Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:30, 16 July 2012

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Canada: Alberta / Politics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta. This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Untitled

I am a newbie to wikipedia, so I will hold off on making changes to this page, but I wanted to note couple of points:

I believe this article is a little misleading. It states that "because of the unusual structure of the 38th House of Commons, in May 2005, David Kilgour's lone vote had the power to bring down or support the government. He used this influence to make Canada send extra peacekeepers to Darfur". This implies that in exchange for a further commitment to Darfur, the government secured the support of David Kilgour in the crucial May 2006 confidence votes. This is incorrect or misleading in two ways.

First, Kilgour actually voted against the government on the second of the two budget/confidence votes (C-48). Since the Conservatives had declared support for the first vote (C-43), which Kilgour supported, it was never really in danger of failing, and so his support here had no effect on the outcome. Second, although the government did act on some of the 10-item to-do list he crafted upon quitting the Liberal party in April, the government strongly denied this was related to the confidence vote (an assertion that could be questioned without an undue amount of cynicism http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1115638352964_4/?hub=TopStories). Regardless, in the days leading up to the vote, CTV reported that "independent MP David Kilgour says although he's pleased Canada is preparing to send troops to Sudan, the move isn't enough to secure his support for the teetering Liberal minority" (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1115638352964_4/?hub=TopStories). So, rather than claiming that Kilgour "used his influence", a more correct recounting of events would be that the government attempted to gain his support by appealing to cause he had championed, without success. In fact, the lone vote that prevented the defeat of the government came from independent MP Chuck Cadman, not Kilgour, whose vote allowed a tie of 152-152, enabling the Liberal Speaker to cast the deciding vote in favour of the government. The importance of Cadman's role, since he kept the direction of his vote secret until the last minute, unlike Kilgour, is reflected in media commentary on the vote.

(Really, the whole "one vote" thing is a little silly, since any MP could have broken ranks, and there were three independents that could have changed the outcome. Cadman's role is simply more dramatic because he did not let his intentions be known until the vote, at which point all other members had declared their voting plan.)

Secretary of State

I just want to remind editors here that Kilgour's title of "Secretary of State" is very misleading. He is actually an indepenedent Member of Parliament (although previously got elected by both Liberal and Conservative parties). His title "Secretary of State" is actually that of an advisor to the PM on various regional issues - not the equivalent to the United States Secretary of State. Please do not call him the "Canadian Secretary of State" as there is no such title.

These "Secretary of State" positions Kilgour held are basically a Vice-Ministerial level position and they do not even attend all cabinet meetings. Constantly calling Kilgour a "secretary of state" is a tactic employed by Falun Gong to enhance Kilgour's legitimacy to the gullible. Although this is a relatively minor issue, please use this name in context on this encyclopedia. Colipon+(Talk) 16:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Case in point, Canada does not have any such position. The closest we have is the Minister of Foreign Affairs. David Kilgour has never served in this capacity. Kilgour was an associate deputy minister of foreign affairs. That is a third-level position within the ministry, below the minister and the deputy minister. What it comes down to is that Kilgour was an unimportant member of parliament whose career became stalled because of his inability to decide whether to remain a member of the Conservatives or the Liberals. He tends towards foreign interventionism and is a supporter of peacekeeping efforts (which is commendable) but he is nowhere near as important or as universally commended as the FLG likes to present him.Simonm223 (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I never... Good work. However, unfortunately, if those positions were actually called 'Secretary of State for Latin America & Africa', and 'Secretary of State for Asia-Pacific', there is little we can do, no? Ohconfucius (talk)

I didn't even suspect, but neither had I assumed what "secretary of state" meant in Canada, since I'm not from either country. / PerEdman 17:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Calling him "Former Secretary of State of Asia and Pacific Affairs" is fair, but completely unecessary given the circumstances, plus these "Secretary of State" holders are almost never referred to as such once they no longer hold the position, because the position is not one of relative importance in the Canadian government.

Just call him an independent Member of Parliament. Mainstream Canadian media give him this treatment and would never go out of their way to refer to him as a "Secretary of State" of anything, with or without a suffix. The only media that does this is the Epoch Times. Colipon+(Talk) 17:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, it's how he describes himself on his website. Ohconfucius (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes. No one is denying that he was once "Secretary of State" of one sort or another. But FLG's characterization is meant to convey that he is a "top Canadian official" when he really is not. His most notable position is arguably as a long-serving MP for Edmonton-Strathcona-Beaumont.

Conspicuously, I could not find mention of Falun Gong on his website... I wonder if there is a story behind this. Colipon+(Talk) 17:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Kilgour describes himself using titles that haven't existed since 1996 on his webpage is chuckle-worthy.Simonm223 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Where in the current article is this debate helpful? Could you please point to a specific section or quote? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It permeates in a lot of Falun Gong articles vying for legitimacy, really. A few edits ago I changed this in the lede of this article. Colipon+(Talk) 18:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest comments like this: "Constantly calling Kilgour a "secretary of state" is a tactic employed by Falun Gong to enhance Kilgour's legitimacy to the gullible" aren't warranted here and don't help move our discussion along. If there were a source for this, you would be able to say "according to... blah." Otherwise don't worry--just a suggestion. If that it how he refers to himself, it seems fine here? He only needs to be introduced once in the article, I assume.--Asdfg12345 20:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No. My argument is that it is not acceptable to call him "Secretary of State", and especially not "Canadian Secretary of State". I have outlined my reasoning above. Please address those if you disagree. Colipon+(Talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If how Kilgour refers to himself is misleading, it should either not be reproduced on Misplaced Pages, or it should be marked out with surrounding facts, which would embellish the point a little too far for the scope of this article. Better to use a more general term, or leave the (past) title off. / PerEdman 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The preceding discussion is copied from Talk:Reports of organ harvesting from Falun Gong practitioners in China Ohconfucius (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Slow, Curious Dissapearance of Details

His title (the Hon., sec. of state), parliament legislation work, the conversation of support from his constituentcy (Edmonton-Beaumont election discussion site), support for SSM, international work (particularly pro-democracy work), etc. has been systematically removed from this page.

Kilgour has had a distinguished national and international career, awarded by many international organizations dating back to the 1980's. It's unfortunate that his recent work dealing against China (via the FLG) has meant his career is now being framed, as noted above, as prodominantly a political pawn for the FLG.

"Secretary of State" is currently a commonly accepted term, regardless of its meaning in other countries. A simple Secretary_of_State_(Canada) search would show it was used until the 2003 election at which point it was renamed ... which is collaborated by the government of Canada website here http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainCabinetCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Historical&Language=E

These notes are similar to other criticisms of Misplaced Pages where the loudest and most persistent mob, writes history. Human Rights whistleblowers, controvertial or not, deserve better than the standard character assassination. Nonlocalissue (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Kilgour is personal non-grata in Russia?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/24/extremist-writings-of-ex-canadian-mp-lawyer-banned-in-russia-because-of-criticisms-of-china/

Seems he and david matas are banned from entering russia over their promotion of the Sujiatun concentration camp allegation. Suggestion on edit? Bobby fletcher (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Canada-related articles
• Unknown-importance Canada-related articles
• Unassessed Alberta articles
• Unknown-importance Alberta articles
• Unassessed Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
• Unknown-importance Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages