64.[60]
Disclaimer: until today, I never heard of Flaherty. I am not for or against him because I don't know who he was, as a politician. Vanguard10 ( talk) 04:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)