Talk:Belinda Stronach: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:26, 20 December 2004

Latest revision as of 10:29, 24 February 2025

(304 intermediate revisions by 91 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| blp=yes|listas=Stronach, Belinda|

Guys, does anyone else realize that she isn't the leader of the Conservative Party? At least not yet, she's running to be the leader. What were you guys thinking? Also, she isn't a prominent Canadian politician, no one in politics even knew who she was until last week. [That's fixed now.]

{{WikiProject Women}}

{{WikiProject Biography

|politician-work-group=yes

}}

{{WikiProject Canada|on=yes|importance= mid|cangov = yes|ppap = yes}}

{{WikiProject Women in Business|importance=low}}

}}

{{archives}}

==Free picture==

:Most people realized it before you I'm sure. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 15:27, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We have one, but its bad: [[:Image:Belinda Stronach at Leadership convention 2006.jpg]]. [[User:Bawolff|Bawolff]] 04:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

:It got better, replacing (well slightly). [[User:Bawolff|Bawolff]] 23:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

What a terrible picture! jvp

:Why can't we use the images from the [http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/index.asp?Language=E Parliament of Canada] website? [[User:NorthernThunder|NorthernThunder]] 16:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

:: Fair use cannot be used just for convenient decorative purposes. We have a free image, so any fair use rational is automatically invalid. [[User:Rama|Rama]] 07:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

==Fair use rationale for Image:18516.jpg==

:So what's your point? At least I pointed it out... [[User:Shawn|Shawn]]

[[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|70px|left]]

'''[[:Image:18516.jpg]]''' is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under [[Wikipedia:Fair use|fair use]] but there is no [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline|explanation or rationale]] as to why its use in '''this''' Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the [[Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Fair use|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 [[WP:FU|fair use]].

Please go to [[:Image:18516.jpg|the image description page]] and edit it to include a [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline |fair use rationale]]. Using one of the templates at [[Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline]] is an easy way to insure 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.

::I was just confused by your "What were you guys thinking?" question. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 21:29, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on [[Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. If you have any questions please ask them at the [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions|Media copyright questions page]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Missing rationale2 -->

Anyone have a public ___domain picture of her that we can put in the article? All the ones at belinda.ca are copyrighted. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 22:11, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 04:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

:Would not the photo in the press section ([http://www.belinda.ca/Belinda/english/mediaroom.html]) have to be copyright-free? -- [[User:Stewacide|stewacide]] 08:16, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

we can not use this pic [[:Image:Belinda Stronach at Leadership convention 2006.jpg]] the reason for that is back on march 2007 she went back blond and that what she currecty look like right now. So we have to come up with something.[[User:Michaelm|Michaelm]]

Who is the first most powerful woman in business? [[Carly Fiorina]]?-[[User:Stevertigo|&#25140;&#30505sv]]

: Yes, we ''can'' use that picture. The idea that we have any sort of obligation to change our pictures every single time an article subject happens to change her ''hair'' colour is outrageously ridiculous. We do ''not'' have to stop using the picture just because she's blonde again. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 06:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fiorina is the most powerful woman in American business. Here's what Fortune says about the most powerful women in international business, outside the U.S:

::That's true. [[Charles Tupper]] looks much worse now than he did in the picture we use in that article. --[[User:JGGardiner|JGGardiner]] ([[User talk:JGGardiner|talk]]) 06:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

:[[Marjorie Scardino]], CEO of Britain's Pearson, was ranked the number one woman in international business, followed by Belinda Stronach, CEO and president of Canada's Magna International, [[Anne Lauvergeon]], executive chairman of France's [[Areva]], and [[Patricia Barbizet]], chief executive of France's [[Artemis]]. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 06:24, 2004 Jan 24 (UTC)

:::Just added an infobox caption to give the photo some time and place context. That should help discourage any assumptions that the photo represents her current appearance. [[User:Dl2000|Dl2000]] ([[User talk:Dl2000|talk]]) 00:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

::Although I would'nt generally call ''Fortune'' a source, its just a typical who's who list, so I suppose that its nothing to take issue with. ;) -[[User:Stevertigo|&#25140;&#30505sv]] 14:21, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

:::TheHeh. ''FortuneNice 500'', not a source? I'm shocked!one. [[User:SunrayBearcat|SunrayBearcat]] 0818:0509, 200430 JanNovember 272007 (UTC)

Can we use this pic for now. [[:Image:Belinda stronach.jpg]]. [[User:Michaelm|Michaelm]]

----

Who removed the picture? [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 21:45, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

== Is she a social democrat? ==

:It was a wikipedia wide problem. I uploaded it again. [[User:Dgrant|dave]] 19:49, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If not please explain how she isn't.. [[User:Mantion|Mantion]] 05:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

==A Social Democrat???==

: Um, no. That is not how Wikipedia or any any encyclopedia works. We don't post everything that has not yet been shown to be false. We post only things that are shown to be true. If you have a reliable source that says she '''is''' a social democrat, then we can add that to the article. Until then, it stays out. For the record, I cannot produce a reliable source that says that she is '''not''' the daughter of Satan, but it would not be appropriate for the article to say that she is, unless someone has a reliable source that says that she is. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 05:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User 24.222.32.250 repeatedly claims that Ms. Stronach is a social democrat. I'm asking for proof of that. She is, after all, a member of the Conservative Party. In Canada, members of the Convervative Party are generally not referred to as "social democrats." It is an absurd notion. Despite the fact that she supports unions and has other progressive ideas, she is not, by definition, a social democrat. If she were to cross the floor of the House and join the NDP, that would be evidence that she was a social democrat. I've tried a couple of alternate wordings (e.g. "her views are to the left of many in the Conservative Party"), but 24.222.32.250 continually reverts my edits. I'm hereby asking 24.222.32.250 to discuss this. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 07:56, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

:: This is true, but there are many opinions on the page that could easily be deleted for lack of citation. That being said I took a couple minutes and read through the achieves. May example and a number of sources were given as to why people suggest she leans to the social democrat side. The main objections was that she was a member of the Conservative party and unless she left the party she couldn't be considered a social democrat. That being said I don't care.. Your little group has successfully kept a tight grip on this page, and stifled all contributions you disagree with. Good job, hijacking articles to push your won views and agendas is the way Wikipedia is suppose to work. It appears only person who has hung in there for 3 years is MichaelM. I don't think he has been allowed to contribute much of any substance in 3 years. Good work. Keep beating him and Freelance up and deleting their contributions eventually you will drive them away and then the article will be accurate because it will be only views you agree with or can discredit in the article. I did notice that she is in theory in favor of big business and what not. Is that true? And now that she left the party does it give any weight to people who think she leans social democrat?[[User:Mantion|Mantion]] 06:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sunray in the conservative caucus ther is 98 conservative MP's (Red and Blue) and 1 Social Democrat MP (Belinda Stronach) and some people do view her as a social democrat and if she did won the leadership she will put the party to the center to bring in center-right and center-left ideas but later on she will bring the party to the center-left (a.k.a. social democracy) but it failed because she did not win the leadership. She should join the NDP because she should not trust Stephen Harper and the Conservative caucus. She should trust Jack Layton and the NDP caucus. I'm an NDPer my self. Keep an eye on the news media Sunray Belinda Stronach is going to walk cross the floor to the NDP at any time. Belinda is not happy with the Conservatives.- michaelm

::Actually, I think Ground Zero has oversimplified. [[WP:VER|The policy on verifiability]] says:

:Thanks for your response, michaelm. It is clear that you think that Ms. Stronach is a social democrat. I would like to see a record that someone else thinks this and has documented it in print (i.e., evidence). Then, I'm suggesting one further step: That there be some rational argument for stating this (i.e., proof). You say "people do view her as a social democrat." Who has this view? She may not be happy with the conservatives, but as long as she remains in that party, neither she nor any of her colleagues in parliament would be likely to refer to her as a social democrat. So there would have to be some fairly strong documentation (e.g. of a credible political scientist arguing that she is, in fact, a social democrat). Meanwhile, the statement that she is "to the left of many in the conservative party" covers what you are saying, without making an un-encyclopedic leap into the speculative. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 06:15, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

::{{quotation|The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is '''verifiability, not truth .''' }}

::Cheers! [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] 23:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

:::In my own defence, what I asked for was a '''reliable source'''. None has ever been provided. I would accept, for example, a line that says, "Toronto Sun columnist Christie Blatchford wrote in her column that Belinda Stronach's view are those of a social democrat, not of a conservative or liberal" if Blatchford actually wrote that. In other words, it does not have to be true, just reporterd somewhere. The problem here is that it is only the view of one rather (in my opinion) obseessed Wikipedian, which really, really does not qualify it for inclusion in what should be an encyclopedia article. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 23:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

::I would like to see some evidence of this as well. Although I can't comment on Belinda's "happiness" in the Conservative caucus, I did get the impression during the leadership run that she was a definite economic conservative - i.e. in favour of big business, across the board tax cuts, "grow the economic pie" economics, etc. She's certainly to the left of most (if not, yes, all) of the Conservative caucus on social issues (abortion, SSM, etc.) but no social democrat would agree with the aforementioned economic philosophies. (These policies imply more limited social advocacy, something Social Democrats disagree with.) It also should be noted that one can still be for the existence of a union / in favour of job rights and a conservative, i.e. one doesn't have to believe all unions/worker rights should be abolished to be a conservative. I would like to see sources on Belinda's union views. -- [[User:Matty j|Matty j]] 22:08, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

: The onus is not on anybody to explain how she ''isn't'' a social democrat; the onus is on ''you'', as the person ''making'' an assertion of fact, to prove that she ''is'' a social democrat. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Matty j what Belinda has stated was that government intervention is necessary to ensure growth in the economy that what she ment by "grow the economic pie" and she did not stated tax cuts but she did state tax lowering for low and middle incomers but not tax cuts and she believes in organized labour and workers rights because of better productivity ,better employer/employee relations, better safety and human rights in the plants and labour.If ther was dis-organized labour going on in the work place Belinda believes that a union is needed - i.e. Belinda put in a trade union (UAW) in the Detroit Magna plant because Belinda witness dis-organized labour frist hand and the employees demaded for a Union. Belinda put the union in the plant. Belinda can't stand dis-organized labour and she's pro-union. That one of the reasons whay she won an humanitarian award and the other reason she helped chairtys in fundraising campaigns in Newmarket-Aurora and I hope this explans it. She is not happy with the Conservatives. She is a Social Democrat She is in the wrong party I'm a Social Democrat (NDPer) my self. Keep an eye on the news media Matty j Belinda Stronach is going to walk cross the floor to the NDP at any time and Jack Layton need her in the NDP caucus like Yesterday and Belinda will keep the NDP sharpley to the left. - michaelm

She has publicly declared herself to be a Conservative, and later to be a Liberal. She has never publicly declared herself to be a social democrat. Who is MichaelM or Mantion to apply that label to her? She could have joined the social democratic [[New Democratic Party]] (NDP) before running for Parliament, but didn't. When she left the Conservative Party, she could have joined the NDP, but joined the Liberal Party instead. Now she is leaving Parliament, not to join the NDP and fight for social democracy, but to rejoin the board of a major corporation. As far as MichaelM not being "allowed to contribute much of any substance in 3 years", I think it is more accurate to say that he '''has not''' contributed much of any substance in 3 years. Contributions based on reliable sources would be more than welcome. Personal opinion and wishful thinking is not. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 18:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

:I understand what you are saying. You have assessed some of her stands as being social democratic in nature. But don't forget that the former Progressive Conservative party has taken all of those positions in the past. Whatever her beliefs, she cannot be both a Conservative member of parliament and a social democrat (they would cast her out of the party in a trice). So how about we wait for her to cross the floor and then write her up as a social democrat. Does that work for you? [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 07:57, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

==Social democrat?==

Indeed, Keep an eye on the news media Belinda Stronach will walk a cross the floor to the NDP. because of her social democratic beliefs and values she should not trust the conservatives. - michaelm

This issue can be settled once and for all and MichealM, Mantion and Freelancedave can have their way and put the "social democrat" claim in the article by doing one simple thing: provide a reliable reference that says that Belinda Stronach is a social democrat. It is just that simple. Until then, we'll just be engaged in this time-wasting edit war that they will lose because their actions violate all sorts of Wikipedia policies, including [[WP:NPOV]] and [[WP:NOR]]. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 02:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You want proof that Belinda Stronach is a Social Democrat? All you have to do is google her name and you will find hundreds of arguments attesting to the fact that she is indeed a Social Democrat. However, I'm sure you nimrods who are fixated on your Belinda Stronach fetish wouldn't know a Social Democrat if it bit you in the ass. [[User:The Phanthom|The Phanthom]] 01:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:I believe the statement that "Belinda put in a trade union (UAW) in the Detroit Magna plant" is almost certainly extremely mistaken; do you have a documented citation? (What's more, why aren't all the rest of the Magna plants she was responsible for unionized?) Corporations and corporate leaders often both give to charity and oppose unions; the first hardly precludes the second. For whatever personal background is worth, I'm in the NDP as well (we Canadian wikipedians seem disproportionately to be) and the claims made and scenario projected would floor the jaws of myself and other New Democrats I know. [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 19:38, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

::This post is not in keeping with [[WP:CIV]]. Please keep your comments civil, or they will be deleted. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

: ''Arguments'' don't matter and aren't relevant or valid sources — some people will claim that anybody remotely to the left of [[Stephen Harper]] is a social democrat or a socialist, but that doesn't make it so. Per our [[WP:V|verifiability]] rules, the ''only'' acceptable sources for characterizing Belinda Stronach as a social democrat are (a) a personal statement out of her own mouth indicating that she identifies that way, or (b) a reliable media or [[political science]] source characterizing her that way ''in an objective critical evaluation of her politics''. Some socon crank from [[Leduc, Alberta|Leduc]] who thinks she's a social democrat just because she doesn't foam at the mouth every time she hears the word "homosexual" simply doesn't cut it; that's not even close to what social democracy is all about. And to all available evidence, for the record, you're the only one here with a Belinda Stronach fetish. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 01:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Samaritan you got no right to move or edit somebodys comments and as for Belinda supporting trade unions is no mistak she is a strong supporter of them and I got this off the net well hedden on the net. Belinda can't stand dis-organized labour. Magna was anti-union under Frank Stronach and Don Walker. Magna become stronger supporters for organized labour under CEO Belinda Stronach I will be more then happy to show you the site but I not able to find it again because it well hedden. and Belinda should quit the conservatives and join the NDP- michaelm

: Not to mention that after doing that quick google search you suggested, I can confirm that every single statement out there on the web in favour of characterizing Ms. Stronach as a social democrat is — o shock of shocks — signed either "Michael M." or "M. Miyamoto". Army of one, or army of two? You decide. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 01:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Here, directly from the article [[social democracy]], is the baseline definition of a social democrat: ''social democrats aim to reform capitalism [[democracy|democratically]] through state regulation and the creation of state sponsored programs and organizations which work to ameliorate or remove perceived [[injustice]]s inflicted by the capitalist market system.''

: I went through this whole discussion with michaelm in November - the history section sems to have been wiped out for February to November, for some reason. I asked repeatedly for evidence, and got none. Several other regular contributors participated in the discussion, and refuted his arguments. It seems that Michaelm has nothing to offer but his deeply-held belief and probably a lot of wishful thinking. But that is not enough for an encyclopedia article. Samaritan and others do have the right to change articles to remove statements for which no evidence has been provided. If Stronach were a social democrat, it would have made a lot more sense for her to join the NDP and try to build that party, rather than try to convince a whole party of conservatives to change their views. As I said before, if Stronach leaves the CPC, then we will change the article and acknowledge michaelm's foresight. Until then, or until she says "I am a social democrat", there is no room for such nonsense in the article. [[User:Kevintoronto|Kevintoronto]] 16:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So, now, I ask: in what way do Belinda Stronach's political beliefs even ''approach'' that definition? [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 01:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

::Samaritan and Kevintoronto each make a strong case for not calling Ms. Stronach a "social democrat." Other users, myself included, have made the same point. To his credit, michaelm has stopped adding that to the article. However, he has been adding other information that doesn't seem to be supported by evidence. Samaritan raises the question of whether there is evidence that "Belinda put in a trade union (UAW) in the Detroit Magna plant." michaelm says this is true, but doesn't provide the reference to support it. IMO, what we need to get this article unprotected is for michaelm to provide that reference or agree to a change in the article '''''and''''' to agree to only make edits that are '''''supported by evidence'''''. michaelm can you agree with that? [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 20:22, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Michael, I think it is great that you have your own thoughts and an independent mind but surely you must realize that your opinion on this is not the popular view. Just because you have had an idea pass through your head doesn't mean that it belongs here. If I were you, I'd be happy that I was ahead of the curve on something and leave it at that.

I just found out that Belinda also unionized two more Magna plants in Michigan one in Howell, and one in western Michigan that was also UAW. For years Frank Stronach and Don Walker try to pervent UAW from going in to these plants but Belinda will suport the union because the plants are better off and it up to the employees to join the union. Thats how it set up. Remember Belinda is pro-union. Keep an eye on the news media Belinda Stronach will walk a cross the floor to the NDP. because of her social democratic beliefs and values she should not trust the conservatives - michaelm

In any event, even if it were “correct” the article shouldn’t contain any kind of subjective characterization of her and certainly not one so definitive as what you’ve included.--[[User:JGGardiner|JGGardiner]] 05:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay... that's great... can you give us a source, michaelm? A website address for example? Thanks. [[User:Kevintoronto|Kevintoronto]] 21:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:Yes, good advice from Bearcat and JGGardiner, Michael. And please don't use sock puppets to speak for you. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 06:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes ther is a a source of Belinda supporting UAW the headline might be called Magna to stop fighting UAW but it was Frank Stronach and Don Walker fighting agants the Union years ago. However if Belinda was anti-union she will fight agants the Union but Belinda is not like that at all. and also it staded The move comes only a few months after another leading parts manufacturer... but if thay demanded a union a few mouths ago she will put the union in no thinks to Don Walkers Mess. ther is the source and Remember Belinda Stronach is pro-union[[http://www.freep.com/money/business/magna5_20021005.htm]] - michaelm

This person(s) should not immatate myself. The ending of my username is a small "m" and his or hers is a Large "M". Inless a personal statement out of her own mouth indicating that she identifies as a Social Democrat or A personal statement out of her own mouth indicating that she supports Social Democracy. We should not put in Wikipedia. At the time I did the edits years ago I was ignerant about the rules on wikipedia.[[User:Michaelm|Michaelm]]

:I have not edited anybody's comments here. I agree that Magna stopped fighting the UAW before the [[National Labor Relations Board]], and Belinda made a diplomatic comment or two. I would agree to a statement to this effect in the article. It is an enormous jump from here to saying she is a [[social democrat]] and likely to join the NDP. [[Paul Martin]] had some positive interactions with his workers' unions when he ran [[Canada Steamship Lines]]. [[Brian Mulroney]] was a charming labour lawyer and to the best of my memory got along awfully well with his workers' unions at the [[Iron Ore Company of Canada]]. I await the argument, ''equally valid'' with the evidence presented, that Paul Martin and Brian Mulroney are also social democrats and are also liable to join the NDP and steer it to the left. [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 02:57, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.S. We are not saying its ture or false its not the issule hear. Is just we should not put it in wikipedia Inless it comes out of her mouth. Think for the advice JGGardiner I hope the immataters will get it.[[User:Michaelm|Michaelm]]

:Also, she is International Trade spokesperson for the Conservatives as we speak. International trade issues are among the absolute most important issues to many members and activists in the NDP and labour, and NDP/labour positions are almost diametrically opposed to Conservative positions. Does she support the NDP/labour positions or the Conservative positions on these issues central to her role in Parliament? [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 03:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==Semi-protection==

1st of all Samaritan I'm socked about Brian Mulroney and Paul Martin supported Trade Unions even know that Brian Mulroney is a Blue Tory and Paul Martin is a Blue Liberal I can't trust thous two. But Belinda is a Social Democrat down to the core. Belinda support the NDP/labour positions on International trade because Belinda is opposed to free trade and she is not happy with the conservatives she is in the wrong party I can sents that in Belinda. Belinda should join the NDP I can trust the NDP and I can trust Belinda Stronach. - michaelm

Because of repeated and persistent vandalism by newly created users, I have semi-protected this for one week so those of us on vandal patrol can take a break. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 21:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The semi-protection isn't working, so I have upgraded the protection to full protection. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 03:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

: I agree with Samaritan that this article is not sufificent evidenfce to convince me that she is pro-union, let alone a social democrat. Agreeing to stop fighting against a union is not the same as supporting them. Is Stephen harper that stupid that he would name a supposed opponent of free trade as his trade critic? I don't think so. While I respect your deeply-held beliefs on this issue, michaelm, Wikipedia requires more proof that just what you sense in Stronach. Let me ask you this, if Stronach were editing this article, would she call herself a social democrat? I don't think so. [[User:Kevintoronto|Kevintoronto]] 15:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And have done so again. [[User:Ground Zero|Ground Zero]] | [[User talk:Ground Zero|t]] 23:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

1st of all Belinda never fight against the union it was Frank Stronach and Don Walker that fight against the union and Belinda in fact pro-union because of better productivity ,better employer/employee relations, better safety and human rights in the plants. And she against free trade. And I don't trust Stephen Harper Belinda should not trust him never and to be onast with you Stephen Harper is not the shrpest tool in the shad. He is a Blue tory. Belinda is a Social Democrat and I don't think Harper is not awar of this and never is lackey a.k.a. Peter MacKay also a Blue tory not the shrpest tool in the shad ever. Belinda should get out of the untrustwevy Conservatives and join the NDP Jack Layton and Bill Blaike needs Belinda Stronach in the New Democrats. - michaelm

:There seem to be numerous sleeper accounts, registered months ago, that have less than a dozen edits each but meet the requirements for editing semi-protected articles. We should also check [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Belinda_Stronach|What links here]], because I've found numerous links in the past that included Stronach, usually pages related to [[Social democracy]]. [[User:Mindmatrix|<span style="color:#8b4513;">Mind</span>]][[User_talk:Mindmatrix|<span style="color:#ee8811;">matrix</span>]] 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

:Heck, I'm all for just about anybody joining the NDP, but this isn't enough to add this assertion to everybody's biography on Wikipedia. :) As to the assertion she's against free trade, see the verbatim speech transcript where she praises the Conservatives as the party that brought us free trade, cited below. [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 05:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is going on hear with the vandals. Back on 2004/2005 I did edit this page but I did not know the rules in Wikipedia. But now I do know the rules and the vandals must stop. I just have one username. Inless Belinda calls her self a social democrat no one should put that in that page. [[User:Michaelm|Michaelm]] <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|comment]] was added at 02:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Paragraph to work on==

:Oh my, oh dear, look at that > https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/frank-stronach-arrested-on-multiple-sexual-assault-charges/ Yeah.

Besides the "social democrat" question, let's sit down and look at this paragraph in the currently protected version of the article:

==Privy Council==

At her campaign launch, Stronach surprised many with her opposition to free trade and her support of grass-root politics, lowering tuition fees and make tuition tax-deductible, gun control, same-sex marriage, abortion rights, and public Medicare (positions opposed by most Conservative caucus members).

I know we're all getting a little tired of our idiot friend who keeps misinterpreting the postnominal "PC" as [[Progressive Conservative]] instead of [[Queen's Privy Council of Canada]], and consequently changing the pipetext to "Liberal". They've even ignored a continually more and more prominent hidden note explaining why this change shouldn't take place. As a consequence, since the intro paragraph already links to both [[Member of Parliament]] and Queen's Privy Council of Canada ''anyway'', I've now taken the postnominal initials out of the body text entirely. Hopefully this foolishness will stop now. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 18:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

:In this [http://www.irpp.org/po/archive/mar04/stronach.pdf major 2004 speech in Toronto], she praised the Conservatives as the party who brought Canada free trade. The most she may have said, elsewhere, was that certain aspects of NAFTA need review. Support for "grass-root politics" is an empty phrase and nearly impossible to either dispute or verify. Support for gun control is not too surprising for a suburban Toronto moderate, but, yes, is notable in the context of her party. It breaks down again at the assertion public Medicare is "opposed by most Conservative caucus members." A great majority, perhaps all, would never say this. Many may float or advocate two tier, semi-private, etc. systems - something Belinda ''did herself in her leadership race'', talking about companies getting public funds to run healthcare systems for their employees, as I recall.

:I suggest: Excluding the sentence, making sure mention of her support for abortion rights, same-sex marriage, gun control and tuition cuts and tax-deductibility (and, as far as documented, reviewing parts of NAFTA) is included elsewhere.

It is unlikely her caucus would follow a lead to support any equality-based legislation.

:Overly POV wording.

:I suggest: Deleting.

Indeed, she distanced herself from this position by expressing support for a free vote of MPs, cast individually and not along party lines, on these issues.

:I suggest: Stronach called for a [[free vote]] of MPs, cast individually and not along party lines, on same-sex marriage.

She also supports organized labour, a position that also is opposed by most Conservative caucus members. As a President and CEO of Magna International she did not oppose a trade union (UAW) local being established in the Detroit Magna plant.

:Besides the discussion above, I believe this is overbroad and POV towards other Conservative caucus members. As for the union, all the evidence is that she (or the company she ran; blame others, but we can't be a Magna gossip board, and the fact remains she was CEO at the time) ''did'' oppose it in some fashion before the NLRB, until she stopped opposing it.

:I suggest: Stronach may be more receptive to organized labour than her father, noted for his strong opposition to unions at Magna. While head of Magna, she ceased fighting the [[United Auto Workers]] in a dispute before the [[National Labor Relations Board]], and the union organized numerous Magna workers in the United States.

Stronach believes that trade unions are a human right.

:I suggest: I'll agree to this verbatim if you have a documented source.

Then she heard that Daimler-Chrysler was going to cut 1000 jobs. She went to the Daimler-Chrysler plant in Ontario and stopped the job cuts retaining the jobs. Such statements and actions may well have helped her chances in Ontario.

:Has any independent observer credited Belinda Stronach specifically with saving these 1000 (an oddly round number?) jobs?

:I suggest: Delete unless verified with a documented source.

They are also indicative that her politics tend to be to the left of most of the Conservatives.

:A general statement that she's to the left of many Conservatives is discussed above and I think agreed to by all.

She has stated that she is against the decriminalization of marijuana for now, though she admitted to smoking it in high school. However, she added that she will research the matter to see if marijuana is safe.

:Oooh, [[Canadian humour|comedy sketch]] coming. ;)

:I suggest: Stronach is against the [[Cannabis: Legal issues|decriminalization]] of [[marijuana]], though she has committed to investigate the safety of the drug. [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 05:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==Dinner with Clinton==

Great analysis, Samaritan. I agree with the points you've raised and your suggested ways of dealing with them. Problem is, I'm not sure that michaelm will buy it. So where do we go from here? [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 07:32, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Once again, someone has added this bit of irrelevancy. The source is a [http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807?currentPage=3 Vanity Fair blog post], which doesn't verify the claim that she has spent time with Clinton. It simply states that the tabloids have made those claims, to the dismay of Clinton's aides. That isn't anywhere close to the same thing, and isn't sufficient for inclusion, per [[WP:RS]] and [[WP:BLP]]. Quit adding this junk. [[User:Mindmatrix|<span style="color:#8b4513;">Mind</span>]][[User_talk:Mindmatrix|<span style="color:#ee8811;">matrix</span>]] 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

:That is not a blog post; the link you posted is the full article from the July 2008 issue of Vanity Fair, a quite reputable American magazine. <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:MrStarhead|MrStarhead]] ([[User talk:MrStarhead|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MrStarhead|contribs]]) 12:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

1st off Belinda is against Two-tier healthcare her asact words wear (I do not support Two-tier health) that was from a interview with the CBC. The Two-tier ruemer was from newspapers and from the net that some one was tring to ruin her reputation with that slander. and I will defend her on that. She supports public health care all the way and yes the Conservatives did bring in the free trade but Belinda is against it but she wants to review NAFTA for fair trade. And I did read this sorce befor think you for the sorce. She did stated that she wants to do research the matter to see if marijuana is safe. she is not against it for keeps only for now (If she did support marijuana decriminalization thay will have her removed from the conservatives)

and she is in fact pro-union because she did got along well with Buzz Hargrove and she did seen dis-organized labour happen she can't stand it. As a matter a fact some plant managers told the workers if you contacd Belinda Stronach your fried because the managers know that she is pro-union and she will put one in that sater. Fact is she is even more [[Left-wing]] then a red tory she is a Social Democrat You could say that she is an orange tory (a social democrat in the conservative caucus) but she should join the NDP. - michaelm

::That is indeed an article, not a blog post. However, the point remains that the author did not verify the claim that Stronach has spent time with Clinton. [[User:Mindmatrix|<span style="color:#8b4513;">Mind</span>]][[User_talk:Mindmatrix|<span style="color:#ee8811;">matrix</span>]] 15:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

==Quotes from Belinda, Jack Layton, and CAW official==

*"NDP leader Jack Layton was less generous, however, as he pulled no punches on Stronach's 'very conservative' corporate economic agenda." - From the [http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1074600294320_100/ CTV.ca story on her leadership launch]

*"The economies of the US, Canada, and Mexico have all benefited from NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement)." - [http://news.tradingcharts.com/futures/8/8/61787788.html article ''by'' Belinda] in the [[Christian Science Monitor]] calling for ''expanding'' NAFTA

*Belinda Stronach: I don't have to tell you the fact, to tell you that the healthcare system in its current form will not be there for future generations. So we owe it to Canadians to have that debate, to say how can we now look at providing a better quality healthcare service?

:Carole MacNeil, CBC: Private insurance?

:Belinda Stronach: At a reduced cost. We need to have that debate.

:Carole MacNeil: You're not cutting it out? Private insurance? I can…

:Belinda Stronach: We need to have the debate to say, what are the solutions respecting the principles of the Canada Health Act, not compromising that. - [http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/coverstory_stronach.html CBC News: Sunday interview]

*[http://www.caw.ca/news/factsfromthefringe/issue76.asp CAW economist Jim Stanford jabs at Belinda at caw.ca] [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 08:09, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Um, Stronach has admitted that she knows Clinton. But she says they are just friends. Who cares, though? Clinton is washed up!

I did seen that CAW sorce befor and I do not know way did Buzz Hargrove alow it he did got along well with Belinda but not Frank or Don CAW economist Jim Stanford might of look at the past befor Belinda become CEO even the date staded 2004 Buzz supported her for the Ledership race even know he is not a member of the conservatives. -michaelm

www.thefirstpost.co.uk/2622,features,bill-and-belindas-excellent-adventure,2 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/140.174.9.7|140.174.9.7]] ([[User talk:140.174.9.7|talk]]) 21:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Evidence? Please provide links to support your claims.[[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 08:42, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

::I'm removing this bit. Rumors are swirling about what may or may not be in discussed in [[Game Change]]. Best to insist on sourcing here. [[User:Ronnotel|Ronnotel]] ([[User talk:Ronnotel|talk]]) 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Buzz Hargrove had a meeting he did staded that he will support Belinda over the outher two because her knowage of the auto industrey and I belevd he also supported Belinda for her support for organized labour. And Tommy Douglas will be disaponted with Jack Layton for his quout "Canadians don't necessarily want CEOs running the country," and that was only Jan 21 and she enter the race on Jan 20. someday Belinda is going to join the NDP. Jack might of sout his self in the foot because he sead something against a Social Democrat and Jack Layton is also a social democrat. Belinda belongs with Jack Layton not Stephen Harper. Tommy Douglas might quout "Canadians don't want Greed running the country," And Belinda is not greedy. Tommy might tell Jack that Belinda is not a conservative she is a socialist just like he is. - michaelm

Dinner with Clinton? The woman had an affair with him. The Canadian papers and the New York tabloids covered it.[[User:Shemp Howard, Jr.|Shemp Howard, Jr.]] ([[User talk:Shemp Howard, Jr.|talk]]) 20:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide evidence that this meeting happened. Please cite an article or other document.[[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 04:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== Copyediting - remove this text? ==

==Verifiability==

In the "Characterization in the media" section, several sentences which fail self-referential integrity appear.

We have a broad group of editors here who consider some of michaelm's claims about Ms. Stronach outlandish and implausible on the surface, and we have provided concrete evidence, including linked sources, to back up these concerns. We have repeatedly and, I hope, open-mindedly asked michaelm for references to independent sources other than what michaelm thinks, remembers from somewhere unspecified, and senses in Ms. Stronach.

<blockquote>Stronach herself had stepped over several other women in her political career trajectory. She had defeated Lois Brown in the Conservative nomination election and barely won her seat in an extremely tight race against Martha Hall Findlay.</blockquote>

There is a page discussing Wikipedia policy on exactly this type of question, [[Wikipedia:Verifiability]].

Quoting from it:

"For an encyclopedia, sources should be unimpeachable. An encyclopedia is not primary source material. Its authors do not conduct interviews nor perform original research. Hence, anything we include should have been covered in the records, reportage, research, or studies of others. In many, if not most, cases there should be several corroborating sources available should someone wish to consult them. Sources should be unimpeachable relative to the claims made; outlandish claims beg strong sources."

Belinda Stronach is one of the most widely and heavily discussed politicians to emerge in Canada in recent years. She is referenced widely by major sources on the Internet, in print and broadcast media, on webboards, by her own statements in [[Hansard]], on her political website belinda.ca, etc.

michaelm, can you see how at this point, including these contested statements without any sources we can point to besides your own assertions is simply not allowed, and that until we have documented external sources, if Sunray or SimonP or I don't revert such claims out of the article, ''any'' old editor guided by Wikipedia standards who came across the article and questioned the statements could do the same? [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 16:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that the above has no attached citations, it doesn't really support its own claim that "Stronach herself had stepped over several other women in her political career". Instead, these demonstrate that other women lost elections when opposed by Stronach, which seems like a legitimate career advancement. I'm going to remove this text unless someone can justify its continued inclusion. [[User:Mindmatrix|<span style="color:#8b4513;">Mind</span>]][[User_talk:Mindmatrix|<span style="color:#ee8811;">matrix</span>]] 15:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

== Fiasco ==

: Kill it forthwith. It's blatant POV to suggest that winning an election against a female challenger is inherently "stepping on other women". For one thing, it's the ''voters'' who decide who wins and who loses in any given electoral race, not Stronach. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

::If it had a source, that would be one thing...but as is, remove it. --'''[[User:Padraic|Padraic]]''' 16:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I think the whole article needs a review, though the major points have citations. [[User:Mindmatrix|<span style="color:#8b4513;">Mind</span>]][[User_talk:Mindmatrix|<span style="color:#ee8811;">matrix</span>]] 14:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

== Views on Health Care ==

This is a fiasco and this feasco must stop and just get along people may not shar the same idels people have deffent views on things somepeople might be more openminded then some so lets end this fiasco, and edit Talk:Belinda Stronach Clean as a emtey section Regards.- michaelm

Its unfortunate that her views on Health Care were only touched on briefly inthis article. It seems that to discuss what she rails against the "two-tier system" in health care would show her to be the self serving person she is. After all if the health care she got here in the U.S. was good for her why not replicate it in Canada. It seems this hard socialist view she has is the reason only the elite in Canada can afford the best. --[[Special:Contributions/76.31.242.174|76.31.242.174]] ([[User talk:76.31.242.174|talk]]) 23:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You should not have deleted Bearcat's response. [ :The only person making this a "feasco" (it's f'''i'''asco, btw) is you. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] 19:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)] As a rule, deleting another person's relevant comments is not appropriate in the context of a talk page. If you feel it's a personal attack, for instance, let it stand as such and let the rest of us make our own judgments. As to blanking this whole page, see '''Archive rather than delete''' at [[Wikipedia:Talk page]]. Finally, what do you think about Sunray's reasoned proposal below? [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 22:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that I thot Bearcat was being a smart alack witch won't be toreracted in Wikipedia. - michaelm

== External links modified ==

==Next Steps==

Agreed that this is a fiasco. The reason for this is more than just the fact that there are different points of view. Different points of view are natural. The point is: We need to find a ''[[neutral point of view]]'' in order to meet ''Wikipedia'' goals and be worthy of the term ''encyclopedia''. Several editors have called for verifyable facts with respect to Ms. Stronach's alledged social democratic tendancies. Here's my proposal:

:1. Get agreement from michaelm and other editors to stick to facts we can support.

:2: Unprotect the article.

:3. Proceed to edit the article along the lines proposed by Samaritan, above.

:4. Ban anyone who fails to abide by this agreement for 24 hours the first time and for 30 days if problems continue.

Can we agree on this? [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 19:05, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Befor we do aneything we should think it over. people do not shair the same oppeain we need some Transparency that eveyone will agree on. - michaelm

I have just modified {{plural:3|one external link|3 external links}} on [[Belinda Stronach]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=746899602 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

Transparency is what Sunray's process provides. [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 01:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330164614/http://www.canada.com:80/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=1184e345-8003-45f4-9c7a-89cbcc6d468d&k=43779 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=1184e345-8003-45f4-9c7a-89cbcc6d468d&k=43779

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330164614/http://www.canada.com:80/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=1184e345-8003-45f4-9c7a-89cbcc6d468d&k=43779 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=1184e345-8003-45f4-9c7a-89cbcc6d468d&k=43779

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071009045259/http://www.nafla.ca/images/clientupload/BS%20SD%20Letter.pdf to http://www.nafla.ca/images/clientupload/BS%20SD%20Letter.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).

I think that the real problem here is summed up in two comments from michaelm: "people have deffent views on things" and "people do not shair the same oppeain". The point is that there is no room for different views or different opinions here. This is an encyclopedia, not a politics discussion group. The only information that belongs here is information that is based on verifiable facts, not opinions. The facts of this matter are clear: B. Stronach helped the merger of two conservative parties in order to improve conservatives' chances of forming a government. She sought the leadership of the Conservative Party. She was elected to parliament as a Conservative. She has been given a high profile critic's position in the Conservative shadow cabinet. She has been clear in her support for Stephen Harper as leader of the Conseervative Party. On the basis of these facts, we can comfortably call her a conservative. Samaritan has kindly provided extensive links to verify these facts. Finally, if Ms. Stonach were here, there is no question that she would not call herself a social democrat.

Michaelm, on the other hand, believes that Ms. Stronach has a hidden agenda that she has not revealed to the world, and that the day will come when she will reveal herself as a social democrat. That may be the case, but right now it is just a prediction, not a verifable fact. As such, it belongs on a political discussion website, not in an encyclopedia. If she does leave the CPC for the NDP, at that time it will be appropriate to change the description in this encyclopedia. [[User:Kevintoronto|Kevintoronto]] 14:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

{{sourcecheck|checked=true}}

== Makes sense ==

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 07:01, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm new to this discussion, but what Kevintoronto says makes sense to me.[[User:Chestnut|Chestnut]] 23:22, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

== It don't Makes sense ==

===Puffery===

Transparency is needed even know its an encyclopedia people have deffent view ponts on Belinda Stronach. Transparency is needed in order to stop this fiasco - michaelm

"Long recognized as an emerging leader with vision, " is unsourced and doesn't belong in anyone's biography, whatever you feel about her politically. [[Special:Contributions/203.218.215.26|203.218.215.26]] ([[User talk:203.218.215.26|talk]]) 11:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Michael, you want your opinions (and that's what they are) included in the article despite the fact that you have presented no evidence to support your claims other than hearsay. You claim there was a meeting between Buzz Hargrove and Stronach in which somehow she revealed herself to be a social democrat but you are unable to cite on article, one document, one actual reference to support this claim. You can't even tell us on what date this alleged meeting occured. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 14:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:Removed it now as unverifiable. [[User:Kraose|Kraose]] ([[User talk:Kraose|talk]]) 08:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

In general this page tends to tilt towards puffery. I'm going to make some small changes that tone it down, but some sections deserve a complete re-write. [[User:Zachaysan|Zachaysan]] ([[User talk:Zachaysan|talk]]) 23:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Would it make sense, then, to include a line in the article that says:

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

:''Although Stronach's political career has been entirely within conservative political parties, one contributor to Wikipedia believes strongly that she is a [[social democrat]] and that she will leave the Conservative Party to join the NDP.''

I have just modified 4 external links on [[Belinda Stronach]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=790986198 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

Would that keep you happy, michaelm? That seems to be a pretty fair depiction of the situtation here. The trouble is that this is not the Wikipedia style. The Wikipedia style is to report facts. Where a contentious matter is at debate, sometimes articles will use words like, "Some people believe that...." this is officially discouraged. And the problem here is that we cannot say that some people believe this since it is only you. Sorry, pal, but you're not going to win this one until Stronach herself says something about her social democratic beliefs. [[User:Kevintoronto|Kevintoronto]] 19:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151102061812/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/news-for-the-mulroneys-is-simply-grand/article746676/ to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/news-for-the-mulroneys-is-simply-grand/article746676/

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050221100551/http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/expressnews/articles/ideas.cfm?p_ID=5562&s=a to http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/expressnews/articles/ideas.cfm?p_ID=5562&s=a

*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.realwomenca.com/alerts.htm

*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1115128357918_22?hub=topstories

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060114095037/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116347413338_5/?hub=TopStories to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1116347413338_5/?hub=TopStories

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

I agree with Kevintoronto. An encyclopedia can only go with verifyable facts. The beliefs and opinions ''of editors'', no matter how strongly held, won't cut it. Michaelm may need to recuse himself from this article if he can't live with that. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 20:44, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

{{sourcecheck|checked=true|needhelp=}}

I am going to give some ponts of view on her some people think of her as a conservative some think of her as a liberal and some think of her as a social democrat in order to stop the fiasco I will do some research on Belinda Stronach to prove my pont because I did thond some websites linked Belinda as a social democrat. So please give me a few days so I could do research. She is not realy a conservative nor a liberal she is a social democrat. - michaelm

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 11:17, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Michael: You are missing the main point. Ms. Stronach is a member of the Conservative Party of Canada. The party is not a social democratic party. Therefore, to call her a social democrat is impossible. The only thing we could do is quote a reputable source who said something to that effect. However, (and I have said this before, but you are not getting it) '''she is not a social democrat as long as she remains in the Conservative Party'''. Therefore, even if you find some quote about it, we will have to clarify that. What we need from you is not research, but acceptance of Wikipedia rules about this, as very patiently explained to you by Samaritan and Kevintoronto. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 00:54, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I know the Conservative party of canada is conservative not social democatic. Some people join the wrong party and thay and up walking across the floor. my point is Belinda Stronach is in the wrong party. Just let me do my research so this fiasco will end a few days is all I'm asking. - michaelm

I got some more sorces to prove my point on sorce stated "She really belongs with Jack Layton." [http://www.torontofreepress.com/2004/weinreb021604.htm] and the next sorce stated "Her policies on social issues are not "Conservative," they are Socialist. Same-sex marriage and abortion are not views shared by anyone who can honestly call themselvse Conservatives! Go to the NDP" [http://www.hyper-stream.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3229] If you need more prove I will give you more prove that Belinda is a Social Democrat.- michaelm

Dear God. The page you quote says "Go to the NDP, you moron." It's entitled "That total witch!" It continues that she doesn't give "TWO RATS' A**ES" about the people of [[Western Canada]]. If I came across a page about michaelm called "That pathetic creep!" where the author ''obviously despises you'' and says you should go to a party the author doesn't like, I would have enough judgement and respect for you not to take it as a source for an encyclopedia article about you. The previous page wasn't nearly as [[ad hominem]], but was still doing the same thing. In fact, if you want us to take these sources as credible, shouldn't we also say Belinda is a [[moron]], etc.? [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 07:13, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'''ABSOLUTY NOT!''' In fact Belinda is not a moron and she will not ednor Western Canada I left out moron on purpus. I respect Belinda Stronach. Belinda is extremey intelagent person and a Social Democrat and that Trekker from link NO.4 should not insait Belinda. - michaelm

Hear is anather sorce [http://www.realwomenca.com/alerts.htm] the conservatives don't realy want her in the party because she is a social democrat ther are going to cast her out of the party she should join the NDP. and she did not buy her way in like thay sead. - michaelm

==Is there anything more to talk about?==

You're asking us to believe these anti-Belinda attack pages get her completely wrong... umm, ''until'' you want us to think they get her completely ''right'' when they suggest she's [[socialist]] or [[social democrat]]. Further, the only or main reason they say she's socialist or social democrat are her positions on [[same-sex marriage]] and/or [[abortion]]. This is not what it means to be socialist or social democrat. Your sources are confusing these things for dramatic effect because they are exaggerated rants.

You're shifting your argument, asking us to believe sites you say in the next breath we shouldn't believe, holding up the article in protection for a week then asking us to wait on you for a few more days. We've spent time considering your arguments, asking to hear more, crafting a consensus that's open to all new solid evidence, etc. We've warmly adopted content you've given us with a very open mind when it's stood up to proof and reason - there was ultimately ''something'' there about the UAW and NLRB. But we've also been wasting our time with complete fabrications - that she brought in those unions herself, that she's socialist because she doesn't always fight unions in every respect, that she's opposed to free trade and takes the NDP/labour position on it, and (I'm guessing) that she saved 1000 jobs at Daimler-Chrysler.

And the only sites that back up what you're saying are sites you're telling us not to believe. Is there anything more to talk about here? [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 09:03, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:I think there is one more thing that we can do. michaelm has been looking diligently for material that supports his point of view. He has found two critiques of Ms. Stronach from the right: Weinreb of the Canada Free Press and REAL Women of Canada. The REAL Women article is interesting. They are a well-enough established social conservative force that we could quote them. For example, we could say:

::"[[Social conservative]] elements in Canada have beem critical of Stronach, calliing her a "[[red tory]]." During Stronach's leadership campaign, [[REAL Women of Canada]] stated: "If Ms. Stronach is elected as leader of the Conservative Party, social conservatives will no longer have a voice in Canada." Others have suggested that, in view of her positions on [[unions]] and [[same sex marriage]], she should join the [[NDP]]. Whatever her social democratic inclinations, however, Stronach is a member of the Conservative Party. As long as she remains in that party it would be incorrect to refer to her as a "[[social democrat]]."

:Could we get consensus on this? I would like to know if we can all agree to: a) modify the article along the lines suggested by Samaritan, and b) add a paragraph such as the one above to the article. What do you think, Michaelm? Others? [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 17:40, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

I agree unreservedly with:

:"[[Social conservative]] elements in Canada have beem critical of Stronach, calling her a "[[red tory]]." During Stronach's leadership campaign, [[REAL Women of Canada]] stated: "If Ms. Stronach is elected as leader of the Conservative Party, social conservatives will no longer have a voice in Canada."

About:

:Others have suggested that, in view of her positions on [[unions]] and [[same sex marriage]], she should join the [[NDP]]. Whatever her social democratic inclinations, however, Stronach is a member of the Conservative Party. As long as she remains in that party it would be incorrect to refer to her as a "[[social democrat]]."

I don't know. Has anybody but michaelm suggested this with respect to her position on unions? As for same sex marriage, the Liberal Party [[same-sex marriage in Canada#Prospects for the upcoming legislation|is introducing legislation to provide for it]], the Bloc Quebecois is voting for it unanimously or close, and at least two Conservatives MPs besides Ms. Stronach - [[James Moore (Canadian politician)|James Moore]] and [[Bev Oda]] - are planning to vote for SSM. [http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041211.wxsame-sex1211/BNStory/National/] Numerous CPC activists outside Parliament support SSM. But it wouldn't be remotely appropriate to link to [[social democracy]] or [[socialism]] on all these people's pages, so... [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 18:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ture because it won't be appropriate Like I staded befor in the Conservative party of canada ther are 98 conservatives (red & blue) that incluedes James Moore and Bev Oda and 1 Social Democrat (Belinda Stronach) In the REAL Women of Canada thay did call Belinda left-of-center sometimes a Left-winger (a.k.a. Social Democrat or Socialist). A Blue Tory is a right-winger and a Red Tory is a centerist thous thitals would be unappropriate for Belinda Stronach and she is getting fedup with the Conservatives. Belinda should join the NDP. - michaelm

Michael, have you read [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]? What you are stating are opinions and we cannot include them in the article. Do you understand?[[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 06:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== Resolution 2.0 ==

I'm for the resolution Sunray authored above (with slight modifications I was starting to write up but gave up and blanked, but here it is back. Oh well. [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 06:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) )

That will work its a good idea but its best to refer her as Belinda. (A few critics from the right have gone so far as to label Belinda a socialist). - michaelm

:No, it's unprofessional to refer to subjects by their first name. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 06:38, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ture.- michaelm

I blanked that specific proposal in large part because there was ultimately only ''one'' critic from the right we found calling her a socialist, and that was a scurrilious post on a webboard that also called her a moron, etc. [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 06:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==Thank you==

To Michaelm, Sunray, Kevintoronto, AndyL, Matty and Chestnut, and past article editors not on the talk page, for engaging in the process to work towards a resolution. [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 08:19, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...and a plate of bigger economic pie all around. ;) [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 08:20, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:Amazing work, yourself, Samaritan! Truly worthy of your name, I'd say--though you are no push over. If the current arrangement hold us, what about this article as a nominee for [[Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/CCOTW|Canadian Collaboration of the Week]]? [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 18:56, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

::No, no, t'was nothing. :) And I think this may be more like a Featured Article collaboration, or something, since it was a moderately extensive article when we started this round of consensus-building, already. [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 09:32, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

::Thanks very much for sorting this one out, Sam and Sunny. I was getting very tired of this debate. Mmmm... pie.... [[User:Kevintoronto|Kevintoronto]] 17:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

== If Belinda Stronach joined the NDP ==

If Belinda Stronach joined the NDP would you vote for the NDP. - michaelm

No. Besides, Stronach is more likely to replace the limp Harper as Tory leader. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]] 12:29, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)