Talk:Bob Rae

Sunday Shopping

My recollection is that Rae promised to 'keep', not start a 'common pause day' during the election. After the election he switched positions and introduced Sunday shopping. The way this part is written seems a bit too biased in his favour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.218.20 (talk) 00:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request: Published Books

I'm not sure how I formally go about recommending this, but I think it would make sense to include a section that lists Bob Rae's 4 published books: From Protest to Power: Personal Reflections on a Life in Politics; The Three Questions; Canada in the Balance; Exporting Democracy: The Risks and Rewards of Pursuing a Good Idea

Untitled

I'm at the OUCC conference at Guelph University today and Bob Rae just finished speaking. He mentioned that he was recently introduced as a graduate of Harvard high school in Toronto – which apparently isn’t true. The person doing the introduction had apparently attributed it to Wikipedia. Mr. Rae then went on to say that when he read the article it was way off, but maybe he’d edit it and credit himself with inventing the steam egine. Most of his comments were in jest, but here it is for the record.

Later he was asked what he did about the article and answered that his wife was kind enough to edit it and correct it for him.

-- Matt Clare Mr. Rae twice invoked "the rabbi" in his convention speech. (I am not sure if caps are required in this case.) The first reference was that the rabbi is reported as having said that "If I am not for me then who will be for me?" The second was to the effect that if I am for me, others will be. Rae has been touted as Ontario's first Jewish Premier. Could he have been referring to The Rabbi Yeshua Ben Joseph the Divine Rabbi? If not which rabbi. Moreover, in an overwhelmingly Judaism Obervant family (I was a classmate of Arlene Perley during the Bathurst Heights Collegiate days), how can he be described as Anglican? The issue is not insignificant: I think Mr. Rae displays duality if not bipolarity as to where he stands on the Judeo-Christian continuum. Is it relevant? May be not, but it should be said. To be a Jew is to subscribe to certain ethical and philosophical value that are not shared by all Canadians, even when watered down by so-called secularism. Having said all that, he is still a "good man" and of the available choices the most electable.

Michael Spensieri, J.D., LL.M. Mpp Ret Member: Ontario Association of Former Parliamentarians

• For those curious, his wife's edit may be found here. Some of the changes were necessary and overdue, others were a bit more questionable. (I'm still puzzled as to why all references to Gerald Caplan were removed.) CJCurrie 16:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Bob Rae was born in Ottawa. Two different sources tell me so. If it really is Toronto, then I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timc (talk • contribs) 02:27, 8 October 2003 (UTC)

According to the Royal Conservatory of Music website, Rae was born in Ottawa in 1948 as you originally stated. L.J. Brooks 19:39, 29 Jan 2006 (UTC)

He says the same in his autobiography. Derekwriter 01:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Interests rates in Canada

The article cites Rae criticising the federal government for interest rate policy when the federal gov't in Canada does not set interest rates, rather the Bank of Canada sets the interest rates and the BoC is not run by parliament nor the PMO. Although "If the Minister of Finance disagrees with the Bank's policies, he or she has the right to issue a public directive to the Governor. Such a directive has never been issued." (see latter link) The Bank of Canada was created by Prime Minister Richard Bennett in the 1930's transferring the ability to set interest rates from the federal gov't to the new created crown corporation.DWiatzka (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Zero Inflation policy was openly supported by Finance Minister Michael Wilson, by Brian Mulroney, and John Crow, governor of the Bank of Canada, was Mulroney's appointee. The zero inflation strategy of high interest rates was indeed the policy of the federal government under Brian Mulroney's leadership. To say that the Bank is independent does not change this fact. The federal government endorsed Crow's draconian policies openly and that government put Crow there in the first place presumably in the knowledge that he was going to do such things. Rae legitimately criticised the federal leadership for the economic damage it was knowingly doing.

For a zero inflation policy through high interest rates to be effective, a large increase of unemployment must happen by definition. That is the proof that it's working - the high unemployment. If the rates are insufficiently high to create more bankruptcies and unemployment, it will increase inflation as it increases the price of money. Only by choking off demand through deliberately-engineered unemployment can zero inflation be achieved through a high interest rate policy.

What Rae faced was a federal government determined to cause unemployment and there was nothing he could do to stop it. High unemployment diminished the tax base and increased relief payments, and if this didn't do enough to increase the deficit, the higher interest rates also increased the price of the debts - the high deficits were inevitable. Rae deserved no blame, and Mulroney deserved all the blame, end of discussion. Procrustes the clown (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Picture

The new picture is nicer but it's also taken about a decade after Rae was premier. We should probably use a picture that was taken while he was Premier or at least when he looked like he did when he was Premier. AndyL 05:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't there a photo available from his current Liberal leadership run? - TomPettyFan 23:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn it. Someone with a camera just go out take a picture of the guy. --Arctic Gnome 19:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There's a picture of him skinnydipping floating around. Reportersue 22:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Theres a picture of him at the leadership convention, found at this link http://www.liberal.ca/leadership2006_candidate_e.aspx?id=2. I can't post it myself since I am at work. MickeyK 18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Name of article

Shouldn't this be retitled "Rae, Bob" so it is consistent with other personal names?

gcapp1959

• I don't see why. Most bio pages start with the first name. CJCurrie 01:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • Make that 'all' pages. Or at least they should; that's what the style guide says. --Saforrest 01:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignatieff and Rae

They were roommates at U of T? This an interesting factoid which I haven't heard before. Can anyone back it up? --Saforrest 20:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• It's been mentioned in the media a few times (eg. in a recent McLean's feature). CJCurrie 01:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Maclean's feature: http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20060417_125095_125095 , and, for kicks, U of T Magazine: http://www.magazine.utoronto.ca/02autumn/school.asp], if you scroll down a bit. - Senning

They are good friends. Reportersue 22:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Political Affiliation

Should it really be Liberal Party for his political affiliation? The box cites his political affiliation at the time of the important event (his Premiership of Ontario).Homagetocatalonia 23:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the change and was thinking that it should include both. --JGGardiner 23:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

He is a Liberal now. Reportersue 22:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

France

How could he have been born in 1948 and been on the first plane to land in liberated France in 1945?

• His father was on the first plane to land in liberated France. CJCurrie 20:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Image

Please vote in favour of keeping his image here... Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 30 -- Zanimum 02:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

edits by "gerard kennedy"

i'd like to flag that someone with the username gerardkennedy is editing this page (see history) but since the edits occurred during the liberal leadership convention it is likely that it is one of his campaign managers. since kennedy was running against rae, and threw his support behind dion, i think there is a large conflict of interest in having him edit this page.Katerg 20:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, his name is Gerard Kennedy, although he is not the Gerard Kennedy we know of. Talk page comment here. -- Zanimum 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that Kennedy's campaign managers would be that obvious.Crisco 18:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Health Care

Regarding the dispute between User: Kibomt and User: CJCurrie, while the section may not be perfectly balanced yet, the onus is on CJCurrie to find balancing material rather than completely suppressing it. GoldDragon 18:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Rae's actions as premier in cutting enrollment to medical schools is clearly relevant to a discussion of health care policy under his tenure. Two sources are provided - one from a Queen's Journal quoting a reputable, knowledgeable observer, and another commentary from a media source. Since when did Sunmedia not become a valid source in Wikipedia? Can you please point me to the WP that says that? As for the other material deleted by CJCurrie relating to the Air India Inquiry, it is sourced from the CBC and the Toronto Star. This point is even more so because CJCurrie seeks to restore unsourced promotional material about Rae's purported international activities. CJCurrie seems to be under the misbelief that neutrality requires us to omit the failings of famous men. If Mr. Rae's supposed accomplishments can be mentioned so too must his failures, otherwise Wikipedia will become an encyclopedia of spam, not of relevant knowledge. --Kibomt 13:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with including critical information about Rae, including health policy but I have some problems with the current section. First, the Queen's source actually does not say what the nine words that it supports allege. It says Rae "capped" enrollment, the article says "cut". It also says that Ontario's position then was consistent with other provinces, which seems to be the case. I don't think that it is acceptable to use Weston's sarcastic piece to support the second assertion. If Rae's government is indeed so responsible for such a shortage of doctors that it endures today, it shouldn't be hard to find a more reasonable source. --JGGardiner 18:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the text that CJCurrie deleted. The sources for the cut s more than just the Queen's Journal and the Sun media, it is also Mr. Rae's own words from his Torstar interview. This is his legacy, and to write an article about his health policy without mentioning this would just make Wikipedia more absurd than it increasingly is being recognized for being:

"As Premier, Rae placed cut enrollment into medical schools, creating a continuing shortage of doctors in Ontario and adding to the wait-times and treatment delays for patients to access health care in Ontario. Rae's Government actually paid the University of Toronto $10 million a year not to produce as many doctors. Interviewed by the Toronto Star about this period, in 2006, Rae stated that: "Take the doctor situation. You are right that we reduced enrolment....We (governments) didn't take into account the number of people who would leave (the health field) or who would do other things and, second, that the nature of the practice might change. We did not take into account that the number of women coming into the workforce would change, and that changed the pattern of practice: People taking leaves, people taking maternity leaves, people working different hours and so on."" --Kibomt 04:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Well, like I said, I am okay with some inclusion. But this section has problems. For starters, the first nine words are sourced with the Quuens Journal which says "capped" not "cut". I actually do understand from elsewhere that all schools were capped but for U of T which cut enrollment by 75 first year students for the years following the cuts (I believe that would be 93-95?). I don't like the "actually" sentence because it implies the impropriety of the actions it describes. Although I assume that is the point of the sentence. And I'm really not sure what the long quote is there for. Generally we are discouraged from quoting at length unless it is needed. Is there a particular need for that? It looks to me that it was there for proof although I missed the start of this dispute so I'm not sure. --JGGardiner 07:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the Torstar quote is because it establshes that it was a "cut" not a "cap" and therefore corroborates what was said in the Queen's Journal and Sunmedia sources that CJCurrie has repeatedly sought to cut. I am ok with not using the long quote if the rest of the text is retained. As for the "actually" sentance, removre "actually" but keep the sentence if you must. If you have an addtional source to add re the cap, please do so, don't delete what is a well-referenced paragraph. --Kibomt 11:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is not strictly accurate to say that the Queen's Journal says "cap" not "cut". It speaks of "revers[ing] the effects of previous reductions in enrollment" then in parentheses speaks of a "cap" then quotes an expert speaking of "reduc[tions in] the number of medical students". It is CJCurrie who introduced that misreading of the Queen's Journal article. --Kibomt 12:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It was actually my edit that corrected the text to 'cap'. If you read the article carefully, it specifically references the Rae government as placing a cap on enrollment. It then goes on to say that governments in Canada reduced the number of medical students. So this was a general trend during the recession period of the early 1990s, not a specific Ontario event as you portrayed it. Atrian 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I also came to the "cap" conclusion myself by reading the article. That's what it says in the one sentence that mentions Rae specifically. I haven't used Wikipedia in a week or two before my comments yesterday and was unaware of the article history until I went looking for the Air India bit. The Torstar cut does sound like it should be used as a source, not in text. However, I notice that it has the same problem that Atrian mentioned with the QJ. It says governments and not his in particular again. I'm not really picky on the the cap/cut point because I do understand that there were indeed reductions at U of T, although, like I said, 225 (or fewer?) first year positions removed does not make for a continuing shortage. Of course it does still need a valid source because I am no the only reader. I think that the U of T sentence in the article is meaningless if a cap is otherwise demonstrated. It was simply compensation for U of T's lost revenue because of the cap. --JGGardiner 17:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is hilarious. The Torstar quote from Bob Rae himself, speaks of a cut, but User Atrian and JGGardiner want to use the word "cap" not "cut". Surely, Rae's own words are sufficient cooroboration of the "cut". I would argue that the Torstar quote coupled with the Queens Journal article and two SunMedia articles adequately support the text. If you want to delete the U of T sentence, fine, but the rest should remain. --Kibomt 23:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for Atrian but I never said that I prefer including "cap" because I don't. I'd like to see the sentence removed. What I said was that your assertion of a cut was sourced with an article that instead says "cap". My problem is with your use of the source, not the fact itself. I think that I was rather clear that I understood the nature of the cut and even mentioned the approximate size of the cut (75 students for two or three years) although I did mention that enrollment was capped at schools other than U of T which I believe to be the case.

I also have a problem with the TorStar article because it is clear from the text that included above that Rae is referring to governments in general and not to his in particular. Like I said, I do believe that there was a cut but you can't source a fact that with something that does not assert that particular fact. That's the reason there is a citation at all.

Ulitmately I am still unconvinced why this particular episode deserves much inclusion. And I am still unwilling to allow the Weston comment to stay. --JGGardiner

00:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. In the Torstar article, Rae is asked about his cuts, he then answeres admitting the cuts, and you still question whether there were cuts? The Queen's Journal sites an expert talking about the consequences of the cuts, and you don't think this is relevant to a discussion of Rae's health policies? As for using Sunmedia as a source, can you point me to the WP that says Sunmedia is not a valid source? Does that not reflect your POV? --Kibomt 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the entire TorStar article but in the quote you've shown, it says "we (governments)" not "my government" or "I". So while I believe that there were cuts made, that particular source does not demonstrate what I beleive to be a fact, that cuts were made, which I am stating for the fourth consectutive post. However, you can not source X with a source that says Y, even if X is otherwise true. My problem is with your sourcing, not the fact. The Rankean reason to have a source is so that the reader of a document can read where we've said X and go to the source and see that it indeed says X, can judge the authority of the source and realize that if there is any problem with the fact, it belongs to the source and not to the writer. However, when the source does not say X at all, it does not help the reader at all. Your source does not say X. However, I will repeat again that I believe there were cuts and I have three times specified their number. I'm curious actually if you agree with me on that figure because it is probably relevant to why we are including this section.

As for the Sunmedia, it is a reliable source generally. But that does not mean we have to accept everything that their press churns out. The rule is to reject minor sources, not to accept everything that comes from major ones. We still should consider the validity of an actual piece of writing on its own, even if it comes from a large paper. I reject this particular one because it is both sarcastic and polemical. And, even if it were an acceptable source, we'd have to say "Weston of the Toronto Sun believes that these cuts (which I've I said existed, remember) contributed to a continuing shortage of doctors in Ontario). Even were it not an attack piece, a single editorial, let alone a scholarly work, is not sufficient to allow it to stand as fact that the cuts are enduring, if that is the reason for inclusion. If it is there to show that there were cuts, I think it isn't needed because the cuts are otherwise well documented. I for one think they happened as everyone recalls from my previous posts, so I don't think that there should be trouble finding another source for that.

However, I still think that this section is not appropriate for inclusion based on what I understand to be the facts. It seems to me that the government of Ontario cut 75 first year medical students, at a time when such cuts were common practice in Canada. Obviously there is medical school attrition and not all graduating doctors stay in Ontario. So there is some figure, less than 225 (perhaps 150? the 75 times the two or three years Rae had left in his term) of doctors that Ontario was short, I'd guess the figure was closer to 100. I don't think that is worthy of inclusion. In any event, I don't think that the government was sufficiently criticized at the time for it to be included here without a weight problem.

And just again, in case there is some confusion, I believe these cuts occured. --JGGardiner 17:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice try JGGardner, but what is amusing about your comments about "weight" is that you have repeatedly referred to unsourced material to assert that Rae's cuts (his own words) were not significant despite the tenor of his own remarks acknowledging their disastrous effects n the Torstar and the quote from the expert in the Queen's Journal. You may not like being called a hagiographer, but f you repeatedly do that no one will call you a biographer, and no one will take Wikpedia serously as an encyclopedia of relevant knowledge. --Kibomt 10:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

So Kibomt, if Wikipedia is just an irrelevant, opinionated journal edited only by hagiographers, why are you still here? Atrian 11:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I had to look up Rae's cuts elsewhere because nobody provided any information regarding their nature here. If you have something to show me that they were "disastrous" please show it to me. Is my 75 number wrong? Okay, what's the right number? It's the same thing with everything here, you assert X and show a source with Y. I may be hagiographer but I won't take your clams on faith. You can't make a truthful claim and source it with something that does not assert that truth.

The one thing I do believe is that there were cuts. As I've said several times now. I'm willing to believe that they were disastrous too. Show it! The Rae quote doesn't say there were bad, it is just his explanation of why they happened. I incidentally told you that you should use that as a source for the first part rather than the QJ which isn't an appropriate source there. The Weston piece is inappropriate for the reasons I've noted above. He doesn't even call it disastrous however. This is his quote:

"Today, his legacy endures with a physician shortage that saves taxpayers a fortune by not having to treat millions of sick Canadians who can't find a family doctor"

This, I assume, is the quote you mean from QJ?:

"'The governments in Canada reduced the number of medical students eight years ago so that the number leaving has become greater than the number entering [with the result that] Canada is in a net loss position'".

Hardly damning. And of course only Kibomt reads that to mean Rae's government in particular.

Do you have any information on the nature of the cuts? If so please show it here. Please, please, please. It will help the discusssion, your case for inclusion, very much. I had to look up other sources because nothing was shown here. Believe me, I hate having to go run a google search for every little dispute here. But there was nothing other than the Weston quote which wasn't specific at all. We are actually encouraged to describe things rather than use opinions of them anyway. We might say Brian Mulroney's gov't accumulated so much debt rather than that he left Canada with a financial crisis that lasted for years or something like that. One is fact, the other opinion. Opinions of others are sometimes worth noting but the article should say who's opinion they are rather than make them the article's opinion.

If you accuse me or any other editor of hagiography one more time, I simply won't respond to you. I won't deal with that kind of incivility which is frankly the worst I've a seen from a registered editor in my two years as an editor here. I'm serious when I say that is an extreme insult here and I've already put you on notice of that. I've never asked for administrator assistance for incivility before but I will if this persists. Although I must say that it hurts you most of all because it breaks down discussion which is needed if you want to get some kind of consensus for additions that you want to make to the article. --JGGardiner 18:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand why the hagiogaphy label bothers some so much. I mean no offense by it. There is no question that Rae's cuts to medical school enrollment will figure in any serious off-line discussion of his health policy as premier, so the question is why should an on-lne biography omit that information. The facts (as demonstrated by this discussion are these: (1) As premier, Rae cut medical school enrollment. (Torstar article) (2) Public concerns have been raised about the effects of the cuts (Queen's Journal, Weston and Goldstein articles) (3) When asked to respond to to these public concerns about the efects of the cuts, Rae has instead chosen to explain the rationale for the cuts, rather than to deny the effects of the cuts. (Torstar article) (4) Rae's defense of the cuts has been alternatively, the childlike "Joey did it too" defense, the Nazi Nuremberg "I was not responsible" defense or the "forgive me, I was so stupid that I missed the obvious" defense. (Torstar) (5) Some have argued that the cuts were not significant (source yet to be provided by JGGardiner, Atrian and CJCurrie who for greater certainty are not full or part-time, paid or unpaid, on-line or off-line hagiographers) and that the effects are not significant (source yet to be provided by JGGardiner, Atrian and CJCurrie who for greater certainty are not full or part-time, paid or unpaid, on-line or off-line hagiographers). --Kibomt 02:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay well I'm willing to accept that you meant no offence by the hagiography thing and I hope that's the end of that.

Let me just say, and not to compare this to anyone else, about my own experience when I was one. One of the first things I did here was get involved in an ongoing discussion on the article for a New Democrat MP. I favoured including some particular "negative" info there (lest anyone think I'm a New Democrat -- though I have been accused of it). And it seemed so reasonable and straight-forward to me but two regular editors thought otherwise. And after a couple of denials on their part, I imagine that I'd figured they had to be New Democrats who couldn't admit the truths to themselves. And I more or less said so, although I think that I was a lot more polite than a lot of users are these days, but still I said it. And since then I've been a regular though sometimes infrequent user for two years or so. And I now understand WP reasonably well and in particular the way that Wikipedians work. And I know that those two editors were being reasonable and fair as Wikipedians in a way that just isn't always completely transparent to a new user who doesn't understand why their opinion isn't represented in the article. Of all that I've done here, it is the one I am most ashamed of and most wish that I could take back. Thankfully I was reasonably polite other than that and the editors were patient and the info that I supported was ultimately included in the article and, last time I checked, is still there today. We all come here at first simply interested in one article, one thing. But the more time that one spends editing the particular aticle subjects become less important than the application of Wikipedia principles and policies. I feel that is how I edit and I think the same of most other regular editors. I know that they don't all have pure hearts but enough do that they all deserve the benefit of that assumption on my part. I have my doubts but they stay in the back of my mind and out of the editing window. I really do wish that I'd understood this when I started with that first discussion. If could give advice to new users it would definitely be that. Also that edit summaries are helpful.

To get back to the article, I'm still happy to include this subject. But I still do need to see a source. The best thing is we can have a specific number. Like I said above, WP always prefer that we describe what happened rather than give an opinion about it. So the best sort of opening sentence would be to say Rae's gov't cut X spots maybe starting in '92. Then after that there is potentially room for opinions. We might note opposition to the cuts if there was something. We might consider some sort of opinion if it is either noteworthy or representative. I might consider the Weston one for use in this regard although I think that it is a poor choice, especially if there are other negative ones out there. And if there aren't it probably means that this topic should be weighted minimally. The QJ is a good source except that I'm not certain that it is referring to Rae's gov't in particular and I know that Atrian has voiced the same concerns. But a similar piece about Rae's policy in particular would make an absolutely perfect source for a negative comment on this particular policy.

I'm really not terribly familiar with the topic apart from what I've learned in the past few days. At the time of these cuts I was attending junior high school in another province. So I really would like to see a source for inclusion on this matter because I'm not certain what the facts are otherwise. WP is very particular about inclusion of negative material in biographical articles (note the living persons category) and I do think that adequate sourcing is required here. So my advice for an editor looking for inclusion is 1) find the numbers and 2) find a reasonable opinion of the policy. I find that academic sources are usually the best ones. --JGGardiner 06:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)--JGGardiner 06:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to the "not on-line hagiographers" here, the position of JGGardiner is absurd. There is absolutely no reason to substantiate the magnitude of Rae's cuts in enrollment here. The relevant facts from the point of view of his history are: (a) he cut enrollment (Torstar); (b) he admitted cutting enrollment (Torstar); (c) some believe those cuts had lasting effects on health care access (Queen's Journal, Weston and Goldstein articles and implicit admission in response to Torstar question). If you want to add (d) that some others believe the cuts were not substantial, then PROVIDE A SOURCE; and / or (e) that some others believe the effects of the cuts were not sgnificant then PROVIDE A SOURCE. It really is that simple, if this is a biography of a living person, not a saint. --Kibomt 13:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're just going over the same thing again and again so this might be my last post on the issue if nothing new comes up. I'm willing to find that there was a cut and you have a source for that. I'm actually still a bit uneasy using the interview to source that there were cuts and frankly only allowing it as a concesion to you because there is a dispute. But that part I think is adequately met. Like I said above, it is our job as Wikipedians to describe what happened rather than to write an opinion about what happened. A lot of editors think "POV" means the bias that editors bring to the table but it actually refers to the bias that we write into the articles. This type of description vs opinion thing is a basic part of the NPOV guidelines. Even if I was completely happy with what was written, it would still be incumbent upon us to put in a description. We can't put in an opinion only. As well we can not put in a opinion as fact. Weston may be right and he may be wrong. It isn't up to us to decide. Our job is really only to compile things and sort them out appropriately.

So just to state clearly. You need to say what happened before you can insert opinions about it. And the opinions must be noted before as opinions. There is still the question of weight but no real need to consider that without the other elements in place.

I'm still completely willing to have this in the article. I'd be happy with a para that read some thing like: "In 1992 Rae's gov't cut 100 student positions from the province's medical schools which remained in his term in office. The policy was intended to cut health care costs as it was believed there were too many physicians in the province. Some commentators such as Weston believe that these cuts were short-sighted and lead to a continuting shortage of doctors in Ontario.

If that was sourced properly I'd probably include. There is the weight issue, like I said. Was Rae criticized a lot, particularily at the time for this? If he isn't or wasn't it might not be such a big deal. I think, as a rule, if you can't adequately source a criticism of a Premier's policy, it probably wasn't criticized enough for it to survive a Weight consideration. That's particularily true for a Premier of Ontario. --JGGardiner 17:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We are indeed going in circles, but let's try to work with what you suggested. We don't need to source the number of cuts unless you can provide a source for that. We can use the Torstar quote to document the cuts, and frankly I can't see how a quote from Rae himself in response to a direct question about cuts could not be an adequate source. As for the opinions about the effects, we can source (Goldstein, Weston and Queen's Journal. So the paragraph would look something like this: "In 1992, Rae's gov't cut positions from the province's medical schools during his term in office.[Torstar cite] The policy was intended to cut health care costs as it was believed there were too many physicians in the province. Some commentators believe that these cuts were short-sighted and lead to a continuting shortage of doctors in Ontario.[Goldstein, Weston and Queen's Journal cites]" The notion that these three sources are not a sufficient source for criticism of a Premier's policy - even a Premier of Ontario - is just plain laughable. Feel free to provide a source for the quantity of the cuts, if you can find one without doing original research. --Kibomt 17:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources aside, your suggested paragraph isn't bad for analysis. The problem though is that our job is to describe more than to analyze. So we should say what happened before we analyze it and we really shouldn't be giving just analysis. That said, there is a place for analysis and that isn't bad text. I just don't think that it is properly sourced.

I'm not sure what you intend to use the Rae quote to source. I suggested it to source the cuts at one point but you want to use the Torstar article for that it seems. So I'm a little confuesed there.

As for the effects, I still find Weston unsuitable. The other sources simply don't refer to Rae's gov't in particular (on that point). I think that you're the only one who reads them that way. I really don't understand why you continue to defend these sources if you think that there are others out there. Like I said, I'm still willing to include this but I need the sources. I don't know if they exist or not but I need to see them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGGardiner (talk • contribs) 00:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are unsure. The Rae quote is in the Torstar article, and yes I want to use the quote from Rae himself in that artcle to source the "cuts". How on earth can a quote from the horse's own mouth, not be an adequate source? As for using Weston and Queen's Journal as a source for the effects, both logic and contexts suggests that Rae's cuts were included in those references. The proposed paragraph has more credible sources than most of the existing content in the article. Keep that in mind. --Kibomt 11:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Air India Inquiry

The added text about Bartleman's testimony has been twisted to make it look like Bob Rae missed something in his investigation. Rae's recommendation for an inquiry actually led to Bartleman's revelation. The new text makes it look like Rae's participation in the affair was somehow inferior. Atrian 23:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's incredible. He did not interview a key witness, and you don't think that reflects on his judgement? Is that your idea of balance? He gets credit for recommending the inquiry, but not having interviewed a key player at the time was odd, as the references indicate. --Kibomt 04:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Atrian, at least on the basis of what I've seen. I'm not sure, and the source doesn't suggest, that it was some sort of omission on Rae's part or that he was aware that Bartleman had such information. Maybe that information exists but I'd want to see it before including it here. And I would note to Kibomt that this isn't a character study. We don't have to include information simply because it reflects on the subject's judgement. --JGGardiner 07:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text that CJCurrie proposes to suppress:

"On April 26, 2005, he was appointed to advise Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan on whether or not there should be a government inquiry into the 1985 Air India disaster. On November 23, 2005, Rae recommended further inquiry into the investigation and prosecution. In testimony before the Commission of Inquiry led by Justice John C. Major, former Ontario Lieutenant-Governor, James K. Bartleman indicated that in his prior position as the former head of intelligence for Foreign Affairs Canada he had received information about a specific threat to Air India days before Flight 182 blew up in 1985. Bob Rae later admitted that he never bothered to interview Bartleman, the former head of intelligence for Foreign Affairs Canada while investigating the Air India bombing."

That is not about charachter, but competence. I have no problem with deleting the reference to the Air Inda entirely. However, if it is retained for completeness, the sourced material about the nature of his investigation should also be included. The whole paragraph is aimed at establishing his weighty chores in his post-premiership. That's fair, but if Wikpedia is about biography, not hagiography, the reference must be complete and balanced. --Kibomt 11:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fair enough. But I haven't seen anything that says Rae was incompetent to not interview Bartleman. If there is something, I'm happy to include it. --JGGardiner 17:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Bartleman is not just a minor witness, on a minor fact. He was the head of intelligence for Foreign Affairs (surely a material witness), and admitted to prior knowledge of the bombing? When Bartleman revealed this, everyone asked Rae why he had not interviewed him. No serious biography of Rae that discusses his role in the Air India inquiry will omit this fact, notwithstanding the actions of his on-line hagiogaphers. If we are not going to have a balanced discussion of his role, the reference to Air India should be deleted in its entirety. --Kibomt 12:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that if Rae hadn't recommended further inquiry, Bartleman wouldn't have had the opportunity to come forward with his new information. Atrian 13:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful! Please show us these serious pieces where he is criticized and I'll be happy to include the info myself, if you'd like. The problem is that until then a reader might wonder if Rae was incompetent and we can't put a footnote that says he was because user:Kibomt says so. Just like above, my problem is only that it needs a source. Although in this case I'm not sure about Rae's incompetence. I don't find him to be competent necessarily either; I just don't know and without a source can't support inclusion.

I also would like to note that it is extremely uncivil to continue to refer to other editors as "hagiographers". Frankly I think it is worse than calling someone a jerk or an asshole to say that the time that they volunteer here is for some illicit purpose. You'll notice that I've never question your intentions even though I might have my doubts as well. I doubt if I were to check your edit history that I'd find you were concerned about the hagiography taking place in articles of politicians of all stripes. And that's fine, that's your business and I don't question which articles you want to change and in what way. I consider your edits and your proposed edits on their own merits. And if we disagree, it is a matter of our own opinions on the merit of what was said, and that's all. --JGGardiner 17:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, there is already a soure provided for the questions posed to Rae, and his response. If you want to provide a source that says Rae's oversight was an example of competence and skill, then do so. --Kibomt 13:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, it doesn't work that way. You want to add information to the article so it is incumbent on you to provide a source, not the rest of the community to provide a countering one. There is also a higher standard for the inclusion of negative material in biographies. It is a policy that Wikipedia has enacted for serval reasons, both legal and, I believe, to maintain a standard more alike an encyclopedia than a mish mash of positive and negative remarks. In any event it is policy. If you doubt that, look at the history of the [[Rachel Marsden]. I'm willing to believe that Rae was incompetent in his actions here but we need a source that says so. The Star piece doesn't say he was incompetent. It is just says he didn't. Maybe what he did was just standard procedure for these kinds of things. I don't know. I'm a blank slate on this one, just like an average reader, and I need a source to see something. It might be a reasonable inference to say he didn't interview Bartleman, Bartleman had info, so he is incompetent. But we can't make inferences on our own. It is called "original research" and simply not allowed here. I'm still open minded about this one but I need to see a source. --JGGardiner 17:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

With all do respect, it should work the way I suggested. I supplied a source for the information I added. If you want to supply a countering source without doing original research, do so. The problem with these wiki biographies is that if the rules are as you state then there is very little balance. Both positive and negative contributions of a public figure must be included if we are writing a biography, not a hagiography, as much as I know you hate the word. I would also add that I am not sure much of the content of this "biography" can stand scrutiny against the standard you suggest. I promise when the article is re-opened for editing, I will start deleting each and every unsourced proposition, and each and every propositon for which the source provided is not exactly on point. Be careful what you wish for, as the old sayng goes. --Kibomt 17:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting text en masse from an article is deemed bad editing behaviour and could get you suspended. Rather than do that I suggest you use the citation needed template. That way the original editor (or somebody else) will have a chance to provide a reference. If no citation can be found then the text can be deleted after a reasonable time, say 12 months. Atrian 17:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The source is just simply inadequate. It does not assert what was in the article text.

I'm happy, however, that you agree with my distaste for unsourced and poorly sourced info. Though I'll note that I rarely delete unsourced or poorly sourced text on sight. I didn't delete yours for example. I always bring it up on the talk page first, let a discussion among editors work itself through and almost always let another editor do any specific in-text work.

Though I agree with Atrian that you could get in trouble for a lot of mass deletions which appear in bad-faith. Especially since you made what looks like a fairly typical point threat. That's why it is always best to talk things out in my opinion. --JGGardiner 00:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

References

Edit request

{{editprotected}} When article duscusses the No-confidence motion attached to the budget, "rider" should link wiki's article on rider bills. Rotovia 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

CFD Recategorization

{{editprotected}}

Category:Ontario premiers needs to be replaced with Category:Premiers of Ontario, due to a speedy rename. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Ecomomic record

Jbacu1985 (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC) CJ Currie - can you discuss your objections here without simply deleting what you personally disagree with.

I'm against including a detailed quote from an extremely partisan editor with a background in fringe right-wing politics. For clarification, I should add that I'd also oppose including a detailed quote defending Rae's activities. It's fine to summarize both perspectives, but quoting Reynolds in this fashion seems to cross the line into advocacy.

Btw, I think your assessment of the Toronto Symphony strike is problematic as well. (Should we really call it a "disastrous strike"?) CJCurrie (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Jbacu1985 (talk) 17:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC) it was disastrous - lost talent, lost subscribers and the real possibility that the whole Orchestra wopuld cease to exist - you can't get much more disastrous than that for a symphony orchestra - an opinion I can tell you is shared by most subscribers. The source of the quote is Canada'a most middle of the road newspaper. If you read the article and cheched the calculations against the Stat Can and Ontarion M/F statistics, you'll see that it is completely accurate.

It may be a commonly held view that the strike was "disastrous", but it is not a neutral view. CJCurrie (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Rae infobox

Rae's first stint as an MP should be included in the infobox. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

First and only, at least this moment. He has not yet assumed office, as the infobox shows. Nor has he succeeded Bill Graham as that article says nor does he represent Toronto Centre as that article says. People have been elected before and died without being sworn into office. Elections have been overturned, parliaments dissolved, etc. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've altered the wording of the article accordingly. Now perhaps someone who is familiar with infoboxes can add in references to Rae's stint as MP for Broadview (1978-1979) and Broadview-Greenwood (1979-1982) and perhaps also as MPP for York South (1982-1996)? Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Bob Rae now an MP

This should be updated. I would do it, but not permitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.85.224 (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion

The reference to Bob Rae as an Anglican should be removed. From what I have read he considers himself ethnically Jewish, but is an atheist. He is not a member of any Anglican Church, has not raised his children in this religion, and has never described himself as one. Factcorrect12 (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The references to Bob Rae's religion are completely false and rely on unreliable and incorrect information. Rae did not "explore his own Jewish culture," or date Jewish girls exclusively, nor is he a current member of Holy Blossom Temple. The inclusion of this paragraph (which I've copied below) is completely irrelevant and is based on false information and should be removed. I have tried to remove this section of the biography several times because it is false but someone keeps putting it back in clearly with some sort of strange agenda.

(Rae learned of his family's Jewish origins in 1968. The revelation had a strong impact on him, he sought to explore his Jewish culture, dated Jewish girls exclusively and ultimately married a Jewish woman.[9] Upon his marriage to Arlene Perly Rae, Rae agreed to raise his children in his wife's Jewish faith.[10] Rae is a member of Holy Blossom Temple, a Reform Jewish congregation in Toronto.[11]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.117.101.144 (talk) 23:43, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It is sourced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Family (not related to)

The text about who Rae is not related to should be deleted unless there is some really compelling reason to leave it in. Modal Jig (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits by 24.36.211.85

This stuff, to me, seems not to be about Rae per se but about his government. I do not think it belongs here so much as it might in an article about the government itself. Anyway, please weigh in. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Rae stepping down - "Former" MP

With Rae announcing today that he is stepping down, some contributors will be tempted to revise the lead paragraph to describe him as a former MP. Please do not do so until the news media confirms that his resignation is effective. As best as I can understand from the Rae/Trudeau news conference, Rae has not yet announced when his resignation becomes effective (according to CBC a few minutes ago - "He didn't say when his resignation would be effective."). Even though he is announcing his resignation today, it might or might not be effective today. He could possibly, for example, still be the MP for Toronto Centre for another few days or weeks.

Right now, the article says that Rae has announced he is stepping down. Until we have a reliable source saying the he is no longer MP, we cannot go on to describe him as the former MP. Thanks. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

This, a thousand times. I just removed references to a July 1 date which hasn't been reported in any major, reliable sources. -- -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone just added June 19. I am not watching the news like a hawk, so I have no idea if they have since announced it is effective today. But absent the provision of a reliable source, we should just keep deleting these revisions. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the Toronto Star as of approx 4 p.m. EST today, Rae hasn’t yet settled on a date to make his departure formal. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The Parliament of Canada website is now showing "seat vacant" for Toronto Centre. Rae's parliamentary bio tags his current term with the word "resignation". No date on either site when the resignation became effective. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

And on another page on the Parliament of Canada website he's listed as current. The bio page you linked to could just indicate that Mr. Rae resigned before the next election, not that the resignation is already in effect. For the record, it currently lists 3154 days of service, but I'm not sure if summer recess days are counted, so that could be a useless statistic. Nonetheless, without a firm date, it's better to wait and see than spread misinformation. -- -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an update, both of the websites listed by Skeezix have resumed reporting that Bob Rae is still the MP for Toronto-Centre. If you check the parliamentary bio of recently retired Vic Towes, you can see it gives the official end term for their time in office, so that's what will be used whenever the resignation for Mr. Rae comes into effect. -- -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Here we have been posting about not jumping the gun on describing "Rae" as former, when it appears that parliamentary staff have been doing just that!

The wait continues. Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that his departure date is July 31. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added the resignation date to the article. If anyone wants to edit or remove it, that's fine. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Bob Rae. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615222211/http://www.bobrae.ca:80/en/news.php to http://www.bobrae.ca/en/news.php#23
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081210161630/http://www.liberal.ca:80/news_e.aspx?type=pressrelease to http://www.liberal.ca/news_e.aspx?type=pressrelease&id=12112

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bob Rae. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615222211/http://www.bobrae.ca:80/en/news.php to http://www.bobrae.ca/en/news.php#16

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bob Rae. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313184631/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060405/peterson_rae_060405/20060405?hub=Canada to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060405/peterson_rae_060405/20060405?hub=Canada
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120710183422/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/09/scott-stinson-bob-rae-last-hope-for-liberal-ndp-merger-talk/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/09/scott-stinson-bob-rae-last-hope-for-liberal-ndp-merger-talk/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible Incorrect Information

"Bob Rae was in power for 1650 days, the longest term unique to an Ontario premier since the Second World War."

This sentence was in the Premiership section. I am interpreting this as he was the longest serving premier of Ontario since WW2, but that would be incorrect as Bill Davis was longer served and after WW2. Is this sentence supposed to be read a different way? If that is true, can it be changed so as to be read properly? Imperatorhobbes (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

My best guess is that the sentence was intended to convey the meaning that the 1990–95 legislative term was the longest served by an Ontario premier since WW2. I'm not certain why this point would be especially noteworthy, though. CJCurrie (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that would make sense. Should the sentence be reworded? Imperatorhobbes (talk) 22:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)