Talk:Stéphane Dion

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.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Political parties and politicians in Canada
Archive
Archives
Archives 1


Contents

[edit] Attenion: references in this article require FULL CITATION format

When referencing sources, Wikipedia Guidelines stipulate that either full citation format or inline format are possible (see: WP:REF): for inline sourcing, a full citation is required at the end of the text in an alphabetized list of "References", while full citation format generates an entry automatically in the reference system. In order to maintain a consistent appearance, USE FULL CITATION FORMAT in this article.--Eric1960 02:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism by the same editor

Since this editor has being repeatedly posting libelous and other miscellaneous nonsensical edits for months, and not to mention all the problems Dion did/is/will faced/facing/face in the coming weeks, this page is locked to anon users for 6 months.--JForget 02:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation

Je me suis assis = I sat down, not I was seated. As a non-established user I can't make this minor change (or be bothered to log in). 209.29.100.30 00:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "delusion" should be replaced with the word "paranoia" in the political cartoon as this is plainly the correct translation and does impact the meaning —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.15.92 (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retire the Cartoon?

I fail to understand why the political cartoon is included with the Dion article. We don't see political cartoons with the articles of the other political leaders. To me, they should all have a cartoon, or (my preference) the cartoon in the Dion article should be deleted. Can anyone say why Dion deserves a cartoon and the others (e.g., Harper, Layton, Doucette) don't? Generally speaking, I like political cartoons, but maybe the cartoons belong with the "editorial cartoons" article instead.Que-Can 02:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I have an alternate suggestion: why don't we add the follow-up cartoon from the 2006 leadership contest, wherein Dion was depicted as removing his rat costume and developing a new identity. CJCurrie 02:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Come on, that cartoon does not belong in an encyclopedia. Misterip 23:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
How do we arrive at a consensus to remove the cartoon? Misterip 11:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Consensus on removal (or not) may be achieved on the Talk page. Failing consensus, someone could just remove the cartoon, someone else would then add it back, and then it would be deleted again, and so on, and so on... Let's see if we can find consensus.Que-Can 23:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, editorial cartoons are actually more notable in regards to some politicians than others — it really depends on the individual circumstances. The difference has to do with how notable the cartoons are for their own sake; fairly or not, public perception of some politicians has been significantly influenced by their depiction in editorial cartoons, and it would be a disservice to our readers to talk about their depiction in cartoons but not show an example. Dion-as-rat is, unfortunately, a significant example of that. Whereas for some other politicians it would just be trivia — there simply aren't any editorial cartoons of Harper or Layton that qualify as inherently notable examples of their depiction in the press, so it would just be including a cartoon for the sake of including a cartoon. Conversely, however, there are some other examples of where we should probably find copies of the relevant cartoons: Joe Clark (whose public image was very disproportionately defined by his depiction in editorial cartoons), some of the Dalton McGuinty-as-lizard panels, Gilles Duceppe in his hair net (notable because it was still standard practice to draw a hairnet on Duceppe's head in cartoons years after the hairnet incident), Aislin's Mulroney-as-assface cartoon (arguably the single most famous editorial cartoon in Canadian media history). Bearcat 17:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting observation by Bearcat. I don't quite agree with the opinion "there simply aren't any editorial cartoons of Harper or Layton that qualify as inherently notable examples of their depiction in the press." I'd say there are plenty out there already. But...do we want to litter the Wikipedia articles with editorial cartoons, or do they belong together in a separate article?Que-Can (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that Harper and Layton aren't depicted in editorial cartoons. But for neither of them has their representation in editorial cartoons ever (a) become notable for its own sake, or (b) turned into a defining feature of how they're perceived by the public. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My old "World Book Encyclopedia" often included cartoons in politicians' entries, so there's nothing new about finding them in an encyclopedia. Actually, I remember as a kid how they were a main attraction that got me interested in lots of articles. The image of John A. Macdonald pocketing money from the Pacific Scandal sticks in my memory, for example. The real criterion should be whether the image is of significance: is it 'iconic'? does it graphically illustrate an important controversy? etc. etc.

The answer here is clearly "yes". From the get-go, Dion was regularly portrayed as "the rat" in LaPresse (Quebec's biggest circulation newspaper). This particular cartoon epitomizes why that rat image stuck so tenaciously. In pushing through the Clarity Act, Dion stirred up a vast and deeply felt enmity among many if not most francophones. For years he could not show his face publicly in the province without being heckled. There were anecdotes about Dion being booed at hockey games, shouted down at meetings, and for one period he even needed some police protection. So the cartoon is actually a lighthearted way of conveying what must have been a very disturbing daily reality for Dion. In short, the image is relevant and significant; it definitely deserves to be kept.--Scarborite (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] War in Afghanistan

Should there be a section on his position? Misterip 13:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there one yet? --soulscanner (talk) 06:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stéphane_Dion#Parliamentary_Opposition

Too many one sided op-ed pieces here from conservatives in the National Post. They should either be removed and replaced with relatively neutral description of events, or balanced with opinion pieces more favorable to Dion's postitions. --soulscanner (talk) 06:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from "taunts" -- which I reverted to "criticism" -- and the one-sided view on anti-poverty measures (which is, after all, just one person's evaluation of a specific policy), the material here is not inherently POV. There were important perceived policy reversals and a significant and long-term drop in leadership support, and we have adequate documentation of this. There's no reason to label this section POV (at least, no more reason than for any other section).
If there are POV concerns, they are presumeably based on OTHER information which hasn't been supplied. What is that info? Please get some documented information which either negates the info already posted or rebalances it in some way before labelling things POV. Otherwise, we could pretty well label everything in a politcally charged article like this 'POV'.
Before signing off, I'd like to praise Soulscanner's reorganizational efforts in the "Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs" and Gomery Inquiry sections. The text flows more logically (and chronologically), the headers make more sense, and there are improvements in wording and perspective. It's the biggest improvement in the article as a whole that we've seen in quite awhile.--Eric1960 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Taunts is the word used in the article, not mine. This indicates a highly partisan debate in the Commons. Lets represent what is written, and not what we'd like to see. There's no problem giving partisan criticism (the Prime Minister's opinion is noteworthy) as long as it is identified as such.
The POV concerns stem from the fact that the indicated sources are all op-ed pieces from authors routinely critical of the Liberals, and not identified as such. Generic "criticisms" are not particularly noteworthy when they come from sources routinely critical of the subject. They need to be balanced by op-ed pieces more sympathetic to the person. The article says "flip-flop", not "perceived policy reversal", which itself is somewhat telling of the overall tone of the article. It is a partisan screed and shouldn't be presented as an objective review of the political climate.
As for the economic analysis, it is valid, but politically biased. The absolute measure of poverty is prefered by neo-conservatives, and relative measures prefered by social democrats. Both are legitimate measures. Presenting a conservative view as objective fact not balancing it with a social democratic view (which would be more sympathetic to Dion's leftish views) is POV. I ask not that it be removed, but that it be presented as a criticism by someone ideologically hostile to Dion.
I'll ask you to leave on the tags until we have discussed these issues further. The tag clearly stays if there is a NPOV dispute, and this definitely qualifies [1]. Edit wars with NPOV tags are not cool. --soulscanner (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the section a little. Added some summaries of Dion's positions, as well as some criticisms all found in the articles. Op-ed pieces still need balancing, though. Perhaps we can ask for a refernce or a hird party opinion on whether they constitute POV in the absence of balancing opinions. --soulscanner (talk) 11:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dion stephane051128.jpg

Image:Dion stephane051128.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CJCurrie and POVicide...

Dear powers that be...

CJCurrie has once again been demanding that I "revert" information, claiming "3RR" and "POV" and whatnot. All of this is déja vu, as you can ascertain for yourselves by going into the archives of the talk page of this article.

As in the past, what the issue really boils down to is this: CJ seems to believe that he (well, possibly "she", though I doubt it) has the right to erase any new info on the grounds that it is "POV". The fact is, we are dealing with political events, and the outcomes are always going to seem "POV" to some degree. This is not a reason to delete information. Wikipedia's general policy must promote the preservation of significant information by encouraging editing practices that support a neutral presentation. Deletion of significant information is really just a form of vandalism; if an editor sees a need to present material more neutrally, either he or she must be committed to doing some editing work to rebalance the presentation, or else he or she should leave the information alone.--Eric1960 (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insult our intelligence with comments like this. Anyone who takes the time to look through your contributions will understand what's really going on here. CJCurrie (talk) 01:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
"Anyone who takes the time to look through your contributions..."
Hey, I absolutely encourage people to investigate this claim. They will discover that while I contribute, edit, balance ... CJCurrie primarily deletes. This is a pattern that has gone on for almost two years now. I contribute -- and then CJCurrie deletes, CJCurrie whines and accuses, and when he doesn't manage to expurgate everything that doesn't suit his peculiar tastes, he demands that the editorial equivalent of martial law be imposed. The people who have been around ... GoldDragon, etc. -- will know what I'm talking about. For others: please, by all means, check out the archives.--Eric1960 (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on the Iraq War

Today, I provided Wikipedia readers with some information on the above topic. Less than five hours later the entire section was deleted without any explanation for the deletion. Nor were there any tags used to help me understand the nature of the disagreement. The protocol in Wikipedia is to use the discussion page to explain why edits are made. I graciously invite all editors to do so. Perhaps we can work something out that we can both agree on. This will prevent an endless and unproductive series of edits and counter edits. Thank you for listening and have a good day.Boyd Reimer (talk) 01:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you used the Liberal Party's "Policy on the Iraq War" as the foundation for a rather slanted commentary on war resistors. Why you'd decide to target Stephane Dion on this point is something of a mystery. CJCurrie (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings CJCurrie, I am not sure if it was you who again deleted the entire section. Correct me if I am wrong, but I will assume it was you. Why would you delete the entire section, title and all? Do you feel that the Iraq War is not a large enough issue for someone who has been the leader of Official Opposition in Canada since December, 2006? Boyd Reimer (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What you're adding is not an WP:NPOV summary of Dion's position on the Iraq War, but a very slanted and context-deficient guilt-by-insinuation screed on what you believe his policy should be, using one particular war deserter named Corey Glass — who's only just been fresh news within the past few days — to illustrate a POV essay. While a neutral, properly-worded section on Dion vis-à-vis Iraq could possibly be perfectly valid content for this article if somebody were to add one, what you're attempting to add simply doesn't clear that bar. I'd also be very curious to know why you think a POV statement about Corey Glass is somehow more relevant to Stéphane Dion than it would be to, say, Stephen Harper, Maxime Bernier, Rob Nicholson or somebody else who was actually in a position of power to do anything one way or the other about Corey Glass. (Granted that Bernier was a little bit, um, distracted. But he was still External Affairs minister when the ruling came down.) Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As usual, Bearcat does a better job of writing my thoughts than I do..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)