Talk:René Lévesque/Archive 1

old comments
I'm a little confused. The English version says Lévesque was born in New Brunswick("René Lévesque was born in a hospital of Campbellton, New Brunswick."), whereas the French version says he was born in Quebec ("Né à New Carlisle au Québec"). I suppose I will try to resolve this, but maybe someone with a little more expertise on this man should verify these. -- edisk

Not 100% sure, but I think I remember the deal: New Carlisle is little on near the border of New Brunswick. He was born at the hospital of Campbellton, New Brunswick, but he was raised in New Carlisle in Quebec. -- Mathieugp 02:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

He was born in Campbellton, NB. The Hotel Dieu was used by the people nearby on the Gaspe peninsula. (In fact, the modern hospital in Campbellton, Campbellton Regional Hospital, is used by people from the nearby parts of Gaspe under an agreement with the province of Quebec.) The question is why he was born at a hospital at all. Most babies were born at home in those days, using either a midwife or a local doctor, and New Carlisle where his parents lived is a long drive from Campbellton even now on modern roads and over a bridge that didn't exist in those times. Nearly two hours I believe. I don't know the circumstances of that...maybe his mother had complications and a hospital stay was advisable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.73.125.247 (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It was with considerable trepidation that I approached a copyedit of someone who was so loved and controversial, but I think that some of the text in the previous version was awkward and difficult to read. I have also made a few changes where I felt there was clear POV. THe articles remains a bit "breathless". It comes across as having been written by an admirer of the man, and not as being a dispassionate encyclopaedia article. Kevintoronto 11:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. I also thougth the article was far from being encyclopedic. There are very few facts, and a lot of talking about how much he was loved by the people. It is true that his popularity was uncommon for a politician, but there is so much more to cover. I'll have to get reading on him and come back to this article with more information. -- Mathieugp 16:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This article is heavily biased. Who says the sovereignty vote was "approved by 40 per cent of the voting population"? First of all, it was approved by 40% of voters, not eligible voters, so this statement is misleading. For the record, 34.37% or eligible voters supported the PQ. As well, a way to avoid bias and include more precise information would be saying something along the lines of "40.44% supported the PQ, while 59.56% did not". -- Joechip from Sask


 * The preceding critique seems to detract from the discussion of this article's neutrality.


 * Be that as it may, I've clarified the numbers. DS 14:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Prime Minister vs. Premier
I changed "Prime Minister" for Premier, because Prime Minister only applies at the federal level in English. The proper word is "Premier". In French (the probable language of the person who wrote the article), we use Prime Minister (premier ministre) for both the Federal and provincial levels, but this is not the case in English.


 * A picky point here on my part, but both uses in English are correct, it is just that in Canada the predominant style is to distinguish the heads of government of Canada and the provinces in the above-mentioned fashion.

It isn't "wrong" to call the Canadian leader "premier" - in fact, this frequently is the case for foreign publications, such as the New York Times.

159.33.10.92 20:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Redirect from Lévesque
I'm a little confused by the redirect from "Lévesque" to "René Lévesque". Lévesque is a common last name in Francophone Canada; although René is the best known by this last name, others can be found on the first page of a search for it. Andrew pmk 01:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag
The following passage seems to betray a particular POV:
 * "He is remembered for his staunch morals and honesty, for his humility, and the humanism he strove to bring to all aspects of public service. In every discussion concerning the application of laws, he would insist that regulations and the practical control of operations take into account that civil servants were, above all, servants of the people. He used all his power as premier to ensure that every civil servant did his or her duty efficiently, while respecting equally each individual who came into contact with the government."

Would anyone object if I were to delete it?

After that passage is removed, are there any remaining NPOV concerns? At that point, should the NPOV tag be removed? HistoryBA 01:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Since there were no objections, I have removed the NPOV tag and the passage quoted above. HistoryBA 23:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Since there continue to be no objects, I'm removing the POV check tag from this page to remove it from the backlog. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Small edit: removed 2005 tv series information, as it clearly never aired.

His political philosophy
I correspond on-line with a fellow American who lived in Montreal during the 1980 referendum. He was not a Levesque fan, and wrote -- these are his words, not mine -- "I am pretty sure that Levesque would have had Quebec annexed to the Soviet Union, could he have made the deal." Is this an accurate examination of Levesque's political philosophy, had he become the President of a hypothetical Republic of Quebec? Or does this person have it all wrong? Was Levesque a centrist, moderate left, or hard left? I'm very curious about this, since I have strong interests in both Quebec and alternate history. -- Pacholeknbnj, 2:07 PM EST, 30 March 2006


 * Levesque would be a moderate left. In many respects, he is comparable to Ralph Nader only you replace the concern for natural ecology with the concern for cultural and linguistic diversity. Levesque became Premier of Quebec, however much like if Nader had become governor of an American State, he was limited by the means at his disposal and could not truly get us there. Here is what the government of Levesque tried to do while in power :


 * * Position French, the language of the majority of Quebecers, as the common public language of all Quebecers, instead of English, the language of the majority of Canadians in the other 9 provinces of the federation. A reminder that Quebec, was forcibly incorporated into a political union (see Act of Union 1840) with the very intention of making the then French-speaking majority of Canada a minority unable to govern itself. This goal was achieved, however Francophone Quebecers nevertheless resisted cultural assimilation to the English language. The PQ gave us the Charter of the French Language, which made French the sole official language of Quebec and defined individual as well as collective linguistic rights.


 * * Obtain, in a referendum, the support of the majority of Quebecers to negociate, with the federal state and the 9 other provinces, the secession of Quebec and the creation of a union similar to the then emerging European Union. In simple words: independence + interdependence.


 * * Transform Quebec into a respectable representative democracy. This gave the sucessful Act to govern the financing of political parties, and the unfortunately never adopted bill to move to proportional representation. The later failure is quite a pity. Drafted around 1984, this bill, had it been adopted, would have turned Quebec into the first North American State where the majority of elected representatives truly have the support of the majority of voters.


 * Since the 1980 referendum on Sovereignty-Association was rejected by a majority of 60% of the voters, Levesque did not achieve his most important goal. -- Mathieugp 00:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Assessment
I have assessed this as B Class given its level of detail and organization, and as mid importance, as I believe that the subject of this article plays a strong role in the understanding of Canada. Cheers, CP 17:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Patriation
The word "patriate" exists in Canadian English, as defined on p. 1066 of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 1998 edition. "patriate" exists in Canadian English as a result of the patriation of the Canadian Constitution -- the word did not exist, and had to be invented. Ground Zero | t 01:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh - you learn something new some days. Okay, I'm fine with "patriate". Sarcasticidealist 01:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I find I learn something new every day I'm on Wikipedia. Cheers. Ground Zero | t 01:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

RCMP Dossier: "Supposed Communist"
Somebody should elaborate + explain his RCMP dossier, as a supposed communist "http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/11/19/DisbandRCMP/" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.67 (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Cause of death
There appears to be two different versions of cause of death attributed within the current entry's references which presents a conflict of facts.

"was in his apartment on November 1, 1987 when he experienced chest pains; he died of a heart attack that day at a hospital.[5]"

5 # ^ Paulin, Marguerite. René Lévesque, p.123. XYZ Publishing, 2004, ISBN 1894852133

&

3 # ^ http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/insight/story.html?id=e27dd224-f61b-4f12-a5cf-0e398dd03b66

"He died of a cerebral hemorrhage suffered at the dinner table that night at his home on Nuns' Island. An ambulance rushed him to the Montreal General Hospital, but he was declared dead on arrival." from The Gazette (Montreal) November 4, 2007, written by hbauch@thegazette.canwest.com

My apologies for any form errors in bringing this to light. However I believe clarification is needed to bring accuracy to the article. I feel this is especially important with the subject being such an important person in the histories of both Canada and Quebec.

Suggestions or comments on my entry & whether I have adhered to copyright rules properly would be greatly appreciated. Mefus2000 (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the authoritative 4-volume biography of Lévesque by Pierre Godin, his death was announced at 10:35 p.m. on November 1, 1987 by Dr. Michael Churchill-Smith. Cause of death was an infarction (p. 528). A footnote on the same page mentions the fact that he had suffered 4 infarctions, including 2 in his last months. The Gazette got it wrong. I'll add the Godin reference to the article. Bouchecl (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nationality
If Canada has agreed that the Québecois form their own nation within Canada (not disputing if he was Canadian citizen), and he claims to be Québecois. Why can't it be said that he had Québecois nationality. All relevant authorities (e.g. Canada, René himself and Québec) agreed that it was acceptable. Much like Irish people born in Northern Ireland remain "Irish".

Would anyone have any objections to changing to Québecois? ZacharyFilion (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since I've undone your edit twice already and posted to your talk page, and you've posted to my talk page you obviously know that someone objects.
 * I'll raise this issue at the Canada project board to get input (since this issue affects more than just this article).. Meters (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On second thought, since this issue could affect many Canadian biographies I'm going to move this to the Canadian project page. Meters (talk) 01:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure where to write this comment, being a novice to Wikipedia, so I will write this here. I am also ignorant of any other place where the issue is being discussed, and of any clear consensus.
 * However, I am really at a loss why Lévesque is written as "Canadian", and not "Québécois" on this article, such as many other Québécois (and, by the way, indigenous) personalities in Canada are on Wikipedia.
 * In this discussion, other Canadian articles were looked at as a precedent - however, none from the rest of Wikipedia were. Is there a reason why (such as a role that, again, due to being unskilled with wikipedia I do not know)?
 * The arguments basing themselves on the concept of citizenship and the likes (international law !?!?!) are ridiculous - from my knowledge, nowhere it is written that what a person is designated "as" in his/her Wikipedia page, must be its citizenship or status according to international law. In fact, looking at cases outside of Canada, with only a handful of unevenly spread exceptions, all people from regions considered distinct (in many way, but, mainly, culturally) were named according to their regional or cultural identity, and not their citizenship, AS LONG AS THEY WERE NATIONALISTS/CLAIMED THEMSELVES AS SUCH/LIVED IN THE REGION FOR MOST OF THEIR LIFE - and as such, I do not see why the pages of people from minority cultural groups situated within Canada would be an exception.
 * This is the case for :
 * Breton nationalists
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A9lestin_Lain%C3%A9
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olier_Mordrel
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Debeauvais
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Duhamel
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9-Yves_Creston
 * Alsacian nationalists
 * https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Spieser
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eug%C3%A8ne_Ricklin
 * Inhabitants of French Guiana (Many are labelled as "French-Guianese", "French Carribean" and the likes, even if oversea territories are legally fully part of France, and it's inhabitants only have French citizenship)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabriel_Serville
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Salvador
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-%C3%89tienne_Antoinette
 * Catalans, mostly nationalists
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Borr%C3%A0s
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pere_Aragon%C3%A8s
 * Scottish, nationalist or not
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Capaldi
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Johnstone
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Adam
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rennie_Mackintosh
 * Irish people in the era it was under the UK (And their place of birth is even shown as Ireland, even if it wasn't independent yet)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Smith_O%27Brien
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Francis_Meagher
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Stephens_(Fenian)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O%27Leary_(Fenian)
 * Saami people
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Balto
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ella_Holm_Bull
 * Basque people
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabino_Arana
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Antonio_Aguirre_(politician)
 * And the list could go on, and on, and on.


 * What a person is considered "as", should be purely utilitarian - what is this person viewed as, what does it make more sense for him to be designated is, just as the rest of Wikipedia does. In the case of Mr Lévesque, he :is one of the biggest figure in the Québec independence movement, publicly claimed himself as Québécois, was seen as such, and, indeed, was Québécois. It makes little sense to designate him as "Canadian", the group of :people he was trying to distance himself from, no matter what technicality some try to invoke.


 * Even if there IS a precedent on other Canadian pages - I'm not sure why Wikipedia should bend down to the assimilationist policies of a certain country and it's wikipedia users overtly trying to deny a certain group of :people's distinction from the country's main national identity just because it's the status quo/it's popular on Wikipedia. Because, yes, in some case, some editors are not trying to hide their intent :


 * "There is no such thing as a nationality as Québecois"


 * "Quebec is one of 10 provinces & nothing more. Please, stop pushing this Quebec nationality bit."


 * Users seem to be confusing the term "nation" and "country". Québec isn't a country (nominally independent nation/state/etc. with it's own government occupying a certain territory), but it is a nation (group of people with :the same language, culture, history, etc. occupying the same territory). Maybe these users should consult the website they're currently using, or do a simple search on google, before talking.


 * I'm going to modify it back to Québécois for the moment. Bastobasto (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thread moved to Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board Meters (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC) There is no such thing as a nationality as Québecois, with all due respect for the people of Québec and M. Lévèsque. Wikipedia shouldn't be used to this sort of thing. Write a paragraph saying that M. Lévèsque did not considered himself Canadian or felt that his nationality was "Québécois", but writing that on his descriptions is just pure separatist propaganda and a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.244.240 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nationality and citizenship are different things—especially in the context of Canada. I don't see a point in listing both nationality and citizenship unless they are diffrent—like in this case.Blindlynx (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It looks like there is consensus here so as to include Lévesque's Nationality in the infobox as "Canadian". Under the eyes of international law, there is not such thing as a "Quebecois" nationality or citizenship. For this reason, I have made this edit:.

has reverted this edit twice, without looking for consensus or defending his point of view in this talk. However, as you can see here and in the Talk section of this user, such disruptive practises look like to be a common thing. Laocon (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No such consensus exists. Have you edited this article previously by any chance?PailSimon (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It does I consider this discussion as resolved. Laocon (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry where do you see consensus? The last time this was discussed ] we sorta agreed to list both—blindlynx (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the talk I introduced here is 2 years older than yours and is discussed by 7 different editors, while in your reference is only argued by 3 persons. Actually, your discussion should have continued the first talk, because we are talking about the same thing. You are not here to perform any WP:POVPUSH, aren't you?
 * While you decide what you are here for, I'll omit any reference to any Nationality or Citizenship in the infobox, till making sure we reach any consensus. Laocon (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't continue it because it was already archived and it did not reach a clear consensus. Editors in that discussion were split 3-2. but more to the point per Template:Infobox_person Nationality and citizenship are both listed if they are different as is the case with Quebec as it is legally a 'unique nation within a united Canada' .  Please Assume good faith—blindlynx (talk) 14:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Being archived does not mean either that the talk is over or that you should not continue a discussion, especially when you disagree. Users, and  stated by majority that while Quebec is a province of Canada, not issuing any passports, Lévesque Nationality in the infobox should be listed as Canadian. Actually, according to your last reference, in the paragraph 6, 3rd line, There is no legal consequence from this type of motion, which essentially remains a symbolic political gesture., so it clearly indicates that Quebec is legally not a nation, under the eyes of international law, but rather an ethnic community inside Canada, a symbolic nation. Of course that I assume Assume good faith, but I invite you not to WP:POVPUSH, please. Laocon (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Disagreeing with you is not pov pushing. The point of that symbolic gesture is recognizing that Québécois people and the Canadian government see Québec as a different nation while still being Canadian citizens. Something that should be reflected here—blindlynx (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Levesque was a Canadian. Let's stop with this Quebec nationalist promotion & move on. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * honestly i'm fine with leaving both out of the infobox or having both in it. It's only having one there that i take issue with—blindlynx (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * He was a Canadian, so there's no problem with using "Canadian". GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes hes was Canadian and he was Québécois. Why is there a problem listing both? Quebec is nominally a 'nation' within Canada—blindlynx (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Quebec is one of 10 provinces & nothing more. Please, stop pushing this Quebec nationality bit. The Harper government recognised the Quebecois (not the province itself) as a nation within Canada. We should use only Canadian in the infobox. If you don't like it? take your complaint to WP:CANADA. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * He' was a Canadian from Quebec, born in New Brunswick. Explain it in the article and just list his nationality in the infobox as Canadian. Meters (talk) 05:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we at least list it as citizenship and not nationality in the infobox?—blindlynx (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, "Explain it in the article and just list his nationality in the infobox as Canadian." Levesque was a citizen of Canada. There is no such thing as Quebec citizenship. I agree with user:Laocon's comment that the Quebecois nationhood is "a symbolic political gesture", without legal consequence, merely "an ethnic community inside Canada, a symbolic nation".Meters (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with all of that. The point of contention was whether to include 'Citizenship: Canadian' and 'Nationality: Québécois' in the infobox.  If we include just Canadian there it would be better as 'citizenship' rather than 'nationality'—blindlynx (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think this would cause confusion, since the "Nationality" term in the infobox is used in almost every case to make a reference to the legal nationality / citizenship of the person described in the article, not to point unrecognised, symbolic nations or ethnic groups. In this case, I would accept, If needed, to add a new entry in the infobox listed as "Ethnic group: Québécois". Laocon (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether Québécois is an ethnic group is a whole other controversial can of worms—blindlynx (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

His nationality is Canadian. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You know full well that is not the whole story—blindlynx (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're in the minority on this topic. Perhaps you should drop it & move on. Or shall have to open an RFC on the matter? GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * An RFC is probably in order given the discussion on the Canada page don't seems to go anywhere. Just to be clear my intention isn't to push a POV{emdash}as has been suggested{emdash}but to respect self identification.  Not to mention the only reason to include citizenship in this bloody infobox is because of his military service—blindlynx (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness, he didn't self-identify as a sandwich. We wouldn't want you pushing for that, in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't be a dick, you know dam well Quebec sees itself as a "nation" in Canada—blindlynx (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're the one who's being a dick. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Having checked over the bios of other Canadians, it would appear that the norm is to not have a nationality field in the infobox. Makes sense, as we already know they're Canadian. GoodDay (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with leaving it out, do you?—blindlynx (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Only if that's how it's done for the other Canadian bios, which it apparently is. Not because of some Quebec nationalism complaints. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I am decidedly not a sovereigntist. It appears to be the case for the majority of Canadian bios though. The only other one if found listing both is Jacques Parizeau and i've up dated it based on this discussion.—blindlynx (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Very funny. To say that W.E.B Du Bois is a pan-Africanist is relevant to the English. To say that Martin Luther King was an "African-American Muslim" and "human rights activist" is interesting for the English. To say that Rosa Parks was an "African-American activist in the civil rights movement ..." is interesting for the English. But it is a scandal to say that René Lévesque, the most important figure in Quebec sovereignism, is a Quebecer! 🤡 Angryphonia detected.--Æpherys (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's actually following the Manual of Style/Infoboxes:
 * Nationality and citizenship
 * Most biography infoboxes have nationality and citizenship. Generally, use of either should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, as specified with |birthplace=.
 * Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Rene Levesque - election 1973 - LAC PA115039.jpg


The file File:Rene Levesque - election 1973 - LAC PA115039.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-free file being used in René Lévesque and 1973 in Canada and neither use seems to meet WP:NFCC or WP:NFCC. The rationales provided for each use seem to be arguing that this is a 'historic image' of some kind just because it depicts a historic event, but this is not really the case for the reasons given in WP:ITSHISTORIC. Since free equivalent images of Lévesque are available, a non-free one is needed for primary identification purposes of him per WP:FREER, which means that the photo itself needs to be assessed per NFCC#8. There's no specific sourced critical commentary related to the photo itself which means that the justification for non-free use generally required per WP:NFC is lacking. Simply wanting to show the photo of an event because the event itself is historical in not really enough justify non-free use; there needs to be sourced content specific to the photo so that omitting the photo would be detrimental to the understanding of that content, and that is not the case at all with respect to either use."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

is it possible to crop the picture of him and Pearson?
The two of them are not really the focus of the picture, with the presence of the cameraman in the foreground. Is it possilbe to crop it so it's just the two of them? or is the picture so grainy that it wouldn't look very good? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * cleaned it up, within the limits of the grainy photo. Thanks!  Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * René Lévesque BAnQ P243S1D865 (cropped).jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * René Lévesque, 1961.jpg