Talk:Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the CDPQ Infra page were merged into Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec on 26 December 2018. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
More? edit
Got anymore on this? --Jingofetts 19:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
This article is a mess edit
The "history" doesn't discuss anything that happened before 2002. The article mentions the actions of Ivanhoe Cambridge without bothering to mention that it's a related organization, except as a "See Also" at the bottom. No mention of when various mentioned CEOs became CEO. No context regarding "the $39.8 billion loss." I came here to learn what this organization was about, and am leaving frustrated at the state this article is in. --142.242.18.254 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Grammatical Quibble edit
- ...can recuperate as much as 95 cents for every dollar initially invested.
Don't you mean recoup, as in "To make back, as an investment"[1]
☺Dick Kimball (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Assessment comment edit
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
| ==WP Tax Class==
Stub class because the article has only one section.EECavazos 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Low priority because on a retirement fund.EECavazos 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 10:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Proposed merge with CDPQ Infra edit
The present article still fails notability guidelines and a merger is strongly advised. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
December 2023 edit
I find this article to be undoubtedly biased, and possibly written by editors with a connection to the subject.
- Section 3 is an unsourced advertisement
- Section 4 is an unsourced personal essay
- Sections 7 and 8 read like they are ripped straight from a company website or press release
I find these sections to be candidates for deletion, though I would appreciate some feedback or consensus beforehand. RetroCosmos (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)