Talk:Libby Davies

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

Parliamentary debate?

I tried looking for the debate in the House of Commons (via Edited Hansard available online) where Kenney and Davies have this exchange as noted in the last paragraph. I cannot seem to find it. However, I did find news articles that seem to indicate that this exchange took place outside of the House of Commons ([1][2][3]). If it did not occur in the House, then I don't think it should be called "parliamentary debate". The controversial line was mentioned in a Statements by Members session [4], but that's not the same as debate. Same issue on the Jason Kenney article. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-22 T 07:14:33 Z

is she related to don davies

is she related to don davies 24.83.34.60 (talk) 03:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on my recent edits

Could my interlocutor please respond to the question that I've posed here and here? Libby Davies has been in public life for over thirty years; somehow, giving a headline to a recent, trumped-up media controversy (and not to anything else) strikes me as a violation of

WP:UNDUE. CJCurrie (talk) 21:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

I'm still waiting for an answer. CJCurrie (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well...it would help if you wrote on the talkpage that you've created a section for this...But anyhow, how can her remarks on israel be classified as something suggestive of her "life and career"?Sleetman (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've restored the headline without responding to my question ([5]). I'm still waiting for an answer. CJCurrie (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As at Thomas Mulcair, my view is that while the incident certainly merits mention in her article, it doesn't warrant its own special headline. She's done and said a lot of things in her thirty-year career in politics, and that one incident hardly qualifies as her Singular Defining MomentTM that completely and utterly overrides anything else in her entire history. Just as it was inappropriately excessive to split Adam Giambrone's scandal last year into a separate subsection titled "Sex scandal" instead of simply dealing with it in the existing "Mayoral campaign" section. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But who said her remarks were the singular defining moment of her political life? It's certainly a (not the) defining moment of her career in politics and given the media coverage it generated should be regarded as an issue that deserves its own section, but (again) who's saying her remarks are the "singular defining moment" of her political career?...Also, your example of how its inappropriate to introduce subsections for controversies is completely untrue: under Stephen Harper's wikipedia-page, is a census controversy subsection that documents the changes he and his government made in the Canadian questionnaire. Now under your criteria of whether an incident is notable or not, this subsection should be deleted because it's not a "singular defining moment" of Harper...but of course nobody is seriously suggesting that the controversy shouldn't be deleted anytime soon given the amount of news coverage it generated as well as the importance of the news (i.e. changes in the Canadian questionnaire) to the Canadian public. Sleetman (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
who's saying her remarks are the "singular defining moment" of her political career? By setting that paragraph apart as a separate subsection with its own separate headline, in a short article which doesn't have any other dedicated issue subsections at all, you are saying that. Stephen Harper's article, on the other hand, is about ten or fifteen times as long as this one, and has 37 other subsections besides the census controversy. If you're really going to compare this to other articles, at least find a comparison that's actually comparable. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"in a short article which doesn't have any other dedicated issue subsections at all" And this for a politician who has done "many things" over her thirty-years in politics. Strange. But ma'am alas I digress, so what if the Stephen Harper article is about "ten or fifteen times long" or has X amount of subsections? How does it change the fact that both controversies were widely reported in the Canadian media?Sleetman (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Widely reported in the Canadian media" is not the criterion that determines whether an incident deserves its own separate subsection in the article, or should be dealt with in an existing subsection instead;
undue weight is the criterion. Nobody's saying the incident shouldn't be mentioned at all, and nobody's removed it. But in this article as it currently stands, it is not so disproportionately important, in the context of her career as a whole, as to be the only thing she's ever done that merits its own distinct headline. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Sir, actually instead of the headline I can live with the current one (political career...I'm going to change to political views as that's probably a better headline). As for your idea that sections created on BLP documenting a particular incident related to that living person must be so important to that person as to define that person's career, that is a complete falsehood I don't where in
WP:UNDUE or any of Wikipedia's policies you see that being the case. Sleetman (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
non-neutral way that gives excess weight to certain particular incidents or statements or opinions. And it also strikes me that in this entire discussion, you have yet to explain how it's "biased" to not give the incident its own special headline; you've simply asserted that it is, over and over again, with the circular reasoning that it's biased just because you say it is. Could you kindly explain how it's biased to not single it out for special attention? Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
Unproductive discussion collapsed
Tag-team editing much?Sleetman (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biased "give me my way or else I'm going to whine to the principal" editing much? Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Biased editing much" Pot kettle black. Ma'am. Sleetman (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. And I'm no ma'am. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Pot kettle black. Biased editing much. Caught red handed. Ma'am, miss, madam. Sleetman (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biased how? And if you call me "ma'am" one more time, I'm going to editblock you. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Biased how? Please miss (didn't call you ma'am) don't tell me that removing Mulcair's section documenting his controversial remarks isn't somehow ideologically neutral. (the same goes with Libby Davies) I'm also surprised at your threat to editblock me, I haven't done anything wrong. I should point out you were the one who accused me of biased editing in the first place which (as an administrator you should know full well) is an instance of a personal attack so rest assured that if you do decide to editblock me on whatever nebulous charge that you can conjur up, I will use this ad hominem by you against me against you. Sleetman (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What part of the actual content is still in the article; it just isn't disproportionately important enough in the context of their entire career as to need its own dedicated headline, and how that utterly fails to constitute "removing" anything or being "biased" at all, are you having trouble understanding? And allow me to be more clear: I'm male, so why exactly do you think it's appropriate or acceptable to call by any term which implies that I'm a woman? Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bearcat here. It warrants mention in the article, but does not deserve a separate headline. DigitalC (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the content needs to be there but a headline doesn't, per

WP:BLP. It shouldn't be restored without getting consensus, as I currently see multiple editors opposing the heading, and only one supporting it. Slp1 (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libby Davies. 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) 22:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libby_Davies&oldid=1206184794"