Talk:Death and state funeral of Pierre Trudeau
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article has been improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of quality. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details on this process, and possible ideas on how you can further improve this article! |
Contents |
[edit] Contradictory
Canadians knew Trudeau had been ill for a while and the words, "Trudeau is dead," had been expected for weeks.
The news shocked millions of Canadians
I seem to recall the latter being true but doesn't make it verifiable :-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:23, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I got that quote from Peter Mansbridge, chief correspondent at the CBC. You might want to get the video, "Pierre Elliott Trudeau, 1919-2000," because it gives you coverage of the passing and state funeral of the former prime minister. SNIyer12(talk) 19:09, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- The second quote or the first? As it stands now, only the first remains in the article, but as I stated, the second was how I recollected it but have no sources for either statement. Cheers, DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:40, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
-
- You guys are doing great work improving this article. I see that SNIyer12 has a source for the statement that the death of Trudeau was a shock to millions and it is back in the article but now it is contradictory again to the statement above it that Canadians knew Trudeau had been ill for a while and the words, "Trudeau is dead," had been expected for weeks. How can that be fixed up? Is there a source for the belief that many or some (perhaps) Canadians expected his death? Or should that sentence be removed completely? DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I read this differently. It is Peter Mansbridge's personal reflections of the reactions of those in the newsroom that day.
They were three words we had been expecting for a couple of weeks, but when I heard them I was still shocked.
We had known he had been ill for some time, but only after his death was it made official that he'd been suffering from prostate cancer and Parkinson's disease.
- I don't see it as Canadians expected it for weeks. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Removing the other events section
It is not necessary to tell people what other events were happening that day. This is not a narrative. It is not a news report. It is an article on Pierre Trudeau's death and what else happened that day has absolutely no bearing on him or his death. The only point to including that information is to "give the story context" but this isn't a "story". It's an encyclopedia article. Major difference. --Woohookitty 21:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Trivia
To me, much of this article reads like a collection of trivia rather than an encyclopedia article. Am I the only one who thinks so? HistoryBA 23:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It certianly was when I first came across it. It's really come a long way from the sentimentality that existed in its early stages. I think a lot of the trivia has been taken out. Some things do give it context, but I think this is supposed to be a disinterested account of of the death and funeral of Trudeau. It finally looks, for the most part, that way. Good work to those who have brought it from the cliche filled and sentimental article it started as. Benw 06:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reverting
SNIyer12, you are slowly trying to revert the changes I made. Please stop. I am watching this and the Reagan article like a hawk. There is no reason to link things more than one time in back to back paragraphs. Ever. It's unnecessary. --Woohookitty 20:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Unnecessary and contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoiding_common_mistakes HistoryBA 21:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
