Talk:Jason Kenney

Parliamentary debate?

Is Kenney really celibate? Do we need a reference?

More to the point, is this encyclopedic? CJCurrie (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

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 penultimate 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 Libby Davies article. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-22 T 07:19:05 Z

Potential Vandalism

On March 15, 2010, an antagonistic site suggested with screenshots that this page has been vandalized to remove controversial and critical content. A cursory review of the history seems to confirms this finding. Suggest restoring content, and locking page if vandalism continues. Citizenship Minister's Wikipedia Site Edits Section on Gay Rights, Removes Lost Canadians --MrOakes (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)MrOakes (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, the information can't stay in the form you suggest. I've reverted the latest re-addition. It is unnecessarily prejudicial and editorial in tone. Perhaps the information can be included with more neutral wording. Do you have any suggestions? Franamax (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

--Franamax (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

"Unnecessarily predudicial and editorial in tone" they are facts not opinon, that's why they are citied. Most of the citations come from Canadian government websites, did you even check the links or just erase the paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.92.135.204 (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"He fails to acknowledge that most of these people have applied and have a strong case" is an unsourced opinion. As for the rest, the tone could be improved, but I don't think it justifies removal.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

George Galloway additional details.

SaskatchewanSenator please don't revert without further discussion. This material deserves to be in the Kenney article because Kenney's actions lead to Galloway's intention to sue the Canadian Government. If you disagree I'm happy to seek a 3rd opinion DSatYVR (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think those sentences belong in this article because:

• Galloway says that the Canadian Government breached his privacy, not Kenney
• What Galloway says he has donated belongs in Galloway's article, not Kenney's.
• IMHO, Someone saying they intend to sue isn't notable.

--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest you read the entire paragraph and the supporting citations before proceeding further? The additional detail I added is a continuation of the original idea(s) presented in the paragraph. Also advise if you wish to proceed with a 3rd opinion review There is no need to do so if we are in consensus. If we are not in consensus I will start the process. DSatYVR (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please address the three issues I listed above? The material is not directly related to Kenney and belongs in the Galloway article instead.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You haven't read the paragraph or references have you? In that case I'll set up the 3rd opinion review. Regards, DSatYVR (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this qualifies for the Third opinion process, because I don't think that the issue has been thoroughly discussed, but I welcome other opinions. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the three issues I listed above.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Kindly read the paragraph, read the references/citations attached to the paragraph and you will make the connection. My preference is to let the material speak for itself rather than debate the obvious. For the benefit of other editors: The additional material illustrates cause and effect. Jason Kenney bars entry into Canada of George Galloway on the basis of his alleged terrorist connections. Galloway presents arguments to counter the charges made by Kenney and discloses his intention to sue the Canadian Government. (see citations for further detail if required)DSatYVR (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to some of my concerns. I don't agree with all of your explanations:

• Kenney did not bar Galloway entry into Canada
• I still think Galloway's comments on his donations are more appropriate for the Galloway article, but if they are to counter the claims made by Kenney's spokesperson, it should immediately follow them. It also should include the information that "Galloway donated £25,000 to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya in the Gaza Strip in March 2009." (from the CBC article you cited).
• Galloway saying he intends to sue the Canadian government isn't significant enough to be in this article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The additional details are useful as they essentially complete the story, giving Galloway's position. They consume little space and their inclusion is not disproportionate.—Figureofnine (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Galloway donation I have reverted this edit. Here is why: Our article already notes that Galloway provided supplies to the governing authority in Hamas-controlled Gaza. There is no need to recast this information in a sensationalistic light. Although citations are required for controversial statements, the fact of a controversial statement having a citation is not sufficient grounds to justify its inclusion on an article page. Put another way, "Restored cited material" is not a sufficient justification for returning this statement. CJCurrie (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC) The sentence at issue is: Galloway donated £25,000 to Ismail Haniya of Hamas. It is not sensationalistic. Why do you think it is controversial?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC) From what I can tell, there's some dispute as to whether or not Galloway actually gave money to Haniyeh. Galloway, for one, seems to have said that he didn't. Anyway, the main issue here is the relationship between Galloway's participation in the Viva Palestina convey and his subsequent ban from Canada. The current edit covers this; I don't see the need to add a specific (and disputed) detail. Beyond which, Galloway has repeatedly denied giving anything to Hamas, as such. He turned over materials to the governing authority in Gaza, not to Hamas per se as an organization. He certainly didn't "donate" money to Haniyeh, in the sense that the term is generally used. CJCurrie (talk) The article should include what reliable sources have said about the donation, along with the statements from Kenney's spokesperson and Galloway. If there is disagreement between reliable sources, that can be noted. The sentence that you dispute, above, is an accurate reflection of the material in the cited article "Galloway vows to sue Canadian government" [[5]].--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC) This is a bit silly, really; we're not obligated to reproduce a passing snippet of information from one source when other sources provide greater context. The cited article, "Galloway vows to sue Canadian government," contains a context-free one-sentence summary of the donation controversy (and it doesn't clarify if the donation was in money or goods). Other sources provide much, much more detail about the matter. In situations like this, the correct course of action is to use language that reflects the more complete sources rather than taking isolated sentences and presenting them as "the whole story." CJCurrie (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC) If you have better sources on Galloway's donation, please provide them. What language do you suggest to describe the donation?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC) What we have now seems fine: Alykhan Velshi, a spokesperson for Kenney, claimed that Galloway had openly admitted giving "financial support" to Hamas, which is classified as a terrorist group in Canada. Galloway has said that he donated ambulances, medicine, and toys to the people of Gaza and did not materially support terrorism. If you really want, we can clarify that the donation went through the Hamas-controlled government of Gaza. Otherwise, I don't see the need for any change. As to better courses, I think that googling "Galloway Gaza" should be sufficient. CJCurrie (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC) It needs to include what a reliable source has said about the donation.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC) It already includes what several reliable sources have said about the donation. CJCurrie (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC) No it doesn’t. It includes what Kenney’s spokesperson and Galloway have said about the donation. It needs to include what a reliable source has said.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC) As you say, our article currently includes rival descriptions of the donation. This is sufficient. We aren't obligated to add one particular line from one particular source article to our page, particularly when the line in question is a short and unspecific summary. CJCurrie (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC) It is not sufficient. I'm not partial to any particular source or wording. If you have a better source or wording please provide it. The article should include what a reliable source has said about the donation.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC) We need a third opinion.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Third opinion I agree with CJCurrie that it is not necessary to include the specific statement that George Galloway donated money to Ismail Haneyeh. The important policy point to note here is that any material about living persons must be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Galloway has stated (according to the CBC article) that he donated money for ambulances etc., and that that is not the same as materially supporting Hamas, and it is incumbent on us, per our BLP policy, to not attempt to imply otherwise. The current formulation satisfies our BLP policy adequately. A formulation that stated that Galloway's contributions were channelled through the Hamas-controlled government of Gaza may be appropriate, though is also perhaps unnecessary because the article is about Kenney not Galloway, but the specific sentence that is contested is not. Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 15:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC) What aspect of WP:BLP are you basing this on?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC) The italicized part of my comment above. --rgpk (comment) 18:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Ah, yes. Thanks. The italics should have tipped me off. So it's the tone of the sentence that's the problem. I agree with you that some of this material about Galloway would be better left to the Galloway article, but as long as this article addresses the substance of Galloway's donation it's obliged to include reliable third-party sources.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Re: CJCurrie's revert, How is Galloway's donation of ambulances etc. relevant to this article?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC) It looks OK to me, as it provides context for what exactly the donation was for. Franamax (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC) I think you've misunderstood. Galloway did not donate money to buy ambulances etc. He donated ambulances and money.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Ah, but that's where we don't want to use this article to examine the "truth" of the matter. We just want to present the "he said/she said" and leave it at that. Government says one thing, Galloway says another. Galloway is suing. Franamax (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC) Maybe you aren't implying what I thought you were. How does what Galloway said about his donation of ambulances etc. explain, with regard to the money he donated, "what exactly the donation was for"?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Are you quite certain that Galloway donated money? CJCurrie (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Yes. This has been reported by a variety of reliable sources.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Kenney vs Paul Martin in China Yesterday I noticed that this article contained a reference to Mr Kenney's willingness (as an opposition MP) to pay respects to a deceased Chinese dissident. This was fine but I noticed that this went on to mention that Mr Kenney's actions were criticized by then-PM Paul Martin. I removed this second sentence as it failed to note that government members have different obligations than opposition members. I also noted that since entering government neither Kenney nor other government members have carried out a similar act. To my mind the original poster's intention was to set up a partisan straw man in which Kenney and the Conservatives favour human rights while Martin and the Liberals do not. Within six hours this had been reverted with the minimalist explanation "it's important to show the other side to this". I'd be curious to know if others think that this kind of highly selective framing actually amounts to "showing the other side" of an argument. ˜˜˜˜