Talk:Belinda Stronach/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archiving

Note: Archives exist to store text when talk pages get too large. There really is no need to archive discussions if the page is not over 30 KB. Please do not archive active discussions. Sunray 03:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Privy Council?

Can someone confirm that Stronach is in fact a member of the Privy Council and carries the Hon. title? I don't recall hearing this and there was no reference to this (including her title) during the election yesterday. 23skidoo 23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to review what being a member of the Privy Council means...are you seriously trying to dispute whether or not she was a cabinet minister? Bearcat 23:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Members of the Privy Council are rarely (if ever?) removed; the Hon. Belinda Stronach remains a member of the Privy Council for life, thereby retaining the style "The Honourable" for life. Sometimes the media (incorrectly) omits the title, however, she is quite entitled to its use as a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. FiveParadox 09:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Two points under the cabinet/Privy Council section. You have Stronach here as a former Minister. As of today she is still a member of the cabinet, and she will be until Prime Minister-designate Harper is sworn in as Prime Minister and chooses his new cabinet. Further to this, you have her predecessor as Minister of Democratic Renewal as Mauril Bélanger. He was (and is currently) the Minister of Democratic Reform. The position of Minister of Democratic Renewal was created when Stronach crossed the floor. I've made the changes to correct this.--Smith87 08:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of reference you can find a full listing of all privy councilors at [1] Dowew 01:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK So it goes back in? Carolynparrishfan 03:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Toronto Life

Hear is some more info [2]Michaelm

Buzz Hargrove endorses Belinda [3]Michaelm

The Toronto Life piece is most certainly not a source for the assertion she "supports" the Canadian Auto Workers. It says she negotiated a contract with the CAW; it describes that contract as "win-win," which is what anybody would usually would say about a contract they've earnestly negotiated and signed. By this (meaningless) standard, nearly every executive ever in a union shop can be said to have "supported" their union. The best these points of data leave us with is that "Stronach was not so vehemently opposed to unions as to refuse to negotiate any contract at all, running all Magna plants with strike-breakers forever, or moving them to jurisdictions without mandatory union certification." Samaritan 08:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Will it be ok to add this instad "She also negotiated a Magna’s first win-win union contract with the Canadian Auto Workers union." so fair Bearcat will not support this. Any one alse support it I should of ask on the talk page in the 1st place. Michaelm

No, you can't, because there's no unbiased way to tell if something is "Win-Win."Habby|t 23:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also unlikely that the people who sign almost any union contract would describe it any other way. If she had said it was a loss for Magna, the share price would fall (and her and her family's wealth); if she gloated it was a loss for the union, she'd be viewed as a fairly nasty person. If the union leaders admitted to losing ground for their members, outside of extremely hard times for the economy or the company, their members would likely vote those leaders out. Samaritan 03:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad that you guys responded. Belinda turnd magna around. As a CEO Belinda did supported the CAW and in the US she also supported the UAW. You made a good point Habby. You also made a good point Samaritan but she alows unions to go in the plants if theres is no organized labour plactics in the plants she will not fight agents them or bust them onlike he Predecessors fact is share price did not fall but thay went up under unionizdation of some of the plants and she was great to her workers and she is a great person. However after sead all that I will leave it out it likey maks no sents to add the win-win part to the article.Michaelm

Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development

There is an inconsitency on the title in the succession box on the bottom. What is this reference to Minister of State? On the Minister of HRSD page, Volpe is indicated as the first minister under Martin, then Robillard then Stronach. I'll revert it back until we get this cleared up.--Smith87 01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User:24.69.167.172's edits

User:24.69.167.172 seems insistent on keeping the bit about Stronach's grasp of French in the article. While I don't necessarily agree with its inclusion, shouldn't it at least be moved somewhere else? It appears incredibly non-sequitur in the opening paragraph. If the suggestions that Belinda could take over the Liberals become more than just idle talk, then it might be added to a section about that. Right now, I can only see it fitting into "characterization in the media", if that. -- Наташа ( ^User ♡ ^Talk ) 19:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, as a journalist, I would be concerned about the slant of this article from beginning to end. For example, a source such as "her supporters" is not an unbiased source. And If I was writing an article, I would certainly set that off against the other side. Secondly, some of the contributors missed the lesson on how to use adjectives in writing class. They are a non-starter in most cases and denote poor writing. So lets start removing some of them. - Dom

Belinda out of the race ?

All well it was a smart move for her not to run but it would of bean a smart move for her to run.Michaelm

Minister of Democratic Renewal vs. Minister of Democratic Reform

This one keeps getting reverted so I'll justify it out here. Belanger continued serving as Minister for Democratic Reform upon Stronach's entering cabinet, and he was succeeded in that position by Nicholson. Democratic Renewal was a position created the one time for her. Perhaps we should put it under Special Cabinet responsibilities or something, I don't know. But let's leave as is to be accurate.--Smith87 23:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It is the same cabinet position, with a slightly different name. what is all the fuss about ? Dowew 01:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Breaking News September 23, 2006

"Belinda Stronach Reportedly The Other Woman In Tie Domi's Marriage". See here: [4] --207.200.131.15 01:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Also see Canadian MP Belinda Stronach cheated with hockey star Tie Domi for more info. FellowWikipedian 00:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

MacKay

I'm not usually the sort of person who favours junk-news stories, but the Stronach/Mackay tiff has unfortunately turned into a major media event. I don't think it's appropriate to relegate it to the trivia section.

I'm also puzzled as to why GoldDragon decided to remove the comments of several female Liberal MPs re: Stronach's defection.

Rather than starting another revert war, can I ask other contributors to weigh in on this matter? CJCurrie 03:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CJCurrie's assessment that it is a junk-news story. As CJCurrie has done on *so many* occasions when it is a "trumped-up scandal" by his opinion, deleting or footnoting it was under consideration. Ending up, I decided it could remain as long as it does not get its own heading (CJCurrie has consistently tried to remove headers for "trumped-up scandals"), and as long as it expressed the doubt in equal measure as the criticism.

I removed the female Liberal MPs since it is redundant; we don't need to say the same thing twice when Trimble has specifics while the MPs do not. I also don't want the Liberal MPs mixed in with media portrayals as it is a seperate topic. GoldDragon 14:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)