Talk:Jim Prentice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
 |
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
[edit] Great work
I just want to say that what has happened here with the re-adding of DMCA controversy, and addition of the wikipedia controversy is a shining example of why wikipedia is great. the truth shines through. Good work everyone.--Matt D (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Lock this page?
It appears that Prentice or his staff may be vandalizing this page. http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2999/125/
[edit] Leadership possibility section
From the current revision:
- Some have suspected that Prentice, along with MPs James Moore, Peter MacKay, Belinda Stronach and Chuck Strahl, was one of the five "unnamed" Conservative Party MPs that Harper rebuked in November 2004 for attempting to covertly start raising funds and support for a future CPC leadership race.
Who are "some?" Wikipedia reports political speculation of sufficiently high profile, but is not a gossip board. As tempting as that can be. See babble at Rabble, Freedominion, electionprediction or the Franksters board for that. :)
- neoconservative fiscal credentials
I'm not yet aware of his policy positions on anything besides SSM, but how appropriate is neoconservative? He made his name in the fairly fiscally neutral practice of law (or fiscally negative, if you're not a lawyer, tee hee), then he ran to succeed Joe Clark. The arguably neoconservative proposal that got the big spotlight in that leadership race was Scott Brison's, to disband ACOA and offer a lower tax rate in the Atlantic instead; he did go to Prentice, but soon enough would join the Liberals. So... what do we have showing Prentice's neoconservatism? Samaritan 22:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] DMCA
Anyone have a suggested NPOV wording for his actions on the DMCA front. I liked the quote to the extent that "he only heard of facebook yesterday" when he delayed introducing this backwards bill.
In any case, its a hot button topic, but we need a better paragraph on it and yet, I don't think I could write it due to my POV (yes, I have one too) -- Tawker (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Someone please fix the link in the References section for me, I don't know how to make it appear a [1]
The actual link [1] also doesn't work, you will need this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071213.wgtweb1214/BNStory/Technology/home
[edit] Nicely done 99.234.69.64
"P. E. James Prentice, PC, MP (born July 20, 1956, in South Porcupine, Ontario near Timmins) is a Canadian lawyer and politician. He is a traitor to the Canadian People and hopes to sell of Canada's copywrite law to struggling American conglomerates." AndrewMcinally (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Meta-content
I've removed the following meta-content from the page. Maybe some mention belongs in the article, but regurgitating a CBC news item ain't the way to do it. --Calton | Talk 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Controversy surrounding the Government changing Prentice's Wikipedia entry
By Peter Nowak CBC News
The government has been editing Minister of Industry Jim Prentice's Wikipedia entry, removing mentions of the recent copyright-reform controversy and hailing the minister as personifying "experience, confidence and competence, ability and capability."
The edits, discovered by University of Ottawa internet law professor Michael Geist — a vocal opponent of Prentice's pending copyright legislation — have been anonymously made over the past week with several attempts to remove criticisms of a bill the minister is expected to table before Parliament breaks for its summer session some time over the next few weeks.
- The complete story is at Government buffing Prentice's Wikipedia entry Editors of this page will want to read this article - Ahunt (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Citations fixed
I've fixed the citations and done some formatting changes to establish something of a chronological order. Hope this helps DSatYVR (talk) 03:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] tiny proofread
"When Canadian Heritage Minister Josee Verner and I have reached a consensus and we're satisfied, we will introduce a bill."
should read
"When (Canadian Heritage Minister Josee) Verner and I have reached a consensus and we're satisfied, we will introduce a bill."
can someone with priveleges edit that for me?Benjamander (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 04:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- Shouldn't that be square brackets rather than parentheses? - 142.167.65.170 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright controversy split
I split the copyright controversy section into the 'copyright legislation and controversy' and 'wikipedia controversy' sections. These two issues, while moderately intwined, are not one in the same, hence two different headers. TheIguana (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Partial Citations can be found: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080604.wcopyright04/BNStory/Technology/home?cid=al_gam_mostemail
"Last week a leaked document revealed that the Conservatives are also negotiating with a number of other governments, including the U.S. and the European Union, to establish a new international copyright agreement, dubbed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA)."
Citations for the Leaked document: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Proposed_US_ACTA_multi-lateral_intellectual_property_trade_agreement_(2007)
Back story from Michael Geist about his reference when speaking of the leaked document: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2955/125/ Crazy Dave (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia controversy section trimmed
I removed these statements from the Wikipedia Controversy section:
- The changes were largely viewed as Industry Canada's attempt to mitigate the copyright debate that had extended to Prentice's Wikipedia page.
The CBC article was cited, but there's nothing in the article about the motivation behind the edits, or what the motivations are 'largely' believed to be.
- The edits were first brought to public attention by Michael Geist…
Geist's blog was cited, but it does not verify this info, and even if it did, certainly Geist himself is not a reliable source for such a claim.
- …who accused Prentice's staff of editing his Wikipedia page.
This part of the sentence was redundant. (Also, Wikipedia has "articles", not "pages", and it's not clear whose was "his"; I thought "his" meant "Geist's" at first.)
I left in the basic info as reported by the CBC article, and I left Geist's blog in as a second source. —mjb (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- The title of the news article by CBC is Government buffing Prentice's Wikipedia entry. It's not a big jump to say that CBC said they were whitewashing it. Geist is also a credible source. He has been used several times by CBC and CTV as the source of their news article. If the CBC is using him and we're using the CBC, therefore we should be able to use Geist as a reliable source (unless you're saying the CBC is not a reliable source). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 17:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Geist is a very well regarded authority in this area. It's reliable and notable what he has to say. Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Regarding Geist, the issue is not his credibility in general. It's just that he's not an acceptable or credible source for the statement "The edits were first brought to public attention by Michael Geist". Surely this is self-evident. Besides, his blog doesn't even make such a claim.
-
-
-
- The main problem with The changes were largely viewed as Industry Canada's attempt to mitigate the copyright debate that had extended to Prentice's Wikipedia page is the unqualified "largely", which suggests that many people have been surveyed and conclusions drawn what some representative group of people believe. Although we'd like to believe it's not very plausible, the edits could've been a rogue act by some low-level clerk in Industry Canada's offices, so it's important not to imply that many or most people believe the edits were sanctioned by the government, whereas the source we have so far only suggest this belief is held by a CBC reporter or a particular tech industry guru, perhaps echoed here & there in the blogosphere. If the statement were changed to attribute the belief to just the CBC reporter, then maybe it could go back in. —mjb (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] "Put consumers first" quote
I've been putting some work into finding a citation for this quote, with no luck so far. I thought I'd drop in a list of what I've done so far here, in case someone else is also looking.
First, I've been through all the Hansards from October through December 2007, which is the only likely period when Prentice might have said this in Parliament. Reports of the quote on the web all point to him saying it either in November or late October, but I decided to open the window a little just in case.
In any case, the only time Prentice addressed copyright in this period was on October 23rd, 2007. The Edited Hansard (Number 006), the one for that days, has Prentice saying this during the debate on address in reply to the Speech from the Throne:
Our government is aware also of the need for copyright reform and that this is essential to ensuring Canada remains competitive. We will introduce legislation in the next few months that will provide legal measures for rights holders, clarify the rules relating to copyright as they apply to Internet service providers, address the educational and research use of copyrighted materials, and address consumer interests.
At the moment, my suspicion is that the quote being used in the Wikipedia article -- if it's referring to something he said in Parliament -- is a mangled version of the final three words in the last sentence of this.
Another major possibility is that he made this statement to the media at some point. Fortunately (in this particular case) the current government keeps very tight rein on statements by ministers to the media, so there's not much to track down. I've not managed to find anything resembling this quote. As there's no central location to mine this possibility, it's entirely possible I've missed something, but I think that the only major article from October, November, and December that I've been unable to read is hiding behind a pay wall at the Globe and Mail's site: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Page/document/v5/content/subscribe?user_URL=http://www.theglobeandmail.com%2Fservlet%2Fstory%2FLAC.20071210.INGRAM10%2FTPStory%2FBusiness%2Fcolumnists&ord=45369234&brand=theglobeandmail&force_login=true If someone has the ability to read that, it might be worthwhile.
Having failed so far, my next project is to watch the videos taken at the impromptu quizzing of the Minister on copyright mattres during his constituency office's December open house. If someone's already gone to that trouble, I'd appreciate knowing about it so I don't have to fire up YouTube for many hours while drinking coffee spiked with Red Bull to stave off sleep. -- Paul Drye (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Questions from Michael Geist
I'm anonymous but not a vandal. Could somebody please add the following to the article in the "Copyright legislation and controversy" section:
[[Michael Geist]] compiled a list of 10 questions he would like Prentice to answer about the upcoming copyright legislation.<ref>
{{cite web
|url=http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2439/125/
|title=Ten Questions for Industry Minister Jim Prentice
|publisher=www.michaelgeist.ca
|accessdate=2008-06-04
|last=Geist
|first=Michael
}}
</ref>
76.10.147.117 (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- done 69.196.131.38 (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Controversy Section Update
I added some more detail to this section. Note, the draft legislation is "rumored" to be like the DMCA, it has not been tabled in the Commons yet, and until it is no one can comment definitively. Also made some minor grammatical edits. I will try to drop back in here later, got to check, I may have some more things to add. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- "allegedly" and "is rumored to" have no place in an encylopedia article. If they haven't been proven true, they do no belong in the biography of a living person. Should these lines be removed? GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with GaryColemanFan. UrbanTerrorist's language violates WP:NPOV, especially relative to previous version. (The more true and damaging an accusation is, the more objective it has to be to be credible.) Avt tor (talk) 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- The problem has to do with the Canadian Political system. Generally it will be known that a bill addressing an issue is being worked on, however the contents of the bill are not known until it is placed before the House of Commons. So we know that a bill will be introduced, but outside of the people at Industry Canada who had a hand in drafting it, no one knows what the bill will contain. The word "rumor" is probably not the correct word to use in the situation, but the original entry was written as if certain provisions (for example the Canadian equivalent to the American DMCA) are known to be in the bill, and this is not the case as yet (though based on the fact that we know Prentice has been meeting with the RIAA and the MPAA, and he has avoided meeting with groups with opposing opinions, this is likely). Feel free to re-word that section in a more acceptable manner, and I'll drop in again tomorrow, it's time for me to walk my dog, and go to bed. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- We know he was going to table the bill last December but didn't (CBC reported on it), and he said he was going to table one before summer (he said at least). -Royalguard11(T·R!) 19:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- The problem has to do with the Canadian Political system. Generally it will be known that a bill addressing an issue is being worked on, however the contents of the bill are not known until it is placed before the House of Commons. So we know that a bill will be introduced, but outside of the people at Industry Canada who had a hand in drafting it, no one knows what the bill will contain. The word "rumor" is probably not the correct word to use in the situation, but the original entry was written as if certain provisions (for example the Canadian equivalent to the American DMCA) are known to be in the bill, and this is not the case as yet (though based on the fact that we know Prentice has been meeting with the RIAA and the MPAA, and he has avoided meeting with groups with opposing opinions, this is likely). Feel free to re-word that section in a more acceptable manner, and I'll drop in again tomorrow, it's time for me to walk my dog, and go to bed. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Links added for "Canadian Software Innovation Alliance" and "Excess Copyright Blog"
I'm not sure if this fits within the bounds of WP as both these links go to organizations that argue the other side of the debate, so I've linked them up. I'm seeking comments from others on this. If they don't meet WP guidelines feel free to re-edit DSatYVR (talk) 03:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- I removed the external links to these two sites that were in the article, external links would be better placed on their respective wikipedia pages when they get created. TheIguana (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
