This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yves-François Blanchet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Latest comment: 5 months ago14 comments7 people in discussion
To prevent an edit war from going furthur, I propose the following two options for the new infobox photo. I believe option 1 is more suitable as the lack of a smile gives a more neutrel look. It is also of higher resolution. The previous 2009 photo is very outdated and should no longer be used as the main photo.
@Darryl Kerrigan There are many smaller media organizations that publish their YouTube content under an Open License. Many celebrity photos are uploaded this way. As it is published by the company on an official channel, the Copyright would belong to the company and they have the right to publish under that license. Now, this would only apply to anything they (TVA) themselves create, not the other external copyrighted content (Images or videos) that may appear on their show. That's why I would avoid uploading the videos themselves, but screenshots of studio interviews of this manner should be okay. PascalHD (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes. Sorry, didn't notice the "Creative Commons Attribution license" note on the video at first. Do we know if the CC License covers derivative works, ie cropping etc? Have we made the appropriate attribution. If so, we should be in the clear.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
1 over 2 if changed, but more clarification requested on why any change would be needed at all. Wikipedia does not have any rule that our images of people necessarily always have to be recent — the rule is that the photo has to be Blanchet, not that it has to have been taken within the past two to three years. Comparing the 2009 image to the more current ones, I'm not seeing any particular evidence that his appearance has changed enough to claim that a 2009 photo would be "unrepresentative" in a 2020s context — it's unquestionably still the same guy. I mean, I suppose if Blanchet had come out as transgender in the intervening years and was now presenting as a woman named Yvette-Françoise, then there'd be a useful claim that the old photo was a problem — but if the entire argument hinges on "he wears glasses now", then that just isn't sufficiently important to actually be worth editwarring over, because wearing glasses isn't contextually significant to the election process at all. This is reminding me of the time somebody tried to editwar over claims that since Belinda Stronach had dyed her hair, it behooved Wikipedia to move heaven and earth to scrub all photos of her as a blonde and replace them all with photos of her as a brunette — and the time that somebody claimed that we had to rush into action to replace all clean-shaven photos of Justin Trudeau with new bearded photos just because he grew out the whiskers for a while during the pandemic. But that's still just not the way it works: the rule is that the photo has to be of the person, not that it has to date from any particular time period or suddenly becomes a problem due to minor changes in the person's physical appearance. So why is updating the photo important, exactly? Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would argue there is value in having a more recent photograph of a person, especially a politician. It more accurately reflects their current appearance, and it is better for the reader. Sure, there is no rule on the books saying we have to use a recent one, but there isn't one that says we can't either. I see why you feel this way, as edit wars are incredibly unproductive. Changing an infobox photo frequently for very small changes over a month would seem unreasonable. But the current photo from 2009 is 15 years old - A lot of time has passed. From what I have seen on this site over the years, it is an unwritten rule you should use recent photographs of people if available. Not always, for example the POTUS (Joe Biden), as official portraits were issued and they should be used. But Canadian politicians don't unfortunately, so we resort to scouring the internet for free images. If the day ever came where the Government issued official portraits that were compatible with the Commons, I think we would agree to use the most recent portrait at all times, and not change to some random Flickr photo. I do not see any harm in using a new image in this case. It is better to stay ahead and up to date than fall behind. PascalHD (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Option 1 because the 2009 photo is 15 years old, which is way way way too old for a federal parliamentary party leader. Absolutely not option 2, it looks like a quick forced smile he gave to the television camera when they say his name to introduce him quickly. JM (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Any point using the 2009 photo as a thumb elsewhere in the article?
Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Blanchet in 2009.
We could use this photo elsewhere in the article if doing so is useful. That said, the section about his life circa 2009 still has the infobox next to it (extends that far down), so including it there pushes it into the electoral history section. Not sure that makes any sense.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
