Talk:Pierre Trudeau/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Appointment of Justice Wilson

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 You have seen the need, however, to delete this historical reference to (as you say) "trim needless information."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)

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)(P.S. I shall copy this to the article's talk page, as the input of other editors might be helpful.) -- Lonewolf BC 20:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I have copied the above from my own talk page, and invite the input of other editors. Lonewolf BC 01:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Supreme Court appointments

Okay, technically it is the Governor General who does the appointing, but that is a mere formality. PM chooses; G-G rubber-stamps the choice. The details of the process are not relevant to Trudeau, anyhow. The wording "chose ... for appointment" indicates well enough that he did not actually appoint them himself (in which case the natural wording would be simply "appointed"), and anything further is just off-topic hair-splitting in relation to Trudeau (or any other PM). -- Lonewolf BC 22:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether it's rarely used or not, the GG retains the right to dismiss the "choice" of the Prime Minister, and is able to discuss the nominees with the PM (advise, encourage and warn); in essence, it isn't always an automatic approval of the name the PM lays on the GG's desk. That the PM recommends or advises the Sovereign (or Governor General) is what's commonly accepted, not that the Queen or GG obediently follow diktats issued by some imperial prime minister.

"Chose... for appointment" may not assert that he makes the appointment, but why be vague and leave people wondering just who, then, does the appointing? --gbambino 22:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether it's rarely used or not, the GG retains the right...[etc.]

Yes, I know about the GG's theoretical powers in the matter, as do most educated Canadians, I suspect. I believe that "rarely" is an understatement, though: To my knowledge, no Canadian GG has ever baulked at a PM's choice. As said, in practice it is a mere rubber-stamping. But all of that is not, finally, the point.

"Chose... for appointment" may not assert... [etc.])

The point is that this is not an article about how Canadian Supreme Court Justices become such. It is an article about Pierre Trudeau. Thus, in the context, it does not matter "...just who... does the appointing". Trudeau's picks for the court are relevant to an article on Trudeau. Exactly how these picks were translated into memberships on the court is not. That stuff belongs (and may be found) in the article on the Supreme Court. I already chose wording that carefully avoids suggesting Trudeau made the appointments himself, as a compromise with anyone worried about this fine point.

With regard, now, to your edit-summaries:

• "(Please point out what part of the constitution states that the Prime Minister appoints judges)"
• "(Please stop removing correct and valid information)"

Firstly, please do not use edit-summaries for carrying on debate. That is not their purpose. The talk page is for that -- which is why I kept saying, "See talk".

Secondly, if you must use edit-summaries in that way, please at least make sure they are not misleading, as both of those are. Taking them in order:

• I have never said, nor even implied, that the PM makes the appointments. On the contrary, I have consistently agreed that the PM does not, and I carefully chose wording that avoids suggesting he does.
• The truthfulness of the information concerned is not the issue, as one might assume it was from reading that edit-summary. I am not saying it should be deleted from the article because it is wrong, which it is not, but because it is irrelevant to the subject of the article, which is Pierre Trudeau. -- Lonewolf BC 01:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Gbambino is correct, the GG appoints the Judges, by advice of the PM. GoodDay 00:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's beside the point, and I've not been saying otherwise, anyhow. -- Lonewolf BC 01:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not beside the point; I understand your argument. Should the GG refuse the PM's choice, there'd be constitional hell to pay. Canadians wouldn't want an appointed official blocking an elected official (see the King-Byng Affair). Yes the PM makes THE CHOICE, but THE CHOICE doesn't become THE APPOINTEE until the GG's consent (ie, the GG appoints/consents ,the PM advises/chooses). Personally I'd rather the GG office be abolished (but that discussion is best, for a blog page). Until you have a varifiable source, that states the PM not the GG appoints the Judges, your version shouldn't be added to the article. GoodDay 17:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The old article didn't say that he appointed them. The new version would be confusing and misleading to readers that are not informed about Canadian government. I think that it should be reverted to the old version. --JGGardiner 18:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is confusing about the PM recommending a name to the person who makes the appointment? That is how the Canadian government works. --gbambino 21:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The current version implies to an unfamiliar reader that the de facto power rests with the GG which is false. The GG only has certain powers. In a technical sense, sovereign power still actually rests with the sovereign: the vice-regal powers are only delegated at their pleasure. If you're concerned about our written constitution only you should remember that it doesn't even mention the office of Prime Minister. You should also remember that our constitution is partly (some say largely) unwritten. The new version says that he "recommended" which is only true in a certain sense. In that sentence, "recommended" is a kind of legal fiction which you know the actual meaning of but a non-Canadian wouldn't. A non-Canadian would read that in a literal sense and think that he merely gave an opinion. We can't assume that readers have the same familiarty with Canadian constitutional government that we do. --JGGardiner 21:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The current version, is used for all Prime Ministers of Canada articles (except Harper, who's yet to recommend judge appointmens). Furthermore, there's yet to be shown any varifiable sources that claim the PM makes appointments of Judges (neglecting the GG's role). Let me put it another way, If the GG doesn't appove the PM's choices, the nominees can't assume the seat on the Court. That's is the way it is, you can't change the facts. As for outsiders, I'd recommend some kinda foot-note, that the GG is compelled to accept the PM's nominees. GoodDay 23:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The Constitution states that Supreme Court appointments are to be made by the Governor-in-Council. So, while sovereignty rests with the Sovereign, the job of appointments has been specifically delegated to the GG, and in written form, not through convention. What is also written is that the GG may appoint people to the Queen's Privy Council to act as advisors; the PM, the first minister (and "minister" means "servant"), is a member of the QPC, and thus, in all reality, Trudeau's names were only a recommendation, or advice, if you will.

Of course, by convention, to adhere to democratic principals the PM's choice must almost always be adhered to, but, as I mentioned earlier, the GG retains the absolute right to dismiss the PM's choice, a right reserved for extreme situations, but still a demonstration that the "choice" is just a "recommendation." I'm not sure the reserve powers have ever been exercised in relation to a Supreme Court appointment, but they may have been (we just don't know), and they've certainly been used in other cases. So, "recommended" is always the term used when talking about the PM's advice to the GG; not forced, or demanded, or commanded.

In this case, however, we're talking specifically about Trudeau, and the names he, as prime minister, put forward to the Governor General for appointment to the Supreme Court, and which were accepted by the GG. So, even if they were technically recommendations to the GG, they were his choices, and so I can concede that "choice", "chose", or "chosen" can be used. But, I will maintain that it is necessary to mention that the Governor General makes the appointment, otherwise readers will be left wondering just why Trudeau made the choices in the first place. Both proposals also, I noticed, could lead one to wonder if his recommendations or choices were actually appointed, or whether they were just put forward and dismissed. So, I venture to propose the following compromise:

• Trudeau chose the following names for appointment by the Governor General as Justices to the Supreme Court of Canada: --gbambino 23:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. This wording is an accuate discription, suggest you insert it in the articles of all PM's of Canada. GoodDay 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly a fair compromise. Thanks for taking my concerns into consideration. --JGGardiner 10:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then, I will insert this. --gbambino 19:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That might be jumping the gun a bit, considering that a main participant in this discussion (to wit, me) has yet to comment on your proposed, and now realised edit. I wish, now, that I had finished up those comments last night, but they shall appear here shortly. -- Lonewolf BC 21:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Submit for GA review?

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)princess_amidala

NO! It's far from good it's slanted to make him look good in all aspects but doesn't talk about any of the bad aspects of his politics (which it should). Not fair or balanced.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.36.194.249 on 2007-07-07 (17:22).

Please don't even think about submitting this article for a Good Article nomination. It needs a good deal of work to remove bias. In its current form it is a black mark against Wikipedia. Snieckus 04:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Buckskin Jacket?? Prussian helmets??

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)

The jacket in the house is mentioned in this page. --Qyd 19:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Qyd. Yes, I noticed this "sandals or a buckskin jacket" text mentioned in many, many Internet articles (much of the Wikipedia paragraph copied word for word in fact), but I was looking for an "original" source (e.g., from a biographer) that describes M. Trudeau wearing his famous jacket in the House of Commons. Que-Can 19:56, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

The same is true of the Prussian helmet/motorcycle story cited. Roger Rolland, who rode with Trudeau on this ride to a cottage in the Laurentians, said that Trudeau choose a French helmet from Rolland's father's collection of Franco-Prussian war helmets, and wore this on the ride. The Franco-Prussian war predated the rise of Fascism by two generations. However, Peter Newman, the Canadian biographer, turned this into the story of Trudeau riding about with a German helmet: see John English, Citizen of the World: The Life of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Volume One: 1919-1968, at pages 97-98.

Flag Question

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).Frenchllamadiet 19:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Frenchllamadiet

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)

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)

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)

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)

Feb 21 edits on his excom seems Lenten magic

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)

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)

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)

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)

Fidel Castro relating to religion

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)

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)

Accents

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

This discussion is in the wrong place. To have the accent restored the discussion should be at Talk:Quebec (see Talk:Quebec#Why not Québec? and Talk:Quebec#Revisiting: Quebec vs. Québec?) or Talk:Montreal (see Talk:Montreal/Archive 1#Montréal, Québec and Talk:Montreal/Archive 2#Montreal vs. Montréal - Should the article name be changed?). You will also need to read Wikipedia:Proper names and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). Once you get the consensus change there then this article can be changed. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

None of the material in the section about Trudeau's religious views is controversial. It's all in the very respectable biographies published in the last three years. Someone should look up passages in these biographies to confirm the accuracy of the writer's remarks, and footnote.Grant Schuyler, Toronto -- I forget what my handle is.

Rating of this article

Someone or some folks from Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada rated this article A-Class on the quality scale. On the other hand, Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography has rated it B-Class. I would like some dialogue as to the reasons for these ratings. I am familiar with the rating scale and find that, as good as the Trudeau article is in some ways, its lack of references does seem to fit more with a B-Class rating rather than A-Class. I am working on editing the article and adding citations, but suggest that we hold off on the A-Class rating for now. Thoughts? Sunray 21:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[cross-posted from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada]:

A-class is only given if the article is certified as "completed". Doesn't seem to be the case here, I have reverted it to B-class until the article is submitted for A-class review. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know if Mr. Trudeau has an e-mail adress to write to? I would like to tell him how much I really enjoyed his natural cures book, I was quit shocked at some realazation on the medical but new for some reason all they do is pill pop everyone, when I go get something from the doctor i get side affects then have to go get more to help with that, and so on, then I'm even more sick.

also I wanted to mention one of my relitives back around in 1975 was responsible for the security of the Governor General and the prime minster, then Pierre Elliot Trudeau, my relitives name is Raymond Cyr and is now I retired RCMP. it's a small world anyway hope I get a responce and thank you again for the truth fr annette Cyr

PS sorry for my spelling

Wrong Trudeau. The guy who wrote the natural cures book is Kevin Trudeau. You can contact him at the Natural Cures website. By the way, these discussion pages are for discussion of the articles not other discussion. Best of luck with your cure. Sunray 05:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Trudeau Naturalist

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)

'Fuddle duddle'

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Trudeaujustwatch.jpg

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)

Merge?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Result = No merge.

The lede

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)

Also, something specific, like being named Canadian Newsmaker of the Year 10 times & Canadian newsmaker of the 20th Century would support some of the generalities about his dominating Canadian politics --JimWae 18:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

"Why should I sell your wheat?"

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) was mistakenly inserted into the article and has been transfered to the talk-page by Lonewolf BC 07:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced, possibly biased, material

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)

Removal of balanced views on Trudeau

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)

---

Here is the section:

Criticism

Despite having a popular following among today's Liberals, many to the left of the Canadian political spectrum and in major urban centres, Pierre Trudeau remains a controversial figure today just as much as he did when he left office in the mid-1980s. A poll in 2007 by a Canadian policy magazine rated Trudeau "the worst Canadian ever", ahead of infamous convicted killers Clifford Olsen, Paul Bernardo & Karla Homolka, pop singer Céline Dion and Henry Morgentaler.[10]

Trudeau's unpopularity with many circles of Canadians lies in the fact that his policies often benefited some groups at the expense of others. The National Energy Program, for example, angers many Western Canadians to this day is still contributes to the poor election showing by the federal Liberal Party in Western Canada.

Trudeau also imposed a radically social liberal agenda upon Canada which decriminalized homosexuality, destroyed family laws that treated marriage as a contract and led the way to legal abortions, angering many people of different religions.

Many other critics of Pierre Trudeau remember him for leading Canada down a path to nationalization via projects like Petro Canada and some even believe that he had a hidden agenda to turn Canada into a communist state, as seen through his close ties with Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Trudeau is considered the father of modern Canadian anti-Americanism, which some argue borders on racism and is one of the few discriminations that Trudeau not only ignored but helped to contribute to. This was constantly seen during the Trudeau years given the rocky relations between Trudeau and U.S. Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, both of whom who have written quite critically of the Canadian Prime Minister.

Perhaps the most controversial legacy of Trudeau is the Charter which is seen either as his greatest legacy or as a disastrous document that has hindered Canadian democracy, led to the current constitutional crisis with the province of Quebec and been used by judicial activists and lobby groups to re-write foundational Canadian laws.

This is not a restoration of balance, this is an out & out hatchet job. It begins with an online poll by an unnamed magazine & compares him to mass murderers. The editor of this magazine has said 1>the poll was designed as a tongue-in-cheek exercise to get Canadians talking about history, and 2>it could also serve as an example of the unscientific nature of online contests.

It states as fact that he "imposed" his "radical" agenda on Canada, that he destroyed family law, and that he contributed to racism. None of this is sourced, except by assertions that "many others consider..."

While some of these topics merit inclusion, they do not necessarily need to be in a separate section - and some are already included in tha article. Sources should be scholarly - not magazine polls & not "some people think"s. As it stands, this does not merit staying in the article for even a millisecond --JimWae 06:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

South Park Movie

Anybody think the Canadians response in the debate against Americans is a nod to the great Turdeau. I am referring to the finger of course —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.79.17.247 (talk) 11:39, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Bias

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)

Criticism by Brian Mulroney

It looks to me as though the "Criticism by Brian Mulroney" section has expanded beyond its importance. Mulroney obviously has an axe to grind about Trudeau, so he is hardly an unbiased source. His examples of reasons why Trudeau "lacked the moral authority to lead the country" are weak and have been widely criticized. The section should be reduced to a paragraph with salient quotes from the book. The recent comments to news media by the bitter, ego-driven, Mulroney, while newsworthy, are not worth more than a sentence in a biographical article in Wikipedia, IMO. Sunray 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In my mind Mulroney's comments should only form part of a more broad criticism section. What stands now reads like a he-said-she-said tit-for-tat exchange (without all the hypehns!). --G2bambino 19:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree about the "he-said/she-said" tone. Much of it is just partisan posturing. The comments by John R. English, a historian, are more worthy of retaining (if we keep this section), as would be Stephen Clarkson's comments (which are not quoted). However, I'm not so sure we need a "Criticism" section. There is already a review of pro- and anti-Trudeau sentiments in the Legacy section. The problem with Mulroney's statements (particularly his comments to the media) is that they are self-serving. If he were able to sustain an analysis of Trudeau's contributions as prime minister, that might be relevant here. However, what he has put forward, thus far, isn't useful, unfortunately. Sunray 20:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

If the decision is to cut back this section, I'd be fine with it. I added the quote about Meech mainly because I didn't want it to focus solely on the anti-semitism allegation. It wasn't my intention to pad, only to provide a broader context to these very controversial 'Trudeau-Nazi' comments of his. Shawn in Montreal 21:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mulroney isn't the first person to raise anti-semitism in relation to Trudeau; I haven't read through the entire article for some time, though; are these observations mentioned already? If so, perhaps Mulroney's words should be added there. His other criticisms, re. Meech Lake, etc., might fit into the constitutional legacy section. Regardless of whether they're self-serving or not, Mulroney's words are directly related to Trudeau and come from another former prime minister. --G2bambino 22:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please give other examples of individuals accusing Trudeau of anti-Semitism? There was a reference to Trudeau's youthful far-right views in the biography that came out last year but the authors took great pains to put Trudeau's views in the 1940s in the context of Quebec at that time. Everything I've read says that Trudeau broke from the right-wing Quebec nationalism in his youth after the war (ie when he began to travel outside of Quebec and see the world) and that his later behaviour and attitudes are a testament to that - including a warm friendship with the Jewish community, appointing several Jews to Cabinet, appointing the first Jew to the Canadian Supreme Court etc. If the criticism is Mulroney's alone then it belongs in Mulroney's article along with the rebuke his comments have earned from many quarters. And to be more precise, while it was revealed last year that Trudeau was involved with right wing Quebec nationalist groups in his late teens and early twenties I don't recall any revelations about his having expressed any anti-Semitic attitudes in anything he wrote or said. If you have an example, please say so, but I don't think we should rely on Mulroney's memoirs. Reginald Perrin 22:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the recent biography is what I recall, though I certainly haven't read it and am only relying on memories of media coverage. That said, though, I by no means what-so-ever think Mulroney's comments should be taken as proof that Trudeau was some kind of anti-semite; rather, they should be included here only because they're specifically related to Trudeau, come from a former PM, and have garnered a certain amount of public reaction. I'm just not yet sure on the best place and most appropriate way to fit them in here; it's 6:30 on a Friday evening and my brain has gone quite dead. --G2bambino 22:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering the authors of the biography are quoted in the press today denouncing Mulroney's interpretation of their findings...

"Trudeau biographer John English, a former Liberal MP and respected historian whom Mulroney cites approvingly for proof of Trudeau's youthful indiscretions, said Mulroney risks having his memoirs dismissed, as happened to another embittered former Tory prime minister, John Diefenbaker.

"I'm afraid that no one takes Mr. Diefenbaker's memoirs . . . as a serious document because it's so overwhelmed with bitterness."

English said Trudeau's youthful views must be put in the context of the times, when most Quebecers were so virulently anti-British and opposed to what they saw as a British war that they were blinded to the evils of Hitler's Nazism.

A strong strain of anti-Semitism existed not just in Quebec but in Canada and elsewhere in the world in the 1940s, he added. Winston Churchill, the famed wartime British prime minister, was "racist beyond belief" as were many other world leaders who shouldn't be judged retrospectively to have been unfit to lead.

"I don't think it does any good to do this kind of historical ransacking to try to destroy reputations," English said.[1]

Max and Monique Nemni, who wrote another recent biography, say of Trudeau's early views "Little by little, he would throw off the ideology that had governed him during the most formative period of his life and come to adopt the universal values of liberalism."[2] - references to Trudeau's early views should not be removed from their context or from the views of academics who've studied him that these views were abandoned as Trudeau matured. Reginald Perrin 22:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that Reginald Perrin has outlined a clear case as to why Mulroney's memoirs are unlikely to be a good source for information about Trudeau. While Mulroney's position as a former prime minister may give him a bully pulpit from which to disseminate his ideas to the media, we as encyclopedia editors have to sift what he says through the reaction of credible sources. It seems to me ill-advised to uncritically add Mulroney's musings to this article. Sunray 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)