Talk:Belinda Stronach

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Free picture[edit]

We have one, but its bad: Image:Belinda Stronach at Leadership convention 2006.jpg. Bawolff 04:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It got better, replacing (well slightly). Bawolff 23:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a terrible picture! jvp

Why can't we use the images from the Parliament of Canada website? NorthernThunder 16:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use cannot be used just for convenient decorative purposes. We have a free image, so any fair use rational is automatically invalid. Rama 07:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:18516.jpg[edit]

Image:18516.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we can not use this pic Image:Belinda Stronach at Leadership convention 2006.jpg the reason for that is back on march 2007 she went back blond and that what she currecty look like right now. So we have to come up with something.Michaelm

Yes, we can use that picture. The idea that we have any sort of obligation to change our pictures every single time an article subject happens to change her hair colour is outrageously ridiculous. We do not have to stop using the picture just because she's blonde again. Bearcat (talk) 06:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Charles Tupper looks much worse now than he did in the picture we use in that article. --JGGardiner (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just added an infobox caption to give the photo some time and place context. That should help discourage any assumptions that the photo represents her current appearance. Dl2000 (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. Nice one. Bearcat 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use this pic for now. Image:Belinda stronach.jpg. Michaelm

Is she a social democrat?[edit]

If not please explain how she isn't.. Mantion 05:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no. That is not how Wikipedia or any any encyclopedia works. We don't post everything that has not yet been shown to be false. We post only things that are shown to be true. If you have a reliable source that says she is a social democrat, then we can add that to the article. Until then, it stays out. For the record, I cannot produce a reliable source that says that she is not the daughter of Satan, but it would not be appropriate for the article to say that she is, unless someone has a reliable source that says that she is. Ground Zero | t 05:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but there are many opinions on the page that could easily be deleted for lack of citation. That being said I took a couple minutes and read through the achieves. May example and a number of sources were given as to why people suggest she leans to the social democrat side. The main objections was that she was a member of the Conservative party and unless she left the party she couldn't be considered a social democrat. That being said I don't care.. Your little group has successfully kept a tight grip on this page, and stifled all contributions you disagree with. Good job, hijacking articles to push your won views and agendas is the way Wikipedia is suppose to work. It appears only person who has hung in there for 3 years is MichaelM. I don't think he has been allowed to contribute much of any substance in 3 years. Good work. Keep beating him and Freelance up and deleting their contributions eventually you will drive them away and then the article will be accurate because it will be only views you agree with or can discredit in the article. I did notice that she is in theory in favor of big business and what not. Is that true? And now that she left the party does it give any weight to people who think she leans social democrat?Mantion 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think Ground Zero has oversimplified. The policy on verifiability says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth .

Cheers! Geo Swan 23:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my own defence, what I asked for was a reliable source. None has ever been provided. I would accept, for example, a line that says, "Toronto Sun columnist Christie Blatchford wrote in her column that Belinda Stronach's view are those of a social democrat, not of a conservative or liberal" if Blatchford actually wrote that. In other words, it does not have to be true, just reporterd somewhere. The problem here is that it is only the view of one rather (in my opinion) obseessed Wikipedian, which really, really does not qualify it for inclusion in what should be an encyclopedia article. Ground Zero | t 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is not on anybody to explain how she isn't a social democrat; the onus is on you, as the person making an assertion of fact, to prove that she is a social democrat. Bearcat 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She has publicly declared herself to be a Conservative, and later to be a Liberal. She has never publicly declared herself to be a social democrat. Who is MichaelM or Mantion to apply that label to her? She could have joined the social democratic New Democratic Party (NDP) before running for Parliament, but didn't. When she left the Conservative Party, she could have joined the NDP, but joined the Liberal Party instead. Now she is leaving Parliament, not to join the NDP and fight for social democracy, but to rejoin the board of a major corporation. As far as MichaelM not being "allowed to contribute much of any substance in 3 years", I think it is more accurate to say that he has not contributed much of any substance in 3 years. Contributions based on reliable sources would be more than welcome. Personal opinion and wishful thinking is not. Ground Zero | t 18:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Social democrat?[edit]

This issue can be settled once and for all and MichealM, Mantion and Freelancedave can have their way and put the "social democrat" claim in the article by doing one simple thing: provide a reliable reference that says that Belinda Stronach is a social democrat. It is just that simple. Until then, we'll just be engaged in this time-wasting edit war that they will lose because their actions violate all sorts of Wikipedia policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Ground Zero | t 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want proof that Belinda Stronach is a Social Democrat? All you have to do is google her name and you will find hundreds of arguments attesting to the fact that she is indeed a Social Democrat. However, I'm sure you nimrods who are fixated on your Belinda Stronach fetish wouldn't know a Social Democrat if it bit you in the ass. The Phanthom 01:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This post is not in keeping with WP:CIV. Please keep your comments civil, or they will be deleted. Sunray 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments don't matter and aren't relevant or valid sources — some people will claim that anybody remotely to the left of Stephen Harper is a social democrat or a socialist, but that doesn't make it so. Per our verifiability rules, the only acceptable sources for characterizing Belinda Stronach as a social democrat are (a) a personal statement out of her own mouth indicating that she identifies that way, or (b) a reliable media or political science source characterizing her that way in an objective critical evaluation of her politics. Some socon crank from Leduc who thinks she's a social democrat just because she doesn't foam at the mouth every time she hears the word "homosexual" simply doesn't cut it; that's not even close to what social democracy is all about. And to all available evidence, for the record, you're the only one here with a Belinda Stronach fetish. Bearcat 01:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that after doing that quick google search you suggested, I can confirm that every single statement out there on the web in favour of characterizing Ms. Stronach as a social democrat is — o shock of shocks — signed either "Michael M." or "M. Miyamoto". Army of one, or army of two? You decide. Bearcat 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, directly from the article social democracy, is the baseline definition of a social democrat: social democrats aim to reform capitalism democratically through state regulation and the creation of state sponsored programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove perceived injustices inflicted by the capitalist market system.

So, now, I ask: in what way do Belinda Stronach's political beliefs even approach that definition? Bearcat 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I think it is great that you have your own thoughts and an independent mind but surely you must realize that your opinion on this is not the popular view. Just because you have had an idea pass through your head doesn't mean that it belongs here. If I were you, I'd be happy that I was ahead of the curve on something and leave it at that.

In any event, even if it were “correct” the article shouldn’t contain any kind of subjective characterization of her and certainly not one so definitive as what you’ve included.--JGGardiner 05:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good advice from Bearcat and JGGardiner, Michael. And please don't use sock puppets to speak for you. Sunray 06:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This person(s) should not immatate myself. The ending of my username is a small "m" and his or hers is a Large "M". Inless a personal statement out of her own mouth indicating that she identifies as a Social Democrat or A personal statement out of her own mouth indicating that she supports Social Democracy. We should not put in Wikipedia. At the time I did the edits years ago I was ignerant about the rules on wikipedia.Michaelm

P.S. We are not saying its ture or false its not the issule hear. Is just we should not put it in wikipedia Inless it comes out of her mouth. Think for the advice JGGardiner I hope the immataters will get it.Michaelm

Semi-protection[edit]

Because of repeated and persistent vandalism by newly created users, I have semi-protected this for one week so those of us on vandal patrol can take a break. Ground Zero | t 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-protection isn't working, so I have upgraded the protection to full protection. Ground Zero | t 03:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And have done so again. Ground Zero | t 23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be numerous sleeper accounts, registered months ago, that have less than a dozen edits each but meet the requirements for editing semi-protected articles. We should also check What links here, because I've found numerous links in the past that included Stronach, usually pages related to Social democracy. Mindmatrix 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on hear with the vandals. Back on 2004/2005 I did edit this page but I did not know the rules in Wikipedia. But now I do know the rules and the vandals must stop. I just have one username. Inless Belinda calls her self a social democrat no one should put that in that page. Michaelm —Preceding comment was added at 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Privy Council[edit]

I know we're all getting a little tired of our idiot friend who keeps misinterpreting the postnominal "PC" as Progressive Conservative instead of Queen's Privy Council of Canada, and consequently changing the pipetext to "Liberal". They've even ignored a continually more and more prominent hidden note explaining why this change shouldn't take place. As a consequence, since the intro paragraph already links to both Member of Parliament and Queen's Privy Council of Canada anyway, I've now taken the postnominal initials out of the body text entirely. Hopefully this foolishness will stop now. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner with Clinton[edit]

Once again, someone has added this bit of irrelevancy. The source is a Vanity Fair blog post, which doesn't verify the claim that she has spent time with Clinton. It simply states that the tabloids have made those claims, to the dismay of Clinton's aides. That isn't anywhere close to the same thing, and isn't sufficient for inclusion, per WP:RS and WP:BLP. Quit adding this junk. Mindmatrix 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a blog post; the link you posted is the full article from the July 2008 issue of Vanity Fair, a quite reputable American magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrStarhead (talk • contribs) 12:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed an article, not a blog post. However, the point remains that the author did not verify the claim that Stronach has spent time with Clinton. Mindmatrix 15:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Stronach has admitted that she knows Clinton. But she says they are just friends. Who cares, though? Clinton is washed up!

www.thefirstpost.co.uk/2622,features,bill-and-belindas-excellent-adventure,2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.174.9.7 (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing this bit. Rumors are swirling about what may or may not be in discussed in Game Change. Best to insist on sourcing here. Ronnotel (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinner with Clinton? The woman had an affair with him. The Canadian papers and the New York tabloids covered it.Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting - remove this text?[edit]

In the "Characterization in the media" section, several sentences which fail self-referential integrity appear.

Stronach herself had stepped over several other women in her political career trajectory. She had defeated Lois Brown in the Conservative nomination election and barely won her seat in an extremely tight race against Martha Hall Findlay.

Apart from the fact that the above has no attached citations, it doesn't really support its own claim that "Stronach herself had stepped over several other women in her political career". Instead, these demonstrate that other women lost elections when opposed by Stronach, which seems like a legitimate career advancement. I'm going to remove this text unless someone can justify its continued inclusion. Mindmatrix 15:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it forthwith. It's blatant POV to suggest that winning an election against a female challenger is inherently "stepping on other women". For one thing, it's the voters who decide who wins and who loses in any given electoral race, not Stronach. Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it had a source, that would be one thing...but as is, remove it. --Padraic 16:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I think the whole article needs a review, though the major points have citations. Mindmatrix 14:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Views on Health Care[edit]

Its unfortunate that her views on Health Care were only touched on briefly inthis article. It seems that to discuss what she rails against the "two-tier system" in health care would show her to be the self serving person she is. After all if the health care she got here in the U.S. was good for her why not replicate it in Canada. It seems this hard socialist view she has is the reason only the elite in Canada can afford the best. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Belinda Stronach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Puffery[edit]

"Long recognized as an emerging leader with vision, " is unsourced and doesn't belong in anyone's biography, whatever you feel about her politically. 203.218.215.26 (talk) 11:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed it now as unverifiable. Kraose (talk) 08:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general this page tends to tilt towards puffery. I'm going to make some small changes that tone it down, but some sections deserve a complete re-write. Zachaysan (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Belinda Stronach. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Anita Death Race Horse Track[edit]

Belinda... the company you keep and do business with can define your character. Santa Anita Horse Race Track, NOW, commonly referred to as the "Death Track" defines anyone who allows, permits and condones a business of killing their entertainment with NO REGARD is ABHORRENT and I wish you had to hear like I do... it ruins my whole day. That guy that was killed out of the Triple Crown for failing DRUG TESTING OF HIS HORSE, is now at YOUR FAMILIES DEATH TRACK, HIS HIRSE JUST DROPPED DEAD OF A HEART ATTCK ON YOUR FAMILIES RACE HORSE TRACK... SICK, CRUEL AND ABHORRENT! FIX IT! GROSS! 47.37.162.195 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Belinda_Stronach&oldid=1205807913"