Talk:Pierre Karl Péladeau

Coming out as a sovereignist

"though he was not known before to be a sovereignist." That is plainly false, as can be seen here[1], and is also common knowledge in media circles.Yhave (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverted changes

I took the liberty of reverting changes to the article which I felt were politically motivated. All the changes seemed aimed at glorifying the liberal party of Quebec, as an example by minimizing the CAQ's role in the criticism of PKP's candidacy. Some of the changes seemed pertinent however, so I do think re-adding them with proper sources and better wording would be appropriate. 142.83.68.58 (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

What's up with Lanctot's father??

I don't see why it makes bizarre links to finally end up with a link to Ernst Zundel's page..

Lanctot (communist) -> his father (fascist) -> Adrien Arcand (Canadian Nazi) -> Holocaust denier -> Ernst Zundel

What in heaven are these links doing here. There are of no importance to Pierre Karl Peladeau.

Seriously, this is bad, people. You need to fix it.

74.58.252.102 (talk) 07:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it. That guilt-by-association is extremely questionable with regard to BLP policy, and it was also problematic because the text was copied from the cited source, with disregard for copyright. Thanks for pointing out the problematic section. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverted changes. It is listed under controversy for a reason. Any attempt to remove this section is an attempt at political sanitization. It is PKP's fault for associating with these people. There is no slander or guilt by association here, just facts and listed under controversy. Removal is censorship. Peladeau has associated and worked with known terrorists. If that isn't controversial, what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.92.163 (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I would not classify reverting these changes as sanitation. For a deeper understanding of how biographies of living people should be written, please review WP:BLP. Firstly, the style guidelines state that "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement." Several of the phrases used in the reverted edit such as "rabid anti-Semite" and "Nazi sympathizer" seem intentionally and unnecessarily inflammatory. Secondly, the source Bill613.com is not a reliable source. I only mention these two problems to point out why the edit is a no-go from the beginning. Even if the section was cleaned up, editors are required to "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards." The edit which you are trying to restore clearly falls under that umbrella and will continue to be reverted as such. I reccomend that you read some of the BLPs of other subjects who have been involved in controversy, because you will find that the pages are not attack pages. This is not a case of special treatment. —Hermionedidallthework (talk) 13:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)