Talk:Helena Guergis

Guergis's position on same-sex marriage

Here's the exact quote from The Varsity:

When the Varsity asked what they would do if they ever had to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage, they all said they would be in favour of it.

"I believe in the right to choose," said the PC's Helena Guergis, "so I would be voting in favour of it."

Which of us was paraphrasing, again? CJCurrie 21:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

A couple of points to my interlocutor:

(i) Many provincial candidates were posed questions about same-sex marriage during the 2003 campaign. The fact that there was no proposed provincial legislation at the time wasn't especially relevant -- the recent Ontario court decision approving same-sex marriage had made it an "issue of the day". The party leaders were questioned on the subject, as were candidates in numerous ridings.

(ii) It's true that Guergis was not quoted as saying, "I support same-sex marriage" in so many words. My considered view, however, is that the statement "I would be voting in favour of it" carries essentially the same meaning, when uttered in response to a direct question on same-sex marriage. The wording of the Varsity article doesn't appear to allow much leeway on this point. CJCurrie 22:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm no fan of hers, so this is not fan-boy editing - but in the article, the header "flip-flop" is not accurate. The article clearly states her position when in a socially conservative riding was to oppose gay marriage, and to support it when in a liberal riding. Sorry, but representing the views of the majority of your constituents is what you are paid to do. The word "flip-flop" is a pejorative, and unwarranted, so I changed it to the less charged "stances". Let the reader draw their own conclusion from the detailed discussion that follows. 131.137.245.207 (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

My two cents

It seems that CJCurrie's version checks out: the Varsity did report this. I will show a larger portion of the article below to show that CJCurrie is not misrepresenting or misinterpreting the article:

When the Varsity asked what they would do if they ever had to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage, they all said they would be in favour of it.

"I believe in the right to choose," said the PC's Helena Guergis, "so I would be voting in favour of it."

"I have absolutely no problem with supporting same-sex marriages," said the Liberal's Nellie Pedro.

The rest of the candidates made similar comments.

That is clear. The only question is whether the Varsity got it wrong, and mixed up Guergis's comments on another issue with that on SSM. This is possible, but evidence would have to be provided for other editors to accept this position, e.g., other statements that she made during that election. Ground Zero 22:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Addendum

I've discovered the following quote, from another Varsity article covering the same event:

"During question period, all five candidates supported same sex marriage rights, but the unanimity ended there."[1] CJCurrie 22:39, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Guergis's background

Again another error on Wikipedia - Ms. Guergis is NOT GREEK. Lets see if you fools can figure this out! You should be careful you may find yourselves slapped with a law suit or two! (posted by User:24.157.185.17)

All right, yes. While it's true that Canadian citizens falsely accused of being Greek have traditionally filed a double lawsuit (not one lawsuit but two simultaneously with dfferent solicitors) in order to seek compensation, it is by no means a matter of Canadian law, at least not as far as the Supreme Court views it.

While the Governor General has recently encouraged double law suits during speaking tours abroad, the official position of the Canadian government is (and remains) that there is no such thing as a double lawsuit and that there is a job opening at Rideau Hall Mardiste (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You know ... a while ago, I saw a list of Indo-Canadian candidates in the 2004 federal election, which was put together for an Indian newspaper. One of the names on the list was James Rajotte, a Conservative MP from Alberta whose actual background is French-Canadian. Mistakes like this crop up in *all* varieties of media, not just Wikipedia -- and they don't usually result in lawsuit threats from the "aggrieved" parties (though it's not really clear that this counts a "grievance" in any event). How many times has John Kerry been described as Irish, I wonder?

In any event, thank you for your correction to the Greek Canadian page. Readers should be aware, however, that the error in question had nothing to do with the information on Guergis's bio page, nor with the controversy in the previous section of this discussion page. CJCurrie 00:45, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention anywhere about her mother or her mother's side of the family background, which was English.Birdie6 (talk) 21:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Again, nobody has ever mentioned Helena's mother's side of the family. Only interest seems to be the father's side. Interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Birdie6 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronounciation

Are you sure it's Hel-EE-na? She's actually introduced herself to me, and I thought she said He-LAY-na. Maybe I heard wrong. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Election Data

I think there's a mistake in the part of the page with the grids showing how many votes Helena and the other candidates received in the 2006 and 2004 federal elections. Specifically, the title for both of them is 2006 elections. I've never edited a Wiki page, so I didn't want to cause any damage. Just wanted to point it out! Soylord (talk) 08:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Soylord

"Happy f---ing birthday to me"

Did she really say that or are we being unnecessarily self-censoring? NorthernThunder (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Charlottetown Airport Incident

In light of the contention below I've taken a half-way step of carefully pulling out and better distinguishing the quotes. This visual separation makes the accusation clearer, as well as the explanation and Peter Mansbridge's (the meat of the section, imho) report on what he witnessed. I think this balances accurately reflecting the accusations that were in the news while keeping the accused's responses as befits an active controversy in a BLP. No words were cut, but quotes were separated which required some rearrangement. 24.86.200.31 (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

--- previous debate on the appropriateness and balance follows ---

I think the section is waayyyy out of line the way it is currently referenced. An anon letter wtih several redacted areas doesnt even come close to passing Wiki:BLP. I'm not saying there arent reliable sources out there but die to BLP policy this stuff must come down now. And dont rush out saying find additional sources. Its not the job of those who find policy violations to try and make it right, its the job of the original contributer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.225.250 (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ive reverted the section as follows because the Charlottetown airport incident was well reported and cited. I realize it may need some more work re: neutral POV but in light of today's reporting of Helena Guergis's exec assistant's anonymous letters to media outlets I don't think it is unreasonable to assume the same kind of interference from Guergis's office is occuring here on Wikipedia. In the future do not delete entire sections for no reason. Thankyou. DSatYVR (talk) 23:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the original. I am no fan of the Tories, but this hearsay is waaay out of line for an encyclopedia. Throwing a tantrum when about to miss your flight does not make you a child molester, and should not form the basis of an article about a Cabinet Minister, no matter how unpopular they might be in tabloid coverage.

Articles about living people should be a bit more charitable, and every sentance doesn't deserve inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Here's what I'd propose:

Guergis received considerable media attention following an "emotional" outburst when arriving late to the Charlottetown airport. An airport employee anonymously related the encounter to media, which was covered widely at the time. Guergis subsequently apologized, citing job stress.

The part about "no mention of criminal charges" is simple slander. Nobody is criminally charged for not wanting to remove their boots and then griping about how they're going to miss their flight. I mean, what possible law is broken here? Verbal abuse is also not accurate. She never directed an abusive statement to airport staff, only complained about her situation. 99.231.53.195 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The tone of the segment that includes all the specific quotes from the outburst is simply intolerable, even for any sitting minister, regardless of their unappealing politics. Guergis was a cabinet minister and was reelected. Politicians are human beings, and the fact that newspapers have gone tabloid does not justify this trash in Wikipedia. 99.231.53.195 (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but an anonymous letter that has not been verified by any media outlet ihave been able to find does not meet WIKI:BLP policy requirements. If you have reliable sources that are confirming the repotrs made in the letter then adding it back is fine. but relying on the sources that have been provided do not meet the policy standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.34 (talk) 19:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've added the citation Unsigned-Letter-Redacted back into the article. I note the reference was faxed to Wayne Easter an MP in Canada's parliament. Easter's name and fax number are part of the letter (look at the header of page 1 and 2). The letter also forms part of a CBC article located here. Both the MP and the news organization would determine the details of the letter be an accurate portrayal of the Guergis "emotional outburst" or they wouldn't have made the letter public at the risk of legal action. DSatYVR (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Phony letter writing campaign

I've reinserted the last 2 sentences and citations into the article. I'm not sure why they were deleted by 205.250.101.100. Looking for comments. DSatYVR (talk) 22:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Guergis’ executive assistant Jessica Craven, Ms. Craven’s mother Dawn Richards, constituency office staff member Valerie Knight, former riding association president Paul Shaw, and Bonnie Ainsworth an assistant to Ms. Guergis’ colleague, MP Patrick Brown allegedly engaged in a coordinated letter writing campaign to the local media praising the abilities and achievements of Guergis. None of the individuals disclosed their close association with the Conservative Minister. Guergis subsequently blamed Jessica Craven, declaring it was not appropriate for her to send letters to media without disclosing her identity. CTV reports Guergis has little support from the Conservative caucus or the PMO office and are hoping Guergis resigns. Opposition leaders have called for Guergis' resignation or for her to be fired by PM Stephen Harper.

Propose adding a sentence to say that a similar campaign of unattributed letters to the editor prompted Paul Reitsma to be ejected from the BC Legislature through a campaign to recall amassing the required number of signatures. 69.172.114.153 (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You should know that BLP also applies to talk page discussions and private investigators. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, Mr. Gardiner. Deep breaths. If any of the claims made by the Toronto Star are in any way unsubstantiated or libelous or if the Prime Minister in any way defamed Ms. Guergis by announcing in the House that he had removed her from caucus and that the RCMP had been contacted, then I'm sure Mr. Jaffir and Ms. Guergis have already taken appropriate legal action and they will be vindicated in court. It's only been a week. They may be just waiting for the right time to do it. Mardiste (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

While I might normally appreciate your condescension, it is misplaced here. My comment was a reply to one from Mr. Grant, which he since removed, inadvertently making it appear that I was responding to the anon above. My comment was in fact not even in this section, one which I frankly had not bothered to read. No apology is necessary. --JGGardiner (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if that seemed condescending to you, JGGardiner. I'm simply saying that Helena Guergis already has two lawyers on retainer who read this page every single day and she does NOT require OR desire you to act as her volunteer, unpaid white knight on the internet, monitoring and censoring her wikipedia page. I do believe it's meant well, but seriously, you can stop now. Mardiste (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reinserted the following into the article. It appears to be the object of a whitewashing campaign. Guergis was subsequently expelled from the Conservative Caucus and these facts are relevant to the biography of the individual(s) in question DSatYVR (talk) 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Phony letter writing campaign Ms. Guergis’ executive assistant Jessica Craven, Ms. Craven’s mother Dawn Richards, constituency office staff member Valerie Knight, former riding association president Paul Shaw, and Bonnie Ainsworth an assistant to Ms. Guergis’ colleague, MP Patrick Brown allegedly engaged in a coordinated letter writing campaign to the local media praising the abilities and achievements of Guergis. None of the individuals disclosed their close association with the Conservative Minister. Guergis subsequently blamed Jessica Craven, declaring it was not appropriate for her to send letters to media without disclosing her identity. CTV reported Guergis had little support from the Conservative caucus or the Prime Minister's Office and that they (the PMO & caucus) were hoping Guergis would resign. Opposition leaders called for Guergis' resignation or for her to be fired by PM Stephen Harper.

Too trivial for an encyclopedia and the Subject wasn't involved in it,apparently. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr.Grantevans2 youre going to have to come up with a meaningful reason for blanking this section rather than arbitrarily deleting it as you have done numerous times. Do you have a personal interest in censoring this section out of existence? Is there a particular sentence that irks you? DSatYVR (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not continue to revert one another. I will do my best to stay neutral about the inclusion or exclusion about this material. If I might try to summarize the two positions, though: DSatYVR has presented well-sourced information that they believe is relevant to this biography. Mr.Grantevans2, on the other hand, takes the position that this material represents trivial information about Guergis, that it is rather more about people around her than Guergis herself, and (this might be just conjecture on my part) that it is undue weight for the biography. Do I have that right? If the two of you are unable to come to an agreement, would you be willing to seek a third opinion, or solicit some other opinions from the biographies of living persons noticeboard? Edit warring is not an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. Thanks. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Paul Eric, you have it exactly right regarding my view. I would welcome a third opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Paul Erik, I'd welcome the opinion of third party to resolve this difference of opinion with Mr.Grantevans2. I've taken care to cite credible sources in the "Phony letter writing campaign" section and I challenge the theory that the information presented not worthy of the article. This is one of many events that may have lead to the political downfall of Ms Guergis and as such may be of interest to Wikipedia readers. Any of the singular events, namely her connection to Rahim Jaffer, the verbal outburst(s) at Charlottetown airport and the "Phony letter writing campaign" may be judged are unimportant individually but taken as a whole this series of events lead Stephen Harper to expel her from Cabinet and the Conservative Party. Whether or not Ms Guergis knew of the supportive letter writing campaign is not important. What is important is it is one of the events that may have influenced her life and lead to her resignation. As such I would like to reinsert the section into the article and seek a third party to judge whether or not a deletion or re-write is warranted. I request that the section remain untouched by Mr.Grantevans2 until such time as the issue can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. cc'd to Paul Erik's talk page. DSatYVR (talk) 04:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I believe that the material merits inclusion, but that the presentation must remain WP:NPOV. For example, the word "phony" is needless editorializing.—Homunq (talk) 14:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on a more suitable word? My preference is not to use 'fraudulent', although it could be argued that a fraud was attempted by hiding ones identity and close association to Ms Guergis by the the various individuals involved. fraud definition phony definition DSatYVR (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The section was previously "Unattributed letters to the editor" before DSatYVR titled it "Phony letter-writing campaign". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I am surprised; I didn't think the information belongs in an encyclopedia. "Unattributed letters to the editor" is certainly better; I'll put that in for the time being. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Are the letters to the editor "unattributed"? IE Are the letters written by unknown persons? Newspapers verify the identity of persons who want their letters published prior to publication. There was an attempt to mislead newspaper readers by omitting the writers true names and/or association to Ms Guergis. Whats been done fits the description of fraud: ‘In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent’. I would rather not use the word "Fraud" in this case but I also don't think "unattributed" works either. What about "Orchestrated letter writing campaign" ? DSatYVR (talk) 03:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That still is editorializing; you know, a whole lot has been written in RSs over the last few weeks in the Subject's favour which has not been added to this article, its really odd because this Subject's accusers are the ones who are actually charged with fraud. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say when 5 close associates of Guergis simultaneously write letters of support for Guergis it is an Orchestrated letter writing campaign. If it is known who wrote the letters then the letters are not 'unattributed'. Perhaps you should look up the definition of unattributed to clear up your confusion. DSatYVR (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Since we have not had any input from the posting at the noticeboard I'm going to offer an opinion about this section heading if I may. "Orchestrated campaign" is something that opposition MP Wayne Easter has called the controversy (quoted here) but reliable sources themselves have referred to it neither as "orchestrated" nor as a "campaign", as far as I can tell. Section headings in particular need to be neutral. I'd suggest changing this simply to "Letters to the editor". Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

References

Biased,one-sided Content, maybe?

Maybe I'm missing something, but why has this article not included any of the RS material which brings into question/challenges the veracity of all the recent allegations made against Guergis? [2] and $13 million in debt are 4 day old articles?? Is it a "Weight" issue? I just added 3 sentences but more work on the NPOV aspect needs to be done, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

In all likelyhood because nobody's gotten around to it. Feel free to update the article using these sources. Resolute 23:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Coverage of Tabloid News is Excessive

Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The Toronto Star might have gone tabloid, but this does not justify the same in Wikipedia.

The allegations of some guy who is part-owner of an escort agency do not deserve to occupy HALF of the article on a former Federal Cabinet Minister.

The quotes from tabloid news and blow-by-blow account of breaking events are not relevant to an encyclopedic.

If anyone wants to start a political tabloid wiki, create one on Wikia, but let's hold Wikipedia to a slightly higher standard here. We're not trying to sell ads here, my fellow editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.110.185 (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with Anon. What I think it shows is the downside of having a smaller pool of interested Editors involved in editing a dynamic and inflammatory story about politicians...and maybe also that there is a tendancy not to proide politicians and/or celebrities with the same NPOV protection that we should. So, therefore I encourage 69.172.110.185 to become an established Editor and do some/more editing on this story, as well as encouraging anyone else who thinks the article needs improvement to help out. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Malicious Smear Article This Is

I have been hoping the extreme 1 sided smear content of this article was a result of inattention, but now its apparent that the article is being watched and intentionally kept 1 sided even in the face of the alleged third hand source of the nasty allegations now having denied under oath those very allegations. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the article history shows that you were only reverted one time, you have to be accusing Resolute of acting maliciously. That's pretty uncivil in any circumstance but especially after one single edit. It is particularly awful since Resolute was completely polite to you above. --JGGardiner (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is the issue.Why are well respected Editors quick to jump in here on the talk page while at the same time doing zero update editing on this article and allowing the article to remain absent of NPOV content, even of the Subject's denials of salacious, third hand accusations, for weeks now? I do not know why,but its a lousy reflection of adherance to NPOV and BLP policy, it seems to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Certainly rewrite of the section could be useful, but a blind hatchet job to well sourced content that you do not like is not the answer. As I stated on your talk page, the accusations against Guergis by Snowdy remain on the record and remain relevant, as does the denials by Guergis' lawyers and by Gillani himself. Resolute 15:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to get it. Snowdy's accusations referenced Gillani as the source of the cocaine and prostitutes accusation; now that Gillani has testified that he is not the source for those accusations, then those accusations no longer have any source at all. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes they do: Snowdy. Obviously one of these two men are lying, however it is not for you to introduce your POV to decide who that is. A neutral statement would argue that Snowdy's claims have been denied by Gillani. Your preferred version is not neutral. Resolute 19:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Snowdy is not saying he has photos of, or even that he witnessed, the prostitutes and snorting; so it's not a "he said she said" type of dispute. Its heresay that's been denied by the 1 and only "Say"er; and it has no place at all in a BLP...but, where is that uninvolved Admin. you promised to bring in to have a look? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I only promised to bring in an uninvolved admin to look at your conduct if you continued to blindly block delete article content. Now, whether you like it or not, Snowdy's allegation is widely published, and is the reason why Guergis was asked to sit outside caucus pending the results of the investigations. They are critical to the direction this controversy and her career have taken recently. That Gillani has denied Snowdy's allegation does not change the fact that it was made, nor does it change the impact it had. And no matter how hard you try to whitewash it, you simply can't. Resolute 05:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit you have a point, but I'm having a real hard time accepting that someone can make sensational allegations attributed to a third party which are then denied outright by that 3rd. party and the accusations remain published in a biography of the accused person in an encyclopedia ad-infinitem. Maybe that's just the way it is or should be, but it does not feel right to me. Are there any limits? What if the accusations were of child molestation? I suppose that,since we operate by consensus, that we do have some ability to agree to not include the specifics (snorting cocaine and prostitutes) of the accusations when it comes to Geurgis's BLP and I would propose that we agree to that. Gillani would have still been called to testify in relation to the alleged influence peddling so I don't see where these other 2 things are necessary. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, I do understand where you are coming from. I tried to make sure the allegation was clearly stated to be second hand from Snowdy, but also that both Guergis and Gillani denied. FWIW, I've asked an Arbcom member who has a long history of editing political bios to take a quick look, just as a third opinion. Resolute 15:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is the word alleged added to the article. The employees at the Charlottetown Airport aren't stupid, they know when they've been verbally abused. Also, wasn't it proven, Guergis's staff were the authors of those positive reviews of Guergis? I'm not out to bury the women, but honestly. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good question from GoodDay :) People apologize sometimes not because they agree with the accusation but simply because someone misinterpreted their actions or took them more seriously or personally than intended. People apologize when they bump into someone accidentally but that doesn't mean they meant to do it, even if the other person is offended or thinks they meant to do it. The other thing is, anonymous letters from a single source rarely get any attention at all because for all we know it was written and mailed by some other person from another political persuasion who happened to be in the airport and knmew who she is.I personally doubt it was written by an airport employee because oif so that would be the first time that I know of such an employee has every gone public with a complaint about a customer. It is also suspicious that the letter discourages the reader from even trying to corroborate the letter's accusations-see the last sentence of the letter-because what is the constructive purpose of that sentence? to discourage official follow-up,perhaps? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It could be that Guergis has been set up and media/blogs/encyclopedia are being played like pawns to get the dirt out.It wouldn't be the first time politicians played dirty tricks to get ahead and it is suspicious,I think, that Snowdy's most bizarre topic(photos of prostitution/cocaine snorting) has been denied by the 1 and only source. Bottom line, it doesn't really matter from our standpoint what is true or not true so I try not to make any assumptions either way. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I count 4 Editors here(above sections)expressing concerns about this BLP being "tabloid news","slanderous" and other NPOV adherance concerns. So, I have placed the tag until there is a consensus. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

When you add the tag, you are supposed to say specifically what you think needs to be changed. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be removed is this sentence in the resignation section ",.... when he says he learned Gillani had boasted of having pictures of Guergis and Jaffer partying with cocaine and high-priced prostitutes." as well as the anticipatory references "third accusation" as well as all other content premised on this as being RSed. The reason is that Gillani was the only alleged source and he has denied that he was the source for it. In addition, you (Gardiner) and Resolute have done nothing at all to correct the slanderous tone and content of this BLP over the past few weeks even with a host of new RS articles becoming available (which have shown Snowdy's charges to be suspect and/or false) yet you both are monitoring the BLP. That is negative pov orchestration-by non-correction-imo and that approach has been so prevalent here for so long that it seems to be systemic. The tag stays until all of the concerns raised by the 4 other concerned Editors as well as myself are rectified. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The other NPOV concerns raised on this talk page in talk page sections above were raised by Editors User:24.157.185.17, 209.121.225.250 ,99.231.53.195 and 69.172.110.185. You can read them and address them here. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

"Gillani was alleged by Snowdy to be the source" is as true as "Gillani denied being the source". Gillani's statements under oath do not erase the previous accusation. You might also read and learn WP:AGF before you continue attacking other editors. About the only thing you are correct on is that I haven't done much to edit this article yet, aside from reverting your unilateral deletion of content, mainly because I didn't take an active interest in it until I noted your unilateral deletion. Incidentally, we're both treading the line of WP:3RR. I won't be reverting again as a result, but consider this fair warning that I will seek an uninvolved admin to take a look if you continue to revert. Resolute 22:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I was about to say that I haven't done anything wrong but I really haven't done anything at all. On the talk I noted that one comment was ironic and another uncivil. I think it is the duty of every Wikipedian to point out both. But I haven't expressed an opion on the article content, let alone edit the bloody thing; to be honest I haven't even read it apart from the diffs from Resolute's first reversion. I would concede your point that my inactivty amounts to "pov orchestration" but only if you're willing to say the same about your non-correction at the Shakespeare authorship question article. --JGGardiner (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

lol, but the difference is, I'm not jumping into the talk page on Shakespeare and influencing content indirectly. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I should probably have let this go a while ago but I think it relates to the general problem you're having. You are reading too much into everything. I merely commented that BLP, which you brought up, applies equally to the talk page, that editors should be civil on the talk page, and that an NPOV tag addition should include a corresponding description on the talk page. Note I've only spoken about the content of the talk page and not the article itself as you've somehow imagined. I think you may be reading more into what Resolute is saying than he has actually said also and that is making you needlessly defensive. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be 100% correct. It would not be the 1st. time I've gotten defensive without cause or misconstrued somebody's words. Thank you for the very polite "something for me to think about". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

If editors are comfortable with the article as it is today I propose removal of the NPOV tag. If Editors still have an area or areas of concern please state them concisely below. Thanks DSatYVR (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually removed the tag myself about a month ago and it was quickly re-inserted; you may wish to contact that Editor (who re-inserted it) to see what they think. I am now re-inserting it because:

• The insistence on the Letter Writing Smear,which the subject had nothing to do with, and insistence on characterizing it as "orchestrated" which may give the casual Reader the false impression that the Subject was involved in orchestrating the letter writing.
• The article in its entirety highlights salacious, unproven, and disproven allegations against the Subject with a much lesser attention to her denials ,Jaffer's denials and more importantly, Gillium's and Snowdy's sworn testimonies which contradict the allegations which overwhelm the BLP. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Clean up Tag

Somebody noticed this BLP was in awful shape and put the Cleanup tag on; I am trying but I admit to having the POV that the entire article is and was a classic Smear, especially a month ago when there were so many viewers coming here for information about the Subject. So, someone more objective might want to keep an eye on my edits with that in mind. I will also say I have no idea what the point is of experienced Editors watching BLPs like this one when they allowed it to remain in such a "smear" state of being for so long. I really do not feel critical about that aspect, just confused, I suppose the answer is they have hundres of articles on their watch lists but again I am thinking, "what's the point?" Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Helena Guergis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100403202135/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100330/guergis_letter_100330/20100330 to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100330/guergis_letter_100330/20100330
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412005728/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100409/guergis_update_100409/20100409 to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100409/guergis_update_100409/20100409
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100414/guergis_response_100414?hub=MSNHome
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100430160700/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/storyv2/CTVNews/20100428/gillani_ottawa_100428/20100428/?hub=TopStoriesV2 to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/storyv2/CTVNews/20100428/gillani_ottawa_100428/20100428/?hub=TopStoriesV2
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100516/helena-guergis-alfred-apps-100516/20100516?hub=QPeriod
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100510090953/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100505/helena-guergis-riding-conservatives-100505/20100505/?hub=TopStoriesV2 to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100505/helena-guergis-riding-conservatives-100505/20100505?hub=TopStoriesV2

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Helena Guergis. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://192.197.82.11/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=85960
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311180154/http://www.thevarsity.ca/media/paper285/news/2003/09/18/OpinionAnalysis/Marchese.1.Guergis.Pedro.0-469960.shtml to http://www.thevarsity.ca/media/paper285/news/2003/09/18/OpinionAnalysis/Marchese.1.Guergis.Pedro.0-469960.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=886401
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616002216/http://howdtheyvote.ca/member.php?id=129 to http://www.howdtheyvote.ca/member.php?id=129

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helena Guergis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708212533/http://ctstv.com/ontario/player.php?ctsvidID=17585&show=Michael%20Coren%20Show to http://ctstv.com/ontario/player.php?ctsvidID=17585&show=Michael%20Coren%20Show

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Law graduate?

"She graduated with her Juris Doctor degree in November 2017."

Says who? There is no citation, and I can find nothing about this on the internet, only her acceptance into law school. Her web-presence since 2017 has become exceptionally obscure. There are two Linkedin entries for her that are little more than placeholders. JohndanR (talk) 06:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Found: https://www.ualberta.ca/registrar/media-library/convocation/fall-2017/november-22-2017-ceremony-afternoon.pdf JohndanR (talk) 06:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)