Talk:André Boisclair

message: Vfp15 removed a reference to Boisclair's sexuality, saying it didn't needed to be mentioned more than once... but now the article never mentions it, except to imply it by talking about the polls done about that. Shouldn't we actually mention the man is gay, if it warrants being talked about? -GregoryWeir 21:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. He is not a gay politician, he is a mainstream politician who is gay. It would be fine to mention his sexual orientation in a more developed bio section, but not when the section is as short as it is here. Many other things matter more than his being gay. For example, he attended the Collège Jean de Brébeuf, as did Pierre Trudeau and Robert Bourassa. On the other hand, his sexuality was a question at the polls which brought to light that it's pretty much a non-issue: people are more concerned with how Boisclair plans to reduce waiting time in healthcare and the militant wing of the P.Q. is more concerned with his stance on separation. Where Landry was a pragmatic man who believed separation better left aside for a while, Boisclair is a commited separatist with a pragmatic plan to move towards separation. These are the questions that matter to Boisclair and the electorate. Vincent 05:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. -GregoryWeir 18:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree that it doesn't really deserve any more prominence that it currently receives.  While I haven't exactly been following the race closely, I've been paying a reasonable amount of attention to it, and I was completely unaware Boisclair was gay.  The cocaine issue has received much more attention, especially because of Michaëlle Jean's joke. --Saforrest 03:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Boisclair's victory is important because he seems likely to lead Quebec into a new referendum on separation; the fact that he's gay barely rises above the level of trivia.  It would matter in the identity-driven politics of the US, but in Quebec it's a non-issue.  I'm inclined to think the emphasis on his sexuality in the article is US POV. 69.70.136.130 03:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? a non-issue?  Check out the comments in the article on his win in La Presse.  The "Affaire Bosclaire" was in some ways a "safe" way to talk about his "wild gay past" without appearing bigoted. Cleduc 03:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Granted I'm mainly a consumer of Canadian media. But, Boisclaire is a local politician. The main significance of his political career is not his gayness, certainly not in Canada. It deserves mention, but it shouldn't be the main theme.  --Steve D (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sexuality

message: *The article keeps saying that he is "the first openly gay person in North America to lead a major political party". What about Chris Lea of the Green Party of Canada? Iotha 02:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major political party 

message: "Born to wolves", "took cocaine as a minister" - this has been systematically vandelised, needs a rewrite by someone who knows.
:The cocaine-as-a-minister stuff is not vandalism.  Boisclair has publicly admitted it. 69.70.136.130 03:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The article says that Boisclair is the "first openly gay leader of a major political party in North America".  Has there in fact before every been any openly gay leader of a major political party in any part of the Americas, or indeed anywhere in the world till now except for Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands?--Pharos 01:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firsts 

message: Does he have a partner/husband or children? (Alphaboi867 19:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question, but if he does it should be mentioned in a low key manner. Why? Because that's how traditionally the topic of a Quebec premier's spouse is handled by the media. Vincent 01:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is an encyclopedia--why does the local media's approach matter in discussing him?--Snowdan 21:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family Matters 

message: "If Boisclair became Premier of Quebec, he would be the first openly homosexual person to be elected as a North American head of government (former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey was the first openly homosexual person to serve as head of government, but came out after being elected). Boisclair's victory also makes him the first openly gay politician in Canada to win the leadership of a party with legislative representation. (Previous openly homosexual Canadian political party leaders Chris Lea of the Green Party of Canada and Allison Brewer of the New Brunswick New Democratic Party led much less politically prominent parties.)"
It's already mentioned that he is homosexual, but do we really need over an hundred words to say that "He was the first.. (details).. that was homosexual and (details)". If we need to go into details to explain that he was the first 'something', I don't think it's worth adding. The above should be removed unless it's really important to note that he was the first openly homosexual person to be elected as a North American head of government. 
Oh, and the first sentence about his homosexuality is wrong, as noted in my quote, Jim McGreevy was the first openly gay head of government in North America.
--67.68.24.245 00:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needless sentences 

message: This article states Boisclair resigned as leader of the opposition to go to Harvard, but it doesn't seem like he was actually leader of the party at the time? was the term possibly confused with the term house leader? I'm not really sure about this but it seems to be wrong.
sinblox (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leader of the opposition? 

message: Someone has written in the article that "Boisclair has never obtained an undergraduate diploma". This is derogarory, and it is of no relevance. Later in the article we learn that Boisclair has received a Master's Degree. So there is no reason for insisting about his undergraduate diplomas (or their alleged absence). Unless you hate Boisclair and want to smear him, of course. Oh, and I have removed the link to the Globe and Mail article because it requires a subscription. Parts of the "cocaine scandal" claims go far beyond what I've read in the news. Please provide a serious reference, otherwise this part of the text will be removed as well. -- Hugo Dufort 23:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diploma

message: Mr Dufort, this has become a bit silly. I would like to stress that as this article about Boisclair appears on the English wikipedia site, it becomes confusing to claim that CEGEP constitutes a post secondary degree. The truth is simple - CEGEP fills a similar role to the former OAC program in Ontario. From the English point of view, post secondary education implies at least and undergraduate degree or a technical college diploma. We must bear in mind that CEGEP QUALIFIES students for university undergraduate programs in Quebec, thus making it part of the SECONDARY SCHOOL TRAINING process. While Quebecers are well aware of the nuances, most outside Quebec are not. This distinction must be made clear for English readers. I also believe that readers should be able to readily learn about all the levels of education (or lack thereof) their political leaders have obtained. I for one want to know how well educated my political candidates are before I go to the polls.
: Half the students in Cégep are taking technical courses (3 years / 6 semesters), and are NOT preparing for university. They are learning a profession. Do you become a Technician in Civil Engineering with only a high school diploma? Nope. -- Hugo Dufort
Finally, my citations on the cocaine-Doray affair are accurate claim exactly what I have written. The Globe and mail article can be viewed without a subscription (just a user name a password are required). Wikipedia must be a fair source of information and the sordid dealings of Boisclair and his chief of staff should be held up to the same level of scrutiny as the Liberal sponsorship scandal. Furthermore, this information should appear in the early career section - not the party leadership area.
In my revised version I do make it clear that Boisclair did not resign from the NA as a result of the scandal. In my earlier post, I did not mean to imply that he had and I apologize it this caused any confusion.
: When the Globe article was published, it was early, and all details about the Doray affair were not known. Thus the article contains speculation and claims that later proved to be unfounded. Call it sensationalism. All the other sources gave a different and more accurate view on the matter; however, most English-language newspapers did not bother to cover the story at this point. Boisclair was called as a witness in the inquiry about the Doray frauds; he was never accused.
: The cocaine scandal and the Doray affair only emerged last year, and influenced recent events. So although it concerns Boisclair's early years as a minister, it deserves to be covered further down in the page. -- Hugo Dufort 01:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scandal etc 

message: : DEAR ANONYMOUS MAN WHO CAN'T SPELL WORDS CORRECTLY, PLEASE STOP REVERTING THE ARTICLE. Your version is shameful and wrong. It contains numerous factual inaccuracies, POV comments, etc. Hugo Dufort 01:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Boisclair was head of an association that represented ALL students at Cégep level (pre-university AND technical) Ref: http://www.aecsl.org/ . And yes, the there IS such a formation in Quebec. Reference: http://jobfutures.ca/fos/C350p3.shtml : Civil Engineering Technologists or Technician in Civil Engineering.  Now will you STOP reverting the corrected article and STOP bickering about things if you don't provide any reference. Otherwise I will have to contact a Wikipedia mediation committee. -- Hugo Dufort 05:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The term is derogatory and is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Your version of the article seems to follow your own personal (very negative) opinion on André Boisclair. Your choices of topics, the ordering, and the general focus give a very negative impression of Mr Boisclair. By the way, your war on Cégep is ridiculous. -- Hugo Dufort 20:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: STOP REVERTING

message: As an interesting side note, compare the educational background of the leaders of the separatist movement to the leaders of other major parties in Canada. The new leader of the Liberal party holds a PhD, the leader of the NDP holds a PhD, and the leader of the Conservatives holds a Master's degree (with original research). On the other hand, Duceppe holds what amounts essentially to a CEGEP diploma and Boisclair holds a one year Master's degree from a special program at Harvard that does not require candidates to hold a previous undergraduate degree (which Boisclair does not). Furthermore, unlike Harper's Master' degree, Boisclair did not contribute original research while studying. In fact, the only thing that got Boisclair into the JFK school of government was his years of service as an elected politician and $33,000 USD – hardly the exemplar of a brilliant mind.
The separatist movement in Quebec – in comparison to their opposition – is lead by unread, uneducated, populist leaders. That sums up the PQ's and the Bloc's values – populism over substance or intellect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.143.98 (talk • contribs).
: As I wrote on Talk:Stéphane Dion, by this logic one ought to have supported the sovereignty movement in the mid-90's because Parizeau has a doctorate while Chrétien, Manning, and Charest (to my knowledge) have at most law degrees.  In all but the most stupid of political questions, one can find people of intelligence and education on each side, so comparing education levels means little.
: This is not to say there are no interesting aspects to the apparent taste for intellectuals in Canadian politics, but using academic credentials to legitimize political positions makes no sense. --Saforrest 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison

message: User:Quebecpolitics and User:207.207.127.247 have deleted this material, stating "seen unequal treatment by author, hence is not neutral".  I have tried to write neutrally and give sources for my own edits; please reword and give other sources if you see this as unequal treatment.  Given that this matter has been in the news every day for the past week (cf. Google news), I think it deserves to be mentioned on this page. mvc 04:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue is of undue weight. The section is a sizeable portion of the article. But outside of English media, the only controversy was that there was controversy over it...--Boffob 04:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the section is lengthy, but given that it really is an issue in English-speaking Canada, it deserves mention, and that means giving enough background and citing enough sources to treat it fairly.  If nothing else, it would be nice if this page could inform unilingual anglophones who come looking here for further information that this is an issue only in their newspapers. If we just deleted it, one of them would just add it again. I'm not arguing for its inclusion in fr.wikipedia.org. mvc 05:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it wouldn't hurt if it could be more concise. Right now it's about the same size as the 2007 election section, while the controversy was only a small bump in the campaign (granted it generated a lot of noise outside Quebec media).--Boffob 05:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That controversy was small event of the current election, it shall be covered in the 2007 election section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.61.162.2 (talk) 14:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have included the section on les yeux bridés in the 2007 election section.  But the emphasis on this event is way too large. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quebecpolitics (talk • contribs) 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Quebecpolitics, thank-you for putting back a portion of the disputed text; I agree it was originally too long.  Hopefully we can continue to work together toward some sort of compromise. Meanwhile, I've warned 207.61.162.2 that they've violated WP:AN/3RR. mvc 16:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've replaced some of the deleted material in order to give more context, background, and improve NPOV. However, I've also edited drastically for length, from 316 words down to 237, which is less than the rest of the 2007 election section (242 words), and described the affair as a "minor controversy". It's as concise as I can make it while still being fair and balanced. I hope this version is more widely acceptable; let me know what you think. mvc 16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy regarding "Les yeux bridés" 

message: I do not dispute that Mr. Boislair's sexuality merits mention in the article (there is, in fact, a whole paragraph that discusses it).  However, since gay people do in fact get married and have children, his sexuality has no bearing on his marital or parental status, and it is inappropriate to mention the three issues together as if they are all related.  As for his unmarried status, and whether it merits a mention in the article -- almost a third of Quebec families are common law (i.e. unmarried), which is almost three times the level in the rest of Canada.  Do we know for sure that Boisclair does not have a partner?  Given the Quebec statistics, his single-status should be sourced before the article suggests that he does not have a spouse -- like many Quebecers, he may have a spouse, but simply not be married.  Not being officially married would not be unusual in Quebec.  I don't know if he has a spouse or not.  Once we have the facts, and they can be sourced, then add it to the article.  As for children, I am not convinced that it is "unusual" for younger politicians not to have children, but I don't feel strongly about the issue either way.  Skeezix1000 14:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Openly gay, not married, no children

message: Is Boisclair's resignation, effective immediately? or only after the PQ chooses a new leader? We need the correct info added to the article. GoodDay 20:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should have read the article: It's immediate, the PQ will select an 'interim leader' for now ('til the PQ leadership convention). GoodDay 20:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Resignation as PQ leader

message: It notes his resignation, but is he just sitting at home watching TV or he stated his future plans? --70.49.52.128 (talk) 20:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What does he do now?