Talk:Michael Ignatieff/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

This page contains the discussion of the Michael Ignatieff page up to May 27, 2006.

General discussion

A general question- why is Ignatieff listed as a philosopher? His degree is in history, not philosophy, he doesn't teach in a philosophy department, he's not considered a philosopher by professional philosophers, and while some of his work might be "philosophical" it can't properly be called philosophy. It might be better to place him in a different category.

-RESPONSE: Ignatieff is listed in every major book store in the philosophy section. Political philosophy is philosophy. He is also an expert in 18th century philosophy, and has taught on this subject. Hume, Locke, etc. = philosophy. The Rights Revolution is a modern philosophy. If he is not a philosopher than neither is Noam Chomsky, yet I see no questioning of that.

-Similarly, Ignatieff's "A Just Measure of Pain" is widely cited as a companion to Michel Foucault's "Discipline and Punish." They are equally philosophical works and Foucault is undisputedly considered a philosopher. We must not allow political concerns of a time-bound nature to re-shape our perception of reality. Human rights as politics and idolatry is also a philosophical work. This is reaching ridiculous proportions (this debate).

Another general question about the bias in recent edits of this (and indeed in the current one). Many of these critics are Gerard Kennedy supporters. I reccomend someone compare these two entries, to see just how much Ignatieff supporters are "putting in the fix" as it is suggested. More importantly, look at how Kennedy's page only speaks of his accomplishments. He doesn't have failings you say? Well, would a conservative not say he believes in a socialist vision of the country, or even colleauge Dwight Duncan say he would've taken Ontario into the poorhouse and is fiscally irresponsible? Can't conservatives now point to his success with the teacher's unions and say well he is caving to special interests? I think the answer is no to all these questions. These criticisms range from absurd to unecessary in such a forum. They are not facts, they are opinions. Yet with Ignatieff's entry they dominate. Kennedy's page lists every single supporter, Ignatieff's lists none (this would be seen as too promoting!) and even listing a positive accomplishment is criticized. This is all the evidence in the world. The critiques of Kennedy I gave above I'm sure strike you all as things that would be suprising to find on a wikipedia entry. Yet why a double standard for Ignatieff? Looking at it in this light you see how ridiculously biased these attacks have become. If it is only fairness and accuracy these people seek why have they not destroyed that entry as well? I hope they don't, though I could see them now doing so to prove a point but that would prove nothing as it is only with my pointing it out. And it certainly has not been a site unvisited before based on its enumeration of supporters (when they are not well known they are not relevant to an encyclopedia). I also encourage Ignatieff supporters not to deface this site though they have not yet despite their supposed deceitfullness. This speaks volumes!

Let's not speculate about the motives of other editors. Please remember to assume good faith. --JGGardiner 04:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Iraq Controversy

I was speaking to a few people and feel that the statements in regards to Ignatieff's support for the Iraq invasion are a bit simplistic. Necessary caveats are omitted and should be added to clarify Ignatieff's position. He supports the invasion on Iraq from a theoretical standpoint, but let's make no qualms about it - he did not support the US invasion of Iraq... From his "Lesser Evils" article in the NY Times:

"We need national and international rules to control such wars. This may require both Congressional legislation and United Nations resolutions. Pre-emptive war can be justified only when the danger that must be pre-empted is imminent, when peaceful means of averting the danger have been tried and have failed and when democratic institutions ratify the decision to do so.

If these are the minimum tests pre-emptive war has to meet, the Iraq war failed to meet all three." slaman 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• They all say that, but I think its bull. Even before the war, one could easily see things were a little odd. I may be a lttle biased as I was anti war, but how could one explain Britian & US stretching the Africa yellow cake stuff even when everybody is saying its forgery? Powell UN presentation? UN inspector (Blix) unhappiness with the way things were going? THose thing came up way before the war and if he sincerely believed in what he is claiming, he could have taken back his words. Of cause now that things are black in white he will practically say anything to clear himself, just like domocrats in US have been doing

Here it is in Ignatieff's own words. In his article "The Year of Living Dangerously, March 14, 2004": "A year ago, I was a reluctant yet convinced supporter of the war in Iraq." His role is blatantly obvious. He provides conservative arguments to the liberal audience and liberal alibis to the conservatives.

Let's Start Over....

Can someone flag this article, asking that it be cleaned up and conform to a higher level of quality? As written, it could be a poster child for Wikipedia's shortcomings. It's lttle more than a poorly written cut-and-paste job from a hodge podge of newspaper sources. The persepctive is also skewed -- too much on the lead up to Ignatieff's entry into politics ad not enough on his human rights work.

Can we have a bit more on his academic career? It goes beyond Iraq and torture. Thes entinel 05:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Pronounce

That's all very well but how do you pronounce his name? ZephyrAnycon 18:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just asked him his name (I didn't recognize him; he seemed annoyed at that) and he said it four simple syllables, stress on the second: ig-NA-tee-eff. Does that belong in the article? moink 04:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quote from Ignatieff's book

Here is a link to the controversial excerpt from Ignatieff's book Blood and Belonging about Ukraine: [1].

t seems worthy of inclusion in some fashion, but as the entire argument centers around whether it was taken out of context, it seems POV to just stick it in verbatim. Any ideas? --Saforrest 03:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've included both the quotation form the book and Ignatieff's comments that it has been taken out of context. Homey 04:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That's weird; can't the reader tell from the book what the context is? Ignatieff,like most politicians, lies...as in "I'll live in the riding if I win the MP spot". 70.48.207.187 03:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Susan Kadis

Instead of accusing Susan Kadis of wrongdoing (based on citation found on what is essentially a blog, and without describing what that so-called wrongdoing might even be) in an article about Micheal Ignatieff, please refer to this issue which has already been resolved on discussion page of the Susan Kadis' article.

ignatieff and the carlyle fight

this thing is going to serve only the people who have no access to him, because he will have time to explain himself or give a more profound understanding of the ukrainian need to be independant from russia.

So for a short term, its helping the conservative, the ndp and the bloquist...but at last they might lose by making him a victim, while he makes his place in the decision making.

If the oil for food scandal did not get the attention from canadian, while the leadership of the liberal was completely using the desmarais and maurice strong influence to keep in power (while desmarais and strong were using the oil for food program enough to at better get blames from canadian people, but because their friends were carlyle bush's ...it became a mystery never unfolded!)

So ignatieff will make its place...the detail remain what the canadian will ask him to do with canada: reforming constitution like he likes to say in its books or keep the loopholes that permit canadian politics to be a strict superficial fight?

Depend on the pressure we put to the carlyle club!

In the UK?

Strange that this has so little about MI in the UK - where he lived for most of the last 30 years ... Charles Matthews 13:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and where are his kids living and did he just abandon them when he went to Harvard? The kids have not been in Canada at all, as far as anybody can tell. 70.48.207.187 03:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

actually we have..........a lot.......and is it really relevant what we do?

This is really odd - how is it different from Iran claim

"According to a press release by members of the riding association, a nomination meeting was set for November 30, 2005 by the Liberal Party leadership, mere hours after the resignation of Liberal MP Jean Augustine was announced on Friday November 25, with the deadline to file as a candidate in the nomination meeting set for 5 pm the next day. Despite such short notice, two candidates other than Ignatieff managed to obtain the necessary number of signatures and fill out the nomination papers. "The two candidates delivered their nomination documents to Liberal Party headquarters in Toronto, only to find that the office was locked before the 5:00 p.m. filing deadline. Liberal party staffers could be seen through the second storey windows, but they refused to answer repeated knocking on the doors and phone calls to the office,"[4] according to the press release."

• This reminded me of a common western media theme during the Iranian election. All western media and their mother claimed the religious group over there prevented some people from reistering as candidate. THat is even when they had more candidates than most of the western counties. Well, they whined and whined and the poor decided to vote for someone who can take care of them, fuck those crowns who kept promising liberal social policy when they were fiscally conservative. Ha, I haven't heard of someone who eat liberal social policy for super just to emphasis what is more important. This case is close to what happened in Germany in second world war. Some people ensured that most germans were dirty poor, and they responded by electing who ever promised to take care of their poverty issue, however wacky he is.

• Sorry for drifting away from the topic, but I am finding it hard to see how its acceptable. I would replace the religous group in Iran with western govenment PR ..ehh sorry, I meant to say media and the whole thing would make sense. But, the hypocrates in the west would like us think this is only some Arabs issue. It makes me irratated and can't help whining a bit.

This "press release" is just a blog entry by a professional spin-man, Warren Kinsella. Unless a reputable citation can be found, I recommend it be deleted.

That whole section needs cleanup, though from a strictly balanced perspective, it is accurate that Ignatieff's nomination was controversial at the time, and it is accurate to document the allegations at the time by some that his acclamation was orchestrated. I intend to do some work on that part of the article soon if no one else does it. --Chris Thompson 02:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

White Russians

While Ignatieff's grandfather or even his father may have been White Russians (as in pro-czarist) I don't see how one could classify him as one, as he obviously wasn't alive until the Cold War.

If we are to label children by the political sentiments of their ancestors, well, there's a good I'm probably a Jacobite, though I just don't know it yet. :) --Saforrest 06:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Worse than that. They were only "white" for a little while. Before that they were outright Czarist totalitarians. Or whatever term you prefer. --JGGardiner 06:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Info request

Cut from article, written by anon:

• Michael Ignatieff promised to reside in Etobicoke-Lakeshore if elected. Has he fulfilled this promise? Information needed.*

A worthwhile thing to look in to. -Joshuapaquin 19:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

An answer found, in the March 4 Toronto Star. Page A14, article by Graham Fraser entitled "Ignatieff trying to place himself":

Ignatieff does not live in the riding.... "if I'm feeling that this is holding me back and if voters feel this is a major issue, of course I'm going to live in the riding.... The thing that's holding me back is I've asked my wife to make one move already and asking her to make a second move in a year is just a bridge too far"

So no, he does not live in the riding now, but may do so if he feels it's necessary to properly represent his constituents. -Joshuapaquin 17:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just admit that again he lied. 70.48.207.187 03:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is really lying?

In reference to the "info request" above, it does seem that what MI says today has little relevance to what he says tomorrow. The Ignatieff supporters I've met have been surprisingly cultlike in their defense of Ignatieff and the "lie" word is quick to come from the Ignatieff camp.A Toronto Star columnist wrote an article referring to Ignatieff's on the record support for, what the columnist called "torture light". It wasn't long before that large newspaper was issuing an apology, not withstanding Ignatieff's New York Times Op-ed contents; "Here we are deep into lesser-evil territory. Permissible duress might include forms of sleep deprivation that do not result in lasting harm to mental or physical health, together with disinformation and disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress."[2]. A "key Ignatieff backer"; David Smith is Chairman of one of the most powerful "cross border" law firms in Canada(550 lawyers), so Canadian media may tred lightly from now on. I suppose that Ignatieff might say that his methods of "duress" do not fit the definition of torture. I would be more interested in what Ignatieff's wife's legal status in Canada is (visiter? immigrant?) as that might shed some light upon their long term committment to the country, but Toronto reporters are not known for their inquisitiveness, imo, and Ignatieff's backers are not likely to leave that criticism uncovered; however, the living in the riding lie (if it is one) may indicate a certain Bush type arrogance creeping in. It certainly looks to me as if Ignatieff is unstoppable and that his team knows how to push the right buttons"This is how I envisioned it being used when I helped write it." :) 67.71.122.115 12:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Media Tidbit

• I'm not too clear on the purpose of reporting the conversation between Boisclair and Ignatieff. I can only guess that the intent is to smear him for associating with an openly gay separatist. Or is there some deep import that I'm missing? 216.191.217.90 18:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC) jiHymas@himivest.com

Well, first of all, being associated with an openly gay person isn't much of a "smear" in Canadian politics. You could say that the entire Liberal, NDP, and Conservative caucuses have been so "smeared" in the past. Furthermore, such association with a separatist in a professor-student relationship is nothing to be ashamed of - it was more of a concern for, say, this guy.

So why is in the article? Well, the only reason I can think of is that it was both (potentially) prophetic, and also an interesting little story of coincidence. Livens things up I say, and it should stay in the article. -Joshuapaquin 20:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I have Deleted this section as no one can seem to verify why this is relevant.--Davidmintz 00:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Depending on how the leadership race goes, this article could really swell up with substantive content over the coming months - and this isn't really substantive. -Joshuapaquin 02:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That should not be deleted; the connection is that they both likely learned political methodology at Harvard which they can apply in Canada towards relatively easy victories for political newbies and also there is news reports adentifying a friendly ongoing poitical alliance between the 2. Neutralizer 12:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The Fix is in- that's a fact

The "fix is in" is not just some people's imagination. I am in Toronto and I know that Ignatieff supporters are making these edits here already. The negative stuff about Ignatieff is also being well kept out of major Canadian media. This sentence; "To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war."in his Times Op-ed is enough to sink him in Canada but it is not being reported at all. Even when the demonstrators brought it up at the Univ. in Ottawa meeting the media reported that Ignatieff "dispelled the notion" that he would support torture in any form. Also, a very serious lawyer I know in Toronto told me Ignatieff has so much "heavyweight American juice" supporting him, even the other Canadian party leaders are afraid of him. Neutralizer 12:31, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For below-this is not a valid complaint but absolute hogwash. These sentences (that's right TWO sentences of his whole career some dozen books) have receieved extensive coverage in the media. No candidate has been so pilliored. And there is NO evidence of any kind his "weight" is forcing media to back down. Does the business-minded Stephen Harper (whom the star criticizes) not have weight? No the difference between the Star and these complaintants is they are held to a real standard of accuracy. Intelligent people hearing a complaint and coming to the conclusion you have misinterpreted it to the point where you are wrong and so do not report on that is not bias that is just not seeing things as you insist they should.

Comment; Here's the weight, from the websites of Iggy's 2 biggest backers;

Below show his 2 primary backers' cross border business ambitions which tell us they both are likely to be big winners financially regardless of whether American wannabe Ignatieff or Bush's pal Harper leads Canada; By them putting Ignatieff in as Liberal leader, the upcoming election becomes a win-win for these 2 powerhouse backroom bagmen.

Re; David Smith,

[3] [4] [5] [6]

[7]

"FMC Leadership: An Interview With Senator David P. Smith. ‘As part of a 'Special Focus on Canada', Metropolitan Corporate Counsel featured an interview with FMC Counsel and Chairman Emeritus, Senator David P. Smith to discuss his distinguished career in public service, leadership in law and the ever-strengthening future of the largest bilateral trade relationship in the world - the U.S. and Canada.’”

• Senator Smith is asked in this interview;

"What are the ultimate goals that you have for the firm?"

His answer is;

"I would like to see our firm increase the presence we have today in cross border transactions and trade deals." ________

• Re; Alfred Apps;

http://www.fasken.com/WEB/FMDEMPPROF.NSF/0/043960C1C9DB7DFE85256FC50059574C?OpenDocument]

"At The REALM, he completed one of the largest first-round private equity financings (US$132 Million) during the year 2000 in the United States. Since returning to Canada and legal practice in 2001, Alfred has completed a number of significant cross-border acquisitions, divestitures and financings.” 64.229.65.236 00:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mr. Ignatieff's supporters are allowed to edit this page. I would suggest that you focus on the content rather than speculate about the author. You may be new to WP so I should let you know that virtually every political page is edited by their own partisans. Get used to it. --JGGardiner 00:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that the sentence in question is in Ignatieff's NYTimes op-ed it is not original research to cite that quotation.Homey 23:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, that's true - I was referring to the "very serious lawyer" bit, and should have clarified that. -Joshuapaquin 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations: Please Wikify

I don't know much about the edit wars going on here, but the list of external articles is getting out of hand; most of the links are showing only the URL with no reference to source or author. The citation system should also be cleaned up: Is there a reason why both footnotes and embedded links are being used? --Pastricide! ^{Non-absorbing} 23:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also: I'm guessing it's safe to remove the "future election" tag at this point. That election was three months ago. --Pastricide! ^{Non-absorbing} 23:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Added NPOV tag, restored context to most quotations in 'controversies"

I realize that opinions diverge about this candidate, but the 'controversies' section rapidly degenerated into a hatchet job of dubiously-selected quotations. Just adding the paragraph alone that each came from changed the tone immensely.

A serious issue with this page will be that critics of Ignatieff will want the "controversies" section to dominate the page - as it already does in length - and it's difficult to prevent that without heavy-handed editing on the part of pro-Ignatieff contributers. As I am a relative newb to wikipedia I've done very little here; I removed the gratiutous "granta" bit which was obviously just meant to sauce-up the rather silly "first person plural" argument which was already stated plainly enough in the preceeding passage. Other than that I added in Roth's statement in the Star to balance out Gearty's claims (Which I find highly academically dubious; the Bush administration's mentality on torture has been developed wholly independantly of any academic discourses, and then again within the academic discourses, Ignatieff is highly anti-torture both in absolute and relative terms. The arguments might be made about Alan Dershowitz, but even then I think that the administration's paper trail (now a matter of considerable investigation) has little reference to legitimate academic opinion. Please pardon my inadvertant newbishness vis a vis the wikipedia interface. Jason Townsend 00:27 GMT April 14

Comment Re; above- "Ignatieff is highly anti-torture both in absolute and relative terms." is simply not true; In Ignatieff's own words; “To defeat evil, we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war.” Ignatieff advocates “a lesser evil approach” in which legislation would permit coercive interogation including "forms of disorientation (like keeping prisoners in hoods) that would produce stress." [8] 70.48.207.187 04:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• Regardless of laymen rationalizations for Iggy's "lesser evils", the Human Rights community at large has distanced themselves from Iggy's fascism facilitating doublespeak; as you can see here;[9]Conor Gearty is a professor of human rights law and Rausing director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics.[10]

[11]Ronald Steel, the author of Temptations of a Superpower and other books about American political thought and foreign relations, teaches international relations at the University of Southern California.[12][13][14]Mariano Aguirre is co-director of the Fundacion para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Dialogo Exterior (Fride), in Madrid. He is the former director of the Peace Research Center (CIP), Madrid and has been a program officer at the Ford Foundation in New York. He is a fellow of the Transnational Institute, Amsterdam. 70.48.207.187 04:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

While those academics clearly disagree with Ignatieff, that does not make him unimportant. Indeed, they make the point that Ignatieff is too important. Gearty is clearly suggesting that Ignatieff lends credibility to Rumsefeld et al because he is an "important" academic, as our article now says. Gearty called him "probably the most important" of those figures which he describes as the "'cerebral praetorian guard,' protecting the masters of Guantánamo Bay". Aguirre makes the same point, that despite his objectionable views, Ignatieff has a lot of credibility, perhaps too much:

Ignatieff employs two tools in his complex job. First, his credentials: he is the director of a prestigious academic human-rights centre, a skilful writer known for advocating a humanitarian intervention in the Balkan wars, the biographer of the heterodox thinker Isaiah Berlin, and a contributor to the New York Times and New York Review of Books. (from the link in the article)

You see, Geary and Aggy disagree with Iggy but suggests that the problem is that Ignatieff is actually very important and that is why he is a problem as he lends his intellectual cache to Rumsfeld and others. Perhaps Ignatieff is outside of the mainstream of his colleagues but that doesn't make him unimportant or less of a figure in his discipline. Indeed, the authors cited above suggest that Ignatieff leads an important and powerful, albeit morally wrong, faction in the discipline.--JGGardiner 04:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I have seen noone here suggest Iggy is unimportant; and I have also sen nothing here to show that he "leads an important faction"; in fact I know of no other human rights leader who agrees with Iggy that "we may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war.". All the info I've seen depict him as a rogue Human Rights professional now being shunned by most of that community but with a few (very) loyal defenders who try to decipher Ignatieff's doublespeak in as friendly a way as possible. 67.71.123.220 12:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So then why is there an NPOV tag on the "Recognition" section? The only thing that the other anon. mentioned was that other academics disagree with him. Even if we accept that completely, I don't see how that is contradictory to the section. --JGGardiner 16:38, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that some editors like above are imagining that Ignatieff "leads an important faction" or else are trying to impose a falsehood as being fact. 64.229.65.236 00:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you meant me, I have only edited the article once, to remove a premature notice of his announcement to run. My words that you took from above were a just paraphrasing of the sources provided by another poster, not my own image of Ignatieff. My full quote (though it is just slightly above) was preceded by "Indeed, the authors (from the links) suggest that..." That said, tags should reflect content, not editors. What is the exact falsehood in the text, of the "Recognition" section now? --JGGardiner 00:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Added section concerning "Canada" and "Equality"

This is an attempt to offer a bit more balance. Someone has decided to add several topic headings quoting Ignatieff on a range of controversial issues, often not providing much context. For a more rounded view, I have added some of Ignatieff's writing on Canada and Canadian rights culture.

I also re-added some passages that had been removed by obviously partisan editers. You may not like Ignatieff's views, but you cannot get around the fact that he is most well known for his writing on human rights; deleting this fact from Wikipedia is just dishonest.

Finally, I gave the full quotation for the "lesser evil" approach. Whoever originally added this section intentionally left out the preceding paragraph where Ignatieff discusses an "outright ban" on torture.

End the Partisan Editorializing

Ok, I wish the partisan editors would stop importing their judgments and "spinning" and let quotations, yes, that includes FULL quotations in FULL context, speak for themselves. You do not need to use emotionally charged adjectives; let people read the quotes and come to their own conclusions. Yes, this means you cannot "by accident" leave out parts of passages where Ignatieff clearly supports a ban on torture. People are free to disagree with his views, but not influence others through intellectual dishonesty.

It is fine to complain about content that you find troublesome but please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Thanks. --JGGardiner 18:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that JGGardiner. Point noted. --[[User:] 18:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed "Expertise" Paragraph and some of the uninformative shotty writing in the "Recognition" section

Fixed up the portion about Ignatieff's "expertise" and removed the NPOV. There appears to be some objection to viewing Ignatieff as a "world reknowned expert", and while I think this is probably the case, I understand why some might object. Done.

-this is unbelievable. He is an expert, just because people take offense at two sentences does not mean he can be written off. Before these partisans had something to gain by his failure he was world-renowned, used in university courses worldwide, served on international commissions (such as in Kosovo), and more. If I think Chomsky is worthless can I erase his expertise in linguistics? No.

I also added some more information about the texts mentioned in the "Recognition" paragraphs. There was no information indicating what the books were about, nor what the awards were for.

Thanks. And I hope that soon we can remove all the NPOV from this article :) -Joshuapaquin 19:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Religion?

Someone added this article to the category "Jewish Canadians". Is there any citation for this? A quick Google search turned up speculation at... er... [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=227466 Stormfront], which doesn't quite cut it in my book. -Joshuapaquin 23:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought about removing that myself but I waited for someone who knew better than I do. His paternal grandfather was the son of the notable anti-semitic Czarist minister, with the grandmother a Russian princess who I assume was not Jewish. On his mother's side, the Grants were not Jewish. So I suppose that leaves his maternal grandmother. But if she was Jewish one would expect it to be mentioned in the George Grant article which it is not. --JGGardiner 23:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed some NPOV defacement and reorganized headings for clarification

I know that we are to assume good faith from other editors, but when an anonymous IP adds an NPOV to each and every section to the Wikipedia article, it is clearly an attempt at defacement. I've removed the NPOVs, and also moved around some of the headings for clarification. Also added the "foreign policy" heading under "Controversies" so it is clear what the first paragraph under that heading is referring.

Unfortunately, this entire Wiki article is filled with grade school level writing and needs a lot more editing.

Ignatieff's Paid Organizers are sanitizing this Wikipedia entry

I know this because I just broke up with one of those organizers. They have 2 employees assigned to spin and complicate all references to Iggy's documented support of invading Iraq, torture, reducing civil and human rights, and american expansionism. 67.71.121.208 10:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There are plenty of partisans editing articles here. There are certainly Ignatieff detractors who have edited this article also. That happens. In fact, there is no actual policy against editing an article about yourself (although the guideline calls it unproper). If you've seen an editor do something wrong, fix it. That's the way it is supposed to work. If an editor is consistently problematic, there are ways to address that also. --JGGardiner 15:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told, I've found most of the systematic, single-issue edits (ie: by users without any other Wiki articles) are anti-Ignatieff. But JCGardiner is right - if you see something that violates NPOV, fix it. 198.20.40.50

Over the last week the ratio seems to be 25% neutral, 25% anti-Ignatieff, 50% pro-Ignatieff. In particular, didn't think the comment about Stephen Harper shaking Ignatieff's hand after the Afghanistan vote was meant as a non-neutral hatchet job, though the person who added it didn't explain it well. Harper shook Ignatieff's hand because 15 out of the 24 Liberal votes in favor of the Afghanistan extension came from Ignatieff campaign supporters -- without the Ignatieff bloc, Harper would not have been able to carry the vote. There have been a couple edits this week by Ignatieff supporters who clearly have not read his writings. Fortunately, the record is clear, and it should be straightforward to keep the article neutral. The biggest challenge will be accurately representing both Ignatieff's neoconservative, hawkish stance from 2002-2004, and his softer stance promoted since the campaign has begun. Ignatieff himself is not wholly independent, since some of Ignatieff's public statements during the campaign have misrepresented his earlier writings, e.g. he now talks all the time about Halabja being at the root of his advocacy of the war in Iraq, when his actual writings at the time never mentioned Halabja, even though one would assume it would have been a potent argument. --Chris Thompson 00:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Information Duplicate Quotes and Clarified Some Headings

Certain anti-Ignatieff partisans (one noted above) want headlines mentioning "rights" and "privacy" with respect to particular passages where Ignatieff elaborates his "Lesser Evil" approach. Fine. I've removed his duplicate quotes and clarified headlines indicating that passages involve the "Lesser Evil" approach in the context of rights, the rule of law, and privacy concerns.

Augustine

Just removed the following:

Jean Augustine was a well-liked, long-serving MP, and was the first Black woman elected to the House of Commons. Some viewed the fact that Ignatieff's nomination to her riding aws hasty and covert as evidence that, "the fix was in", and controversy continues to this day. But Augustine publicly supported Ignatieff's candidacy, stumping for him on the campaign trail and lending her volunteers.

There are a few things here that should be taken issue with: First, that the nomination was 'covert', second, that the 'controversy continues to this day', and third, the idea that Augustine didn't genuinely support Ignatieff (suggested in the modification from previous wording). Anyone well-informed about the Etobicoke-Lakeshore situation has seen plenty of evidence contrary to each of these statements, so until there's a credible source for any of them, I've reverted it. -Joshuapaquin 04:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm "well-informed about the Etobicoke-Lakeshore situation" and the items 1 and 2 Joshuapaquin refers to are not disputed by anyone. 64.229.31.222 04

40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Striking13 appears to be sanitizing

Striking13 is sending unsigned notes to my talk page and seems to want to pov this article in favour of the candidate for Prime Minister,Ignatieff. 64.229.31.222 04:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm attempting to maintain a balanced article. I have a personal interest in human rights scholarship, and am familiar with Ignatieff's work. Unfortunately, Ignatieff's controversial opinions attracts a lot of partisan editors like yourself. Striking13 04:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff stated this in the NYTImes article of May 2,2004;"We may have to traffic in evils: indefinite detention of suspects, coercive interrogations, targeted assassinations, even pre-emptive war." and his apologists wish to pretend he did not say that or mean that or else they make vague "out of context" denials without substantive explanations as to how the words are out of context. That pov makes the Iggy apologists' edits quite partisan, it seems to me. 64.229.28.213 14:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you, that such quotes should not be removed. However, such quotes must be in their full context. If you'd actually take a moment and read the article, you'll see that the quotation you cite is present under one of the "Lesser Evil" headings. However, it is important that such quotes be excerpted in full context, to understand the origins and direction of the discussion, rather than "half" citations. Striking13 14:45 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The talk page is for work on the article. If there is an occurence of pov (including partisan) content on the page either edit it or bring it here. It is unhelpful to simply accuse another editor of bias. They aren't going to get banned for that. You're just going to have to learn to live with each other. Please, comment on content, not on the contributor. --JGGardiner 05:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits by 69.158.188.26

I reverted the recent edits by 69.158.188.26 as they were blatantly pro-Iggy Pov and completely one sided concerning the nomination process; that editor deleted crucial and documented reports and sanitized the controversy regarding the nomination. 64.229.28.213 12:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

What is the verdict about the Ukrainian controversy?

Reading through the article and the talk page, I still can't figure out whether or not there's anything substantial to the allegations of Ukrainian prejudice. In particular, the claim that the quotation is taken out of context is not supported by any independent references in the article (other than a press release by Ignatieff's campaign, which is clearly not independent). As far as I can tell, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress has not retracted their allegations. Does anyone have a copy of the book in question and can provide the context? Does anyone have a transcript of the PBS TV version of the book? The section needs to be cleaned up with definite information. --Chris Thompson 23:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris, answering your question is not as simple as offering a couple quotes and saying "in context, out of context". I have a copy of Blood and Belonging which I read back in undergrad. The alleged "prejudicial" passages about Ukraine come from a full chapter where Ignatieff reflects not only upon the nature and origins of Ukrainian nationalism, but ethnic nationalism generally. In this discussion, he invokes his Russian ancestry which he believes, consciously or subconsciously, carries its own baggage - that is, bias against Ukrainians, biases that he learned from his grandparents (Ignatieff maintains that ethnic nationalism, like racism, is learned not natural). It is the portion of this discussion where Ignatieff rhymes off some possible "ingrained biases" linked to his Russian ancestry that was quoted as proof of his anti-Ukrainian beliefs; when in fact, Ignatieff's writing in the chapter is quite sympathetic to the Ukrainian cause. But don't take my word for it, Dan Gardner of the Ottawa Citizen wrote an excellent piece on these allegations last year, doing an apt job dismantling them. In fact, Gardner specifically addresses the UCC's press releases which, as he finds upon investigating, omitted important contextual passages. Take a look at the article here: http://www.dangardner.ca/Col30nov05.html After addressing each of the supposedly offending passages, Gardner concludes:

This is the fine and humane writing of a serious man. For it to be characterized as some kind of tawdry ethnic slur is itself a slur.

But of course it was bound to happen. Canada's political culture is thick with a pseudo-populist atmosphere in which the dim, dull and conventional thrive while the thoughtful and creative wilt.

In any event, be sure to read the whole article. I think there are plenty reasons for people to criticize Ignatieff, such as his problematic stance on the Iraq war; but there is just no substance to these allegations -- Striking13 01:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. That gives me a much better picture. I've spent quite a few hours reading various Ignatieff writings over the last couple of days and it does fit with his style. Though I would agree that admitting to innate emotional personal biases, even if to come down firmly against them later, is a difficult thing to have exposed in the political arena because of the level of modern political discourse. Ignatieff's comments on the Israel/Palestine issue are fairly analogous, and I imagine he'll be crucified for them by both sides. What particularly intrigues me is how he can be both critical of ethnic nationalism and yet a supporter of modern American pseudo-Jeffersonian imperialism with such rose-coloured glasses. In any case, he is a man of complicated opinions. If I feel I can clean up that section of the article, I'll try to. --Chris Thompson 04:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The Lesser Evil Approach and other edits

Certainly, Ignatieff's views on torture and Iraq have been "controversial", but I know of no big controversy about those particular citations previous noted re: Rule of Law and privacy rights. Rather, they were simply passages from one of Ignatieff's article where he does his typical "back and forth" discussion on various positions to explain his Lesser Evil analysis. So, I've created a "Lesser Evil" section under "Ideas" which essentially incorporates the ideas from those sections.

I've also moved the "Afghanistan" extension from the "controversies" section, to the more apropriate "Political career" section. It is not NPOV to say Ignatieff's support for the extension was "controversial", one could easily posit that the failure of people to support the extension was controversial but Ignatieff was being principled. Striking13 05:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The "satirical posters" link

What are people's feelings about the link to the "satirical" campaign posters for Ignatieff? That link gets added then deleted then added. My feeling is that the parody site is not terribly informative or appropriate as a reference. One would not expect links to a satirical site about the Republican party at the end of its article. Links to reasoned criticism of Ignatieff seem reasonable as a fair counterbalance to the links to pro-Ignatieff sites. (And indeed, the Republican party article contains a link to SaveTheGOP.com.) There is a strong anti-Ignatieff movement in Canada, as evidenced by the protests at his larger speaking engagements, and it's fair to acknowledge that, but the posters link is not informative in my view. On the other hand, the Stop Iggy link is fine, IMHO. Their reasoning is explained and they provide a healthy set of links to Ignatieff's writings. Thoughts? --Chris Thompson 11:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris - I tend to agree. As with any leadership race, there will inevitably be those groups for whatever reason oppose one person's candidacy; Ignatieff is no different this regard, so you cannot ignore their existence, so I think the stop iggy link is fine (though I think it is a problem that one user appears to continually re-add it to the main text of the article, despite your due diligence in keeping it in the reference links section). If the "stop Iggy" link is to remain, it has to stay in the "opposing views" links section. However, those "Iggy posters" offer no informational value, with little or no context for selective quotations and pictoral comparisons. This violates Wikipedia guideliness on NPOV, that require the "best and most reputable sources" and "fairness and sympathetic tone" in treating a person's work, ie: to illustrate, we wouldn't allow sarcasm or satire to exist in the text of a Wiki article. And even if one feels it is a fair treatment of Ignatieff's work, it clearly violates NPOV guidelines on artistic expressions/opinions of people's work which is seen as not appropriate in an encyclopedia. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view -- Striking13 18:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Very well said by the both of you. -Joshuapaquin 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then it's gone. If anyone wants it back, please discuss your reasoning here first. Thanks.--Chris Thompson 11:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Accidentally re-added them before reading this. My bad. They're gone again.

The opponents' poster site is informative and includes quotes I wasn't aware of like; "I believed in America in a way Canada never allowed".It should not be deleted,imo. There are links to Iggy's own propaganda (e.g. his Office's site). I am confused about and quite opposed to the efforts above to remove the satirical poster link as removal seems quite helpful to Iggy's campaign, it seems to me. I will revert the link unless there is a consensus by some other than the ones above who seem to be dominating this discussion and by saying the posters are not informative tells me they either haven't read them or if they already knew all those quotes; are too involved to be neutral. 70.48.205.98 03:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Your definition of consensus is an unusual one. Nevertheless, I would urge this issue to be decided by logical argument from both sides, rather than an edit war. No one is urging the "Stop Iggy" link be deleted. Everyone who's participated in the discussion thus far agrees it should stay. It's the posters link that is in dispute. As far as I can see, it consists only of four satirical posters. They can't stay just because you feel propaganda should balance "propaganda." An encyclopedia should not be about propaganda on either side. Links to Ignatieff's campaign site make sense for obvious reasons, as do links to opponent sites that are well argued. Links to joke sites, satire sites, or sheer propaganda don't add anything in my view. My opinion might be different if the posters link contained some kind of reasoned criticism of Ignatieff, some links to protests/demonstrations or schedules of protests/demonstrations against him, etc. All but one of the quotations on the posters are already covered in this article, and the one that isn't -- the "i am a martian" comment -- makes little sense on the poster (though with a bit of context it is relevant and I'm planning on adding it to this article). --Chris Thompson 03:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding information to the article is the right way to go. The quote mentioned by the anonymous user ("I believed in America...") is actually in the article right now. If the quotes on the other posters are noteworthy, put them in the article with proper citation and context. -Joshuapaquin 04:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the quotes are there and so is the connection between his quotes and the US policies. I don't mind satire though if it is noteworthy or exceptional but this really isn't. --JGGardiner 05:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. The "Stop Iggy" site is fine, but the posters should go.70.27.207.148 06:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to the unusual comments of 70.48.205.98, I find Chris' edits and approach to this article quite evenhanded. I think the above comments indicate the "consensus" is reached - the link should go (though I'm not sure consensus is needed in any case, as the posters violate NPOV, which is mandatory on wikipedia). - Striking13 16:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I take issue with this line of reasoning above; "Links to Ignatieff's campaign site make sense for obvious reasons, as do links to opponent sites that are well argued. Links to joke sites, satire sites, or sheer propaganda don't add anything in my view."

• Wouldn't we all agree that a "campaign site" is "propaganda"? I don't know what the "obvious reasons" are that a campaign site should be acceptable. What are those obvious reasons? Also, I absolutely feel that,in my view, political satire does add a lot so why would the info be excluded? What harm does it do? It seems arbitrary to me to be removing it. 70.50.76.132 18:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A campaign site is propaganda, I agree with you there, but such sites are fundamentally relevant. The article on virtually every current politician and political party on Wikipedia contains a like to that politician/party's official site, usually as the first link. As for your second point, I wouldn't necessarily reject a satire site for inclusion as long as it contained a decent amount of argument, factual information, etc. The problem with including every site under the sun is because eventually both sides will start doing it, and you have to set the bar for inclusion somewhere. By the way, if people want to remove the "Draft Ignatieff" link (which is obsolete) and the notable names database link (which contains no information), I'd agree with that. --Chris Thompson 18:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You're much too fair, Chris! You must be a paid Ignatieff supporter! (note: this, like the posters, is an attempt at satire and/or sarcasm) ;) -- Striking13 03:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"See the talk page"

Um, to the anonymous editor who's been doing this, please don't delete things with the comment "see the talk page" unless there actually is relevant discussion on the talk page about that topic. Thanks. --Chris Thompson 02:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair quotation of the Granta Article

The quotation of Ignatieff's article in Granta:77 is problematic. Here is written under the section "Attitude toward Canada":

Ignatieff also wrote an article in 2002 for the literary magazine, Granta, titled What we think of America in which he said; "[America is the] only country...to command the faith of people like me, who are not its citizens."

This appears to suggest that America, that is, the country "commands" his faith. But here is what he actually wrote:

"The power of American scripture lies in this constant process of democratic reinvention. First a wartime president, then a battlefield rabbi, then a black pastor—all reach into the same treasure house of language, at once sacred and profane, to renew the faith of the only country on earth that believes in itself in this way, the only country whose citizenship is an act of faith, the only country whose promises to itself continue to command the faith of people like me, who are not its citizens."

This is a subtle, but important distinction. Ignatieff does not say "America" commands his faith; but rather, the "promises" that America keeps to itself does: freedom, liberty, democratic reinvention. Who disagrees with such promises? There is a big difference between saying certain ideas commands one's faith, and saying a country "commands" faith; one involves commitment to ideas, another a nationalist commitment to country.

There are other problems as well. This particular edition of Granta invited a number of writers/journalists/luminaries to write about what "they think of America" as a way to explore what the magazine felt was the quiet anti-Americanism in the response to 9/11:

The September 11 attacks on the US provoked shock and pity in the rest of the world, but mingled with the sympathy was something harsher: anti-Americanism. It wasn't confined to the West Bank or Kabul. It could be heard in English country pubs, in the bars of Paris and Rome, the tea stalls of New Delhi. 'Hubris' was the general idea: in one opinion poll, two-thirds of the respondents outside the US agreed to the proposition that it was 'good that Americans now know what it's like to be vulnerable'.

Is the US really so disliked? If so, why? In this issue twenty-four writers drawn from many countries describe the part America has played in their lives—for better or worse—and deliver their estimate of the good and the bad it has done as the world's supreme political, military, economic and cultural power."[15]

In this edition, Ignatieff writes under the heading "Canada" (check the article)[16], that is, his article offers a Canadian perspective on the United States. Other writers in the Granta edition write from other country prespectives - Germany, Britain, etc. If this article is being used here under a heading like "Controversies" in order show he has a controversial view towards Canada its pretty intellectually dishonest to leave out this context. As it is, it looks like Ignatieff wrote some article back in 2002 proclaiming America commands his faith. Sheesh! And finally, could someone point out the source for saying this particular article caused some sort of controversy? Because if there isn't a source, pretending it's controversial is not NPOV, or, at least, is original research. -- 24.222.204.12 14:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, regarding that quotation, someone inserted the references to Vietnam during the last week as an attempt to add context. I feel that those references actually do not add appropriate context and misrepresent the thrust of Ignatieff's overall point from the Granta article, and I am inclinded to restore that section to how it looked roughly a week ago.

That said, regarding your main point, you have to look at the body of Ignatieff's work, not just the Granta article. In the context of his other work, the selected quotation from the Granta article is appropriate and an accurate representation of Ignatieff's overall views.

In general, Ignatieff holds a certain idealistic, almost spiritual or religious view of the United States, something he generally refers to as a "Jeffersonian message" of democracy and freedom. The clearest illustration of this is his article "Who Are Americans to Think That Freedom Is Theirs to Spread?" available on the Harvard website. Setting aside the discussion of whether Ignatieff misrepresents the views of Thomas Jefferson (which I believe he does, particularly in arguing for a hawkish, interventionist foreign policy), Ignatieff's attachment to a set of beliefs about the moral-philosophical uniqueness of the United States is evident throughout his writings, from his original reasons for advocating the Iraq war to his belief that some states are entitled and have the moral legitimacy to use "lesser evil" techniques to achieve their goals. By the way, it is not an over the top statement to call Ignatieff's belief in American exceptionalism an almost spiritual or faith-based belief, since he does so himself, for instance, in the Granta article, he refers to Martin Luther King's speech as "American scripture."

Critics, particularly those critics who have written about his writings on torture and lesser evils, have pointed out that Ignatieff's faith in America often leads him to blindly ignore counterexamples in his own essays. For instance, in justifying American interventionism or in arguing that America has a higher moral standard and discussing whether it might be entitled to use torture, Ignatieff almost without exception always ignores the entire sordid history of American foreign policy, from the School of the Americas to COINTELPRO to raping nuns in South America, on and on. Similarly, in his article in "Torture: Does it Make us Safer?", Ignatieff cites only American conservative sources in support of his particularly narrow definition of torture, rather than more obvious mainstream examples, such as the Istanbul convention on torture or scholarly work on the Geneva conventions and torture. These are intellectual forms of selective blindness, but they make sense when viewed in terms of Ignatieff's overall worldview.

Anyway, that's a long response to your question, but it is not NPOV to include appropriate quotations that illustrate Ignatieff's particular, overriding faith in a certain view of America. Note, however, that I'm not making a value judgment about that worldview. I have a large amount of respect for the American ideal myself, and I can understand where Ignatieff is coming from, and why he is more intellectually inspired by the American narrative than the Canadian one. --Chris Thompson 17:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Chris - thank you for the thoughtful response. As you can see, I didn't simply make changes to the actual article, rather I posted my criticism first to allow for discussion. First off, I do not disagree with your assessment that Ignatieff's writing takes on both a certain deference and reverence for American ideals, though you must admit that some may disagree with your ascribing Ignatieff with a "spiritual" faith to such ideals given that Ignatieff is a self-described secular liberal. I read Ignatieff as attributing religiosity to how Americans express their commitment to their own ideals, (he cites the Rabbi and the black pastor) but not necessarily to his own commitment to those ideas. But, of course, I'm not precluding the possibility that I'm wrong; this is my point of view. And you must recognize that you're also only articulating your interpretation of Ignatieff's work. The job we have for this wiki article is neither POV.

In any case, I certainly object to splicing quotations or removing context from quotes in order to support an overall interpretation of a person's body of work, if indeed the quotes in proper context do not necessarily support that overall interpretation. For example, if the reference to the Vietnam war in the actual quote undermines the overall interpretation, you cannot cite this and leave out the Vietnam war reference to justify the overall interpretation (I can tell you i'd never try to pull of some of this "wikipedia" type quoting in my own academic work, I'd get reamed for an academic offense). The way those quotes were done previously, seemed to suggest Ignatieff was simply professing both his faith and fidelity to the United States with whole paragraphs in between excerpted lines omitted with a convenient "..." If one wants to object to Ignatieff's commitment to the American narrative, leaving out the fact he was expressing that commitment by objecting to a major aspect of American foreign policy (ie: Vietnam) is specious. If Ignatieff is to be impugned for comments on the United States, his objections to American policy must be fairly represented as well. Similarly, to impugn Ignatieff for his "attitude toward Canada" which includes criticisms that he writes from an American perspective, to leave out the fact he writes the Granta article from an explicitly Canadian perspective is also a problem. (Please note, I know you did not do the original citations, so this criticism isn't directed at you personally! just felt i should say that). -- 24.222.204.12 20:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your first comment, it's not POV to accurately document Ignatieff's belief in American exceptionalism in the article. The Granta quote is good because it accurately and concisely captures the essence of his thinking, even though the Granta article itself is not, by far, the most outright expression of his belief in that exceptionalism. For more literal examples, I suggest reading "Who Are Americans to Think That Freedom Is Theirs to Spread?", "The Burden", and "The Year of Living Dangerously." (Note that a couple of relevant quotations from "The Year of Living Dangerously" were excised from the article during the last week, not by me.) In any case, Ignatieff's political and ideological beliefs are clear from his writings, and it is fair to document those beliefs in a balanced fashion without being accused of being POV. I realize that many of Ignatieff's beliefs may not be politically expedient in an election campaign, but that is for the voters to judge, not pro or anti-Ignatieff supporters.

As for your second comment, let me be clear: including the Vietnam reference distorts the meaning of the actual quotation; it is using the technique of peephole context to suggest Ignatieff was somehow referring specifically to Vietnam, when in fact Vietnam is at most a tangential reference in the overall Granta article. The goal of quoting from the Granta article should be to capture the essence of what Ignatieff was trying to convey in that article, namely that he feels the American ideological narrative is more potent and richer than that of other nations--sufficiently rich to attract the belief and attachment of citizens of other nations, including himself, in a way that Canada does not. Vietnam is irrelevant to that point (except in the ironic sense that rather than shaking his belief in the robustness of the American ideology, it prompted him to try to buttress it, a behavior not atypical in the psychology of believers).

Finally, in reference to his speaking as an American, that statement is made in the paragraph before and is not associated with the Granta article and quotation. He doesn't speak as an American in every single article he's ever published! However, it is true that he began writing from the perspective of an American while at Harvard, and the majority of articles he wrote while at Harvard are written from this perspective. This deserves to be documented as fact, along with his comment that he only did that for rhetorical effect, and readers can decide what conclusions to draw. --Chris Thompson 21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Chris on this and also would point out that24.222.204.12 misquoted Ignatieff by saying "the "promises" that America keeps to itself"; when the word "keeps" was not used by Ignatieff at all and is quite debatable in any event. 64.229.29.124 01:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey 64.229.29.124 can you read? Apparently not. I did not "misquote" Ignatieff as saying "keeps". I excerpted the full quote (indented) and offered a fair (and in my view) proper reading.

Chris -- Ignatieff has written extensively on supposed "American exceptionalism", but his writing on point is double sided - ie: he also criticizes the presumption of Americans that they are above international laws - like their objection to the ICC - which is part of this presumption of exceptionalism. In any case, we agree that Ignatieff's views ought to be documented and that it should be up to people to decide (without ideological filters). I guess for these reasons I prefer quotes with fuller contexts because this is often more fair to a writer (as I'm sure you'll agree), and also the reader. I had actually never read that Granta article before I came upon it on here. When I saw those Granta quotes initially, I said to myself "Wow! Ignatieff said that! ha, ha!" And then I went and read the whole article, and came away with a much different (and balanced) view. I've attempted to articulate that here within this discussion. But I think I now understand what you're getting at about the Vietnam War reference being at odds with the overall meaning of the Granta article. So, wouldn't a better solution be to reference the article and paraphrase its thrust in the way you describe it in your last post (capturing its overall reading) rather than taking actual quotes and splicing them up in order to fit that overall solution? This is just a suggestion...I'll leave it to you Chris. -- 24.222.204.12 03:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey; 24.222.204.12, sorry but I do not agree with you that promises made is the same as promises kept and especially in this context as allegiance to promises made is,imo, displaying trust in the promiser. Also, Ignatieff's use of the term "only country" ,imo, makes it clear it is the country,America, which has his faith as opposed to general "promises" relating to freedom and liberty which many other countries ascribe to as well. I doubt the user is suggesting that only the USA makes such promises and if not, then the term "only country" makes no sense other than to identify the special feelings (which Ignatieff calls "faith") that he holds for America. 64.229.28.47 12:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, you disagree with my interpretation. But don't accuse me of misquoting, that implies I've done something dishonest, which I didn't do. I just quoted and offered my reading; like I said, I could be wrong. -- 17:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Empire Lite" aka. "The Burden"

Someone inserted a link in the "Opponent Sites" category to a webpage that has a retitled version of "The Burden," with the new title "Empire Lite." I'm taking it out for the following reasons: 1) There's already a link to "The Burden" (indeed, it's the first link under "Articles"). 2) I don't see how the annotated version is an opponent site. The pull quotes are decent and for the most part they don't take things out of context or quote selectively. Would an opponent site end with the final pull quote: "The case for empire is that it has become, in a place like Iraq, the last hope for democracy and stability alike"? That seems like an accurate description of what Ignatieff is trying to say in the article. If I were writing an opponent site, I would have chosen to quote the sentence from that section implicitly (not explicitly) linking the impending invasion of Iraq to Sept. 11. For the most part, the site would only seem like an opponent site if the reader has some knee-jerk reaction to the term "empire"... but there is enough context in the pull quotes for people to realize that Ignatieff's use of the term is not purely jingoistic (or even fundamentally neoconservative for that matter). If anything, I'd suspect that site was set up by Ignatieff's campaign team to deflect allegations of neoconservatism. (I did a whois lookup and the actual site creator is shielded by a domains by proxy privacy service, so my ownership comments are just speculation.) 3) The article's renamed title, "Empire Lite," is confusing, since Ignatieff has a book published in 2003 by Penguin also called "Empire Lite." --Chris Thompson 07:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. A pristine copy is preferred to an annotated one. --JGGardiner 07:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Are his children important to the article?

I noticed in many press releases Ignatieff's 2 children (Theo and Sophie) are mentioned in passing. They are no press reports of them being with him in Canada. They were young teenagers when Ignatieff divorced their mother in London England and then he relocated to the USA. Is it not just a little odd that they have not been involved at all in his campaign? They would be in their late teens or early 20s I think. I also think it's odd for a father to move 6,000 miles away from his teenage kids, even when divorced.

This normally would be nobody's business; but this guy might well be the leader of a G-8 country; shouldn't we know more about his personal life? Also, we know he lied about moving to the riding if elected as MP; so perhaps everything he says should be checked out. His new wife, what is her status in Canada? Is she an immigrant? Could Canada have a PM with a wife who is not a legal resoident? I heard that Ignatieff still uses his Masssachusetts drivers license. Is any of this important? I think so, but perhaps not in the eyes of today's encyclopedia writers. Please lmk what others think about the lack of information about Ignatieff's first family and his current wife. 65.95.149.123 13:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy of No original research. That means information should be sourced and cited appropriately. These things you are suggesting; that Ignatieff is a "deadbeat dad", etc., are outrageously personal - and, if untrue (which I would imagine they are) - libellous. Not appropriate for this article at all. I've removed the lines about the kids' status. -Joshuapaquin 14:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously it's relevant to mention he has two kids. It's only relevant to mention where they live or what they do if that information is somehow relevant to an article about Ignatieff. Beyond that, see the Wikipedia policy on No original research. Unless there are verifiable press or other third party reports about the issues you raise (allegations of being a deadbeat dad, driving with an out of province driver's license, illegal immigrant wife, being a Reptoid ;) , etc.), such allegations should not be in the article. --Chris Thompson 15:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you do have a source for the information that his children have never been to Canada, that could perhaps be relevant to the section on his attitude towards Canada. Point us to some sources if you have them. --Chris Thompson 15:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Misleading references to Ignatieff's children in Canadian Press?

It's as if anything to do with Iggy's first family is being censored (kept out of) Canada's mainstream media and this encyclopedia as well? By contrast, look at the Wikipedia detail on John Kerry's first wife and children.

Here is my concern. I am not a Liberal and, in fact, it would help my party if Ignatieff becomes Liberal leader. However, I have noticed exceptionally misleading information being put out on Iggy to the point where I am a bit worried about my Liberal friends even having access to accurate information about this candidate. The thing with his children seems to me to be quite important and the press reports in Canada can be easily read to give the false impression that they are the children of his present wife; e.g.[17]"Family: Father George Ignatieff, mother Alison Grant; married to Zsuzsanna Zsohar; has two children, Theo and Sophie." I would hope that the background info in an encyclopedia would have some basic info concerning a politician's family which obviously includes their children. Now when you state the No original research rule, does that mean that editors here are only to contribute what information they are personally aware of? Also, Joshuapaquin seems to feel that any expansion of even non-original research about the children's whereabouts or citizenship is too personal to even be put in the encyclopedia; is that the general opinion? Also, does the same taboo apply to Ignatieff's current wife's citizenship, for example? I have removed the "deadbeat dad" reference which was merely to make a point and was clearly not an accusation. It seems to have been quickly picked up to be used as a Strawman argument so I certainly hope that will no longer be attempted. 64.229.185.244 17:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You can't include something that is just your best guess. Even if it is a really, really good one. Do you have verifiable information that you would like to see included but is not? --JGGardiner 18:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Information in the article needs to meet the tests of relevance regarding the subject of the article (Ignatieff) and verifiability (that does not mean proof; unproven claims made by critics can be documented as such provided there are verifiable third parties making those allegations). For instance, if one of his children had convictions for drug abuse, that would not be relevant to an article on Ignatieff unless he was somehow involved or some article/policy of his was on the topic of drug abuse. Such information would instead go in an article about that child, provided s/he was a notable enough figure to warrant a Wikipedia article. Also, btw, I don't agree with Joshua's comments about libel. Even though truth is not always an absolute defense in Canadian law, Wikipedia has a no-censorship policy and the servers are in the US, where truth is an absolute defense, so don't be afraid of posting truthful information, as long as it is verifiable. Finally, if you feel the article is not balanced enough, feel free to expand it, but please, add appropriate citations and references. --Chris Thompson 18:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; would something like this be worthy for inclusion in the article; "I now feel rooted and happy in London," says Ignatieff. or this "Ignatieff obliquely acknowledged the breakup of his own marriage some five years ago and the burden on his two children. 'One place I felt conflict between incommensurable moral values is in my own life.' Staying in a difficult marriage, he says, 'is misdescribed if it's simply seen as a conflict between selfishness and duty'." ? source;[18] 64.229.185.244 18:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm just weighing in to defend Joshuapaquin. I don't think Joshua was suggesting that true facts would constitute libel. Rather, if you read his comments, he said such statements "if untrue" would constitute libel, which is certainly true. Chris is right that defamation law in Canada is a bit of a mess, in that truth (or "truthiness" as Stephen Colbert might say ;) ) is not a complete defense (pretty dumb). But regardless of whether you're in Canada or the U.S., making false and damaging claims about a person could constitute libel, which is what, I think Joshua was getting at. -- Striking13 18:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

About that, one should remember that WP added the living people category for those reasons. We are essentially expected to pursue a higher standard in these pages than others. --JGGardiner 18:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As for the quotes, it depends how you use them. The first quote seems fine reading it. But if inserted in certain ways, it would seem to suggest that Ignatieff has dissociated himself from Canada. However the full quote is "'I now feel rooted and happy in London,' says Ignatieff, who nonetheless calls himself a Canadian writer -- and a writer before a broadcaster." That has something of the opposite effect. The other quote seems fine but I'm not sure what it adds. He says that one shouldn't stay in a loveless marriage out of duty. I would have thought that is the common perception in Western societies these days. Actually his "you belong to yourself first" message almost sounds like something I'd expect from Dr. Phil. --JGGardiner 19:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

HA!HA! Very good point about; "you belong to yourself first" being Dr.Philish. I think somewhere else Iggy talks about being destined for public "service" which might seem contradictory to the non-sophisticated reader(like me) as does much else about Mr.I...I suppose if an encyclopedia does quote Iggy's quotes about wanting to be of service to Canada, then ,for balance, we need to also quote "you belong to yourself first" and let the readers figure it out. Likely Iggy's detractors will say he is 2 faced or full of sophistry and his supporters will say his words simply reveal an exceptional level of honesty and self evaluation for a politician. 64.229.31.93 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi 64.229, could you please point out where, in the article, Ignatieff is quoted as talking about public "service" in Canada? -- Striking13 14:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that quote in the article generally. But I think the fox and hedgehog part won't be understood by most readers, who aren't familiar with Berlin's (or Archilochus') usage. Although it is otherwise worthwhile for readers who do. --JGGardiner 16:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)