Jump to content

Talk:Pauline Marois/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

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)

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)

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)

No health care for immigrants?

The controversial statements section suggests, without citing any source whatsoever, that Marois has suggested denying heatlh care to immigrants who don't speak French. A statement like that must be supported by a reference or it risks being nothing less than calumny. I have deleted it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.24.180 (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Canadian politician

Someone added (presumably today) that she's a Canadian politician. Surely this is contentious seeing as she's a sovereigntist?--Cymru123 (talk) 09:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it is not contentious. As long as Quebec is still a province of Canada, Marois is a Canadian first, and a Québécoise second. How she sees herself, is irrelevant in an encyclopedia, which is read by people outside of her own province and outside of Canada. --Skol fir (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"As long as Quebec is still a province of Canada", sorry to disapoint you, but the province of Québec never signed the constition of 1982, your statement is wrong. SH --66.36.144.188 (talk) 19:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Do your reading at Quebec Veto Reference, and you will see that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that "Quebec did not have a veto by constitutional convention." So that means that as long as a majority of provinces were in agreement about the Constitution at the time of Patriation, and about any amendments thereafter, Quebec could not stall the agreement on its own accord. Unilateral separation is another matter, which Quebecers will have to face if that is their choice.
As of September, 2012, and for the foreseeable future, Quebec is an inalienable part of Canada. If you would study history, you would not make such ill-advised remarks. --Skol fir (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
BTW, Anonymous IP 66.36.144.188, the words you objected to are no longer in the article, and were replaced by "(P.M) is the 30th and current Premier of Quebec and the current leader of the Parti Québécois," so whatever objections you had to the use of "Canadian politician" are moot anyway. --Skol fir (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, FYI, the person who made the original change to "Canadian politician" did so under false pretenses, using the misleading edit summary of "wikify first sentence." Instead he/she surreptitiously added "Canadian politician." That was rather sneaky and dishonest, which makes me want to side with you, Anonymous IP 66.36.144.188, on that basis. Notwithstanding that "faux pas", the problem has been resolved by changing Marois' designation in the first sentence of the article, as you can see. Kind regards, --Skol fir (talk) 05:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing information

There is a huge gap in her biography between 1983 (becoming Minister of Labour and Income Security) and 2003 (second leadership race). What happened between those events? --Voyager (talk) 08:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Claims that Marois and her husband's multimillion-dollar private estate was built on land that was improperly rezoned

"How estate was built on public, farm lands": this article written in the Montreal Gazette in September 2007 led to a lawsuit filed by Marois and her husband, which was settled out of court in March 2011. (Pauline Marois, Claude Blanchet and The Gazette have settled out of court the lawsuit between them). Since this absolves Marois of any proven claim of guilt in the matter (innocent until proven guilty), this whole issue should not be covered in a biography, as it could be defamatory towards the subject of the article. I agree with the recent removal of this matter from the body of the article, as it has no relevance anymore. It is old news, and potentially libelous as well. --Skol fir (talk) 04:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right, as WP:BLP advocates a cautious approach. Bouchecl (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. What's the point of inserting an incendiary claim that has not been proven in court? It comes across as a lame attempt to smear Marois, and serves no higher purpose. This bogus issue has no place in a BLP, especially for a Premier of Quebec. --Skol fir (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite of this article

OK. I'm tired of it. I'm going to fix this article in both French and English. So, I added a {{translated page}} banner above because I'll move stuff back and forth in the next few days. Feel free to comment here or correct any basic errors. Proper citations will be added as I go along, so sometimes it will take a few edits to get it right. So, don't be too fast on the {{fact}} :) Bouchecl (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the {{under construction}} banner at the top of the article. There is still work to be done (especially in the 1994-present sections), but this is a start. Bouchecl (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Last paragraph of the lede section

I do have some concerns with the last paragraph of the lede section. The first sentence has a source but failed verification in the source given concerning a EKOS Research Associates poll published by the CBC about English-speaking Quebecers and their perception of the Marois government. In any case, this perception is better suited in the premiership section of the article, not in the lede (as I did in these two diffs [1] and [2]). The second part is a matter of opinion, and uses weasel words, breaking neutrality. It has no place there. Bouchecl (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I invited Mauricienne (talk · contribs), a new editor, to discuss the issue on the talk page. Bouchecl (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Second issue. The relationship between Blanchet and Marois. The editor added a sentence on financial interests held by Blanchet between 1997 and 2003 while Marois was a Cabinet minister in the Bouchard and Landry governments. While perfectly acceptable in this article, this statement should not be located in the Education subsection (where it makes no sense, considering the chronological structure of the article) and should be located in the Minister of Everything section, where her years as a minister in the 1990s is documented. In fairness, the information should include the fact that Blanchet's interest in companies doing business with the SGF were disclosed at the time and held in a blind trust as stated in the Gilbert Lavoie Le Soleil article cited in diff. Bouchecl (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the highly uncritical nature of the article as a whole -- which presents the statements made by Mrs. Marois in her autobiography and in the PQ platform as facts, rather than as claims or principles or aspirations -- it is wholly appropriate to include in the lead section the documented fact that many Anglophones and Allophones, as well as Francophones, see Mrs. Marois's policies to be not only divisive, but also an affront. I did not write this section, but do support its inclusion at this point in the article as legitimate and also well documented. The poll cited in the note was conducted directly in the wake of the new restrictions that Mrs. Marois wishes to put on the use of English and on admission to institutions where instruction takes place primarily in English. It is therefore not a misrepresentation of the poll's findings to contend that the policies in question are seen as an affront by a majority of respondents. As well, it is important to include this information at this point in the article, in the lead section, because this section states that Mrs. Marois wishes to strengthen French, whereas the policies in question are widely seen instead to intend to weaken English. For many Quebeckers, including members of institutions of higher education (I am a native French-speaking professor at one such Francophone instition), negative measures such as prohibitions and penalties do little to improve the use and especially the quality of French in Quebec. If you wish to document the final statement in regard to the benefits of knowing more than one language and the frustration felt by Francophone parents who cannot enrol thir children in English schools in order to add to (rather than replace) their use of French, you can add a link to one of the many articles in the Quebec press about lawsuits brought by Francophones to overturn the measures prohibiting this. This is a well-documented matter.--Mauricienne (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
As a newcomer here, it is normal you don't know Wikipedia's customs. Biographies of living persons (BLP), especially when they are active in politics (thus controversial), are to be dealt with care. The BLP tone subsection insists on articles being "written responsibly, cautiously and in a dispassionate tone". The Manual of Style, advises to pay "scrupulous attention to reliable sources. Write clinically, and let the facts speak for themselves", adding "well-publicized recent events affecting a subject, whether controversial or not, should be kept in historical perspective."
In my opinion, the paragraph you restored is not based on the facts presented in the Radio-Canada story (I read it twice) and blanket statements such as "only divisive, but also an affront" need to be well-sourced, as it is certainly not written cautiously and in a dispassionate tone, breaking the neutrality pillar of the encyclopedia. By the way, I would say the same thing if such a statement was made in the lead section of our article on Stephen Harper, François Legault or Jean Charest. As for lawsuits about access to English schools, they have nothing to do in Ms. Marois' article. Wikipedia also has an article on the Charter of the French language, which may be more suitable that particular topic, as long as it is notable, verifiable and doesn't rely on original research. If you insist on adding the material, it should go to the Premiership or Issues sections where it might be more relevant. Bouchecl (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
As for the second issue, I put it at this point in the article because this is the only mention of Mrs. Marois's husband, Blanchet. You are free to move it elsewhere and you can also note that no one has formally accused Blanchet or Mrs. Marois of any wrongdoing. You might also point out, however, that the favoritism shown by the PQ to labor unions and entities linked to Mr. Blanchet has been noted in the media, and that Mrs. Marois goes to lengths not to appear at political events (even her inauguration as Premiere!) with her husband.--Mauricienne (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauricienne (talk • contribs) 20:37, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Then we agree on this. I'll move it to the relevant section. Bouchecl (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. Bouchecl (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Since Mauricienne (talk · contribs) has not read and understood the relevant section of WP:BLP and MOS:LEAD, I moved the whole paragraph to the Premiership section where it belongs. Bouchecl (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

MBA is an honorary suffix

Marois has obtained a Master of Business Administration and thus has the right to include her degree in her name as an honorary suffix. --RandomKelvin (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

New picture

Hi, I have a beautiful picture of Pauline Marois! I was wondering if you all agree so I can put it in the article, it is an HD picture, thank you!--Samounet (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The quality isn't as great as other images. 117Avenue (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pauline Marois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pauline Marois/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.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
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.131.104.61.108 18:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)Morgan

Last edited at 18:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Someone has to do something about this article. It's obviously not neutral and negative about almost everything she's done. we could see a huge different between the English and the French one. 70.79.106.23 (talk) 07:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pauline Marois. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pauline_Marois/Archive_1&oldid=1068430946"