![]() | Paul Martin is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Paul Martin is still the Prime Minister. He remains PM until he resigns. The transition could take up to 2 weeks. -- Ibagli 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it time to remove his title? He is no longer the Prime Minister now. Mamboman 08:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Now the election is over, is it still needed or should it be kept till Harper is sworn in? 23skidoo 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be removed. J.R. 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to note that Martin is entitled to the honorific "Right Honourable" until death, and does not lose it upon ceasing to be Prime Minister. -- Saforrest 00:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to note that although he remains Rt. Hon., I've removed it from the first line as per He Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) -- JGGardiner 03:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Queen's Privy Council members are "The Honourable" NOT "The Right Honourable". "The Right Honourable" title comes with the office of Prime Minister and is lost after the office is lost. Martin is therefore only entitled to "The Honourable".
--
YapaTi (
talk)
20:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Paul Martin resigned as Leader on Jan.23 2006 and PM as of Jan.24 2006 [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelm ( talk • contribs)
A caretaker prime minister in constitutional law is a resigned PM who is still in office purely because his or her successor has not yet been appointed. As Martin has not resigned, merely announced to resign, he is still a full prime minister, not a caretaker.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone (possibly Willy on Wheels) has replaced the images of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper with borderline-pornographic images. This appears to be advanced vandalism, in that simply deleted the "image" in the template has no effect. Please do not return the template until this matter is resolved. CJCurrie 20:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The box for "Leader of the Liberal Party" had changed the successor box to "to be chosen" from "incumbent." Although it is unlikely to happen, there is precedent in Canadian politics for a leader to announce his resignation and then change his mind ... Pierre Trudeau. I think this should remain as "incumbent" until the convention chooses a new leader (or Martin stays on, one or the other). 23skidoo 22:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
This sentence in the first paragraph of the finance minister section seems to be out of place: "Martin balanced the budget by decreasing federal transfer payments to the provinces."
I think it should be removed. It just doesn't seem to belong, and it is inaccurate. It leaves the impression that all Martin did was cut the transfer payments, and then he had a balanced budget. At a minimum I think that sentence should be moved to the last paragraph of the finance minister section, where the costs of balancing the budget are discussed. Shanebratt 08:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)shanebratt
The subject of copyrighted vs. Fair Use images has been discussed recently at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Harper#We_should_remove_the_unfree_image
I'm therefore helping the project out by replacing the fair use, copyrighted image here with a free use image. Michael Dorosh 13:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The free image was removed again, and it should be put back. -- Rob 05:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This image
looks like crap. the image of paul martin that's been there for years is alot better and is fair use under crown copyright, why change it when you can't find a more professional image, or is this site full of tories? Canadian crown copyright images are used on a nother of other articles and they haven't been removed, at least find a better quality image before reverting back to that ugly pose photo, we can all agree it's not a good pose eh --
User:Cmc0
At least look for a better picture then, I mean, Wikipedia can use the crown copyright picture that's been up there for years, why are you guys changing the picture just now, wikipedia hasn't been sued or anything. And I guess you guys got alot of work to do, if you want to replace the thousands of crown copyright images (British, Canadian etc). So tell me this, are you going to replace the Tony Blair main image i posted up with a cropped white house photo then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmc0 ( talk • contribs) .
Ok, but ask yourself this? the rule page you posted asks Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?" I would say no because the bad image you posted stands out (candid non professional shot, wrinkles shown, eyes squinted etc). I haven't seen anyone but you complain about the crown copyright image that's beeen there for years, why change the image now? the crown copyright at least allows us to use the image if i provide the source(which I did).
So what image would you allow to be posted then, which looks better than that white house cropped pic, your the only one that's complaining -- Cmc0 07:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What about this one, it;s the same one that's hanging in parliament and it's the one Martin handed out when he was prime minister [3]-- Cmc0 16:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
That image is awful. Can't we find anything with which to replace it? -- Arctic Gnome 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh what a surprise Canadian politician images suddenly get the shaft by Wikipedia rules but American images do not. I saw this coming a LONG time ago and if nobody else did then you were a blind fool. I argued against the policy years ago but no they said it was nothing against Canadian law, that it would affect US laws the same, but look now the Canadian images are gone but American images are still present.
NorthernThunder
05:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Paul Martin is not Roman Catholic. He is not pro-choice either. He is pro-abortion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.96.119 ( talk • contribs) .
You have misunderstood. Religiously and morally, I am opposed to the word "choice" being used as a euphemism for abortion and birth control. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.96.119 ( talk • contribs) .
If your going to change catergories like pro choice to pro abortion then A. Ensure such a catergory exists B. Choose a better reason than the mere shock value of the word "abortion" over "choice" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.235.135.194 ( talk • contribs) .
In the Liberal Leaders succession box, I've replaced Bill Graham with Stephane Dion. Why? Because, all the other Liberal Leader's succession boxes don't list the interim-leaders. GoodDay 00:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This Montreal Gazette article says that Martin will not be running again in Lasalle-Emard, but mentions this incidentally (Jean Lapierre's decision being the main story). Can anyone vouch for whether or not this has been officially established? "It would be unlikely given the circumstances" doesn't count.
Interestingly, paulmartin.ca is a 404 for me. He doesn't seem to have a constituency website up. Very odd. - Joshuapaquin 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is speculation and since it did not come from Martin's office, you have to start it by saying "A report speculated that...". Lapierre on the other hand did announce that he would not run. GoldDragon 05:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I do not know where I saw it, however, I do remember him saying that he will not be running for re-election in the next general election. VanceBaker ( talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Are these pro-monarchy changes really necessary: [4]? The new wording is technically accurate, but there are very few people in Canada who actually describe changes in government with reference to the apparatus of the monarchy. CJCurrie 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Should the honourary degrees be used in the opening? I know that it is legitimate but it is rarely done. Stephen Colbert even does it as a joke. -- JGGardiner 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm always uncomfortable with presenting election analysis in the article as if it were fact. Everyone has different opinions. In any event, this sentence is not supported by the note attached to it: "These attacks also attracted crucial voters who had been leaning towards the NDP, which enabled the Liberals to hold on to several ridings by thin margins." -- JGGardiner ( talk) 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Nneonneo claims that the picture in revision history is 'unencyclopedic' however he has failed to point out why, and has not refuted the statements made in the initial revert: "shows sense of humour and recent speaking engagements". Until an explanation of why Paul Martin's sense of humour is not relevant to Paul Martin, and why Paul Martin's recent speaking engagements are not relevant to Paul Martin is provided the image will be reverted.
76.10.128.253 ( talk) 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
im awesome yes i am —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.211.43 ( talk) 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Paul Martin has recently received the following "Honorary Degrees"
Queen's University, 2010 and University of Western Ontario, 2010
64.235.109.161 ( talk) 00:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Paul Martin's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "dominionofcanada.com":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | Paul Martin is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Paul Martin is still the Prime Minister. He remains PM until he resigns. The transition could take up to 2 weeks. -- Ibagli 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it time to remove his title? He is no longer the Prime Minister now. Mamboman 08:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Now the election is over, is it still needed or should it be kept till Harper is sworn in? 23skidoo 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be removed. J.R. 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to note that Martin is entitled to the honorific "Right Honourable" until death, and does not lose it upon ceasing to be Prime Minister. -- Saforrest 00:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to note that although he remains Rt. Hon., I've removed it from the first line as per He Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) -- JGGardiner 03:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Queen's Privy Council members are "The Honourable" NOT "The Right Honourable". "The Right Honourable" title comes with the office of Prime Minister and is lost after the office is lost. Martin is therefore only entitled to "The Honourable".
--
YapaTi (
talk)
20:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Paul Martin resigned as Leader on Jan.23 2006 and PM as of Jan.24 2006 [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelm ( talk • contribs)
A caretaker prime minister in constitutional law is a resigned PM who is still in office purely because his or her successor has not yet been appointed. As Martin has not resigned, merely announced to resign, he is still a full prime minister, not a caretaker.
FearÉIREANN
\
(caint)
01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone (possibly Willy on Wheels) has replaced the images of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper with borderline-pornographic images. This appears to be advanced vandalism, in that simply deleted the "image" in the template has no effect. Please do not return the template until this matter is resolved. CJCurrie 20:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The box for "Leader of the Liberal Party" had changed the successor box to "to be chosen" from "incumbent." Although it is unlikely to happen, there is precedent in Canadian politics for a leader to announce his resignation and then change his mind ... Pierre Trudeau. I think this should remain as "incumbent" until the convention chooses a new leader (or Martin stays on, one or the other). 23skidoo 22:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
This sentence in the first paragraph of the finance minister section seems to be out of place: "Martin balanced the budget by decreasing federal transfer payments to the provinces."
I think it should be removed. It just doesn't seem to belong, and it is inaccurate. It leaves the impression that all Martin did was cut the transfer payments, and then he had a balanced budget. At a minimum I think that sentence should be moved to the last paragraph of the finance minister section, where the costs of balancing the budget are discussed. Shanebratt 08:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)shanebratt
The subject of copyrighted vs. Fair Use images has been discussed recently at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Harper#We_should_remove_the_unfree_image
I'm therefore helping the project out by replacing the fair use, copyrighted image here with a free use image. Michael Dorosh 13:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The free image was removed again, and it should be put back. -- Rob 05:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
This image
looks like crap. the image of paul martin that's been there for years is alot better and is fair use under crown copyright, why change it when you can't find a more professional image, or is this site full of tories? Canadian crown copyright images are used on a nother of other articles and they haven't been removed, at least find a better quality image before reverting back to that ugly pose photo, we can all agree it's not a good pose eh --
User:Cmc0
At least look for a better picture then, I mean, Wikipedia can use the crown copyright picture that's been up there for years, why are you guys changing the picture just now, wikipedia hasn't been sued or anything. And I guess you guys got alot of work to do, if you want to replace the thousands of crown copyright images (British, Canadian etc). So tell me this, are you going to replace the Tony Blair main image i posted up with a cropped white house photo then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmc0 ( talk • contribs) .
Ok, but ask yourself this? the rule page you posted asks Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?" I would say no because the bad image you posted stands out (candid non professional shot, wrinkles shown, eyes squinted etc). I haven't seen anyone but you complain about the crown copyright image that's beeen there for years, why change the image now? the crown copyright at least allows us to use the image if i provide the source(which I did).
So what image would you allow to be posted then, which looks better than that white house cropped pic, your the only one that's complaining -- Cmc0 07:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What about this one, it;s the same one that's hanging in parliament and it's the one Martin handed out when he was prime minister [3]-- Cmc0 16:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
That image is awful. Can't we find anything with which to replace it? -- Arctic Gnome 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh what a surprise Canadian politician images suddenly get the shaft by Wikipedia rules but American images do not. I saw this coming a LONG time ago and if nobody else did then you were a blind fool. I argued against the policy years ago but no they said it was nothing against Canadian law, that it would affect US laws the same, but look now the Canadian images are gone but American images are still present.
NorthernThunder
05:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Paul Martin is not Roman Catholic. He is not pro-choice either. He is pro-abortion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.96.119 ( talk • contribs) .
You have misunderstood. Religiously and morally, I am opposed to the word "choice" being used as a euphemism for abortion and birth control. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.96.119 ( talk • contribs) .
If your going to change catergories like pro choice to pro abortion then A. Ensure such a catergory exists B. Choose a better reason than the mere shock value of the word "abortion" over "choice" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.235.135.194 ( talk • contribs) .
In the Liberal Leaders succession box, I've replaced Bill Graham with Stephane Dion. Why? Because, all the other Liberal Leader's succession boxes don't list the interim-leaders. GoodDay 00:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This Montreal Gazette article says that Martin will not be running again in Lasalle-Emard, but mentions this incidentally (Jean Lapierre's decision being the main story). Can anyone vouch for whether or not this has been officially established? "It would be unlikely given the circumstances" doesn't count.
Interestingly, paulmartin.ca is a 404 for me. He doesn't seem to have a constituency website up. Very odd. - Joshuapaquin 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, it is speculation and since it did not come from Martin's office, you have to start it by saying "A report speculated that...". Lapierre on the other hand did announce that he would not run. GoldDragon 05:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I do not know where I saw it, however, I do remember him saying that he will not be running for re-election in the next general election. VanceBaker ( talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Are these pro-monarchy changes really necessary: [4]? The new wording is technically accurate, but there are very few people in Canada who actually describe changes in government with reference to the apparatus of the monarchy. CJCurrie 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Should the honourary degrees be used in the opening? I know that it is legitimate but it is rarely done. Stephen Colbert even does it as a joke. -- JGGardiner 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm always uncomfortable with presenting election analysis in the article as if it were fact. Everyone has different opinions. In any event, this sentence is not supported by the note attached to it: "These attacks also attracted crucial voters who had been leaning towards the NDP, which enabled the Liberals to hold on to several ridings by thin margins." -- JGGardiner ( talk) 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Nneonneo claims that the picture in revision history is 'unencyclopedic' however he has failed to point out why, and has not refuted the statements made in the initial revert: "shows sense of humour and recent speaking engagements". Until an explanation of why Paul Martin's sense of humour is not relevant to Paul Martin, and why Paul Martin's recent speaking engagements are not relevant to Paul Martin is provided the image will be reverted.
76.10.128.253 ( talk) 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
im awesome yes i am —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.211.43 ( talk) 18:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Paul Martin has recently received the following "Honorary Degrees"
Queen's University, 2010 and University of Western Ontario, 2010
64.235.109.161 ( talk) 00:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Paul Martin's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "dominionofcanada.com":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)