Talk:Stockwell Day

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

What?[edit]

'The Liberals' attacks on Day ending up decimated the NDP and Progressive Conservatives.' I don't even know what this is trying to say, whoever wrote it should write it over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.199.152 (talk) 02:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph is obviously a totally irrelevant and probably untrue attempt to insert political rhetoric into an otherwise informative article: "Canada is quietly pursuing legislation that would allow the police to demand personal information from telecommunication companies without a warrant. I believe this is an important issue and I believe that the government should hear from all interested stakeholders, not a hand-picked, secret group! This new consultation... for Canada, will conclude on September 25th Person in Charge: Stockwell Day , P.C., M.P." Maybe this is a valid point, maybe not, but why is it part of the article on Stockwell Day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.153.190 (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous comments[edit]

Hey folks, I just made a change and forgot to document it (sorry, new user and figuring things out!) The chocolate milk incident actually occurred at Conestoga College in Kitchener, not the University of Waterloo... (Inchim was, however, a UW student). I was actually at the event in question, and it can be verified at http://imprint.uwaterloo.ca/story.php?f=2&t=734&i=&v=f&story=734 and http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca/2000/oct/06fr.html. Theolad 19:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. HistoryBA 01:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the most embarrasingly non-NPOV articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It doesn't belong with serious articles about public officials. Sad to see Wikipedia hijacked in this way.

His propsed referendum law was 3% of the electorate, not 4%.
149.99.162.182 please explain how all these things you have deleted are 'serious factual errors' when many of them a quite easily verifiably true. SimonP 20:25 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
MLA? Kingturtle 02:51 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
I was just coming here to ask that question. What does MLA mean? RickK
Member of the Legislative Assembly, I guess. FearÉIREANN 05:36 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, Member of the Legislative Assembly...but I'm not sure if there is a difference between that and a Member of Provincial Parliament. Maybe MPP is just an Ontario thing (it seems that way from a very brief Google search) Adam Bishop 05:39 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The representatives are MLAs in all provinces except Ontario, Quebec (Member of the National Assembly) and Nfld-Lab (Member of the House of Assembly). - Montréalais
Note: Simon will repeatedly edit pages to re-insert serious factual errors. He apparently knows these things are errors, but hopes to propagate them in order to further his personal biases on various subjects. --149.99.164.172
I do aknowledge the article did not say much good about Stockwell Day, but what it said was the truth. Could you please demonstrate how the facts were in error? The article could certainly use more editing, it definetaly has more about Day's failures than his successes. The article would be stronger if you would add positive facts about Day, rather than just delete any negative facts you ma not like. SimonP 20:51 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)
They are not 'facts.' They are lies, they are false. Since you have to couch your language in phrases like "reportedly implied," to cover-your-ass with these non-facts you are obviously aware of this. --149.99.164.172
I'm not a Stockwell Day fan, but you are simply slandering the man.
I repeat: What facts are you questioning? Why don't we have a discussion, then I can find sources to prove what can be proven, and if anything is found to be false we can remove them. Rather than you just deleting valuable content while adding nothing of your own. SimonP 02:01 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
P.S. While I do support the content here I did not write most of it, it is a colabarative work of many people from all over the political spectrum. I did not, for instance, remember the specifics of the lawsuit, someone else wrote that bit, but I do believe it to be correct.
OK, then, start with the lawsuit. Start by firming up the 'reportedly implied' comments. I personally wouldn't recommend you waste your time looking, personally... --149.99.164.172
I removed the lengthy paragraph about Kinsella's dinosaur joke. It was a minor incident and we already have more than enough embarassing Stock Day incidents. - SimonP 00:45, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

Uh, where did the picture go? Digging.holes 02:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. The best guess is that it was deleted for improper citation. CJCurrie 03:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Funny. I'll try uploading it again. Digging.holes 05:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified why Day wrote the letter regarding Lorne Goodard[edit]

I made it clearer as to why Day felt compelled to write the letter regarding Lorne Goodard. It also helps explain way there was little negative reaction the letter in Alberta or Red Deer.(Progressive Conservatives were re-elected in a massive landslide in the next election dispite the Liberals attempts to make the letter an issue).

Possibly he was compelled by the same bad judgements he showed while he was leader of the party. His basic lack of meaningful education is also probably a contributing factor.

2000 election[edit]

I think that the account of the 2000 election needs some editing. First, I wonder whether we might not dispense completely with the chocolate milk incident, which imo is not significant enough to justify the space. Frankly, I feel the same with the Ottawa high-tech event and the Niagara Falls gaffe. Can't we shorten this to something like "some staged events turned out poorly" Bucketsofg 23:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the Conservatives from the sentence "The Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives would use this to their advantage: The former campaigned on Day having a "hidden agenda", and the latter would title their campaign "Change You Can Trust"." Not, of course, that this wasn't true, but was the slogan solely about Day, or the Reform/CA movement generally? And was this about the 'hidden agenda'? or the agenda as presented? Also, I'm not sure that even if it was true, that it adds enough to the article to justify including it. Bucketsofg 02:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted "The result of the campaign Day's credibility and popularity would soon wane under the media and opposition accusations, and he proved unable to show Eastern Canadians that the party was not simply Reform revamped. Many in the Alliance Party, and other Canadians, condemned the "Campaign of Fear" they said was being run against Day." I'm not sure what this paragraph aims at. Saying that Day was harmed by the campaign? Surely no one would deny it. But it's far from clear how credible and popular before. 'Eastern Canadians' is not NPOV. Yes, 'many in the Alliance' condemned the '"campaign of fear"', but 'other Canadians'? Maybe there is something to be salvaged here. But shouldn't it be added to next section? Bucketsofg 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal water craft footage[edit]

I think that a clip from the water craft footage should be added. It has certainly had a big impact and seems to get used whenecer Stockwell Day is mentioned on several Canadian comedy shows. Kc4 00:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I came to this page trying to find out what the story on that appearance was, it was pretty big news at the time and was his calling card in the early days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.142.225 (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milk[edit]

No, you should keep the chocolate milk in and expand it to include his reaction to "homo" milk. Was it Mary Walsh or Cathy Jones who ambushed him again? - Vaudree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.58.47 (talk) 13:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear[edit]

In the sentence: "He attended the University of Victoria and Northwest Bible College in Edmonton, AB (formerly), but did not graduate from either," what does "AB (formerly)" mean? Adam 07:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The AB means Alberta, Canada, and I think the "formerly" refers to the fact that Northwest Bible College is now known as Vanguard College. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be deleted. Adam 12:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stockwell Day spells 'maroon' with one 'o' Chris66 15:43 October 17 2006

ACE curriculum controversy[edit]

As I remember it, the controversy over the ACE curriculum had to do with anti-semitic lessons. This is not to say, of course, that Day is/was an anti-semite, which my edit doesn't mean to imply but some may misinterpret. Can anyone improve it?

22 Minutes[edit]

I think it's a stretch to say that had Day's proposal for national referenda been in effect at the time, the "Doris" proposal would have gone up for a vote. My recollection is the "signatures" for the 22 Minutes campaign were submitted by Internet. Ballot petitions generally require backers to go out and get the physical signatures of registered voters. -- Mwalcoff 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. The law would only apply to petitions that collected real signatures, not Internet petitions that can be signed multiple times. (Four of the "signatures" on the 22 Minutes petition are mine.) I'm removing the sentence.
--The Invisible Hand 13:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

It is important to keep the right balance between acknowledging the various controversies ("brain drain", Doris, dinosaurs, etc.) that attached themselves to Day in 2000 while simultaneously not overplaying them. The appropriate response to this imperative, however, is not to bury everything remotely unflattering or controversial in a "trivia" section at the end of the article. In fact, Wikipedia policy is quite explicit that "Trivia" sections are not appropriate in most articles, and have to be integrated back into the main article body.

The appropriate solution here is to acknowledge these matters in the article, but not to dwell on them. We do need to mention them as briefly and neutrally as possible, but obviously we shouldn't insert meaningless, unverifiable hypotheticals about whether Elections Canada would really have approved a Doris referendum or not. WP:NPOV doesn't mean this article has to be a flattering puff piece that buries anything that anybody might read as even remotely unflattering to him; it means we have to acknowledge the facts without interpreting them. Bearcat 05:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording[edit]

Do other editors believe that this wording is appropriate:

The Liberals used this tactic in order to drive NDP and Progressive Conservative-leaning voters into voting Liberal, though at no stage in the campaign did polls suggest that the Canadian Alliance would form a majority government needed to implement such policies.

I would argue that "used this tactic in order to drive" is a rather clear instance of "weasel-wording", while the second part of the sentence seems to violate our policies against Original Research. Do others agree? CJCurrie 21:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is detailed in this article: 2006 Liberal Party of Canada election ads. Jack Layton himself described the Liberal tactics as "scaremongering" GoldDragon 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know exactly which voters it was aimed at. Perhaps it was aimed at libertarian voters who are turned off by social conservatism. There were many of those in the urban and suburban ridings where the Liberals competed with the Alliance.Or maybe just turning people away from Day generally. Or maybe they just saw a weakness and attacked there. I don't remember the last time a political party held back when they saw a perceived weakness in an opposing party leader. I'd want to see a source from a Liberal insider to make that kind of inference.Otherwise I suppose there could be something that is clearly attributed to a particular commentator.

As for the second bit, I think that one has a slight POV problem because it implies that ads were wrong in their conclusions which is not necessarily the case. I don't see why we need to editorialize about what the Liberals were thinking. We should just describe what they did. Readers can come to conclusion the same way that we do. --JGGardiner 21:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of his blog, and the skeptical comments about global warming therein?[edit]

That information is valid and relavent to who Mr. Day is. It used to be here, and has since been scrubbed. Is messege control at work here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.229.105 (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Father[edit]

An anonymous editor removed the paragraph on his father.[1] I don't think we need to have too much family background in these articles but it is probably relevant that his father was politically involved and ran for a seat in Parliament. I'll put it back in shortly. Does anybody have a problem with that? --JGGardiner (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the Father of Day is deceased, and had minimal impact on Day's political career and the current state of Canadian politics I don't see the point. Many people have run for federal office and not all have mentions in wikipedia. KurzweilJacobs (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken links[edit]

These links lead to missing or unavailable pages:

How'd They Vote?: Stockwell Day's voting history and quotes In Their Own Words: quotations by and about Canada's Conservatives ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.237.43 (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stockwell Day. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 11:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stockwell Day. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 01:38, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stockwell Day. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stockwell_Day&oldid=1206897942"