Talk:Pierre Trudeau/Archive 2

message: Hello Lonewolf BC. On the page for Pierre Trudeau, I had added a brief comment beside the listing of Madam Justice Bertha Wilson: "the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada."  I added it because this was arguably Mr. Trudeau's most important Supreme Court of Canada appointment.  At the very least, the appointment made history.  You have seen the need, however, to delete this historical reference to (as you say) "trim needless information."   I can't argue with your other edits of this section, but there are many people who would be interested in knowing that the Prime Minister took this (for 1982) unprecedented step to have a woman on the Canadian Supreme Court.  I think Mr. Trudeau's made history here.  Would you not agree that the phrase "the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court of Canada" could be added back to the Pierre Trudeau article, or do you maintain that it's needless information?  Que-Can 15:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that, although it is somewhat of a distinction for Justice Wilson, it is a slight matter with respect to Trudeau.  So I would expect it to see it get passing mention in her article (which it does), but no, I don't think this is the place for it.  I don't think this appointment reflects much on Trudeau at all.  I doubt that he chose Wilson for the purpose of appointing a woman, but assume that it was on her qualifications.  The appointment was scarcely a radical step by 1982.  Women in Law were old hat.  Woman judges were old hat. Some had reached the heights where they were considerable for appointment to the Supreme Court.  It so happened that Trudeau picked one.  This has very little to do with Trudeau, who merely happened to be Prime Minister at the time.  So I really think it does not belong in Trudeau's article, and that including it therein has false implications about the appointment. -- Lonewolf BC 20:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Lonewolf BC.  Thank you for sharing your perspective on how the appointment of Justice Wilson may have been received by the public in 1982.  I recall the appointment, and I thought at the time that it was significant to have a woman on the Supreme Court, but it would be interesting to review the media coverage at the time, and how historians view it now.   Indeed, the decade from the mid-70s to the mid-80s was a time of historic firsts for women in Canadian public life: first woman Speaker in the Senate, first woman Speaker in the House of Commons, first woman on the Supreme Court, first woman Governor General ... and later, first woman Premier (1991, in B.C.) and first woman Prime Minister (1993).  It may not have been a "radical step" by Mr. Trudeau to appoint Justice Wilson, but it was certainly long overdue to have a woman appointed that esteemed position.    Que-Can 04:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be altogether clear about it, my central point is not really about how the appointment was received by the public.  It is that whatever distinction the appointment has does not much attach to M. Trudeau. Granted, its reception by the public has a bearing on that: The appointment was not seen as particularly daring, surprising, socially avant-garde or controversial, on Trudeau's part.  Certainly, it was a distinction for Wilson, and was perceived as milestone in the social advance of women, so it was not a trifling event, and attracted plenty of notice at the time.  But, as is underscored by your examples of other female "firsts" in the era and your statement that "...it was certainly long overdue...", it was only part of a broad social current which Trudeau, at least in this instance, was merely following (if not somewhat lagging), rather than pushing or leading. -- Lonewolf BC 06:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appointment of Justice Wilson 

message: What do regular editors of this article think? Is it ready for Good Article nomination?
I am not a regular editor, but the sentence "Plus he was a communist." does not make sense, grammatically or otherwise. Is there any proof to support it, and could it be edited so that it made sense? 69.156.157.204 00:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Submit for GA review? 

message: The article says (3rd para) that M. Trudeau "sometimes wore sandals or a buckskin jacket in the House of Commons."   Does anyone know of any credible source for this tidbit about the buckskin jacket?  It seems to me that this buckskin story is more like an urban myth.  Is it true or not?  (With regard to the mention about sandals, I do recall that the former Prime Minister Diefenbaker criticised Trudeau for wearing sandals in the House of Commons.) Que-Can 16:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The jacket in the house is mentioned in this page. --Qyd 19:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a photograph of him thus attired in The Northern Magus by Peter C. Newman, although admittedly it was taken just outside the chamber. Fishhead64 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if Mr. Trudeau had worn the buckskin jacket in the chamber House of Commons it would have been for a special occasion, and would have rated some mention in the media.  The fact that the photo of him was taken outside of the chamber does not suggest to me that he had worn it inside the chamber too.  Did Peter C. Newman mention the jacket (i.e., in the House) in the book? If not, perhaps it's time to fix this part of the Trudeau article. Que-Can 04:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buckskin Jacket?? Prussian helmets?? 

message: Maybe I'm missing something, but the biobox lists the birthplace as Montreal, yet the flag shown next to this is not that of Quebec?  Pourquoi? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frenchllamadiet (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag is meant to signify "Canada", not "Quebec".  I agree that the juxtapostion of word and symbol, as it is, does not make visual sense, and will try to right that with a line-break, momentarily.  All the Canadian PMs have been likewise "flagged", by the way, and I've tended to the Chretien article already. -- Lonewolf BC 19:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Done.  I hope that meets with general approval.  If so, I might do likewise for the rest of the PMs. -- Lonewolf BC 19:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added Canada as the infobox should contain necessary info. The flags don't link to Canada and really are useless. Also somewhere, but of course I can't find it now, is a guideline/comment that the flag should be in front of the city. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed it again. I don't really see the point, especially because the old Red Ensign icons (whichever version) are almost identical to Ontario flag icons (a few pixels of difference in the shield), which really is misleading when right after the word Quebec. Looking at the infobox of American presidents, I see that there are American flag icons in some of them (such as the George W. Bush), but it's the current flag, never the flag at birth (which should be something like 46 stars in  Bush Jr's case).--Boffob 19:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flag Question

message: I found a troubling series of edits about his Catholicism has been made.  I am no expert and would want normal Catholics and average Canadians to look at the excised edits and see whether they are proper parts of a biog article -- or is it a rant by a seeming zealot?  I reversed it because it seemed to cross the defamation line.  But some of you older folks may actually know if it is fact or fiction Chivista 14:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some horrible POV statements in there that must come out. I am tempted to go and edit them but actually, the sections on the catholic church are mini-essays and do not belong in a proper biographical article. I am curious what others think of this ? -- No Guru 00:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only are these insertions horrendously written and formatted, but they seem to be 95% original research based on very biased sources.  Everything that can't be cited should be removed. --G2bambino 00:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:JimWae has rightly deleted the content which was in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. I think the edit summary he used perfectly illustrates the issue (wikipedia cannot weigh in on whether Trudeau went to hell or not) -- No Guru 03:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Feb 21 edits on his excom seems Lenten magic

message: The section "Catholicism in public life" and the caption for the image shaking hands with Fidel Castro next to it might need editing. This is Trudeau's article not Castro's so I think it is unfair to talk of Castro's "ruthlessness." If Trudeau's visit to Cuba was a non-religious international visit, why is it in the religious life section besides to point out, innapropriately, Castro's history with Catholicism?
:The recent edits about him and his practice of religion seems suspisiuous.  It looks like that one or a few Trudeau haters or those with an axe to grind are trumping up religious issues that many people do not take seriously. Do people in canad feel this way?  Do they think Pierre Elliot Trudeau was a bad man for not being a right wing religious fanatic?  I don't know what his religious view or practice has to do with it?  We need a serious Canadain who knows politics of thje 1960s 1970s to chime in.  Help us. Chivista 22:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of us, and I realize that's a loaded statement but there it is, most of us don't give a god-damn about what the Prime Minister's religious views are. We're so full of different religions with strong rights that the PM doesn't get to decide what happens religiously anyway. 74.114.147.235 04:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fidel Castro relating to religion

message: Québec is a French name, therfore the text should have accents.  I think the reversion is inappropriate (et je suis anglophone!). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomstdenis (talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quebec is also an English word (derived from the French, of course) and the English form is neither written with the accents, nor pronounced thus. -- Lonewolf BC 18:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I live live in Ottawa, fairly close to Québec.  I'm anglophone but learned French in school (immersion till grade 9).  Only ignorant English folk say "Quebec" just like they say "mon-tree-all" instead of Montréal.  How anglophones say it and what it's actually called may be two different things, but that doesn't justify changing the name.  Especially, since the culture is bilingual, I think articles concerning Canadian culture and places should be honoured in whatever tongue is appropriate.  This is different, from say how the French call the USA, "Étas-Unis" since they're a French culture and the English name would not work.  Tomstdenis 19:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your personal opinion of what it ought be notwithstanding, the English pronunciation of Quebec differs from the French (and the same is true of Montreal).  I guess that some English-speakers might not even know about the French pronunciation, but that is neither here nor there.  Other English-speakers, myself among them, are well enough informed to know both pronunciations, and to use the one or the other as befits the setting.  This is an English-language encyclopedia, so the English form is the one that belongs here. -- Lonewolf BC 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see "the Université de Montréal", "Charles-Émile Trudeau", "Collège Jean-de-Brébeuf", et cetera in this article. Each are nouns and each have accents. So in accordance with using whichever "one or the other as befits the setting", I suppose we should keep the accents on Québec (and Montréal) because of the presence of accents already found in this article about a bilingual leader of a bilingual nation. (And like Trudeau, I WILL regret using the word "bilingual" here...) -- 208.72.124.251 05:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the concensus overall pretty much comes to this summary of the naming convention: use the most common form in English. Which means Quebec and Montreal without the accents but institutions like Université de Montréal and political parties such as the Bloc Québécois just as in French, because these are the spelling used most often in English media.--Boffob 06:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accents 

message: Twofold question:
First, how about adding a section about Trudeau's naturalist personality. The time when he came to a riverbank in a canoe to proceed an interview is quite famous. Any thoughts?
Second, does anyone have any leads on nature writings by Trudeau? --Bentonia School 08:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trudeau Naturalist 

message: Wikipedia does have an article about what is perhaps Trudeau's greatest accomplishment, fuddle duddle. It seems to me there should be a link somewhere on this page to that article. Thoughts?--Gpollock 16:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Fuddle duddle' 

message: :Image:Trudeaujustwatch.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Trudeaujustwatch.jpg

message: So, does anyone else think that the Trudeau funeral article needs to be merged with the regular Trudeau article?  I saw no reason to have a separate article just for someone's funeral.  What do you think? Illinois2011 23:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - Hello Illinois2011.  I think the funeral article should stay separate, just as the funeral article for Ronald Reagan is separate.  (See Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan.)  Mr. Trudeau was Prime Minister for over 15 years, so his article is quite full of details of his life, so a separate article on his death is, I think, quite appropriate.Que-Can 03:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd be happy to merge away both of those articles.  I don't think that either one says very much that really is worth inclusion.  --JGGardiner 08:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose - this article is already long enough; merging the funeral material in here will only make it worse. --G2bambino 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose as per Que-Can. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Oppose: The funeral article is a valid sub-article. Also, the main article is plenty long enough already. Sunray 00:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: The lede mentions sandals and an accusation of uttering (or mouthing) an obscenity -- but omits his being the driving force in patriation of the Constitution, official bilingualism, the FLQ crisis, his long-term strong opposition to separatism, and as Justice Minister getting the state out of the bedrooms (decriminalizing homosexuality) & later legalizing some abortions, making divorce easier. These are at least as significant, no? --JimWae 18:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lede 

message: The "why should I sell your wheat" comment needs further explanation, as it, almost as much as the National Energy Program,  seems to have ignited the spark of western resentment against Trudeau that just kept burning brighter and brighter. 
His anger in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan in July, 1969, could be explained by a grievous journalistic blunder in December, 1968 in Winnipeg. Trudeau was addressing a Liberal fundraising dinner and opened himself up to questions from the audience. The questions were mostly hostile. One asked him why the government wasn't doing more to sell farmers' wheat. Trudeau, using his frequent Socratic style, repeated the question and then went on to respond and delineated the role of the federal government, the Canadian Wheat Board, an ultimately, all Canadians, in helping sell western farmers' wheat:
"Well, why should I sell the Canadian farmers' wheat? You know, the way I understand the system, the Canadian farmer has been very productive, very progressive and vdery aggressive. He has increased his productivity enormously. He has founded co-operatives, he has organized the wheat board and he has chosen to operate in the free market economy. 
"He is entitled...to as much protection from the Canadian government as other producers get in other countries with whom he has to be in competition. 
"There are various ways in which the state does intervene to help the farmer in distress. But the wheat board has done a cery good job of selling our wheat. In cases swhere we cannot sell it, we make it part of our external aid program.
"You know these are ways in which the Canadian government can help the problem. But basically unless you take the view that the government should step in and own the farms and hire the farmers, I think we all share the responsibility and we will all have to do the best we can all together."
Journalists covering the event appear not to have heard the original question, nor the original answer. They merely heard, or chose to hear, Trudeau's rhetorical question. And an animus was begun between Trudeau and the west which he would experience for the rest of his political career. The canard has recently been reinvigorated in the August/September issue of Canada's National History Magazine, The Beaver. In its cover story on Trudeau being voted The Worst Canadian in its online poll, it repeated the fateful Socratic line.
The preceding comment by 205.200.147.229 02:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Why should I sell your wheat?" 

message: On several occasions, M3campbe (talk) has added a "Criticism" section to the article. In it, he refers to "the worst Canadian ever" poll (already referred to in a more appropriate way, IMO, in the "Overview" section), and engages in an unreferenced essay on Trudeau's policies on NEP, nationalization of PetroCanada and alleged anti-americanism. As several editors have pointed out in reverting him, his proposed addition, in its current form, is unreferenced and potentially biased. As such, it is contrary to Wikipedia policies on Neutral Point of View (undue weight), original research and verifiability. I would encourage M3campbe to discuss his proposed edit here, before adding it again. Note: Editorial decisions are made by consensus.  
M3campbe: Further attempts to add this material to the article (without a consensus decision to include them), will result in their instant removal and could result in you being blocked. Sunray 00:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of unsourced, possibly biased, material

message: Sunray et al.: Whereas a criticism section exists for other Canadian Prime Ministers (including the current one) and whereas previous attempts to "edit" the criticism section was a flat out removal of all materials posted (bar one which left the "Worst Canadian" point), I would greatly advise against threatening other editors with actions or accusations of bias.  Wikipedia allows for a balanced view on many contentious issues and individuals and instead of trying to stamp out contrary points of view by hitting the delete key, I suggest you instead address your concerns by adding references to unreferenced points (which admittedly are in "stub form" and need to be filled in) or take other more editorial (read: not censor) actions.  As for having a criticisms section, I would offer that even if a precedent didn't exist that such a section would counter-balance the positive review of Trudeau in the rest of his article and then, by definition, would be biased if read by itself.  That said, so would the rest of the article.  Let us also remember that the points addressed in the stub statement are historically accurate and as such need to be added to if anything, not taken away.
Sunray: Further attempts to this material to the article (without a consensus decision to include them), will result in their instant removal and could result in you being blocked. m3campbe 2:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of balanced views on Trudeau 

message: This article is riddled with bias intended to shine a more favourable light on Trudeau. I looked at it several months ago and swore I'd never come back. But here I am, and I see nothing much has changed to improve it.
It boggles my mind that some claim this article is balanced and has a fair point of view.
Are there no senior Wikipedia editors who can address this problem? It's been raised enough times you would think someone would do something about it.
Is there not some means of checking the credentials of those who consistently advocate that the article is not biased (and who consistently persist in undoing every attempt to make the article more neutral)? It begs the question: why is Wikipedia allowing this article to be hijacked by Trudeau acolytes who spend their days weaving bias into each sentence?
It seems each time someone tries to make the article more neutral, they get shouted down. Even simply raising topic of bias in the talk pages can get one into trouble.
Snieckus 04:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias