Talk:Chrystia Freeland

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2023

Write that’s she’s far right. 2600:1700:2D2A:E000:1477:EAB4:25E9:6E48 (talk) 06:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 06:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

She’s literally the granddaughter of a Nazi official. 2600:1700:2D2A:E000:5D57:C0F4:7987:DC4E (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That's already mentioned in the article, with proper weight and sourcing. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Early life section

Is there any logical reason why the early life section at the top of this page doesn't include the most RS cited member of Freeland's family? Why is this information regulated to the bottom of the page? C.Fred mentions proper weight has been given despite the inconsistencies. How was the weight determined? Why does this page not follow the WP Biography template and include all personal/family history chronologically at the top? Iksnyrk (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I share this concern. The lead includes fairly trivial information, including details of a masters degree and other minor biographical detail. While the fact that her grandfather was a Nazi collaborator is not at all trivial. Her literary work has at times intersected with her family history and this is something she has not been candid about in the past. Any assessment of, and reference to, her relevant literary and political activities (i.e. which refer to Ukraine, Russia , Nazi-ism, etc) should therefore be properly contextualised. The strong impression here is that the very significant story about her grandfather and her own ambiguous response to his history is being left opaque. It should, in my view, be mentioned in the lead. Emmentalist (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

A subject's education and career are hardly trivial details in her own biography and they fall within WP:MOSBIO. Lead sections of biographies don't go into ancestry unless it is directly relevant (for example Justin Trudeau's father being prime minister). Her grandfather was mentioned at one point in the early life section article but it led to arguments and POV-pushing about an individual who (1) is not the subject of the article and (2) died when the subject of the article was a teen. It offered very little context to the life of the subject herself, but there is more appropriate detail offered at Michael Chomiak, Krakivs'ki Visti, and John-Paul Himka, which are described in a later section and clearly have their own articles. My view was Chomiak should be mentioned in the biography around the 2017 era of her career, when he made the news, and later in the personal life section if there is more to cover. Citing (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Citing I'm unconvinced by your reasoning. The question I raised was about inclusion in the lead, not in the biography. There's noting POV-pushing about including something which is literally the main story about Canada in the world at the moment; i.e. Ukrainian Nazis moving to Canada. I have no axe to grind, but I would say that the Canadian Deputy Prime Minister has never graced the pages, or even the consciousness, of most people in the world other than for the fact that her grandfather was a Nazi and she has sought to veil this. I won't make a change unless other editors agree. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the news. Believe it or not, the subject of this article existed before you heard of her. She's well-known for her political career and this is reflected in the reliable sources. Citing (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"something which is literally the main story about Canada in the world at the moment" should not determine what is in an encyclopedia article about something else Canadian. There is a real danger in giving excess space to very recentist concerns which are pretty marginal in the life of this living person. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you elborate why we should deviate from WP biography standards in this case? Editors that would like to deviate from it have the burden of proof to show that their RS relevant family members should not be mentioned. Not including it will just lead to more discussions like this in the future. Are you saying you personally don't think he's relevant? Or that RS don't find him relevant to her early history? Regards Iksnyrk (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you please specify what you're talking about with respect to WP:MOSBIO? The article mentions Chomiak. Citing (talk) 22:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @citing. There's a subjective element to the policies you've referred to. I won't get into wikilawyering here, but suffice to say that it'd probably be best if there's another good-faith opinion beyond me and @Iksnyrk. Across the world, harsh though it may be for Canadians, the subject of this article is best known for her grandfather's Nazi priors and her own priors in respect of seeking to deny it, thereby affecting people possible interpretation of the works cited in the lead. The grandfather should be mentioned in the lead. My opinion, only. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 22:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you are counting votes, put me down in favor of the present organization of the article. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Bruce leverett. That's helpful and at present leaves any change in the balance. It's probably best left for a couple of days to see if others come in and, if no-one does, we can ask other editors for a view. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 07:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I would add that I am skeptical of your claim that Freeland is "best known" for her association with Chomiak. A quick search of the newspaper in my own city (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US) shows an article mentioning Freeland from 2018, and at least one article about the Canadian Speaker of the House inviting a Nazi to Parliament, but no articles about Freeland/Chomiak. Freeland's remark about "Russian disinformation" does not seem to have had much effect on her political career; she subsequently became "Minister of Everything". As a US-based Wikipedia editor, I do not feel like trying to tell the Canadians what's important and what's not important about their politicians. Bruce leverett (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's an outrageous claim you are going to have to back up with evidence—blindlynx 16:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Blindlynx and @Bruce leverett. I'm in the UK, the first page of my Google News search right now (see time stamp on this post) literally includes only references to the Nazi event at the Canadian parliament. Freeland is only mentioned in the context of her relationship with her grandfather. You can make the same search if you use the relevant technology. I cannot find a single reference to Freeland in the media in the world outside of North America other than reports about her grandfather. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 08:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

This is a WP:BLP you have to WP:PROVEIT better than that, google isn't an wp:rs; there's a lot of WP:RECENTism around the speaker of the house inviting a member of divizia that further skews things. —blindlynx 13:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I was not able to reproduce your result, i.e. google news did not give me what it gave you. This was partly because it was a few hours later, but mostly because Google results are deliberately tailored to the user. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Bruce leverett An alternative methodology would be to look at the websites of newspapers not in North America. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence for your claim. Google results very by person, but the top hits i got for DW, BBC, The Guardian, France24, Rzeczpospolita, NL times and Al Jazeera are all about her work as deputy PM and i didn't see any mention of her grandfather—blindlynx 16:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I am in the UK and I know about the subject of this article for all sorts of reasons that aren't her grandfather. She was best known for her writing and in the last years for her role in Trudeau's cabinet and especially international affairs team. If I look at Google News, five of the first 10 articles are about the Hunka affair, but those five are also opinion pieces in among the most fringe websites that Google aggregates in its News (e.g. the far right Compact, the Communist Morning Star, the Trotskyist World Socialist Web Site - pretty much all yellow flagged on our perennial sources list). None of the actual news articles are about this. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I concur. It adds useful contextualization to her career and politics. local friendtalk 18:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Duplicative Info & Deviation from Wikipedia Biography Template

This article contains extensive duplicative information in the top portion that deviates from the Wikipedia Biography Template, including but not limited to: details on Freeland's educational majors; excessive detail about a book without literary significance; and excessive descriptions of awards and many other superfluous biological details. Simultaneously, what Freeland is most known for internationally - Freeland's grandfather's role as a Nazi collaborator and her claims that such information were politically-motivated Russian disinformation - is concealed until the very bottom of the article. Freeland's early childhood & family history contains excessive detail about her paternal grandfather - who is not and has never been a matter of international interest - but mentions of Freeland's maternal grandfather are repeatedly scrubbed from any section above the bottom of the page.

Why are edits to include her most famous family member's actions continuously removed? Why are excessive and duplicative details about Freeland's biography included but relevant information about her most cited family member and her allegations of Russian disinformation are repeatedly removed? Within Canada, Freeland may be more known for her political achievements, but globally members of cabinets are not known for the minute details of their political platforms - they are known for their actions that generate global news. In the wake of the Canadian parliament's standing ovation for a Nazi soldier (part of the same Waffen-SS regiment Freeland's grandfather recruited for) - Freeland is most known for her family connections to the Nazi regime and allegations that such ties were disinformation created by a foreign government. Editor85213 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the lead paragraphs of this article go into excessive detail. As described in MOS:LEAD, this section "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." I heartily endorse your idea of removing some of this stuff or, if it isn't already in the main body of the article, moving it there.

I disagree that the lead paragraphs, or even the main body of the article, should dwell on Freeland's grandfather. This is a biography of Freeland, not of her grandfather. For an explanation of why the existing treatment of her grandfather is correct, see the arguments by Citing in the above discussion #Early life section. The claim that her connection to Chomiak is what she is "most known for" is ridiculous, or should I say, backwards. If Freeland were not already notable for her political career, no one would care about her connection to Chomiak. Articles I have read in reliable sources about the recent incident, in which the speaker of the House of Commons invited a Nazi to a speech by Zelenskiy, do not mention Freeland, who was not directly connected to the incident. Freeland's remark from several years ago about "Russian disinformation" seems not to have greatly affected her political career; since then she became "Minister of Everything". An opinion piece in Jacobin, which describes itself as "a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture", should not carelessly be used to imply that that remark has suddenly become as shocking as it seemed in 2017. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Bruce is exactly right. People know about Chomiak because she is famous, not the other way around. How many people would have heard of him if it wasn't for the connection with her? Here's another google experiment: google "Freeland" and then google "Chomniak". If my results mean anything, he's not even the most prominent Chomniak. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)