Talk:Jean Lapierre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

President of the Local 301 CUPE in Montreal for 18 years? I think this needs a section. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060327.wxcogagnon27/BNStory/National/home

[edit] Content Dispute

  • This seems to be the most straightforward content dispute I've seen between the two of you, CJ and GD. Also, you should both be really proud of yourselves for managing to not even attempt to work it out rather than edit war, as seen by this BLANK talk page (both of you, btw, are guilty of 3rr here). Anyways, though I'm rather surprised myself, given the edit histories of the two of you, I'm going to have to agree 99% with GoldDragon on this one. While I've almost always found myself agreeing with CJ's edits in your disputes, in this case, some very pertinent information seems to be left out of CJ's version. GD's is more detailed, more succinct, and includes some important facts that CJ's leaves out. Besides a few minor semantic issues, it seems very clear to me. You're welcome to get another opinion, but that's my opinion as an outside observer. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 03:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly that this should be worked on on the talk page, and not through a revert war. I have made copyedits and tidied the article up a bit, leaving in the content that CJCurrie sought to delete.

I do see CJCurrie's point, however, about maintaining balance in an article. If you load up an article with pseudo-scandals, it does not provide a balanced persepctive on the person. Is Lapierre really this awful? The 2004 federal election section, in particular, is just a collection of slams against Lapieree, as opposed to a real analysis of his role in it. Let the debate begin.... Ground Zero | t 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am open to the addition of new material to counter-balance what is currently in the article. In preparation for such a move, I've compressed the existing sections in light of Ground Zero's concerns. GoldDragon 19:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that some of the material currently in the article should be removed. I doubt we need to cite Larry Zolf once, let alone four times. CJCurrie 20:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And I maintain that it does not need to be removed. Zolf is commentating on different aspects.GoldDragon 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For instance, Zolf explains why Lapierre is different from past Quebec lieutenants and what role that he is suppose to play in the Martin gov't. Zolf also cites that some criticized Lapierre for "which flag of convenience" regarding his remarks on the Clarity Act, and above all that Lapierre is a nationalist that disagreed with Trudeau. GoldDragon 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be obvious to most readers that Lapierre did not compare Duceppe to a Nazi (Duceppe's own statements notwithstanding). Would GoldDragon please explain why my compromise wording was unacceptable? CJCurrie 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Ducepppe may "have felt" that Lapierre compared him to a Nazi, but Duceppe has his own political agenda to promote. He is not an unbiased observer here. Furthermore, as far as we know, Lapierre only used the N-word once. Why would it appear twice in this article? Let Lapierre's words speak for themselves. We don't need to interpret them for the reader. The best way to achieve NPOV is to focus on the facts, Ma'am, just the facts, and leave the editorializing out. Ground Zero | t 12:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Many of the references on this article are just links placed on their relevent part of the page. Since they are already in place it will make it easier to convert to references. I have already begun this. The rest should also be converted. Kc4 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)