Talk:Jason Kenney

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BakingBackSunday. Peer reviewers: Psychedeadlix.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance at the Bilderberg Meetings?[edit]

Kenney is currently attending the 2014 Bilderberg meetings and I think it would be appropriate to mention this. To attend a meeting with many of the global elite, is quite the honor. http://bilderbergmeetings.org/participants.html

Parliamentary debate?[edit]

Is Kenney really celibate? Do we need a reference?

More to the point, is this encyclopedic? CJCurrie (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary debate?[edit]

I tried looking for the debate in the House of Commons (via Edited Hansard available online) where Kenney and Davies have this exchange as noted in the penultimate paragraph. I cannot seem to find it. However, I did find news articles that seem to indicate that this exchange took place outside of the House of Commons ([1][2][3]). If it did not occur in the House, then I don't think it should be called "parliamentary debate". The controversial line was mentioned in a Statements by Members session [4], but that's not the same as debate. Same issue on the Libby Davies article. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-08-22 T 07:19:05 Z

Potential Vandalism[edit]

On March 15, 2010, an antagonistic site suggested with screenshots that this page has been vandalized to remove controversial and critical content. A cursory review of the history seems to confirms this finding. Suggest restoring content, and locking page if vandalism continues. Citizenship Minister's Wikipedia Site Edits Section on Gay Rights, Removes Lost Canadians --MrOakes (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)MrOakes (talk) 03:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the information can't stay in the form you suggest. I've reverted the latest re-addition. It is unnecessarily prejudicial and editorial in tone. Perhaps the information can be included with more neutral wording. Do you have any suggestions? Franamax (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Franamax (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Unnecessarily predudicial and editorial in tone" they are facts not opinon, that's why they are citied. Most of the citations come from Canadian government websites, did you even check the links or just erase the paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.92.135.204 (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"He fails to acknowledge that most of these people have applied and have a strong case" is an unsourced opinion. As for the rest, the tone could be improved, but I don't think it justifies removal.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Galloway additional details.[edit]

SaskatchewanSenator please don't revert without further discussion. This material deserves to be in the Kenney article because Kenney's actions lead to Galloway's intention to sue the Canadian Government. If you disagree I'm happy to seek a 3rd opinion DSatYVR (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think those sentences belong in this article because:
  • Galloway says that the Canadian Government breached his privacy, not Kenney
  • What Galloway says he has donated belongs in Galloway's article, not Kenney's.
  • IMHO, Someone saying they intend to sue isn't notable.
--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest you read the entire paragraph and the supporting citations before proceeding further? The additional detail I added is a continuation of the original idea(s) presented in the paragraph. Also advise if you wish to proceed with a 3rd opinion review There is no need to do so if we are in consensus. If we are not in consensus I will start the process. DSatYVR (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please address the three issues I listed above? The material is not directly related to Kenney and belongs in the Galloway article instead.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read the paragraph or references have you? In that case I'll set up the 3rd opinion review. Regards, DSatYVR (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this qualifies for the Third opinion process, because I don't think that the issue has been thoroughly discussed, but I welcome other opinions. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the three issues I listed above.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read the paragraph, read the references/citations attached to the paragraph and you will make the connection. My preference is to let the material speak for itself rather than debate the obvious. For the benefit of other editors: The additional material illustrates cause and effect. Jason Kenney bars entry into Canada of George Galloway on the basis of his alleged terrorist connections. Galloway presents arguments to counter the charges made by Kenney and discloses his intention to sue the Canadian Government. (see citations for further detail if required)DSatYVR (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding to some of my concerns. I don't agree with all of your explanations:
  • Kenney did not bar Galloway entry into Canada
  • I still think Galloway's comments on his donations are more appropriate for the Galloway article, but if they are to counter the claims made by Kenney's spokesperson, it should immediately follow them. It also should include the information that "Galloway donated £25,000 to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniya in the Gaza Strip in March 2009." (from the CBC article you cited).
  • Galloway saying he intends to sue the Canadian government isn't significant enough to be in this article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
The additional details are useful as they essentially complete the story, giving Galloway's position. They consume little space and their inclusion is not disproportionate.—Figureofnine (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galloway donation[edit]

I have reverted this edit. Here is why:

  • Our article already notes that Galloway provided supplies to the governing authority in Hamas-controlled Gaza. There is no need to recast this information in a sensationalistic light.
  • Although citations are required for controversial statements, the fact of a controversial statement having a citation is not sufficient grounds to justify its inclusion on an article page. Put another way, "Restored cited material" is not a sufficient justification for returning this statement. CJCurrie (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence at issue is:

Galloway donated £25,000 to Ismail Haniya of Hamas.

It is not sensationalistic. Why do you think it is controversial?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can tell, there's some dispute as to whether or not Galloway actually gave money to Haniyeh. Galloway, for one, seems to have said that he didn't.
  • Anyway, the main issue here is the relationship between Galloway's participation in the Viva Palestina convey and his subsequent ban from Canada. The current edit covers this; I don't see the need to add a specific (and disputed) detail.
  • Beyond which, Galloway has repeatedly denied giving anything to Hamas, as such. He turned over materials to the governing authority in Gaza, not to Hamas per se as an organization. He certainly didn't "donate" money to Haniyeh, in the sense that the term is generally used. CJCurrie (talk)
The article should include what reliable sources have said about the donation, along with the statements from Kenney's spokesperson and Galloway. If there is disagreement between reliable sources, that can be noted. The sentence that you dispute, above, is an accurate reflection of the material in the cited article "Galloway vows to sue Canadian government" [[5]].--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit silly, really; we're not obligated to reproduce a passing snippet of information from one source when other sources provide greater context. The cited article, "Galloway vows to sue Canadian government," contains a context-free one-sentence summary of the donation controversy (and it doesn't clarify if the donation was in money or goods). Other sources provide much, much more detail about the matter. In situations like this, the correct course of action is to use language that reflects the more complete sources rather than taking isolated sentences and presenting them as "the whole story." CJCurrie (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have better sources on Galloway's donation, please provide them. What language do you suggest to describe the donation?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What we have now seems fine:
Alykhan Velshi, a spokesperson for Kenney, claimed that Galloway had openly admitted giving "financial support" to Hamas, which is classified as a terrorist group in Canada. Galloway has said that he donated ambulances, medicine, and toys to the people of Gaza and did not materially support terrorism.
If you really want, we can clarify that the donation went through the Hamas-controlled government of Gaza. Otherwise, I don't see the need for any change.
As to better courses, I think that googling "Galloway Gaza" should be sufficient. CJCurrie (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to include what a reliable source has said about the donation.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It already includes what several reliable sources have said about the donation. CJCurrie (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn’t. It includes what Kenney’s spokesperson and Galloway have said about the donation. It needs to include what a reliable source has said.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, our article currently includes rival descriptions of the donation. This is sufficient. We aren't obligated to add one particular line from one particular source article to our page, particularly when the line in question is a short and unspecific summary. CJCurrie (talk) 01:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not sufficient. I'm not partial to any particular source or wording. If you have a better source or wording please provide it. The article should include what a reliable source has said about the donation.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 03:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need a third opinion.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

I agree with CJCurrie that it is not necessary to include the specific statement that George Galloway donated money to Ismail Haneyeh. The important policy point to note here is that any material about living persons must be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Galloway has stated (according to the CBC article) that he donated money for ambulances etc., and that that is not the same as materially supporting Hamas, and it is incumbent on us, per our BLP policy, to not attempt to imply otherwise. The current formulation satisfies our BLP policy adequately. A formulation that stated that Galloway's contributions were channelled through the Hamas-controlled government of Gaza may be appropriate, though is also perhaps unnecessary because the article is about Kenney not Galloway, but the specific sentence that is contested is not. Thanks. --rgpk (comment) 15:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What aspect of WP:BLP are you basing this on?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The italicized part of my comment above. --rgpk (comment) 18:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. Thanks. The italics should have tipped me off. So it's the tone of the sentence that's the problem.
I agree with you that some of this material about Galloway would be better left to the Galloway article, but as long as this article addresses the substance of Galloway's donation it's obliged to include reliable third-party sources.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 09:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: CJCurrie's revert, How is Galloway's donation of ambulances etc. relevant to this article?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 05:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks OK to me, as it provides context for what exactly the donation was for. Franamax (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misunderstood. Galloway did not donate money to buy ambulances etc. He donated ambulances and money.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but that's where we don't want to use this article to examine the "truth" of the matter. We just want to present the "he said/she said" and leave it at that. Government says one thing, Galloway says another. Galloway is suing. Franamax (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you aren't implying what I thought you were. How does what Galloway said about his donation of ambulances etc. explain, with regard to the money he donated, "what exactly the donation was for"?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you quite certain that Galloway donated money? CJCurrie (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This has been reported by a variety of reliable sources.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of a coherent explanation of how it is relevant to this article, I will remove it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like three other editors find the explanation coherent enough, so I would advise you to leave the material in the article. Franamax (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain how what Galloway said about his donation of ambulances etc. explains, with regard to the money he donated, "what exactly the donation was for"?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I've explained above what the situation is: government says he's bad; Galloway says he's good; judge says Kenney was wrong; Galloway sues. All we are doing is presenting both "sides" of the story, in a non-prejudicial fashion. It is our responsibility to include the defense a BLP has made of their actions. Why do you think that sentence is such an awful thing? Keeping in mind, as I've already said, it's not our role to divine the truth of things. Franamax (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think mentioning Galloway's donation of ambulances and other goods is an "awful thing", I just don't think it's relevant to this article. You tried to explain what it contributes to the article. I don't understand your explanation and asked for some clarification. Can you help me to understand why you think it's relevant to Kenney's article?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone can explain what "It provides context for what exactly the donation was for." means or has another reason why Galloway's donation of ambulances and other goods is relevant to this article, I'm going to remove it.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry SS to have missed your request for clarification above, I'll respond here in much the same fashion: apparently a court has found that Kenney had acted improperly, this is a fact that we really must report in order to fashion an encyclopedic article, i.e. we're not just going to ignore it, right? But at the same time, we're not going to try to explain it away as either good or bad, we're just trying to relate the relevant known facts. In a case where two BLP individuals are on either "side" of a real-world dispute, it is incumbent on us to neutrally present the positions of each "side". especially so since BLP is one of those trumps-all policies. We have a reliably documented record that Galloway responded to the charges of malfeasance. Whether or not you feel Galloway responded in a sufficient manner is not the concern of this encyclopedia, unless you have further RS to bring here with proposed wording. We have a response attested in a reliable source, it is germane to the matter, it neutrally presents one of the respective positions, it is essential to the "story" of the affair, and I'm not at all clear on how WP:BLP allows us to remove it. I do believe the onus is actually on you here to demonstrate your rationale for removal, "unless someone can explain" doesn't look good enough when you've been reticent in discussion of any previous explanations offered. Once again, what is your problem with the text being included? Does it somehow imbalance the accounting? Franamax (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I was attempting to find a compromise in what rgpk wrote, but it doesn't look like this is going to work.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenney vs Paul Martin in China[edit]

Yesterday I noticed that this article contained a reference to Mr Kenney's willingness (as an opposition MP) to pay respects to a deceased Chinese dissident. This was fine but I noticed that this went on to mention that Mr Kenney's actions were criticized by then-PM Paul Martin. I removed this second sentence as it failed to note that government members have different obligations than opposition members. I also noted that since entering government neither Kenney nor other government members have carried out a similar act. To my mind the original poster's intention was to set up a partisan straw man in which Kenney and the Conservatives favour human rights while Martin and the Liberals do not. Within six hours this had been reverted with the minimalist explanation "it's important to show the other side to this". I'd be curious to know if others think that this kind of highly selective framing actually amounts to "showing the other side" of an argument. ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drinkingbreaker (talk • contribs) 13:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have jumped the gun on that revert without looking too closely. This isn't an issue that I'm too familiar with, so feel free to switch it back, unless anyone else disagrees. MitchellDuce (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenney on the merits and fallout of the Iraq war[edit]

My revisions were mainly aimed at ensuring that this section did not retroactively rewrite Kenney's fervent pro-war stance as being merely anti-Saddam when it was in fact an open echo of the full set of argumentation coming out of the Bush Administration (WMDs, freedom and pan-Arab democratization, regional security, anti-terrorism), along with his dire warnings that the sky would fall if Canada didn't join the coalition. While I think my edits were fine, the subsequent edits also serve this purpose. Drinkingbreaker (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Musician/Band?[edit]

When I stumbled across Wikipedia's article on Facebook about Jason Kenney, it appears that he's listed as being a "Musician/Band." I'm not sure if this is an error or vandalism, but it should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.180.142.244 (talk) 21:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped out to begin work in Saskatchewan provincial politics.[edit]

The sentence "He dropped out before completing his undergraduate degree to begin work in Saskatchewan provincial politics." was removed with the explanation that it is contentious. What is contentious about it?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping out of school is not generally perceived positively, so it would be contentious information. That is not to say the info can't be included, but you would need to produce a reliable source, per WP:BLP and WP:RS. 50.100.156.249 (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that he didn't drop out, or that that you think the wording should be more neutral?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if he did or not, and it is likely most readers do not either, which is why a reliable source is needed; see WP:V. I don't see an issue with the wording. 50.100.156.249 (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a verifiable source for this fact, an article in the Vancouver Sun. The uncompleted degree was also reported in the Toronto Star. I am not sure why his high school hockey team deserves a mention. Was he on it? Letterofmarque (talk) 02:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent timeline (Early life and career)[edit]

Section states that Kenney was at University of San Francisco, left, then worked for Ralph Goodale in 1988. Problem: He was still a student in SF in 1990, or at least CNN thought so at the time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhlC-ZrguhA

I haven't the time or energy to rewrite this at the moment, but if someone wants to get on it, the salient facts are only a web search away. For that matter, a mention of his rabidly anti-choice stance (the subject of the CNN report) would not be out of place. Even objectively, how many Canadian MPs have draughted petitions that went to the Vatican? The video link can also serve as a ref. You're welcome. HuntClubJoe (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Walrus magazine article may also serve as a reference. http://thewalrus.ca/true-blue/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.230.113 (talk) 14:47, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 19:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Jason Kenney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and career[edit]

The sources for early life prior to 1986 (Leader Post and Genealogy.com) no longer work. Keith McClary (talk) 16:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed this statement from the early life section, which looks like it was meant to be on the talk page: "He is also listed as a 1986 alumnus of St. Michaels University School, a notable non-denominational boarding school in Victoria, British Columbia. As a graduate of Notre dame, his father’s, the president’s school, I’m not sure he’s an alumnus of St. Michaels." I've inserted a "citation-needed" tag on behalf of the original poster. Stevecudmore (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Jason Kenney[edit]

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 Jason Kenney'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 "CP_CBC_20190620":
  • From Public Sector Wage Arbitration Deferral Act: Canadian Press (June 20, 2019). "Bargaining rights bill passes after all-night session in Alberta legislature". Canadian Press via CBC News. Retrieved June 20, 2019.
  • From Premiership of Jason Kenney: Canadian Press (June 20, 2019). "Bargaining rights bill passes after all-night session in Alberta legislature". CBC News. Retrieved October 27, 2019.
Reference named "AB_assembly_20190620":

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⚡ 03:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019 Provincial Election Campaign: Immigration Increase His Priority[edit]

In February 2019 news scrum candidate Jason Kenney spoke. Jason Kenney on CBC news 2019 immigration Crucial Oldspammer (talk) 10:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a chat board. Why are you bringing this up here? --Yamla (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A chat board? Am I on some list to be targeted by admins here? Is my username guiding your charge I am using WP as a chat board?
Notability is another word for importance. Everything is connected and mundane things can have unforeseen profound implications.
The cited video examines specific policies supported by the subject and explains likely how and why they shall needlessly exacerbate existing economic hardships.
The information should be used to augment any information in the article about what or how the subject thinks and institutes spending and laws that may or may not be useful for his constituency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW23-k5WRJA Wolff on "The Basic Economics of Immigration"
Marxist Economist Prof. Dr. Richard Wolff explains immigration implications of an economic nature for voters.
Documentaries show how history in various places ravaged by violent uprisings, revolutions, etc, has happened. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its mistakes and live or die with the consequences. Oldspammer (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Controversial Views on LGBT and Abortion Issues on Introduction/Lead Section?[edit]

I suggest you add a brief one line sentence on his views on LGBT and Abortion on the introduction of the article.SweetMilkTea13 (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose this; in general, I think a brief one-line sentence would be appropriate (with more detail later on). However, I do object to using www.albertandp.ca as the citation there. The Alberta NDP are the Official Opposition and so cannot be expected to be unbiased in this regard. I want to be clear, this is my only objection. A different source meeting WP:RS and I'd have no objection. --Yamla (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small Paragraph in Lead revolving around Social Conservative Beliefs[edit]

Just notifying some people that I added a small paragraph in the lead section revolving around his social conservative beliefs. He is perhaps the most right-wing premier in Canada, so I do think it is significant. Blizzard-of-Revisions1220 (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Bigfoot Family" controversy[edit]

Pmmccurdy today added a section with the above title. I reverted today with edit summary = "This is an article about Jason Kenney. It is not an article about everything that was every done or said by the Alberta government or related organizations." Despite Wikipedia's WP:BLPUNDEL and WP:NOCON policies, Pmccurdy re-inserted. Does anyone else have an opinion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added this section under Controversies as UCP leader. It was Jason Kenney who created the CEC, so this links back to him. Moreover it is a controversy of note as it has received provincial, national and international media attention as well as a wide range of public comment. Kenney has, in no uncertain terms, defended the CEC and also doubled down on the charge. Moreover, he has received criticism as well by opposition making this a textbook Controversy of note and of public interest. I write the latter point as someone who is a published scholar on the media and political history of Alberta's oil/tar sands. Pmmccurdy (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021[edit]

Add; Jason Kenney is not married to a woman or man. 2001:56A:F40B:4600:F57F:E0FB:170E:52A2 (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2021 (2)[edit]

Add; Jason Kenney has many years of post-secondary schooling but has never achieved a degree. 2001:56A:F40B:4600:F57F:E0FB:170E:52A2 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leader of the United Conservative Party[edit]

Everything after 2019, such as the bit about Bigfoot Family, makes much more sense in the context of Kenney being Premier. By then, he was very much thought of as Alberta Premier and not UCP leader. Thoughts on moving these things to that section instead? 76.64.106.112 (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Bilingual"[edit]

@Kawnhr: - The article cited in the personal life section states "Kenney, who’s picked up some Punjabi since becoming minister of citizenship". It then goes on to refer to his "bilingualism" in reference to that fact. Bilingualism certainly implies fluency, even if it does not explicitly require it. Regardless, my revised statement that he speaks "some Punjabi" has more information and is undoubtedly more accurate based upon the source.</nowiki>

Unrelatedly, I took out the fact about him not having a wife or kids. It just seems like a strange thing to highlight; it also implicitly implies that it is an unusual thing that needs to be pointed out, which is a very old-timey POV (imagine if we pointed out that a female pol did not have children, same idea here). There is no need to highlight a 'negative' trait - it would be like saying "he does not own a cat, nor a dog". While possibly true, it's not something that is especially relevant to understanding him. If you want to put that he lives with his mom (as the article says), I'd be more open to that. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenney is bilingual in English and French. I do not believe the article is meaning to imply that his bilingualism is English and Punjabi and the article twice notes Kenney is able to communicate in French. --Yamla (talk) 20:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well that's fair. I will find a different source for the section then. I will add the Punjabi fact though. ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 20:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me! Note, though, I'm not the one who reverted you. :) --Yamla (talk) 20:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In a Canadian context, and especially a Canadian politics context, "bilingual" without any specifics means fluency in English and French; if one speaks two languages other than those, it's always expressly spelt out which those two are. For example, this article on Mary Simon opens with "some wonder what happened to tradition of bilingualism", but then goes on to say she speaks English and Inuktitut… and further goes on to explain why she doesn't know French. Simon obviously speaks two languages, but those two aren't the ones that we normally think of in Canada when we say a person "is bilingual".
Additionally, the full context of the line is Does Kenney have ambitions to succeed Harper? Among Conservative activists and party faithful, there is no doubt: Kenney will be waiting in the wings. His bilingualism and the formidable network he’s built at the heart of ethnic communities will be his greatest assets. Fluency in both of Canada's official languages is conventionally a requirement for federal leadership, so to use Kenney's "bilingualism" as evidence of leadership ambitions clearly refers to an ability to speak French, not Punjabi.
As for his marital status, it's something that's regularly come up in profiles of the man over the years, so I don't think it's undue for Wikipedia to briefly mention it. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I was wrong about the bilingualism - the cited article's discussion of him speaking Punjabi, along with the use of "ethnic community" following the bilingualism mislead me - in context of a Canadian politician I guess French is implied, fair enough. I think the new source makes it more clear, anyway. I don't feel strongly enough about the unmarried bit to argue, though I don't think it's necessary. Anyway I apologize for the confusion and all that. Cheers! ‡ El cid, el campeador talk 12:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jason_Kenney&oldid=1207949257"