Talk:Stockwell Day

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stockwell Day article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Canada: British Columbia / Politics Mid‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Christianity: Charismatic Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity (assessed as Low-importance).

Creationism: Young Earth creationism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Young Earth creationism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Clarified why Day wrote the letter regarding Lorne Goodard

I made it clearer as to why Day felt compelled to write the letter regarding Lorne Goodard. It also helps explain way there was little negative reaction the letter in Alberta or Red Deer.(Progressive Conservatives were re-elected in a massive landslide in the next election dispite the Liberals attempts to make the letter an issue).

Possibly he was compelled by the same bad judgements he showed while he was leader of the party. His basic lack of meaningful education is also probably a contributing factor.

ACE curriculum controversy

As I remember it, the controversy over the ACE curriculum had to do with anti-semitic lessons. This is not to say, of course, that Day is/was an anti-semite, which my edit doesn't mean to imply but some may misinterpret. Can anyone improve it?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Stockwell Day. 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.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence word order

I am starting a discussion here after having come across a discussion at BLP/N

Tagging the involved users here, 164.64.118.102, MauriceYMichaud and Jiffles1. I think it's worth taking a look at the discussion referred to by Schazjmd in the above BLP discussion (which is already closed with a recommendation to discuss here). There appears to be no community wide consensus on the matter. I tend to be of the opinion that we shouldn't use "former" or "retired" in opening sentences at all (unless overwhelmingly supported by RSs), so I really have no dog in this war other than that position here and would raise that as a third option/compromise. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to start a war... Sorry about that! But it's definitely a question of style as to whether "Canadian" should come before "former." There were many pages, not just this one, where the wording was "Canadian former politician," and while it irked me each time I read it, I would let it slide. But then someone (sorry for not remembering who) systematically changed dozens if not hundreds of pages to "former Canadian politician" which, I admit, I thought was better. So I guess now seeing someone starting to revert to a form I think is off has hit a nerve in me.

I do understand how someone could interpret or apply "former" in "former Canadian politician" as adverbial to "Canadian," but it should be read as applying to the noun cluster "Canadian politician." If the adjective were one that referred to something other than nationality, we probably would not be having this discussion. For instance, I don't think we would be tempted to say "a conservative former politician"; we would more naturally write "a former conservative politician" (with a lowercase "c" in this case to refer to the general political leaning rather than a specific political party -- although once "Liberal" by name, the BC Liberals, which have rebranded to BC United, had more affinity with the federal Conservative Party than the federal Liberal Party, but I digress).

Let's pretend for argument (because I can't think of an actual example off the top of my head) that Conrad Black had been an elected politician rather than a newspaper publisher. He is someone who had once given up his Canadian citizenship. And let's say he had given up his citizenship after having been a politician. He would have been Canadian while he was a politician, so might it not be more appropriate to refer to him as "a former ex-Canadian politician," with "former" applying to the "ex-Canadian politician" noun cluster? MauriceYMichaud (talk) 11:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I was the one who went around systematically changing "Canadian former politician" to either "former Canadian politician" or simply "Canadian politician." I hadn't realized there had been a broader, unresolved discussion on the matter and, until I was pinged here, I believed I was making an innocuous grammatical correction. It was not my intention to start an edit war. I apologize.

I like the idea of dropping "former" as a compromise. A politician does not necessarily have to hold public office and can refer to anyone still involved in party politics. One could even argue that calling someone a "former" politician is original research unless we have reliable sources explicitly saying they are no longer politically active.

If we are going to go the "former" route, my preference would be for "former Canadian politician" since it seems to be the more grammatically correct option. I also feel "former Canadian politician" sounds more natural. While I understand the "he's still Canadian" argument, I don't believe readers are likely to interpret "Day is a former Canadian politician" to mean "Day is a formerly Canadian politician" since all the context clues indicate he's still Canadian. For example, a Canadian politician losing their citizenship is an almost mythically rare occurrence and, if he had given up his citizenship, there would be a mention of his current nationality. Jiffles1 (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, Jiffles1! Either "former Canadian politican," or dropping "former" entirely unless there's evidence that the person in question has definitely turned their back from politics.

If this is a war, it's certainly a friendly one! I think it's more of a disagreement coming from grammar nerds, which I freely admit to being. :) MauriceYMichaud (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]