Talk:2003–2004 Liberal Party of Canada infighting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Meech Lake[edit]

I read this a long time ago, and never said anything then, but the error is still there. The article contends that the animosity between Chretien and Martin was due to the fact that Martin 'outed' Chretien on his opposition to Meech Lake. That is not it at all. Such situations are never that simple. I think I have an idea what the author was talking about, though. There was a leadership debate in Quebec in which Martin pressured Chretien on the matter. When Chretien stated he was opposed to Meech Lake the Martin supporters in the crowd started shouting "vendu, vendu". This is a very hurtful insult in Quebec. It was also part of an ongoing strategy of the Martin camp to portray Chretien as out of touch with Quebec's beliefs and values. They also used the term "yesterday's man" very often with a similar intent. To someone in the crowd it may have seemed like Martin just 'outed' Chretien, but Chretien had been opposed to Meech before that (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4DE103DF93BA15755C0A96F948260). He was avoiding the topic, to be sure. Besides, to suggest that debate was the cause of the animosity between the two is to over simplify human relationships. That was a very mean spirited leadership race. Many friends became enemies. Many rules were broken by all sides, with little ramifications. It was probably the last of the old style leadership races, given the new rules that are in place. I know, because I was there - actively involved. I'll leave my post here for now, to see if any discuss occurs. However, the comment in this article that I am referring to has no documentation; even more, I've provided at least one documentation above that refutes it. So I will likely be correcting the comment soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.175.222 (talk) 13:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


NPOV[edit]

Anyone else see some major NPOV issues here? -Joshuapaquin 00:11, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It needs the Martinite perspective, unfortunately I do not know what it is. - SimonP 00:40, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'm doing my best to try to keep the perspective balanced. It doesn't help when people keep adding sentences saying that Martin quit (when he was fired), that the Martin people were trying to purge the party of all Chretien supporters, etc. HistoryBA 00:44, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I disagree with HistoryBA's assumption that it is NPOV to say that Martin was fired. While that may be a popular opinion, it is not the expressed position of either Martin or Chrétien. In this Privy Council news releasethe text states: "The Prime Minister accepted the resignation of the Honourable Paul Martin. He expressed his appreciation for Mr. Martin's service to Canadians as Minister of Finance since 1993, and his contribution to making Canada a sound and growing economy." Susan Delacourt is an interesting source, but not one that I would consider NPOV to an encyclopedic extent. I would be interested to hear other opinions on this, though, so I will not change the article accordingly for the time being. -Joshuapaquin 00:45, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
It is well-known that Martin first learned that he was no longer Minister of Finance when listening to Rex Murphy's "Cross Country Checkup" on CBC Radio. (If you have any doubts about Delacourt's veracity, check John Gray's biography of Martin, or Lawrence Martin's biography of Chretien.) Chretien made the announcement before receiving a letter of resignation from Martin. Chretien's subsequent letter to Martin did not say "I accept your resignation." It said, "I confirm that you are leaving the cabinet." The headline in the next day's Globe and Mail? "Chretien Fires Martin." HistoryBA 01:36, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Just to mix this up a little more, according to Parliamentary rules it is not even possible for a Prime Minister to "fire" a Cabinet Minister. There was a case in Ontario where the Premier asked a Cabinet Minister to resign and he refused, though he did eventually agree to resign. In this case Chretien claims Martin resigned during the telephone conversation they had. Martin claims he discovered he was removed from Cabinet the next day. Clearly there are two points of view on this. Thus, the only NPOV is to present both points of view in a fair manner and let the reader come to their own conclusions.
Of course parliamentary rules don't say anything about firing a cabinet minister. It is a matter for the executive, not parliament. Chretien announced the appointment of a new minister of finance before the old one had resigned. This is clearly a "firing," no matter how you look at it. HistoryBA 22:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
No, it is actually not a matter for the executive. I regret ever making the point.
There are only two people who were on that phone call. Chretien said he resigned. Martin said he did not. How can anyone claim they KNOW which is the true version. It is IMPOSSIBLE to know. Therefore, the only thing that can be done to present a NPOV is to present both sides and let the reader decide. Surely to goodness both sides of this debate can accept that and will not insist that the article only reflect what they believe to be the true side. If Wikipedia becomes a place where only one perspective is presented it will lose ALL credibility. There clearly are two sides to this, with only Martin and Chretien knowing which one is the truth. (Though frankly I think they both think their side is the truth and this is the result of some miscommunication.) To maintain credibility both sides must be properly presented and then allow the reader to decide. If the facts so clearly dictate that the Martin side is right then that is the side readers will believe. Clearly many people also believe the Chretien side. Whatever the case, the facts are that there were two people on that conversation and there are two versions of the conversation. It is not possible for Wikipedia to conclude which side is the truth. I honestly thought that presenting the facts and letting the reader conclude would satisfy all. Surely we can leave it at that rather than press that only one of those sides be presented.
We both agree on the importance of NPOV. The question is about the difference between historical events and historical spin. First, if you have evidence that Chretien himself believed that Martin resigned on the phone, please cite it. That will end the matter as far as I am concerned. (Incidentally, I extend the same courtesy to you: if you would like me to substantiate any of my statements, please ask; I'll be happy to do so in the Wikipedia spirit of goodwill.) The fact that the Chretien people later spun the story that Martin had resigned is irrelevant to the actual fact that he had been fired. Remember Chretien's letter, cited above, in which he confirms that Martin was leaving cabinet. If he truly believed Martin had resigned, why didn't the letter confirm the resignation? Why didn't he release the letter of resignation, as he had when previous cabinet colleagues had resigned? HistoryBA 16:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cite Chretien's contention that he resigned? That's easy. The release from the Prime Minister's Office announcing Martin's resignation and the appointment of Manley says just that - that Martin resigned. "The Prime Minister accepted the resignation of the Honourable Paul Martin." (See: http://www.pco.gc.ca/default.asp?Language=E&Page=pmarchive&Sub=NewsReleases&Doc=shuffle.20020602_e.htm) I believe this now ends the matter, as you stated. (Though I don't think it proves that Martin resigned, it just proves there are two versions of what occurred during that phone converstation and no third party to tip the scales in favour of one or the other.)


Looking at the "Effects" section as it is now, I question whether it has any positive value to this article at all. We're talking about "bloodletting" as the "Chretien wing" tries to "retake control of the party"? This doesn't belong here. Any thoughts? -Joshuapaquin 02:27, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. HistoryBA 16:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Good to hear. I'm killing it. -Joshuapaquin
I'd have no objection to the whole darn article being removed. When did party infighting become something noteworthy anyway?
Hi! Thanks for chirping in, but it would be really nice if you could get a username. It takes, quite literally, less than ten seconds - just click on the link at the upper-right in the wiki. Usernames help us to communicate and it's a courtesy to the other editors. Thanks for your contributions here, by the way. -Joshuapaquin 05:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Carolyn Parrish was not exactly a Martin supporter. She was at the start, but she felt the way they were going about removing Jean Chretein was wrong, so she quit supporting Martin. Might want to change this.

Hey, the link to Bill Cunningham doesn't work - it goes to a different Bill Cunningham (a rightwing radio talk jock, ironically)...don't know how you fix that, shrot of coming up with a wiki page for Bill..

I fixed some spelling typos, and I can do a major copy-edit, but does this article even deserve to exist? Look at the NPOV problems... "received some tepid support from Chrétien," "was forced out," "which she blamed on dirty tricks," "especially towards Chrétien supporters," etc., etc., etc. If you take out all of the unfootnoted allegations and the point-of-view problems, the article doesn't really have any content or reason for existing. Watchsmart 15:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though I think we'll be in a minority here. Generally the Wikipedia default position is to include rather than exclude, which I think is one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia. It is hard to argue against including "facts," even trivial ones. HistoryBA 15:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

According to the wisdom of WP:BRD, the proper step to take after finding your changes reverted is to take it to the talk page for discussion and development of a consensus. Reverting back and forth will not progress the article in any form.

GoldDragon, could you please explain your problem with the other version and why you are removing sourced content.

AverageGuy, could you please explain your problem with the changes suggested by GoldDragon.

Thanks, DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing I can say that hasn't been said dozens of times before in edit summaries and on GoldDragon's talk page. GoldDragon removes fact tags without providing sources at the same time. If unsourced material has been removed from an article after being fact-tagged for several weeks or more, GoldDragon reinserts the material, often without providing a source at that point. He has been told dozens of times that this violates Wikipedia policy, and some admins have even warned him that he will be blocked if he continues these practice. He lies low for a few days or weeks, and then starts up again. No admin is willing to take the next logical step, which is to give him a 24-hour block, and to increase the block if he offends again. The whole thing is frustrating for those editors, like me, who are trying to improve the quality of Wikipedia. It is one reason why I spend much less time here and why it has taken me so long to respond. AverageGuy (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you will need to be specific for me to understand. The edits I saw, saw him adding sources. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


AverageGuy, this proves that you haven't been paying any attention. Moreoever, you haven't done anything constructive in wikipedia other than just trolling me, reverting, and tossing around fact tags like there is no tomorrow. I remove fact tags because:

  • it was either a minor issue (why bother to dispute "A significant number[quantify] of Russian oligarchs..." as the article lists several major examples afterwards)
  • a source was found
  • I've added a link to an article that discusses the subject in more detail.

You've just reverting blindly on five pages. This behavior is considered harassment and vindicative. You can at least take some care to read the article rather than just reverting and destroying editing for the sake of doing so. GoldDragon (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following passages were fact-tagged on 19 December 2007:

  • In 1975, John Turner resigned as Minister of Finance, due in part to personality conflicts with Trudeau but also due to implementing the unpopular wage and price controls, which the party had campaigned against in the 1974 election. [1]
  • Trudeau had resigned due to slipping approval ratings.[2]
  • Upon taking office, Turner made over 200 patronage appointments, supposedly as part of a secret deal in return for Trudeau resigning early, which further hurt the party's standing in polls.[3]
  • Chrétien and Martin squared off in the 1990 leadership convention after Turner resigned, with Martin being acknowledged as the ideological successor to Turner. [4]
  • Martin replaced half of Chrétien's Cabinet, the largest percentage in Canadian history for a ruling party undergoing a leadership change.[5]
  • However, many criticized the Gomery Inquiry as not having the scope to assign criminal responsibility for the scandal or to investigate Martin's role, and indeed some have accused Martin of purposely "tying Gomery's hands."[6]

No one provided sources, so this material was removed on 25 January 2008.[7][8][9][10][11][12]

On 30 September 2008, GoldDragon restored this material.[13] His edit was reverted with an edit summary that explain that the material had been fact-tagged and then removed; it could only be restored if he could provide sources.[14] GoldDragon reverted that edit the same day, without explanation.[15] I re-reverted the same day.[16] GoldDragon then restored the information again.[17] The next day, I removed the material again, once more explain that the material had been removed for lack of sources.[18] GoldDragon reverted again.[19] I restored the page and explained again that the material had been removed for lack of sources.[20] GoldDragon reverted me again.[21] I removed the material, again explaining that it had been removed because of a lack of sources.[22] GoldDragon reverted me again.[23] I restored the page again.[24] GoldDragon reverted me again.[25] I restored the page and again explained that the material could only be re-introduced if accompanied by sources.[26] GoldDragon reverted me again, without explanation.[27] I restored the page and again explained that the material had been removed after having been fact-tagged, and that it now required a source.[28]

At this stage, GoldDragon was involved in fact-tag disputes on several pages. Several editors told him that he was wrong to remove fact tags or to restore material that had been removed because of a lack of sources. He then stopped editing for several days.

GoldDragon re-emerged on 18 November 2008, again restoring the material that had been removed for a lack of sources.[29] I explained that the material had been removed for lack of sources and could only be re-introduced at this point if he provided sources.[30] He reverted my edit with “welcome back” as his edit summary.[31]

GoldDragon is involved in fact-tag disputes on many pages involving many editors. I can provide evidence if you think it matters. AverageGuy (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: Here are some edits I made, with proper explanation.[32][33][34][35] GoldDragon has reverted these repeatedly without an explanation. Here are some grammatical corrections that GoldDragon keeps reverting without explanation. [36][37][38][39] Here are some issues of style [40][41] that GoldDragon keeps reverting. Here is a source that I inserted, but GoldDragon keeps removing.[42] The record shows clearly that GoldDragon is intent on reverting my edits, whether I correct grammar, correct the facts, or insert fact-tags. He does this without explanation. Now he is playing the victim. Should he get away with it? AverageGuy (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm less interested in who did what than it what is the actual article content point of contention. I will have a look at the diffs when I have some time to examine them better. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I contend that this is not a content dispute, but rather a problem with a rogue editor. Treating it as a content dispute will not solve the problem. It does matter who did what if one of the editors is violating policy and acting as a vandal, despite being repeatedly warned against this behavior by multiple editors. AverageGuy (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at these two warnings from GoldDragon's talk page:
I don't understand why you are removing the cite requests from John Turner. They are all very reasonable to my eyes and suspect many of the statements should be removed. Could you please explain to me why you are removing them. By the way, in the process of the edit war you have also repeatedly reinserted erroneous information on him "pinching" when he patted and that he requested dissolution on the 4th of July, when he did so on the 9th. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At first I was going to let it go at one page you were warring over, but I see you are doing it on a number of pages, continued removal of fact tags without replacing them with a cite or removing the sentence is in a way vandalism, and the constant reverting of people that re-add them is disruptive editing. If you continue to act in such a manor you will be blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The current behaviour is the same as that for which DoubleBlue and Djsasso warned him. Surely, it is now time for action rather than further warnings, or for a misguided attempt to deal with this as a content dispute.AverageGuy (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AverageGuy is somewhat correct that part of the problem now is a rogue editor...AverageGuy himself. Take a look at his most recent behavior, including trolling me and reverting blindly. Looks like an editor with a personal vendetta. GoldDragon (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to be honest, I'm not interested in getting involved in any personal drama. If you two want to work that out, I suggest mediation. Is there anything in particular that you object to in the current version? I was about to re-insert the TCE reference you had, AverageGuy, but I don't see it as much of a general reference that would be suitable for WP:EL; there's not much there about this topic. Is there a particular sentence that you wanted to source to this reference? The other differences seem to be stylistic and GoldDragon has recently added the sources you were rightly concerned about before. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 December, over a course of 45 minutes, I made 19 edits to the page. I provided an edit summary for each one. Some edits corrected grammatical mistakes, some corrected factual errors, some smoothed the prose, some added fact tags to questionable material. GoldDragon reverted all these edits -- 45 minutes of work -- with one edit and without any explanation. Since then I have been trying to restore my work. Was he right in reverting all that work without even an explanation? Am I wrong to try to restore my edits? Would you allow another editor to blanket-revert so much of your own work? AverageGuy (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, edit summaries are vital not only to smooth the feelings of those being reverted and to not appear to accuse vandalism but also because it states why and what you object to and how compromise and agreement can be reached. Not entirely but under the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle the next step is to discuss the changes you wanted to make and have apparently been disapproved. It is difficult but one must try to keep personal feelings out of it. We freely donate our effort here and it hurts to have it disposed of but, in the grand scheme, it will be eventually edited mercilessly anyway. At the same time, we have to recognise that we are dealing with human editors here, just like ourselves, and some courtesy, discussion, and compromise goes along way to ensuring this wiki experiment in collaboration succeeds. Kind regards, DoubleBlue (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

Seems to me this just didnt happen only in 2004. Maybe the title should reflect this for this essay? 94.175.88.108 (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted duplication by User:ARMY101[edit]

An attempt was made by User:ARMY101 to essentially duplicate this article under a different name. I've redirected it back here and suggested the editor try editing this article, instead. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2004 Liberal Party of Canada infighting. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2003–2004_Liberal_Party_of_Canada_infighting&oldid=1196386041"