Talk:Shawinigan Handshake

Shawinigan Handshake Beer
This particular moment has now been immortalized by a microbrewery which produces a name bear under this name with a label reminiscent of the events discussed in this article.

Source: http://www.torontostandard.com/article/morning-cable-april-12-2012

Enalung (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What does that mean?
Regarding the line "Clennett chose not to press charges against the prime minister, affirming that the police should deal with the matter the same way they would have if the situation had been the reversed."

Exactly what would have happened if the situation was the reverse? I don't get what precedent Mr. Clennett was trying to establish in his making this assertion.  Big Nate 37 (T) 06:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * no idea, reworded Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 13:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Billclennett.jpg
Image:Billclennett.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Billclennett.jpg
Image:Billclennett.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition is synthesis
Ignoring the fact the cite goes to "page not found", the rationale, "It's worth noting because an attempted assassination is going to affect your state of mind when a protester breaks your RCMP security detail. It's obvious a piece relevant to this situation" is pure synthesis. --Neil N  talk to me 17:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Is inaccurate to say that "Chrétien ... [forced] Clennett to the ground and [broke] one of his teeth".
(just in case let me say that I'm not a Chretien supporter nor even Canadian :) )

Quote from the article: "...Chrétien was confronted by Clennett. At that moment, Chrétien grabbed Clennett by the back of the neck and chin, forcing Clennett to the ground and breaking one of his teeth."

According several sources this sentence gives a missleading and unfounded account.

The citation for that sentence is in fact a broken link, but the article that it meant to refer (published five years after the incident) actually say nothing about Chreiten "forcing Clennett to the ground" nor who broke his dental work.

(right link)  https://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/05/17/politics.fights/ Quote: "Millions of Canadians recall Prime Minister Jean Chretien's public throttling of an anti-poverty protester during a walkabout in Hull, Quebec in 1996. The Canadian press dubbed the prime ministerial choke-hold on protester Bill Clennett the 'Shawinigan handshake' a reference to Chretien's hometown. It gave Chretien a popularity boost and Clennett a broken tooth." Meanwhile news at the time said Chretien "shoved [Clennet] aside" (not to the ground), that it was the Police who threw him to the ground, and that what Clennet got broken was a "dental work" (meaning false thoot).

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/23/world/a-scuffle-reopens-canadian-wounds.html Quote: "Suddenly an English Canadian protester from Quebec, part of a demonstration against cuts in unemployment insurance, was in front of him, shouting in French, 'Chretien to the unemployment line!' Mr. Chretien, 62, grabbed the 44-year-old protester at the throat, wrenched the man's head around and shoved him aside. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police security guard then wrestled the protester to the ground. In the scuffle with the police some of the man's dental work was broken." Also in the original news video you can note three things:

- After Chretien released Clennett and keept walking ahead it can (barely) be seen Clennett (the top of his head) still standing up (not in the ground). Also at least one other person is seen grabbing him at that moment. - Clennett himself being interviewed and narrating how Chretien grabbed him by the neck but saying nothing about being "forced to the gound". - In the same part of the video Clennet shows his broken theet, clearly false ones, and the voice-over states they were broken "by the police".

Struggling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=46&v=NCM2lGpDtDQ Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=299&v=NCM2lGpDtDQ Finally a 2010 article states that it was the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, not Chretien nor his office, who paid for the broken dental work and that Clennet accepted, supporting the claims that it was the RCMP who broke them.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/shawinigan-handshake-victim-not-laughing-at-gag-1.535403 Quote: "A couple of months later, Clennett says the RCMP showed up at his door and offered to pay the $560 dental fee. While he initially hesitated, Clennett says he took the money in order to buy an ad in the local French newspaper Le Droit, criticizing the Liberal government." Based on the given sources I think that in order to be a honest and accurate statement, the sentece quoted at the start should be rephrased to avoid saying or implying that Chretien did something more that to choke Clennet and shove him aside.

As a side note I do think that it was Chretien who broke Clennett's dental work, specifically when he sank his thumb in Clennet's left cheek. Compare the struggle at https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=46&v=NCM2lGpDtDQ with the hole in Clennet's theet seen at https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=299&v=NCM2lGpDtDQ. You can even see Clennet, right after Chretien released him, gesturing with his mouth as if moving something inside it. But that's only my opinion and there's no source that I'm aware of baking that, not even Clennet himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:A4:1790:2C00:2905:3372:2A32:C75D (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)