Talk:Ruby Dhalla/Archive 1

Talk About Ruby Dhalla

I ask that other users please stop deleting the statement description of Ruby's clinics as private and for-profit.

The prefacing is relevant and NECESSARY. Ruby has consistently asked she be referred to as "Dr.", so as to claim credibility on PUBLIC health. In evaluating her claims, people should know her clinics are IN NO WAY PUBLIC (like so many MRI clinics springing up). Further, because of inadequate health funding, the Provincial Liberals have decided chiropractic services in Ontario are no longer covered by Medicare

In short "Dr. Ruby's" 'experience' with the health system is all about the same as [Conservative] Stephen Harper, and [Liberal] Keith Martin's visions for the system as a whole.

(RESP)I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I believe that most-if-not-all chiropractic clinics in Canada are private, so Dhalla's status would hardly be unusual on that point. More to the point, I can't see that this would be relevant to Dhalla's beliefs on general health services.

This seems more than a bit partisan, and less than entirely relevant. CJCurrie 22:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

(RESP) To be clear, the POINT IS RUBY DHALLA HAS NO EXPERIENCE WITH PUBLIC HEALTH CARE AND SHOULD STOP IMPLYING SHE DOES

(RESP) This is an opinion, and is not even remotely encyclopedic. CJCurrie 00:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the Dr. title for Ruby Dhalla is misleading, it makes people believe that she is a physician. The reason why she wants to use the Dr. title is to get the ethnic votes. Being a doctor (physician) in the ethnic culture is very important and they will almost vote for anyone who is a doctor. Many people have said that she doesn't treat her supporters very well, which is why all the old ones have left her. [unsigned]

I'm not sure what your point is. The article doesn't describe her as "Dr. Dhalla". CJCurrie 01:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the debate about Ruby Dhalla insisting on the title "Dr.": She has her "doctor of chiropractic medicine," degree, so it is technically acceptable (though a bit pathetic) that she be referred to as Dr. Dhalla. However, in Canada, the noun "doctor" is used and understood to refer to physicians (i.e. medical doctors). Therefore, it is NOT appropriate and is actually very misleading for Ruby Dhalla to refer to herself as "a doctor." Here is an excerpt from the "About Ruby" section of her own website:

"As a doctor and an owner of multidisciplinary health care clinics prior to seeking public office, Dr. Dhalla has witnessed first hand the complexities and the challenges of Canada’s health system, especially those faced by patients and front-line health care providers. It is with this firsthand knowledge and insight that Dr. Dhalla has been able to contribute to her former role as the Critic for Health for the Official Opposition and as Vice- Chair for the Standing Committee on Health."

I think this quote shows that Ruby Dhalla is intentionally misleading the public about her medical expertise (or lack thereof). It is appropriate for a university professor with a PhD in geology to use the title "Dr.," but as with Ruby Dhalla, it is NOT appropriate for that professor to call himself "a doctor." A subtle but highly significant difference. Mhanmer (talk) 21:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Religion

Why is Dhalla's religion listed? This has not been done on several other candidates' pages, probably because Christian/Catholic isn't considered notable. I don't honestly know why it's mentioned where the others' are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.102.153 (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Physical Attractiveness

Shouldn't the article mention, somewhere, that she is unquesionably one of the most physically attractive people ever to sit in the House of Commons? Obviously there's not a lot of competition, but it does seem like one distinguishing characteristic of this MP (among others) and should be mentioned. I just can't think of how to say it without sounding sexist. Perhaps after the note about the Pageant in 1993?

She should be re-assigned to the shadow ministry for PHWOOORAH!!...she's the best bit of political eye candy since Thatcher. I would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.105.94 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

She is listed in Maxim as number 3 on the list of the world's hottest politicians. CJCurrie doesn't want you to know that. I have no idea why, other than the summary of, "this is supposed to be an encyclopedia". It is factual and was referenced. --71.110.101.102 (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As little as I like to admit it, I think there probably is a place for the Maxim reference in here. We're supposed to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and even if it's completely dumb that coverage of her focuses as much on her appearance as on her political career, it's also true. I don't think it deserves a separate heading, and certainly not a separate heading of "media coverage", but it should be able to be worked into the article tastefully and without being given undue weight. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a brief reference, which will hopefully suffice. CJCurrie (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's preferable to what you deleted. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea of another header was that I didn't think it really belonged in the MP section of her, nor did the Chatelaine article, etc. But, I will defer to consensus. What really bothered me was the idea that one magazine's coverage was somehow less encyclopedic than another. Chatelaine has more merit than Maxim? That's a slippery slope. Also, as above, her physical attractiveness to many is often commented on and we would be remiss in not mentioning it. --71.110.101.102 (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Electoral Record

I see it has been there for a long time. I don't understand why it is there? Why does she have this record posted yet others don't. I think a link to her electoral record would be more appropiate. Pete Peters 01:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Pete. Some pages for elected officials have these sections, and some don't. It isn't a case of singling her out -- it's simply that similar sections haven't been created for most other pols yet. I don't see the harm, in any case -- it's relevant information for a biography.

There's a similar "electoral record" section on the Stephen Harper page. I believe one or two persons were against its inclusion initially, but no one has complained since them. CJCurrie 01:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well some need rewrite the program. The electoral resultd were simply cut and pasted onto her profile. If we put this on every candidate, and let's say corrections in the vote tally have to be made, the pain in the arse task of locating every candidate well be too frustrating. So all'n'all, this needs to be reformatted with the proper syntax. Pete Peters 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Party

The article says that Dhalla joined the Liberal Party in 1986 when she would have been 11 or 12. I find this unlikely so I'm going to remove it, awaiting a source if there is one. --JGGardiner 22:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading in the Toronto Star just after her first election to Parliament (I believe it was an article on the younger new MPs) that she joined the Liberal Party at a very young age. I don't know if she was that young, but she was definately younger than usual. Maybe someone could look through the Toronto Star archives for that time for a source? --Lesouris 23:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

image

I changed the image, so we can use one under a free license. I'm saying this here, becasue my edit summary, failed to explain the reason. --Rob 06:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Um ... not to complain too much, but the image you've provided is really unflattering. I don't think it's particularly suitable for an encyclopedia entry. CJCurrie 09:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest? Would you prefer no picture, or do you know of a better free image? Unfortunately, there probably isn't going to be a high quality, professional looking, free image, as there rarely is. --Rob 14:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We could simply ask permission to use the official parliamentary image. CJCurrie 06:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If you try that, please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission first. --Rob 16:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer no picture to the one that is there. I'm sure that it is the best one available but it might look like it was intended to negatively tilt the article, even though that was not the intent. --JGGardiner 00:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the image for now. Could the parliamentary photo be restored, pending an acceptable free source? CJCurrie 01:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, the unfree image will be deleted. If you don't like the free one, leave it out. But the unfree photo is replaceable, and therefore fails Wikipedia's fair use policy. Being a public figure, its entirely possible for a Wikipedian to go take a new photo of her, and release it freely. But nobody is going to do that, if we use an unfree image instead. --Rob 03:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The "Member of Parliament" is composed of one sentence paragraphs that border on Proseline. The lead does not summarize the article.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is no mention of the campaign to become a member of parliament and several facts seem trivial.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Why isn't the image in the infobox? Could use more images

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Right now the article needs a large amount of work to become a Good Article. The "Early life" is well done but the "Member of Parliament" section needs signigicant work. At this time the article does not meet the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Eóin (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The hottest girl in the world?

Why exactly do we have a paragraph describing Dhalla as having been nominated as being sexy? I understand that there is external commentary, someone from Maxim magazine took a picture and all, but what does that have to do with this living person? She is a politician, not a fashion model - so are we being WP:UNDUE in adding discussion of which woman politician is the "sexiest"? Do our articles on male politicians include this information (other than in trivia sections)?

As a healthy male myself, I'd agree she has an attractive figure, no question there. But how is that relevant to an encyclopedia article? Do we write from the male perspective here? Franamax (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(For reference, I was talking about this, which I just removed) Franamax (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we do, read Peter MacKay. But, you were right to remove it. This kind of stuff deserves mention only if there's substantial coverage in serious, independent, and reliable sources (which excludes the printer of the original "sexy/hot" hot list, such as Maxim). --Rob (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There was consensus earlier in the talk page to allow it. How can a reference on Maxim's webpage not be notable? Maxim.com is ranked by Alexa as the 5,284 most viewed site on the net, compared to the Liberal party site ranking as 238,191. She was just behind Sarah freakin' Palin. Are you guys trying to delete any mention on this site of Palin's looks because "She is a politician, not a fashion model"?? Of course not, because you'd be totally wrong. A Google news search for "dhalla sexiest mp" comes up with recent results from places like the Edmonton Sun & Globe and Mail - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090507.RUBYSIDE07ART22332/TPStory/National and for "dhalla maxim" with http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090509.COLETTS09ART1958-5/TPStory/Comment There's your substantial coverage in serious, independent, and reliable sources. I remember reading a Sheila Copps article mentioning how things like a haircut could improve someone's chances at becoming Prime Minister, so let's not pretend looks are irrelevant in politics. --TheTruthiness (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The Maxim mention is notable, and the fact that it was picked up in many notable, reliable publications that are independent of Maxim prove that. Whether or not it is "demeaning" is a matter of opinion, but it actually doesn't matter - the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia isn't whether or not something might be viewed as demeaning. There are plenty of demeaning things in WP biographies, and as long as they are reliably sourced, I don't see it as a problem. Dawn Bard (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Saying someone is good-looking isn't demeaning, it's a fucking compliment. Plus there's a difference between demeaning and libellous, which this is certainly not. --TheTruthiness (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

TheTruthiness, one of the links you gave is a comment by a reader of the G&M, not an article, or even an editorial. Anyways, the best approach, in cases like this, if you're adding, or re-adding, is to provide all possible sources, in the article itself, as properly formatted inline citations. Posting two links to one source on the talk page, doesn't help. Alexa isn't important, Google news counts isn't important, reader opinions aren't imortant. I'm disapointed by this edit, where you actually used a simple image, as a supposed source. If content is put up to a proper standard in the first place, then you don't have to argue about it as much on the talk page. Franamax, if the content is re-added with proper sources, I suggest you not remove it, without a consensus on the talk page. If it's re-added without proper sourcing, then of course, we should remove it again. --Rob (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I just would prefer to see discussion here resulting in consensus to include the material. Placing the material in the "Member of Parliament" section though, to me, makes a joke of, well, a bunch of stuff. If it's going to be in the article, then make a new section titled "Views of Dhalla as a sexual object" so we can at least be honest. Or perhaps a section entitled "Personal life"? Physical attributes are different than mental attributes, do we agree on that?

And Rob, I'm not able to find equivalent verbiage in the version of Peter Mackay at time of writing, not in the Member of Parliament section, nor Personal Life. I'm aware that he was voted "most eligible something" by someone sometime. I don't see the comparison to a photo from Maxim taken in a public place and used to promote the notion of sexuality. Can you point out your comparison above in the Mackay article?

No problem with warring though, I'd just like to see a proper discussion here. I'll review above for any previous. Franamax (talk) 06:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, after review: is the "consensus" claimed above based on the thread I'm reading involving two IP editors saying how "hot" she is, SarcasticIdealist opining, and CJCurrie accommodating? Is that the claimed "consensus"?

Here is my editorial judgement, not my personal or moral one: If this material will be included, it is certainly not appropriate for the Member of Parliament section. This can be covered in a "Popular perceptions" or "Personal life" section, but it has nothing to do with this living person's actions as an MP. The coverage may be partly due to her being a politician, but it is trivial compared to coverage of her actual actions as a politician.

And I'd still want to follow up on Thivierr's opinion on the original publisher of the "hot" list - is there third-party coverage of that, or are we still proposing to source a skin-mag? Franamax (talk) 06:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

For Peter McKay[1], I was only referring to the quote of him as "sexiest male MP in the House of Commons", since you suggested our male articles don't include this "information". I didn't say the two were treated identically though. Also, to clarify, when I asked you leave the content, if it's well sourced (which it hasn't been yet), it's not to say we have to permanently accept it. It's just hard to evaluate viable content, if it's not seen in the article, in context. --Rob (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It was in the MP section because there wasn't an existing section that it fit in (it didn't take place in her "early life"), I don't think anyone here's arguing that it must be in the MP section, just that it belongs in the article. Create a personal life section and include it there, that's perfectly fine. And if the sexiest MP thing isn't in the articles for McKay and Bernier it should be- I've seen it mentioned in news articles, including the fact Coultier claims her ex was really upset he lost the top slot on that Hill-Times survey. FYI the Maxim 100 was released yesterday and I've heard it mentioned twice on the TV and radio this morning alone so let's not pretend it's just some irrelevant "skin mag" (a holier-than-thou moral attack on adult mags, Playboy is more of a "skin mag" and is a huge deal). The Hello list has been well covered (including by the CP) as well. BTW, according to Wikipedia Policy, us IPers are considered just as valid editors as people who sign up with a username and to attack based on your opinion we're not "real" editors (is a violation of the policies you're claiming to defend. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

(undent) OK, I'm not on some holy crusade here to prove a point or anything. We need to have an appropriately weighted article here is all, not every piece of cutlery we can throw into the kitchen sink. Rating of politicians by sexiness is a little unproductive, and tends to happen more often (or more publicly) for women politicians than men. I mean really, Cristina is a total babe, but is she helping Argentina? But yes, this does happen in our superficial Western society and should be reported as such (I suppose). Placed and weighted properly, Wikipedia is not a gossip column or a "society" page.

• Rob, thanks for the hint so I could find the bit I missed in the Mackay article. I suppose the single passing mention deep in a paragraph that I couldn't find proves my point in a way. I do though take any removal of content very seriously, especially content with sources of any kind. You'll note that I placed a link above, exactly so that the edit I made could be viewed in proper context. since yeah, that's essential.
• IP 208.38, yes absolutely, we welcome all constructive edits here, wherever they come from. The only difference is that I have a track record that I can be judged against, as opposed to, say, someone editing anonymously from the House of Commons to remove content. [2] [3] (naughty naughty, hope someone doesn't file a FOI request on the HTTP page access logs from the HOC server!) The unfortunate fact is that in the political arena, "anything goes". In fact, the same thing happens with all living people. Expect every single one of those edits to be scrutinized closely, IP editor or not.
• My point though was not about which editor used which handle, it was that a discussion among only four editors with no agreed principle at the end does not constitute consensus; the indications I see are more towards a modus vivendi. SarcasticIdealist (an editor with a long track record) weighed in, and CJCurrie (an editor with a long track record) compromised. That is not the same thing as "consensus". But yes, your contributions are welcome. Hopefully you will fully read our policies and guidelines and not accuse me of making an "attack" on anyone in future.

So there it stands. What are our criteria for sourcing and where will we place this material if/when it is reintroduced? Franamax (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

• Did we want to change "early life" to "personal life" and put it there (and make a section called politics where we move just move that one pre-MP politics paragraph there and make MP a subsection of politics? For sourcing, everything I readded here was sourced by news articles except for the Maxim one- so we can just add one of the news articles that mentions it (we should keep the ref to the Maxim site but add a news ref). The Hills-Times, which is a newspaper but the one that prints the survey being discussed (they survey people who work in parliment so it's not the paper's editors chosing the winners), but there's other papers that mentioned it so like Maxim we can throw another paper's coverage of the survey onto the HT ref.
• BTW Fran, in your commenting on the previous people who discussed this issue, you differentiated between the IP editors and registered ones- implying that they aren't equal which is indeed an attack. There's no tenure on this site so an “editor with a long track record” is irrelevant- you and I are equals, only the admins are of different status than us. You signed up for a Wikipedia account; you didn’t get a doctorate from Yale. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference, 208.38, is that I can only communicate with you on this page, on the subject of improving this article. When you raise "attacks" that I may be making, I have nowhere to go. This page is intended for improving the article, not for governance issues. Should I leave a comment on the IP talk page, so the next person who sits down in the library or resets their DSL modem can read it? OTOH, my talk page is always open if you have concerns about behaviour. And no, admins are not of a different status when it comes to editing articles. But please don't continue this here. I have a talk page, you're welcome there. (And I don't want to deflect attention from Rob's pertinent comment below about the actual content of this article) Franamax (talk) 06:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• What you added/re-added didn't come close to the substantial coverage from multiple sources to prove notability. The sourcing required to prove notability is above that required simply show verifiability. It would have been better if you sourced properly in the first place, instead of investing your efforts in arguing that it's about good enough. --Rob (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for GoldDragon

GD: Rather than run the risk of this turning into an edit war, could you please list your objections (if any) to the current version of the article here on the talk page? CJCurrie (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This offer still stands, btw. CJCurrie (talk) 08:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)