Talk:Stéphane Dion/Archive 1

message: Do we need all of Mr Dion's academic letters after his name? Is this a standard convention? Is PhD not enough? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 03:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that, at the very least, BA isn't needed. 128.54.59.10 00:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree; PhD implies also having an MA and BA.  Should we tack on that he has a high school diploma while we're at it?  Flakeloaf 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and changed User:Shagmaestro 03:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. But a PhD is an academic degree of higher standing than an MA, and thus should be the only thing listed on M Dion's page.  Whether he has an MA (which he does) is irrelevant. User:Shagmaestro 05:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BA, MA, PhD...? 

message: "Dion has the most political experience, federal or otherwise, of any of the Liberal leadership candidates."
Maurizio Bevilacqua, for example, has been a Member of Parliament since 1988. If one is to count teaching political science as political experience, then Michael Ignatieff is more experienced then Stephane Dion.
I recommend that the phrase be changed to:
"Dion has the most experience in Cabinet, federal or otherwide, of any of the Liberal leadership candidates."
Jtf6.undecided | Talk 01:00, 2 September 2006 (EST)
: Well, Maurizio Bevilacqua dropped out of the race in August, in any case. --Saforrest 23:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  He doesn't have the most experience 

message: I think that this section could be trimmed. While Dion's work on Federalism is notable, I think that the current reading is overly long. Gaius Octavius | Talk 19:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine his new status will bring due attention to all sections of the article and hopefully find a good balance over time. He's got an excellent shot at the PM's job, after all, so lots of people will want to know more aobut him. Radagast 05:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Open Letters 

message: At present, all the article's references are outgoing links (as opposed to footnote-style references). I've corrected the first section (and added a references section); an intrepid wikipedian might want to do the rest. Gaius Octavius | Talk 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: i'd like to flag that someone with the username gerardkennedy is editing this page (see history) but since the edits occurred during the liberal leadership convention it is likely that it is one of his campaign managers. since kennedy threw his support behind dion i think there is a large conflict of interest in having him edit this page. Katerg 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe that should be an issue, as long as the information is within wikipedia's guidelines. --66.222.207.118 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has happend before on many Wikipedia articles. FellowWikipedian 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apparently, his name is Gerard Kennedy, although he is not the Gerard Kennedy we know of. Talk page comment here.  --  Zanimum 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The "Contact us" part colludes with his claim.  --  Zanimum 15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: edits by "gerard kennedy"

message: What is the religion of Mr. Dion? I understand that he is "secular" but that does not necessarily mean that does not have a religion, just that he is perceived to not have been as "devout" as others. I believe that most Quebecers are Roman Catholic. If not, is he atheist, agnostic, humanist?  Thanks.
--Sicamous 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm under the impression that he was raised in a secular household, but may still be officially a Catholic. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: The reason, I've removed Bill Graham from the Liberal Leader Succession box. All the other Liberal Leader's Succession boxes, don't list the interim-leaders. GoodDay 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be there then. Unless the box was "Interim leaders of the Liberal Party". -- Scorpion0422 00:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is correct for a succession box to list interim leaders where appropriate. Paul Martin's, for example, lists Bill Graham. If other Liberal leadership succession boxes don't list an interim leader when an interim leader was the actual predecessor or successor, then the answer is to correct them, not to change this one. Bearcat 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a photo of the banners, however during the 2006 Liberal Leadership Convention, there were banners of the Past Liberal Party Leaders. There was no banners of the Interim-Leaders. What should we do? include the 'interim leaders' or not? GoodDay 01:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If an interim leader precedes or succedes another leader, then we do list the interim leader in the appropriate place in the succession box. They are, however, marked as interim. Convention banners don't determine Wikipedia policy. Bearcat 01:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I've re-edited in interim-leader 'Daniel McKenzie' to the Wilfred Laurier & William Lyon Mackenzie King Liberal Leaders succession boxes. GoodDay 02:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dion's Predecessor, Martin 

message: I really think this should be added to the article somewhere:
At the big NDP convention in Quebec City a few months ago, Layton was poking fun at all the Liberal leadership candidates, with the notable exception of Dion. Rattling off the list of the other candidates' flaws or foibles, the only thing Layton could say about Dion was that he was "a man of principle and conviction and therefore almost certain not to be elected leader of the Liberal party."
Just, wow.  A generous, on-the-record endorsement from a leader of a rival party. It will be interesting to say the least to see what the NDP will do now.  Esn 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen the specific quote, but I've seen numerous allusions in the past couple of days to Layton apparently saying that he had a lot of respect for Dion and viewed him as a leader the NDP could potentially work with in a minority government situation. Of course, the article shouldn't mention this unless somebody can find an actual quote. Bearcat 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, that's not quite so big a political gaffe, then - Layton made sure to say that he fundamentally disagreed with Dion, as a good politician should.  Still, definitely an interesting quote. Esn 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a quote from [[Jack Layton]]

message: An anonymous user recently added some unsourced speculation about Dion's role in the sponsorship scandal.  I've removed this as it violated wikipedia's policies about living-person pages (as it was unsourced negative speculation) and added links which indicate that he was vindicated by the Gomery report.  If anyone can provide any sourced criticism of his role there, feel free to do so. Esn 12:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mr. Dion has no relation to the sponsorship scandal... period. It's likely that anything saying otherwise is just partisan vandalism. Sima Yi 19:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sponsorship scandal

message: All the details about the leadership bid are fine for now... but in six months, those details will be of little interest to anyone, and those facts should probably remain in the 2006 leadership race entry or something. As things progress with elections to come, the emphasis will have to move elsewhere. --NoiZy 18:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your're correct, there's way too much detail in this article's section on the Liberal Leadership race. GoodDay 18:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've split it off into 2006 Liberal leadership bid by Stéphane Dion. Feel free to edit down the section in the main article to a better length.  --  Zanimum 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article should be worked up to an A-Class article

message: Someone should update this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.141.40.131 (talk • contribs).
: Exactly what updates are you expecting that aren't already being made? Bearcat 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page has been edited alot during the past few days. Check the history and you will see what I mean. FellowWikipedian 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: Err... what's up with the pie-in-the-face thing added in these edits?  It's pretty funny, I admit, but is it really noteworthy enough to include?  I think it might be more appropriate for an Uncyclopedia article... Esn 03:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...which I've now, by the way, created. Esn 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It might belong in a trivia section.  I wouldn't put it in the main body.  CJCurrie 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok... what about the photo?  I feel dubious that it should be left in, but I can't find anything about guidelines for photographs in biographical articles. Esn 07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The photo should absolutely not be included.  We've deleted similar material from the Stephen Harper page in the past.  CJCurrie 07:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I decided that with living people articles, it's better safe than sorry, so I removed the image until a satisfactory reason to include it is given (I'm keeping the link to it, but I'm not sure that this should be one of the images that is immediately seen by a casual browser who just scrolls up & down the page).  Although I can't find anything in any policy just now (not that I've really looked), my instinct is that including an image which is derisive to a person may not be the best idea in an encyclopedia article. I'm open on being persuaded otherwise, either on deleting the link to the picture entirely or on bringing the picture back in. Esn 07:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it's not really a good idea to have it in this article, perhaps it wouldn't be out of place in the Entartistes article.  I've put it up there, though I'm still not sure if the picture breaks any rules or not. Esn 03:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I LIKE and respect Stephane Dion, but I do think the pie photo and incident has a place lower down. It's worth preserving as a matter of interest and record. Wikipedia should be handle such stuff, unlike Encyl. Brit. Bellagio99 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The pie incident

message: He holds French & Canadian Citizenship. Please add this somewhere.
To support that: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/dec/06120401.html (unsigned comment).
:A better link re Dion's dual citizenship (and the source for the info in the link above) is Question of loyalty: New Liberal leader Dion deserves citizenship scrutiny by Ezra Levant (Dec. 4, 2006 / Calgary Sun).  Levant includes the following quote from Dion: "Multiple identities should be seen as an asset, not a threat.  There is nothing wrong with multiple identities. The hearts of people are big enough to accept different identities. Canadian citizenship will give me my rights. Identity is the way I feel about the country."  I suggest the quote be included at the end of the "As Party Leader" section (after "Stéphane Dion and his three brothers... in a French election") to clarify his position on this issue.--Eric1960 18:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a recent interview on The National where he gave a few more reasons: he pointed out that John Turner had dual citizenship in the 1980s and nobody had a problem with it then, and that he viewed it as a gift from his mother.  He nevertheless said that he would renounce it if it proved a liability to winning against Stephen Harper.  For the record, I think this whole issue is ridiculous as well.  He's defended Canada as few other people have in his battles with sovereignists - why in the world is his loyalty being questioned? Esn 05:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just read that Turner was born in England yesterday in the free commuter paper, but they didn't mention his dual citizenship.  --  Zanimum 16:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dion's Dual (Canada/France) Citizenship 

message: In response to this edit, all I can say is that I've never seen a Canadian publication write "appointed to the cabinet".  Take a look at this article, for example.  Doing a Google fight shows that "appointed to cabinet" is a grammatical variation that is used less often - perhaps it's only used in Canada, I don't know.  However, since this is a Canadian article, it should use Canadian grammar. Esn 00:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I propose Esn reverts. User:Shagmaestro 05:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I already did. ;)  I just thought I'd explain it over here in case anyone objected. Esn 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am the bad person responsible for this. "Appointed to Cabinet" is therefore similar to "Elected to Parliament": no definite article. I offer my sincere apologies to all.Writtenright 22:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "appointed to cabinet"

message: This statement is radically pro-federalist:
"...the Supreme Court ruling on the unilateral secession of Quebec ... which confirmed that there is no right ... to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally."
The legal reasoning itself -- and the right of the Supreme Court of Canada to claim authority to make such a decision on international law -- are both hugely controversial.
The current wording is clever because it can be argued that it means (factually), "confirmed [the Canadian government position] that there is no right" -- but its plainer interpretation, that it "confirmed [the absolute legal truth] that there is no right", is completely unacceptable from a neutral-reporting perspective.
The word confirmed should be replaced by the neutral term adjudged: "...which adjudged that there is no right...". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.6.238 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Court Ruling - Needs POV Neutralization 

message: The article moves from describing in detail Dion's claims that the federal government of Canada can not only override Quebec referenda, but actually (militarily) seize Quebec territory -- to claiming in glowing terms in the "Views on federalism and national unity" section that... well really... he supports provincial rights.
The problem begins with the statement: "It would be most accurate to describe him as a federal autonomist."
Why is that most accurate? What is the sourced reference for this analysis?
Then "...he unequivocally argues against jurisdictional intrusion..." -- where, and how in application to a Quebec sovereignty referendum?(??)
And "Dion's position on provincial rights..." What is the sourced referenced for his supposed position? Is there any published criticism that points out the fundamental conflict with the Open Letters which should be included as an objective counterbalance to the (inherently biased and self-promoting) claim of any politician about himself? Should it be framed as "he claims" -- "despite" his position in the Open Letters? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.126.62.183 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Contradition -- Open Letters vs. Supposed Views on Federalism 

message: The latest edition of the Economist ran a profile of Dion, with the heading "The Geek Shall Inherit". What is missing here is a discussion of his lack of, well, people skills, or his apparent lack of charisma, the ability to connect with people. The same article also mentioned Harper's supposed lack of charisma and suggested that Canada is the only country putting boring people in leadership positions. There has been considerable discussion in the media about Dion's supposed "egghead" academic persona and whether that is something new for Canada. This is not the same as his lack of English speaking skills, but his lack of people skills or ability/inability to connect with voters in this new media age. Something needs to be added to his profile about this, as it is an issue. BTW, why has nothing been added about the Environment and Dion? After all, this was his key platform issue and yet no one seems bothered to add anything about this to his profile, which I attempted but was deleted several times.GlenninBerlin
: RE the environment - It definitely should be added, but it should also definitely concentrate solely on Dion's tenure as Env. Min., (Jul 04 - Jan 06) and not on the Liberal tenure (or even further back, as some people added) as a whole.  Many different editors kept adding info about decisions made before Dion was minister. --Hamiltonian 11:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the note of charisma, there was a recent poll in the Toronto Star which said that in the Atlantic provinces, Ontario and Quebec, Dion beat Harper when voters were asked "which leader understands the concerns of people like you?".  That implies that, whether or not you call it "charisma", he does have the ability to connect with people.  "Canada is the only country putting boring people in leadership positions" - better boring than unapologetically contemptuous of the public, eh? Who knows, maybe picking "boring but qualified" leaders is an unconscious side-effect of watching Bush Jr.'s ("interesting and unqualified") antics down there in the US. Harper has remained quite popular in Canada, despite (or because of) being boring and giving the impression that he knows what he's talking about.  His level of support is consistently above that of his own party.  Overall, I'm not sure that this article is the place to compare Canadians' preference in leadership traits compared to other countries'.  Not unless a comprehensive study of the question was done, anyway. Esn 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dion's Charisma, or lack of it 

message: I remove the part in italic:
This position became the cornerstone of the Clarity Act and is credited along with the growing unpopularity of the Parti Québécois government and the growing fatigue with the sovereignty debate with weakening public support in Quebec for sovereignty until the Sponsorship Scandal broke in 2004.
*Is that an opinion or a fact? Credited by who ? If someone can add some references, he can be put back the removed part. --74.12.209.205 21:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unpopularity of the [[Parti Québécois]] 

message: On December 29/06, Hamiltonian deleted a whole section of the Dion article that had been submitted by Lance6968. Also missing is a referenced statement issued by M. Dion on December 8/06.    The only explanation from Hamiltonian was a cryptic editing comment, "quite obviously not."  I would like to know why the section was deleted.  Perhaps Hamiltonian thought the topic was not relevant, or perhaps it was poorly worded.  We have no clue why it was deleted.  Que-Can 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's certainly true that antisemitic comments were made against Arlene Perly Rae by some delegates at the convention, there is no verifiable proof that Dion was in any way connected to them, or that the matter was directly or even partially responsible for Dion's victory. Dion, in fact, personally condemned the antisemitic statements, so it's really reaching outside of the bounds of verifiability to try to link them to him. While it's certainly not safe to assume that nobody was swayed away from Rae because of Arlene Rae's religion, we also don't have any verifiable proof that antisemitic beliefs are the main reason that Rae didn't win. Accordingly, the appropriate place to discuss the matter is in the convention article and/or Bob and Arlene Rae's articles. Not in Dion's, and especially not under a headline that implies that Dion owes his leadership to antisemites. Bearcat 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Bearcat.  These are useful comments and suggestions.  Que-Can 02:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What Bearcat wrote is reasonable. Dion's response on the Liberal Party Web site is obviously relevant to the Dion article. Dion's response, that in my opinion was inadequate, was a short statement on the lower-left hand corner of the aforementioned Web site. Dion's reaction to what happened is clearly relevant, and should be included in his article; and it can be kept to the basic facts; i.e., it doesn't need to include my opinion that his response was inadequate.--Lance talk 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not denying that a case can be made for including Dion's reaction to the matter in Dion's article — but, for one thing, "elected on an antisemitic platform" is most certainly not the appropriate subheading for such a discussion. It's a wild and undocumentable distortion of the actual facts of the situation, which clearly violates Wikipedia's WP:BLP policies. Bearcat 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incident at 2006 Liberal Party Convention 

message: Substituted at 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment