Talk:Jean Lapierre

Untitled
President of the Local 301 CUPE in Montreal for 18 years? I think this needs a section. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060327.wxcogagnon27/BNStory/National/home

Content Dispute

 * This seems to be the most straightforward content dispute I've seen between the two of you, CJ and GD. Also, you should both be really proud of yourselves for managing to not even attempt to work it out rather than edit war, as seen by this BLANK talk page (both of you, btw, are guilty of 3rr here). Anyways, though I'm rather surprised myself, given the edit histories of the two of you, I'm going to have to agree 99% with GoldDragon on this one. While I've almost always found myself agreeing with CJ's edits in your disputes, in this case, some very pertinent information seems to be left out of CJ's version. GD's is more detailed, more succinct, and includes some important facts that CJ's leaves out. Besides a few minor semantic issues, it seems very clear to me. You're welcome to get another opinion, but that's my opinion as an outside observer. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 03:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree strongly that this should be worked on on the talk page, and not through a revert war. I have made copyedits and tidied the article up a bit, leaving in the content that CJCurrie sought to delete.

I do see CJCurrie's point, however, about maintaining balance in an article. If you load up an article with pseudo-scandals, it does not provide a balanced persepctive on the person. Is Lapierre really this awful? The 2004 federal election section, in particular, is just a collection of slams against Lapieree, as opposed to a real analysis of his role in it. Let the debate begin.... Ground Zero | t 18:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am open to the addition of new material to counter-balance what is currently in the article. In preparation for such a move, I've compressed the existing sections in light of Ground Zero's concerns. GoldDragon 19:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that some of the material currently in the article should be removed. I doubt we need to cite Larry Zolf once, let alone four times. CJCurrie 20:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

And I maintain that it does not need to be removed. Zolf is commentating on different aspects.GoldDragon 00:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

For instance, Zolf explains why Lapierre is different from past Quebec lieutenants and what role that he is suppose to play in the Martin gov't. Zolf also cites that some criticized Lapierre for "which flag of convenience" regarding his remarks on the Clarity Act, and above all that Lapierre is a nationalist that disagreed with Trudeau. GoldDragon 00:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be obvious to most readers that Lapierre did not compare Duceppe to a Nazi (Duceppe's own statements notwithstanding). Would GoldDragon please explain why my compromise wording was unacceptable? CJCurrie 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ducepppe may "have felt" that Lapierre compared him to a Nazi, but Duceppe has his own political agenda to promote. He is not an unbiased observer here. Furthermore, as far as we know, Lapierre only used the N-word once. Why would it appear twice in this article? Let Lapierre's words speak for themselves. We don't need to interpret them for the reader. The best way to achieve NPOV is to focus on the facts, Ma'am, just the facts, and leave the editorializing out. Ground Zero | t 12:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * These kinds of campaign comments and talk get dated very quickly. I deleted all of the exchange. It is just not significant several years on, and after Lapierre's death. Articles should be reviewed and updated. Too much of this sounds as if it's written during a campaign cycle, full of self-promoting, catchy media talk and quotes. The article is a bio but does not even say where Lapierre was born, grew up and was educated. In the Magdalen Islands, where his father died? Or were his parents there for retirement? when did he get started in politics? He must have done something before running as MP from Shefford.Parkwells (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jean Lapierre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061128033843/http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20040218.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20040218.html

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with 2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash
The crash article seems short enough to fit into another article. Shall we merge the private airplane crash incident into the biography of the Canadian politician? George Ho (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree - I think the crash article should be merged into the biography of Jean. It seems more fitting than to have a small and tiny article on an incident that primarily affected his life only.   Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 16:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hm, that's a little harsh to the pilots and family. Looks like they died too. So maybe Jean was the only famous person killed, but not the only. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree AHeneen (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support a merge of 2016 Magdalen Islands Mitsubishi MU-2 crash into this article. Note previous discussion here.  —  AjaxSmack   03:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, but please make sure all the proper redirects are made, e.g. at least all those at the talk page linked by AjaxSmack above. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, in the sense that a separate article about the crash is unwarranted. IMO all that is needed is a redirect. The salient points of the Magdalen Islands MU-2 crash article are a couple of sentences, the rest is padding that really does not aid understanding of the subject - which is the death of Jean Lapierre. That couple of sentences is already essentially duplicated here, just need to say that it was a Mitsubishi MU-2 so that the redirects (there are quite a few) have some connection with this article. YSSYguy (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose The two subjects are not the same. They do not belong together in content or logical structure. Just the fact that the crash article is small does not disqualify it from being an article. It is not valid to merge articles with only marginal mutual relevance just because one is smaller than the other. The very idea that Jean Lapierre's death is the only point of interest to the crash would have been obscene anyway, even if he were the only celebrity on board. As SemanticMantis pointed out, he was not the only one to die. When YSSYguy says that the subject "is the death of Jean Lapierre", he is only correct in reference to this article. We cannot argue that other articles should be abridged or merged simply because of what they mean or fail to mean in connection to Jean Lapierre. The crash is a separate subject, only relevant to his life in one respect, whereas there is potentially a basis for far more information about the crash to emerge; we do not know yet whether anyone will bring more to light, about the model of aircraft, its strengths and weaknesses, the conditions and the relevance of that airfield and its conditions, what was found in the black boxes, or for that matter, who else died or how etc etc. Such items, like the rest of the details about the crash, would definitely be at most marginally relevant to this article, and therefore would complicate updating it, whereas obtaining details of it if any reader of the Jean Lapierre article should want it, requires no more than a link. OTOH, they could prove of interest to other people who never had heard of Jean Lapierre, if that were imaginable. Again, if it were decided that there should be an article on crashes involving Magdalen Islands or models of the Mitsubishi MU-2, one could argue for merging it into something like that. Or it might fit well into say, Mitsubishi_MU-2. But not here. JonRichfield (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We aren't arguing about whether any other articles should be abridged or merged, we are discussing one particular article. If Jean Lapierre (or any other notable person) had not been on board, we would not be discussing this at all; the article about the crash of a light aircraft (which is literally an everyday occurrence) would never have survived a deletion discussion without this - for want of a better expression - "reflected" notability. The only notability regarding this crash is that he was killed because of it, so it is logical to mention it here. It is also logical to mention it in the airport article and in the MU-2 article. Not knowing what will come to light with regard to a cause (and MU-2s do not have any "black boxes" to extract data from - they are below the size threshold to require fitment of them and nobody spends that sort of money in aviation unless they have to) shows that the article was created prematurely in that context; again, the only valid reason for its existence was that Lapierre was involved. Should it come to light that the crash is notable for some other reason, then by all means undo the redirect and expand the article. YSSYguy (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose per wp:UNDUE and wp:NPOV. Combining a multi-death plane crash into one person's article risks too much wp:UNDUE detailed text within a person's bio-page. Instead, keep the 2 articles separate. In general, I favor keeping event-pages and bio-pages separate as easier to avoid wp:UNDUE text and also provide wp:NPOV coverage, as otherwise, in this case the deaths of all onboard should be treated equally, rather than downplay the deaths of the pilots or other people simply to avoid wp:UNDUE text about them in another person's bio-page. Hence, the conclusion is obvious: oppose merge to avoid wp:UNDUE text but allow wp:NPOV coverage of all onboard. The general notability comes with mention in numerous sources, but the event-level notability is established when multiple sources discuss the overall plane-crash event with more detail than one person's role in the crash, and then the event is separately notable. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above (undue). 95.135.111.186 (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * (Summoned by bot). Oppose merge to Jean Lapierre, but support merge to Mitsubishi_MU-2, with a mention from Lapierre's page to there. Note also that the essay WP:AIRCRASH agrees (though I am not sure it reflects significant consensus from the community, or even from the Wikiproject Aviation).
 * I think we all agree that the sources warrant a mention of the incident somewhere. The question is whether to have a standalone article or to merge somewhere. I would argue that it depends of the relevance of the merge target candidates: if no good merge can be done, then keep a standalone article. Jean Lapierre is a poor target, as noted above, since there are multiple casualties (note also that according to ref #1 the pilot had some weak notability as well). However Mitsubishi_MU-2 is fine, as long as there are redirects and stuff everywhere it is needed.
 * For the record, I disagree with the argument that merging to Jean Lapierre would make the article too lengthy - the length is OK right now; moreover, I see slim chances that the article will ever get hugely expanded to the point that a split is needed, now that the person is dead, and even if it happens it will be time to split later on. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Per Tigraan Jigglypuff 109 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Rather than merging the crash article with Jean Lapierre, it should be merged with Mitsubishi_MU-2. There are numerous other crashes and fatalities noted in this article on the aircraft. Agree that, as sad as the Lapierre and other fatalities are, the crash would likely not merit a separate article if one of the passengers were not independently notable. I've added material on the people (names of all who died) in the articles on Jean Lapierre and the Magdalen Islands, as there were so many fatalities from his family.Parkwells (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as recommended above by Parkwells. The crash does not warrant its own article, but the best place to merge it is Mitsubishi_MU-2. Maproom (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Parkwells and Tigraan. The best place to merge it is Mitsubishi_MU-2, though I don't think merging it here would violate WP:UNDUE or make the article too lengthy. I simply think there are better places to merge that might make more encyclopedic sense. Lizzius (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Parkwells and Tigraan - Better off merged at the Mitsubishi article. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merged content. Discussion still continues until closure. George Ho (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * While I am of the opinion that a separate article is unwarranted, I was not wedded to the idea of the crash article being merged here; I have no problem with the merge to the MU-2 article. YSSYguy (talk) 00:04, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean Lapierre. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121023194757/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=d91ee108-3d34-481e-af9f-d95700c527ce&k=1826 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=d91ee108-3d34-481e-af9f-d95700c527ce&k=1826

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jean Lapierre. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051225084218/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051223.wxpelle1223/BNStory/National/ to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051223.wxpelle1223/BNStory/National/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)