Talk:Belinda Stronach/Archive 2

It don't Makes sense

Michael, you want your opinions (and that's what they are) included in the article despite the fact that you have presented no evidence to support your claims other than hearsay. You claim there was a meeting between Buzz Hargrove and Stronach in which somehow she revealed herself to be a social democrat but you are unable to cite on article, one document, one actual reference to support this claim. You can't even tell us on what date this alleged meeting occured. AndyL 14:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would it make sense, then, to include a line in the article that says:

Although Stronach's political career has been entirely within conservative political parties, one contributor to Wikipedia believes strongly that she is a social democrat and that she will leave the Conservative Party to join the NDP.

Would that keep you happy, michaelm? That seems to be a pretty fair depiction of the situtation here. The trouble is that this is not the Wikipedia style. The Wikipedia style is to report facts. Where a contentious matter is at debate, sometimes articles will use words like, "Some people believe that...." this is officially discouraged. And the problem here is that we cannot say that some people believe this since it is only you. Sorry, pal, but you're not going to win this one until Stronach herself says something about her social democratic beliefs. Kevintoronto 19:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Kevintoronto. An encyclopedia can only go with verifyable facts. The beliefs and opinions of editors, no matter how strongly held, won't cut it. Michaelm may need to recuse himself from this article if he can't live with that. Sunray 20:44, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Michael: You are missing the main point. Ms. Stronach is a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. The party is not a social democratic party. Therefore, to call her a social democrat is impossible. The only thing we could do is quote a reputable source who said something to that effect. However, (and I have said this before, but you are not getting it) she is not a social democrat as long as she remains in the Conservative Party. Therefore, even if you find some quote about it, we will have to clarify that. What we need from you is not research, but acceptance of Wikipedia rules about this, as very patiently explained to you by Samaritan and Kevintoronto. Sunray 00:54, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

[1] [2]

Dear God. The page you quote says "Go to the NDP, you moron." It's entitled "That total witch!" It continues that she doesn't give "TWO RATS' A**ES" about the people of Western Canada. If I came across a page about michaelm called "That pathetic creep!" where the author obviously despises you and says you should go to a party the author doesn't like, I would have enough judgement and respect for you not to take it as a source for an encyclopedia article about you. The previous page wasn't nearly as ad hominem, but was still doing the same thing. In fact, if you want us to take these sources as credible, shouldn't we also say Belinda is a moron, etc.? Samaritan 07:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[3]

Is there anything more to talk about?

You're asking us to believe these anti-Belinda attack pages get her completely wrong... umm, until you want us to think they get her completely right when they suggest she's socialist or social democrat. Further, the only or main reason they say she's socialist or social democrat are her positions on same-sex marriage and/or abortion. This is not what it means to be socialist or social democrat. Your sources are confusing these things for dramatic effect because they are exaggerated rants.

You're shifting your argument, asking us to believe sites you say in the next breath we shouldn't believe, holding up the article in protection for a week then asking us to wait on you for a few more days. We've spent time considering your arguments, asking to hear more, crafting a consensus that's open to all new solid evidence, etc. We've warmly adopted content you've given us with a very open mind when it's stood up to proof and reason - there was ultimately something there about the UAW and NLRB. But we've also been wasting our time with complete fabrications - that she brought in those unions herself, that she's socialist because she doesn't always fight unions in every respect, that she's opposed to free trade and takes the NDP/labour position on it, and (I'm guessing) that she saved 1000 jobs at Daimler-Chrysler.

And the only sites that back up what you're saying are sites you're telling us not to believe. Is there anything more to talk about here? Samaritan 09:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think there is one more thing that we can do. michaelm has been looking diligently for material that supports his point of view. He has found two critiques of Ms. Stronach from the right: Weinreb of the Canada Free Press and REAL Women of Canada. The REAL Women article is interesting. They are a well-enough established social conservative force that we could quote them. For example, we could say:

"Social conservative elements in Canada have beem critical of Stronach, calliing her a "red tory." During Stronach's leadership campaign, REAL Women of Canada stated: "If Ms. Stronach is elected as leader of the Conservative Party, social conservatives will no longer have a voice in Canada." Others have suggested that, in view of her positions on unions and same sex marriage, she should join the NDP. Whatever her social democratic inclinations, however, Stronach is a member of the Conservative Party. As long as she remains in that party it would be incorrect to refer to her as a "social democrat."

Could we get consensus on this? I would like to know if we can all agree to: a) modify the article along the lines suggested by Samaritan, and b) add a paragraph such as the one above to the article. What do you think, Michaelm? Others? Sunray 17:40, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I agree unreservedly with:

"Social conservative elements in Canada have beem critical of Stronach, calling her a "red tory." During Stronach's leadership campaign, REAL Women of Canada stated: "If Ms. Stronach is elected as leader of the Conservative Party, social conservatives will no longer have a voice in Canada."

About:

Others have suggested that, in view of her positions on unions and same sex marriage, she should join the NDP. Whatever her social democratic inclinations, however, Stronach is a member of the Conservative Party. As long as she remains in that party it would be incorrect to refer to her as a "social democrat."

I don't know. Has anybody but michaelm suggested this with respect to her position on unions? As for same sex marriage, the Liberal Party is introducing legislation to provide for it, the Bloc Quebecois is voting for it unanimously or close, and at least two Conservatives MPs besides Ms. Stronach - James Moore and Bev Oda - are planning to vote for SSM. [4] Numerous CPC activists outside Parliament support SSM. But it wouldn't be remotely appropriate to link to social democracy or socialism on all these people's pages, so... Samaritan 18:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Michael, have you read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view? What you are stating are opinions and we cannot include them in the article. Do you understand?AndyL 06:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Resolution 2.0

I'm for the resolution Sunray authored above (with slight modifications I was starting to write up but gave up and blanked, but here it is back. Oh well. Samaritan 06:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) )

No, it's unprofessional to refer to subjects by their first name. AndyL 06:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I blanked that specific proposal in large part because there was ultimately only one critic from the right we found calling her a socialist, and that was a scurrilious post on a webboard that also called her a moron, etc. Samaritan 06:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

To Michaelm, Sunray, Kevintoronto, AndyL, Matty and Chestnut, and past article editors not on the talk page, for engaging in the process to work towards a resolution. Samaritan 08:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...and a plate of bigger economic pie all around. ;) Samaritan 08:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Amazing work, yourself, Samaritan! Truly worthy of your name, I'd say--though you are no push over. If the current arrangement hold us, what about this article as a nominee for Canadian Collaboration of the Week? Sunray 18:56, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

No, no, t'was nothing. :) And I think this may be more like a Featured Article collaboration, or something, since it was a moderately extensive article when we started this round of consensus-building, already. Samaritan 09:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much for sorting this one out, Sam and Sunny. I was getting very tired of this debate. Mmmm... pie.... Kevintoronto 17:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Same hear it was a fiasco. - michaelm

Belinda Stronach was Anti-Free Trade

Belinda supported David Orchard in the 2003 PC leadership race [5] (-this was michaelm)

This is a fascinating find. In fairness, though, all it definitely confirms is that Orchard said Frank Stronach supported him in 2003. Also, you can support Orchard in a race without entirely buying into his position on free trade – Dalton Camp was always extremely sympathetic to Orchard in his columns, sometimes almost to the point of endorsement, and Camp had been one of Mulroney's top salesmen for free trade. Also, Orchard was leading a lawsuit to stop the creation of the party Belinda was seeking to lead, so they were hardly joined at the hip politically. Samaritan 05:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

• Wikistyle is to link to at least the first occurence of a term, so we must not remove the first CPC wikilink. The link in the next paragraph is neither here nor there and could go – remember, the article was originally written well before she was elected MP.
• Changing the description of Stronach as a Conservative MP to "Conservative Card Holder" is just awful, loses information and misleads the reader. She is not just a Conservative card holder who happens to be an MP. After running for the Conservative leadership, she won her election on the Conservative platform with Conservative on her signs and every ballot, she caucuses with her fellow Conservative MPs, holds a frontbench position in the Conservative caucus as trade critic, is listed as a Conservative in the Parliamentary directories and in Hansard every time she speaks, etc., etc. Saying she was a "Conservative Card Holder" suggests – as has happened in the past – she may not caucus with the party or list herself as a Conservative in Parliament, but is a member of the party. This does not reflect her position. Samaritan 05:10, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ture, your right. that was awful. - michaelm

"she caucuses with her fellow Conservative MPs", especially with Peter McKay. Kevintoronto 20:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Belinda Stronach caucuses with her fellow Conservative MPs thats a dangerous mix 1 Social Democrat (Belinda Stronach) and 98 Conservatives thay will clach I can't even think of the consequences! - michaelm

Michaelm: A question

If I may?
When and how did you first get the idea Belinda was an NDP social democrat? Don't just say she's a social democrat! I know that's your view. :) I'm just incredibly curious what set the idea off in your mind. Did somebody else tell you she was? Was it something specific that she said? I'm not asking for a list of evidence to back up your position – we've gone over all of that already. How did you first think: Belinda? Obviously a New Democrat... Samaritan 09:37, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I seen her in action the sponk in her something I sents it in her. My famley Beleves shes Left-Wing as well and I know people do join the wrong party. In the house of commons I seen her she dous not look happy in the Conservatives. Also she very up set with Stephen Harper and the Conservatives because Harper did something that was underhanded Lateley [6] and the outher sorce comes from The Globe and Mail "MP Belinda Stronach said Monday she would not have run such ads and does not approve of them." and one more thing she is supporting lowering the voteing age to 16 that bill was an NDP bill in the past but an Liberal MP re-interdust the bill the NDP,the Bloc, the Liberals and Belinda Stronach support the bill. She is more Left-Wing then a Red Tory and she is more Left-Wing then a Liberal. And did you know that the people of Newmarket-Aurora don't like Stephen Harper and the Conservatives the only reason thay voted for the Conservatives is because of Belinda Stronach and the people of Newmarket-Aurora will vote for her again under the NDP Banner it will likeley the 1st time the riding of Newmarket-Aurora will be NDP Orange but the same MP (Belinda Stronach) - michaelm

Can you explain why Stronach has never so much as made a donation to the NDP at any level? She's donated money to Liberals and Tories but not once to the federal or provincial NDP (in any province) or to any NDP candidate. AndyL 06:48, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The person that supoust to wright back in Samaritan. AndyL what past is past get over it. Besides she might of donated money to the NDP anonymousley. - michaelm

Um, what you should get over is your idee fixe regarding Stronach. BTW, I don't think you can donate anonymously to political parties under Canadian election law so your claim that she might have done so is ruled out. Sorry Michael, she's donated money to the Liberals, Tories and Reform but never to the NDP. This not insignificant fact should make it obvious that Stronach has no NDP sympathies. AndyL 19:36, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If Belinda Stronach joined the NDP

If Belinda Stronach joined the NDP would you vote for the NDP. - michaelm

No. Besides, Stronach is more likely to replace the limp Harper as Tory leader. AndyL 12:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't respond to this before, mindful of Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. (Plus I had outed myself as a New Democrat anyway, in passing, above.) Samaritan 06:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I won't comment on my voting tendencies either. However, I agree with AndyL that she could replace Harper. Sunray 06:33, 2004 Dec 31 (UTC)