Talk:Stéphane Dion/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Federalism/National Unity

Added section on Dion's views on federalism and national unity. Will add sections on Open letters and opinions on fiscal balance. Feedback is welcome along with fact-checking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtf6.undecided (talk • contribs) 00:50, 16 May 2006

BA, MA, PhD...?

Do we need all of Mr Dion's academic letters after his name? Is this a standard convention? Is PhD not enough? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 03:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that, at the very least, BA isn't needed. 128.54.59.10 00:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I would agree; PhD implies also having an MA and BA. Should we tack on that he has a high school diploma while we're at it? Flakeloaf 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and changed User:Shagmaestro 03:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A PhD doesn't require a MA.

Right. But a PhD is an academic degree of higher standing than an MA, and thus should be the only thing listed on M Dion's page. Whether he has an MA (which he does) is irrelevant. User:Shagmaestro 05:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't have the most experience

"Dion has the most political experience, federal or otherwise, of any of the Liberal leadership candidates."

Maurizio Bevilacqua, for example, has been a Member of Parliament since 1988. If one is to count teaching political science as political experience, then Michael Ignatieff is more experienced then Stephane Dion.

I recommend that the phrase be changed to: "Dion has the most experience in Cabinet, federal or otherwide, of any of the Liberal leadership candidates." Jtf6.undecided | Talk 01:00, 2 September 2006 (EST)

Well, Maurizio Bevilacqua dropped out of the race in August, in any case. --Saforrest 23:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The Open Letters

I think that this section could be trimmed. While Dion's work on Federalism is notable, I think that the current reading is overly long. Gaius Octavius | Talk 19:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the truth is that its a little short. Instead of three open letters, there were more like five or six (I did not discover this until after I read the section). The three listed were by far the most important and contain a brief synopsis of their arguments. Could these be entered in a separate article? Possibly, but I find the bigger challenge is that the article (in total) is somewhat lean, but I have trouble thinking about what to add. I could go into more detail about his leadership platform, but that seems too partisan and not befitting the biographical context of the article. I could add more details on his personal life, but I feel that it would make the article too gossipy. Needless to say, I could use some suggestions of what is missing more than what needs to be deleted. If the article is filled out a little more, than discussions on reducing sections would be more appropriate. Jtf6.undecided | Talk 01:00, 2 September 2006 (EST)

I can see your point. If I knew more about him, I might expand on his writings/literary career (one of his books was short listed for the Donner Prize, according to stephanedion.ca/?q=en/Stephane-About), or his work as environment minister. But since most of his work has been related to federalism, I'm going to withdraw my previous comment. Maybe we could create a meta-section (Work as Intergovernmental Affairs Minister or similar) and include a section on the Open Letters and The Clarity Act? I think the latter deserves at least a little more mention. Gaius Octavius | Talk

I imagine his new status will bring due attention to all sections of the article and hopefully find a good balance over time. He's got an excellent shot at the PM's job, after all, so lots of people will want to know more aobut him. Radagast 05:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

References

At present, all the article's references are outgoing links (as opposed to footnote-style references). I've corrected the first section (and added a references section); an intrepid wikipedian might want to do the rest. Gaius Octavius | Talk 22:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

edits by "gerard kennedy"

i'd like to flag that someone with the username gerardkennedy is editing this page (see history) but since the edits occurred during the liberal leadership convention it is likely that it is one of his campaign managers. since kennedy threw his support behind dion i think there is a large conflict of interest in having him edit this page. Katerg 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that should be an issue, as long as the information is within wikipedia's guidelines. --66.222.207.118 20:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This has happend before on many Wikipedia articles. FellowWikipedian 00:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, his name is Gerard Kennedy, although he is not the Gerard Kennedy we know of. Talk page comment here. -- Zanimum 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Gerard Kennedy may also be of interest. FellowWikipedian 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The "Contact us" part colludes with his claim. -- Zanimum 15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparison

As an interesting side note, compare the educational background of the leaders of the separatist movement to the leaders of other major parties in Canada. The new leader of the Liberal party holds a PhD, the leader of the NDP holds a PhD, and the leader of the Conservatives holds a Master's degree (with original research). On the other hand, Duceppe holds what amounts essentially to a CEGEP diploma and Boisclair holds a one year Master's degree from a special program at Harvard that does not require candidates to hold a previous undergraduate degree (which Boisclair does not). Furthermore, unlike Harper's Master's degree, Boisclair did not contribute original research while studying. In fact, the only thing that got Boisclair into the JFK school of government was his years of service as an elected politician and $33,000 USD – hardly the exemplar of a brilliant mind.

The separatist movement in Quebec – in comparison to their opposition – is lead by unread, uneducated, populist leaders. That sums up the PQ's and the Bloc's values – populism over substance or intellect. Dion will clean the floor with these guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.143.98 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 3 December 2006

Oh come on, give it up. If you are going to attack the separatist movement, think of something better to say. Stettlerj 06:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, for God's sake. By this logic one ought to have supported the sovereignty movement in the mid-90's because Parizeau has a doctorate while Chrétien, Manning, and Charest (to my knowledge) have at most law degrees. In all but the most stupid of political questions, one can find people of intelligence and education on each side. --Saforrest 05:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

First Chrétien, and Charest have after-degree education - they are lawyers. Furthermore, under Parizeau's leadership the separatist movement nearly succeeded. Today, the PQ and the Bloc are led by intellectually bankrupt politicans and this may point to separatist support not only waning in general, but shifting to largely an uneducated demographic. Unlike the conditions during the last referundum, today, fewer people are alive who witnessed pre-Quiet Revolution Quebec. Put simply, the PQ and the Bloc reflect their supporters.

Religion

What is the religion of Mr. Dion? I understand that he is "secular" but that does not necessarily mean that does not have a religion, just that he is perceived to not have been as "devout" as others. I believe that most Quebecers are Roman Catholic. If not, is he atheist, agnostic, humanist? Thanks.

--Sicamous 00:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know this as well. Anyone have any info on it? Sima Yi 19:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that he was raised in a secular household, but may still be officially a Catholic. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Dion's Predecessor, Martin

The reason, I've removed Bill Graham from the Liberal Leader Succession box. All the other Liberal Leader's Succession boxes, don't list the interim-leaders. GoodDay 00:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

So what about the infobox on Bill Graham's page? Herb Gray was leader of the opposition but he was not interim Liberal leader, unlike Graham. 74.99.80.218 00:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be there then. Unless the box was "Interim leaders of the Liberal Party". -- Scorpion0422 00:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It is correct for a succession box to list interim leaders where appropriate. Paul Martin's, for example, lists Bill Graham. If other Liberal leadership succession boxes don't list an interim leader when an interim leader was the actual predecessor or successor, then the answer is to correct them, not to change this one. Bearcat 01:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a photo of the banners, however during the 2006 Liberal Leadership Convention, there were banners of the Past Liberal Party Leaders. There was no banners of the Interim-Leaders. What should we do? include the 'interim leaders' or not? GoodDay 01:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

If an interim leader precedes or succedes another leader, then we do list the interim leader in the appropriate place in the succession box. They are, however, marked as interim. Convention banners don't determine Wikipedia policy. Bearcat 01:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then 'interims' included, it is. GoodDay 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've re-edited in interim-leader 'Daniel McKenzie' to the Wilfred Laurier & William Lyon Mackenzie King Liberal Leaders succession boxes. GoodDay 02:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Leader of the Opposition

There is no such title as "Leader of the Official Oppostion." It is "Leader of the Opposition," period, per the article Leader of the Opposition (Canada). I've changed this article's infobox and that of Bill Graham's, accordingly. Fishhead64 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but doesn't he have to be sworn in before he's officially leader of the opposition? sinblox ^(talk) 02:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure on that either - he's taken over from Bill Graham as interim leader effective as of his successful election; but LotO would be a parliamentary title, correct?

If so, there would be a swearing-in ceremony later on; that would also be where he gets the keys to Stornoway and the higher salary, presumably. Radagast 05:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen at least one article that seemed to think he'd be sworn in as opposition leader first thing Monday morning. I'm doubtful that it would happen that quickly, as well. Bearcat 05:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I never knew (correct me if I'm wrong), that Opposition Leader was an office to be sworn into. I just assumed since Dion was a MP, he automatically became Leader of the Opposition upon his election as the Opposition (Liberal) Party Leader. Maybe, Opposition Leader is a statutory legislative office (after all, the OL does have an official/traditional residence). Does anyone have a 'source' that can support or disprove this. GoodDay 15:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are sworn into the position. -- Zanimum 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Under 'As Liberal Party leader', someone added recent news headlines from a specific poll. I don't believe that recent news headlines are appropriate for an encyclopedia entry, which is geared more for the long term. Also, references to polled values from a sample do not necessarily reflect the value of the population (basic statistics). So taking a sampled poll value and marking it as though it's the value of the population would be incorrect, especially when many polls vary by up to 5%. Another point that should be noted is that it is a common trend for a political party to receive a boost in the polls after an election, in fact, other parties were expecting this and requested members for donations based on poll numbers that hadn't been announced yet. Realvek

Actually the correct title is "Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition", which symbolises the fact that the opposition opposes the government of the day but remain loyal to the Canadian Crown and Constitution. --209.115.235.79 19:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

a quote from Jack Layton

I really think this should be added to the article somewhere:

At the big NDP convention in Quebec City a few months ago, Layton was poking fun at all the Liberal leadership candidates, with the notable exception of Dion. Rattling off the list of the other candidates' flaws or foibles, the only thing Layton could say about Dion was that he was "a man of principle and conviction and therefore almost certain not to be elected leader of the Liberal party."

Just, wow. A generous, on-the-record endorsement from a leader of a rival party. It will be interesting to say the least to see what the NDP will do now. Esn 08:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. Amusing. I think this is worth adding either into his leadership section or possibly a trivia section. Sima Yi 19:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the specific quote, but I've seen numerous allusions in the past couple of days to Layton apparently saying that he had a lot of respect for Dion and viewed him as a leader the NDP could potentially work with in a minority government situation. Of course, the article shouldn't mention this unless somebody can find an actual quote. Bearcat 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He said it during his keynote address [1]:

"And then there's a son of this city -- Stephane Dion.

A man with whom I have fundamental disagreements about how Canada should build and renew itself.

But also a man who is, if I may say so across the partisan divide, distinct from his principal opponents in being a committed Canadian and a man of principle and conviction.

And therefore almost certain not to be elected leader of the Liberal party." --Hamiltonian 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite so big a political gaffe, then - Layton made sure to say that he fundamentally disagreed with Dion, as a good politician should. Still, definitely an interesting quote. Esn 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

sponsorship scandal

An anonymous user recently added some unsourced speculation about Dion's role in the sponsorship scandal. I've removed this as it violated wikipedia's policies about living-person pages (as it was unsourced negative speculation) and added links which indicate that he was vindicated by the Gomery report. If anyone can provide any sourced criticism of his role there, feel free to do so. Esn 12:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Dion has no relation to the sponsorship scandal... period. It's likely that anything saying otherwise is just partisan vandalism. Sima Yi 19:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

This article should be worked up to an A-Class article

All the details about the leadership bid are fine for now... but in six months, those details will be of little interest to anyone, and those facts should probably remain in the 2006 leadership race entry or something. As things progress with elections to come, the emphasis will have to move elsewhere. --NoiZy 18:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

contribs) 17:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Your're correct, there's way too much detail in this article's section on the Liberal Leadership race. GoodDay 18:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've split it off into 2006 Liberal leadership bid by Stéphane Dion. Feel free to edit down the section in the main article to a better length. -- Zanimum 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Update

Someone should update this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.141.40.131 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Exactly what updates are you expecting that aren't already being made? Bearcat 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This page has been edited alot during the past few days. Check the history and you will see what I mean. FellowWikipedian 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The pie incident

Err... what's up with the pie-in-the-face thing added in these edits? It's pretty funny, I admit, but is it really noteworthy enough to include? I think it might be more appropriate for an Uncyclopedia article... Esn 03:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

...which I've now, by the way, created. Esn 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It might belong in a trivia section. I wouldn't put it in the main body. CJCurrie 06:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok... what about the photo? I feel dubious that it should be left in, but I can't find anything about guidelines for photographs in biographical articles. Esn 07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The photo should absolutely not be included. We've deleted similar material from the Stephen Harper page in the past. CJCurrie 07:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I decided that with living people articles, it's better safe than sorry, so I removed the image until a satisfactory reason to include it is given (I'm keeping the link to it, but I'm not sure that this should be one of the images that is immediately seen by a casual browser who just scrolls up & down the page). Although I can't find anything in any policy just now (not that I've really looked), my instinct is that including an image which is derisive to a person may not be the best idea in an encyclopedia article. I'm open on being persuaded otherwise, either on deleting the link to the picture entirely or on bringing the picture back in. Esn 07:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Although it's not really a good idea to have it in this article, perhaps it wouldn't be out of place in the Entartistes article. I've put it up there, though I'm still not sure if the picture breaks any rules or not. Esn 03:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I LIKE and respect Stephane Dion, but I do think the pie photo and incident has a place lower down. It's worth preserving as a matter of interest and record. Wikipedia should be handle such stuff, unlike Encyl. Brit. Bellagio99 22:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Photography

I'm contacting his Toronto media person, to see if we can get five minutes with him, to take a photo. While I'm likely going to find someone semi-pro on Craigslist for this, is there anyone in any major area of the country that's interested? Especially someone in the Montreal or Ottawa areas? (Of course, no guarantees we will get this, or when we'd get this.) -- Zanimum 17:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why this is necessary. That is not to say that it isn't necessary, but I just don't know why you're trying to arrange this. There is a decent photo of him halfway down the page.User:Shagmaestro 13:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The one in the clarity act section? That image is only fair use, as it is copyrighten be the federal government. It's better to have Creative Commons/GFDL images, which are entirely free, rather than just "free in an editorial context, not for profit" images. There's a big push on now (that I'm not entirely in favor of) to rid Wikipedia of any fair use image that could plausibly be replaced by a free image.

Understood and thanks for explainin. User:Shagmaestro 21:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Take Bob Rae as case in point. His campaign image was fair use, the usage was even endorsed by Rae's media PR manager, who seemed fully in favour. But along comes Abu Badali and Quadell, and they deleted the image. Deletion review did nothing to return it.

So, I'm trying to act proactively, before these image tyrants come in and slash and burn the content away. -- Zanimum 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If Bob Rae's campaign team allowed them to use the photo, what was the problem? I got permission from Larry O'Brien for example, and they finally left me alone. But anyways, I am in Ottawa just to let you know. ;-) I already have two photos of MPs to my credit. (Mauril Belanger and Peter Julian) -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you convinced O'Brien to make the image PD, I just asked "what image is the official campaign portrait? We want to use it on Wikipedia, is that okay?" -- Zanimum 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Environment

I removed a short environment section which was added in good faith. But I believe that it was in part incorrect. It stated that emissions rose 34% while he was environment minister but I believe that was for the Liberals term in office, not his own. Also it notes that Canada's air quality fell but it does not say where from. And in any event, changes in the physical environment that occurred during his term would have been the consequences of policies of his predecessors. But if anyone can add info about his term in that ministry, it would be great. Thanks. --JGGardiner 17:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a section devoted to Dion's record as environment minister is a good idea, particularly in view of the prominence he gave to environmental issues as a leadership candidate.

But I was also curious about those statistics that got deleted (see: deleted environment-related phrases. The claim is that "As Environment Minister, Dion presided over a 34.6% increase in greenhouse gas emissions." Some googling quickly reveals that this figure derives from a Conservative Party website article entitled Back to the future with Stéphane Dion where it states that "he [Dion] presided over a 34.6% increase in greenhouse gas emissions along with a precipitous decline in overall air quality, with Canada dropping to 27th out of 29 nations in the OECD." But anyone who checks Environment Canada's Greenhouse Gas Inventory documents will quickly notice that statistics are only available up to about two years prior to the present date; in other words, we only have stats up to the end of 2004, which is only about a half a year into Dion's term as minister of the environment. Now Canada's GHG emissions certainly did not increase by 34.6% in a half a year. In fact, the highest recent yearly increases are about 4% or maybe maximum 5%.

The number was from a Conservative party website, as this was my source. I have readded the section on the Environment, using instead a quote from a CBC website. I hope this is a better insertion. At the least I hope that I have begun to address what exactly Mr. Dion's performance was as an Environment minister. The upshot is, that the Liberal party cannot claim to be the party of the Environment (whoever is the leader) if during its tenure, it did not have a good record on taking care of the environment, which is what I hope to be able to add to Mr. Dion's entry, to make it a complete history of his performance in Government. .--GlenninBerlin 14:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

But the number 34.6% hasn't been pulled out of a hat; it actually figures prominently in a number of reports which evaluate the latest GHG statistics. 34.6% represents the percentage increase of 758Mt (Canada's 2004 GHG emissions) over the Kyoto Baseline emissions (which is equal to 6% less than the 1990 GHG levels, or 563Mt). (see: Canadian Emission Trends 1990-2004) In other words, the claim that "Dion presided over a 34.6% increase in greenhouse gas emissions" is a blatant lie.--Eric1960 03:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also note, for the record, that until such time as Dion actually leads a Canadian government, we'll have no way of knowing whether any failures on the environmental front came about because Dion was himself inactive as a minister, or because Paul Martin or the cabinet as a whole refused to move sufficiently fast on things Dion actually pushed quite hard for. We simply don't know which of those is the case, and we won't until we have the opportunity to see for ourselves how strong of an environmental record a Dion-led government actually establishes for itself. Bearcat 03:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of your comments. I only said what I felt was the minimum to justify my edit which undid what I assume was a good faith edit from a new user. But it really would be great if somebody who knows about that could add a genuine section about his tenure in the environment portfolio. Since Dion himself is pushing it so much I assume that many of our readers will come looking for some information in that area. Thanks. --JGGardiner 04:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I just deleted paragraph on the environment. It should definitely be mentioned - but the tone of what I removed was just scurriously partisan. Since it is obviously a bone of contention, why not gather the relevant facts on the talk page first? I'll start - Dion's tenure as Env. Min. was from July 20, 2004 to February 5, 2006. --Hamiltonian 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I wish to see something there about the Environment. I do not vote, nor am I affiliated with a political party. I just see a very glaring omission in this history, which a casual reader would think Mr. Dion either has no environmental record, or if he did, it is not worth mentioning, which considering the facts of Canada's environmental record under the Liberal party, is worth mentioning. GlenninBerlin

Actually, Canada's environmental record under the Liberal Party isn't worth mentioning (as has been included and deleted by several editors several times). Rather, whatever goes in (and I do agree that something should), it should concentrate solely on Dion's tenure as environment minister. --Hamiltonian 16:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was not under Mr Dion's term as environment minister that emissions went up by 34%, he became environment minister in mid 2004 and in less than an year he presented his environment plan which was applauded by many environmental groups (including the David Suzuki Foundation )but the plan was killed by by the conservatives when the government was brought down later that year. So in effect he was environment minister for barely a year and within that time frame his Green Plan helped make 2005 canadian budget the "greenest budget" as it was proclaimed by environmental groups. Also leader of Green Party, Elizabeth May had some nice things to say about his record as environment minister http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=357f6eac-b32d-49f7-9f2d-1d4f8b94cc06&k=21805

If they (conservatives) try to smear him and say that he's somehow associated with past Liberal corruption, they're just barking up the wrong tree, said May in an interview on Wednesday. If they try to say he was anything other than a very strong environment minister, they're making it up.

It is curious how Elizabeth May has been championing Dion's environmental record. Yes, he managed to stave off the perception that Kyoto had totally given up the ghost at the Conference of Montreal, but aside from that tepid achievement, little was accomplished while he was minister. His climate change plan was roundly criticized as ineffectual, he caved to auto manufacturers on the subject of mandatory controls, and he was the one who began the 'official' backsliding on Canada's Kyoto targets (yes 2012 targets will be reached, but not the overall 2008-2012 targets). And what else could May have in mind? Prior to his tenure as minister of the environment, Dion had nothing whatsoever to do with environmental issues. As leader of the Green Party, you would think that even if May actually saw some merits to Dion's environmental record, she would focus on criticizing problem areas. Instead, she's handing her party's main issue over to the competition. Honestly, unless she's positioning herself for an eventual jump over to the Liberals, I don't get it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.83.114.137 (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Re: "34.6% increase in greenhouse gas emissions" No, it is not all the fault of Mr. Dion, the Liberal Government or even any other government that we have this increase. Instead, look at our fellow Canadians! For example, when you drive down any highway in Canada - at the posted speed limit - just watch the SUVs and other cars passing you at a breakneck pace. These drivers do not care about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, or even about the gasoline (money) they are wasting by driving too quickly in oversized vehicles. No, governments at all levels and all Canadians must work together to deal with and find solutions for our climate change and air pollution problems. Silly finger-pointing at this guy or that gal solves nothing. Que-Can 17:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The quote from the National Post "Everyone is saying target, target..." is a misrepresentation. In its original context Dion was saying that Canada would meet its Kyoto targets if he could implement his plan (if elected as Prime Minister) by early 2007. The misrepresentation of this quote was addressed by Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez when it was alluded to in question period by Conservative MP Mark Warawa on December 7th, 2006 (http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/Committee/391/ENVI/Evidence/EV2579165/ENVIEV34-E.PDF): "Despite the ridiculous and occasionally insulting character of the current government's strategy, I would like to respond briefly. Mr. Dion has said that if this visionless, heartless government, which has no interest in the environment, stays in office for long, we definitely will not be able to meet our Kyoto targets in the coming years. However, if we replace it immediately, we will be able to. That is our intention, Mr. Chairman."

Dion's Dual (Canada/France) Citizenship

He holds French & Canadian Citizenship. Please add this somewhere. To support that: http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/dec/06120401.html (unsigned comment).

A better link re Dion's dual citizenship (and the source for the info in the link above) is Question of loyalty: New Liberal leader Dion deserves citizenship scrutiny by Ezra Levant (Dec. 4, 2006 / Calgary Sun). Levant includes the following quote from Dion: "Multiple identities should be seen as an asset, not a threat. There is nothing wrong with multiple identities. The hearts of people are big enough to accept different identities. Canadian citizenship will give me my rights. Identity is the way I feel about the country." I suggest the quote be included at the end of the "As Party Leader" section (after "Stéphane Dion and his three brothers... in a French election") to clarify his position on this issue.--Eric1960 18:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Question: Is this the first party leader with dual citizenship? AFAIK, all leaders have either held British Commonwealth, then Canadian citizenship. -- Zanimum 21:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe all Canadians born in Canada before 1947 were a sort of British subject, so it does not really amount to dual citizenship, as Canada was nominally still part of the British empire and the British house of commons was the final say in Canadian law. However, that does not apply to France, at least after the defeat of France and its loss of Canadian territories. So, one needs to consider Canadian leaders AFTER 1947, and I suspect none held dual citizenship. In fact, the trend is for these leaders to renounce, not hold onto, their non-Canadian citizenship. If Dion is saying keeping his French citizenship provides some special benefit to him, such as having "more than one identity", it is hard to grasp what that benefit is. Furthermore, it appears that the hearts of Canadians are not as generous as Dion would like to believe, if the discussions at various news media internet sites are any indication. Does the quote above from Levant mean that Dion identifies himself as a Canadian and as a French citizen? Is this appropriate for a Prime Minister of Canada, let alone a Prime Minister of France? To keep one's identity as a decendent of immigrants from France is one thing, but to hold onto citizenship of one's ancestral land while leading an independent nation, as Canada is today after 1947, is quite another thing. It is completely at odds with almost every known leader of the Western world, at whatever level of Government. GlenninBerlin

There was a recent interview on The National where he gave a few more reasons: he pointed out that John Turner had dual citizenship in the 1980s and nobody had a problem with it then, and that he viewed it as a gift from his mother. He nevertheless said that he would renounce it if it proved a liability to winning against Stephen Harper. For the record, I think this whole issue is ridiculous as well. He's defended Canada as few other people have in his battles with sovereignists - why in the world is his loyalty being questioned? Esn 05:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just read that Turner was born in England yesterday in the free commuter paper, but they didn't mention his dual citizenship. -- Zanimum 16:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

An addition comment of interest by Andrew Coyne National Post Dec 7th regarding Dion's dual citizenship-“Anyone who questions Stephan Dion’s patriotism is either a fool or a scoundrel. After the service he has done this country, after the abuse he has suffered in its name, to cast even the slightest doubt on his loyalty to Canada shames those who would try. There can be few Canadians who believe in their country more, or have done more to defend it.” This tactic that the PC's are using regarding the citizenship issue is very much a copy of the Republic book. If somewhere an article or sourced information could be found it could be of interest to add as a counterbalance.

"appointed to cabinet"

In response to this edit, all I can say is that I've never seen a Canadian publication write "appointed to the cabinet". Take a look at this article, for example. Doing a Google fight shows that "appointed to cabinet" is a grammatical variation that is used less often - perhaps it's only used in Canada, I don't know. However, since this is a Canadian article, it should use Canadian grammar. Esn 00:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I propose Esn reverts. User:Shagmaestro 05:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I already did. ;) I just thought I'd explain it over here in case anyone objected. Esn 05:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC):

I am the bad person responsible for this. "Appointed to Cabinet" is therefore similar to "Elected to Parliament": no definite article. I offer my sincere apologies to all.Writtenright 22:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Writtenright

Citizenship

Someone please add this news to the as liberal leader section

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/12/07/dion-france.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.0.185 (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2006

Supreme Court Ruling - Needs POV Neutralization

This statement is radically pro-federalist:

"...the Supreme Court ruling on the unilateral secession of Quebec ... which confirmed that there is no right ... to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally."

The legal reasoning itself -- and the right of the Supreme Court of Canada to claim authority to make such a decision on international law -- are both hugely controversial.

The current wording is clever because it can be argued that it means (factually), "confirmed [the Canadian government position] that there is no right" -- but its plainer interpretation, that it "confirmed [the absolute legal truth] that there is no right", is completely unacceptable from a neutral-reporting perspective.

The word confirmed should be replaced by the neutral term adjudged: "...which adjudged that there is no right...". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.6.238 (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

"Flirtation" with Sovereignty Movement -- Needs POV Neutralization

In the Early Life section, the concept of flirtation is used repeatedly to describe his involvement in the sovereignty movement.

There are two "neutral point of view" problems with this: it demeans involvement in the sovereignty movement as something that could never be a serious, lasting, commitment, and given what appears to be several years -- not a brief moment -- of sovereigntist activism, it is a "spin" re-write of his biography to serve his current political agenda.

It's also repetitively bad prose.

I'll accept the term in the statement "Dion has said that his flirtation with the sovereignty movement..." as this at least somewhat identifies the term as being Dion's personal current interpretation of events.

But the other two occurences should be changed to the neutral involvement:

FROM "As a teenager, he flirted with the sovereignty movement..."

TO "As a teenager, he was involved with the sovereignty movement..."

And especially here, where an objective reporter is actually contradicting the "flirtation" concept by claiming, contrary to Dion's current framing of the issue, that the relationship was longer and deeper:

FROM "Journalist Linda Diebel believes that his flirtation ended gradually..."

TO "Journalist Linda Diebel believes that his involvement ended gradually..." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.120.87.120 (talk) 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I can appreciate your second point, that describing his sovereigntist past may be a bit of revisionism, rather like Duceppe's own communist past. However, I have to disagree that describing a onetime attachement to the sovereignty movement as "flirtation" demeans the seriousness of the movement itself.

The degree of an individual's dedication to a group has no bearing on the seriousness of the group itself. One can "flirt" with very serious and legitimate movements, and this is perfectly normal for politically-engaged young people. --Saforrest 05:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dion must have been very serious about sovereignty and it should be reflected. stating that "he was briefly involved with the sovereignty movement", does not seem to truely reflect how Dion felt and his involvement in the movement. Maclean's Jan 22 edition, article by Benoit Aubin quotes his childhood friend Robert MacKay saying that" He [Dion] thought Rene Levesque was a moderate". It seems that this sovereignty aspect of his life needs to be a bit more detailed, especially considering we will be having an election and people will be wanting to understand (esp in Quebec) his changing beliefs. I do not think it is beyond a Wikipedia article to note this.

Internal Contradition -- Open Letters vs. Supposed Views on Federalism

The article moves from describing in detail Dion's claims that the federal government of Canada can not only override Quebec referenda, but actually (militarily) seize Quebec territory -- to claiming in glowing terms in the "Views on federalism and national unity" section that... well really... he supports provincial rights.

The problem begins with the statement: "It would be most accurate to describe him as a federal autonomist."

Why is that most accurate? What is the sourced reference for this analysis?

Then "...he unequivocally argues against jurisdictional intrusion..." -- where, and how in application to a Quebec sovereignty referendum?(??)

And "Dion's position on provincial rights..." What is the sourced referenced for his supposed position? Is there any published criticism that points out the fundamental conflict with the Open Letters which should be included as an objective counterbalance to the (inherently biased and self-promoting) claim of any politician about himself? Should it be framed as "he claims" -- "despite" his position in the Open Letters? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.126.62.183 (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Dion's Charisma, or lack of it

The latest edition of the Economist ran a profile of Dion, with the heading "The Geek Shall Inherit". What is missing here is a discussion of his lack of, well, people skills, or his apparent lack of charisma, the ability to connect with people. The same article also mentioned Harper's supposed lack of charisma and suggested that Canada is the only country putting boring people in leadership positions. There has been considerable discussion in the media about Dion's supposed "egghead" academic persona and whether that is something new for Canada. This is not the same as his lack of English speaking skills, but his lack of people skills or ability/inability to connect with voters in this new media age. Something needs to be added to his profile about this, as it is an issue. BTW, why has nothing been added about the Environment and Dion? After all, this was his key platform issue and yet no one seems bothered to add anything about this to his profile, which I attempted but was deleted several times.GlenninBerlin

RE the environment - It definitely should be added, but it should also definitely concentrate solely on Dion's tenure as Env. Min., (Jul 04 - Jan 06) and not on the Liberal tenure (or even further back, as some people added) as a whole. Many different editors kept adding info about decisions made before Dion was minister. --Hamiltonian 11:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

On the note of charisma, there was a recent poll in the Toronto Star which said that in the Atlantic provinces, Ontario and Quebec, Dion beat Harper when voters were asked "which leader understands the concerns of people like you?". That implies that, whether or not you call it "charisma", he does have the ability to connect with people. "Canada is the only country putting boring people in leadership positions" - better boring than unapologetically contemptuous of the public, eh? Who knows, maybe picking "boring but qualified" leaders is an unconscious side-effect of watching Bush Jr.'s ("interesting and unqualified") antics down there in the US. Harper has remained quite popular in Canada, despite (or because of) being boring and giving the impression that he knows what he's talking about. His level of support is consistently above that of his own party. Overall, I'm not sure that this article is the place to compare Canadians' preference in leadership traits compared to other countries'. Not unless a comprehensive study of the question was done, anyway. Esn 23:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unpopularity of the Parti Québécois

I remove the part in italic: This position became the cornerstone of the Clarity Act and is credited along with the growing unpopularity of the Parti Québécois government and the growing fatigue with the sovereignty debate with weakening public support in Quebec for sovereignty until the Sponsorship Scandal broke in 2004.

• Is that an opinion or a fact? Credited by who ? If someone can add some references, he can be put back the removed part. --74.12.209.205 21:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • This is maybe not just an opinion, because the poll numbers for the PQ are lower than they were and some, but not many people credit Stephane Dion for that, but this is very much a political position. You will see more people attributing the PQ's defeat in 2003 to municipal mergers than to "sovereignty fatigue". UnHoly 08:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Incident at 2006 Liberal Party Convention

On December 29/06, Hamiltonian deleted a whole section of the Dion article that had been submitted by Lance6968. Also missing is a referenced statement issued by M. Dion on December 8/06. The only explanation from Hamiltonian was a cryptic editing comment, "quite obviously not." I would like to know why the section was deleted. Perhaps Hamiltonian thought the topic was not relevant, or perhaps it was poorly worded. We have no clue why it was deleted. Que-Can 00:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

While it's certainly true that antisemitic comments were made against Arlene Perly Rae by some delegates at the convention, there is no verifiable proof that Dion was in any way connected to them, or that the matter was directly or even partially responsible for Dion's victory. Dion, in fact, personally condemned the antisemitic statements, so it's really reaching outside of the bounds of verifiability to try to link them to him. While it's certainly not safe to assume that nobody was swayed away from Rae because of Arlene Rae's religion, we also don't have any verifiable proof that antisemitic beliefs are the main reason that Rae didn't win. Accordingly, the appropriate place to discuss the matter is in the convention article and/or Bob and Arlene Rae's articles. Not in Dion's, and especially not under a headline that implies that Dion owes his leadership to antisemites. Bearcat 02:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Bearcat. These are useful comments and suggestions. Que-Can 02:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What Bearcat wrote is reasonable. Dion's response on the Liberal Party Web site is obviously relevant to the Dion article. Dion's response, that in my opinion was inadequate, was a short statement on the lower-left hand corner of the aforementioned Web site. Dion's reaction to what happened is clearly relevant, and should be included in his article; and it can be kept to the basic facts; i.e., it doesn't need to include my opinion that his response was inadequate.--Lance ^talk 15:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not denying that a case can be made for including Dion's reaction to the matter in Dion's article — but, for one thing, "elected on an antisemitic platform" is most certainly not the appropriate subheading for such a discussion. It's a wild and undocumentable distortion of the actual facts of the situation, which clearly violates Wikipedia's WP:BLP policies. Bearcat 18:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dion's article should document his reaction to this aspect of Canadian politics.--Lance ^talk 16:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The heading is very POV by suggesting that his (dion's) platform was somehow antisemtic, when it clearly was not. This section as it stands now violates WP:BLP and I am removing it in accordance with official policy. As there is no link to Dion and the antisemtic activity this incident may deserve a mention on the article about the convention but probably not on this one (especially under such an inflamatory heading). -- No Guru 17:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't this whole issue, if worth mentioning at all, be better suited to Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006? There's a much more substantive connection between the subject matters. -Joshuapaquin 21:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Add Flags to Dion's article

I added the "current" provincial and national flags to Dion's article, beside his place of birth. Usually the current national and/or state/provincial flags are included with the articles. (For example, in the United States, for someone born before Alaska and Hawaii became states, a flag with 50 stars is displayed, rather than a flag with the 48 stars that would have been used when the person was born.) An exception to this rule in Wikipedia appears for many Canadian politicians, whereby Wikipedia uses the Red Ensign, the flag of Canada for much of Canada's history before 1965, rather than today's Red Maple Leaf flag. For Dion, I elected to use the current flag since I feel it makes more sense to use today's flag. (my personal opinion!) Que-Can 20:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I've just gone through all the articles for Opposition leaders back to Joe Clark. Of these, only three had Canadian flags in their articles: Clark, Turner, and Mulroney (and these were in the Prime Ministerial infoboxes). None had provincial flags in their articles.

I also looked at the articles of each of the Governors of Hawaii and Alaska (yes, all of them, since statehood). None have either American flags or state flags.

I would submit that placing the national flag is appropriate, as Que-Can has done. But placing the provincial flag does not follow precedent. In my opinion, it's awkward to have two flags in the infobox; I also think it is sensible to give primacy to the federal flag rather than a sub-national unit.

An interesting point: Turner's infobox uses an England flag as his place of birth, even though it's part of the UK. I think an argument can be made on this basis to say that a Quebec flag should be in the template instead of a Canada flag; however, I would disagree with this argument because England's independent national status is certainly better-established in UK history than Quebec's in Canadian history. -Joshuapaquin 20:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I'm going to take the liberty of removing the Quebec flag. -Joshuapaquin 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Joshuapaquin. That's fine. To me, one flag is better than none. I have a feeling that the one flag you left with the article will be gone soon .... or changed by someone to the Red Ensign! Each to his/her own, I guess. Que-Can 08:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the historical interest of using the flag in use at the time of the individual's birth, this can easily get tedious, and the right flag can be contentious or just difficult to determine. Why a St. Andrew's Cross for Sir John A, and not the Union Jack? (He was born well after the Act of Union.) Should left-wing German chancellor Gerhard Schröder have to have a Nazi swastika beside his name because he happened to be born in Germany in 1944? --Saforrest 11:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stéphane Dion/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.

In the first line of the third paragraph above "Early Political Life", "had began" should be "had begun". 74.103.160.146 13:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)