Talk:Pauline Marois

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Political parties and politicians in Canada
Quebec
Quebec Portal
This article is part of the Quebec WikiProject (Discuss/Join).


I’m wondering if anybody has kept any track of her controversial comments over the years. They’d be deserving of their own entire section. For example, most recently: “Many [immigrants] believe that they are settling in a bilingual state. It’s not true. Quebec is a francophone state that respects the rights of its anglophone minority. And when you live in Quebec, you live in French.” — NRen2k5 06:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

We should, shouldn't we. That whole statement could be reconstructed by any honest resident of Quebec. Why not start a section?Toddsschneider 18:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You really must not be from Quebec to think that that statement is controversial. Speaking as a member of the anglophone minority of Quebec, I have no problem with that statement. French is the public language, and the ONLY official language of ,Quebec (legally). I accept that, and feel that Quebec institutions nonetheless accomodate me, as an anglophone, very well. But a minority (less than %10, in Quebec) is still a minority, should not be given equal consideration as the majority, as that would be doing a great injustice to said majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.0.229.221 (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Read the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of the French Language. The two are at odds. Good day sir. — NRen2k5 12:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to express your opinions. Thank you and good night. Bearcat 03:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the discussion place is. If one's opinion, based on facts, adds to knowledge and perspective, why not?Toddsschneider
No, actually, it still isn't. This page is for discussion and review of the article's content, not for expressing opinions about the article's subject. Bearcat 19:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would be worth creating such a section within the article. Most of her "controversial" statements are nothing but a reflection of the official PQ agenda, and have to do mainly with the whole "Quebec identity" issue. What she said has been said before her by other sovereigntists. I agree with the previous posters that advocating the supremacy of French is nothing controversial in Quebec, where the PQ is still a dominating element in the political landscape.

Quebec did not sign the 1982 constitution of Canada. In the minds of many people here, and in the traditions of a system of civic law, rather then common law as practiced in the rest of the country, the laws voted and ratified by elected officials override the precepts of a charter that was imposed. In all the western world, Quebec is one of the only constitutive part of a country that is not a signatory to the constitution. In Quebec, the Charter of the French Language prevails, as any piece of legislation would, because it is perceived as more legitimate, being the results of a vote by public officials, and not the tractation between the English majority, as represented by the 9 other provinces, and the old colonial power, England. The constitution of Canada does resonate with the people here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.226.61 (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, as another Anglo Quebecker, I agree that the "when you live in Quebec, you live in French" statement is not controversial...not any more controversial than saying "when you live in Alberta, you live in English". It's just stating a fact. Having said that, I'm sure that we could create "controversial statement" pages for just about every politican in the world if we wanted to. Marois hasn't made any more outrageous statements than your average provincial or federal politician. Wikipedia is supposed to be free of bias and shouldn’t be used as a forum for people to express their hostility towards a particular individual, movement or group.

Secondly, I do believe there are some problems with the main article on Marois. According to Wikipedia rules “Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately”. A number of statements about Marois are controversial and poorly sourced…namely, the statements that can be traced back to the Montreal Gazette. Citing newspapers is always problematic because newspapers themselves often don’t cite their sources in a way that allows one to trace where the information came from. They also express bias. Citing the Gazette is particularly dangerous in this case, because of its strongly biased perspective. This newspaper has always been particularly hostile towards the PQ, its leaders and anyone considered to be associated with the sovereignty movement. This doesn’t mean that the Gazette can’t be quoted in this article, but anything from the Gazette (or other newspaper sources for that matter) should be presented as opinion, not as fact. In the Marois article, there are a number of statements presented as fact which use the Gazette as their source. Morgan131.104.61.108 18:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Define "fact" then. If what a respectable newspaper has to say is biased, then where would you look for "purely objective" information concerning Pauline Marois? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.33.254 (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] House

Just a note to all concerned editors: the matter of her house might be worth a short mention in the article body, but it is not so central to her notability that it would belong in the lede. Additionally, WP:NPOV must be maintained — it's valid to note that some media outlets have characterized her house as being at odds with her politics, but it is not Wikipedia's job to make pronouncements about what kind of house should or shouldn't be lived in by a "socialist" (as if Marois had ever claimed to be one in the first place). Wikipedia's role is to present the facts neutrally, not to express opinion. Bearcat 22:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quebec Identity Act

I've read an article on LCN that English newspapers had very harsh comments on the bill pretty much calling the bill as a an extreme-right measure. Probably, some of the material would be appropriate for the Anti-Quebec sentiment, but which papers had wrote such comments on the Bill? Anything but the Gazette would be appreciated--JForget 19:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you wish to add some mud to an already POV-centric and slanted biography, go on. 207.134.187.165 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

how is my adding a fact that she lives on an opulent estate - vandalism? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/print/CTVNews/20070927/marois_gazette_070927/20070927/?hub=QPeriod&subhub=PrintStory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Topk (talk • contribs) 12:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You're adding a comment about the "opulence" of her home in an attempt to set up a point-of-view assertion about the kind of house that she should or shouldn't be living in, and how many bathrooms the house should or shouldsn't have. Unless you can show how the kind of house she lives in is relevant to a neutral and unbiased article about Marois, it simply doesn't belong here. Nowhere in Canadian federal, provincial or municipal law is there any clause dictating how many washrooms a politician is allowed to have in their own home, and accordingly Wikipedia has no place setting up any kind of judgements about that, either. That's why it's vandalism. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

well it just shows that she's a hypocrite and a perfect deffintion of 'champagne socialist', when she is way on the left of the political spectrum, preaching socialism and all that crap, while she lives like a royalty in her chateau, and people should know this
i know i edited the article in a wrong way, but if someone could add this in a correct and eloquent and grammatically correct form - it would help. because pauline marois is a hypocrite leftist bitch cunt --Topk (talk) 19:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're free to hold whatever personal opinion of Marois you wish. Wikipedia articles, however, are bound by non-negotiable content policies such as neutral point of view, reliable sources, verifiability, etc. — our job here is not to set up, directly or indirectly, statements of personal opinion about what her politics should or shouldn't be, what kind of house she should or shouldn't live in, etc. Describing someone as a champagne socialist, or basing edits on the perceived need to portray Marois as being a hypocrite, is in violation of Wikipedia's rules. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)