Talk:Libby Davies/Archive 1

Archive 1

How she identifies

From time to time, reference is made to Ms. Davies being the first openly lesbian MP. However, as is stated in the article, Ms. Davies does not identify as a lesbian:

XW: Now, I’ve read that you’re reluctant to take the label of lesbian. Why is that?

DAVIES: Well, first of all, I totally respect everyone’s right to define themselves and I also recognize that other people will define me, and I don’t really have any control over that, so that’s okay. But I don’t feel that I define myself in any particular way. I’m still Libby Davies. My partner’s a woman. [1]

If the way Ms. Davies identifies has changed, I'd like to hear about it, but otherwise we should report how she identifies, or doesn't identify.

A contributor said, if she has a female parner, we can call her a lesbian; but the fact is women who identify as bisexual and queer can also have female partners. Anyway, we should report what she has to say about the issue. She's the one who gets to say so. For now, all we can say is that she is the first out female MP. - Montréalais 16:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, she doesn't have control over that. If most people identify her as a lesbian, then that's what needs to be put in. For lack of a better policy or guideline, I'll point you to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Ardenn 16:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing in that page about sexual orientation. In any case, she can hardly be out as a lesbian if she doesn't say that she's a lesbian. - Montréalais 07:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Sexual orientation is an area where the person's own label trumps any other consideration. Bearcat 17:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Socialist?

She's in the "Category:Socialists" right now, and yet there's nothing in the article which confirms it. Having watched her in many interviews over the years, I always got the impression that she, like most members of the NDP, was a Social democrat rather than a socialist. Does anyone have info (preferably a direct quote) that could clear this up? If nothing is forthcoming, I think I'll remove the category. Serpent-A 07:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't like categories that use terms with disputed meanings like that. I don't even really like categroies much at all. On the other hand, Davies was pretty involved in the NPI which was unambiguously socialist at the time. Now I suppose one could be a part of an organization that advocated socialism and not be a socialist but it would be a bit of a trick. I also notice that the category does say that it includes some social democrats who are not outright socialists. But that should probably be trimmed from the category rather than used as a basis for inclusion. --JGGardiner 20:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Palestinian political roots

Following in the footsteps of former NDP MP Svend Robinson (living abroad since his arrest and failed political come back)and, some would say, her mentor, Ms. Davies has a history of attempting to champion Palestinian issues. I have had the opportunity to see her in action at a Pro-Palestinian lecture at the University of British Columbia. Since the Gaza flotilla affair has broken out she has felt emboldend to speak her mind and has claimed the state of Israel to be illegitimate. ie: `the occupation started in 1948` - the founding of the modern state of Israel in it`s ancestrial homeland.

Please go to the following link

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-wants-ndp-to-fire-deputy-libby-davies-for-criticism-of-israel/article1605386/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.69.96 (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I would hardly describe Libby Davies as having "political roots" in the IP Conflict. In the interview quoted she states that she is not knowledgeable about the subject. Furthermore, this one incident does not indicate a "history" of Palestinian issues. But thank you for the editorializing, I'm sure everyone appreciates it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wictorwictor (talk • contribs) 08:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments Re: Israel and additions by User:125.238.80.123

Personally, my feeling is that the additions made by User:125.238.80.123, [2], add undue weight to the article. For one, the length of this discussion seems to imply that this is one of the most notable things that has happened in her career; my worry is that it is, perhaps, just one of the most recent. Also, the large number of comments by others (I assume her political opponents) seem to be given too much weight. However, my knowledge of the subject itself is nearly nonexistent, so I hesitate to make changes myself. Anyone else have opinions on the matter? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. Ms. Davies has been in politics for over 15 years and an encyclopedia article about her need not be padded out by an exhaustive summary of a controversy that lasted all of 48 hours. I have edited the section for length while preserving the key facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.144.111 (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This version seems much closer to proper weighting and to the linked references to me, although I'm certainly willing to hear the opinion of User:125.238.80.123 (or anyone else, of course). 03:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)

I should probably mention I also made a few revisions for accuracy: I put the sequence of events in the correct order (Layton did not weigh in until after the comments were brought up by Rae and Harper, two weeks after Davies made the statements in question) and removed the assertion that she advocated divestment and sanctions (she specifically opposes divestment and sanctions in the interview). I also pointed out that she argued in favour of a negotiated settlement. Only the first 30 seconds of the 5 minute interview deal with Israel being (allegedly) an occupied territory so I felt the additional context was warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.144.111 (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem shortening it, but changing her support for the BDS movement into a hardly controversial "support for a negotiated settlement" is not on. It is a key part of the controversy and is also what is clearly stated in the citations:

"Ms. Davies’ remarks were captured on video by an Internet journalist who asked her questions about the conflict in the Middle East and then posted it online. Ms. Davies had suggested in the video that the occupation of Palestinian territories began in 1948 — the year of Israel’s independence — and she also expressed her personal support for a campaign to boycott and sanction the country."

"Ms. Davies’ remarks prompted an angry backlash from her own caucus, including Mr. Layton, who described it as a serious mistake. Mr. Layton also said he called Israel’s ambassador to Canada to clarify that it didn’t reflect NDP policy."

"Thomas Mulcair, another deputy leader of the NDP, has said Ms. Davies should also apologize for supporting the boycott campaign, explaining that it’s particularly “egregious” that the mistake was made by a high-ranking member of the party."

I'll assume you simply didn't read the cite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.80.123 (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've been misinformed. Both citations are inaccurate. Here is a video of the complete June 5th interview with Libby Davies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utXDAha_vGg

at 1:35, Davies says "...there has to be some kind of settlement, whether it's negotiated or whether it's somehow imposed."

at 2:29 the interviewer asks, "You are supporting a boycott of Israel? And divestment?" Libby replies, "No, I haven't actually even gone that far."

at 3:18 she expresses that she personally supports the BDS movement, but not for BDS itself.

You have again shifted things around to make it sound like Jack Layton sprung into action before Prime Minister Harper and Opposition Critic Rae decided to blast Davies over the two-week old interview. I will be changing this portion of the article significantly. Unfortunately it will have to be made longer again to fully and accurately describe the sequence of events.

Commercial news media reports are rarely verified for their accuracy. Very often they simply repeat the raw, unfiltered platitudes of a politician or government, without any analysis. These types of sources should not be relied upon for "he-said-she-said" situations like this. I encourage editors to directly verify such claims for themselves in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wictorwictor (talk • contribs) 08:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There were a couple issues with your edits so I've rolled them back. #1 is that it's original research WP:OR to cite a youtube video to support your own take on events. We are required to use secondary sources -like news articles. #2 it was too long. Others on this page have objected that too much detail is undue weight WP:UNDUE. However, I changed it so that Jack Layton's response was after Harper and Rae's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.80.123 (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Very well. I was not aware that this counted as original research. Unfortunately the articles cited lack certain details and recontextualize Libby Davies' statements according the biases of Messrs. Harper and Rae. I have made a few adjustments for grammar, style and accuracy. Hopefully this is to everyone's satisfaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wictorwictor (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: This is apparently the object of some controversy. I think it is OK to let it get a bit longer because there are a lot of details and it's too easy to contextualize this according to one's own biases. We both missed at least one key detail. All previous revisions suggested that Davies apologized after being attacked by Rae, Harper, et al. This is not true; her letter of apology came on June 11th after she was criticized in the Ottawa Citizen -- which is really the source of the controversy. Frankly I think this is a classic hatchet job but I will stick to the sources I find as best as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wictorwictor (talk • contribs) 05:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this controversy so strong, and likely to be so long lasting, that it approximately equals everything else that she's done? Notice the following from WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." (emphasis added). If you look at the text as written now, this "controversy" seems to have almost equal weight to nearly everything else she's done in her career. I understand that this is controversial and there are multiple sides, but I think that the need to make the overall article an accurate portrayal of her notability is more important than the need to make sure every detail of this particular set of events is fully documented. I'm inclined to revert the massive addition, as we're really right back where we started when I added this section to the Talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It is an ongoing controversy within the NDP caucus, apparently. If it blows over, I agree that this entire section should be trimmed significantly, if not removed outright. I think reverting to the previous version would not be wise because, in glossing over key facts, it makes certain implications that might be construed as unfair and/or negative to Ms Davies. An ideal summary would go something like this:

"On June 10th Davies gave an interview in which she suggested that Israel has been occupied territory since 1948. She was criticized for her comments the next day in an Ottawa Citizen editorial. She responded to these criticisms in a letter to the Citizen which can be viewed on Davies' website. On June 15th Harper, Rae et al echoied the criticisms in the Citizen and demanded her resignation. Jack Layton refused but described Davies' statement as a "serious mistake" and called the Israeli ambassador to clarify." --Wictorwictor (talk) 06:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)