Talk:Charles Michel

Requested move 07 October 2014

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: consensus to move the pages, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 03:18, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

– He will become Prime Minister of Belgium in a few days, thus it makes sense to make his article the main one titled "Charles Michel". I already moved the disambiguation page to Charles Michel (disambiguation) – SPQRobin (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Charles Michel (politician) → Charles Michel
 * Charles Michel → Charles Michel (disambiguation)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943  (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: Contesting this move considering that this move establishes a new primary topic. The move may be controversial. Steel1943  (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: I have reverted the move of the disambiguation page, pending the result this discussion. Steel1943  (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support clear primary topic as a head of government over the historical ophthalmologist. While there two subjects with the first name Charles-Michel, the slim chance of people intending to find them using only the first name is not likely enough to overcome the clear position of this national figure as the primary.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support The article for the 19th century ophthalmologist only consists of three sentences. The PM-designate of Belgium is much more notable. --Tocino 12:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: His tenure has now been confirmed. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support The current Prime Minister of Belgium is beyond any shadow of a doubt the primary topic at this name.  Oreo Priest  talk 18:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Who is this article about? Martin or his father?
On the George W. Bush article where masses could be entered about his father George H. W. Bush, all it says is this: Bush is the eldest son of Barbara and George H. W. Bush, and the second son to become the American president after his father.... And that is all. There is no reason to write an essay about Louis whether one paragraph or one line. He has his own article. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

PS Ditto Agata Buzek, her father Jerzy Buzek's resume has four portfolios but only the two major ones are listed on her article. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * One line is not "an essay", it just gives context. I'll personally concede this to you for the sake of tranquility, but as an advice you should relax this aggressive edit-warry behaviour of yours that you started since your first edits on European Union. If any editor reverts, with a reason, an edit of yours, you should not revert back (or basically in any other way restore the edit that was contested) just because you think you are right. Please read WP:BRD. --Ritchie92 (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I thank you, and will consider BRD for all future occasions. --Tomb Blaster (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Sofagate
The material about "Sofagate" is valid and vaguely interesting, but what is it doing in his biography article? Do we need Michel Presidency or something? (the equivalent of Von der Leyen Commission) [BTW, the incident tells us more about Erdogan than it does about Michel, so that's another reason why it doesn't belong here.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Prime Minister section political content
The 3rd paragraph in the prime minister section is heavily political and dubiously sourced (only a heavily political editorial). I don't really know about the factual validity of it or if it could be better sourced. I was originally just going to edit it for tense (x is happening -> x happened), but I'm not at all confident how accurate it is. Should I just remove it? Or put a better source needed tag on it? 86.5.56.179 (talk) 11:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The section has seven different sources, which one to you mean? You could put a better source tag on that specific source you are questioning, provided that you can show that there is a conflict of interest involved. If it is only that you think that is biased, that is not good enough as most sources are biased albeit unconsciously (see WP:BIASED). However if the source is fairly widely viewed as partial then you can use WP:INTEXT attribution so that visitors can see whose opinion it is. (Wikipedia aims for a wp:neutral point of view and, where an evidently opinionated source must be included, avoids doing so in WP:WIKIVOICE.) Does that help? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've stricken my first response because I failed to read that your question was specifically about the third paragraph. But I've left it visible as you may find it useful elsewhere.
 * The source is Le Monde Diplomatique, which is a highly regarded source. So you will need to explain why it should not be used. Does the paragraph in our article fairly reflect the LMD report? For example, is it about Belgian Government (coalition) policy, rather than specifically CM's policies? etc. But I can't see that a better source tag is likely to be appropriate. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)