Talk:Jean Chrétien/Archive 1

Archive 1

Stroke?

When did he suffer the stroke? AxelBoldt 19:54 Aug 27, 2002 (PDT)

Yes, and are you sure it was a stroke? I thought it was polio. - user:Montrealais — Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 28 August 2002‎ (UTC)

Google doesn't give anything on "Chretien stroke", but searching on polio I found http://www.who2.com/jeanchretien.html and http://www.cnn.com/resources/newsmakers/world/namerica/chretien.html . I'll change it. AxelBoldt 10:44 Aug 28, 2002 (PDT)

I thought it was frostbite as a child...I'll look into it more a bit later. Basil Fawlty 16:49 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

There are some hits on Google from "frostbite Jean Chretien":

"In February of 1946, young Jean Chrétien, affectionately known as "Ti Jean," or Little John, suffered severe frostbite that left him paralyzed on one side of his face. In Lawrence Martin's biography of the Prime Minister, Mr. Chrétien's brothers and sisters recall that the almost 12-year-old boy was walking through the icy wind to his sister's wedding and has been paralyzed ever since."

Another one:

"When Jean was 12 years old, he suffered severe frostbite to his face. He had walked to church from his brother's house on one of the coldest days of the year. The strong winds struck the left side of his face the hardest and by the time he arrived at church his cheek was completely numb. No one realized the severity of Jean's frostbite at the time. It wasn't until several months later that a deformity began to appear in the area that had been hit by the cold. It looked as if Jean's mouth had shifted sideways. Apparently, the frostbite had damaged a facial nerve causing permanent muscle paralysis. While the abnormality didn't cause any physical pain, it was very distressing for a boy entering his teen years."

Then of course there are Axel's links about polio:

"A childhood case of polio left Chretien deaf in his right ear and with a slightly twisted mouth." (from who2)

"Infantile paralysis distorted his mouth and left him deaf in right ear." (from CNN)

I think the first two sources sound much more credible. More detail is given, and the stories seem to line up. And the very first source mentions that this is in Jean Chretien's biography. The polio sources are very brief, and one of them is from CNN. Therefore, I'll change it to frostbite.

dave 17:42 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I suppose I should have mentioned this here before changing it...but the paralysis is because of Bell's palsy, not frostbite.Adam Bishop 17:57 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm astonished at the amount of misinformation out there. And according to one of the sources above, he biography says it was frostbite? Adam, how can you confirm that it is Palsy? Besides the fact that there are lots of google hits. Who's to say that those sources aren't wrong either? dave 21:23 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I'm convinced from only sparse information on the Internet that the frostbite caused his case of Bell's palsy. It sounds to me that Bell's Palsy is just a term to describe the symptom of partial face paralysis and drooping, and not the specific cause. Also, I read somewhere that he was born deaf in one ear, and that it was not caused by the paralysis/frostbite. He is apparently also dyslexic. http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030409.comartin0409/BNStory dave 21:31 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

On the basis of a Google search I guess I can't confirm that it's Bell's palsy...I'd never heard the frostbite info until I read it here, and I also thought Bell's palsy was genetic. But I don't know :) Adam Bishop 21:35 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

So, apparently Bell's palsy isn't genetic, and since it is caused by trauma to the nerve, I guess it's reasonably that frostbite caused it. Now I would think that it should mention something like "Bell's palsy caused by frostbite," not just one or the other. (Assuming that it's Bell's palsy, but that's all I've ever heard it described as, speaking for myself) Adam Bishop 21:44 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, the one page said that he got Bell's Palsy when he was a boy. It all kind of fits together I guess... The only one that doesn't fit is the Polio stuff, which clearly can be ruled out. For now, we can put Bell's Palsy caused by frostbite until we find out otherwise, because for now at least, it seems reasonable. dave 21:58 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The CBC's (Canadian broadcasting corporation) official biography states that he was born deaf in one ear and that eventually distorted his lip. This biography is very big and very official it contains interviews with Jean himself and other world leaders. If any source is correct I would think it would be this one.

Article title

Question here? As far as I can see, in English, his surname is usually anglicised to Chretien (without an accent). Yet this article is Jean Chrétien with the anglicised version as a redirect. Could somebody give me some clarification? (Actually, my real reason for asking is because I'm about to write an article for somebody else, and am wondering whether the page title ought to include accented characters or not.) - Cafemusique 19:08 23 May 2003 (UTC)

To the extent that accented characters are not used, it's probably because they are a hassle to produce - I don't think it could be argued that "Chretien" is the English spelling of Chrétien, the way that the accent is (usually) omitted in English on "Montreal" and "Quebec". - Montréalais — Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 24 May 2003 (UTC)

OK...So how would I link to a new page for somebody with an accented name, would I just use the é construction, for example, or is there some other technique I need to use? - Cafemusique

The usual way is [[Jean Chrétien|Jean Chrétien]]. - Montréalais

---

Someone posted Ironically, Chrétien speaks neither of the official Canadian languages. It is possibly vandalism (and was removed), but some Canadians may think it is true as some have called his English speaking ability "coarse" and his French "regional". This also brings up the historical question of official languages v. vernacular languages which was an issue during the Trudeau years. Federalists wanted to get everyone in Quebec to speak International French, of the L'Académie française rather than the Québécois French vernacular so that Canada could have standardized French; Quebec separatists saw this as a way to dilute Quebec's distinct society. — Alex756 22:30, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

---

More should be said about Chretien's achievements economically. Colipon 04:23, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What achievements? dave 04:17, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Say, eliminating the deficit under his government, to name one... Colipon 02:41, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The deficit was eliminated by having: high taxes, and economic/stock market boom in the late 1990s, and sizable cuts to spending. Yes he could be commended for all the cutting they did...but they got lucky. It could be argued that anyone in power during that period could have eliminated the deficit. There's another thing I didn't mention, because I'm not sure about. Did the overall debt of the provinces increase or decrease over the same period? This would be a telling indication of the feds success at debt/deficit reduction. I always hear talk about "reduction of transfers to the provinces for health care", so perhaps during the same period the feds at the provinces expense? dave 18:34, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

In the article it says: "Chrétien has been attacked in the media for failing to live up to certain election promises, such as eliminating the Goods and Services Tax (GST) and scaling back Canada's participation in NAFTA." Today I read in the National Post that he has been critisized for now being a supporter of free trade, while he and his government was vehemently against it during the Mulroney years. dave 04:17, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Alright, I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but what User:JackLynch is adding about "talking out of the side of his mouth" is either going to have to be worded much differently, or removed entirely (as I did before). Right now it seems pretty juvenile. Adam Bishop 03:37, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

no edit war

thats not what I'm about at all. have you seen my comments on your talk page? maybe I should move them here or something. JackLynch — Preceding undated comment added 03:42, 11 November 2003‎ (UTC)

moved

Jean Chrétien

The fact that he talks out of the side of his mouth is extremely comical, but I can accept that their might be a more professional way to express the concept. I am thinking of saying something along the lines of "His tendency to talk out of the side of his mouth, while medically caused, can be seen as indicative of his overall political persona." JackLynch

I don't agree

When reading the entry for mr. cretien, I found that it was lacking in any real insight into his nature and legacy, his persona. What immediately sprang to mind was the dry and unrevealing mention of his intruiging malady. I read at length what I found on the discussion page, and saw that while there was confusion as to the nature of the condition, there was a complete lack of mention of what impression he makes, and how this is imvolved. JackLynch — Preceding undated comment added 03:44, 11 November 2003 (UTC)

I have seen those already...but it still seems that you want to say he both figuratively and literally talks out of the side of his mouth. I suppose you could mention his opponents have said that about him, and how Kim Campbell used it, but I don't think you can just imply that he is a shifty politician. Adam Bishop 03:48, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Toronto Star did express that his folksyness makes people expect less of him, or something along that line, supposedly hides his political genius, but I doubt his disability would count as part of this folksyness... - user:zanimum

I wasn't refering to "folksiness" however, and I'm not too sure how "talking out of the side" of ones mouth would add or take away from, ones "folksiness". As a matter of fact, I think it would take away from it, as it gives the impression that one is being disingenuous, not a "folksy" quality, in my mind. JackLynch

Look, I don't know, I don't think this is even relevant to the article, any of it. - user:zanimum

I've never even heard of the expression "talking out of the side of your mouth". Are you sure you guys don't really mean, "Talking out of both sides of your mouth"? In Chretien's case there is a subtle irony because of his affliction.

December 12

It's not "widely speculated", he announced he would step down on December 12, did he not? I agree that it is premature to say for certain that Paul Martin is the next Prime Minister because it's not technically true at the moment, but I don't think December 12 is speculation. Adam Bishop 19:49, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I haven't yet seen an article that included an actual quote by Chrétien that he was stepping down on a specific date. I think everything I've seen has been either a vauge referance to "this winter" or a quote by an "insider". If you can find an actual press release or statement by Chrétien please post a link to it here and feel free to change the page - Halthecomputer 00:02, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

I've found a number of sources that quote him thinking about stepping down in "mid-december" but I've yet to find a substantiated statment that it will be the 12th - Halthecomputer 00:11, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

Ok...I've seen December 12 a lot lately so I just assumed it was official :) Adam Bishop 00:12, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Never mind, I take it back. After a lot of digging I found a rather recent article I must have missed. Martin to be new prime minister Dec. 12 as Chretien announces departure I have changed the main page accordingly. - Halthecomputer 00:16, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

---

This article is the most toatally biased and leftist glorification of Chrétien I have ever read. This article DESPERATELY needs NPOVing RIGHT NOW. I bet the writers are a bunch of Communists or idiot socialists from Europe. I'm going to check old versions to see if there was any POV censorship. If not, I'm rewriting it. USA NUMBER 1! — Preceding undated comment added 06:43, 18 December 2003‎ (UTC)

---

Just as I suspected. I went through the page history and discovered that there was an effort to suppress any attempts to balance the overt leftist slant. This user by the name of JoeM wrote some excellent, objective, and fact-filled content and hard-hitting analysis that kept on getting removed for no reason. I'm going to restore it to balance the leftist POV slant. USA NUMBER 1!

Hi, JoeM. Aren't you still hard-banned? --MIRV 06:49, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yep, he still is. A sysop banned his new identity. WhisperToMe 06:58, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oldest Surviving PM?

No, this is incorrect -- John Turner was born in 1929. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.193.217 (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Needs to have section pretaining to corruption/sponsorship scandal.

In order for the article to be fair.

It's already there. HistoryBA 14:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Ministerial Post

According to the text of the article, he was Minister of Energy, Mines, and Resources in the 2nd Trudeau government, which I seem to recall reading something about. However, Wikipedia's list of Canadian Ministers of Energy, Mines, and Resources doesn't include him.

The list had a goof in it—the environment ministers of the 2nd Trudeau ministry were subbed in rather than the energy ministers. This of course had the truly bizarre implication of Marc Lalonde being missing from the energy ministers list. (Clearly, the NEP never happened :)). Good catch. The Tom 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Chretien a factor in the Quebec Provincial Election?

The article states that Chretien has been credited as factor in getting the provinicial Quebec Liberals elected in 2003. Is this really verifiable? I don't think the election had much to do with his popularity in Quebec (or lack thereof) and more voter fatigue with the PQ. I'd erase this from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.153.59 (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Paganism?

There's a very briref section stating that he was found practicing 'pagans' which I assume should be paganism. Is there anything to back this claim up? I'm going to get rid of that section until someone can provide some evidence, or elaborate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.188.54 (talk) 03:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that was just vandalism. --JGGardiner 03:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That'd be all over the papers if it was true. --Marysunshine 03:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Free use vs Fair Use images

The subject of copyrighted vs. Fair Use images has been discussed recently at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephen_Harper#We_should_remove_the_unfree_image

I'm therefore helping the project out by replacing the fair use, copyrighted image here with a free use image. Michael Dorosh 17:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

While it is great that you are participating in unfree image cleanup, which definitely needing doing here, I'm not sure that every photo displayed at whitehouse.gov is public domain (perhaps it is, but I cannot easily find anything to that effect), and we do already have a number of images at commons:Category:Jean Chretien that could be used. Jkelly 20:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Wellie/Willie

Thanks for the reference for confirming that is was Wellie and not Willie. I reverted it in the past because I thought it was non-sense. WE'll keep it that way now.--JForget 00:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Chretien And Protestors

Why isn't there something about the pepper spraying of actvists in Vancouver in 1997 at the OPEC summit and Chretien's famous "Me I like pepper on my plate" comment. Also put in something about Chretien strangling the protestor in Hull, Quebec. --Fredmaack 01:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Why don't you take a stab at it? HistoryBA 01:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I still can't believe the APEC summit isn't mentioned when Chretien made the now famous "Me, I like pepper on my plate" gaff in response to protestors being pepper sprayed. I might have to add it. --69.196.150.118 04:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Actualy that comment was revisited by both Jean and Nardwuar the reporter who asked the question http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUwrn_k34DA&feature=related

Picture

I feel that the picture used in the infobox really really lacks quality. Its super blurry. Does anyone have a better picture? --Midnight Rider 01:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

See commons:Category:Jean Chretien. Jkelly 03:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Unclear writing about Trudeau

"The death of Pierre Trudeau helped Chretien win re-election in 2000. It made one point clear--He wouldn't have been prime minister if it had not been for Trudeau."

This line doesn't make any sense. Cogent 21:41, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's also totally untrue. Sigma-6 04:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Canada's involvement in NATO's 1999 bombing campaign of Yugoslavia

Added: Chretien supported Canada's involvement in this Act of War. Opinion: It is strange how such an important fact could be omitted, until now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atucovic (talk • contribs) 23:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dictator

Mista-X's recent addition of statements [1] [2] [3] in the introductory paragraph that JC was a dictator have been reverted. Mista-X is disrupting this article to make a point about his recent changes in Joseph Stalin, for which he was blocked. The fact that JC was not a dictator is incontrovertible, supported by an enormity of evidence, and does not bear further discussion. Cleduc 02:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you pronounce his last name?

I've googled, and sources agree it's hard to pronounce but I couldn't find one that tells me how it's pronounced. TransUtopian 10:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Try kret-chee-an. GoodDay 22:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Or "kray-tyen"--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 05:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"KRET-syen" but the n is a nasal n like the French do. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugly White Spot

Why is there a HUGE vertical blank dead-space between the section header Early career and the actual text of the section? It looks horrible. Can someone please take a moment to fix that? ~ 142.68.45.33 12:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Special thanks to G2bambino for FINALLY removing the Ugly White Spot on November 2, 07. ~ 142.68.40.43 16:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC) ... (formerly known as 142.68.45.33)

Chretien: U.S. invaded Iraq for oil

The Canadian Press (CP) - November 26, 2007

Jean Chretien believes U.S. invaded Iraq for oil.

The former prime minister told the popular Radio-Canada French television talk show "Tout le monde en parle" (Everyone's talking about it) why he thinks U.S. declared war on Iraq.

"There are some people who suspect it was oil, for the control of oil", Chretien said in French during the interview, which aired Sunday evening (November 25th).

The show's host, Guy A. Lepage, then told Chretien he thinks everyone believes the invasion was for oil.

"Well, me too", Chretien said.

In 2003, Chretien said he would not send Canadian troops to Iraq without UN approval. http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/9004701.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.67.117 (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

wtf?

Not a single word on Shawinigate? For shame! Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

So add it. WTF yourself. How do you think Wikipedia works? --Doradus (talk) 23:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material

The following is unsourced information:

• Chretien is the only Liberal prime minister to have faced Leaders of the Official Opposition who were not (Progressive) Conservatives.
• During the 1998 Stanley Cup Playoffs, Chrétien made a bet with American President Bill Clinton on the playoff series between the Ottawa Senators and the Washington Capitals where the loser of the series had to wear the opposing team's jersey. The Capitals won the series four games to one and Chrétien had to wear a Capitals jersey.
• In 2002, Françoise Ducros, a top aide to Chrétien allegedly called American President George W. Bush "a moron". Chrétien later commented on the situation by saying that Bush is "a friend of mine. He's not a moron at all." Francoise Ducros soon resigned stating that her position had become untenable.
• In 1997, Chrétien was a guest on This Hour Has 22 Minutes as Rick Mercer took him to lunch at a Harvey's fast food restaurant, where the topic of conversation was Chrétien's life. The scene was the longest of Chrétien's several guest appearances (as himself) on Canadian sketch comedy shows such as Royal Canadian Air Farce and This Hour Has 22 Minutes. Rick Mercer has praised Chrétien's comedic timing. He appeared with Mercer again, this time on The Rick Mercer Report, on Tuesday November 20, 2007. They again ate at a Harvey's restaurant and discussed many issues.
• At the 2003 Liberal Party of Canada Leadership Convention in Toronto, a tribute for Chrétien was hosted at the Air Canada Centre arena on the evening of Thursday, November 13. About 10,000 people attended. It was hosted by Justin Trudeau and Charmaine Crooks. Performers included Canadian born musician Paul Anka, jazz pianists Oscar Peterson and Oliver Jones, Cirque de Soleil, The Montreal Jubilation Choir, and the Cape Breton band The Barra MacNeils.
• On March 1, 2008, Chrétien returned the favour by inducting Anka, whom he has known for decades, into the Canadian Songwriters Hall of Fame in a ceremony in Toronto.

While this is interesting, we can't use it unless you provide a source. Also, none of this is really trivia, as trivia by its definition is "unimportant information" - it therefore shouldn't be in a trivia section but instead the information should be incorporated into the main article. - Tbsdy lives (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

re minority govt wording

This bothers me a bit:

a formal coalition agreement between the Liberals and the New Democratic Party, the first since World War I,

For one thing, there was no New Democratic Party in World War I, there wasn't even a CCF yet, but that's just a semantic/syntactical issue; and it should be stated that this was in the federal context; there have been formal provincial coalition governments (esp. in BC) But as far as the Grits and NDP go, there was a coalition, but I suppose an informal one, from 1972 to 1974; which ended when the NDP refused to support Trudeau's wage-and-price controls. Not sure how to reword the section about this, as it's not really about Chretien, but the comparison to the Tory-based Unionist government of World War I really isn't all that valid, or unique.Skookum1 (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

He did NOT have a stroke.

If you read Martin Lawrence's book "The Will To Win" you will see that Mr.Chretien did NOT have a stroke. When he was born, half of his face was paralyzed, leaving him deaf in one ear. There was no stroke, or polio. and certinaly, no frost bite. You ought to read his biography.

Somebody reverted me for saying there was dispute about his disability. Are their any verifiability citations? I havn't read the book, so I'm tempted to believe the above... Sam Spade 04:29, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Where on earth do you get the idea that there's any dispute over this story? Where did you get the idea that it's "not well-known or commonly agreed to"? Here are the references I turned up with thirty seconds of searching, all of which state he has Bell's palsy : CBC, BBC, CNN, Globe and Mail, and more CNN. With these, and the book cited above, I would say that the burden of proof is on you to provide some citations for your theory, rather than the other way around. --67.71.78.53 12:36, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

. . . or I could have just referred you to the debate further up the page, which cited many of the same references. But anyway, there's no dispute (except by Sam Spade) that his facial paralysis was caused by Bell's Palsy; the cause of that condition is the only thing that's unclear. (And no, it couldn't be stroke, because Bell's palsy is caused by damage to one specific facial nerve, not the central nervous system.)

what are you talking about? I don't dispute, heck I don't even care how it happened. I am simply suggesting that we agree amongst ourselves before we say its one way or the other in the article. Anyways, you canadians can mess about on this one, I'm not even interested enough to research it. The only point I ever had was that we should agree on the talk page before suggesting one theory, frostbite, over another. Sam Spade 19:24, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fighting to keep greater obscurity in place is a poor way to produce clarity. --67.71.78.53 02:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thats not fighting, thats one edit, and preventing innaccuracy is more important than obscurity. Relax yourself, geez. I got less of a rise out of people when I pointed out how humorous his disorder was a few months ago. Sam Spade 02:45, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

He did not have a stroke; and he did not 'simply' have Bell's Palsy either; he had frostbite which affected the nerve causing it. I'm not sure this is much of a source, but it cites other things (I personally am too lazy to dig deeper) [4]Annihilatron (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Since it is much discussed and I happen to own the Martin biography, I checked inside. It does tell the story of his frostbite and how it caused the problem. It says that his older brother, a doctor, thought it came from him favoring his good ear but "many other doctors, as well as a neurosurgeon, discounted the possibility. They concluded that the frostbite had damaged a facial nerve, causing a muscle paralysis known as Bell's palsy." (p. 32) --JGGardiner (talk) 18:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I do mean to say that

I really do. And its not just his opponents, or MS. Campbell. I have a few canadian friends, and they all support him. They also relate his political shiftiness to the common "side of the mouth" saying about politicians. I think anyone who supports, is opposed to, or even clearly understand Mr.. Chrétien will agree that there is a quality of shiftiness there, taking a stand against something, but making no discernable action regarding it, thereby ensuring the opposite. IMO, which isn't relevant, he is a fine president. This has nothing to do w making him look bad, but rather showing him as he TRUELY is. JackLynch

What are you talking about? Maybe he's shifty, but what are you talking about "common side of the mouth saying about politicians". I don't see the point you are trying to make about him. It's great that you think he was a fine president, I would have thought worse of you if you thought he was a fine prime minister. dave 23:07, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

ok, thats acceptable to me. I don't like the "his opponents" part, but good enough. JackLynch

Yeah, I think this article doesn't emphasize what an F---ing crook he was... 206.188.135.130 22:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, this is simple: if we can't cite something, it's Original Research. If you can cite the "side of the mouth" thing, go for it. --Doradus (talk) 23:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarification Jean was never a president, he was a primeminister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deluxebros (talk • contribs) 05:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 173.179.110.128, 25 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under "Early Political Career", the phrase "at the law firm of Me Alexandre Gélinas" should be added in the first sentence after "Chrétien practised law in Shawinigan" because this information is included in the wiki on Me Gélinas and is corroborated by familly members who lived with Me Gélinas at the time.

173.179.110.128 (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I used a source from the Martin book that I happen to own. --JGGardiner (talk) 05:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This Bio is in need for sources

His personal life the most. You have a whole section with only one citation (about his heart surgery which every Canadian knows). The whole article as a whole needs to be corrected.--Fire 55 (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the consequences of an article written before the source policy became an important part of Wikipedia. Colipon+(Talk) 11:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Connormah^talk 22:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Further health complication

Jean Chrétien had brain surgery in order to treat a subdural hematoma yesterday. This would go under the "Post-political personal life" section, though two sub sections may make it appropriate to make a Health Issues section. I am not familiar as to what the best source would be, but I'm sure someone more well versed with Wikipedia could find it easily. 70.79.130.140 (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it. Thanks for the note. Connormah^talk 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks again. Connormah^talk 23:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Positive economic conditions" as a reason for deficit elimination

About this edit by Porgers (talk · contribs), I don't see anything in the source about "positive economic conditions" being a reason for the deficit being eliminated. There really needs to be a source for this kind of statement for it to be included in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

see:http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001606 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Porgers (talk • contribs) 06:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That reference says that the positive economic climate was one of the reasons the deficit was eliminated, but your edit makes it seem like the reason. "During his tenure as prime minister a $42 billion deficit was eliminated" seems much more neutral than "Due to positive economic conditions a $42 billion deficit was eliminated". — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I would word it this way-- "A $42 billion deficit was eliminated, five consecutive budget surpluses were recorded {thanks in part to favorable economic times), $36 billion in debt was paid down, and taxes were cut by $100 billion (cumulatively) over five years," replacing the current sentence-- "Due to positive economic conditions a $42 billion deficit was eliminated, five consecutive budget surpluses were recorded, $36 billion in debt was paid down, and taxes were cut by $100 billion (cumulatively) over five years." In the article cited, the economic conditions were credited for the surplus, not for the deficit reduction...just my read of the source quoted. --Skol fir (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. Thanks for checking up on the source. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Further information required to balance out this paragraph is the following: "Chrétien turned most of his attention to reducing the large national debt he had inherited from the Trudeau era—$200 billion or 46% of GDP—as well as from the Mulroney era—an additional $250 billion bringing it to 60% of GDP."

Bolded text is the new addition. The reference for these numbers is Canadian National Debt vs. GDP and is based on a graph from Stats Can. Maybe someone can find a more original source for this data. --Skol fir (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

The facts speak for themselves. We just need to find a proper source to place them in the article. According to WP:NPOV both sides of a story should be given equal coverage. An encyclopedia loses its credibility if it becomes a mouthpiece for only one, biased opinion. We should work towards balancing the content, not skewing it in only one direction. That is all. --Skol fir (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

A blog is not a valid source. Porgers (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't try to deny the facts, Porgers. I was only suggesting that in this data from Stats Can, there is more to the story than just blaming one of Chretien's predecessors, without even looking at the one who came just before him, Mulroney. It is clear that both the previous PMs increased the country's debt, enormously. It is ridiculous to cherry pick the facts to prove your biased opinion. That is hiajcking an article. --Skol fir (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I found a reliable source for the debt accumulated over the years through different Prime Ministers, since 1975. It is at Canada's Debt History (from the Website Taxpayer.com). This backs up my statement above that Mulroney also has to shoulder part of the blame for the huge debt increase for Canadian taxpayers. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation, that hosts this site, is even closely linked to the CPC and its forerunners, so it should be a satisfactory source for our Conservative apologist, Porgers. --Skol fir (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is weak opposition a controversy?

Why is the subsection "Weak Opposition" listed in the "Controversies" section? What is controversial about the fact that the opposition was relatively weak during some of the time when Chretien was PM? It wasn't Chretien's doing in any event, and seems to be out of place here. Ross Fraser (talk) 07:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any feedback since the posting above in September, I've removed material on weak opposition and left the remaining material in the subsection on confrontation with a protester (which never had anything to do with weak opposition). While the material removed is well written, it is mostly about the BQ and not Chretien himself. Ditto the material on the NDP. It may be possible to recycle this material by folding it into other articles (e.g., on the BQ and on the NDP). Ross Fraser (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it was awkwardly placed, perhaps it is easier to insert it into another part of the article with a lot of trimming. I don't agree with it being removed wholesale, as I do consider the 'lack of opposition' a defining feature of Chretien's premiership. Colipon+(Talk) 03:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Assassination attempt???? No, Not really.

Didn't the guy just break in to see if he could? Really not an assassination attempt.

The suspect was outside the PM's bedroom door for awhile apparently. He could have killed

him if he really had intended to, but I don't think he did.

He was deranged, had a knife, and the Chretiens had to lock the door closed before security came. I'd think it was an assanation attempt.Habsfannova 05:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

There was no attempt on Chretien's life, hence it was not an assassination attempt. Fishhead64 02:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, so what else would we call a knife yielding man outside the Prime Minister's bedroom? Habsfannova - t 04:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems quite obvious to me that there was a real danger to the life of the Rt. Hon. Jean Chrétien; to imply that this event was anything less than an assassination attempt would be untrue and inaccurate, in my opinion. If someone was outside the Prime Minister's bedroom with a knife, under suspicious circumstances necessitating a need to have security be contacted, then I would think it to be an assassination attempt, plain and simple. FiveParadox 03:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it really deserves its own section, though, so I'll just move it in to the regular one.Habsfannova|t 16:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The would-be assassin did tell the police he had intended to cut Jean Chretien's throat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.49.138 (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

According to Lawrence Martin's biography of Chrétien, titled Iron Man: The Defiant Reign of Jean Chrétien, the man did in fact intend to assassinate him; he was able to get into Chrétien's residence because of lax RCMP security. The RCMP, fearing a public backlash, said that the man was simply taking a look, and the media reported it as such. Chrétien himself addressed the issue only briefly. 069952497a (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad relations with the USA -- whose fault ?

When the article talks about bad relations it talks about it as if all the fault for those bad relations was the responsibility of Chretien. It does not assign any fault to George W. Bush. President Bush never made a state visit to Canada during Chretien's term. He never invited Chretien to his Crawford Texas ranch. He appointed the rudest ambassador in our history. Ambassador Paul Celluci subjected Canadians to constant criticism. He thanked dozens of nations for their support following 911, but did not thank Canada, the only country that had provided any meaningful, short-term, concrete help.

The article also says: "He also considers Bush a good friend." I am highly skeptical of this assertion. Bush demonstrated over and over again that he neither respected or liked Chretien. Chretien could not count on Bush returning his phone calls. -- Geo Swan 01:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Celluci was very vocal in thanking Canada for its support after 9/11. I have no idea where you get your facts from. Bottom line, just because something you read is anti-American does not make it true. 24.72.36.121 08:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The above comment was written by me. I forgot to sign in. Shanebratt 08:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

24.72.36.121 : I think you are full of it. Back then USA was high on itself full of cock and swagger, and Bush and his republicans were politically opposed to Chretien who was a staunch ally of the Democrats in particular Bill Clinton. Geo Swan is is correct on all counts, and it was a huge news story that the US never thanked Canada for not providing our incredible support post 9/11, and afterwards Bush had a lame reply claiming that thanks to your brothers is implied, and not necessary, but always meant. It wasn't just Chretien who didn't like our US neighbours at the time, it was a general feeling amoung most of the population in Canada that our very good neighbors were becoming a little hard to live with, and had blundered hugely in electing George Bush. I think time has vindicated Chretien in this matter fully. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.1.7 (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Too bad you have no idea what you are talking about. Here is a link to a speech, where, mere days after September 11, Celluci thanked Canada and Jean Chretien for the support we provided. http://ottawa.usembassy.gov/content/textonly.asp?section=embconsul&document=cellucci_091401

It'd be better if you actually checked your facts next time. Shanebratt (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Lawrence Martin's biography of Chrétien, titled Iron Man: The Defiant Reign of Jean Chrétien, early in Chrétien's term, he sought to distinguish himself from Mulroney, who was seen as too pro-American. So, he intentionally asked the White House to construe Canada-US relations as being cooler than they actually were. However, Chrétien did have a close friendship with Bill Clinton, though not with Bush. 069952497a (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 July 2013

Hi there, You were seeking additional senators to include in this posting.

Senator Shirley Maheu (maiden name: Johnson) (former Member of Parliament for St-Laurent-Cartierville, QC 1988-1996)was named to the upper chamber on January 31, 1996, in order to make way for Stephane Dion who was appointed to the Chrétien Cabinet without a seat in the Canadian House of Commons. to Run in the second safest Liberal Riding in Quebec). She sat in the Senate from the 31st of January 1996 and dies six months short of retiring at the age of 74 (february 01, 2006) She never saw the Conservative Government assume government).

I worked for her, and I know this.

-)

B. Bos 198.103.167.20 (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: For starters, I'm not sure exactly what edit you'd like to see made to this article - please be specific as to what text should be changed or added. Also, content on Wikipedia is required to be independently verifiable by others who read and edit the encyclopedia. While I don't doubt that what you're saying is true, it must also be verifiable before it can be added to a Wikipedia article. Please provide a reliable source that supports the edit you would like made to the article. --ElHef (Meep?) 22:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

EH101 cancellation cost

This wikipedia article stated it was 500 million to cancel the EH101 program. The only source I've found is 157.8 million. I've changed the article to reflect this. In case someone removes the link the link I found was http://www.nytimes.com/1996/01/24/business/international-briefs-canada-settles-claim-on-canceled-helicopters.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamster99 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

pro quid quo = quid pro quo

you have the order mixed up. do a search and you'll see 17:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.166.130 (talk)

sentence about garment industry needed

see http://stage81.nowtoronto.com/news/story.cfm?content=140356 66.225.166.130 (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"Erroneous edits"

Earlier today, I added the following: "In August 1999, the Anglo-Canadian media magnate Conrad Black was due to receive a British peerage. Two days before Black was to receive his title, Chrétien successfully pressured the British government not to accord Black a title of nobility, citing the 1917 Nickle Resolution, where the Canadian House of Commons asked King George V not to grant any titles of nobility or knighthoods to Canadians. However, the Nickle Resolution like all parliamentary resolutions was only symbolic, was in no way legally binding on Chrétien and several Canadians had been either knighted or raised to the House of Lords after 1917. Many saw Chrétien's blocking awarding Black a peerage not as a case of the prime minister merely enforcing the Nickle resolution as Chrétien claimed, but rather as a act of revenge for the often critical coverage that Chrétien received from The National Post, which was owned by Black at that time. The columnist Mark Steyn wrote in The National Post that Chrétien blocking Black from created a nobleman was "an exquisite embodiment of psychologically crippled small-mindedness". Black sued Chrétien for what he alleged to an abuse of power, leading to the legal case of Black v. Chrétien.". After adding, I corrected a mistake of mine when I realized I was stupid to talk about "Canadian citizens" in the context of 1917 when the Nickle resolution was passed, given that there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship until 1947.

This is all properly sourced to a RS, but it was just removed under the grounds that was an "erroneous edits". Please explain how these are "erroneous edits". It is a matter of fact there was no such thing as Canadian citizenship until 1947, so that cannot possibly be an "erroneous edit". It is a matter of fact that Chrétien did block Black from receiving a British title in 1999. It is a matter of fact that Chrétien claimed he was forced to do so because of the Nickle resolution, and it is also a matter of fact that many people at the time did not believe him. I did not take sides on this matter, and merely reported what people were saying at the time. I'm reverting back to what I have added for the moment, but I have no desire to engage in an edit war, so I have erred in some way, please explain here. --A.S. Brown (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The status of Canadian citizen was de facto created in 1867 with the establishment of Canada as all British citizens resident in Canada at the time of Confederation became defacto citizens of Canada as well as being British citizens. Canadian citizenship as a distinct entity from British citizenship was formalized in law with the Immigration act of 1910. Therefore both of your 1917 and 1947 dates are obviously erroneous as I stated. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Poor writing

The lede section is OK, but the phrasing elsewhere is sometimes appalling - "was most happy when punching out his fellow students"?? Wikipedia doesn't do slang. "and usually considering his eventual success"??? Some of it is so bad that I can't even guess what the writer meant. I invite literate experts in the subject to help me give the article a good revision. Harfarhs (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it, but it would kind of have to start at square one. This one shows why articles can be too large: Anyone can sneak stupid stuff in. Knoper (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Michel Chretien?

I'm no Wikipedia author, but I think there should be a bit more about his son Michel? Just as a start, he was an adopted First Nations (which caused more than a bit of controversy), and that he was arrested for sexual assault in 02? 198.16.227.172 (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Linking

Per WP:SEAOFBLUE, links shouldn't be placed next to each other in such a way that they appear to be a single link - a single specific link should be used instead. While it might make sense to repeat a link from the body of the article once in the infobox, it doesn't make sense to do it every single time. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Too long?

Recently an IP who keeps changing, but who starts with 199, has been removing large chunks of material. I don't necessarily think all of the changes are bad, but huge changes like this should be discussed first. If the IP wasn't hopping all over the place he or she would already have been blocked for edit warring. Again, please discuss it here. Thanks. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

^The article is way too long as it currently stands – some sections have over a dozen paragraphs! A separate Premiership/Prime Ministership of Jean Chretien article should be created (not sure what the standard Canadian descriptor is). I think a general copy-edit of the article is needed as well, to remove a lot of frankly irrelevant information. It seems like whole chunks of the biographies have been copied almost verbatim. We should be writing for the average reader, not for the Chretien aficionado who probably already owns all the biographies! Ivar the Boneful (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I've re-added the "too long" article tag. It should only be removed once an attempt to reduce the article length is made. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

That is an unsupported assertion. It is not enough to just say the article is too long. Per WP:Article size You need to make some explanation on how you think it can be improved, i.e readability, technical issues, trivial content, etc. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is currently 274,981 bytes in length. Compare this with featured articles on (far more significant) heads of state / government – John A. Macdonald is 92,324 bytes, Neville Chamberlain is 117,001 bytes, Vladimir Lenin is 189,039 bytes, Ronald Reagan is 243,466 bytes. In virtual every section masses of information have been dumped with no attempt at summarisation. The sections about his term as prime minister are particularly unreadable. A number of paragraphs mention Chrétien only once or twice and are about totally minor issues. If the information in those sections is non-trivial and summarisation doesn't work, then new articles like Early life of Jean Chrétien or Premiership of Jean Chrétien should to be created. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)