Jump to content

Talk:Chrystia Freeland/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Global, not Foreign?

Shouldn't it be Minister of Global Affairs, in the current lexicon? (I still remember External Affairs :)Bellagio99 (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Eekahil (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)At the External Links section, the Official Website link took me to an dnssearch page :

http://www.dnsrsearch.com/index.php?origURL=http%3A//votefreeland.ca/&r=&bc=


Fwiw, I got to Chrystia Freeland's page while reading about plutocracy and Sinclair Lewis' "it Can't Happen Here" so I'm guessing the timeliness of her book and interviews will be sending more traffic this way!

Thanks,

e a h

"Controversy" section needed

In regards to her lying about her grandfathers pro-Nazi history, I think this deserves a separate section in the article, maybe a Controversy section so that it is not associated with "early life" but as a topic regarding her current credibility — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.162.191 (talk) 17:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a useful suggestion as Freeland openly acknowledges that she is accused of lying by various media. Indeed, she has recently claimed that reports of her lying about her family and her policy in Ukraine are part of Russian efforts "to destabilize" the US and Canadian political systems. It would be useful to have this public discussion collected together in a separate section. Santamoly (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Chrystia Freeland. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you show where Ms. Freeland's Twitter is prominently linked from [1]. As far as I can tell, the only link is buried in the "Our plan to raise awareness" section of the "Project" under the "Youth Council" tab, which is neither prominent, nor where one would expect to find such a link. In any case, Freeland's official website is a constituency website, and does not cover her ministerial work [2], while she uses her Twitter account for that purpose. [3] Removing the Twitter would remove the only external link to her work as Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister. --- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Both of those pages link to her twitter account, ‘cafreeland’. But even if they did not, that is not an inclusion reason, we only link to multiple official sites in very few limited circumstances. —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the homepage links to twitter and facebook, and both link back to the homepage (but as I said, not that that matters anyway). —Dirk Beetstra T C 18:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently my ad blocking software blocks the social media icons. I imagine this is a common problem for many users. Regardless, one social media page is for constituency work and does not include her ministerial work, while the other is predominately focused on her ministerial work. This seems analogous to the situation in WP:ELMINOFFICIAL where a company has one website for its corporate work and another that is consumer-facing, especially since the ministerial work is the more encyclopedic and important of the two. I would in fact generally support verified and active Twitter accounts being linked to in all Wikipedia articles. It's of interest to readers and of encyclopedic value: it's a primary source of things the subject is saying. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
But here there is only one twitter, the one that is linked from her official site.
What you support is a change in guideline and policy. You would have to take that up at WP:EL. I don’t think we have that consensus. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The official site only has posts about her constituency work, while the Twitter account has everything related to her work as Minister of Foreign affairs, which is analogous to the corporate/consumer website in WP:ELMINOFFICIAL.
Even without that provision, it's absolutely bonkers that because of some ridiculous guideline, you have to first click through to one website, and then find a small button (which might be blocked if you use ad-blocking software) to find the most complete page that details Ms. Freeland's diplomatic work, on an article about Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs. Unless you're saying that Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs does not do any foreign affairs work that is of encyclopedic value/interest to our readers, it seems that we should WP:IAR in this case and have the link. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
And with that, you completely violate the pillar WP:NOT. We are not a web directory, we do not provide external links out of convenience. That is why we have WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, WP:ELNO - social networking sites are discouraged, and we only list one official site (not my bolding). And that is a rather longstanding consensus - more than one official site only under very few limited circumstances. Moreover, it is already prominently linked from her official website. I have asked for clarification, and two more editors agree with the removal (one of them just did it). The link does not belong. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree that verified and active Twitter accounts should be listed in the External links section. It is one less click to go to her Twitter account directly from wikipedia and also informs the user that the person is an active user on twitter. sikander (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
As above, that is against our guideline and policy. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Twitter. —Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:ELNO applies. Including a social media feed, no matter how official, is against our guideline. If her team does not have the ability to link her Twitter feed to her official website, that's not our problem. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
And unless I'm blind, there's a link to her Facebook page and Twitter feed on the right-hand side of http://cfreeland.liberal.ca/ right under the rest of the contact information. It might be in a variable block that only shows if you're signed-in to those two sites, but it's present when I checked her site. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: just to note, that not being linked (which they indeed are, I also note that above and in my reverts of reinsertions) is not an inclusion reason, that is the same pillar violation as here, we are not writing the an internet directory for everything that is related to the subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:ELNO does not prohibit the inclusion of a Twitter link; it is a mere guideline, "that is best treated with common sense", and to which "occasional exceptions may apply". In this case, the subject's Twitter account is referred to in two separate parts of the article, so it would be perfectly reasonable to include it in the EL section. Furthermore, such an inclusion is not "against our policy", as there is no policy in place preventing it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:04, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun case

I think this brief one-sentence mention of the Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun case is proper weight. It fits into the broader story of rocky Saudi-Canadian relations, it got broad coverage in the press, and the event is pretty rare (the fast-track request, the personal involvement of the PM and Foreign Minister). This all seems to me to be worthy of the short mention. Neutralitytalk 22:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, unimportant unless it leads to something, but I will defer to your judgement. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate you deferring on this one. Thanks, Neutralitytalk 16:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

removal of sourced material

@CaradhrasAiguo: This edit of yours is hysterically absurd in its WP:POVPUSH. liu xiaobo wasn't an insignificant individual he is among other things a nobel prize winner clearly he was prominent enough that the chinese communist government had him put under house arrest, his name censored on Wikipedia, etc. The freeland statement was significant enough in itself as it attracted the attention of international media (the scmp source makes that clear enough) but it was also noteworthy for the controversies it was associated with, one immediately afterwards ([4], [5] [6]) and others more recently (more free trade issues ([7], [8]) and ([9]) and the meng wanzhou case ([10])). All of this you should have known given your apparent fixation with the page in the form of previous problem edits. It is fucking ridiculous how this a thing that actually has to be debated but in the interest preventing any edit warring on my end given our previous interactions I am requesting your response to this (and preferably without your meaningless editorializations that you displayed in your edit summary.) I propose a restoration and reformulation of the content you removed plus the addition of information about the subsequent aformentioned controversies. i will take your silence on this issue as a green light to go ahead with my proposal and any other forms of stonewalling by you will be dealt with accordingly. And don't bother giving me any more shit about WP:NOTHERE: you really are in no position to judge. Flickotown (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You are the only one here with a block for edit-warring. You were chided by an admin for the comment I referenced on your talk page, and until you apologize to the user in question, nothing you do on Wikipedia should ever be construed as being done in good-faith. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 23:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@CaradhrasAiguo: I expected you would say that. That's irrelevant but since you've repeated that ad nauseum, I'll give you my personal take. The whole thing that happened there was dog-whistle chickenshit. Straight up and you know it. And I am prepared to robustly fight your complaint if you take me to the administrator's noticeboard for exactly that characterization. There is no universe where it would not be seen as xenophobic if you went onto Wikipedia and then started to write in a foreign language. Especially if the article was politics/politics-related, the argument you were making was political and the language you were writing in was the official language of one of the parties to the political debate whose arguments you supported. That shit would not fly: here, there, anywhere. You could imagine what the reaction would be the opposite happened - I or anybody else who did that would be called out as racist, imperialist, bigoted, xenophobic and possibly just blocked outright. And this is BEFORE we even get to what was actually written. Idiotically using Google Translate? Blame google and that user I didn't do the translation or write write that tripe. You can read chinese? Big fucking deal that doesn't mean your interpretation is the right one. Understand the reaction of the Chinese people? If the message isn't what I said it was, then why is it written in Chinese and why was that user referring to "chinese people"?
Now debate the substance and stop stonewalling. I get that this is part of your ploy to get me to edit war again but I'm not silly I know what's going on. You give me more of that claptrap and I will go ahead my proposal. Consider this my last warning to you about your delay tactics. Flickotown (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I would not object to including the paragraph about Freeland's statement about the death of Liu Xiaobo. He was notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article, and his death was also apparently notable. Apparently quite a few foreign ministers issued such statements, and I am not sure if the Wikipedia articles about those foreign ministers mention those statements, but it seems plausible to include Freeland's statement in the article about Freeland. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

User:Walter Görlitz: At the risk of telling you something you already know, the position of Deputy Prime Minister apparently was vacant from 2006 until Freeland was appointed. So someone, I don't remember who, decided that it would clarify things to mention that year in the Infobox. I do not know whether this is the right thing or the wrong thing to do in such a situation.

User:PhDoctor: At the risk of telling you something you already know, standard procedure in Wikipedia, when people keep undoing your change, is to use this Talk page to discuss the matter. Is there something you do not agree with or do not understand about the guidance that one should not use small text in infoboxes? Bruce leverett (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett and Walter Görlitz: Nick Clegg (2010–16) and John Prescott (1997–2007) were the last two UK Deputy PMs and both their articles mention the year of preceding / succession in the infobox. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 00:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need to a) link to the two UK politician articles, so I've broken the back-links b) that we need to follow their precedent, but c) if there is WP:CONSENSUS to include the dates, that's enough for me. D) per MOS:SMALLTEXT, we should not decorate the text with a small tag or small template as the text in the infobox is already small and this will take the font below 85 percent of the page's default font size. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking up those articles. I note that they too are going against MOS:SMALLTEXT. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Importance of Deputy PM

User:‎Walter Görlitz: I am surprised that you reverted the edits by 99.230.247.94, which looked OK to me. Reading the article Deputy Prime Minister of Canada, I can see that the position "has no standing in law", is "without a portfolio", and a previous holder considered it "only ceremonial". That does not mean I would use the word "unimportant", but it certainly implies that it's not like the other ministerial positions, and the rearrangement of the text to mention that position separately from Freeland's present and past ministerial positions was well-motivated. I admit that I do not feel strongly about this small matter of sentence organization! Bruce leverett (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm surprised you linked to my user page. It's a major role for her, whether it's ceremonial or not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Published Works

I added a paragraph summarizing Freeland’s book on Russian privatization. It has a lot of name-linking because the strength of the book lies in her personal access to the important figures of this historical transition. ~ Mister Persona (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Peace River

Neither of the cited sources for the statement that Freeland was born in Peace River is helpful. The "Little Pink Book" website does not mention this. I typed "Freeland" in the search box of that website, and I got two copies of the same interview of Freeland, which doesn't mention where she was born. The article by Marco Levytsky about the Shevchenko lecture also does not mention where she was born. We need to find a good source, and either get rid of the two existing citations, or use them elsewhere if they are helpful. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Early life, esp. Chomiak

The discussion of Freeland's grandfather Chomiak seems somewhat garbled. An IP editor (176.36.181.71) has been trying to fix it, but may have made it worse. I have reverted a couple of that editor's changes, and that editor has counter-reverted once, so I am coming here to avoid an edit war.

If I may try to summarize the chronology as presented in the cited source by Colby Cosh:

Chomiak edited a periodical during World War II under circumstances that can be described as collaboration with the Nazis;
Chomiak emigrated to Canada after the war and died there in 1984;
Chomiak's wartime collaboration was not a secret, but he may not have discussed it with all of his family, and Freeland did not know about it;
Discussion of that collaboration surfaced in the media or on the internet in 2017;
Freeland was surprised by this and speculated that it was Russian disinformation;
Old issues of Chomiak's periodical were found among the family's possessions;
The family turned over this material to Himka, Chomiak's son-in-law, who is a professor of history;
Himka acknowledged the authenticity of the material, and acknowledged the collaboration;
The family, including Freeland, did not dispute Himka's conclusions.

Have I erred in this chronology?

The article says that "these allegations have been repeated by ... Himka ...", but it is not clear whether "allegations" refers to the claim that Chomiak collaborated with the Germans, or to the claim that some circulated material was Russian disinformation.

With regard to the claim of collaboration, Wikipedia would normally rely on the "Canadian press", to which there are several citations, as a reliable source. If claim is only an "allegation", one would expect (see WP:UNDUE) that a reliable source disputing Himka's conclusions could be found and cited. If no such source is available, Wikipedia should not use the term "allegation", but should treat the issue as settled.

The IP editor has not found such a source, but instead has cited an "open letter" written in 2013 complaining about a paper that Himka wrote on an unrelated topic, and has concluded from this source that Himka is a "controversial historian". The IP editor has also cited a Russian-language source described (in the edit summary) as "giving a detailed analysis of the actions of the Russian propaganda machine". I suggest that these are not usable as sources, either to dispute the claim of collaboration, or to support the claim of Russian disinformation.

The family's acknowledgement of Chomiak's wartime activity has rendered moot the claim of Russian disinformation.

This section of the article should be rewritten for clarity, and should not use terms like "allegations" and "controversial" without reliable sources. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Bruce, I agree with you that this part of the article should be rewritten into a more neutral (less flaming) and cohesive part, and concede that some of my edits might have been too hastened. Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.36.181.71 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm working on a rewrite. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:04, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, my chronology had its flaws. Notably, Himka knew about Chomiak's wartime editorial work, and wrote about it, since at least 1991. Also, Freeland had provided some assistance to Himka with that writing since at least 1996. I have some more reading and sorting out to do here.
I should also note that there is a Wikipedia article on Himka, and I should acknowledge that Himka's writings on some aspects of Ukrainian history have indeed been controversial (there is more about this in the Wikipedia article). I think that the Wikipedia article about Freeland can easily steer clear of those topics, as they are not directly relevant to Freeland's story. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I have submitted a somewhat boiled-down version. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett: I found the pre-existing (and since reverted, current) paragraph on Chomiak to be too vague. Perhaps my contributions were overly detailed so maybe we can meet halfway. Chomiak was not just an editor to a paper that happened to be in a Nazi-occupied area, it was Nazi collaboration. That he fled to Nazi Germany when Poland was invaded by the Soviet Union is rather telling. That is what the current version is missing. It is relevant to Freeland because she has yet to confront this issue. --Endwealth (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

If you think you can tighten it up, I would be glad to see what you come up with. It's probably far from perfect, but I've been staring at it too long to be the one to fix it.
Thanks for the courtesy of using the Talk page.
At the risk of giving you a summary that you already know, it is indeed the case that Khomiak, along with every other editor of a major periodical back then, had to deal with close supervision by the Nazis. I think the paragraph says as much, but I am not sure there is the right level of emphasis. It is also the case that, as Stalin's troops moved West, Khomiak kept ahead of them, presumably guessing how harshly he would be treated by the Soviet Union. I see that the paragraph does not mention this. My own judgment would be that the article does not need to mention this; a lot of Ukrainians followed the same westward path, ending up in Canada, whether or not they had collaborated. But if you disagree about this, there's room for argument.
I would hesitate to use loaded and not-terribly-precise words like "collaborator" in the article, as it is an invitation to POV pushers on both the Ukrainian and Russian sides to whack at it. But I am not trying to sugar coat.
The flap over Freeland's grandfather in the Canadian press lasted only a short while. This struck me. Apparently there is a significant community of Ukrainians in Canada, most of whom came over during or just after the war, and Canadians are accustomed to hearing about how bad Stalin was, and how collaborating with the Germans was just necessary to stay alive, etc. I also noticed this while editing Fedir Bohatyrchuk. As a Wiki editor, I definitely don't want to get into arguments about the right or wrong of this kind of wartime activity. (Nobody would listen to me anyway.) Bruce leverett (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I have re-submitted my edits, with ~400 characters fewer. Thoughts?
To be honest, I don't even think the "Russian disinformation campaign" angle even belongs in there, seems like just a PR response only relevant to the moment in 2017. --Endwealth (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks reasonable. Perhaps the sentence "The Ukraine Archival Records ..." could be combined with the following sentence, something like "The Ukraine Archival Records include Chomiak's own personal journal ..." (But, if you leave it as is, it doesn't have to Wikilink to Krakivs'ki Visti, since that is already a Wikilink in a previous sentence.)
I hadn't thought of your idea that we don't have to cover the "Russian disinformation campaign" comment, but I think you are right, thanks. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I've added your suggestion for combining the "Ukraine Archival Records..." sentences. As for the Russian disinformation comment, on second thought I think it should stay; it is relevant because Freeland claimed/implied it was false or misleading information and has yet to rectify those comments. --Endwealth (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, but, I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting for a retraction. (Actually, I don't know for sure that there hasn't been a retraction or correction; I don't read the Canadian papers, and most of what I know about this affair has been from reading our sources, which are surely the tip of the iceberg.)
Thanks very much for working on this! Bruce leverett (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Chomiak, Nazi-collaboration and Freeland

@Citobun: I have re-added my edit mentioning Freeland has never denounced Chomiak and has honoured him and whitewashed his Nazi-ties. The citations are solid (Canadian Dimension, her own Twitter account, her own autobiography). --Endwealth (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

This is clearly WP:OR, and the language/tone is unencyclopedic. The claim that Freeland "whitewashed" her grandfather's relationship to the Nazis is cited only to an opinion piece. I also note that ALL your edits in 2020 serve to amplify controversies surrounding the Liberal Party of Canada and associated figures such as Freeland. Please note that Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote a political agenda. Citobun (talk) 03:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Citobun: The LPC is the party that is in power. Of course my edits will more often involve them, no other party is in the news. Water is wet. And if pointing out antisemitism is seen as anti-LPC then...yikes. (I have also only edited 2 articles related to the LPC so an accusation of promoting a political agenda is a bit much!)
The whitewashing is also based on the facts in the sentences preceding. Fact 1: Chomiak has been confirmed as an editor for a antisemitic paper for the Nazi regime; fact 2: Freeland has dismissed and later denies that Chomiak ever collaborated with the Nazis; fact 3: Freeland knew about his past since 1996; fact 4: Freeland left that fact out of her autobio which mentioned him and painted him in a positive light. How is that not whitewashing? --Endwealth (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
That's WP:SYNTH. It's still WP:OR to allege that she "concealed" anything. It's not "a bit much" to accuse you of promoting a political agenda – you appear to be a single-purpose account adding content that is completely unencyclopedic and based on dubious sources. You also seriously need to review the policy at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Citobun (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Nope, not a single-purpose account. You can look at the 2nd page of my contributions to see wildly different contributions. But that is off-topic, please leave this section for only discussion of Chomiak. Feel free to go to my talk page with any examples of my "completely unencyclopedic and based on dubious sources" edits (???) if this concerns you.
What wording should be used, then? What about: "[...] My Ukraine, omitting his past as the editor of a Nazi-affiliated newspaper."? --Endwealth (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
It's not off topic. You need to understand that Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia, not a place to amplify smear campaigns against individuals. You need to find good, reliable, secondary sources before you write that Freeland "concealed" or "whitewashed" anything. Not opinion pieces, which are the dubious sources I was referring to. Citobun (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Please do not use this talk page to condescend or make assumptions about motive. I agree now that "whitewash" is not neutral wording, thank-you.
So are we in agreement that "omitting" is acceptable wording? (The source is her own book, and the lack of the newspaper being in there is what's being cited) --Endwealth (talk) 05:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
That's original research. Citobun (talk) 06:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've removed that end of the sentence entirely. -Endwealth (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Endwealth: you are about to cross the three-revert rule if you haven't already. You haven't added any reliable secondary sources and this all still stinks of political smear editing by a blatant single-purpose account. You've clearly not reviewed WP:BLP nor the other pages I linked to. Citobun (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Endwealth:, Citobun is correct on this. Please familiarize yourself with core policies. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:33, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Erik: Please tell me how this sentence is not acceptable: "Freeland has said she is proud to honour Chomiak's memory as a defender of Ukraine [ref to her Twitter account saying this] and portrayed him as an exile in her autobiography My Ukraine who fled western Ukraine after Hitler and Stalin signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939. [ref to her autobiography saying this; ref to Canadian Dimension summarizing]"--Endwealth (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
I think other editors have already explained this to you. Contentious negative material needs the utmost care with regard to reliable secondary sourcing, and with regard to avoiding original research. Using primary sources to advance a narrative is in violation of WP:SYNTH. Opinion pieces (such as the one by Dobbin in Canadian Dimension) fall short of reliable sourcing standards, especially for contentious material in a BLP. The article by Tsukanova is of dubious reliability, and Bruce leverett is right to be concerned as noted below. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 21:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

It seems odd to me that Wikipedia is citing the article by Tsukanova, who is Russian, writing from Crimea, about questions of Russia vs. Ukraine. I would think that this article would be considered less than reliable, unless there were a compelling reason to think otherwise.

I am also uncomfortable with the sentence, "Her office later denied Chomiak ever collaborated with the Nazi Germany". It reminds me of, "have you stopped beating your wife?". I have already stated the general reason for avoiding the use of buzzwords like "collaboration". Moreover, as editor of a prominent periodical before the war, Khomiak had no way to fly under the radar during the war -- under either of the totalitarian regimes that overran Poland, he could expect to be closely supervised by the government (that's part of the definition of "totalitarian"). Evidently, if I may infer this from our other sources, he got a position in which he neither wrote nor signed articles, and regarded this as method of avoiding collaboration. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I didn't "sign off" on the change you are currently trying to make. I reverted an earlier version of it, and then, since it was late at night, I went to bed. While I was gone, Citobun stepped in and reverted the current version. I may or may not have handled it in exactly the same way, but Citobun is an experienced editor, and I am happy to let that editor keep an eye on things while he or she is willing.

I am guessing you are EndWealth. If you are, I would respectfully ask you to remember to log in before editing. If you are not EndWealth, but you have some other Wiki identity, again I would ask you to use that identity rather than whatever IP address you happen to be using at the moment. We're all trying to co-operate with each other here, in our different ways, and the first and lowest level of civility is to provide a name so that other editors can distinguish one's work. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Consistency

Why all of a sudden are editors forcing capitalization of deputy prime minister of Canada in THIS article? We're not doing that in the others, so why HERE? GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I tried to answer this question in the edit summary. To what "others" do you refer? The first "other" article I looked at was Anne McLellan, the article about Freeland's predecessor as Deputy Prime Minister. That article capitalizes, e.g. "Minister of Natural Resources" and "Deputy Prime Minister", while generally not using "the". Let me turn the question back to you: why do you think Chrystia Freeland should use different conventions from Anne McLellan? Bruce leverett (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Please review MOS:JOBTITLE. The job titles as used here and Anne McLellan should not be capitalised. Citobun (talk) 04:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
@Eyer: has made the corrections to both bios articles. GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I have to concur with both GoodDay and Citobun. MOS:JOBTITLES is clear on this, and exists for a reason (namely, to prevent over-capitalisation like this).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

One of the examples in MOS:JOBTITLES is, "Theresa May became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom in 2016." If this is correct, it seems to me that it's correct for us to say, "Freeland has held a number of portfolios over her tenure in government including ... Minister of International Trade."

On the other hand, another example from MOS:JOBTITLES is, "Theresa May was the prime minister of the United Kingdom." If that is correct, then it would undoubtedly be correct for us to say, in the first sentence, "... who has served as the tenth deputy prime minister of Canada since 2019 and as the minister of finance since 2020." We are close to that, but somehow the word "finance" is being capitalized.

So, it is important to watch how words like "the" are being used, and it is important to use consistent capitalization.

It's late at night, and I will not jump in and fix these things right now; besides, I'd like to give other editors a chance to comment. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't bring myself to modify these to make some of them look like titles. Since I am not a Canadian, I just didn't feel comfortable about it. BTW in the U.S., "Secretary of State" is almost always capitalized. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Nickname

MOS:NICKNAME says:

It is not always necessary to spell out why the article title and lead paragraph give a different name. If a person has a common English-language hypocorism (diminutive or abbreviation) used in lieu of a given name,[j] it is not presented between quotation marks or parentheses within or after their name. Example:
Use: William Henry Gates III
Avoid: William Henry "Bill" Gates III

This is consistent with the practice in Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, and Bobby Fischer. (There was a long discussion of the same issue in Talk:Bobby Fischer, which is now in the archives of that talk page.)

If the nickname is unusual or not normally a derivative of the full name, as with Tina Fey, you would be expected to mention it explicitly. But that is not the situation with Christina/Chrystia. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The name "Chrystia" cannot be directly inferred from "Christina". It is not a common nickname the way both "Bill" and "Will" are from "William" and "John" is from the various spellings of "Johnathan". It's much less obvious than say "T-Bone" would require, but it makes enough sense to spell it out in full. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bruce leverett: MOS:NICKNAME states that non-standard hypocorisms can be placed in quotes. I agree with Walter that "Chrystia" isn't really a standard hypocorism like "Bill" or "Chuck" are. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
And there was a discussion about this above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Sections merged. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I see that for some time, the first sentence put "Chrystia" in quotes, but it was "fixed" in this edit. I don't know if that was the first time we changed from one form to the other; I didn't look earlier than 2018.
I am not Canadian, so I cannot be sure my definition of "standard" nicknames is correctly aligned, and if push comes to shove, I should defer to you Canadians. Here in the U.S. the most common nickname for Christina is probably Chris. But it would not have occurred to me that other variations on Chris, such as "Chrystia", would need to be treated differently from "Chris". Bruce leverett (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I dated a "Christina" in my younger years and she went by (and still goes by) "Christi" and fully agree that "Chrystia" is not in any way common. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Common or not it's pretty clear that 'Chrystia' is a diminutive of 'Christina' i'm not sure there is a need to hold readers hands on this one—blindlynx (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Is it? It don't think so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
I concur with Walter here too. I would have mistaken "Chrystia" as her legal name if I wasn't told what her real name was, since it isn't a conventionally formed or used nickname (especially her replacing the first I in her name with a Y). MOS:NICKNAME only prohibits conventionally formed nicknames from the lead sentence. It does not matter if the nickname can be connected to the real one with 20/20 hindsight if the nickname is unconventionally formed. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 06:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe it’s a Ukrainian thing? Bruce leverett (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
It's definitely a ukrainian diminutive. Thought, 'Kristia' is listed here Christina (given name) as an english variant of Christian—blindlynx (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
If it follows a foreign hypocorism convention, MOS:NICKNAME in fact allows it to be listed because of its foreignness. "Assume that most non-English hypocorisms (e.g. Lupita for Guadalupe and Mischa for Mikhail) are not familiar as hypocorisms to readers of the English Wikipedia, even if well-known in their native culture.". — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

Maternal grandfather Mikhail Khomyak (1905-1984) actively cooperated with the Nazis and was the editor-in-chief of the collaborationist Ukrainian-language newspapers "Krakivskiy Vistі" (English) Russian)."[12] and "Holmsk Land", in which Adolf Hitler, Wehrmacht and SS were glorified, conducted anti-Semitic, anti-Polish and anti-Soviet propaganda[13][14]. Before the end of the war, he fled through Vienna to Bavaria, where he surrendered to the American authorities and later emigrated to Canada. Christa Freeland herself claimed that her grandfather fled to Canada "after Hitler and Stalin signed the Non-Aggression Pact in 1939," and was a victim of war[13][14]. She called the emerged data on her grandfather's collaborationism "Russian disinformation"[15], although, as it turned out, she knew about it earlier[16]. 2001:569:5471:5300:8CD1:3D61:3C8F:1A7 (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine Refugees

Talk pages are for discussing article improvements, Wikipedia is not a forum. Citing (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Canada along with a number of other Western nations in many ways failed the Afghanistan people when the Western alliance pulled out of Afghanistan. Not because they pulled out after 20 years but because they did not have a well structured refugee plan to evacuate individuals and families, especially those who supported our very own troops. The Ukrainian crisis presents a situation where Canada can step up with a well structured plan to expedite refugee and immigration applications to Canada by setting up an immigration station in Poland to expedite these matters. As we exit the pandemic we see a worker shortage in Canada and without wanting to stereo type a culture, the Ukrainian culture has certainly demonstrated itself in Canada to be overall hardworking and having values commensurate with the values of Canada. Hopefully our Deputy Prime Minister, a Ukrainian descendant, will seize this opportunity and Canada can take the lead in this humanitarian situation. This is a win-win for Canada and humanity!!!!!

Just for the records my family have lived in Canada over 200 years and I they are not from Eastern Europe. This is the smart and right thing to do expeditiously!! 24.244.95.239 (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

For the Chrystia Freeland page in the summary box on the right hand side of the page, it lists here incorrectly as a PC MP. She is a LIBERAL MP. 66.51.134.27 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: PC is because she's a member of the Privy Council. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit war over grandfather

@Delerium2k and Citing: To avoid (or cut short) an edit war, we are expected to discuss the edits about Freeland's grandfather here on the talk page. To facilitate the discussion, I will revert to the status quo, as of 16 June 2022. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Bruce. This biography has been the subject of a lot of drive-by vandalism about Chomiak and guilt-by-association and I've tried to clean it up wherever possible. Since the article is about Freeland, going into the political views of her grandfather in the section about her early life doesn't make sense, especially since it isn't relevant to her biography until well into her adulthood. Mentioning ancestry, immigration, and a sentence about her parents is appropriate given there's basically a whole section dedicated to Chomiak later. Citing (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
(separate from the article content, edit summaries suggesting editors are censoring material for political reasons are not very helpful).Citing (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Per the G&M article cited, Freeland "paid tribute" to her maternal grandparents in "articles and books". Chomiak was a journalist and editor, so was Freeland. Chomiak influenced Freeland, a not-surprising fact given he is her grandfather... There wouldn't be an argument over the inclusion of this one sentence about her grandfather if he was a concentration camp survivor. However, since he was on the other side of the conflict, this is an inconvenient fact for Freeland politically (she has yet to acknowledge it according to the article). Regardless, it is a fact, relevant to her early life, and therefore fit for publication by an impartial wikipedia. 'Guilt by association' is not implied in the matter-of-fact wording of the sentence in question. What I want to know is why her grandfather "isn't relevant to her biography until well into her adulthood." Delerium2k (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of saying something that everyone already agrees with, I think that it is appropriate to mention Chomiak's wartime activity somewhere in the article. Our sources show that there was a flap about this in the Canadian media a few years ago, that is, it got "coverage", and so we can't just leave it out.

Our discussion of Chomiak should be, of course, neutral, and should not be given too much emphasis. The flap in the Canadian media didn't last long and has been over for years; it's not for Wikipedia to decide that Freeland's grandfather's past is a more important topic than the Canadians think it is.

Freeland's parents and grandparents used to be discussed mostly in the "Early life" section as is done in many other Wikipedia biographies. Some time not too long ago, someone split it out into a separate "Ancestry" section. This may have been a good idea or a bad idea, I don't know. But we should not put duplicate discussion of them in two separate sections. If you think it should be moved back into the "Early life" section, then first get consensus, then move it.

I suspect that in its current form, the "Ancestry" section is not as neutral as it could be. So I am interested in how people argue about it and tinker with it. But in any case, we should try to reach consensus as to where the discussion of Chomiak's wartime activity should be, and it should be only in one place. Bruce leverett (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

(Wrote this as a response to the other user but I'll put it here to keep the flow of the discussion)
The G&M article cited has some important details:

Although he acknowledged that Mr. Chomiak was a Nazi collaborator, he maintained that the Germans made the editorial decisions to run anti-Semitic articles and other Nazi propaganda. "Yeah he was the editor of a legal newspaper in Nazi-occupied Poland. He never signed anything in the paper. He never made policy or that kind of thing. It wouldn't be his call," Prof. Himka told The Globe and Mail. "[The newspaper] also performed a function for Ukrainian culture and kept Ukrainian intelligentsia alive during the war by paying them for articles, not just anti-Semitic articles but articles about Ukrainian culture. It was a bit of a mixed bag.

These details are commented on further in other pieces, such as this one by Paula Simons cited later in the article:

"Calling him chief editor is a bit of a misnomer. He managed the technical aspects of the paper — the printing, the type set, the distribution, the logistics. Throughout the whole of the war, he never wrote a single article," said Gyidel. [...] Nothing he's found in Chomiak's letters or articles expressed pro-Nazi or anti-Semitic views. But, he says, Chomiak made the choice to continuing working at the paper, rather than take his chances elsewhere. "He was in no way an intellectual collaborator. But you could definitely see him as a situational collaborator." The Nazis were happy to manipulate Ukrainian nationalists as allies against the Soviets. And plenty of Ukrainian nationalists, who loathed Stalin, were happy to collaborate on the false assumption that co-operating with Hitler would somehow win them their own country.

So reliable sources have given some context on Chomiak's past, all of which is interesting, and we could spend some time probing what Chomiak's attitudes and motivations were, such as whether "Nazi" or "collaborator" or "anti-semite" or even "chief editor" are appropriate descriptors given this three-year period. All of that disappears in a sentence saying "her grandfather was chief editor at a Nazi newspaper", and we could add a lot of discussion about it to clarify what reliable sources have said.
However, this is an article about Chrystia Freeland, not Michael Chomiak. Wikipedia biographies generally don't delve deep into the jobs and politics of grandparents in the subject's "Early Life" section beyond where they came from and what maybe their occupations were. In the case of Freeland, there was some discussion on her grandfather circa 2017, as well as some discussion as to why this discussion happened at the time it did. This (to me) merits mentioning, and this is why there are a few paragraphs discussing it later in the article with the appropriate context and sourcing. I'm open to discussing how and where that information can be placed (I think the section on her stint as MFA makes sense), but it would be very poor writing to just throw in a context-free sentence in the opening paragraph of a biography. Citing (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
You're both getting into the weeds on whether Chomiak was a 'real' Nazi collaborator during the war, but sure let's go there. Read his obituary here. Clearly he was an editor, took over from the previous ousted editor, and made sure to keep operations running even into '45 (when the Third Reich was in a state of accelerating collapse), fleeing from Poland to Austria to continue publication.... By the way he was a journalist and editor, (you know who else was a journalist and editor?), and he lived in Canada from 1948 onward (he was in a DP camp from '45-48 apparently). Freeland was born 20 years after his Canadian arrival and has paid tribute to him in her writings, so he was clearly important to her early life. He died in '84 in Alberta when Freeland was 15.
Regardless of the specific nature of his collaboration, he was an editor of a Nazi paper, full stop. Does the fact that he apparently did not directly write articles for the paper erase his job title as editor? He was also a Ukrainian nationalist, and if you've been following Freeland's statements and actions on Ukraine, it's clear she too has strong geopolitical opinions where Ukraine fits on the chessboard. There's nothing wrong with having views of course, but one would be naive to think her highly politically active Ukrainian grandfather has not influenced Freeland's early views. She owns property in Ukraine by the way.
Again, this debate would not be taking place if his employment history was innocuous. Instead, a critical piece of Freeland's early life story is being downplayed. The sentence is factual, fascinating, and relevant to the title of the section. It should be reinstated in the spirit of wikipedia's mission. Delerium2k (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I see that I am about to repeat myself, so I will try to make this the last time. There is already a statement to the effect that Chomiak was editor of Krakivski Visti in the Ancestry section. Saying that only once is not "downplaying" it. Saying it twice does not give it more emphasis. Saying the same important thing twice makes the article look disorganized, carelessly assembled, and less than coherent. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree, Bruce. This whole edit war seems to be based on the fallacy of Reductio ad Hitlerum. Joesom333 (talk) 15:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

WEF Board?

How is it never mentioned that she also sits on the Board of Trustees for the WEF? 142.183.25.195 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of information (WP:TMI), Wikipedia can't list every single board or organization someone has participated in, especially for politicians who participate in a lot of them. The WEF is not some sort of governmental entity and there is nothing exceptional about her participation with it to warrant to inclusion, beyond conspiracy theories of-course, but WP:SOAP. CASalt (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Moreover, a quick ctrl-f shows that the WEF is actually mentioned here, "That month she also joined the board of trustees of the World Economic Forum". Though I'm not sure what that is doing under the "Minister of foreign affairs (2017–2019)" subheading or when it was added. CASalt (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
I moved it down there because it was in the lead section at the time. It's in that section for chronological reasons, though it's only sourced to a press release -- given the lack of secondary coverage I wouldn't be against removing it. Citing (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2023

Write that’s she’s far right. 2600:1700:2D2A:E000:1477:EAB4:25E9:6E48 (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 06:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
She’s literally the granddaughter of a Nazi official. 2600:1700:2D2A:E000:5D57:C0F4:7987:DC4E (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
That's already mentioned in the article, with proper weight and sourcing. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Early life section

Is there any logical reason why the early life section at the top of this page doesn't include the most RS cited member of Freeland's family? Why is this information regulated to the bottom of the page? C.Fred mentions proper weight has been given despite the inconsistencies. How was the weight determined? Why does this page not follow the WP Biography template and include all personal/family history chronologically at the top? Iksnyrk (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I share this concern. The lead includes fairly trivial information, including details of a masters degree and other minor biographical detail. While the fact that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator is not at all trivial. Her literary work has at times intersected with her family history and this is something she has not been candid about in the past. Any assessment of, and reference to, her relevant literary and political activities (i.e. which refer to Ukraine, Russia , Nazi-ism, etc) should therefore be properly contextualised. The strong impression here is that the very significant story about her grandfather and her own ambiguous response to his history is being left opaque. It should, in my view, be mentioned in the lead. Emmentalist (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
A subject's education and career are hardly trivial details in her own biography and they fall within WP:MOSBIO. Lead sections of biographies don't go into ancestry unless it is directly relevant (for example Justin Trudeau's father being prime minister). Her grandfather was mentioned at one point in the early life section article but it led to arguments and POV-pushing about an individual who (1) is not the subject of the article and (2) died when the subject of the article was a teen. It offered very little context to the life of the subject herself, but there is more appropriate detail offered at Michael Chomiak, Krakivs'ki Visti, and John-Paul Himka, which are described in a later section and clearly have their own articles. My view was Chomiak should be mentioned in the biography around the 2017 era of her career, when he made the news, and later in the personal life section if there is more to cover. Citing (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, @Citing I'm unconvinced by your reasoning. The question I raised was about inclusion in the lead, not in the biography. There's noting POV-pushing about including something which is literally the main story about Canada in the world at the moment; i.e. Ukrainian Nazis moving to Canada. I have no axe to grind, but I would say that the Canadian Deputy Prime Minister has never graced the pages, or even the consciousness, of most people in the world other than for the fact that her grandfather was a Nazi and she has sought to veil this. I won't make a change unless other editors agree. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the news. Believe it or not, the subject of this article existed before you heard of her. She's well-known for her political career and this is reflected in the reliable sources. Citing (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
"something which is literally the main story about Canada in the world at the moment" should not determine what is in an encyclopedia article about something else Canadian. There is a real danger in giving excess space to very recentist concerns which are pretty marginal in the life of this living person. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Can you elborate why we should deviate from WP biography standards in this case? Editors that would like to deviate from it have the burden of proof to show that their RS relevant family members should not be mentioned. Not including it will just lead to more discussions like this in the future. Are you saying you personally don't think he's relevant? Or that RS don't find him relevant to her early history? Regards Iksnyrk (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Can you please specify what you're talking about with respect to WP:MOSBIO? The article mentions Chomiak. Citing (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi, @citing. There's a subjective element to the policies you've referred to. I won't get into wikilawyering here, but suffice to say that it'd probably be best if there's another good-faith opinion beyond me and @Iksnyrk. Across the world, harsh though it may be for Canadians, the subject of this article is best known for her grandfather's Nazi priors and her own priors in respect of seeking to deny it, thereby affecting people possible interpretation of the works cited in the lead. The grandfather should be mentioned in the lead. My opinion, only. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, if you are counting votes, put me down in favor of the present organization of the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, @Bruce leverett. That's helpful and at present leaves any change in the balance. It's probably best left for a couple of days to see if others come in and, if no-one does, we can ask other editors for a view. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I would add that I am skeptical of your claim that Freeland is "best known" for her association with Chomiak. A quick search of the newspaper in my own city (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US) shows an article mentioning Freeland from 2018, and at least one article about the Canadian Speaker of the House inviting a Nazi to Parliament, but no articles about Freeland/Chomiak. Freeland's remark about "Russian disinformation" does not seem to have had much effect on her political career; she subsequently became "Minister of Everything". As a US-based Wikipedia editor, I do not feel like trying to tell the Canadians what's important and what's not important about their politicians. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that's an outrageous claim you are going to have to back up with evidence—blindlynx 16:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, @Blindlynx and @Bruce leverett. I'm in the UK, the first page of my Google News search right now (see time stamp on this post) literally includes only references to the Nazi event at the Canadian parliament. Freeland is only mentioned in the context of her relationship with her grandfather. You can make the same search if you use the relevant technology. I cannot find a single reference to Freeland in the media in the world outside of North America other than reports about her grandfather. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
This is a WP:BLP you have to WP:PROVEIT better than that, google isn't an wp:rs; there's a lot of WP:RECENTism around the speaker of the house inviting a member of divizia that further skews things. —blindlynx 13:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I was not able to reproduce your result, i.e. google news did not give me what it gave you. This was partly because it was a few hours later, but mostly because Google results are deliberately tailored to the user. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, @Bruce leverett An alternative methodology would be to look at the websites of newspapers not in North America. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
You need to provide evidence for your claim. Google results very by person, but the top hits i got for DW, BBC, The Guardian, France24, Rzeczpospolita, NL times and Al Jazeera are all about her work as deputy PM and i didn't see any mention of her grandfather—blindlynx 16:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I am in the UK and I know about the subject of this article for all sorts of reasons that aren't her grandfather. She was best known for her writing and in the last years for her role in Trudeau's cabinet and especially international affairs team. If I look at Google News, five of the first 10 articles are about the Hunka affair, but those five are also opinion pieces in among the most fringe websites that Google aggregates in its News (e.g. the far right Compact, the Communist Morning Star, the Trotskyist World Socialist Web Site - pretty much all yellow flagged on our perennial sources list). None of the actual news articles are about this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I concur. It adds useful contextualization to her career and politics. local friendtalk 18:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chrystia_Freeland/Archive_1&oldid=1231135343"