Talk:Nycole Turmel

Birthdate and age

There's sources saying she's 68 as well, including the Globe and Mail, Reuters, Winnipeg Free Press...: [1] Connormah (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Then we list both. 117Avenue (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is there any source saying she was born in 1942? PARLINFO says 1943, and the supposed sources for Sept 1, 1942, only say she is 68. They may know for a fact that her birthday was earlier in the year or they may just be subtracting 1943 from 2011. The CBC saying she was 67 as of Jul 30 could mean they actually know her birthday had not passed as of that date, it could mean they looked at file information from the election earlier this year saying she was 67 and carried it forward, or it could mean they did their sums wrong. In any event, there is no evidence whatever for the proposition she was born on Sept 1, 1942. The only affirmative statement of her birthdate is PARLINFO, and each of the other sources can be reconciled with it. -Rrius (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun reference you removed says it, as well as the Edition Beauce source that Wilfred Day added. Saying that the CBC or The Globe and Mail is not a reliable source, or doesn't know how to do math, is quite a claim. 117Avenue (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me take those in turn. I admit I missed the date put a couple of spaces below the actual article in the Sun. Can't imagine how I missed that. There is no Edition Beauce source listed in the article. I never said the CBC is not a reliable source (you completely made that up) or that it did it math wrong. As to the latter, what I said was that it was one of three options that could reconcile its use of 67 with a birth year of 1943. I never commented on the Globe and Mail at all; I merely removed it because it was being used to support a proposition that it doesn't actually support. As a result, I've once again removed it as a supporting ref for the September 1, 1942 claim. -Rrius (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my bad, I was mistaken about The Globe and Mail. 117Avenue (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You were also mistaken about the CBC—I never said it was not reliable, and I never claimed it did its math wrong. Again, I said that one of three possibilities was that it did its math wrong. -Rrius (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I imagine PARLINFO should be updated at a later date to show a complete birthdate, listing both seems okay for now. Connormah (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to step back, and look at the bigger picture again. Both sides have claimed there are multiple articles supporting their number. I have performed multiple Google News searches for Nycole Turmel between July 25 and August 1, 2011. 1 says she is 67 (CBC News), 4 say she is 68 (The Globe and Mail, National Post, Radio-Canada, l'Écho du Nord/canoe.ca), 2 say she was born September 1, 1942 (Edition Beauce, Tornonto Sun/Reuters), 1 says she was born in 1943 (straight.com), and the (what should be official source) Parliament of Canada says born in 1943. If we chalk up the first article as bad math, the next four place her birthdate between August 2, 1942, and July 24, 1943, which can support both dates. We all agree that the Parliament of Canada is a valid reliable source, but are Edition Beauce (which admits it took its photo from Wikipedia) and the Toronto Sun valid? 117Avenue (talk) 00:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume the CBC got its math wrong. As I said above, if they looked back at a story filed earlier this year that (accurately) said she was 67, they could have just copied that age without noticing (or being aware) that her birthday had passed. There are all manner of reason why two sources could incorrectly say September 1, 1942, or why PARLINFO could have it wrong. I've written an e-mail to her office that I hope will get a response. In any event, I'm still not convinced we should say as much as we are. It would make just as much sense to say "(1942 or 1943)" with a string of cites or put the whole thing in comment tags until the whole thing gets resolved. -Rrius (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What I'm hearing is that CBC is wrong one way, or another, or the four are wrong, she couldn't both be 67 and 68 in the same week without any mentioning a birthday. 117Avenue (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Or the 68s are just subtracting 1942 from 2011 and the Sept 1942 date was a mistake that came from God knows where (and then was reported by another source). The fact that we can't even figure out which sources are truly consistent is part of why I think we should throw up our hands and put the whole thing in comments or remove it altogether. If I do happen to get a useful response from Turmel's office, how do we handle it? Can we use it at all? Will people take my word for it that if I paste its text, it is genuine? -Rrius (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you could get her, or her office, to release an official statement, or for the Parliament bio to be changed, then it could be referenced. 117Avenue (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know when she was born. I don't know how Wikipedia should handle this pending more information. I'm equally frustrated by the fact that she was Associate President (Labour) of the party for two (I assume) years, which may have been 1997-9, but the federal party has never yet published a full bio on her. The Parliamentary website has only what someone (?) told them, which is only a year when it should be a full date, and is therefore suspect. The reason I thought the Edition Beauce article must be accurate is that it was a telephone interview with Nycole Turmel herself. But that doesn't prove they checked the date with her, they may have gotten it from Wikipedia. So I remain confused. Wait for clarification, I say.Wilfred Day (talk) 01:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Who knows - PARLINFO should update, as I said, or I could try emailing. For all we know, they could have just subtracted 2011-68 and came up with 1943 --Connormah (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be fantastic, but I'm talking about what happens if I get an e-mail from her office saying, "Ms Turmel was born on X." Obviously that is not something that could be referenced, so that's not what I'm asking. If, for example, her office says her birthdate is September 1, 1942, it would make sense to simply use that date with the refs we have and delete the others. If on they say it's May 26, 1943, we'd either have a different situation altogether. Again, we could delete the other date we give and then either keep the 1943 with the references we have or use the full date with a comment referring people to the talk page. Whatever they say, a certain amount of faith in me on the part of other editors would be required to use it at all. Therefore, my question is how we handle it. Did I, in essence, waste my time writing the e-mail? -Rrius (talk) 02:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You could possibly quote in in an inline cite if you wanted - maybe wait until September 1 and see if we get a tweet or something if it is her birthday? Connormah (talk) 22:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

A September 1 reference wouldn't help without a year. 117Avenue (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

No, but we would be able to change it to "(born September 1, 1942^[1][2] or -43^[3][4])" and perhaps add alternatives to the infobox.

Unless it's "Happy 69th birthday", but I doubt that'd happen. Connormah (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Did any of the news today mention her birthdate? 117Avenue (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Google and Google News searches of Turmel 1942 and Turmel 1943 for the past 24 hours turned up nothing. -Rrius (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just seen articles refer to her age as 68. – Connormah (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, doing searches for "Nycole" AND "Turmel" AND "1943" OR "1942" may bring up better results. – Connormah (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I'm really glad I sent that e-mail. Here's the response I got:

Thank you for getting in touch with us.

The PARLINFO information is currently being corrected and Nycole Turmel`s actual birth date is Sept. 1, 1942.

Best wishes,

Melissa

Melissa Newitt

Adjointe à la députée / MP Assistant

Nycole Turmel, députée / MP

Hull-Aylmer

Parlinfo has since been corrected, so we can put this behind us. I chalk this up as a win for Wikipedia. Our push for well-sourced information has actually improved a source. I love when that happens. -Rrius (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice! Good job! 117Avenue (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Interim" v. "Acting"

Turmel is properly called the "Interim" Leader of the NDP, and has been since July 28. The main argument for "acting" appears to be its use at PARLINFO, but that is not the definitive source for this question: the NDP is. The following NDP statements all call her "Interim Leader": Layton's statement announcing his leave, Turmel's statement after being appointed Interim Leader, a statement calling her "Interim Leader" in the title, and a similar one. Layton's Letter to Canadians also calls her such. -Rrius (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this pseudo-edit war is starting to get silly. Furthermore, she became the interim leader as soon as Mr. Layton passed away, as 'acting leader' is a temporary position assuming the real leader is going to come back. It's pretty obvious by now the real leader is not going to. Therefore, interim applies, + what Rrius said, etc. — Charlie Echo Tango — 05:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, this seems to be an editorial choice at PARLINFO rather than a one-off terminology difference with the NDP. The Liberal Party, in its constitution, statements, and the like, uses "Interim Leader", but PARLINFO uses the "(Acting)" formulation just as it does for Turmel.[2][3][4] -Rrius (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with CharlieEchoTango, Layton intended to return, and was still the official leader, thus Turmel was only acting. Upon his death she become the interim leader until a replacement can be found. In Layton's letter, it suggests that Turmel had to be reconfirmed to this position. 117Avenue (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Except that is not what the NDP called her, and the NDP is all-powerful in this regard. The words actually are, despite what you two are saying, interchangeable. An acting leader is one who acts as leader, and an interim leader is one who acts as leader between two events. There is nothing denotation or connotation of either word that suggests one is what you have when a leader is on leave and the other is what you have when a leader leaves office. Both are available for either contingency. As for whether "reconfirmation" is necessary, we just don't know that. All Layton said is that he recommends she "continue as interim leader". Since she was given an open-ended mandate back in July (the Turmel interview from the July 30 episode of the The House), there is really no reason to believe she needs a second vote. It may be that she does, but it may be that Jack was just saying the Council shouldn't change its mind just because the circumstances have changed. In the end, the NDP itself is the most reliable source, and we should follow what they say barring some extremely good reason to do otherwise. The fact that PARLINFO happens to use other terminology than the parties (including the Liberals' Bob Rae) is not a good reason. -Rrius (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Unionist

The introduction says "Turmel is a long-time unionist". Does this mean "unionist" in the political sense, or "trade unionist"? Deb (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)