This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The person behind the Neutralizer, Ottawaman, Canuckster, BarbWatts, Methodology, etc accounts and Bell Sympatico dynamic IPs has been community banned. They have promised they will not edit WP again, but if they do, all their edits can be reverted and such reversions are exempt from 3RR. Sockpuppets are listed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Neutralizer. Sarah 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
in spite of his followers lying about Iggy, he still lost.
142.150.48.149 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Dr. Research
I notice that the religion part of the infobox has been of the recent activity here. Checking the link, what I saw was from sufficient in my opinion. Valpy's "I think he sometimes goes to a service" is far from evidence that is needed here. It might be the best we've got but we shouldn't just put in the best that we know when we don't know very much. So, does somebody have a better source on his religion? If not, it should be removed from the infobox. -- JGGardiner 08:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This is just a clarification for Neutralizer and his various personas that I am not a former admin or a former editor. Neither is Daniel Bryant. We have simply had our usernames changed to User:Sarah and User:Daniel. We both still monitor this article. And will file the abuse report with your ISP if you start up again. Sarah 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Biography: Should it not read From 1964 to 1975, Ignatieff worked as a journalist at The Globe and Mail newspaper.
Instead of from From 1964 to 1965??? Jhcarleton 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm against including too much about the by-elections. Although the accusations did have impact, that isn't really relevant to Ignatieff himself. A rumor is important if it affects someone but we don't know that it really affected Ignatieff and we don't know that it was true so I wouldn't include it here. Although it does have a place in some other articles perhaps. -- JGGardiner 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The section stating, "The Liberals were badly defeated in all ridings, most notably their former stronghold of Outremont. Ignatieff has since urges his party to come together, says "united we win, divided we lose"." is clearly POV as it uses subjective terminology, further it is has misspellings and creates a box separate from the text. Clearly a poor edit. Further, the text above that statement writes that the "Globe and Mail suggests..." which is original research and violates the fact that Wiki is not a news tabloid. These edits are obviously unencyclopedic and only included by an editor who wises to use Wiki as his/her Soapbox. This is a textbook case of poor editing where the spelling is incorrect, incorrectly formatted, improperly cited per WP:CITE, and highly subjective. -- Strothra 17:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
These additions are perfectly consistent with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. And as speculation is permitted for the Liberal leadership convention... GoldDragon 00:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we also have a section on the environmental platform during his leadership bid, and mention his advocacy for a carbon tax? this is notable because it became a central plank of the party platform in the 2008 election —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.58.150 ( talk) 20:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The article states that Ignatieff volunteered for Lester Pearson in the York South riding, yet for his entire career Pearson represented Algoma East. Is what is meant that Ignatieff volunteered for the Liberal Party? fishhead64 ( talk) 15:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless interim leaders are added to that Template, it (the template) should be removed from this article. Ignatieff is not the Leader of the Liberal Party; he's interim leader. GoodDay ( talk) 16:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This guy betrayed his russian blood by siding with the albanians "nation building" while they kidnapped Serbs and stole their organs. Shame on you Ignatieff!! You do not deserve such a noble Russian name you coward! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.96.186 ( talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph about the leadership succession is obviously missing certain current events:
I'm not in the mood to do the legwork and dig out his position statements re the Coalition, and the op-ed pieces that say he's cool to it, or what he's said since etc; when the coalition first was announced it was also assumed - briefly - that it would be either Ignatieff or Rae, I mean by mentioning that that that's citable [huh don't know how to punctuate that, if at all..]; this pragraph currently comes off like Bob Rae had no other reason to bow out than Ignatieff booking in...he did announce before all the turkey-dancing started didn't he? Skookum1 ( talk) 22:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
References
I've read that he supported the Bush war against iraq,& he supported the Bush "soft" torture. Perhaps worthy of mention?
His life has been that of an observer and a joiner. What he has joined is telling. When the George Bush administration (with Britains Tony Blair) was building the Iraq weapons-of-mass-destruction-lie in order to invade, Ignatieff joined the bad guys. We remember the air was hot with disagreement about invasion, and Ignatieff supported the Bush side arguing to invade Iraq.
Almost worse when, more recently, the argument about Terror and Torture was aflame, Ignatieff not only supported George Bushs so-called policy of soft torture (activity that Barack Obama has since categorically ruled out) but he did so in one of his books that is there for all to read.
Ignatieffs published position in that book is ugly. He has rejected both of those positions since. Fine. But in the Canadian parliament he voted with the Harperites to extend Canadas role in Afghanistan, and he won his nomination in Etobicoke-Lakeshore by a setup what one might describe as unsavoury manipulation.
In the light of all that we have to ask what he will approve of and then live to regret among the Stephen Harper policies he endorses? Having helped wreck Canadian democracy, an apology and retraction from Ignatieff some time in the future will be of little use or comfort.
Winston Churchills basic statement about parliaments still stands: the role of the Opposition is to oppose. Ignatieff has brushed that rule aside in his first weeks as Liberal leader.
"To defeat evil we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interogations, targeted assasinations, even pre-emptive war" Micheal Ignatieff New York Times op-ed piece May 2, 2004
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.3.220 ( talk) 03:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand that he usually sides with those in power and is a big appeaser (domestically) as well as in the want to maintain the Status Quo. In saying so I would bet much of my earnings that he would not arrest George W. Bush if he came into our borders again, which is what Canadian law calls for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.197.222 ( talk) 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Since he's leader of the opposition, doesn't he get the prefix before his name? Or is that just once the house comes back? -- 72.38.3.14 ( talk) 01:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Any reason why this section should be removed? Sounds neutral and Sounds well sourced with a reference form the NYT magazine, so I don't see why it should be removed. JForget 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
We know that Ignatieff definitely has a BA in history from Trinity College at University of Toronto and a PhD from Harvard University. Those two facts are well known and documented. But the infobox also lists Oxford as an alma mater and I can't find any source that mentions an Oxford degree. In fact, the Canadian Who's Who (published by Toronto) actually says he has an MA from Cambridge, but that date is later than his Harvard PhD. So which is correct, Oxford or Cambridge, both or neither? 209.195.107.124 ( talk) 02:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't edit the article because it's semi-protected. It says Ignatieff speaks English and French fluently, but it doesn't say which is his native language. Having heard him speak both languages, I presume it's English. 67.150.252.101 ( talk) 09:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I've actually been fortunate enough to have heard him speak several different languages in person. English is his native language and he is a gifted speaker and an extraordinary writer in that language. His second language French is excellent, fluent, extremely literate, virtually flawless, and of near-native quality.
He also knows how to say some basic Russian sentences too and his accent is pretty good. Mardiste ( talk) 01:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The whole second paragraph of "Interim Leader of the Liberal Party" section is cited by a source that not only doesn't verify the content but says the opposite about Ignatieff's feelings about the coalition. Is there a source for this or is it rumour mongering and OR? DoubleBlue ( talk) 21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
"After Parliament was prorogued, delaying the non-confidence motion until January 2009, Ignatieff and other party insiders put pressure on Dion to resign immediately." I'm not sure how anyone can verify this quote unless it was written by a "Liberal insider." It certainly isn't corroborated by the cited source [64]. I move to have it reworded to read: "After Parliament was prorogued, delaying the non-confidence motion until January 2009, Dion eventually stepped down of his own accord."-- Garyedgar ( talk) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The sentences "Andrew wrote that when he was 12 and Michael was 17 that Michael was two-faced with him, nice when adults were around and mean when they were not; "We went for a walk, and he said, 'I want to make one thing absolutely clear to you. When we're at Aunt Helen's house or Aunt Charity's house [Charity Grant, their mother's sister], you can say whatever you want to me. But if you ever see me on the school grounds, you're not to talk to me. You're not to recognize that I'm your brother. You don't exist as far as I'm concerned. Do I make myself clear?'" LACKS CONTEXT. The reference link was broken but I found a copy. The article does not support the age difference given, Michael it seems would have been 15 (or maybe 16). Without the context I read the statement incorrectly as more recent than 1993, and as just 2 high school boys separated by significant age differences. But reading the article leads one to different views more along the line of first born ("God") vs second born (self described "fat prick"). In this case a direct selective quote is useless. And the discussion archives have already pointed out that these sort of pieces don't fit in wiki standards. Personally I feel it just pollutes the article, but if his relations with his brother are to be included, other context (separation, feeling of a lack of Fatherly attention, ineptness, low social and self esteem) on the part of his younger brother would be needed as well. And the statement "Andrew wasn't interviewed. However, he told Ms. Martin(1992) that, when their father died, his own resentment toward his brother vanished.", would tie up the loose ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.158.95 ( talk) 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC) ( Update: While I was typing this somebody else deleted the offending sentences for other reasons) The line - ignoring his prominent New Brunswick roots - is confusing and lacks contexts. Unless there is some reference to be linked to I would suggest removing it. And unless someone can produce attribution to the lengthy section on Ignatieff's New Brunswick roots I'm not sure it should stay either.-- Garyedgar ( talk) 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm also at a loss to understand why a book review is cited as a credible source and not even linked to. I'm in favour of deleting this passage as completely irrelevant to this section (and this profile):
New criticism finds fault with Ignatieff's account of his mother's ancestors claiming that he ignores the women in the story:
"As a historical biography though, the book falls woefully short. In reading "True Patriot Love" one wonders why Ignatieff completely ignores the women of the Grants (Ignatieff's maternal family name) whom he presumes us to believe had no role whatsoever in the development of his family. If Ignatieff's choices of whom he focuses his attention on is a reflection on him, then Ignatieff wants to be seen as the stiff academic patriarch who prances around in privileged elite circles, the all-male Upper Canada College clique." (20 May 2009, Amazon.com book reviews)-- Garyedgar ( talk) 15:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I realize it's inevitable that everyone is going to focus on Ignatieff's political stuff, but I think his personal story is just as interesting, and perhaps more interesting, in the long run.
Given that, I felt that introducing a brief life timeline in the opening para gave a better picture of the man:
"Ignatieff lived abroad from 1978 till 2005, holding senior academic posts at the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, and Harvard University. In 2005, he returned to Canada to teach at the University of Toronto before entering Canadian federal politics in 2006."
I'm a decent writer, and I believe that makes the opening a stronger one.
It keeps getting reverted though within micro-seconds, and i'm not going to fight it. I realize that this is a partisan battleground here, and I have no interest in expending energy in this way. So I'll let you all duke it out; with any luck, sometime we can get a more rounded picture of the man as a man, with nothing to do with all your politics. I'll use my energy elsewhere. Randal Oulton ( talk) 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The article currently asserts his last name is pronounced /ɪɡˈnɑːtʃəf/, but isn't /ɪɡˈnætɪəf/ more common? That is, with four syllables instead of three, with the a as in cat rather than as in father, and with no ch sound? Maybe the pronunciation in the article is the Russian one, but we need to have the usual Canadian English pronunciation. Indefatigable ( talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, it depends what question you're asking. If you're trying to suggest that we use the correct Russian pronunciation, then you're always going to run into the problem that Michael Ignatieff can't speak Russian and therefore can't pronounce his own name properly in that language. So maybe we should simply accept the Americanized version of his name that he himself uses. I think that's just basic respect. Mardiste ( talk) 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This source [1] says that it was actually Rocco Rossi who initiated the recruitment (by referencing Keith Davey's assessment of Ignatieff's abilities). I think that deserves mention as well. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why Alfred Apps would have been excluded from the trip to Cambridge report (when it is widely reported [2] that he went with Davey and Brock), except it must have just been an oversight. Even the source originally given [3] says "Davey and two Liberal lawyers". Is there some reason Apps was left out of the trip to Cambridge, is there another source saying he did not go? I have included it. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 22:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday, User:Miesianiacal made an edit to the article replacing "Leader of the Official Opposition" in the lede to "Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition," with an edit summary of "proper name." I undid the change, which he or she then reverted with an edit summary of "not in common use doesn't mean unusable." While I think that's a fair statement, the vast majority of reliable sources refer to Ignatieff as "Leader of the Opposition" or "Leader of the Official Opposition" as opposed to the proposed change (over 650 mentions for the former two, less than 30 for the latter). While we could mention both his common and formal titles in the lede, that seems contrary to our style directive to be clear and concise, and, in any event, the matter is covered a link away at Leader of the Official Opposition (Canada). If there's consensus for such a change, I certainly wouldn't oppose a revision, but even as a staunch monarchist, I feel as though this isn't an edit that improves this article, given that it's completely contrary to common use. jæs (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
According to this article, Michael Ignatieff is a distant relative of the current UK Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg. If so, would it be worth mentioning in this article (and/or in Clegg's for that matter) and how best should it be noted? -- Nerroth ( talk) 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The list is nine long, not eleven.
Would anyone else support my changing the title of this section of the talk page to "Honorary Degrees" so that the word is spelled correctly? I think it may have been written by some semi-educated Canadian who believes that since "honour" and "honor" are both valid spellings (British and American), there also exists an English word spelled "honourary". (The word doesn't exist. It doesn't exist in the US or in the UK and it also doesn't exist in Canada.) I don't want to be mean, but is this really the kind of person we want counting honorary degrees (haha sorry, I meant "honourary degrees") and then posting his thoughts on Wikipedia? Mardiste ( talk) 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about ? [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.153.68 ( talk) 16:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I strongly object to placing campaign type photos like Obama sitting with Ignatieff in this article. If the photo is not notable enough to go in Obama's article it is also not notable enough to go into Ignatieff's article. 70.29.76.101 ( talk) 15:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, for what it's worth, the Leader of the Opposition always gets to have some face time with visiting foreign dignitaries; it doesn't mean that Obama chose to single out Ignatieff as somebody he was going to make a special effort to meet outside of standard protocol for this type of thing. But I digress.
I genuinely don't see a single compelling reason why this photo should be an issue at all — any good-quality photo that's uploaded to Wikipedia under a freely-usable license can be added to any article where it's relevant and desired, case closed. There's simply no debate to be had here, and I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that I have more than enough years of experience as a Wikipedia administrator to know that anonymous IPs whose very first Wikipedia contribution is to raise a strong objection to a situation like this are never genuinely disinterested parties — anybody want to take bets on which political party's partisan objections to an Ignatieff-with-Obama photo Mr. or Ms. 70* is trying to disguise as a high-minded concern for objectivity? Bearcat ( talk) 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Just my two bits, but;
1. There do seem to be a fair number of other images 2. The image is not relevant to any discussion in the article 3. The image is what I view as polarizing (some will see it as photo-op, others as a back-handed allusion to his being more loyal to the US). Either way the image should go.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
He has been heavily criticized for often calling himself an American, among other things. I think the very least is to put a "Criticism" section at the bottom similar to almost every other major wikipedia Biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.185.94 ( talk) 23:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There is not enough in depth, honest criticism of Ignatieff's policies and positions. After reading the Ignatieff article what immediately came to mind was it seemed to be a whitewash of him, leaving out the many controversies, criticisms and mistakes he's made along the way. Unfortunately Wikipedia biographies (like this one) read more like rose tainted promotional profiles rather than objective biographies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.65.24 ( talk) 22:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I am baffled that there is no criticism/critique section...and what is there seems to be removed time and again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.166.221 ( talk) 18:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia - it reads like one of his official biographies.. and it probably is - give me a break... Mykyta ( talk) 04:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
curious why there is no mention (or it is well obfuscated) that iggy was out of the country for the better part of 30 years? 207.216.253.134 ( talk) 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just want to mention that he received an honorary doctorate from Trinity College, University of Toronto, in September 1999. I was in the audience (I was matriculating on the occasion).
"Honorary Doctorate of Laws, Trinity College, University of Toronto, September 1999."
173.248.255.247 ( talk) 05:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a new section under the Notable political stances section
Forming of a potential coalition government
During the Spring 2011 federal election, Ignatieff clearly ruled out the formation of a coalition government with the NDP and Bloc parties. Despite criticism from the Conservative party that Ignatieff was planning to form government with the other opposition parties, Ignatieff issued a statement on March, 26th 2011 stating that "The party that wins the most seats on election day will form the government" [1] [2]
Canukistan42 ( talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing pipe in: |title=
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (
help)
The article is slanted toward being a promotional piece. Just by looking at the discussion directly above whereby negative content which is headlined in 4 major Newspapers is deleted from the bio as being not relevant enough, at the same time the article has content such as "He is also a descendant of William Lawson, the first President of the Bank of Nova Scotia." which is apparently acceptable. Also, there is too little content concerning criticism of Ignatieff's policy positions and his support of the Iraq war. Hopefully it can be rewritten quickly with a more balanced tone and content and then, by consensus only, the tag removed. Itabletboy ( talk) 03:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Remember we have to follow BLP guidelines. His wife is not him. The article is to be about Mr. Ignatieff. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 04:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you've justified the placement of the tag. You only identified one specific thing in this section, the sentence about his wife which is under discussion above and was initiated less than six hours earlier. On the other sections you haven't said anything that is actionable which is your responsibility as the tagger. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 04:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I see it was removed after 3 hours. Maybe it was premature but surely we all are aware of the great controversy regarding the Subject and his opinions over the past 10 years, yet to read the bio as it is, the extent of the controversy seems to me to be too muted and does not come across. The bio represents him in much too favourable a light in comparison with the content within all of the available Reliable Sources, especially for a politician. Itabletboy ( talk) 15:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This would not be important to me but Canadain newspapers seem to think it is notable in light of the Conservative's "just visiting" campaign. I inserted a small reference but it was removed. [6] [7]. Should it be left out? Itabletboy ( talk) 21:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This subject is completely irrelevant to our article, particularly in that the Citizen piece indicates she is currently is the process of becoming a citizen. CJCurrie ( talk) 03:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the four users who feel a mention is not needed. If another party had brought this up or it was some sort of controversy then perhaps the need might arise. For now this is just a factoid even if it has apeared in several papers. The NPOV problem is greater if we include it than if we exclude it. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 04:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Please note that I am bringing this issue here first before trying to edit the Leadership section. Hopefully we can quickly agree on some consensual way to address these 2 points.
Your point 1 isn't working for me. You point 2 makes sense to me, although I would retain the wording of the contempt citation, as it decisively reflects the subject's perspective in a matter of vast import. I will fix. sternthinker ( talk) 17:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I tend to think the British voting is more notable than the American. Your first source actually mentioned only the former. As well, the problem is context. As some of your sources noted, Ignatieff was defending himself from accusations that he was a neoconservative Bush supporter. The Herald has kindly reposted the original piece here
[15] by the way. Ignatieff would surely contend that as a matter of rhetoric saying "I will vote for Kerry" is just a more powerful way of saying "while I can't vote for Kerry as a non-American citizen, if I could, I would vote for him in November." Not to defend Ignatieff but we can't include something like this without the context which quickly bloats it into a back and forth argument.
On the British voting, I wouldn't support it but I don't think it would be completely unreasonable to include a short NPOv comment including the British voting incident in a section about the Conservative attacks about his time outside of Canada. Personally, I think it is still just a factoid in the news and isn't really part of the controversy unless other parties attack him for it.
On the second, I think there are some problems though it isn't a COATRACK issue. Everything about the Commonwealth should go. I think it is an NPOV issue which takes the mere fact and presents it in a certain light. More importantly, the word "guilty" should not be in there at all. There's no issue of guilt here and it isn't what the source says. Unfortunately most people are familiar with the concept of contempt from the court system and incorporate that language.
It is in the correct section. "Leadership" covers the general narrative of his time as Leader of the Liberal Party. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 23:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it as it seemed poorly sourced and not focused on Ignatieff. If you want to add it back in please provide the appropriate sources and more emphasis on Ignatieff's views on this topic would be helpful. -- NeilN talk to me 17:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The article states that
Count Paul Ignatieff served at the last Tsarist Minister of Education (1915-1917), whose reputation as a liberal reformer led to his being spared from execution by the Bolsheviks.
But the article on Paul Ignatieff sais that he died in Canada in 1945. The both articles cannot be true in the same time, I presume. Сергей Олегович ( talk) 07:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be a good solution. Or else you could simply look up the English verb "to spare" in any Russian-English dictionary in order to confirm that you completely misunderstood the sentence that you flagged on Wikipedia before suggesting that an entire article be re-written on the basis of this misunderstanding, thus wasting hours of everybody's time because you didn't really understand what the word "spare" means? Mardiste ( talk) 00:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This article was poorly organized, so I boldly put it into chronological order. This will make it easier to understand his biography instead of having to jump around. It also has the benefits of being the most neutral way to present his life, since at times the article looks like a WP:COATRACK for fans and critics to put undue weight on whatever aspect they're trying to push.
Feel free to make further edits in case I made any errors. But please help keep this article neutral. Dzlife ( talk) 17:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Noting in passing that a series of recent IP edits, e.g. replacing "last remaining" with "sole" and the like are subtly Tory-flavoured, I'm left to wonder at the titling of the infobox, which seems overdone in an intentionally-pompous kind of way:
No, maybe it's normal that PhDs in international relations (or history or economics or whatever that Ph.D was for) have "Doctor" in hte titling of an infobox, and maybe it's normal to list MP in the same string of alphabet soup as teh Ph.D; and of course it's normal for a Leader of the Opposition to be "Honourable"....but "the Honourable Doctor" seems like somebody's form of real-life sarcasm, as in "Herr Doktor Frankenstien" and the laced contempt behind the speechmakers' "my learned colleague". If this is regular wiki-style fine, but it doesn't "feel" like it is, and is rather a "dig" at Ignatieff's intellectual standing (which certain anti-intellectual elements in this country are indeed making a negative campaing out of...there being a lot of stupid people in Canada who just don't like smart people, period). I'm gonna go look at few other historical Leader of the Opposition boxes....Bob Stanfield was a Ph.D in somthing I believe, not sure about Joe Clark; and Keith Martin was an actual doctor (i.e. medical doctor) and it was customary to refer to him as "Doctor Keith Martin"...anyway maybe it's just ar regularly-overblown honorific; it just seems like a deliberately-overblown one at the moment... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Official Opposition leaders are usually inducted into the Privy Council (see List of current members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and sometimes other parties leaders as well. I read somewhere that even Duceppe was offered (as Leader of the Official Opposition) induction and turned it down. However, as far as I can tell Ignatieff has received no such induction as of yet, so would not be entitled to the prenomial "honourable" or postnomial "PC". The reason it appears only Tory opposition leaders get it is Dion is the only Liberal Leader who was never PM, and he was already a Privy Councillor as a former cabinet minister. Other Liberal leaders who were oppostion leaders first were PCs as cabinet ministers as well. Sethpt ( talk) 20:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Sethpt is right. Ignatieff is not entitled to "the Honourable". -- YapaTi ( talk) 19:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It is silly duplication and repetition to write both "Doctor" and "PhD" or whatever. In my opinion, the PhD should just be listed amongst the education information but WT:CANADA#Proposal for infobox honorific standardisation suggests that there is no consensus for where they are included. DoubleBlue ( talk) 22:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Question- Which needs changing the short form for Queen's Privy Council, or the article in wikipedia? Suzanne 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YrHelperInfonut ( talk • contribs)
The article content says he was Opposition leader since 2009, yet the infobox says since 2008. GoodDay ( talk) 13:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't his infobox read like this.
"The Honourable Dr. Michael Grant Ignatieff, PC, M.A, Ph.D, D. Univ (hc), LL.D. (hc), LL.D. (hc), LL.D. (hc), D. Litt (hc), D. Litt (hc), D. Litt (hc), DHL (hc)" 69.9.116.230 ( talk) 21:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Other infoboxes (like Bob Rae's) list all the degrees, including honourary ones. Shouldn't we be consistent? 69.9.97.16 ( talk) 22:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Ignatieff-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 August 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC) |
Apparently there is supposed to be a discussion about this topic. I don't see one here, so I am starting it. We have put the exact date when Jack Layton became Official Opp. Leader. That is May 18, 2011. Why not give Ignatieff until May 18, 2011, for the length of his term? No one told him he was not leader of the Liberal Party until Rae took over, which was actually on May 25, 2011. He officially held onto his seat in Parliament until Trottier was sworn in one day later. Furthermore, as the outgoing leader of the Liberal Party until May 18, when Jack Layton was sworn in, Ignatieff was still nominally the leader of the Official Opposition. He could have resigned earlier, as 117Avenue stated, but to my knowledge he did not. There is a transition period between Parliaments after an election, which requires that until the elected MPs have been sworn in, everything stays frozen in the state it was before the election. There has to be continuity in the various posts, just like Harper remained Prime Minister throughout the election, even before Parliament reconvened.
That being said, I would not object to just putting May 2011, for Ignatieff's end of term as Official Opp. Leader, and let other people figure it out for themselves. There had been a view expressed a while back in some of the edits that the Off. Opp. post was actually vacant between May 2 and May 18, but that is conjecture. It is probably based on the fact that a lame duck leader like Ignatieff has no claim to be the leader of anything after losing an election in such a resounding fashion, and for all intents and purposes, he could not wield any of the powers entrusted to him as Official Opposition Leader after May 2. -- Skol fir ( talk) 03:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2010-07-e.htm Says when a candidate becomes an MP. There are 5 possible days:
They conclude by stating: "The most accurate conclusion, although perhaps an unsatisfying one, is that members of the House of Commons become members at different times, for different technical reasons."
I guess wikipedia should just pick one and stick with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.186.97 ( talk) 00:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Re USA presidents: John Tyler took the oath April 6, 1841, but his term is considered to have started with Harrison's death on April 4. Zachary Taylor took the oath on March 5, 1849 because March 4 was a Sunday - but his term started Sunday. LBJ became president the moment JFK was declared dead. Several incumbents (Reagan, Ike, Wilson) have taken the oath on Monday when their term started Sunday. Hayes took the oath on Sat & again on Monday because his term started on a Sunday. US presidential terms currently start & end at noon on Jan 20, regardless of time of oath. A hole in power at the top is not allowed. -- JimWae ( talk) 21:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know that - the point was about the non-necessity of actually taking the oath for the term to start-- JimWae ( talk) 19:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently there are certain people who have a problem with John Capobianco being mentioned as Ignatieff's opponent for his seat in 2006 within the body of this article. I think it is rather rude perhaps even political bias for these people to omit Mr Capobianco's name and only make reference to him as the nameless Conservative candidate. Capobianco was the Conservative candidate for that seat and his name should be refer to as such. The fact that Capobianco was beaten by Ignatieff by 5000 votes is relevant for Capobianco's name being mentioned as it does raise the question about whether the outcome could have been any different if the Conservative candidate was someone else. The fact that Capobianco was beaten by Ignatieff is mentioned in Capobianco's mini-article and so in terms of fairness Capobianco's name should be mentioned within the body of the Ignatieff article. Also I would ask no one send me any messages to my account on this or any other matter. 122.106.80.3 ( talk) 08:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I know it may be trivial, but I think the proper form here should be that he is 'a' historian, not 'an' historian.
I'm no expert on WikiGrammar (is that a word?) but I think the argument goes that in British English (and Old English) the 'h' in 'historian' is not usually pronounced. But in North America (Canada included) the 'h' is pronounced as a hard 'h' which suggests the article 'a' is more appropriate.
Now the argument could be made that he gained a history degree from Oxford (where he would have been 'an' historian) but he in fact began his studies in Canada and concluded them in the US. While it could be argued he was "just visiting" North America, he has chosen at present to reside in Canada and is involved in what a few Canadians might view as a slightly important political position (that's right, professional stand-in for Stephane Dion). Sorry for the typically Canadian political humour (yes we spell 'humour' with a 'u' because without 'u' it wouldn't be funny).
In short, as a Canadian, I vote it read that Ignatieff was "a historian." If there is to be a split over this remember that brevity is important and that 'an' has twice as many letters as 'a'.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Michael Ignatieff. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Michael Ignatieff. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
Comment by
User:198.20.40.50
At present, the neutrality of this article is disputed. While it is a decent overview of Ignatieff's life, writings, and political career, a serious student would find much to be desired. Thus, I would classify it as B grade, working towards a GA grade. Because it is about an important Canadian politician (and international scholar), I would classify the article as being of High importance. A cynic could make the argument for Mid level importance. Specific suggestions for improving the article include proper wikification of references and links, as well as cleaning up instances of pro- and anti- Ignatieff wording. Undue weight is also an issue, as is length. Additional comments to follow. -- 198.20.40.50 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Comment by User:Ottawaman This article rates an F for failure in every possible way. It has been continually censored and controlled by contributors who only want to maximize anything positive about the subject and minimize or delete anything negative. The most prolific current contributer even resorted to using offensive =User_talk:65.95.151.166&oldid=68340985 templates which ridicule disabled children as a way to pressure editors in his direction. Now that same editor and 1 other =Talk:Michael_Ignatieff&diff=68821548&oldid=68820070 delete talk page discussion topics they do not want to see addressed by the community. In short, this article sucks,big time and at this point has been completely hijacked by contributors with a pro-Ignatieff pov who are blatantly instilling that pov into the article. Ottawaman 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 01:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 23:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Michael Ignatieff. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Ignatieff. 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://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2221709When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The person behind the Neutralizer, Ottawaman, Canuckster, BarbWatts, Methodology, etc accounts and Bell Sympatico dynamic IPs has been community banned. They have promised they will not edit WP again, but if they do, all their edits can be reverted and such reversions are exempt from 3RR. Sockpuppets are listed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ottawaman and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Neutralizer. Sarah 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
in spite of his followers lying about Iggy, he still lost.
142.150.48.149 01:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Dr. Research
I notice that the religion part of the infobox has been of the recent activity here. Checking the link, what I saw was from sufficient in my opinion. Valpy's "I think he sometimes goes to a service" is far from evidence that is needed here. It might be the best we've got but we shouldn't just put in the best that we know when we don't know very much. So, does somebody have a better source on his religion? If not, it should be removed from the infobox. -- JGGardiner 08:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
This is just a clarification for Neutralizer and his various personas that I am not a former admin or a former editor. Neither is Daniel Bryant. We have simply had our usernames changed to User:Sarah and User:Daniel. We both still monitor this article. And will file the abuse report with your ISP if you start up again. Sarah 22:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Biography: Should it not read From 1964 to 1975, Ignatieff worked as a journalist at The Globe and Mail newspaper.
Instead of from From 1964 to 1965??? Jhcarleton 18:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm against including too much about the by-elections. Although the accusations did have impact, that isn't really relevant to Ignatieff himself. A rumor is important if it affects someone but we don't know that it really affected Ignatieff and we don't know that it was true so I wouldn't include it here. Although it does have a place in some other articles perhaps. -- JGGardiner 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The section stating, "The Liberals were badly defeated in all ridings, most notably their former stronghold of Outremont. Ignatieff has since urges his party to come together, says "united we win, divided we lose"." is clearly POV as it uses subjective terminology, further it is has misspellings and creates a box separate from the text. Clearly a poor edit. Further, the text above that statement writes that the "Globe and Mail suggests..." which is original research and violates the fact that Wiki is not a news tabloid. These edits are obviously unencyclopedic and only included by an editor who wises to use Wiki as his/her Soapbox. This is a textbook case of poor editing where the spelling is incorrect, incorrectly formatted, improperly cited per WP:CITE, and highly subjective. -- Strothra 17:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
These additions are perfectly consistent with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. And as speculation is permitted for the Liberal leadership convention... GoldDragon 00:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we also have a section on the environmental platform during his leadership bid, and mention his advocacy for a carbon tax? this is notable because it became a central plank of the party platform in the 2008 election —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.220.58.150 ( talk) 20:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The article states that Ignatieff volunteered for Lester Pearson in the York South riding, yet for his entire career Pearson represented Algoma East. Is what is meant that Ignatieff volunteered for the Liberal Party? fishhead64 ( talk) 15:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Unless interim leaders are added to that Template, it (the template) should be removed from this article. Ignatieff is not the Leader of the Liberal Party; he's interim leader. GoodDay ( talk) 16:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This guy betrayed his russian blood by siding with the albanians "nation building" while they kidnapped Serbs and stole their organs. Shame on you Ignatieff!! You do not deserve such a noble Russian name you coward! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.96.186 ( talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph about the leadership succession is obviously missing certain current events:
I'm not in the mood to do the legwork and dig out his position statements re the Coalition, and the op-ed pieces that say he's cool to it, or what he's said since etc; when the coalition first was announced it was also assumed - briefly - that it would be either Ignatieff or Rae, I mean by mentioning that that that's citable [huh don't know how to punctuate that, if at all..]; this pragraph currently comes off like Bob Rae had no other reason to bow out than Ignatieff booking in...he did announce before all the turkey-dancing started didn't he? Skookum1 ( talk) 22:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
References
I've read that he supported the Bush war against iraq,& he supported the Bush "soft" torture. Perhaps worthy of mention?
His life has been that of an observer and a joiner. What he has joined is telling. When the George Bush administration (with Britains Tony Blair) was building the Iraq weapons-of-mass-destruction-lie in order to invade, Ignatieff joined the bad guys. We remember the air was hot with disagreement about invasion, and Ignatieff supported the Bush side arguing to invade Iraq.
Almost worse when, more recently, the argument about Terror and Torture was aflame, Ignatieff not only supported George Bushs so-called policy of soft torture (activity that Barack Obama has since categorically ruled out) but he did so in one of his books that is there for all to read.
Ignatieffs published position in that book is ugly. He has rejected both of those positions since. Fine. But in the Canadian parliament he voted with the Harperites to extend Canadas role in Afghanistan, and he won his nomination in Etobicoke-Lakeshore by a setup what one might describe as unsavoury manipulation.
In the light of all that we have to ask what he will approve of and then live to regret among the Stephen Harper policies he endorses? Having helped wreck Canadian democracy, an apology and retraction from Ignatieff some time in the future will be of little use or comfort.
Winston Churchills basic statement about parliaments still stands: the role of the Opposition is to oppose. Ignatieff has brushed that rule aside in his first weeks as Liberal leader.
"To defeat evil we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interogations, targeted assasinations, even pre-emptive war" Micheal Ignatieff New York Times op-ed piece May 2, 2004
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.3.220 ( talk) 03:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I understand that he usually sides with those in power and is a big appeaser (domestically) as well as in the want to maintain the Status Quo. In saying so I would bet much of my earnings that he would not arrest George W. Bush if he came into our borders again, which is what Canadian law calls for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.197.222 ( talk) 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Since he's leader of the opposition, doesn't he get the prefix before his name? Or is that just once the house comes back? -- 72.38.3.14 ( talk) 01:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Any reason why this section should be removed? Sounds neutral and Sounds well sourced with a reference form the NYT magazine, so I don't see why it should be removed. JForget 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
We know that Ignatieff definitely has a BA in history from Trinity College at University of Toronto and a PhD from Harvard University. Those two facts are well known and documented. But the infobox also lists Oxford as an alma mater and I can't find any source that mentions an Oxford degree. In fact, the Canadian Who's Who (published by Toronto) actually says he has an MA from Cambridge, but that date is later than his Harvard PhD. So which is correct, Oxford or Cambridge, both or neither? 209.195.107.124 ( talk) 02:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't edit the article because it's semi-protected. It says Ignatieff speaks English and French fluently, but it doesn't say which is his native language. Having heard him speak both languages, I presume it's English. 67.150.252.101 ( talk) 09:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I've actually been fortunate enough to have heard him speak several different languages in person. English is his native language and he is a gifted speaker and an extraordinary writer in that language. His second language French is excellent, fluent, extremely literate, virtually flawless, and of near-native quality.
He also knows how to say some basic Russian sentences too and his accent is pretty good. Mardiste ( talk) 01:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The whole second paragraph of "Interim Leader of the Liberal Party" section is cited by a source that not only doesn't verify the content but says the opposite about Ignatieff's feelings about the coalition. Is there a source for this or is it rumour mongering and OR? DoubleBlue ( talk) 21:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
"After Parliament was prorogued, delaying the non-confidence motion until January 2009, Ignatieff and other party insiders put pressure on Dion to resign immediately." I'm not sure how anyone can verify this quote unless it was written by a "Liberal insider." It certainly isn't corroborated by the cited source [64]. I move to have it reworded to read: "After Parliament was prorogued, delaying the non-confidence motion until January 2009, Dion eventually stepped down of his own accord."-- Garyedgar ( talk) 14:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The sentences "Andrew wrote that when he was 12 and Michael was 17 that Michael was two-faced with him, nice when adults were around and mean when they were not; "We went for a walk, and he said, 'I want to make one thing absolutely clear to you. When we're at Aunt Helen's house or Aunt Charity's house [Charity Grant, their mother's sister], you can say whatever you want to me. But if you ever see me on the school grounds, you're not to talk to me. You're not to recognize that I'm your brother. You don't exist as far as I'm concerned. Do I make myself clear?'" LACKS CONTEXT. The reference link was broken but I found a copy. The article does not support the age difference given, Michael it seems would have been 15 (or maybe 16). Without the context I read the statement incorrectly as more recent than 1993, and as just 2 high school boys separated by significant age differences. But reading the article leads one to different views more along the line of first born ("God") vs second born (self described "fat prick"). In this case a direct selective quote is useless. And the discussion archives have already pointed out that these sort of pieces don't fit in wiki standards. Personally I feel it just pollutes the article, but if his relations with his brother are to be included, other context (separation, feeling of a lack of Fatherly attention, ineptness, low social and self esteem) on the part of his younger brother would be needed as well. And the statement "Andrew wasn't interviewed. However, he told Ms. Martin(1992) that, when their father died, his own resentment toward his brother vanished.", would tie up the loose ends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.158.95 ( talk) 22:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC) ( Update: While I was typing this somebody else deleted the offending sentences for other reasons) The line - ignoring his prominent New Brunswick roots - is confusing and lacks contexts. Unless there is some reference to be linked to I would suggest removing it. And unless someone can produce attribution to the lengthy section on Ignatieff's New Brunswick roots I'm not sure it should stay either.-- Garyedgar ( talk) 14:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm also at a loss to understand why a book review is cited as a credible source and not even linked to. I'm in favour of deleting this passage as completely irrelevant to this section (and this profile):
New criticism finds fault with Ignatieff's account of his mother's ancestors claiming that he ignores the women in the story:
"As a historical biography though, the book falls woefully short. In reading "True Patriot Love" one wonders why Ignatieff completely ignores the women of the Grants (Ignatieff's maternal family name) whom he presumes us to believe had no role whatsoever in the development of his family. If Ignatieff's choices of whom he focuses his attention on is a reflection on him, then Ignatieff wants to be seen as the stiff academic patriarch who prances around in privileged elite circles, the all-male Upper Canada College clique." (20 May 2009, Amazon.com book reviews)-- Garyedgar ( talk) 15:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I realize it's inevitable that everyone is going to focus on Ignatieff's political stuff, but I think his personal story is just as interesting, and perhaps more interesting, in the long run.
Given that, I felt that introducing a brief life timeline in the opening para gave a better picture of the man:
"Ignatieff lived abroad from 1978 till 2005, holding senior academic posts at the University of Cambridge, the University of Oxford, and Harvard University. In 2005, he returned to Canada to teach at the University of Toronto before entering Canadian federal politics in 2006."
I'm a decent writer, and I believe that makes the opening a stronger one.
It keeps getting reverted though within micro-seconds, and i'm not going to fight it. I realize that this is a partisan battleground here, and I have no interest in expending energy in this way. So I'll let you all duke it out; with any luck, sometime we can get a more rounded picture of the man as a man, with nothing to do with all your politics. I'll use my energy elsewhere. Randal Oulton ( talk) 01:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The article currently asserts his last name is pronounced /ɪɡˈnɑːtʃəf/, but isn't /ɪɡˈnætɪəf/ more common? That is, with four syllables instead of three, with the a as in cat rather than as in father, and with no ch sound? Maybe the pronunciation in the article is the Russian one, but we need to have the usual Canadian English pronunciation. Indefatigable ( talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, it depends what question you're asking. If you're trying to suggest that we use the correct Russian pronunciation, then you're always going to run into the problem that Michael Ignatieff can't speak Russian and therefore can't pronounce his own name properly in that language. So maybe we should simply accept the Americanized version of his name that he himself uses. I think that's just basic respect. Mardiste ( talk) 01:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This source [1] says that it was actually Rocco Rossi who initiated the recruitment (by referencing Keith Davey's assessment of Ignatieff's abilities). I think that deserves mention as well. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 22:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure why Alfred Apps would have been excluded from the trip to Cambridge report (when it is widely reported [2] that he went with Davey and Brock), except it must have just been an oversight. Even the source originally given [3] says "Davey and two Liberal lawyers". Is there some reason Apps was left out of the trip to Cambridge, is there another source saying he did not go? I have included it. Mr.Grantevans2 ( talk) 22:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday, User:Miesianiacal made an edit to the article replacing "Leader of the Official Opposition" in the lede to "Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition," with an edit summary of "proper name." I undid the change, which he or she then reverted with an edit summary of "not in common use doesn't mean unusable." While I think that's a fair statement, the vast majority of reliable sources refer to Ignatieff as "Leader of the Opposition" or "Leader of the Official Opposition" as opposed to the proposed change (over 650 mentions for the former two, less than 30 for the latter). While we could mention both his common and formal titles in the lede, that seems contrary to our style directive to be clear and concise, and, in any event, the matter is covered a link away at Leader of the Official Opposition (Canada). If there's consensus for such a change, I certainly wouldn't oppose a revision, but even as a staunch monarchist, I feel as though this isn't an edit that improves this article, given that it's completely contrary to common use. jæs (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
According to this article, Michael Ignatieff is a distant relative of the current UK Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg. If so, would it be worth mentioning in this article (and/or in Clegg's for that matter) and how best should it be noted? -- Nerroth ( talk) 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The list is nine long, not eleven.
Would anyone else support my changing the title of this section of the talk page to "Honorary Degrees" so that the word is spelled correctly? I think it may have been written by some semi-educated Canadian who believes that since "honour" and "honor" are both valid spellings (British and American), there also exists an English word spelled "honourary". (The word doesn't exist. It doesn't exist in the US or in the UK and it also doesn't exist in Canada.) I don't want to be mean, but is this really the kind of person we want counting honorary degrees (haha sorry, I meant "honourary degrees") and then posting his thoughts on Wikipedia? Mardiste ( talk) 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about ? [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.115.153.68 ( talk) 16:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I strongly object to placing campaign type photos like Obama sitting with Ignatieff in this article. If the photo is not notable enough to go in Obama's article it is also not notable enough to go into Ignatieff's article. 70.29.76.101 ( talk) 15:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, for what it's worth, the Leader of the Opposition always gets to have some face time with visiting foreign dignitaries; it doesn't mean that Obama chose to single out Ignatieff as somebody he was going to make a special effort to meet outside of standard protocol for this type of thing. But I digress.
I genuinely don't see a single compelling reason why this photo should be an issue at all — any good-quality photo that's uploaded to Wikipedia under a freely-usable license can be added to any article where it's relevant and desired, case closed. There's simply no debate to be had here, and I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that I have more than enough years of experience as a Wikipedia administrator to know that anonymous IPs whose very first Wikipedia contribution is to raise a strong objection to a situation like this are never genuinely disinterested parties — anybody want to take bets on which political party's partisan objections to an Ignatieff-with-Obama photo Mr. or Ms. 70* is trying to disguise as a high-minded concern for objectivity? Bearcat ( talk) 22:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Just my two bits, but;
1. There do seem to be a fair number of other images 2. The image is not relevant to any discussion in the article 3. The image is what I view as polarizing (some will see it as photo-op, others as a back-handed allusion to his being more loyal to the US). Either way the image should go.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 01:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
He has been heavily criticized for often calling himself an American, among other things. I think the very least is to put a "Criticism" section at the bottom similar to almost every other major wikipedia Biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.185.94 ( talk) 23:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There is not enough in depth, honest criticism of Ignatieff's policies and positions. After reading the Ignatieff article what immediately came to mind was it seemed to be a whitewash of him, leaving out the many controversies, criticisms and mistakes he's made along the way. Unfortunately Wikipedia biographies (like this one) read more like rose tainted promotional profiles rather than objective biographies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.65.24 ( talk) 22:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I am baffled that there is no criticism/critique section...and what is there seems to be removed time and again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.166.221 ( talk) 18:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is exactly what's wrong with Wikipedia - it reads like one of his official biographies.. and it probably is - give me a break... Mykyta ( talk) 04:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
curious why there is no mention (or it is well obfuscated) that iggy was out of the country for the better part of 30 years? 207.216.253.134 ( talk) 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I just want to mention that he received an honorary doctorate from Trinity College, University of Toronto, in September 1999. I was in the audience (I was matriculating on the occasion).
"Honorary Doctorate of Laws, Trinity College, University of Toronto, September 1999."
173.248.255.247 ( talk) 05:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add a new section under the Notable political stances section
Forming of a potential coalition government
During the Spring 2011 federal election, Ignatieff clearly ruled out the formation of a coalition government with the NDP and Bloc parties. Despite criticism from the Conservative party that Ignatieff was planning to form government with the other opposition parties, Ignatieff issued a statement on March, 26th 2011 stating that "The party that wins the most seats on election day will form the government" [1] [2]
Canukistan42 ( talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing pipe in: |title=
(
help); URL–wikilink conflict (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: URL–wikilink conflict (
help)
The article is slanted toward being a promotional piece. Just by looking at the discussion directly above whereby negative content which is headlined in 4 major Newspapers is deleted from the bio as being not relevant enough, at the same time the article has content such as "He is also a descendant of William Lawson, the first President of the Bank of Nova Scotia." which is apparently acceptable. Also, there is too little content concerning criticism of Ignatieff's policy positions and his support of the Iraq war. Hopefully it can be rewritten quickly with a more balanced tone and content and then, by consensus only, the tag removed. Itabletboy ( talk) 03:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Remember we have to follow BLP guidelines. His wife is not him. The article is to be about Mr. Ignatieff. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 04:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you've justified the placement of the tag. You only identified one specific thing in this section, the sentence about his wife which is under discussion above and was initiated less than six hours earlier. On the other sections you haven't said anything that is actionable which is your responsibility as the tagger. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 04:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I see it was removed after 3 hours. Maybe it was premature but surely we all are aware of the great controversy regarding the Subject and his opinions over the past 10 years, yet to read the bio as it is, the extent of the controversy seems to me to be too muted and does not come across. The bio represents him in much too favourable a light in comparison with the content within all of the available Reliable Sources, especially for a politician. Itabletboy ( talk) 15:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This would not be important to me but Canadain newspapers seem to think it is notable in light of the Conservative's "just visiting" campaign. I inserted a small reference but it was removed. [6] [7]. Should it be left out? Itabletboy ( talk) 21:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
This subject is completely irrelevant to our article, particularly in that the Citizen piece indicates she is currently is the process of becoming a citizen. CJCurrie ( talk) 03:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the four users who feel a mention is not needed. If another party had brought this up or it was some sort of controversy then perhaps the need might arise. For now this is just a factoid even if it has apeared in several papers. The NPOV problem is greater if we include it than if we exclude it. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 04:18, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Please note that I am bringing this issue here first before trying to edit the Leadership section. Hopefully we can quickly agree on some consensual way to address these 2 points.
Your point 1 isn't working for me. You point 2 makes sense to me, although I would retain the wording of the contempt citation, as it decisively reflects the subject's perspective in a matter of vast import. I will fix. sternthinker ( talk) 17:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I tend to think the British voting is more notable than the American. Your first source actually mentioned only the former. As well, the problem is context. As some of your sources noted, Ignatieff was defending himself from accusations that he was a neoconservative Bush supporter. The Herald has kindly reposted the original piece here
[15] by the way. Ignatieff would surely contend that as a matter of rhetoric saying "I will vote for Kerry" is just a more powerful way of saying "while I can't vote for Kerry as a non-American citizen, if I could, I would vote for him in November." Not to defend Ignatieff but we can't include something like this without the context which quickly bloats it into a back and forth argument.
On the British voting, I wouldn't support it but I don't think it would be completely unreasonable to include a short NPOv comment including the British voting incident in a section about the Conservative attacks about his time outside of Canada. Personally, I think it is still just a factoid in the news and isn't really part of the controversy unless other parties attack him for it.
On the second, I think there are some problems though it isn't a COATRACK issue. Everything about the Commonwealth should go. I think it is an NPOV issue which takes the mere fact and presents it in a certain light. More importantly, the word "guilty" should not be in there at all. There's no issue of guilt here and it isn't what the source says. Unfortunately most people are familiar with the concept of contempt from the court system and incorporate that language.
It is in the correct section. "Leadership" covers the general narrative of his time as Leader of the Liberal Party. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 23:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I've removed it as it seemed poorly sourced and not focused on Ignatieff. If you want to add it back in please provide the appropriate sources and more emphasis on Ignatieff's views on this topic would be helpful. -- NeilN talk to me 17:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The article states that
Count Paul Ignatieff served at the last Tsarist Minister of Education (1915-1917), whose reputation as a liberal reformer led to his being spared from execution by the Bolsheviks.
But the article on Paul Ignatieff sais that he died in Canada in 1945. The both articles cannot be true in the same time, I presume. Сергей Олегович ( talk) 07:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be a good solution. Or else you could simply look up the English verb "to spare" in any Russian-English dictionary in order to confirm that you completely misunderstood the sentence that you flagged on Wikipedia before suggesting that an entire article be re-written on the basis of this misunderstanding, thus wasting hours of everybody's time because you didn't really understand what the word "spare" means? Mardiste ( talk) 00:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
This article was poorly organized, so I boldly put it into chronological order. This will make it easier to understand his biography instead of having to jump around. It also has the benefits of being the most neutral way to present his life, since at times the article looks like a WP:COATRACK for fans and critics to put undue weight on whatever aspect they're trying to push.
Feel free to make further edits in case I made any errors. But please help keep this article neutral. Dzlife ( talk) 17:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Noting in passing that a series of recent IP edits, e.g. replacing "last remaining" with "sole" and the like are subtly Tory-flavoured, I'm left to wonder at the titling of the infobox, which seems overdone in an intentionally-pompous kind of way:
No, maybe it's normal that PhDs in international relations (or history or economics or whatever that Ph.D was for) have "Doctor" in hte titling of an infobox, and maybe it's normal to list MP in the same string of alphabet soup as teh Ph.D; and of course it's normal for a Leader of the Opposition to be "Honourable"....but "the Honourable Doctor" seems like somebody's form of real-life sarcasm, as in "Herr Doktor Frankenstien" and the laced contempt behind the speechmakers' "my learned colleague". If this is regular wiki-style fine, but it doesn't "feel" like it is, and is rather a "dig" at Ignatieff's intellectual standing (which certain anti-intellectual elements in this country are indeed making a negative campaing out of...there being a lot of stupid people in Canada who just don't like smart people, period). I'm gonna go look at few other historical Leader of the Opposition boxes....Bob Stanfield was a Ph.D in somthing I believe, not sure about Joe Clark; and Keith Martin was an actual doctor (i.e. medical doctor) and it was customary to refer to him as "Doctor Keith Martin"...anyway maybe it's just ar regularly-overblown honorific; it just seems like a deliberately-overblown one at the moment... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Official Opposition leaders are usually inducted into the Privy Council (see List of current members of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, and sometimes other parties leaders as well. I read somewhere that even Duceppe was offered (as Leader of the Official Opposition) induction and turned it down. However, as far as I can tell Ignatieff has received no such induction as of yet, so would not be entitled to the prenomial "honourable" or postnomial "PC". The reason it appears only Tory opposition leaders get it is Dion is the only Liberal Leader who was never PM, and he was already a Privy Councillor as a former cabinet minister. Other Liberal leaders who were oppostion leaders first were PCs as cabinet ministers as well. Sethpt ( talk) 20:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Sethpt is right. Ignatieff is not entitled to "the Honourable". -- YapaTi ( talk) 19:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It is silly duplication and repetition to write both "Doctor" and "PhD" or whatever. In my opinion, the PhD should just be listed amongst the education information but WT:CANADA#Proposal for infobox honorific standardisation suggests that there is no consensus for where they are included. DoubleBlue ( talk) 22:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Question- Which needs changing the short form for Queen's Privy Council, or the article in wikipedia? Suzanne 20:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by YrHelperInfonut ( talk • contribs)
The article content says he was Opposition leader since 2009, yet the infobox says since 2008. GoodDay ( talk) 13:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't his infobox read like this.
"The Honourable Dr. Michael Grant Ignatieff, PC, M.A, Ph.D, D. Univ (hc), LL.D. (hc), LL.D. (hc), LL.D. (hc), D. Litt (hc), D. Litt (hc), D. Litt (hc), DHL (hc)" 69.9.116.230 ( talk) 21:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Other infoboxes (like Bob Rae's) list all the degrees, including honourary ones. Shouldn't we be consistent? 69.9.97.16 ( talk) 22:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Ignatieff-1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 1 August 2011
| |
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC) |
Apparently there is supposed to be a discussion about this topic. I don't see one here, so I am starting it. We have put the exact date when Jack Layton became Official Opp. Leader. That is May 18, 2011. Why not give Ignatieff until May 18, 2011, for the length of his term? No one told him he was not leader of the Liberal Party until Rae took over, which was actually on May 25, 2011. He officially held onto his seat in Parliament until Trottier was sworn in one day later. Furthermore, as the outgoing leader of the Liberal Party until May 18, when Jack Layton was sworn in, Ignatieff was still nominally the leader of the Official Opposition. He could have resigned earlier, as 117Avenue stated, but to my knowledge he did not. There is a transition period between Parliaments after an election, which requires that until the elected MPs have been sworn in, everything stays frozen in the state it was before the election. There has to be continuity in the various posts, just like Harper remained Prime Minister throughout the election, even before Parliament reconvened.
That being said, I would not object to just putting May 2011, for Ignatieff's end of term as Official Opp. Leader, and let other people figure it out for themselves. There had been a view expressed a while back in some of the edits that the Off. Opp. post was actually vacant between May 2 and May 18, but that is conjecture. It is probably based on the fact that a lame duck leader like Ignatieff has no claim to be the leader of anything after losing an election in such a resounding fashion, and for all intents and purposes, he could not wield any of the powers entrusted to him as Official Opposition Leader after May 2. -- Skol fir ( talk) 03:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/2010-07-e.htm Says when a candidate becomes an MP. There are 5 possible days:
They conclude by stating: "The most accurate conclusion, although perhaps an unsatisfying one, is that members of the House of Commons become members at different times, for different technical reasons."
I guess wikipedia should just pick one and stick with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.186.97 ( talk) 00:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Re USA presidents: John Tyler took the oath April 6, 1841, but his term is considered to have started with Harrison's death on April 4. Zachary Taylor took the oath on March 5, 1849 because March 4 was a Sunday - but his term started Sunday. LBJ became president the moment JFK was declared dead. Several incumbents (Reagan, Ike, Wilson) have taken the oath on Monday when their term started Sunday. Hayes took the oath on Sat & again on Monday because his term started on a Sunday. US presidential terms currently start & end at noon on Jan 20, regardless of time of oath. A hole in power at the top is not allowed. -- JimWae ( talk) 21:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I know that - the point was about the non-necessity of actually taking the oath for the term to start-- JimWae ( talk) 19:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Apparently there are certain people who have a problem with John Capobianco being mentioned as Ignatieff's opponent for his seat in 2006 within the body of this article. I think it is rather rude perhaps even political bias for these people to omit Mr Capobianco's name and only make reference to him as the nameless Conservative candidate. Capobianco was the Conservative candidate for that seat and his name should be refer to as such. The fact that Capobianco was beaten by Ignatieff by 5000 votes is relevant for Capobianco's name being mentioned as it does raise the question about whether the outcome could have been any different if the Conservative candidate was someone else. The fact that Capobianco was beaten by Ignatieff is mentioned in Capobianco's mini-article and so in terms of fairness Capobianco's name should be mentioned within the body of the Ignatieff article. Also I would ask no one send me any messages to my account on this or any other matter. 122.106.80.3 ( talk) 08:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I know it may be trivial, but I think the proper form here should be that he is 'a' historian, not 'an' historian.
I'm no expert on WikiGrammar (is that a word?) but I think the argument goes that in British English (and Old English) the 'h' in 'historian' is not usually pronounced. But in North America (Canada included) the 'h' is pronounced as a hard 'h' which suggests the article 'a' is more appropriate.
Now the argument could be made that he gained a history degree from Oxford (where he would have been 'an' historian) but he in fact began his studies in Canada and concluded them in the US. While it could be argued he was "just visiting" North America, he has chosen at present to reside in Canada and is involved in what a few Canadians might view as a slightly important political position (that's right, professional stand-in for Stephane Dion). Sorry for the typically Canadian political humour (yes we spell 'humour' with a 'u' because without 'u' it wouldn't be funny).
In short, as a Canadian, I vote it read that Ignatieff was "a historian." If there is to be a split over this remember that brevity is important and that 'an' has twice as many letters as 'a'.
Canadiandy1 ( talk) 00:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Canadiandy
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Michael Ignatieff. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Michael Ignatieff. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Comment(s) | Press [show] to view → |
---|---|
Comment by
User:198.20.40.50
At present, the neutrality of this article is disputed. While it is a decent overview of Ignatieff's life, writings, and political career, a serious student would find much to be desired. Thus, I would classify it as B grade, working towards a GA grade. Because it is about an important Canadian politician (and international scholar), I would classify the article as being of High importance. A cynic could make the argument for Mid level importance. Specific suggestions for improving the article include proper wikification of references and links, as well as cleaning up instances of pro- and anti- Ignatieff wording. Undue weight is also an issue, as is length. Additional comments to follow. -- 198.20.40.50 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Comment by User:Ottawaman This article rates an F for failure in every possible way. It has been continually censored and controlled by contributors who only want to maximize anything positive about the subject and minimize or delete anything negative. The most prolific current contributer even resorted to using offensive =User_talk:65.95.151.166&oldid=68340985 templates which ridicule disabled children as a way to pressure editors in his direction. Now that same editor and 1 other =Talk:Michael_Ignatieff&diff=68821548&oldid=68820070 delete talk page discussion topics they do not want to see addressed by the community. In short, this article sucks,big time and at this point has been completely hijacked by contributors with a pro-Ignatieff pov who are blatantly instilling that pov into the article. Ottawaman 00:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 01:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 23:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Michael Ignatieff. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:25, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Michael Ignatieff. 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://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2221709When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)