Talk:Jack Layton

Misc. Comments

not likely this will happen, but... Earl Andrew 23:57, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

One fine day, my friend! - Montréalais 00:16, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

On peut rêver... Bearcat 00:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looks great to me. - SimonP 00:23, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

I hope one day this does become true, he's an excellent politician with unsurpassed integrity and good intentions for the country as a whole

Let's keep the tone neutral on Talk Pages and refrain from endorsing any politicians. Even if you really, really like them. :) 198.20.40.50 19:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The same Jack Layton who wants to remove our troops in Afghanistan, even if he does not know the truth that Canadian troops are still rebuilding there? SFrank85 02:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Only Prime Ministers take on the title of The Right Honorable. Leaders of opposition parties and cabinet ministers only have the title of Honorable.

Maybe we should archive that infobox. I know that it was all in good fun but I wonder if it might seem a little hostile to a new editor. I could see that it might send the message that this article is "owned" by Layton supporters. There is already a wide-spread public belief that political articles are defended by partisans and attacked by their real-world foes. That kind of thing might reinforce the negative impression and could be a little bit intimidating to a new user. --JGGardiner 09:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Layton's father

If Jack Layton comes from a long line of politicians, how come no mention of his father?

The article states that "his father, Robert Layton, was a Liberal Party activist in the 1960s and 1970s and served as a Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament (MP) and Cabinet minister in the 1980s." - SimonP 19:22, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

what? no religion?

Why is there no religion listed for Mr. Layton?

He's United Church of Canada, but personally I don't think the religion labels are very useful. Kim Campbell was until just now labeled as an Anglican, which is quite incorrect. Similarly simply calling Trudeau a Roman Catholic is a gross oversimplification.- SimonP 05:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with SimonP -- who cares? He doesn't make his religious beliefs a central part of his political life, unlike some politicians one could name. mvc 22:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Which is, in a sense, rare in Canada. I can't speak for everyone (and feel free to correct me), but Canada and Canadians alike have a

strong seperation between Church and Province/Territory. Disinclination 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) The problem with infoboxes is that they break everything down into one-words, compulsory info-bites. For example his profession is "politician". That's not all that helpful. Like Simon said, things are a little more complicated than single term answers. That's why we have to write articles in my opinion. --JGGardiner 23:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that a staunchly left-wing politcian is concerned with making his religious beliefs widely known. The NDP is obviously a secularist party that is not concerned with issues of faith. Personally, I can't even see the usefulness of mentioning religious beliefs in a politician's profile. I mean it could be given some space in the "Personal life" section, but only insofar as the politician in question has actually expressed his allegiance to a particular faith in public. Otherwise it is irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.33.254 (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What church did Jack Layton get married in? Unless Jack comes out as an Atheist, might as well include his religion - since you do for all of them and it makes it consistent. There is a bit of a debate over whether the Social Gospel has a place in the NDP or whether it excludes no-Protestants which can be looked into. 14:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Plays Well With Others=

Jack Layton prides himself on his ability to find common ground and work with others to get things done. Shouldn't there be mention of the fact that Jack Layton appeared on the Lou Dobbs [1] which points to how well Jack does his homework before approaching someone. Jack's participation in Take Back America is also notable since Jack was the only Canadian leader there [2] [3]

We do find out things in the first "Take Back" video that can be put in the Olivia Chow entry as well. Olivia has a strong character and is very well read - which allows people 100 years from now to know who she was. 14:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)~

Alopecia?

Should the fact that Layton suffers from Alopecia or more commonly known as baldness be included in the article? It is notable for the fact that there are very few major poltical figures in Canada who are bald.

In this case, I would argue that a picture is worth a thousand words. We generally don't comment on the physical appearance of other politicians unless (as in the case of Jean Chretien) it comes up in public debate. HistoryBA 00:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Polling

as the NDP have been polled as low as 12% recently; rarely have they broken 20%.

Can we have some clarification on what they've polled as low as 12% in (and on what question), please? Or else I'm going to remove that line soon. FireWorks 02:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it's unclear and not particularly helpful, and "as low as" isn't particularly neutral. Readers can consult the pages for specific elections or other resources if they want numbers. mvc 19:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Co-op Housing Issue

There seemed to be a need for a minor NPOV review of this section, so I dug up some references and tried to fix it. I also found an NDP fact sheet from 2003 which I could scan and upload if anyone wants it. (btw, the edits from 207.61.88.114 were me -- forgot to log in.) mvc 22:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The section seems too long to me. Surely it isn't so important to merit this much attention. Does anyone else think that it needs to be cut down? HistoryBA 00:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's long. The reason I added so much detail is that various critics still bring this issue up from time to time to discredit Layton, so I thought it important to be clear. If someone else wants to make this section more concise, that would be great, though. mvc 20:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No relation to Irving Layton

Irving has been in the news recently (with his, you know, dying and all) so just wanted to let people know that they are not related.

Indeed. Irving Layton was actually a Jewish-Romanian immigrant. His original family name was not Layton.

french

why is his french so bad if he is from quebec —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.165.73 (talk • contribs) .

• I don't have any idea how good his French is, but according to the article on Quebec, 6.8% of Quebecers speak English. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peachy1 (talk • contribs) .

He's from Hudson, which is a real anglo bastion, about as much as you can get. His French isn't that bad either. Peregrine981 14:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I've read that he speaks Cantonese. Does anyone want to include this in the article? --JGGardiner 17:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

i have heard criticisms of his french and how he frequently makes mistakes in his french debates. i was expecting his french to be flawless being from quebec. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.82.165.73 (talk • contribs) .

ok... the point is, he is from an English speaking part of Quebec, and he was born long before it became a strong requirement for anglo-Quebeckers to learn French. He does speak a bit of Cantonese, but I don't know if its good enough to include. Peregrine981 03:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm, Norm MacDonald grew up in Quebec City and reportedly doesn't speak a word of French -- though I find that pretty hard to believe. --Saforrest 06:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd heard Macdonald was born in Quebec but grew up mostly in Ottawa. --JGGardiner 16:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

His French is alright. If you watch the debates in Parliament you'll see that he's actually not shy to speak in French and that he always manages to get his point across successfully despite his Anglo accent. At least he's making an effort, unlike some BQ members who just can't be arsed to say anything in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.33.254 (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Jack Layton's camp was quite critical of Bill Blaikie's fluency in French during their leadership race. Quebec sources tend to see Layton's french as "passable" - and I am not sure if we wish to compare Layton's French to Harper's - and we all agree that its not as good as Dion's. I watch Question Period and he doesn't give the translator too much trouble (when the translator has trouble it is a sign of improper sentence formation).

Maybe the phrase "some Cantonese" is best because I think Layton's French is better than his Cantonese:

http://www.ndp.ca/page/6155 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for revert

If Layton truly opposed the Olympics, accusations that he stopped the city's bid can hardly be described as "coming back to haunt him". CJCurrie 19:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Photo

The title of the current photo is "Jacklaytonschmoozing.jpg". That's just blatantly partisan. Could we at least rename this image (and ideally, replace it with a better free use one)? 72.139.184.107 07:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, calm the F down..... --206.223.180.112 10:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use vs. free photo

I have returned to a free photo instead of the fair use one that was put in. Per Wikipedia's fair use policy, we cannot use a fair use photo if a free one is available. It is against Wikipedia policy. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. - Montréalais 05:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Really?

I hate to be a spoil-sport but does the "big ass" thing really deserve mention here? --JGGardiner 17:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember Question Period in question - it was Stephane Dion's first day as there as Liberal Leader (which should be mentioned) and Harper was acting like one (which is personal opinion) - and even Layton's own bench thought the slip funny (see Sister Bessie). Also, the issue that Layton was talking about (subsidize to big oil is one that gets mentioned along with the slip, so I am happy with it. Also, unlike Harper and his bunch, Layton appoligized right away for the slip - as far as I know, Peter MacKay has never apologized for anything and Harper has never apologised for claiming that the prisoners in Afghanistan have been tortured or for calling Maher Arar a terrorist. I recommend that the two links used to reference the "big ass" slip be Hansard and Sister Bessie:

Hansard (Question Period): http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2564121

Sister Bessie (Air Farce's Year of the Farce): http://www.airfarce.com/seasons/season14/061231.html

Think of it, school children studying the Prime Ministers of Canada 50 years from now should not be left with the impression that Layton was a dull staid person who took himself too seriously. The purpose of wikipedia is to show future kids who Layton was - which means how he thought. It would also be good, through the "Big Ass" slip that someone was worried about the environment at the time - whatever happens in that regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

NDP Support of Income Trust Tax Changes

I would like to add the following text to the article under the header: Conservative Minority Government.

---

Jack Layton and the NDP continue to support the new proposed rules for income trusts introduced by the Conservatives October 31, 2006 . The immediate result of the change in tax policy was a loss to Canadian investors of $20 Billion, the largest ever loss attributed to a change in government policy . According to the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors some 2.5 million Canadian investors were effected by the change in Income Trust Policy .

---

My intial attempt to insert this new information was reverted. I would like an explanation why. DSatYVR 05:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this text doesn't really belong in the article. Jack's role in the change was marginal at best, and the description of the effects are highly POV and one sided. - SimonP 14:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize NDP support of the Conservatives on the Income Trust Tax issue must make NDP supporters nervous and perhaps a bit ashamed but I think this content can be fit in to the article is a reasonable and NPOV way. Help me do it by pointing out which aspect of the paragraph you are uncomfortable with. I'll break it down for you:

---

• Sentence 1...Jack Layton and the NDP continue to support the new proposed rules for income trusts introduced by the Conservatives October 31, 2006 . Revision required? Yes/No

• Sentence 2...The immediate result of the change in tax policy was a loss to Canadian investors of $20 Billion, the largest ever loss attributed to a change in government policy . Revision required? Yes/No

• Sentence 3...According to the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors some 2.5 million Canadian investors were effected by the change in Income Trust Policy . Revision required? Yes/No

---

Be sure to look at the cited references, in the edit mode, if required to verify the information presented is accurate. I am open to the idea of reasonable revisions as I think this aspect of the NDP cooperation with the Conservative is hardly a marginal event and needs to be presented on Wikipedia. Regards, DSatYVR 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I've made a modest addition that won't make NDP supporters too jittery. I'll leave it at that for now and await comments. DSatYVR 05:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is fine. CJCurrie 06:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really opposed to the edit but I'm not sure it is that important. For the Conservatives, the issue represented a broken promise and one that investors may have relied upon and lost a lot of money. But for the NDP it seems in line with their general policy direction. Although I don't know what specific policies they had regarding income trusts. --JGGardiner 09:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Pending any further comment or suggested revisions I would also like to insert sentence 2 and 3 into the body of the article. I'll wait a few days and I'd also like to look at a February News release from the NDP regarding Income trusts. Comment to JGGardinner: I think the NDP stance in income trusts is important in the sense that whenever a left wing party supports a right wing party on an issue in which everyday Canadians lost $20-30 Billion in market value in their RRSPs, RRIFs and investment accounts was lost is worthy of mention. Cheers DSatYVR 20:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added Sentence 3 as it looks like there are no further suggestions for revisions. DSatYVR 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added Sentence 2 as it looks like there are no further suggestions for revisions. Regards, DSatYVR 06:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Wgee you could better explain the reasons behind the reversion? Rather than making arbitrary reversions to bring articles in line with your political beliefs another approach may be to participate in the discussions here. There seems to be much nervousness among Layton supporters about the effects of his political decisions. Nevertheless the economic effects, positive or negative, need to be mentioned. Perhaps a better approach to suppressing information you don't like is to research the subject and cite some positive effect of Layton's political decisions. Regards, DSatYVR 06:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't assume that people are editing the article just to further their political beliefs or to "suppress" information. The economic effects of income trust taxation are irrelevant to an article about Jack Layton, instead belonging in the Conservative Party article. Moreover, Jack Layton did not propose the bill, he was not the only New Democrat MP to vote for the bill, nor did he passionately defend the bill. -- WGee 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a fair assumption in this case is that you are suppressing the information that you feel embarrasses Jack Layton. Thats OK. I think most readers of media can make the connection between the Leader of the Party and NDP support of the Income Trust Tax Legislation even though you cannot. Regards, DSatYVR 16:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and stop the veiled personal attacks. Also let me reiterate my view that this section is not a useful addition to this article. - SimonP 19:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem assuming good faith when good faith exists. In this case Jack Layton, as the leader of the NDP made a conscious decision to follow a policy and vote in a certain way. This lead to certain damaging economic consequences for Canadians. NDP camp followers cannot seem to make this connection. There is no personal attack on my part, but I see an effort to suppress information which certain writers find uncomfortable. Part of being a leader means accepting and acknowledging the consequences of one's party decisions. Can reverters such as WGee and you understand that? Regards, DSatYVR 22:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to expose the "damaging economic consequences" of income trust taxation, create a blog. Your editorial is irrelevant to an article about Jack Layton and violates WP:NPOV, as several editors have explained to you. What you think it means "to be a leader" has no bearing on the content of this article. -- WGee 00:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DSatYVR, consequences of income trust taxation are important because Layton supported that policy. -- Vision Thing -- 18:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, it is fine to criticize Layton in that regard if you feel that way but it is not an important factor of Layton's persona that deserves inclusion here. We can't really invent a controvorsey where there wasn't one or inflate one beyond what existed in the real world. That doesn't mean the material is wrong per se. You can pat yourself on the back for coming up with a valid critique that the mainstream media missed but as far as I'm aware this was essentially a non-issue generally. --JGGardiner 20:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel it is important factor of Layton's political career. Also, see [4], [5], [6] -- Vision Thing -- 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

NDP Income Trust press release

I'd like to add something on this press release to the article. Looking for comments.

NDP introduces bill to tighten income trust rules

DSatYVR 07:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors launch Billboard campaign

I'm looking for suggestions on how to integrate this material into the article.

Why is Jack Layton selling out Canada's Resources - CAITI Billboard Artwork

billboard locations

The NDP's pivotal role

Is criticism of Jack Layton's policies allowed within the article or is this article merely an online ad for the leader of the National NDP. DSatYVR 16:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have a "Brent Fullard of CAITI says: to add then put it here and link to the Brent Fullard entry on Wikipedia (which is the only place where those billboard ads belong). Seems that he is also involved in "big oil and big ..." and that a few of his members look like family members of MPs. BTW what does Brent have to do with the new political party in Alberta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any sources regarding Fullard and Big Oil or the new political party in Alberta? Just wondering where you got this from, nothing turns up on a Google search which leads me to believe you don't knwo what you are talking about. 70.69.217.125 (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed - Is this article an online ad?

Where to start?

This article seems to be under the protection of Layton supporters and any comment that reflects poorly on Layton is removed quickly and unceremoniously. The pattern of writing seems to be if Layton initiates a political action in which he is cast as the good guy, it's in the article. If Layton does something that may have a negative effect on his popularity it is deleted under the premise of trivia or not following NPOV guidleines.

An example of Cause and effect used in the article that seems to be allowed if it enhances Layton's image in the minds of his supporters:

Layton takes this action:During the 2004 federal election, controversy erupted over Layton's accusation that Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin was responsible for the deaths of homeless people because he failed to provide funding for affordable housing.

This additional comment is allowed:While rates of homelessness and homeless deaths skyrocketed during the eleven years of Liberal government, the Liberals argued that funding for affordable housing was cut under the government of Brian Mulroney.

Why is the additional comment allowed? To enhance Layton's image at the expense of others perhaps?

Cause and effect that is not allowed:

This comment allowed: Jack Layton and the NDP caucus voted to support the new proposed rules for income trusts introduced by the Conservatives October 31, 2006 [4]

The effect is not allowed and dismissed as unrelated trivia: The immediate result of the change in tax policy was a loss to Canadian investors of $20 Billion, the largest ever loss attributed to a change in government policy [2]. According to the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors some 2.5 million Canadian investors were effected by the change in Income Trust Policy [3]

Yet this is not considered relevant. Why are Layton supporters uncomfortable talking about Layton's support of the right wing Conservatives?

• Actually the economic damage is higher closer to $35 Billion according to Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors

The NDP under Jack Layton's leadership support the Conservative Plan. A leader gets to take the credit when the plan bears fruit but when Layton's decision does real economic damage to everyday Canadians, Layton supporters want to suppress the information. DSatYVR 18:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

"While rates of homelessness and homeless deaths skyrocketed during the eleven years of Liberal government, the Liberals argued that funding for affordable housing was cut under the government of Brian Mulroney." I agree with you: this statement needs to be sourced and rewritten using neutral language. -- WGee 21:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at the way this footnote edit was done by CJCurrie [7]. I think there is quite a bit of fluff that needs to be moved out of the Layton article in this way. The fluff material is still available for readers who care about such things but it brings the main body of the article back up to a encyclopedic standard. Right now it reads like a fluff piece. Comments? DSatYVR 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I got to change my comments regarding the edit. The problem is you're having dispute with certain aspects of the article which is a biography of Jack Layton, nothing more. Now the problem is that you added the NPOV tag without bringing up any discussions beforehand. I removed the NPOV because you added it and then called for NPOV views. Until then, if there is a problem regarding POV, let us know. ViriiK 05:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I found that the article seems to have an editorial bias against Layton - esp. the last parts which give a one sided view of support for the income trust bill, and the one bit of trivia which makes claims about Jack praising Dion... --Radioinactive 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

homelessness and low-rent housing

I remember Jack Layton making the statement and then retracting a bit - that it wasn't the Martin himself but Martin's budget decisions as Finance Minister as it related to the lack of affordable housing - leading to homelessness - leading to death. Both the original statement and the retraction should be in or neither. And maybe Harper and Martin's response (or their Minister/Critic in the area).

What is at issue is when low rental housing units were built and when the building of them slowed down and/or stopped - in the Toronto area. Also who Layton was running against in the election - Layton may not agree with everything Sir John A did either, but Layton was not running against Sir John A either. Martin did cut transfer payments as Finance Minister so there is some correlation between that and the building of new low rent units - but how much of that belongs here and how much of that belongs on Martin's page is something we should think of since the page is not about Martin but about Layton.

Homelessness and the lack of affordable housing seems to be an important issue to Layton and may deserve its own section separate from the Municipal and Federal politics section. I think that Layton was involved in Municipal politics when Mulroney was in power so would be looking at how Federal policies affected city issues at the time. I don't know if there is a separate entry on the history of affordable housing or homelessness in Toronto or not. If there isn't, then it would be allowable to look at the figures a bit to see whether there was a slow down in the construction of new affordable housing units during Martin's time as Finance Minister and put it here rather than just look at Layton's opinions on the issue.

Other than Layton's comments (or the he said she said), and probably best to go by years (when stating facts) and let the reader, if they are interested in checking, find out who was Prime Minister and/or Premier when. Otherwise we will get Mike Harris supporters blaming Martin and that is a separate issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of the controversial decision by the City of Toronto to sell single family homes that it owns. There is a demand for affordable housing in the city and Jack Layton makes no mention of this event in his own riding. [8] If he is such a defender of public housing why is he quiet on this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.148.143 (talk) 16:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• There is no controversy. The city did not sell these houses. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Income trust Commentary

The following commentary needs to be cited because some of it is wrong IMO:

It should be noted however, that economists from both the right and left of the political spectrum had warned of the long-term destabilization of the Canadian economy if the income-trust loophole was not closed. Similar action was taken by the United States in the mid 80's.

• This is how the the tax 'loophole' actually plays out in the real world. The ABC's of BCE. The Canadian Federal Government would actually net more taxes if companies like BCE were allowed to convert to publicly traded income trust. As a privately held company held inside a pension plan or held by a foreign entity BCE would pay NO TAX. Some loophole.

• See Master Limited Partnerships and Flow-through entity which are the US equivalent to Canadian Income Trusts. This market is thriving contrary to these comments. For further background refer to Digging Deeper-A perspective on US Flow-through structures Regards, DSatYVR 00:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Conservatives promised during the election not to touch income trust funds and then changed their minds (for good reasons). Therefore, there were some "Investors" who figured that these funds were a safe bet because they did not foresee the Conservatives changing their mind about it. What was the NDP position on them during the election and did that position change? If it didn't change, how NDP MPs would vote on the issue, if it came up, was something that the Market knew of already.

Where it does get controversial for the NDP is not in the way they voted but in calling in the RCMP - which may be mentioned on the Judy W-L page. Otherwise, it is an issue for the Jim Flaherty page, since he was Finance Minister and you just mention in passing which parties voted for it and against it there - or on the Income Trust page - if there is one.

In my opinion, this income trust thing is metaphorically identical to betting on horses at the race track. As far as I know, cheating in gambling or fixing a race is a bad thing. If the race is rigged, it is ok for gamblers to cry blue murder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the previous comment is metaphorically identical to burying one's head in the sand in an effort and hoping issues one is uncomfortable with will disappear. Jack Layton made the choice to support this income trust taxation policies of the Harper Government without checking to see if the evidence presented by Jim Flaherty and Stephen Harper contained any facts. It turns out Harper's open and accountable government is supported by Jack Layton and the only evidence they have to support the decision to add additional taxes to Income trusts is based on this. I suspect the only gamble left-leaning Canadians who were hurt by the suprise change in Income trust policy will make is to vote Liberal or Green who both have small investor freindly policies on income trusts. 38.99.101.132 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Featured article

I've been doing some work recently adding references to this page. It is a pretty comprehensive article, and with some work could be brought up to featured status. It would be great to see Jack on the front page someday. Does anyone have any suggestions for what needs to be improved? The later part still needs a lot of references, and if anyone remembers where a particular fact came from, it would be great if they could add a ref. - SimonP 15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see a few "Issue" sections where one gets the (probably up to five) issues that Jack Layton is best known for (ie homelessness/low-income housing). I don't mean the five big NDP policies but the 3 to 5 issues that are specifically or personally important to Jack and why (ie finding the dead homeless person so close to where they lived). What we think and what our opinions are should not be in the article but what Layton thinks and his opinions show people who have never met him what makes him tick.

I would also like to see the English Debate and French Debate for each election Jack is in available to anyone who comes here along with the Town Halls (ie Mansbridge) - all of them, not just the ones he did good or poorly at. And there should be a page which lists shadow cabinets back to the days of Tommy Douglas for personal reference - with Layton's here and/or a list of all NDP MPs who served under Layton. This way, if you are trying to find someone and you can't remember the name, all you have to do is look up the leader at the time and you will find them.

For fairness, one should name both his parents - not just the more famous one. And a bit on how he went from his right winged Liberal/Conservative upbringing to becoming an adamant social democrat. And lets not be afraid of his quirks - but steer away from stuff that says more about his opponents or friendly others than it does about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection (enough of this childish vandalism)

I've locked this page to anons for 6 months because of libelous content (WP:BLP violations) added by likely a right-wing militant, the AOL vandal, issue that strated nearly a year ago.--JForget 16:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jackandolivia.jpg

Image:Jackandolivia.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)