Talk:Sophie Grégoire Trudeau/Archives/2016

Coverage of her performance of "Smile back at me"?
In this edit somebody wrote "One pop music critic said the song was "out of pitch" and "cast serious doubt upon her musical judgment." I tagged that with a who tag.  When I checked the reference to see what had actually written. Key passage "an actual music teacher with whom I have some acquaintance — and who didn't want his name associated with a critique"

So Raymer's actual music teacher is a coward -- someone unwilling to go on record and have their own critical credentials stand and be judged by others with musical expertise.

I quoted Michael Barclay, a Polaris Music Prize juror, who was a far more forgiving critic. In constrast to Raymer's actual music teacher Barclay did go on record.

I wrote: " Highly experienced Barclay said nothing about Grégoire singing out of tune. On the contrary he noted she had made use of two sophisticated key changes." I suspect that what Raymer's cowardly music teacher criticized as singing out of tune, were what more experienced Barclay recognized as Gregoire's mastery of sophisticated musical techniques.

I wonder how many of the other Raymer/Coward criticisms are really criticisms of R&B -- the musical style Barclay recognized Gregoire chose. So, given Raymer's unprofessionalism, and his buddy's cowardice, should their criticism simply be cut from the article? Geo Swan (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Both are opinions, I don't think either is more valid (and I take no position on the matter - I only added the article I was aware of). I think the subsequent edit that describes Barclay as " an experienced music commentator, and judge of the Polaris Music Prize" isn't necessary for this article and seems to subtly be taking a position. By the way I think you misread the article - the quotes in the Wiki page are taken from the author of the piece, who is a pop music critic for the Toronto Star (there are also criticisms from an anonymous music critic, but I didn't add those). I think both opinions should be included but the stuff about comparing her performance to Stephen Harper is clearly beyond the scope of a Wiki article about Gregoire. I'm going to remove those for now unless you think there's a good reason to include it. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverted article to its original title: Sophie Grégoire
In Canada, marriage laws are of provincial jurisdiction. Sophie Grégoire and Justin Trudeau were married in Québec, where the Civil Code of Québec applies. Article 393 of the Code states: In marriage, both spouses retain their respective names, and exercise their respective civil rights under those names. The name Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau, that is sometimes used, is more of a vanity type name. It is not her legal name 11:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)Duvillage (talk)
 * Please read WP:COMMONNAME. On Wikipedia, we use the most commonly used name. A quick web search will show you that the media virtually always uses Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau. Even the Liberal Party of Canada's website uses that name. Since it's her commonly used name, it's the title we use on Wikipedia. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what the media and the Liberal party say. They do not respect the Canadian Charter of Rights that states: no discrimination on the basis of sex and marital status. The article should stay under her legal name, and I wish to point out, the article was started under her legal name.  Wikipedia also should respect the laws of the country.  This person is not famous for her own actions or exploits.  She is simply in the spotlight for being the wife of. Duvillage (talk) 15:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I remember having this discussion 10 years ago over the article on the Leslie Street Spit. One user renamed it to the official name which is the Outer Harbour East Headland. The thing is nobody calls it that and it was moved back to Leslie Spit and that is where it stayed. Another example is North Korea. The official name of the country is Democratic People's Republic of Korea but nobody calls it that so North Korea remains as the article name. I believe that WP:COMMONNAME should be the principle here rather than what is in some legal document that nobody reads. Please rename to Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Evidently doesn't understand Wikipedia policy on naming articles. Someone else is going to have to revert. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The article was created in 2005 under the name Sophie Grégoire. The person who changed the name of the article should have started a discussion on the talk page first, in order to request a consensus amongst Wikipedians.  Which is Wikipedia official policy. This discussion has never taken place.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  There are strict rules governing articles on living people.  It should not be about promotion, advertizing, free publicity.  Her husband became prime-minister a few months ago, and that is when someone (in her entourage???) changed the name of the page.  Only time will tell under which name history will remember her.  If at all. For now, it is only speculation, not based on facts.  Concerning the comment "some legal document that nobody reads", I find it very offensive, especially in view of the fact that Wikipedia has articles on those subjects "Maiden and married names" "Canadian Charter of Rights" and more. Duvillage (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This article is in flagrant disrespect for the laws we have enacted in Québec to enshrine adult women as autonomous persons, not chattel. If she wants to call herself Grégoire Trudeau or my husband's arm candy, all well and good, but that is a stage name.

lagatta
 * So I moved the article, because it was a common sense move. In the next four years, basically every single source will refer to her as Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau because that is what has been explicitly chosen as the prefered name for media use as the sources I've added attest to. Wikipedia is under no obligation to keep everything under the legal name, if an obviously more common name exists. Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:21, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The title should be the same as how she is commonly referred to in reputable media. Citobun (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Patar knight That is what I am saying. You renamed it without discussing it first, ignoring the basic Wikipedia rules. And when you renamed it, you said: "her preferred name", which to me proves that she wants to cash in on the Trudeau name, for the furthering of her own private agenda. Which is not an encyclopedic fact. Talk about what the media calls her:  here the powerful Huffington Post titles their article "Sophie Grégoire".  And let's not forget that her "preferred name" is included right in the beginning of the article. When searching for her under her "preferred name", the search engine will come up with this article anyways. The information is not lost. Duvillage (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear there is consensus the page should be Sophie Grégoire-Trudeau (4 editors versus you). I'm going to restore the page. Please do not move the page without first discussing here. FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Does this change things? Maclean's reports that the New York Times issued a correction; her name is to be spelled without hyphens. Canadian popcan (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I saw that as well, and think it's worth discussing. However, from what I've seen, and from my internet searches, the majority of media sources refer to her with the hyphen. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Controversies Section
There was some serious backlash again SGT the last few days regarding the possibility of extra staffing, but the request may not have been directly from her. Depending on what happens with this may simply be a gaffe that is not notable, but rather ironic given that her husband campaigned famously on removing entitlements from more wealthy Canadians. Does this merit a controversy section, or a note as in previous PM spouses?

207.219.56.130 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it does deserve a controversy section. The issue made national newspapers across Canada. For many people, it was through Sophie' statement that she needed a team of people that many Canadians came to know who she was for the first time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.161.126.230 (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Birth name
Should "Marie-Lyne-Sophie Grégoire" be included in the article as Sophie Grégoire Trudeau's birthname based on this website as Cladeal832 as been doing? My view is that since it is a user generated website, it does not count as a reliable source, and should not be used, doubly so because this is a high-profile BLPThe website allows anyone who becomes a member to edit it as evidenced by the "modifier" button on the website, and it does not have any sort of editorial control since on their About Us page it says "Ce site contient de l'information fournie par des amateurs de généalogie et toute autre personne qui participent à ce site, sur lesquels NosOrigines n'a aucun contrôle. NosOrigines ne peut garantir l'exactitude et l'intégrité de toute information fournie par les participants sur ce site." or roughly translated "This site contains information provided by genealogical amateurs and other participants on this site, on which NosOrigines does not have any control. NosOrigines does not guarantee the accuracy of all the information provided by the site's participants." Thoughts? Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's based on this website http://www.bms2000.org behind a paywall which NosOrigins also uses. NosOrigins has been used on other articles too. Also you can't modify without creating an account and being accepted by the owners of the website. Also modification have to be approved unlike Wikipedia. Also like Wikipedia, NosOrigins has managing editors who check information especially on famous entries like this one. Cladeal832 (talk) 22:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, although it is plausible she has three given names, (and it is more more than likely she does given the common practice of Qu&eacute;becois naming procedures), I think because those sources (much like IMDb and Ancestry.ca) are user-generated and (much like Wikipedia itself) editable by anyone, they cannot be used as a reliable source. I think it would be possible to use them as a secondary source of info should a reliable source exist but NOT as the only one. My 2&cent;. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  23:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see where it says that NosOrigines uses bms200, nor can I speak to the other site's reliability. As far as our external links shows can find, NosOrigines hasn't been used on other pages, unless you or others used it as a source without citing it contrary to our verifiability policy and WP:BLPPRIVACY like you did with this page and Marc Miller (politician). In any case, your claim that NosOrigines maintains some sort of editorial controls seems to be undermined by their claim that they have no control over their information on the About Us page. Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well don't seem to have read NosOrigins because it has bms2000.org as its source on the page for Sophie Grégoire. Forget NosOrigins (used it mainly because other reader who be able to see since it doesn't use a paywall), that site bms2000.org is verifiable if one toke the little amount of time to check rather than immediately appealing to personal ignorance. Cladeal832 (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Disparaging remarks towards other editors will not be helpful here as you have discovered on other occasions. Tread carefully. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  00:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Listen, lighten up please. We're not slitting the atom. I'm responding time to false statements. He maintained that he didn't see bms200. Fine, but I don't feel it's my job to look it over. Also why we discussing my crummy allusions (it I feel like typing sometimes, I'll type so I don't know what the allusion). And I don't think it's a personal attack when a contributor write he/she doesn't know if this is a verifiable site as if that's proof of something seems odd and totally fair to point that out. The argument was poorly formed (he/she made negative point about my edits and I didn't take it personally. Annoyed, but not personal). Either way, again, I've found a verifiable site to source for her full name (actual issue rather than inference of my tone). Cladeal832 (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So, with this edit, you went ahead and added contentious material about a living person from a possibly non-reliable source without getting consensus? I suggest you read this: http://www.bms2000.org/en/Warnings You've been around long enough to know better than that. Nope, not happening. Regards,   Aloha27   talk  21:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not all information on BMS200, it you have account to look beyond the paywall it has a physical copy of parish registry. But nice try. Again and again and again, the points against this edit are false. It isn't user generation in this case. Considering the edit was removed with good faith but for false reasons, I put it back. Cladeal832 (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Given the high praise given to BMS200 here, I am open to it being used as a reliable source. However, the sourcing should be directly from BMS200 if possible, and not filtered through NosOrigines, which is user submission and has no or minimal quality control. If this is not possible, I think it should be removed per WP:USERGENERATED. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)