Misplaced Pages

Recognition

Does most of the "recognition" material also come from Ignatieff's election campaign? The material below I did not see in the reference grouping. Ottawaman 01:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Michael Ignatieff is an internationally recognized scholar and historian, and has written extensively on the subjects of international relations and nation-building."

• "Maclean's named him among the "Top 10 Canadian Who's Who" in 1997"

• "His 1998 biography of Isaiah Berlin was shortlisted for both the Jewish Quarterly Literary Prize for Non-Fiction and the James Tait Black Memorial Prize."

• "His text on Western interventionist policies and nation building, Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond, studied the NATO bombing of Kosovo and subsequent aftermath. It won the Orwell Prize for political non-fiction in 2000. He also worked with the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in preparing the report, The Responsibility to Protect, which discussed the role of international involvement in Kosovo, Rwanda, and the Darfur region of Sudan."

• Comment; It is concerning to me that the sole source for almost all of the information referred to above was Ignatieff's own campaign. Ottawaman 18:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
• OK, so what can we take off this list? --Hamiltonian 19:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We can change Canadian scholar to Harvard scholar and I have struck one objection. With this much contributor interest we do not need to rely upon Iggy's election campaign site as the sole reference for any information regardless of how convenient and well organized their package of information is. Obviously all of the information which came solely from Iggy's election campaign should be second sourced or removed,imo. Ottawaman 19:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm fine with finding non-Ignatieff site cites for everything else. I vigorously oppose changing Canadian scholar to Harvard scholar, since it is not standard form to refer to someone as being a "<school where they earned their PhD> scholar" and he is no longer on the faculty of Harvard's Carr Center. --Hamiltonian 19:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

We may have a big problem

Iggy's campaign website, which is shown above as the source of all that background info. in the article, is not listed as a reference; it is only listed as an external link. Ottawaman 19:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the above

Clearly it now needs to be a reference. Tyrenius 12:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but is it an acceptable reference while Canada is, right now, smack in the middle of the election(for leader of the Liberal party) campaign ? Ottawaman 14:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There are guidelines for that sort of thing. This material all fits in there. --JGGardiner 15:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Better yet, when you doubt a source, find a new one. These were all from first-page google searches.

• Macleans who's who (U of T news digest quoting and Toronto Star story)
• Jewish Quarterly (from them)
• James Tait Black (likewise)
• Orwell Prize (BBC news)
• ICISS report (from the ICISS)

I would note that the ICISS report preceded the Darfur crisis (which is mentioned above). Although it was prepared for situations such as that. --JGGardiner 16:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Self published sources are acceptable in wikipedia guidelines. We need to take a common sense, balanced view. It would not be a reliable source for an evaluation such as "Michael is considered one of the world's leading experts in democracy, human rights, security, and international affairs", as we would need a secondary source for verification. On the other hand, it can be useful for facts such as "has served on the International Commission on Kosovo, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, and the World Economic Forum, where he led panels on citizenship and minority rights, Afghanistan, and the future of the Balkans" (unless of course it can be proved that he never served on the International Commission, but I think that would be all over the press by now, if he were making such false claims). We shouldn't let the leadership campaign interfere in the fact that we're writing an encyclopedia article, which will endure when the campaign is long done. We have established protocols to work to, and we must do so, as fairly as possible. I suggest looking at some political featured articles as a model. Tyrenius 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not meaning to belabour the issue, but if, as JGardiner suggests, all of this background is available from other references, would it not be better to start from scratch and use those references? This political campaugn has been filled with dirty tricks and falsehoods; some coming from the same campaign officials who control campaign websites. I would also not assume the Canadian media have the resources to fact check as much as British or US media do; Canada has only 28 million people after all. To back up this point, it is true that Ignatieff's campaign fibbed about his mother-in-law being ill (as a justification as to why he was on vacation and unavailable for interviews on the Israel/Lebanon conflict).which indicates to me that they would not hesitate to fib about things on his resume which are difficult to fact-check."...campaign director Ian Davey telephoned to say Ignatieff's mother-in-law was ill in Hungary.'He's overseas — there's an illness in the family,' said Davey, adding he wouldn't contact Ignatieff about a phone interview. Last week, however, back in Toronto, Ignatieff told the Star his mother-in-law was, in fact, not ill."There is no health crisis," he said. "There never was. Anybody who said there was, was not authorized to say that. I never purported to say that."

I really do not understand why we have to use any information at all which comes from his campaign website, especially while the campaign is ongoing. If JGardiner is correct, then it should not be that difficult to find better sources for Ignatieff's background; however, it might be almost impossible to prove a negative (e.g. that Iggy did not serve on the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in some obscure capacity). Ottawaman 19:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

We need not be so pessimistic. Just because the information is not at hand does not mean that it is unknowable. The ICISS point is exactly the kind of thing that we can prove. The ICISS was a commission. He was one of the commissioners (there were 12). You can see that in the link to the report which I included above or find it here. You have to remember that a citation is included so that fact can be checked. We still have to check them. --JGGardiner 20:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

An amusing thought struck me about this situation: if you say that Davey lied about Ignatieff's mother-in-law (it seems as if they certainly have competing stories), and with you doubting that earlier that Ignatieff even has a wife, then are you imagining that Davey was claiming that Ignatieff was visiting a mother-in-law that doesn't even exist? Eh, the possibility made me laugh. --Hamiltonian 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ottawaman, you are confusing original research into truth, with wikipedia's acceptance of verifiable sources. Wiki doesn't enquire into the truth: it reports what people say the truth is. Check it out here. These protocols are deeply established in wikipedia, and we can't change them for just one article. If Ignatieff's campaign manager says one thing and he says another, we don't try and work out who's right; we just report what they both said. Until proven wrong, it is acceptable to use his site as a source for information, with some exceptions such as obviously self-aggrandising statements. If there is another source as well, then that's even better. Also don't forget this is a wiki — it's not set in stone and can be constantly upgraded. Tyrenius 23:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's my relative lack of experience with this platform. When I read the instructions you gave; "As it is non-negotiable to work with policy, it might be an idea to kick off with one, which is easy, namely VERIFY. I wonder if there is any material in the article which is not verified with a reliable source, as any editor is entitled to remove that." That is precisely the task I set upon. I simply feel that Ignatieff's (or any campaign website) is not a reliable source in the midst of a heated campaign and I believe the wikipedia policy concerning self-published and partisan sources can be read to expect a certain amount of common-sense application. To me it is not reasonable to rely upon single source information from his campaign site when we do not have to do it. As far as it being a wiki, you would not be here if the process was working as it should,istm. I feel as if this almost falls within the "emperor has no clothes" category. I, as well as others, have suggested that the article has been written and controlled with pro-Iggy POV. I thought that before realizing so much material was taken straight from his campaign website. Imo it is not in keeping with NPOV to allow that material to remain without confirmation from other sources. Ottawaman 00:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right about the peculiarities and particularities of the platform. However such they are. I have copied and paste here the relevant section from the "non negotiable" policy, VERIFY:

Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:

• It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
• It is not contentious;
• It is not unduly self-serving;
• It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.

So there is nothing to stop material from his site being used. This is not at all a bar to other sources being used, so if you have other sources, please cite those and whatever they say. If it contradicts what is on his site, then we will show the contradiction, but non-judgementally (this doesn't bar including judgements made by those other sources). In fact it is the model of NPOV to allow material from his site to stand; the only reason not to allow it is a POV. You are making arguments that are not in accord with policy, however cogent they might be for other platforms. As far as overall POV bias in the article, that will be the next stage, once the verification stage above is resolved. Tyrenius 01:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is similar to the Ottawaman's; I think that some the background material fits the prohibition you listed above of being "unduly self-serving" and I think that "reliable source" and "campaign website" are mutually exclusive propositions. I have copied and pasted here a relevant section from the "non negotiable" policy, VERIFY:

• "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers". Are you taking the position that a campaign website is a reputable publisher?BarbWatts 02:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

Not to jump ahead but I have a few suggestions I wanted to get down as I may be away from a computer for awhile;

Controversies section

• 1; basically that the "controversies"section be put back to

this which was arrived at after much discussion and compromise,imo.

• A;that the "controversies" section include Iggy's own comments regarding his time away from Canada in the national self-identity sub-section.
• B; that the Ukrainian controversy be put back as it was a very big deal and still is.

• 2; that the opponent sites subsection be reincluded in External Links since the article offers links to Iggy's campaign offices.Ottawaman 13:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

1.a) Since the section already sufficiently deals with critics' concerns about Ignatieff's absence from Canada, and the quote about being a martian outsider is neither a response to those criticisms nor a source of controversy (ie. the media hasn't picked up on this quote either as an admission that Ignatieff is out of touch with Canada, nor as a rebuttal to such claims), I don't think it's necessary to include in an already overlong article.

1.b) This issue has been moved into the Political career section. I think that's appropriate, since it only emerged as a point of controversy in the context of Ignatieff's nomination. If some of the content from the original Ukranian-Canadian section should be reintroduced, it could be added succinctly to the Political career section.

2. I see no reason to exclude the opponents' sites section. If it were put to a vote, I'd vote to include. —Joel Bastedo 15:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment on the above

Could we please put this discussion on hold for a moment, as we haven't got the verification points resolved yet. One thing at a time, or it's going to get back to stalemate. There may be different solutions to the "controversies section" and we need to consider policy as a starting point. Tyrenius 13:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Ottawaman 14:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)