Talk:Paul Martin

Untitled

• Talk:Paul Martin/Archive 1

Leader of the Opposition (Canada), just in case

• Actually, it seems that Martin wants the Liberal Party to appoint an interim leader soon, so Martin may not become the Leader of the Opposition after the transition. Ground Zero | t 13:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Based on today's announcement, it would seem the Leader of the Opposition Infobox needs to be moved to Bill Graham's article, if it hasn't been already. (If it has been moved, it might as well be deleted from this talk page as unneeded). 23skidoo 20:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Martin PM until resignation

Paul Martin is still the Prime Minister. He remains PM until he resigns. The transition could take up to 2 weeks. --Ibagli 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe his phone call to the Gov-Gen was his resignation, however he remains PM until Harper is sworn in a couple weeks from now. It's not quite as long a process as it is when changing US Presidents which takes about 2 1/2 months. But Harper I believe needs to appoint his cabinet and set up a few other things before he's ready to take office officially. If something happens tomorrow that requires a PM-level involvement (natural disaster, etc.) Martin will still be the face of the government. 23skidoo 02:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted edits in Martin's biography box From Dec.12, 2003-February 6, 2006 back to Dec.12, 2003- present. Why?, because Martin could die, or resign immediatly as PM before the date (Feb 6), he's scheduled to leave office. So, why not wait until February 6th, 2006 before we put down Dec/12/03 - Feb/6/06. GoodDay 21:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Feb. 6 is a scheduled event, but anything could happen in the next week or so. 23skidoo 21:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it time to remove his title? He is no longer the Prime Minister now. Mamboman 08:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Current event tag

Now the election is over, is it still needed or should it be kept till Harper is sworn in? 23skidoo 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. J.R. 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Right Honourable

I'd like to note that Martin is entitled to the honorific "Right Honourable" until death, and does not lose it upon ceasing to be Prime Minister. --Saforrest 00:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, prime ministers have the title "Right Honourable" until passing. It should be noted that in 2004, during the seven days that marked the death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, Brian Mulroney was addressed by American commentators as "the Right Honourable Brian Mulroney" when he appeared with them. -- SNIyer12 22:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This is because he remains a member of the Queen's Privy Council, even though he is no longer Prime Minister. Technically the PC appointment is not strictly related to the office - i.e. if Harper were made PM next week but were to die before he was inducted into the PC, he wouldn't be a Right Honourable. Geoff NoNick 23:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to note that although he remains Rt. Hon., I've removed it from the first line as per He Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) --JGGardiner 03:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Queen's Privy Council members are "The Honourable" NOT "The Right Honourable". "The Right Honourable" title comes with the office of Prime Minister and is lost after the office is lost. Martin is therefore only entitled to "The Honourable". --YapaTi (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? The Wikipedia article for Right_honourable disagrees. As does the Library of Parliament. See their page on Mulroney[1] for example. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Martin resigned as Leader and PM

Paul Martin resigned as Leader on Jan.23 2006 and PM as of Jan.24 2006[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelm (talk • contribs)

Why is he listed as being PM until Jan. 24? Logically, he should be PM until Feb. 6, since that is when Harper's page lists Harper as taking over. What about those two weeks in between? I know he resigned, but I don't think his resignation takes effect until Feb. 6. JackO'Lantern 09:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

From the article linked to by Michaelm: "Martin advised her of his intention to resign as Prime Minister of Canada." He has not resigned as either PM or Liberal leader yet. He will resign the PMship on Feb. 6, just prior to Harper's swearing in. With the Liberal leadership, all Martin said was that he plans not to be leader during the next election, so it could many months before he actually is replaced. Indefatigable 15:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Martin's resignation as PM takes effect February 6th, 2006 (when Harper takes office) & he's still Liberal Party leader until a new leader is chosen (at a Liberal Leadership Convention). However, editors (mainley anon users) have continued to post the contrary & assumed Martin will still be alive by Feb. 6/06. I don't believe it's vandalism ,just mistakened edits. GoodDay 16:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(Replying to Indefatigable) - that's the thing. Martin could quit as leader and an interim leader could be named until a convention, but so far this has not happened. So unless Martin chooses to quit outright after Feb. 6 he could, in theory, be leader for another couple of years. Realistically, though, the Liberals need to establish their new leader if they want to win a majority next time, so it's in their best interests to hold a convention before this year is out. (Especially given the short lifespans of minority governments.) 23skidoo 19:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The new CBC report seems to suggest ... I don't know what it suggests. It looks like Martin will remain leader of the Liberals ... but someone else will become Leader of the Opposition. That doesn't make sense. I thought one was the other. Maybe I read it wrong... 23skidoo 19:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Leader of a political party, doesn't have to be that party's leader in the House of Commons. The best case of this, is when a Party Leader isn't a MP (example NDP leader Jack Layton wasn't an MP 2003-04, and so had someone (not sure who), serve as HC leader for the NDP during that time). Although Paul Martin's case is rare (as he's still an MP), he can continue as Party Leader & yet have another person serve as the party's leader in the House of Commons. So ,yes Paul Martin will continue as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada (until as new leader is chosen), however at his request, another Liberal MP will spearhead the Opposition (Liberals) in the House of Commons. GoodDay 23:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

caretaker

A caretaker prime minister in constitutional law is a resigned PM who is still in office purely because his or her successor has not yet been appointed. As Martin has not resigned, merely announced to resign, he is still a full prime minister, not a caretaker. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Have never heard this term used with regards to a Canadian Prime Minister, only a British one. Is there a source to indicate that it is used in the Canadian context? I saw a newspaper report a few days ago that referred to Martin as a "lame duck prime minister" but I believe this to be an incorrect appliance of an American term... 23skidoo 04:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Lame Duck" isn't an official term, however. Some people and press (I have no opinion on the matter) in Alberta call Ralph Klein a lame duck. It just means that they're ineffective because they're being replaced soon.Habsfannova 04:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lame duck usually means a full office-holder who because they are coming to the end of their period in office carries little political authority and so cannot do anything much. Caretaker indicates a resigned office-holder in office simply because their successor has not yet entered it. A lame duck PM possesses full powers but not the political authority to use them. A caretaker PM possesses minimal powers (just enough to keep the process of government ticking over but an inability to exercise many powers, eg, major policy initiatives, seek a dissolution of parliament, etc) but the political authority to use those powers they still have if need be, though usually they will consult with the impending govermment in their exercise. Martin is a de facto lame duck PM but neither de jure nor de facto a caretaker PM. If he had resigned on 24th January, rather than announce his intention later to resign, he would be a caretaker. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

That's true. However, in the Canadian context "caretaker" is not used quite so much because it has various meanings. It is also frequently used to describe a PM who oversaw a period with little action; usually quiet times but also one who did not achieve much or leave much of a legacy. What a Wikipedian might call a "POV term" if used in that sense. Louis St. Laurent is probably a good example. As we borrow terms from the US, the UK and elsewhere and adapt them in different ways but also use their original meanings, it can be quite complicated with some terms having various uses. --JGGardiner 05:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As an encyclopaedia we have to follow higher standards of accuracy in the use of terminology. Whatever about media usage, we have to follow strict constitutional accuracy. It is quite simple: A prime minister is prime minister until they resign, are dismissed or die. A caretaker prime minister is an interim prime minister between the resignation of one PM and the appointment of another. Sometimes the caretaker PM is the outgoing PM. Some constitutional system allow another figure, often a senior civil servant, to act as caretaker PM. As Martin has not resigned he is not, and cannot be, a caretaker PM. He is simply the Prime Minister. The only qualification is that politically he is a lame duck PM. If, God forbid, a massacre of new MPs was to take place and a new election had to be called before the 6th, Martin constitutionally could request a dissolution and a new election off the Governor General. If he was a caretaker PM he in the view of most constitutional experts could not. (Though in that circumstance the Governor General would probably then simply appoint him as full PM to enable him to seek a dissolution lest their be any constitutional doubt over his request if a caretaker PM.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "lame duck" is awkward. As for "caretaker" I was trying to be polite above but if I can be blunt, it is rarely employed in that sense in Canada. --JGGardiner 00:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Espres52-e.jpg

• The Espres52-e.jpg image is just not appropriate for wiki. It contains the unverifiable claim that "no country has reduced debt as much as Canada" - this would require a link to an exhaustive study to substantiate. Palmerston 03:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. It comes off looking rather POV as a result. 23skidoo 05:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Advanced Vandalism

Someone (possibly Willy on Wheels) has replaced the images of Paul Martin and Stephen Harper with borderline-pornographic images. This appears to be advanced vandalism, in that simply deleted the "image" in the template has no effect. Please do not return the template until this matter is resolved. CJCurrie 20:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes

The box for "Leader of the Liberal Party" had changed the successor box to "to be chosen" from "incumbent." Although it is unlikely to happen, there is precedent in Canadian politics for a leader to announce his resignation and then change his mind ... Pierre Trudeau. I think this should remain as "incumbent" until the convention chooses a new leader (or Martin stays on, one or the other). 23skidoo 22:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Finance Minister

This sentence in the first paragraph of the finance minister section seems to be out of place: "Martin balanced the budget by decreasing federal transfer payments to the provinces."

I think it should be removed. It just doesn't seem to belong, and it is inaccurate. It leaves the impression that all Martin did was cut the transfer payments, and then he had a balanced budget. At a minimum I think that sentence should be moved to the last paragraph of the finance minister section, where the costs of balancing the budget are discussed. Shanebratt 08:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)shanebratt

Yeah, I'd delete it too, because the costs are explained later.Habsfan|t 05:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. Shanebratt 09:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Free use vs Fair Use images

The subject of copyrighted vs. Fair Use images has been discussed recently at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Harper#We_should_remove_the_unfree_image

I'm therefore helping the project out by replacing the fair use, copyrighted image here with a free use image. Michael Dorosh 13:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope there's some more articles that you plan to help out. --JGGardiner 16:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I've just updated the photo at Jean Chretien. Helpful Mike 11:02, 11 July 2006 (MST)

The free image was removed again, and it should be put back. --Rob 05:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This image looks like crap. the image of paul martin that's been there for years is alot better and is fair use under crown copyright, why change it when you can't find a more professional image, or is this site full of tories? Canadian crown copyright images are used on a nother of other articles and they haven't been removed, at least find a better quality image before reverting back to that ugly pose photo, we can all agree it's not a good pose eh --User:Cmc0

Take a look at Stephen Harper which has a free image now, which is no "prettier". Wikipedia:Fair use criteria point#1 says we *must* use the free image alternative. Also DO NOT ever upload a fairuse image overtop a free image, as you did with Image:Paulmartin.jpg. That caused several articles to be effected, with nobody able to detect it on their article watch list. --User:Thivierr 07:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I pointed out at the Stephen Harper page, Thivierr (Rob) doesn't know how to interpret the fair use rules properly. They clearly state that if a substandard free use image is being used, it is permissible to use a fair use image until a free one of equal quality can be found. Unfortunately, "Rob" is unable to interpret the rule correctly or fairly. So until someone more eloquent than I can pound it into his head that the fair use images are ok for use under the terms of the very rules he keeps quoting, there's not much we can do about it.Michael Dorosh 16:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

At least look for a better picture then, I mean, Wikipedia can use the crown copyright picture that's been up there for years, why are you guys changing the picture just now, wikipedia hasn't been sued or anything. And I guess you guys got alot of work to do, if you want to replace the thousands of crown copyright images (British, Canadian etc). So tell me this, are you going to replace the Tony Blair main image i posted up with a cropped white house photo then? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cmc0 (talk • contribs) .

You do realize, somebody asked the same question at Stephen Harper, when that was replaced. That led to this article being fixed also. Other articles may also need to be fixed. Crown Copyright in Canada specifically restricts commercial use, which Wikipedia demands. Hence, it's not allowed. I do not know about British Crown Copyright. It may or may not be a problem. Not all "Crown Copyrights" are the same. --User:Thivierr 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but ask yourself this? the rule page you posted asks Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?" I would say no because the bad image you posted stands out (candid non professional shot, wrinkles shown, eyes squinted etc). I haven't seen anyone but you complain about the crown copyright image that's beeen there for years, why change the image now? the crown copyright at least allows us to use the image if i provide the source(which I did).

Please read Talk:Stephen Harper. This conversion has already been done. --User:Thivierr 07:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So what image would you allow to be posted then, which looks better than that white house cropped pic, your the only one that's complaining --Cmc0 07:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Any image that is in the public domain or released under a free license that allows commmercial reuse (GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA) can be used. User:Angr 09:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What about this one, it;s the same one that's hanging in parliament and it's the one Martin handed out when he was prime minister[3]--Cmc0 16:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The original is at fr:Image:PaulMartin.jpg. It's also Canadian Crown Copyright, and therefore not free. User:Angr 16:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as I pointed out at the Stephen Harper page, Thivierr (Rob) doesn't know how to interpret the fair use rules properly. They clearly state that if a substandard free use image is being used, it is permissible to use a fair use image until a free one of equal quality can be found. Unfortunately, "Rob" is unable to interpret the rule correctly or fairly. So until someone more eloquent than I can pound it into his head that the fair use images are ok for use under the terms of the very rules he keeps quoting, there's not much we can do about it.Michael Dorosh 16:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What's unfortunate is that you are the one who can't interpret Wikipedia's fair-use policy correctly. The policy says fair-use images are allowed only if "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" and "Always use a more free alternative if one is available." In both the case of Stephen Harper and the case of Paul Martin, the free image was being used only to show what the man looks like. In both cases, the free images more than adequately convey the information of what the man looks like. Therefore, using the fair-use images is, in both cases, a policy violation. The fair use policy says nothing whatsoever about "substandard" free images, nor does it ever say that a fair-use image can be used "until a free one of equal quality can be found". You just made that up. User:Angr 17:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What is more unfortunate is that Michael is implementing an interpretation that he describes as incorrect, unfair and wrong for the purpose of generating discussion. Michael, please see WP:POINT. --JGGardiner 19:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

As I just said over at Talk:Stephen Harper, I suspect Michael believes he is violating Wikipedia to make a point but in fact, by going through all the Canadian PM articles and replacing fair-use images with free ones, he is actually improving Wikipedia to make a point. Probably the first time I've encountered anyone doing that. User:Angr 19:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is much of an improvement to change the infobox picture but leave the other fair use pictures in the article. I would have thought, according to Michael's arguments (with which I agreed) the infobox is uniquely important and should be the last one changed from fair use. In any event I don't like to see an attempt to create discord. But since there seems to be little, I doubt that I'll complain again. --JGGardiner 20:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well yes, of course all instances of the fair-use image need to be replaced once a free image is found. But tracking down and uploading free images, as Michael is doing, is certainly an improvement to Wikipedia. User:Angr 20:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That image is awful. Can't we find anything with which to replace it? --Arctic Gnome 01:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why not the official PMO version from when he was in power? That's perfectly PD, AFAIK. Frankly, I'm amazed that all the Canadian PM articles don't use them. All the US President articles do. Someobdy should get on that immediately, it's actually pretty. . . low. . . that it hasn't been done yet. Sigma-6 01:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The PMO must have put some official photo in the public domain. --Arctic Gnome 04:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh what a surprise Canadian politician images suddenly get the shaft by Wikipedia rules but American images do not. I saw this coming a LONG time ago and if nobody else did then you were a blind fool. I argued against the policy years ago but no they said it was nothing against Canadian law, that it would affect US laws the same, but look now the Canadian images are gone but American images are still present. NorthernThunder 05:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Roman Catholic not

Paul Martin is not Roman Catholic. He is not pro-choice either. He is pro-abortion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.96.119 (talk • contribs) .

It's generally accepted that "pro-choice" refers to those who favor abortion rights, and that "pro-life" refers to those who favor the rights of the unborn child. Unless I've misunderstood what you're saying. Luna Santin 03:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

You have misunderstood. Religiously and morally, I am opposed to the word "choice" being used as a euphemism for abortion and birth control. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.136.96.119 (talk • contribs) .

If your going to change catergories like pro choice to pro abortion then A. Ensure such a catergory exists B. Choose a better reason than the mere shock value of the word "abortion" over "choice" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.235.135.194 (talk • contribs) .

Agreed, it would be a good idea to get a sense of what is and isn't an acceptable form of argument if you're going to contribute to encyclopedic articles. Incidentally, Paul Martin *is* a Roman Catholic, and the Pope intimated that he might be excommunicated for his policy position on Abortion and Gay Marriage. Martin explained (and you might want to take note) that in Canada, there is a separation of Church and State, in which policymakers leave their religious views outside the legislature. Paul Martin's Catholicism is no more your business than it was the legislature's, and ultimately, the way he practises it has nothing to do with the policy of the party he represented as PM. You might also be interested to hear that there is a logical fallacy called the 'no true scotsman' fallacy, in which the person engaging in the fallacious argument says '. . .No true Catholic (or Scotsman) would support Gay Marriage as PM, even if the electorate demanded he do so in a democratic society with a separation of Church and State (refuse to eat Haggis).' Your opinions of what constitutes a Catholic have no bearing on what religion Paul Martin chooses to observe. Sigma-6 01:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Martin's Successoer Dion

In the Liberal Leaders succession box, I've replaced Bill Graham with Stephane Dion. Why? Because, all the other Liberal Leader's succession boxes don't list the interim-leaders. GoodDay 00:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See this discussion on the Stephane Dion talk page. GoodDay 01:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Leaving Lasalle-Emard?

This Montreal Gazette article says that Martin will not be running again in Lasalle-Emard, but mentions this incidentally (Jean Lapierre's decision being the main story). Can anyone vouch for whether or not this has been officially established? "It would be unlikely given the circumstances" doesn't count.

Interestingly, paulmartin.ca is a 404 for me. He doesn't seem to have a constituency website up. Very odd. -Joshuapaquin 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is speculation and since it did not come from Martin's office, you have to start it by saying "A report speculated that...". Lapierre on the other hand did announce that he would not run.GoldDragon 05:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that it's speculation. It explicitly says that "Martin has already announced he will not run again in his southwest Montreal riding of LaSalle-Emard." -Joshuapaquin 06:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I saw another article that speculated that Martin would not run. Anyhow, this is clearly okay.GoldDragon 23:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not know where I saw it, however, I do remember him saying that he will not be running for re-election in the next general election. VanceBaker (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Monarchist language

Are these pro-monarchy changes really necessary: [4]? The new wording is technically accurate, but there are very few people in Canada who actually describe changes in government with reference to the apparatus of the monarchy. CJCurrie 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Honourary degrees

Should the honourary degrees be used in the opening? I know that it is legitimate but it is rarely done. Stephen Colbert even does it as a joke. --JGGardiner 19:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad form to list honourary degrees, I should think. Also, highly impractical. If an individual has dozens of honourary degrees we couldn't list them all. So how would we select which ones to list? Sunray (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

2004 Election

I'm always uncomfortable with presenting election analysis in the article as if it were fact. Everyone has different opinions. In any event, this sentence is not supported by the note attached to it: "These attacks also attracted crucial voters who had been leaning towards the NDP, which enabled the Liberals to hold on to several ridings by thin margins." --JGGardiner (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your comments. I is hard to do well and this account does not cut it. The second ref doesn't mention what is being claimed in the section. Therefore it is original research. Sunray (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Pantsless Photo

User:Nneonneo claims that the picture in revision history is 'unencyclopedic' however he has failed to point out why, and has not refuted the statements made in the initial revert: "shows sense of humour and recent speaking engagements". Until an explanation of why Paul Martin's sense of humour is not relevant to Paul Martin, and why Paul Martin's recent speaking engagements are not relevant to Paul Martin is provided the image will be reverted.

76.10.128.253 (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with talk Paul Martin's sense of humour and his recent speaking engagements are clearly relevant and encyclopedic. I keep hearing the word unencyclopedic, but you haven't explained how or cited policy, clearly many editors/readers feel this is relevant and enecyclopedic, so rather than just going back and forth perhaps User:Nneonneo can explain his reasoning in a bit more detail.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkarau (talk • contribs) 23:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Read below. I very clearly outlined why it is not encyclopedic. nneonneo ^talk 23:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So the argument is that since he has other speaking engagements and is not known for a sense of humor then it is not relevant? Regardless, if he does have a large number of speaking engagements, including mention of this on his page seems appropriate, as does a picture from one. While other images may exist (you haven't shown any which are under a license we can use), this one is under an acceptable license and indicates his sense of humor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkarau (talk • contribs) 10 April 2009 06:55 (UTC)

Please sign your posts with ~~~~, and make sure to use Show Preview to avoid messing up someone else's comment. Thanks. nneonneo ^talk 18:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't illustrated why any of that is relevant to the article ("seems appropriate" is not justification). Furthermore, for *anything* to be considered for inclusion, it must have been covered in multiple, reliable, independent sources, which neither his sense of humor, nor this speaking engagement have. nneonneo ^talk 18:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This was covered by CTV & The Daily Bulletin (perhaps more), so we've got multiple reliable independent sources (CTV is owned by CTVglobemedia Inc. and The Daily Bulletin is operated by the University of Waterloo). Hkarau (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations? nneonneo ^talk 21:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Daily Bulletin http://www.bulletin.uwaterloo.ca/2009/feb/17tu.html , CTV MyNews http://mynews.ctv.ca/mediadetails/629793?collection=567&q=+&offset=1&siteT= . Sadly the broadcast CTV video is no longer available (it was previously available from http://www.southwesternontario.ctv.ca/news.php?id=3926 ), but the summery clearly indicates coverage of his talk at Waterloo. A press release issued by the University of Waterloo in advance of his talk is also available from http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=5039 . I am restoring the original image as it appears all concerns have been addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.136.192 (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Yes, I think that covers everything. nneonneo ^talk 16:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul Martin poses after a speech on social issues at the University of Waterloo.

For reference purposes, this is the image with accompanying caption. nneonneo ^talk 03:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In reply to your point(s): First of all, I'm not the only one with this feeling: User:CJCurrie has also reverted the addition of this image three times (first time: "There's something vaguely "photoshopped" about this, not to mention unencyclopedic.", second time: "As I said, it's unencyclopedic in any event.", third time: "Actually, I'm of the opinion that the image is unencyclopedic even if it's real."). Paul Martin's "sense of humor" isn't relevant to the article, as he is not particularly known for his humor, and no reliable source has reported on this particular aspect. Paul Martin has many speaking engagements, most covered by images far more flattering than the one which is continually reposted here. Further, this particular speaking engagement itself is not a particularly notable event, which means that the image is not useful in that context either. However, if you had a sufficiently high-resolution version of this image, it might be a suitable replacement (after cropping, of course) for the rather crappy portrait we've got now :) nneonneo ^talk 03:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus that favours inclusion. I wonder if it is also a WP:BLP concern especially with a concern that it may have been photoshopped. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The concerns of photoshopping seem unfounded, especially since CTV found it credible enough to remain in the MyNEWS section of their website [5] which is pretty heavily patrolled for hoaxes and the people who cried photoshop were unable to back up their claims with specific problems with the image. Perhaps User:Andareed can shed more light on the situation with the photo. In any case I don't think WP:BLP isn't a concern here, the image is pretty credible. Ebering (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This photo is clearly supported by reputable news sources. Any claims of photoshopping are original research, which is unacceptable on wikipedia. Andareed (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from 64.235.109.161, 19 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Paul Martin has recently received the following "Honorary Degrees"

Queen's University, 2010 and University of Western Ontario, 2010

64.235.109.161 (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and we will make the change.

 Not done ^Avicenna_sis @ 03:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Paul Martin

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Paul Martin's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "dominionofcanada.com":

• From Lester B. Pearson: http://dominionofcanada.com/commemorative_medals/index.html
• From William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Commemorative Medals of The Queen's Reign in Canada".

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)