Talk:Jack Layton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article is part of WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Politics in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can 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 is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class.

The Rt Hon. John Gilbert Layton

Rank:	23rd
Term of Office:	?-?
Predecessor:	Stephen Harper
Successor:	incumbent
Date of Birth:	July 18, 1950
Place of Birth:	Montreal, Quebec
Spouse:	Olivia Chow
Profession:	professor, city councillor
Political Party:	NDP

Contents 1 Misc. Comments 2 Separated at birth? 3 Layton's father 4 what? no religion? 5 Alopecia? 6 Polling 7 Co-op Housing Issue 8 No relation to Irving Layton 9 more accessible than other leaders 10 french 11 Explanation for revert 12 Photo 13 Fair use vs. free photo 14 Really? 15 NDP Support of Income Trust Tax Changes 16 NDP Income Trust press release 17 Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors launch Billboard campaign 18 Neutrality disputed - Is this article an online ad?

[edit] Misc. Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Separated at birth?

Meet Jack Layton's estranged brother, Alexander Lukashenko. The resemblance is uncanny! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.71.55.208 (talk • contribs) .

Nah... Ted Turner is a much better match, in looks and in some respects in personality. Samaritan 05:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you have it all wrong. There's this guy who stars in the "OFF" mosquito repellant commercial that looks just like him. Whenever it comes on, I think... OMG is that Jack? -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Video Professor? Samaritan 05:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that's him! Scary stuff! I guess all balding pepper haired white men with moustaches look like Jack Layton. -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think he looks like VladimIr Lenin.

We often call him Lenin with the dashing looks of Alex_Trebek.

[edit] Layton's father

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

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

[edit] what? no religion?

Why is there no religion listed for Mr. Layton?

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

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

Which is, in a sense, rare in Canada. I can't speak for everyone (and feel free to correct me), but Canada and Canadians alike have a strong seperation between Church and Province/Territory. Disinclination 23:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Alopecia?

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

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

[edit] Polling

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

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

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

[edit] Co-op Housing Issue

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

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

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

[edit] No relation to Irving Layton

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

[edit] more accessible than other leaders

I have found that Jack Layton is far more accessible and easy to talk to than any of the other major party leaders (although I haven't had an opportunity to see Gilles Duceppe). NDP membership is not required and there is never a cost to see him speak and ask him questions and he spends a lot of time meeting people from the city that he is visiting. He takes a lot of questions from ordinary people and doesn't just use the question as a way of talking about a platform he is running on. Once when I wanted to see a conservative party meeting with the leader they were charging 10 dollars at the door and 5 dollars for members.

anyway...i think he's a cool guy

[edit] french

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Explanation for revert

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

[edit] Photo

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

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

[edit] Fair use vs. free photo

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

[edit] Really?

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

[edit] NDP Support of Income Trust Tax Changes

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

---

Jack Layton and the NDP continue to support the new proposed rules for income trusts introduced by the Conservatives October 31, 2006 ^[1]. The immediate result of the change in tax policy was a loss to Canadian investors of $20 Billion, the largest ever loss attributed to a change in government policy ^[2]. According to the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors some 2.5 million Canadian investors were effected by the change in Income Trust Policy ^[3].

---

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

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

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

---

• Sentence 1...Jack Layton and the NDP continue to support the new proposed rules for income trusts introduced by the Conservatives October 31, 2006 ^[4]. Revision required? Yes/No

• Sentence 2...The immediate result of the change in tax policy was a loss to Canadian investors of $20 Billion, the largest ever loss attributed to a change in government policy ^[5]. Revision required? Yes/No

• Sentence 3...According to the Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors some 2.5 million Canadian investors were effected by the change in Income Trust Policy ^[6]. Revision required? Yes/No

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I feel it is important factor of Layton's political career. Also, see [1], [2], [3] -- Vision Thing -- 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NDP Income Trust press release

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

NDP introduces bill to tighten income trust rules

DSatYVR 07:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Association of Income Trust Investors launch Billboard campaign

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

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

billboard locations

The NDP's pivotal role

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

[edit] Neutrality disputed - Is this article an online ad?

Where to start?

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

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

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

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

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

Cause and effect that is not allowed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at the way this footnote edit was done by CJCurrie [4]. I think there is quite a bit of fluff that needs to be moved out of the Layton article in this way. The fluff material is still available for readers who care about such things but it brings the main body of the article back up to a encyclopedic standard. Right now it reads like a fluff piece. Comments? DSatYVR 05:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

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