Talk:Nycole Turmel

Birthdate and age

There's sources saying she's 68 as well, including the Globe and Mail, Reuters, Winnipeg Free Press...: [1] Connormah (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Then we list both. 117Avenue (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is there any source saying she was born in 1942? PARLINFO says 1943, and the supposed sources for Sept 1, 1942, only say she is 68. They may know for a fact that her birthday was earlier in the year or they may just be subtracting 1943 from 2011. The CBC saying she was 67 as of Jul 30 could mean they actually know her birthday had not passed as of that date, it could mean they looked at file information from the election earlier this year saying she was 67 and carried it forward, or it could mean they did their sums wrong. In any event, there is no evidence whatever for the proposition she was born on Sept 1, 1942. The only affirmative statement of her birthdate is PARLINFO, and each of the other sources can be reconciled with it. -Rrius (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun reference you removed says it, as well as the Edition Beauce source that Wilfred Day added. Saying that the CBC or The Globe and Mail is not a reliable source, or doesn't know how to do math, is quite a claim. 117Avenue (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me take those in turn. I admit I missed the date put a couple of spaces below the actual article in the Sun. Can't imagine how I missed that. There is no Edition Beauce source listed in the article. I never said the CBC is not a reliable source (you completely made that up) or that it did it math wrong. As to the latter, what I said was that it was one of three options that could reconcile its use of 67 with a birth year of 1943. I never commented on the Globe and Mail at all; I merely removed it because it was being used to support a proposition that it doesn't actually support. As a result, I've once again removed it as a supporting ref for the September 1, 1942 claim. -Rrius (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my bad, I was mistaken about The Globe and Mail. 117Avenue (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You were also mistaken about the CBC—I never said it was not reliable, and I never claimed it did its math wrong. Again, I said that one of three possibilities was that it did its math wrong. -Rrius (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I imagine PARLINFO should be updated at a later date to show a complete birthdate, listing both seems okay for now. Connormah (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to step back, and look at the bigger picture again. Both sides have claimed there are multiple articles supporting their number. I have performed multiple Google News searches for Nycole Turmel between July 25 and August 1, 2011. 1 says she is 67 (CBC News), 4 say she is 68 (The Globe and Mail, National Post, Radio-Canada, l'Écho du Nord/canoe.ca), 2 say she was born September 1, 1942 (Edition Beauce, Tornonto Sun/Reuters), 1 says she was born in 1943 (straight.com), and the (what should be official source) Parliament of Canada says born in 1943. If we chalk up the first article as bad math, the next four place her birthdate between August 2, 1942, and July 24, 1943, which can support both dates. We all agree that the Parliament of Canada is a valid reliable source, but are Edition Beauce (which admits it took its photo from Wikipedia) and the Toronto Sun valid? 117Avenue (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume the CBC got its math wrong. As I said above, if they looked back at a story filed earlier this year that (accurately) said she was 67, they could have just copied that age without noticing (or being aware) that her birthday had passed. There are all manner of reason why two sources could incorrectly say September 1, 1942, or why PARLINFO could have it wrong. I've written an e-mail to her office that I hope will get a response. In any event, I'm still not convinced we should say as much as we are. It would make just as much sense to say "(1942 or 1943)" with a string of cites or put the whole thing in comment tags until the whole thing gets resolved. -Rrius (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What I'm hearing is that CBC is wrong one way, or another, or the four are wrong, she couldn't both be 67 and 68 in the same week without any mentioning a birthday. 117Avenue (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Or the 68s are just subtracting 1942 from 2011 and the Sept 1942 date was a mistake that came from God knows where (and then was reported by another source). The fact that we can't even figure out which sources are truly consistent is part of why I think we should throw up our hands and put the whole thing in comments or remove it altogether. If I do happen to get a useful response from Turmel's office, how do we handle it? Can we use it at all? Will people take my word for it that if I paste its text, it is genuine? -Rrius (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you could get her, or her office, to release an official statement, or for the Parliament bio to be changed, then it could be referenced. 117Avenue (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know when she was born. I don't know how Wikipedia should handle this pending more information. I'm equally frustrated by the fact that she was Associate President (Labour) of the party for two (I assume) years, which may have been 1997-9, but the federal party has never yet published a full bio on her. The Parliamentary website has only what someone (?) told them, which is only a year when it should be a full date, and is therefore suspect. The reason I thought the Edition Beauce article must be accurate is that it was a telephone interview with Nycole Turmel herself. But that doesn't prove they checked the date with her, they may have gotten it from Wikipedia. So I remain confused. Wait for clarification, I say.Wilfred Day (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Who knows - PARLINFO should update, as I said, or I could try emailing. For all we know, they could have just subtracted 2011-68 and came up with 1943 --Connormah (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be fantastic, but I'm talking about what happens if I get an e-mail from her office saying, "Ms Turmel was born on X." Obviously that is not something that could be referenced, so that's not what I'm asking. If, for example, her office says her birthdate is September 1, 1942, it would make sense to simply use that date with the refs we have and delete the others. If on they say it's May 26, 1943, we'd either have a different situation altogether. Again, we could delete the other date we give and then either keep the 1943 with the references we have or use the full date with a comment referring people to the talk page. Whatever they say, a certain amount of faith in me on the part of other editors would be required to use it at all. Therefore, my question is how we handle it. Did I, in essence, waste my time writing the e-mail? -Rrius (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You could possibly quote in in an inline cite if you wanted - maybe wait until September 1 and see if we get a tweet or something if it is her birthday? Connormah (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A September 1 reference wouldn't help without a year. 117Avenue (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but we would be able to change it to "(born September 1, 1942^[1][2] or -43^[3][4])" and perhaps add alternatives to the infobox.

Unless it's "Happy 69th birthday", but I doubt that'd happen. Connormah (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Did any of the news today mention her birthdate? 117Avenue (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Google and Google News searches of Turmel 1942 and Turmel 1943 for the past 24 hours turned up nothing. -Rrius (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen articles refer to her age as 68. – Connormah (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, doing searches for "Nycole" AND "Turmel" AND "1943" OR "1942" may bring up better results. – Connormah (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm really glad I sent that e-mail. Here's the response I got:

Thank you for getting in touch with us.

The PARLINFO information is currently being corrected and Nycole Turmel`s actual birth date is Sept. 1, 1942.

Best wishes,

Melissa

Melissa Newitt

Adjointe à la députée / MP Assistant

Nycole Turmel, députée / MP

Hull-Aylmer

Parlinfo has since been corrected, so we can put this behind us. I chalk this up as a win for Wikipedia. Our push for well-sourced information has actually improved a source. I love when that happens. -Rrius (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice! Good job! 117Avenue (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Great job, thanks! Was this sent to Turmel's office or PARLINFO? – Connormah (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Interim" v. "Acting"

Turmel is properly called the "Interim" Leader of the NDP, and has been since July 28. The main argument for "acting" appears to be its use at PARLINFO, but that is not the definitive source for this question: the NDP is. The following NDP statements all call her "Interim Leader": Layton's statement announcing his leave, Turmel's statement after being appointed Interim Leader, a statement calling her "Interim Leader" in the title, and a similar one. Layton's Letter to Canadians also calls her such. -Rrius (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this pseudo-edit war is starting to get silly. Furthermore, she became the interim leader as soon as Mr. Layton passed away, as 'acting leader' is a temporary position assuming the real leader is going to come back. It's pretty obvious by now the real leader is not going to. Therefore, interim applies, + what Rrius said, etc. — Charlie Echo Tango — 05:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, this seems to be an editorial choice at PARLINFO rather than a one-off terminology difference with the NDP. The Liberal Party, in its constitution, statements, and the like, uses "Interim Leader", but PARLINFO uses the "(Acting)" formulation just as it does for Turmel.[2][3][4] -Rrius (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CharlieEchoTango, Layton intended to return, and was still the official leader, thus Turmel was only acting. Upon his death she become the interim leader until a replacement can be found. In Layton's letter, it suggests that Turmel had to be reconfirmed to this position. 117Avenue (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that is not what the NDP called her, and the NDP is all-powerful in this regard. The words actually are, despite what you two are saying, interchangeable. An acting leader is one who acts as leader, and an interim leader is one who acts as leader between two events. There is nothing denotation or connotation of either word that suggests one is what you have when a leader is on leave and the other is what you have when a leader leaves office. Both are available for either contingency. As for whether "reconfirmation" is necessary, we just don't know that. All Layton said is that he recommends she "continue as interim leader". Since she was given an open-ended mandate back in July (the Turmel interview from the July 30 episode of the The House), there is really no reason to believe she needs a second vote. It may be that she does, but it may be that Jack was just saying the Council shouldn't change its mind just because the circumstances have changed. In the end, the NDP itself is the most reliable source, and we should follow what they say barring some extremely good reason to do otherwise. The fact that PARLINFO happens to use other terminology than the parties (including the Liberals' Bob Rae) is not a good reason. -Rrius (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that the Parliament is the all-powerful, not the NDP, but after the above discussion, I don't know what to believe anymore. 117Avenue (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would think Parliament would take precedence on this. Of course it does for the deciding when the role of Leader of the Opposition transferred and whether Turmel has "acting" appended to that title. However, it is hard to see why anyone but the NDP would have the right to determine how its temporary leaders are referred to. -Rrius (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Can an elected leader actually give his power to someone else, during a leave (did Turmel actually have any power while Layton was alive)? Or does an interim leader only have power when the previous has resigned/died? 117Avenue (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It was the NDP Council that made her interim leader after Layton took his leave of absence and recommended her, and when they did so. So she had the power to perform the duties of leader while he was alive and continues to have it now. -Rrius (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

What is important to note in this context is that that is a question about the NDP constitution and rules, not about Parliament's rules. Prowsej (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Unionist

The introduction says "Turmel is a long-time unionist". Does this mean "unionist" in the political sense, or "trade unionist"? Deb (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that and I meant trade unionist. I'm not aware of a relevant political sense of "unionist" (after reviewing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unionism_(disambiguation) ), but if you think it's ambiguous, feel free to edit. Prowsej (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd have thought it would be obvious after looking at the "Politics" section of that dab page. I suppose the equivalent term in Canada is "federalist". Unionists support the creation or maintenance of a united polity, as opposed to a separatist who wants to disentangle or prevent the creation of one. Given that she is a Quebec politician, the distinction is important. -Rrius (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

CJCURRIE's deletion of CRITICISM section

By undoing my edits CjCurrie has put mistakes in this article: 1) Ms. Turmel's bill does not seek to give full National Park status to Gatineau Park. Bill C-565 seeks to amend the National Capital Act; 2) the source given for the criticisms is valid: Le Droit is a recognized French-language Ottawa Daily; and Philippe Orfali is a well-known parliamentary reporter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.141.124 (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Responses:

(i) The wording that I restored does not assert that Bill C-565 grants full National Park status to Gatineau Park. It rather asserts that Turmel's 2011 campaign focused on securing full National Park status for Gatineau Park. These statements are not the same thing.

(ii) Le Droit is a respected French-language Ottawa daily, and I have no reason to doubt that Philippe Orfali is a credible reporter. Neither of these facts has anything to do with the point at issue.

(iii) My concern, as I indicated in an edit summary, is that the wording of the disputed text is not consistent with WP:NPOV and seems to reflect the views of an activist organization rather than facts derived from credible secondary sources. (I could add that having a separate "Criticism" section for this relatively minor matter is a violation of WP:UNDUE.) It might be acceptable to reference Jean-Paul Murray's criticisms in a more neutral manner and within the context of a more balanced overview of Bill-565; the current wording does not accomplish this.

(iv) The Ottawa Start article referenced in the disputed text is not a reliable source.

For these reasons, I still believe that the "Criticism" section should be deleted. In the interests of avoiding an edit war, I'm planning to list a Request for Comment before reverting it again. CJCurrie (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: As a matter of principle, I don't like criticism sections since they tend to lack perspective. However, in this article, the parliamentary action of Ms Turmel is not described at all, except to state that she became the NDP whip in the House of Commons. From what I can understand from Le Droit article, bill C-565 is controversial: some oppose it, but Ms. Turmel's bill also recieved some kudos from three environmental groups (something that is not stated in the current version). In a nutshell, re-write the paragraph about the bill in a NPOV fashion and move it under political career. That's my 2¢. Bouchecl (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Bouchecl on this: re-write the paragraph about the bill in a NPOV fashion and move it under political career. As written, the description is not neutral, because it suffers from a profound lack of this little thing I like to call "context", and the matter does not need to be set aside as its own special section of the article. A dedicated "criticism" heading is almost never needed or appropriate on any article, in fact, but rather relevant criticism should simply be integrated directly into the relevant spots in the article body. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay: I'll re-write under political career. I'll say the bill received support from the organizations mentioned in Le Droit. However, I disagree with CJCurrie's statement "The wording that I restored does not assert that Bill C-565 grants full National Park status to Gatineau Park. It rather asserts that Turmel's 2011 campaign focused on securing full National Park status for Gatineau Park. These statements are not the same thing." That's nonsense. If Ms. Turmel was seeking to secure full National Park status, she would have advocated amending the National Parks Act. She never did that. The title of her bill: "An Act to amend the National Capital Act (Gatineau Park) and to make a related amendment to the Department of Canadian Heritage Act." Saying she wants full National Park status is not only wrong, it's misleading. Below, please find a copy of her press release on the issue from the 2011 campaign. Mistakes and all. Nowhere does it mention she wants to create a national park.

PRESS RELEASE Friday, April 15, 2011 For immediateg release Protection for Gatineau Park

Nycole Turmel wants to table a bill as her first action as MP

GATINEAU – The NDP candidate for Hull-Aylmer, Nycole Turmel, is committing to make the protection of the boundaries of Gatineau Park, the centre of the first bill she will table to the House of Commons following the federal elections. “It’s been six years since Ed Broadbent tried, for the first time, to give Gatineau Park a legislative framework giving it the same protection as a national park. It is now time to make it happen,” believes the NDP candidate. She says her bill will put an end to future development projects and will protect the integrity of the territory as delimited in 1960, and will also include grandfather clauses protecting the property of the current residents of the Park and will not give the National Capital Commission a right of first refusal when a property comes up for sale.

Turmel disagrees with the wait-and-see attitude that has been showed by her Hull-Aylmer Liberal opponent, Marcel Proulx. In its June 9, 2009 edition, the newspaper Le Droit reported that for Marcel Proulx, some concepts stated in Bill C-34 (sic: Note: It was C-37), tabled by the Conservatives and later diluted before being abandoned because of the prorogation, were worrying him, “be it the idea of ‘user rights’, the designation of ‘national interest lands’ or the preservation of the ecological integrity” of Gatineau Park.”

“Gatineau Park will be continuously under the threat of the developers if we were to adopt Marcel Proulx’ attitude,” says Turmel. “It is obvious that the protection of Gatineau Park cannot be half-protected. The people of Hull-Aylmer want to increase protection, and they want it now. It is clear that we must preserve the ecological integrity of this territory and that they are national interest lands. The user rights must be included in such a legislation if we want to give it some teeth.”

A poll published in Le Droit in April 2009 revealed that a legislation to protect Gatineau Park was supported by 86%of the residents while in March 2006, a Decima-Ottawa Citizen poll showed 82% of the Ottawa region population agreed that it should receive national park status.

Senator Mira Spivak and Ottawa-Centre NDP MP Paul Dewar also tried in the past to have such legislation adopted, without success. According to Turmel, such an initiative coming from a Hull-Aylmer MP would have a lot more weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.27.142.248 (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Nycole Turmel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110730230415/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/07/30/pol-the-house-ndp-turmel.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/07/30/pol-the-house-ndp-turmel.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110822192348/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/08/ndpwatch-newly-minted-interim-leader-nycole-turmel-was-an-interim-bloc-quebecois-member-too.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/08/ndpwatch-newly-minted-interim-leader-nycole-turmel-was-an-interim-bloc-quebecois-member-too.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)