Jump to content

Talk:Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More?

[edit]

Got anymore on this? --Jingofetts 19:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess

[edit]

The "history" doesn't discuss anything that happened before 2002. The article mentions the actions of Ivanhoe Cambridge without bothering to mention that it's a related organization, except as a "See Also" at the bottom. No mention of when various mentioned CEOs became CEO. No context regarding "the $39.8 billion loss." I came here to learn what this organization was about, and am leaving frustrated at the state this article is in. --142.242.18.254 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatical Quibble

[edit]
...can recuperate as much as 95 cents for every dollar initially invested.

Don't you mean recoup, as in "To make back, as an investment"[1]
Dick Kimball (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class==

Stub class because the article has only one section.EECavazos 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==WP Tax Priority==

Low priority because on a retirement fund.EECavazos 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with CDPQ Infra

[edit]

The present article still fails notability guidelines and a merger is strongly advised. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  checkY Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

[edit]

I find this article to be undoubtedly biased, and possibly written by editors with a connection to the subject.

  • Section 3 is an unsourced advertisement
  • Section 4 is an unsourced personal essay
  • Sections 7 and 8 read like they are ripped straight from a company website or press release

I find these sections to be candidates for deletion, though I would appreciate some feedback or consensus beforehand. RetroCosmos (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]