Jump to content

Talk:Michael Fortier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

This needs something about the Michael Fortier involved in the McVeigh trial.

Senate?

[edit]

I can't seem to find anything on the alleged Senate appointment in the online news; anyone able to provide a source? Radagast 17:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto Star mentioned that he would be appointed to the Senate so he could serve in caucus as a minister for the Montreal area, on the conditition that he resigns his seat and runs for the House of Commons in the next federal election. Nothing official has occured yet, however, so the Senate reference has been removed. Snickerdo 17:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He can't be appointed immediately, as there are already 24 serving Quebec senators. Harper has to either get one of them to resign, or wait until the eldest turns 75 (which will happen in April).

My mistake. There is, or at least was, a vacancy for a Quebec senator, because of the death of Shirley Maheu. Not sure whether Fortier has been offically appointed yet.
The appointment is not yet official.

CBC News has the story: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/06/emerson-jumps060206.html

Edited parts that did not add to the neutral stance of the article.

Controversy over appointment

[edit]

I suggest that it ought to be enough to indicate there has been media criticism of Fortier's elevation. Cutting and pasting select quotes from media pundits is not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. If it was, every politician's article would be full of quotes from his or her various critics. Our job here is to provide verifiable information about the article subject, not provide a platform for commentary on that person's policies. Even more problematic here is that it is the Prime Minister's policies that are at issue, so it wouldn't belong in an article on Fortier for that reason alone.Bdell555 02:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have to source criticism somehow. Otherwise, it would be possibly to claim that criticism exists when that is false or disputed, which is why the Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words policy exists.
Of course, the need to source criticism should not be used as excuse to fill an article with damning quotes, but I don't think that was done here. (I should say I'm speaking as the one who added the Coyne quote, though.)
As for the criticism, I disagree that this information does not belong in this article. Michael Fortier is inextrictably linked in many people's minds with the controversy over his appointment. You will find information about the criticism of the David Emerson and Belinda Stronach defections in their articles. This is true even for cases like Fortier's where the action by the appointed party is more "passive"; for example, in Harriet Miers you'll find information about the controversy of Miers' nomination. I think it would be unreasonable to require this information to be in the George W. Bush article or some other place. --Saforrest
No one is disputing the appointment is controversial. The problem here is that you are quoting some guy's blog who is attacking Harper. There are just as many blogs and media pundits out there that think Harper is great. This in an encyclopedia not an opinion blog. Montreal newspapers have praised Harper's decision so why is that not included if you are going to start doing this? One can write pages and pages for or against the wisdom of Fortier being Minister of Public Works. Our job here is to provide information about him, not complain about him or praise him. I intend to delete this section in order to raise the professionalism level but I wanted to make it perfectly clear first that this is not about protecting Fortier from criticism or because the appointment was a good or bad idea.Bdell555 01:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Point me to a real encyclopedia that includes these "controversy" sections. These sections arise in Wikipedia on a regular basis because someone doesn't like a public figure but isn't getting enough traffic on his or her blog so he or she creates a "controversy" section and this lists all the reasons why so-and-so should be denounced. Perhaps we can move beyond this?Bdell555 02:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the Chantal Hebert article

[edit]

I was just wondering if anyone could provide me with a link to the article that Chantal Hebert wrote, where she defended Harper's appointment of Emerson and Fortier to cabinet (as a means of compensating for our electoral system which does not always yield the most representative results).

Thanks!

LOL @ the current image

[edit]

WTF? LOL 99.240.36.63 (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Michael Fortier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michael Fortier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Fortier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Fortier&oldid=1202107689"