Talk:Pierre Trudeau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada
 This article is part of WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Politics in Canada. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
A This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
  • Archive 1

    September 2003 through October 2006
Flag of Quebec This article is part of WikiProject Quebec, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Quebec. If you would like to participate, you can improve the article attached to this page or sign up and contribute to more articles.

Contents


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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:
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)

[edit] 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

[edit] Buckskin Jacket??

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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/e/Talk%7EPierre_Trudeau_df1b.html"