Talk:Justin Trudeau/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Inclusion of the fact that Trudeau lost the popular vote in 2019 and 2021 in the lead

It's pretty significant that Trudeau lost the popular vote but still won the election twice in a row, especially since it only happened five times in total. This fact can be expressed in a few words, so there is no case to describe its inclusion in the lead as a "overly specific descriptions". In recent history, Donald Trump's 2016 loss of the popular vote is featured prominently on the second paragraph of wikipedia's most consulted article of all times. Mottezen (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:OSE, and not particularly relevant to compare the USA's presidential system (where electors effectively vote for the president directly) with Canada's local representation system (where electors only directly elect a local representative, and selection of the prime minister is based on seat totals). This situation has arisen 7 times (not 5, per [1]) in 44 Canadian federal elections, or about 16% of the time. Popular vote is increasingly irrelevant over time: no party has earned more than 40% of the total vote since 2000, and none have earned over 50% since 1984. It's trivia that doesn't belong in the lede, and if it's going to be included in the article at all then it must be given more context: the Liberals keep winning with low total votes because Conservative support is concentrated in the west (they win fewer seats by wide margins) while the Liberals have mild support throughout the country (they win many more seats in close races).
To compare apples to apples, these are the 7 times a federal election resulted in a governing party with less than the highest percentage of total votes:
  • 1896: PM Laurier; popular vote is not mentioned in his bio's lede, but is noted in the result section for that election.
  • 1926: PM King; popular vote from this election is not mentioned in his bio at all, only that he earned a higher vote percentage in 1930 than in 1926. (King lost the 1930 election)
  • 1957: PM Diefenbaker; popular vote is not mentioned in his bio at all.
  • 1962: Dief again; Dief is the first PM to be elected with less than the highest total votes twice, though not consecutively, a fact which is also not mentioned in his bio at all.
  • 1979: PM Clark; popular vote is not mentioned in his bio at all.
  • 2019 and 2021: PM J Trudeau; what we're talking about here.
In summary: of the 4 other PMs (Dief twice) who were elected this way, it is not mentioned in the lede of any of their bios, and only mentioned at all in one of them. There is no reason for Trudeau to be the exception. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
The fact that they lost the popular vote is included in 3 bios out of 4 actually, at the time of you making the write-up.
The inclusion of this fact was never discussed on the talk page of any of these Canadian PMs, but extensively discussed in the case on Donald Trump [2], [3], [4], [5], etc. My argument with the example of Donald Trump is thus not OSE, but an appeal to this long-standing consensus.
Popular vote figures are not trivia, they are presented side by side with seats on WP and given importance in all election coverage.
Popular vote figures are just as important in Canadian elections as in US presidential elections. Both use FPTP on the state/riding/congressional district level. Under FPTP, the candidate with the most votes wins, but when you add up all these localized elections, discrepancies can arise between the seats/electors count and amount of actual votes cast. It's the same thing.
1962 is wrong, Dief won the popular vote that year.
I'm fine with adding this context on conservative support being more concentrated in the West in the "2019 election results" and/or the "2021 federal election" subsections.Mottezen (talk) 04:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@ "The fact that they lost the popular vote is included in 3 bios out of 4 actually.." This discussion is about the lead, not the bios in general. And I can assure you that at the time of writing, the fact that they lost the popular vote is most definitely not in their lead sections. I can't speak for them, but probably the only reason Ivanvector even brought up the times it wasn't mentioned in the bio was to demonstrate the craven disconnect between claims about the popular vote's sudden new-found importance, and the actual importance that factoid has histroically been afforded by the Wikipedian community. CASalt (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
"Both use FPTP on the state/riding level." No, they don't. States individually determine how their presidential electors are selected; at least two states explicitly use popular vote to send a proportion of electors for both parties to the college, and others are following. Nothing remotely similar happens in Canada, except maybe a few municipalities that are experimenting with instant runoff. As for Trump, a discussion about the leader of an entirely different country with an entirely different electoral system is not relevant at all for establishing consensus here.
"1962 is wrong, Dief won the popular vote that year. 1962 needs to be corrected. The sources in that article are dead, and every source I can find agrees that Dief lost the popular vote by a very slim margin. Our article seems to be counting fewer votes for Pearson than the sources I found. It could be there's a Liberal-Progressive (or something) candidate in there that's being counted towards the Liberals - sources differed on how to count votes for Liberal-Progressives and Liberal-Conservatives, but I thought that situation resolved before 1960.
"The fact that they lost the popular vote is included in 3 bios out of 4 actually - I already mentioned Laurier and I'm assuming you counted King, who is the other? I thought I checked pretty thoroughly.
-- Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I updated 1962 based on the government's open data, and you're right (the article was mostly right before). The source I linked above is counting about 38,000 extra votes for Pearson based on the percentage they gave, which is more than the combined total for all the other candidates that had "liberal" in their listed party affiliation (but weren't candidates for the Liberal Party), so I don't know what they're counting. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per trivia for lead - The concept of “popular vote” is basically meaningless in our system. Donald Trump article is horrible and not a model to follow.Moxy- 05:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose reasons as stated by other editors. Words in the Wind(talk) 05:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Substantially for the reasons of Ivanvector. I'm not per se opposed to including the fact that he lost the popular vote somewhere in the article, however it clearly doesn't fit in the lede. MOS:INTRO makes clear that "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" and that "Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article". It's also notable (though not decisive), as Ivanvector pointed out, that no lede section of any of the other PM's who lost the popular vote before Trudeau mentions that fact. You'd think if this was such an notable event that it warranted mentioning in the lede, It would've been mentioned the first few times it happened, when it was actually arguably historic. CASalt (talk) 05:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Irrelevant to Canada's electoral system and multi-party systems in general. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Lead should summarize. The, in this case, less than notable, specifics do not belong in the lead. Trudeau won the election with or without the popular vote. The lead tells us he won, the body of the article tells us more on that topic. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, for several reasons. First, it isn't an irrelevant factor just because we have a parliamentary system. We also have a democratic system, and if the electoral system keeps producing a government that does not come in first in the popular vote, that is a significant point of explanation about the electoral system which should be included in the article about the Prime Minister. His inability to lead the Liberals to first in popular support, and yet stay in minority government territory, is a significant factor when talking about a democratic leader.
Second, the fact that the Liberals came in second in the popular vote is cited by several reliable sources in their news coverage. If reliable sources cite this fact in their coverage, is it appropriate for Wikipedia to ignore that point and conclude that it is irrelevant?
Third, if the popular vote is simply trivia and irrelevant to a parliamentary system, why is the issue covered in the lead paragraphs of the Wikipedia article on the 2021 Canadian federal election? How can something be trivia for this article, yet important enough to be mentioned in the lead of the election article?
"The Liberals set a record for the lowest vote share of a party that would go on to form government, winning 32.6% of the popular vote, while losing the popular vote to the Conservatives as they did in 2019."
Finally, I am concerned that eliminating this "trivia" produces an unbalanced lead, because of the emphasis given in Trudeau's ability to bring the Liberals back to power in 2015. It is true that that part of the article refers to the seat increase, but ignoring his subsequent failure to lead the Liberals in popular vote is an equally significant factor, in my opinion. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Majority or minority not popular vote is what matters in Canada's system. Canada is the only "democratic" in the world in which a political party garnering less than 40% of the ballots cast can form a majority government (it's the norm here). Canada is the only country in which a government supported by fewer than one in four eligible voters can win.....and normally do..past percentages.Moxy- 16:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Question about a category

I have created a new category, "Children who followed their parents as heads of state". Justin Trudeau fits the criteria. But Editor Drdpw feels that the article has too many categories and that this category is trivial. Should the category be retained? What the majority chooses will be acceptable with me. Pete unseth (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

You may want to do a little bit more research on this....the prime minister of Canada is not the head of state.... he's the head of government...... as with most commonwealth countries.Moxy- 14:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I think he fits the *intention* of the category but not the actual name of it. As others have mentioned, technically speaking he's not head of state. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

He doesn’t fit the category as defined: “ This does not mean immediate succession. For example, George W. Bush was the son of George H. W. Bush, but Bill Clinton was president between them.” Justin Trudeau similarly did not follow his father. There were 6 prime ministers in-between: Turner, Mulroney, Campbell, Chrétien, Martin, and Harper. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

If George W. doesn’t qualify, then neither does Justin T. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

But if the category is defined as "does not mean immediate succession", then (disregarding the head of state issue above) shouldn't they both qualify? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This category has been nominated for deletion. If you agree that the category is useful, please go to the website and vote: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 24 Until this category has been approved, I will not spend time correcting the title to from "head of state". If the category is approved to continue, I will deal with refining the title.

Neutrality of this page

This page is not-neutral. A lot of missteps of Justin Trudeau is excluded from here, and to have a fair, unbiased article we must have criticism included. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Quotes that were removed

He has been termed as "a disgrace to democracy" by member of EU parliament.[1][2][3][4][5]

In 2020, Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull's autobiography described Trudeau as a "self-centred and a poor negotiator who is inexplicably preoccupied with socks".[6] Turnbull would also reveal that Trudeau was responsible for cancelling plans to restart the Trans-Pacific Partnership during meetings in Vietnam in November 2017.[7]

In foreign policy, Trudeau led Canada's bid for temporary membership of the United Nations Security Council. Ultimately Canada would lose the vote and Trudeau was criticized for being enthusiastic about his bid, but not having complete knowledge of foreign relations.[8][9] Meanwhile theopposition leader at the time, Andrew Scheer criticized the campaign as "another foreign affairs failure for Justin Trudeau," accusing him of "[selling] out Canada's principles for a personal vanity project.[10]

You sure your not bias on this? Will wait for others to comment. We have been here before a few years ago...why again now? ...every year or so your back. Lets ask all thoses that have reverted this in the past...@Paul Erik: - @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz:- @Bradv: - @Jon Kolbert: @Firefangledfeathers: - @Jon Kolbert:Moxy- 23:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Ah, "others", not "otters". Thank you Moxy; I was a bit confused until your edit.  :)
  • Hi, Sportsfan 1234, yes, I reverted the passage about "disgrace to democracy", and I agree with the reversion of the passage about the failed Security Council bid - because they were both in the lead. The lead is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, and not focus too much on particular details: MOS:LEAD. As well, the lead doesn't generally have as many citations.MOS:LEADCITE If something is heavily cited in the lead, in my opinion that is a sign that it is too detailed, and would be better placed in the body of the article. Finally, there is WP:UNDUE - the principle that a particular incident be given its due weight, neither over-emphasised nor under-emphasised. Personally, I think that's another significant factor for the lead - the lead should be a summary and shouldn't be delving too much into either highpoints or lowpoints of the artcle. That's what the body of the article is for, especially for a controversial figure, such as a politician.
  • So, turning to the first one, the one that I reverted, the comments from the EU MPs (and I did make a mistake, I thought it was only one MP; thank you for correcting me) - as I stated in my edit summary, I think it's too detailed for the lead. I think it is flagging a controversy, and one that has got a fair bit of publicity, so I think it should be included in the article, perhaps in the secton on foreign policy? (since it was overseas).
    • However, there is the question of UNDUE - who is saying this and how significant is it in the long run? For example, although you gave several cites from the EU MPs criticing Trudeau, you didn't provide context about how significant that was in the EU Parliament, which does not have a great deal of authority, nor did you explain who those MPs were and what their political backgrounds are. See this article which does provide that context: Trudeau faced harsh critics in the EU Parliament this week. Here's who launched the attacks
    • When politicians are fighting, it's important to put both sets of politicians in context. Given that these politicians are the equivalent of backbenchers who are of different political persuasions than Trudeau, we can't assume that they are purely neutral and unbiased in their comments. There is also a question of how much weight their critiques will carry in the long run. We have to give both political sides, both political contexts. All of which is to say that I think there is a place for this information in the article, but not in the lead, and so long as it contains information about the political motivations of the politicians criticsing Trudeau, so the reader can judge the dispute with the full information.
  • Turning to the second one, the issue of the Security Council. Again, I think that the proposed materials was simply too long and too detailed for the lead. And, I note that the lead already contained information about the failed Security Council bid, and there is already a discussion of the failed Security Council bid in the body of the article, with citations. That doesn't look to me like the editors of this article are trying to hide the failed bid; it's already included in the article, in two different locations. If you think that the info about Scheer and the domestic political reaction should be included, try putting it in, but I would suggest it goes in the body of the article, not in the lead, because it is too detailed for the lead.
  • Turning to the third one, the Aussie PM's critique of Trudeau, I didn't see that one when it was being inserted or deleted. Was it in the lead? because if so, I would agree it shouldn't be there. But it probably does fit in the foreign policy section, if Turnbull is criticising how Trudeau conducted himself in foreign affairs.
  • Hope you find this helpful. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't want to add any of this to the lead, rather their respective section. I made an error with the first edit which I fixed (by moving to the respective section). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Seems pretty clear to me you're no in position to take a neutral point of view on Trudeau. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Neither are you, if you cannot see everything I have posted is directly sourced from reputable sources (I am not sure about the first part, I didn't add that in, and have no objection to having it removed for now). Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Selevtive bias I would say [6].Moxy- 12:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
So it can belong on one article, but not the other? That would bias, was following your lead... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
It should be removed there too....but we are here talking about the additions here. Moxy- 20:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, do you agree about the 2017 meetings part from above? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Completely agree with your point Moxy. This user went on to revert some of my edits without an explanation. I don't think they're capable of being impartial or mature on the subject. Update: Jesus... the user is spam reverting edits now and spamming my talk page with warnings that actually make no sense. Guess I'll be reporting them. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
One, you left a warning on my talk page that made no sense, and two a 3RR warning after you were at 3 reverts on a single page. Please read what is being conveyed too you instead of blindly reverting everything. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Trudeau - a disgrace to democracy".
  2. ^ "(Trudeau) You are a disgrace".
  3. ^ "Trudeau criticized in European Parliament".
  4. ^ "A German MP Just Slammed Justin Trudeau".
  5. ^ "Prime Minister Trudeau called 'dictator'".
  6. ^ Fraiman, Michael (21 April 2020). "'Justin, we're not here to talk about your socks'". www.https://www.macleans.ca. Maclean's. Retrieved 25 March 2022. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help)
  7. ^ Thomson, Stuart (21 April 2020). "Worried about offending Trump, 'flaky' Trudeau 'humiliated' fellow leaders during TPP trade talks: former Aussie PM". National Post. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved 25 March 2022.
  8. ^ "Canada's failed UN security council bid exposes Trudeau's 'dilettante' foreign policy". The Guardian. London, United Kingdom. 18 June 2020. Retrieved 21 June 2020.
  9. ^ Johnson, Nico (18 June 2020). "BREAKING: Trudeau FAILS to win seat on UN Security Council". The Post Millennial. Montreal, Canada. Retrieved 21 June 2020.
  10. ^ Harris, Kathleen (17 June 2020). "Canada loses its bid for seat on UN Security Council". CBC. Retrieved 19 June 2020.

Anyone else find it weird his Premiership is in three separate articles?

There is Premiership of Justin Trudeau, Domestic policy of the Justin Trudeau government, and Foreign policy of the Justin Trudeau government. I think we should add the Domestic and Foreign policy articles into the Premiership one. Or else it makes his tenure really hard to read because readers will have to constantly flip between the three articles. Ak-eater06 (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The practice of having a separate "premiership/presidency" from the domestic/foreign policy articles is not an uncommon one. See the articles for Bush, Harper, Reagan, Putin, Evo Morales, etc. The premiership article should be about the government itself (cabinets, coalition events, personnel) and the major political events/scandals throughout the administration, whereas the policy articles should be focused on policy, things like legislation passed and foreign policy choices. CASalt (talk) 21:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
User:CASalt you have a fair point.
However, then there is Premiership of Boris Johnson, Premiership of Tony Blair, and Morrison government. All of the policies, scandals, events, cabinet, are in one, solid, clean article. There is no need to flip through between articles. Some editors justify splitting Trudeau's tenure into three seperate articles because of the ridiculous Wikipedia:Size guideline. This guideline has been criticized a lot (see talk page of that article) and was created in 2007 because back then devices couldn't navigate long articles that well.
Like I said, if everything (including domestic policy and foreign policy) was in Premiership of Justin Trudeau, readers wouldn't have a hard time struggling because everything about his tenure is in one article. No need to go to different pages. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
WP:CANYOUREADTHIS would be applicable. The article would be crazy long at that point. Wikipedia, and this article, are better served by keeping the two split. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

I need to change a few things, this is my prime minister and I want to shed some more light on his name. Sudfortia is cool (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
User has been banned, so I guess that means an admin has answered in their own way. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Some concerns

User:Black roses124 has appeared to make some concerning edits on Premiership of Justin Trudeau and Domestic policy of the Justin Trudeau government.

Some potential plagiarism, biased sources, and questionable expansion of both articles...

This user also has a history of warnings here User talk:Black roses124. Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Lede from years ago

Wisefroggy....

Could we get you not to restore a led version from years ago? Lede has been stable in this version for years. Pls propose any changes here first.Moxy- 03:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The subject spent several years in university after 2002. Please explain why you think that should be deleted from the lead.Wisefroggy (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
What he completed is there..also no need to list the schools he taught at in the lede Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead. We have been down this road before. Moxy- 03:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Why did you remove his other jobs? The subject spent several years of his adult life doing this, yet you see fit to remove it completely. Kindly explain.Wisefroggy (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Moxy said: "What he completed is there". No, it isn't. You removed the little tidbit about the subject not graduating from the engineering school he was enrolled in.Wisefroggy (talk) 03:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Again no need to list what was not completed or every job he's ever held... lede not the place for a list of minor points. Moxy- 04:03, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Several years of one's life is not "minor points". Devoting a single sentence to this is more than reasonable.Wisefroggy (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
"a little tidbit" is not Wikipedia-lead worthy nor are incomplete studies.The lead summarizes so we do not add the details of a life but the overarching, the general. Littleolive oil (talk) 04:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Not sure how listing all the places he worked or went to school is lead worthy......all in the article already were its due. Moxy- 11:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Moxy... "Lede (sic) has been stable in this version for years" is not a valid reason to leave it unchanged - please see Wikipedia:Quality control, namely: "To maintain articles of acceptable quality, it is necessary to improve the quality of existing material, and remove material of irreparably poor quality." Wisefroggy (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
. In Wikipedia discussions, editors may refer to essays, provided that they do not hold them out as consensus or policy. That said as long as your not filling the lead with junk the edit was ok. Moxy- 12:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not leadworthy since it details and the lead summarizes the article. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Why arent Controversies listed?

A lot of politicians have scandals. Justin Trudeau is no different. It seems preferential treatment to exclude any potential negative from a person's life and career. He doesn't have to be charged or convicted for it to be notable. SNC Lavelin, WE Charity, etc. Making mistakes in politics is inevitable, no one is perfect. 2607:F2C0:EA6C:DEC:8C8:7947:C96B:479C (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Read article .....or at least scroll 1 time to read TOC...
4Prime Minister of Canada (2015–present)
4.1Assessment of campaign promises
4.2SNC-Lavalin affair
4.32019 federal election
4.4COVID-19 pandemic
4.5WE Charity ethics investigation
4.62021 federal Moxy- 11:11, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

COVID-19 pandemic in lead section

Hello @Wisefroggy:,

I have noticed that you have removed the details on the COVID-19 pandemic from the lead section of this article on two separate occassions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justin_Trudeau&type=revision&diff=1101079793&oldid=1100350330 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Justin_Trudeau&type=revision&diff=1095221418&oldid=1095216878

I believe that the COVID-19 pandemic is relevant enough to be included in the lead section of this article, as managing it has arguably been Justin Trudeau's biggest priority over his last two terms as Prime Minister. Furthermore, there is also a large section detailing his management of the pandemic in the body of the article (Justin Trudeau#COVID-19 pandemic), thus making it WP:DUE for the lead section, as the lead section summarizes the most important points of the article according to MOS:LEAD. DeathTrain (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi DeathTrain... the content you speak of is this: "during which he has confronted the Covid-19 pandemic in Canada". There are several problems: The word "confronted" is opinion, not fact, and thus violates WP:ASSERT. The bigger issue is that the exact same could be said of any politician, or arguably any person on earth... we all "confronted" covid. This material conveys no useful information to the reader - ie. no information at all which is specific to this article. Wisefroggy (talk) 05:23, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Wisefroggy: I fail to see the relevance of your "bigger issue" point, as not all politicians or people have "confronted" the COVID-19 pandemic. These include politicians and governmental leaders who were not in office when the pandemic happened, such as George Washington, Barack Obama, Stephen Harper, Dalton McGuinty, George W. Bush, Paul Martin, etc. Even if they are still alive now, they are not "confronting" or managing the pandemic as part of their functions as politicians. COVID-19 therefore has a contextual time-based relevance. Failing to mention something as monumental as the COVID-19 pandemic in the lead section of this article would be like not mentioning the Great Depression in the lead sections of the Herbert Hoover or R.B. Bennett articles, when the Great Depression is undeniably WP:Due for those articles. Moreover, if you have a problem with the word "confronted", COVID-19 can still be mentioned if the lead section of this article if the sentence is simply reworded. I propose the following:

during which he has led the federal government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

This may better attest the content of the article. What do you think? DeathTrain (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Well duh, obviously George Washington who died 200 years ago didn't deal with, nor confront, covid; that should've been obvious. But even your proposed "during which he has led the federal government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic" might still be factually wrong: Dr. Theresa Tam is the chief health officer, and seems to be "leading" the fed's response more than trudeau (trudeau will usually defer to her on covid matters). Now, me stating my opinion that Tam might be "leading" is just my opinion... which has little relevance... but you understand the point: material must be factual. Wisefroggy (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Wisefroggy: The point about George Washington is just to refute your point that all politicians have confronted the COVID-19 pandemic. If you still have a problem with the previous proposal, here is another proposal:

during which he has overseen the federal government's reponse to the COVID-19 pandemic.

DeathTrain (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I thought that any reasonably intelligent person would understand "all politicians are dealing with covid" means current politicians, not politicians who died hundreds of years ago.
I still think that.
In any case, your proposal "he has overseen the federal government's reponse" is again, of questionable factuality: Who, exactly, is "overseeing" it? Him or Dr. Tam? If you are hell-bent on including the word "covid" in the lead (which is fine), take a look at the example you provided for Hoover - that one is well-written.Wisefroggy (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Wisefroggy: Again, the point about George Washington is just to remind you to be careful about your wording. It is called reductio ad absurdum. But continuing to dwell on George Washington is a red herring. From what I can tell, Trudeau and Tam are both overseeing it. I can also tell that you are not opposed to mentioning the pandemic in the lead section. Here is another proposal:

during which his government has responded to the COVID-19 pandemic.

If you still do not accept it, do you have your own proposal? DeathTrain (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Wisefroggy: No reply? If you are not going to oppose it, I will put in the most recent proposal.DeathTrain (talk) 13:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@Wisefroggy: Since you still have not replied, I added the most recent proposal. Thank you.DeathTrain (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"Joe Trudeau" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Joe Trudeau and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 8#Joe Trudeau until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Paternity?

Oughtn't there at least be mention of the popular theory that his father is Fidel Castro? We needn't argue here whether the theory's true; it doesn't need to be true to be worthy of mention.

For a similar case example: Ronan Farrow's article mentions the allegation that his real father is Frank Sinatra. 173.166.60.89 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

We don’t normally traffic in urban legends on Wikipedia. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
To give a longer answer, the Ronan Farrow article has (1) a quotation from Mia Farrow commenting on the issue; (2) a quotation from Ronan Farrow commenting on the issue; (3) a quotation from Woody Allen commenting on the issue; and (4) quotations from a member of Sinatra's family and his biographer commenting on the issue. By that standard, sure, we can include the "popular theory" if we have supporting references, such as (1) a quotation from Margaret Trudeau, commenting on the issue; (2) a quotation from Justin Trudeau commenting on the issue; (3) a quotation from Pierre Trudeau, commenting on the issue; and (4) a quotation from a member of Castro's family or his biographer, commenting on the issue; all supported from reliable sources. If you don't have that, it's just prurient gossip. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Numbered company

I wonder about the reference to a "numbered company" in the article. It strikes me as technically accurate, but sorta misleading. All companies have either a name or a number, but there is exactly the same basic amount of regulation and transparency for all companies, whether they have a name or a number. I've found that people sometimes think of a "numbered company" as something shady or secretive, like a Swiss Numbered bank account, where the owner of the account is highly confidential. I think a better term in the article would be a "privately held company". The shareholders and board of a privately held company are matters of public record. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Seems ok to me. Moxy- 21:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Correction

"where the following autumn he began attending the private Collège Jean-de-Brébeuf, his father's alma mater. The school had begun as a Jesuit school but was non-denominational by the time Justin matriculated."

SHOULD READ: "where the following autumn he began attending the private Collège Jean-de-Brébeuf, his father's alma mater. The school had begun as a Jesuit school many years earlier but, in 1986, two years after Justin Trudeau began his studies, the school became non-denominational."

As per: https://topprivateschools.ca/school.asp?school_id=980

107.123.53.26 (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau

it says it says PC MP do those 2 abbreviations not mean Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament? If so, it should be corrected. He is Liberal not PC. Claude M Carriere (talk) 18:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Claude M Carriere: PC indicates that he is part of the King's Privy Council for Canada, of which all prime ministers are a member of. Yeeno (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2023

Formally made the suicide rate go over 7% of their total deaths for the year. 2600:1016:B016:44C7:2037:FC6B:92AC:757A (talk) 02:36, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 02:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Needs updating to reflect RCMP investigation into his obstruction of justice

Needs to be updated to reflect hes being investigated by the RCMP thanks. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/snc-lavalin-obstruction-of-justice 65.93.214.95 (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Controversies

In 2019, Trudeau was involved in a controversy for darkening his face at a themed party at West Point Grey Academy where he was teaching in 2001. Trudeau attended a party which was themed “Arabian Nights” where he appeared in darkened makeup on his face, hands, and neck. In September of 2019 Time Magazine obtained a copy of West Point Academy’s 2000-2001 yearbook which portrays a picture of Trudeau at the themed party. When Time released the yearbook Trudeau apologized, stating “I shouldn’t have done that. I should have known better and I didn’t. I’m really sorry.” 2603:7000:9CF0:92B0:B02F:B1D8:BD9E:D3C6 (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read the article. It already mentions the "blackface" issue. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023

Marriage status is August not Sept 24.156.200.24 (talk) 06:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 09:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2023

2600:E000:4CA:49B8:B42A:E419:8574:E797 (talk) 02:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC) Richard Phillips pechawis  receives 10,0000 under payment never received for his contributions all payments sent in mail to po Box 23 Mont Nebo Saskatchewan s0j 1x0
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 02:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Change to Justin Trudeau's infobox image

Hi all,

I'm thinking maybe a change of imagery is warranted for Justin Trudeau's infobox? The current image doesn't exactly seem flattering to me for a sitting world leader, regardless of one's opinion on his current leadership of Canada. He looks midway through a blink or perhaps a sneeze. Would this be something we could do? Maybe one with better lighting that frames him a bit clearer? Aagarrido (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

@Aagarrido: If you can find a better photo that's compatibly licensed, feel free to share it here. I noticed that his Youtube videos are released under cc-by, and almost all of them have him centred, so that seems like a great source. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
How's this? From his most recent speech marking the start of Hanukkah.
[7] Aagarrido (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
@Aagarrido: I guess that could be fine, though it's a bit low-res. What do you think of File:Justin Trudeau - 2023 - P060471-887832 (cropped).jpg and File:Justin Trudeau Hanukkah message.png? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 17:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
The first one seems fitting enough, and higher quality than the one I grabbed. I'd go with that. Aagarrido (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Changed, thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 22:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
There are also many options at Category:Justin Trudeau in 2023 on Commons if you're looking something from this year. Yeeno (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2023

Justin Trudeau spouse isn’t Sophie Trudeau as Justin Trudeau is now single 198.91.230.77 (talk) 05:37, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. we already say that he and Sophie are separated, however, until we learn otherwise they are still legally married Cannolis (talk) 06:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Change of Political Leaning

It needs to be mentioned that Trudeau and his liberal cabinet are no longer considered center to center left, but instead radical far left. Otherwise, this article mis-represents the changes the party has undertook over the last 8 years. 104.234.53.74 (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

"[A]re no longer considered center to center left" by some anonymous IP. Not credible and an administrator could delete this section of Talk, right? MauriceYMichaud (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
"Centre" is how Canadians spell it. This looks like it was written by a foreigner trying to interfere in Canadian politics. Possibly an American, as they have a very skewed idea of what the Left, Liberalism or Socialism actually is since Trump the USA Overton Window has skewed gigantically to the Far Right. 2A00:23C8:8F9F:4801:2907:5811:E1F0:D9FC (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Source? ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 16:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Bias, I'd have to assume. Canadian Liberals frequently criticize his choices as prime minister as not being accurate reflections of the values of the party. Screams disgruntled American with some sort of personal vendetta against global left-leaning politics to me. Aagarrido (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree I don’t know how Trudeau is “radical far left” this persons idea of center left would probably be considered right wing to everyone else. I don’t even want to know what he considers Jagmeet Singh and Elizabeth May to be. Black roses124 (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Change: "In February 2018, Trudeau was criticized when his government invited Khalistani nationalist Jaspal Atwal to the Canadian High Commission's dinner party in Delhi."

To: In February 2018, Trudeau was criticized when his government invited Khalistani Terrorist Jaspal Atwal to the Canadian High Commission's dinner party in Delhi. Fierce Phoenix (talk) 19:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't think we should be doing that. That is blatant biased language and "nationalist" carries the same essential meaning without feeling or personal persuasion behind it. Aagarrido (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Well from what I remember it wasn’t him it was an MP not apart of cabinet who was kicked out later. Black roses124 (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Is the Prime Minsiter section really nescessary?

In the infobox it has the Prime Minister section, I think it's useless to even include it there, because he himself is the prime minister. 76.64.181.63 (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It is there to emphasize that he also held a cabinet position for a time while he was prime minister. Yeeno (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Deleted post on immigration and housing

Since becoming Prime Minister in 2015 Canada has experienced its largest immigration surge in 70 years, housing market challenges, lagging productivity and reductions in per capita GDP.[1][2][3][4]

These metrics were all caused by or influenced by the Justin Trudeau government. Immigration expansion happened under him as did the decline in real GDP per capita. Canada's population has increased by over 5 million since 2015 according to Stat Can estimates. The Census numbers are off by a few million. Sleuthman (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

"caused by or influenced by the Justin Trudeau government" not in sources or covred in the article ...pls review WP:SYNTH.Moxy- 16:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Concur with Moxy above. As I stated previously, correlation does not equal causation IMO. None of the sources given lay "blame" as I see it. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  17:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree that this comes across as SYNTH. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Concur with Moxy and Aloha27 above Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 12:43, December 29, 2023‎
Disagree, these sources should be included in the article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
In 2015 Canada GDP per capita was 43,596.14 USD as of 2021 it’s 51,987.94 USD according to the World Bank. Where’s the decline? Also National Post isn’t really known for its unbiased journalism… 142.113.183.175 (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
OECD https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=PDB_LV
(Subject: GDP per head of population)
(Measure: USD, constant prices, 2015 PPPs)
There's been inflation, so you much adjust for it.Sleuthman (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Many sources say his policies increased immigration, adversely affected the housing market (for buyers and renters) and decreased per capita income. Now, I am not going to find all the sources, but they are there and quite easy to find.--Sleuthman (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Perfect then. I believe this conversation has run its course and may be closed. No citation=no addition of the information in question. Regards,   Aloha27  talk  00:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Statistics Canada reports record population growth, more than 430,000 in Q3". The Canadian Press. Retrieved 28 December 2023.
  2. ^ Dawson, Tyler. "Canada's high immigration is driving down per-capita GDP: report". The National Post. Retrieved 28 December 2023.
  3. ^ Hopper, Tristan. "It cancels out every Liberal housing promise and then some: Canada's biggest immigration surge in 70 years". The National Post. Retrieved 28 December 2023.
  4. ^ Smith, Fergal; scherer, Steve. "Canada's losing productivity streak adds to inflation problem". Reuters. Retrieved 28 December 2023.

Federal Court Decision

On Jan 23 2024, a federal court judge in Canada ruled that the Trudeau governments invocation of the Emergencies Act was unconstitional in that it did not meet the legal threshold required to do so. The invocation of this act violated the Charter rights of Canadians by freezing bank accounts, seizing of property, arrests and detentions of protestors in Ottawa during the Freedom Convoy protests. UncleBiss (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Record on Antisemitism

While Mr Trudeau has made a lot of proclamations about antisemitism, the prime minister has spent little action backing up those words. He has not made any progress on security funding of Jewish institutions in the face continued vandalism. Jewish institutions should not have to suffer collective punishment of naive and misguided individuals because he has no dog in the game. This is a serious matter and it needs to be noted as a blemish on his record. It’s time we find some pointed news articles around this narrative and make sure it is included. His legacy needs to show this unfortunate oversight. 2600:1700:98D8:1010:BDB5:D622:C09:4285 (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Controversies must be included

Just like with politicians from other sides of the political spectrum, Trudeau's most controversial (political) actions should be mentioned, such as the freezing of hundreds of bank accounts of protesters in 2022 or the accusations of him (and his spokesperson) 'lying' after a Nazi veteran was given a standing ovation in the House of Commons in Ottawa, where Trudeau and Ukrainian president Zelensky were present. Schutsheer des Vaderlands (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a far left bias and is 100% bought out by the WEF. There is no surprise why Trudeau's controversies are not listed here. --38.49.167.105 (talk) 15:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
pls take 2 hours and read the article as per WP:STRUCTURE....see also Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism" section. Moxy- 17:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Justin_Trudeau/Archive_3&oldid=1213185286"