Talk:Elizabeth May/Archive 1

Archive 1

POV Check

I seriously think this article needs an NPOV check. While I don't see any problems, I'm almost certain they exist here. Ardenn 06:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Reviewed and edited to conform to WP:NPOV. —GrantNeufeld 09:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

am i the only wikipedian who sees serious problems with the sentence "While I don't see any problems, I'm almost certain they exist here" ... ? Lotusland

No, you're not the only one, I scratched my head over that one too. It's not the most helpful comment I've ever seen. -Will Beback 08:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I'm going to have to write that one down. Perhaps next time I'm marking papers, I'll use it and see what blowback ensues!

Ardenn's instincts are correct. This article is rife with POV problems and with unsourced, inaccurate statements. Where assertions are sourced, the sources are too often press releases or puff pieces by admiring reporters. Ms. May is a gifted publicist with many passionate followers. Prior to her entry into politics, she got gentle treatment from the media despite lots of controversy around her actions. As a result, her biolgraphical material should be approached with caution.

A few examples of problems with this article: Ms. May's mother, Stephanie, was an anti-nuclear activist, but not a prominent one. Given that Ms. May spent only one or two terms at Smith College in Northhampton, Massachusetts, and three years at Dalhousie Law School in Halifax, Nova Scotia, it's doubtful that she spent "11 years waiting on tables to put herself through university." The claim that her family "suffered a reversal of fortune due directly to involvement in protest against an environmental abuse" is false, and a violation of NPOV. The paragraphs about her interactions with Prime Minister Paul Martin and Finance Minister Ralph Goodale are hard to follow. A sentence like, "May rallied and repeated her conversion feat" is inappropriate. Phrases like, "May, who is a Christian, further stated her personal views," are less than taut. There is no mention of the allegations of campaign funding irregularities against Ms. May during the Green Party Leadership campaign, or of the subsequent decision of the electoral commission.

The truth is, as usual, more nuanced and more interesting than the official bio. The article makes no mention of May's religious studies, or the fact that she considered becoming an Anglican priest prior to running for the Green Party leadership. There is no mention of the controversy over whether her actions delayed the cleanup of the Sydney Tar Ponds, and no mention of her campaiging for Liberals in the 2006 federal election campaign (during which the Sierra Club of Canada board made her take a leave of absence). The timing of her receipt of the Order of Canada just prior to this campaign also deserves note. Serial Comma 11:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean up

I re-added the clean up tag as the article doesn't seem to comform to the Manual of Style. Ardenn 17:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've performed cleanup for the article and would like to remove the tag. I've also sourced most of the citations but am still looking for one or two more. Comments? --Suttungr 17:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Re-name?

Should this be re-named to Elizabeth May (politician) or something else even? Ardenn 18:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Presumably she is still an enviornmentalist. BTW, the other Elizabeth May is an athlete from Luxemburg. WE could call this one "Elizabeth May (Canada)". -Will Beback 20:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

She is better known as an environmentalist than a politician. If she ever gets elected, then maybe. --Suttungr 14:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be renamed to (politician) now that she is GPC leader. Think about it... if you mention her name to someone who has heard of her, do you think they will say "oh, you mean the environmentalist?" or "oh, you mean the Green Party leader?".Wolfchild 22:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think it should be renamed. She is the fifth biggest party leader, that is now the most notable thing about her. --Arctic Gnome 16:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hunger strike—unsuccessful?

I reverted the edit yesterday by 134.117.196.61 (talk · contribs) which referred to May’s 2001 hunger strike (currently paragraph 5 of the History section) as “unsuccessful”. The use of that term by itself is POV. For it to be not POV, you would need to cite who consider's it unsuccessful and/or by what measure of success it is being deemed to have failed (e.g., something like “Her hunger strike was seen by Person/Group X as being unsuccessful in leading to the desired clean up.(citation)”). —GrantNeufeld 19:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The text now says:

• In 2001, May went on a 17 day hunger strike to protest the government's failure to clean up the Sydney tar ponds in Cape Breton. As a result the Federal government pledged to relocate people living nearby to a safer location.

That makes it appear to have been sucessful (htough one can always argue that the government action wasn't due to her hunger strike). Due to other edits, I think "unsuccessful" may have been added as a reference to her weight, rather than her politicla achievements. -Will Beback 17:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Does she look like she lost weight based on the hunger strike? Ardenn 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The hunger strike had nothing to do with her body weight. It was a political action. Success or lack thereof can only be measured by any political outcomes (or lack thereof) that can be tied to her action. —GrantNeufeld 18:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen a vandalism edit become permanent before this. The initial edit that I removed phrased it sarcastically: "As you can see by the picture, the strike had considerable impact on May's physique". It is easy to miss but one must remember that the hunger strike and the photograph happened five years apart. One can't seriously expect the effects to last so long. I can only assume that detail was overlooked because I missed it myself initially. I can't otherwise see why a reputable editor like Ardenn would support this inclusion. --JGGardiner 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarcastic references to Ms. May's weight obviously have no place in a Wikipedia bio. However, wry allusions of this sort reflect a real issue that should be noted in the hunger strike section. The rules of the hunger strike gave rise to skepticism about its rigor. During the strike, Ms. May limited her fasting by openly drinking Gatorade. She stationed herself in front of the Parliament Building from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., but at 5 each evening, she went home for the night, explaining that she had to care for her daughter. Did she maintain the limited fast while out of the public eye? Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows? We have only her word for it. Those who take her word as gospel will be sure she did. Those who believe she often twists the truth will suspect otherwise. This difference of opinion goes to the heart of what NPOV is about. Serial Comma 12:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In their edit comments, 206.191.33.161 (talk · contribs) makes the implication that my involvement with the Green Party must mean that my edits to the article must be POV. So, I feel obliged to explain the particular edit.

206.191.33.161's addding the text "Her hunger strike was unsuccessful" to her photo is inappropriate because:

• The hunger strike is far from the most significant aspect of her life, so doesn't need to be represented in such a prominent position.
• The photo has nothing to do with her hunger strike, which occurred years earlier.
• It is non-encyclopedic to refer to the hunger strike as unsuccessful without clarifying by what criteria it is considered unsuccessful (particularly since there are also criteria by which it may also be considered as having been successful).
• The inclusion of the text with her photo is clearly intended as an insult regarding her body weight.

Any of those reasons is sufficient to strike the text from inclusion with the photo in the article without having to make any POV statements. —GrantNeufeld 15:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I requested and received semi-protection for this page due to the recent spate of vandalism. I suggested that it be retained until after the Green Party leadership convention. Semi-protection only bars anonymous users from editing. It still allows regular editors to update. --Atrian 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The convention is in August. I honestly cannot say that it should stay semi-protected that long. Besides, if someone really wants to vandalize, all they have to do is register, and make a few edits. Ardenn 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I've requested that it be unprotected. Ardenn 19:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather see it remain protected for a day or two to try to discourage the vandal(s?). —GrantNeufeld 19:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Grant, you don't have any POV/conflict of interest, being head of a provincial Green Party and all. Or is that stuff justy for right-wingers?209.217.66.179 21:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

And Ardenn, who says on his user page: "Is a member of the Green Party of Canada, and believes that David Chernushenko is the best choice for leader." Now, why would anyone get the idea that these two are very interested in preserving the POV of this article?209.217.66.179 21:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the disputed edits? Let's discus the content, not the contributors. -Will Beback 22:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

POV needs to be addressed. There are rules...Marie Tessier

The POV of edits needs to be addressed, not the POV of editors. The editorial matter is why someone would add the text "The hunger strike was unsuccessful" when the evidence is that it was successful. No one has contradicted her success. Can you defend the edit? If not, there's nothing to discuss. -Will Beback 03:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to keep a cool head, and assume good faith. Ardenn 03:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quit accusing me of making a persobal attack. I simply noted a fact: that this entry has primarily been written and edited by Green Party activists.209.217.66.179 04:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you are welcome to fix and re-write the article. Just make sure to cite your sources and ensure everything you include is verified. Ardenn 04:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents in... I cleaned this article up about a month ago and added references for all but one of the statements. I am not a Green Party member, nor have I ever voted for same. I just like to clean articles up and this one needed it. 'nough said. --Suttungr 04:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And if the Green Party gatekeepers don't like what you say, they will, of course, revert you. Welcome to the New Fascism.209.217.66.179 12:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Revisit NPOV check?

Despite the excellent NPOV work that's been done on this article already, I still have trouble with some of the vaguer positive statements. Can we find more specifics, one or two more citations, and do a hearsay check? The bits that feel wobbly to me are:

Once in Cape Breton, her family suffered a reversal of fortune due directly to involvement in protest against an environmental abuse.

Without more specifics here, this sentence feels as if it was designed less to convey facts than to cast May and folks as martyred heroes. I'm sure they are! But in the interest of being encyclopedic we really should have those specifics.

May rallied and repeated her conversion feat... Goodale announced "the greenest budget ever" with May at his side...

Seems inappropriate to congratulate May so much without a very rich citation... The citation provided for this section doesn't say anything about the actual extent of May's influence over Goodale, and indeed mentions her only to quote her.

She was the person, reputedly, who invited Clinton and convinced him to come.

Reputedly?

—Ho Pan Yao 09:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I definitely don't like the "due directly to..." line, it is hardly NPOV and needs a citation as well. Padraic

Requested move

Now that she is the leader of the Green Party of Canada, May is more notable than that athlete and should have the main name space. --GreenJoe 16:40, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed. I support the move. Atrian 09:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been moved. —Cuiviénen 16:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Daughter's Name

May's daughter's name is Victoria Cate, not Victoria-Cate. This has been changed. Monkeyfinger 03:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Residence

What does it mean that she "has a home in Margaree Harbour, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia"? Does she live there? Does she own a piece of property? I don't know what that means. I would hope that isn't an attempt to demonstrate her fitness to run in a Nova Scotia riding. I also don't like that New Edinburgh, which I'd removed before, is included. As I said in my edit summary, NE is just a neighbourhood in Ottawa. So the link really adds nothing besides being unsourced and will one day become untrue without our knowing it. --JGGardiner 17:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is true that people do move around. I don't think it's a big thing. Federal politicians tend to keep two addresses, one for Ottawa and one for their home town. So maybe the Nova Scotia address should be more appropriate to list and say that the Ottawa address is just her temporary residence. Atrian 23:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In terms of her principle residence, Ms May has been remarkably stable. She has lived in Ottawa continuously since she began working for then-Environment Minister Tom MacMillan in (I think) 1984. That's 23 years in the same city. It would be misleading to call this a temporary residence. She has family in Nova Scotia -- a brother and her father -- and she apparently owns property there. But she lived in Cape Breton as her princial residence for only a few years in the late 70s and early 80s. Her official bio and her public statements frequently emhpasize her connection to Cape Breton, and claim it as her "home." Some critics in Cape Breton believe she trades on this connection because the island's totemistic quality lends something to her image. Serial Comma 12:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that many parliamentarians do that but May is not one yet. A few months ago she wasn't even a politician. In any event, I've done some looking and I'm quite certain that she does not live in Margaree Harbour but had as a child and her family continues to. If somebody has a source on that, I'd be happy to see it. So I'm removing Margaree and New Edinburgh again. I know it's a small thing but why risk including false information on WP for a small thing? --JGGardiner 18:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You need to look harder. I found both addresses at www.Canada411.ca. Nova Scotia residence: Margaree Harbour, NS B0E 2B0. Ottawa residence: 22 Rideau Terr, Ottawa, ON K1M 2A1. Atrian 21:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, you probably shouldn't publish May's address, or indeed anyone's address, on Wikipedia. Second, I'm uneasy using a phonebook as a source. How do you know that those Mays are indeed this May? For example, there are no "Elizabeth Mays" listed in Ottawa, only "E Mays". How do you know which of two listed is her, if any? Even if the assumption is correct, I think that this would constitute an [[WP:NOR|NOR] problem. You can't make assumptions, even if they are good ones. Is that the only source that there is? --JGGardiner 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Not that it should be published in the article, but that is in fact her correct address. I happen to be well-acquainted with her daughter. Monkeyfinger 04:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make is that the information is readily available. I propose that the page say that her home address is in Margaree harbour but she lives in Ottawa as part of her Green Party leadership duties. Atrian 03:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The phonebook entry isn't good enough for me and I don't think that it is really good enough for WP either. But if you want to keep it I won't fight it. Although I would appreciate it if somebody could find a real source that confirms that. But I think that if one address is her prime address it is Ottawa. Her residence there predates her time as leader or indeed her membership with the party. As I understand it, she has been living there since the 1980s. I don't think that she commuted to her job as Sierra Club director from Nova Scotia. --JGGardiner 18:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship?

She was born and raised in Connecticut. Does anyone happen to know whether she is still an American citizen? --Saforrest 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

2006 Green Party result in Central Nova

I think it is relevant and topical to this article that May chose a riding with negligible past Green Party support. There was considerable talk of May running in Ottawa (where she lives) before she settled on Central Nova. The Greens received 7.5% of the vote in Ottawa Centre in 2006, which was one of their highest percentages in Ontario (and highest raw vote total at 6,766). The Greens also received 5% of the vote in Ottawa West—Nepean, where May could have run against Environment Minister John Baird, which would have made some sense. For that matter, if May was after the best chance of winning she could have parachuted into a B.C. riding like Saanich—Gulf Islands where the Party took 10% of the vote in 2006 (and almost 17% in 2004). But instead she chose Central Nova, a riding where the Party's vote was almost nonexistent before. If she's able to make a significant improvement, that would reflect well on her as leader. If she's not, this may have been a strategic blunder. Either way, it's noteworthy. Robbie dee 01:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not relevant, and people can go to the article on Central Nova to check up on it if they really want. GreenJoe 02:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My feeling is that it is probably decent analysis and I quite agree with it. But it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about May. I think that we should talk about what she has done and not what she has not. And besides, if she only wanted to get elected she should have joined a bigger party. =) --JGGardiner 05:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate both of your comments, however I do note that in other political articles we include analysis of other parties' and leaders' political decisions and prospects for achieving their goals. I mean, politics is their job - it's what their noteworthy for - so it should also be noteworthy whether or not they are good at it. I tried to briefly put some of my above analysis into the article itself. What do you think? Better or worse? (I also corrected the spelling of "Foreign Affairs, which I think we all can agree on). Robbie dee 13:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That sort of analysis violates WP:NOR. GreenJoe 15:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not an original observation, it's been made in several media sources and by May herself. See e.g. James Rusk, "May vs. MacKay," Globe and Mail 3/19/07:

In an interview after she announced her candidacy at an Antigonish café, Ms. May acknowledged that "there are some ridings where I have a much better shot, quite candidly." While polling showed that she would have had a better chance of winning in some B.C. ridings or in London North Centre, where she ran second in a by-election, she said these would have been expedient choices. "But I really didn't feel very good about choosing a riding based on my best chance, as opposed to where I felt I most belonged," said Ms. May, whose Nova Scotia roots are across the Canso Strait in Cape Breton Island.

Also, the election results in 2006 are a matter of public record. I could drop a link to the Globe and Mail article if you think it would be helpful, but I really don't think Rusk and May's observations are unique, they are almost self-evident. Likewise, I could drop a link to the Elections Canada results to support the statement the Greens "received less than 2% of the vote" in Central Nova in 2006, but those results are already available in the Central Nova article wikilinked earlier in the same section. Robbie dee 19:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually don't feel that it is NOR. If anything it is a problem with NPOV in weighting. If we point out the problems in her decision without showing the counter-arguments, which are obviously there, we are essentially saying that she made a bad decision. If we do show the counter arguments, we'd be devoting way too much space to an already long section on her choice of riding in one election. --JGGardiner 21:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to revisit this discussion, I think in light of the fact that the 40th federal election will be May's first as party leader, and further in light of the tremendous media attention paid to her subsequent noncompete deal with Dion (I don't know if this is the first time it has happened in Canadian federal politics, but it is definitely rare and noteworthy), I think the weighting of this section compared to others seems appropriate, at least for now. That may change in time as other events overtake this one, but then we can always edit it down later. Robbie dee 15:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

US Kyoto Talks

Says that 2005 Montreal UNCCC was the first time the US agreed to talks on climate change. Not sure what this wording means, but its certainly false if it means the US had refused to enter into Climate Change negotiations in the past. In fact, the US is a signatory to Kyoto, they just have yet to ratify it. They never had any intention to as the senate had voted 95-0 (preemptively, before VP Gore signed the Protocol) that the US would never agree to binding carbon limitations without participation from developing countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.189.23.218 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

GA failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria. I have decided to fail the article since many things should be fixed to bring it up to GA quality. Examples include:

1. There should be an infobox added if available. See if there is an infobox pertaining to her field.
2. Expand and better develop the lead. It should better summarize the rest of the article. See WP:Lead for information.
3. The first line in the early life section mentions affluent parents. However, no mention of her father is made, only the mother is discussed. Consider also removing affluent.
4. Remove prestigious from the first paragraph in the early life section, may be construed as POV.
5. "May waited on tables for eleven years to put herself through university." Reword to something else such as "May waited on tables for eleven years to assist in paying for her education costs at the university."
6. The second paragraph has each sentence starting with "She". Change some of the sentences to add some variety.
7. There are several sentences that stand alone in some of the sections throughout the article. They should be expanded upon or incorporated into other articles.
8. For inline citations, they should go directly after the punctuation in a statement.
9. The inline citations should also be formalized. At the bottom of the article in the References section, several errors can be seen and some are not formatted correctly such as 4-7 and 28-32.
10. The awards section shouldn't just be a list, try explaining the significances of some of the awards.

These are some of the bigger problems that I noticed. Once you have addressed these, consider getting a peer review or just have another editor look the article over for a proper copyedit. Then, look over the GA criteria before renominating again. Keep up the good work, and continue to improve the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. If you don't agree with this review, see Wikipedia:Good article review. --Nehrams2020 06:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this while I was wandering around and would like to add that if you want to do the refs manually (which is my preference also) see Tourette syndrome or Michael Jordan for two examples of manual ref articles that are formatted properly. Note the order that information comes in for web or news articles: author, external link piped into article name, publisher, publication date, access date. Book refs are formatted differently. Just try to use those two as examples as they've been scrutinized thoroughly and have ideal ref formatting systems. If you prefer you could always use templates I find them ungainly to work with and cumbersome but if filled out properly they make refs consistent. Good luck getting to GA in the future.

Quadzilla99 06:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jordan might be the beter example for your article as it uses more web refs, while the Tourette's article more book refs. In either case good luck. Quadzilla99 06:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Statements

For the Macleans.ca part, either put in the quotes of the other three leaders or leave them all out. Putting only one if them in is going against the NPOV. I'm taking out the quote by MacKay.

// We should also add that Jack Layton said he would never use that analogy, haha little but of irony there eh? 142.59.114.148 06:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Background

I've added further background on her court action against aerial spraying in Cape Breton during the late 1970s and early 1980s, her run for Parliament in 1980 and a couple notes on her move to Ottawa.--1weasel 03:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

I added an infobox but some of the fields don't exactly match. If someone can find a better template, feel free to change it. Atrian 16:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• (1) Writing
  • There are various MoS problems: dates, spacing, header caps, commas. I'd suggest taking the article to the League of Copyeditors.
  • Citations go behind punctuation without a space between.
  • The correct order for headers at the end is: See also, references, external links.
  • The lead needs to be expanded to summarize all the main points of the article. See WP:LEAD.
  • Paragraphs should be longer than a sentence or two. Either combine the paragraphs, or eliminate them.
• (2) References
  • [2] Two of the links are dead.
  • The references need to be formatted. Use Template:cite web for internet references.
  • There are citation needed tags in the article.
  • Are the two tables referenced?
• (3) Coverage
  • Is there anything more about her personal life? A header should have more than one sentence under it.
• (4) Bias
  • Some of her biggest criticisms should be described in detail and integrated into the article. Right now, the article reads as pro-May, except in the Chamberlain section.
• (6) Images
  • The picture in the article is a promotional picture, thus it is fair use. As she is still alive, a free alternative is possible. That is, unless it is fair-use as it was taken by the government, but the description needs to say that. Also, you are not the copyright holder of the work unless you took it yourself.

I'm failing the article as there are just too many issues to address. When the above are fixed, feel free to renominate. Thanks. Nikki311 03:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

La très honorable??

Earlier today, someone inserted the title "La très honorable" at the beginning of the article. This is (the feminine form of) the official Canadian translation into French of The Right Honourable (note British spelling). However this title is reserved in Canada for "senior" members of the Privy Council of Canada such as prime ministers and former prime ministers, and a few other senior and former senior cabinet ministers. Although Ms. May is a national party leader, she has not yet been elected to Parliament and is certainly not a prime minister or cabinet minister, so she would not be referred to as The right honourable (or La très honorable). I am therefore deleting these words. Dirac66 (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit Function

Now that Ms. May is to be included in the federal election leadership debates, her Wikipedia biography page should likely be granted the same status as the pages of other major political leaders. Earlier today someone added an inappropriate word to her name and, considering we are in the midst of an election campaign, it would be best to prevent slanderous statements or lies from being posted in an effort to sway voter opinion. Dash j2 (talk) 01:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reason for Layton and Harper reversal

There was no reason given in the article for Layton's and Harper's reversals on their position of excluding May from the debates. I recently added some information about the public outcry leading to this reversal but it has since been removed. This information was verifiable through the existing citations in the article, and adjacent to the other cited information, therefore I didn't see the need to add anything further. I am adding the information again, because as it stands it appears that Layton spontaneously reversed himself without a precipitating reason, which is not accurate.

24.235.130.68 (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Coalition government support

In the section on coalition government support, it claims May would have had influence in the coalition but no veto? Huh? Even if she had a senate appointment, she would have had zero influence in the government. I will delete this unless anybody can prove otherwise. MatttK (talk) 10:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Here was the original text.

On December 2, 2008, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion spoke to May about Green Party support for the coalition government of the possible Liberal-NDP coalition government. The Green Party would have had influence in the coalition government, but no veto, and the possibility was discussed of May being offered a Senate appointment. May gave the support of the Green Party to the coalition government and stated that she believed that, in the Senate, “I would be seen as more legitimate (than other senators) having received, for my party, just under a million votes and still not having a seat.” </quote>

References

I've changed it to remove the bit about influence in the coalition.

MatttK (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Spring Cleaning

As noted by multiple editors above, this article has needed major work for years. So, I'm going to be going through it over the next while and editing for both content and style, adding some new info and taking out whatever is improperly referenced. Please let me know if anyone has any questions of concerns. Thanks PaulNobleGreen (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. The one glaring issue I see remaining with this article is the number of images being used. Many of them are redundant, bringing nothing more to the article than the other images do. Consider eliminating some of them. Kingturtle = (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kingturtle. I am a green supporter but I want to make sure that this article is as unbiased and factually accurate as possible. This is my first time editing a page here on wikipedia, but I've read over the policies on bio's for living persons and my goal is to try to have this page moved out of "B" status. Any suggestions you have are very welcome. Cheers PaulNobleGreen (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate Text in Paragraph(s)

Someone had the hiccups when they were typing. Just correcting the duplicate text.Richard416282 (talk) 19:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Current events - Green Party debate

Green party shut out of 2011 debate. Is there a way to add this current event in the news to this article in a neutral point of view? It should probably be added to the Leaders debate section on the 2011 Federal election article.

For an example, a very short list of references are:

Burgmann, Tamsyn (2011-03-30), "Green's Elizabeth May will fight broadcasters' decision to ditch her from debate", The Canadian Pres, retrieved 2011-03-30{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

"Debate over May diverts campaign Harper pushes lower corporate taxes, Layton would raise them, Ignatieff would add to CPP", CBC News, 2011-03-30, retrieved 2011-03-30{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Pynn, Larry; Minsky, Amy (2011-03-30), "Greens' Elizabeth May, determined to enter debate, prepares legal action", Vancouver Sun and Postmedia News, retrieved 2011-03-30{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

The 2011 Vote of non-confidence was added to the Stephen Harper article, so likewise, I believe the debate issue for the Green Party of Canada and Elizabeth May should be added to this article (IMHO) An entire section was added to the article Green Party of Canada, and an excerpt should be added here as well, for the involvement of Elizabeth May in the news at the moment.

Kind regards SriMesh | talk 20:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Go nuts. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

What Does This Photo Say?

Okay, I'm an American with no dog in the fight, and with no particular feeling for the Greens one way or another. But in the context of the fast-approaching Canadian election, I'm struck by the photo of Elizabeth May on this her main article page, and its use on other related pages, such as Canadian federal election, 2011, and I have to wonder how and why that was chosen as her main photgraph.

It's a nice, happy picture to be sure; but it's very casual, isn't it? Whereas the main photos of Harper, Ignatieff, Layton, and Duceppe show them all in suit and tie - not dressed for the beach, as May seems to be. It occurs to me that the visual implication might be, "Yah, I'm not all that serious about running for office; besides, I have to make sandwiches for the kids."

Should Ms. May be presented in a more formal pose, as are the leaders of the other major Canadian parties? Why is she presented so differently? Was there some (possibly subconscious) anti-female bias at work in choosing this picture as her main WP photo? I'm just askin' . . . . Textorus (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Canadian politician editors have to deal with a problem that editors of American politicians don't, we have to take our own pictures. Pictures of American politicians can just be taken from a government website, where as the articles on Canadian politicians normally have amateur pictures, if that. If you can find a free picture were she posed, sure upload it, but this is what we have. I don't think it is a casual image of her going to the beach, she is wearing a mic, so it obvious she knew she was going to be seen, when getting dressed that day. I think too that my standards for Wikipedia pictures have been lowered, finding out that images have to be freely released, usually by users. 117Avenue (talk) 23:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are some photos of Elizabeth on the green party website in the media resources section [3]. While they don't specify any terms of use, my guess is that the media section is intended for free distribution. --Derek Andrews (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you can get the GPC to release the photos under a free license, then we can use them. Otherwise we're SOL. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the picture in use is particularly unflattering or inappropriate. There is no trickery or malice here; this is how May dresses at public events where she expects to be photographed. In any case the current (free) image serves its encyclopedic purpose well enough, and as such, shouldn't be replaced by a fair-use image such as the ones from the Green Party website, as this violates WP:NFCC. Thparkth (talk) 12:48, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Education

If she has a law degree (it's not completely clear to me if she does from the text) then she has an undergraduate degree, as most universities in Canada offer a "law degree" as an LLB which is an undergraduate (usually but not necessarily a second undergraduate) degree. Dalhousie definitely offers an LLB - see link.

http://law.dal.ca/Prospective_Students/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.1.192.102 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.elizabethmay.ca/elizabeths-story/ - just checked here it says she graduated from Dal law, changing it as there is evidence she has an LLB and therefore an undergrad, removing comment about not having an undergrad.

BLP

The two bald statements in the infobox have no context and are very misleading. They appear to be nothing more than a smear on her. Especially given that the one source makes no mention of here political affiliation with the PC. Working for someone does not mean that you share their political views. So it's been removed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The revelation that Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, a green transportation supporter, cannot ride a bicycle is the talk of Quebec media today.

See here: https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/green-party-leader-not-the-only-one-who-cant-ride-211138903.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.158.217 (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an exceedingly minor detail and unless it gets widespread and substantial coverage, it shouldn't be in the article. It's not exactly a "May owns, frequently uses Hummer" story. She's also known for having had hip replacements, so that probably makes it even less of a story.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Marion Elizabeth refit

I see that the article suggests that May's parents fixed up and old schooner, the Marion Elizabeth, as a gift shop and restaurant in 1974. The shop and restaurant may have needed fixing up but its use for this purposes long preceded 1974. The Marion Elizabeth was a gift shop and restaurant when I visited the area with my family in 1960. The shop was called the Paul Pix then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.88.221 (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

May's anti-Semitic views

It has been pretty clear with May's support for boycotts of Israel at universities across Canada and her support for BDS that May is likely an anti-Semite and should be documented as such. Let's stop white-washing history and stick to the facts. Personal political views have no place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.251.56.217 (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

In what alternate universe has May ever supported BDS at all? She was against the party adopting a pro-BDS plank when that came up at the party's last policy conference, and is currently in the news for threatening to resign the leadership because the plank passed. How is that pro-BDS in any way? Bearcat (talk) 04:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Perry Bellegarde

I removed the sentence "May then incorrectly mentioned that the event was held on the traditional territory of Saskatchewan's Perry Bellegarde." from Controversies#2015 Parliamentary Pres Gallery Dinner Speech. To me, this is an NPOV violation, and not backed up by the source given, which is just a video of the speech. The relevant transcript is:

"... and I'm standing in front of longhouses, of Haida, Nuu-chah-nulth, I mean ... every first ... here we are, like, has anyone bothered to mention "I am honoured to stand on the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation." Thank you. Miigwetch. And since Perry Bellegarde is here, I want to mention, we stand on his traditional territory too."

Yes, Bellegarde is from Saskatchewan, not Gatineau, but he was also the Assembly of First Nations National Chief at the time of the speech, and attended in this capacity. When May said that she was on "his traditional territory," it's pretty clear that she was using him as a metonym for the AFN and indigenous people as a whole. Insisting on including that line as part of the "controversy" of the speech seems forced and politically motivated, and a better source is needed before it can be claimed that anyone other than the editor who added that line found it incorrect or controversial. Madg2011 (talk) 19:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Not objecting, just noting that you're partially reverting this by St.john15. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Source for "political beginnings" section

Excerpt from a 1978 edition of The Fifth Estate called "The War of Miss May" at the CBC Archives: http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/elizabeth-may-no-spray-no-way 70.27.176.245 (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Information

Hello,

There is an error in this article.

2nd introductory paragraph: "While May's family home is in Margaree Harbour, Cape Breton Island[1] she moved her permanent residence to Sidney, British Columbia, in 2010.[2]"

When in fact, Elizabeth May moved to Sidney in August 2009.

Thank you for making the necessary edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.224.133 (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Water bombers?

The Green Party does not say that the government would "replace" fighter jets with water bombers. That, of course, would be absurd. It says:

"We will not purchase the F-35 stealth fighter jets. We will invest in new military equipment that fits Canada’s defence requirements. We will purchase fixed-wing search and rescue planes, ice-breakers and replace dangerous old military hardware to ensure that threats to our military are not posed by the equipment we give them." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.155.77 (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You are correct, and further this section was entirely POV. I have removed this content in compliance with NPOV and BLP. Safrolic (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Issues with latest reorganization of the page

I just hopped over from Maxime Bernier and I see this page has the same problems: it's poorly organized to the point of confusion, full of unnecessary information and subheaders that grant more weight to certain events and quotations than necessary, and just too long.

For starters: the article discusses May's political career in several separate sections— including breaking things up by parliament. This is excessive; other politicians are content with a single "Political career" section that encompasses all (cf: Jagmeet Singh, Andrew Scheer, Rona Ambrose, Chrystia Freeland, etc). While an argument could be made to section off her early, pre-GPC career into its own section, there is hardly any reason why pre-MP, 2011–15, 15–19, and "as contender for the 44th Canadian Parliament" all need separate sections.

Second, the article has a problem with making every single incident, event or speech into its own little subsection. While many of these should be noted, to afford them each a subsection is excessive and affords extra weight. This is taken to an extreme under 2019: as contender for the 44th Canadian Parliament, where apparently a single interview is the source of six subsections. May's views on CUSMA, China et al are probably worth mentioning, but every comment she makes doesn't need to be highlighted in this way.

Additionally, the article is now arranged by strict chronology, incorporating a previouscontroversies section into the main text. While done, I'm sure, with the intent of giving a fuller view of her career, I think it inadvertently makes it seem like May's career is just one controversy after the other, which is obviously not ideal.

I think this article needs some serious work. I would kickstart the changes myself but the overhaul looks serious enough that I would like to see comments on it beforehand. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It's been a few days so I'm going to take a crack at it. If any changes are contentious, feel free to raise that here. — Kawnhr (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through and reorganized the article. That meant putting May's entire political career under the aptly named "Political career" section (instead of dividing by time in office), deleting a bunch of unnecessary subheaders (but keeping the content itself), and re-creating the controversies section for some things that didn't quite fit in a chronological fashion (May's stance on abortion has come up in 2006, 2011 and 2019) or that aren't directly related to her politics; I think this is much, much more readable than before. I re-arranged some paragraphs, and cut out others that where redundant or unnecessary, but otherwise left the content alone; it may still be a bit overlong in places, but I'll leave that to others to tackle. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"greenhouse has" should be "greenhouse gas"?

Looks like a typo but I can't fix it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:15C:2D1:201:7CF:60A2:3B16:CF5C (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Typo corrected.– Gilliam (talk) 17:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2019

change University of Ottawa to Saint Paul University in Ottawa

(NB: University of Ottawa has no Theology programme) Gbloomquist (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Reply Not done because you did not provide a citation. Perhaps University of Ottawa had a theology program when Elizabeth May attended? If you can provide a citation, including a primary source, that confirms her attendance at Saint Paul University instead, I or another editor will make the change happily. --Doug Mehus (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Done I found a citation for you. --Doug Mehus (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Abortion

The section uses the phrase anti-choice, the pro-choice term for pro-life. Neutral point of view policy violated yet again on Wikipedia. Can soemone attend to it? 2001:BB6:7AB6:2958:B482:6D5E:2C87:FF4A (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Bullying allegations without merit

A team lead by Toronto lawyer Sheila Block did a thorough investigation. They judged the allegations based on the Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act. The allegations didn't constitute workplace harassment. I will add two additional sources. Otto (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Please find a better approach to the header than appending commentary, and seek consensus for that here. Acroterion (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it - that's a better solution than appending some kind of exculpatory header commentary,. which is what Bishonen and I found problematic. Acroterion (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

First: I know mrs. May personally and I object to calling her a "bully". I have to cope with countless bullies (male and female) but mrs. May is not among them.

Second: Deleting the paragraph is ok for me.

Third: After the first revert of my addition, several weeks ago, I opened this paragraph to moderate any disagreements. I regret you and Bishonen didn't use it that way. Otto (talk) 21:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Please understand that it's a bad idea to use headers to convey concepts that should be in text, or in this case, should just not be there. That was the only issue. Since the accusations were not borne our, it's better that the entire thing be removed as undue emphasis in a biography, rather than relabeled in an attempt at exculpation. Acroterion (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Since Otto states above that their editing is informed by knowing Mrs May personally, they have a conflict of interest with regard to this article — please click on the link and read the guideline. Note, for example, that "COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead". Bishonen | tålk 05:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC).