Talk:Justin Trudeau

Edit request

Could someone please clarify his education? Did he do a degree in engineering? Did he complete his Master's in Environmental Geography? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.52.17.241 (talk) 04:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Should article make clear that his school was a fee-paying one and that he had a highly privileged education. May not be obvious to non-Canadian readers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.36.121 (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Education

The article says that Trudeau began a Master's a Geography in 2005 and that he dropped out after one year to pursue the liberal nomination for the Montreal riding of Papineau. I am a little confused by this, as he dropped out in 2006 and it wasn't until early 2007 that rumours began that he might seek the nomination. He won the nomination on April 30, 2007, which is when he would have graduated from his Master's program if he had stayed in school. Nathalie Des Rosier ran for the provincial Liberal nomination, in 2016, in Ottawa Vanier, and won the riding in a by-election while she was the Dean of the Univesity of Ottawa's Faculty of Law. Considering this, it seems unlikely that Trudeau dropped out one year before the nomination vote, he could easily have completed his degree and ran for the nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.64.20 (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

NPOV Issues I have removed some phrasing in the article that didn't really conform to the NPOV standards. For one, some of the text [notably the "Canadians were impressed by his good looks and his eloquence, and immediately began to speculate that a career in politics might soon be ahead of him."] was perhaps more gushy than encyclopedic, and also wasn't strictly true [I doubt that many Albertans, for example, were too impressed by him]. --142.110.227.98 22:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)--

couldn't be put any better, as a native albertan myself 124.87.233.177 14:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Should the profession of teacher be changed? Jokerbewild (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

POV

Removed several sentences from the article's final paragraph that were clearly derived from POV and had no citations or information to back up their claims.

First was Trudeau's lack of public service. Paul Dewar, MP for Ottawa Centre, was a teacher like Trudeau. Such a profession is generally considered public service, not to mention the fact that Trudeau has campaigned for several progressive NGOs and humanitarian causes. Countless MPs, like Maxime Bernier, had spent the majority of their professional careers working in the private sector, which also doesn't traditionally diminish the assertion that they are suited for public service.

Second, the paragraph claims that Pierre Trudeau, and Justin, entered public life merely to gain attention from the media and in the public forum. Trudeau was asked by the Pearson government, along with Jean Marchand and other significant contributors to Quebec's political dialogue, to join the Liberal party and seek a seat in the House of Commons. The statement made is a blatant attempt at discrediting both the father and the son without any evidence.

The vast majority of Liberal Party candidates are elected through nomination meetings with an extremely limited number of candidates appointed by the leader's office. The practice only became largely significant under the leadership of Paul Martin, depite the fact that the party's grassroots remained in charge of nominating almost every single Liberal candidate.

I removed the section altogether. It was completely unsourced and clearly doesn't follow Wikipedia policy. There's nothing to suggest Mr. Dion would block his nomination, or that there's some giant movement of resentment against Trudeau himself. If someone is going to post outrageous claims like that, they had better have sources for it.Sima Yi 01:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sima. I wanted to do that, but didn't think I quite had the authority since I'm just editing from an IP and without an account.

Teachers are not generally considered to be public servants by political scientists. For example, they do not receive the protections and anonymity generally afforded to other members of the civil service. 38.112.96.231 20:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

User:38.112, you seem to be confusing public servant and public service. Is a teacher a public servant? the case can be made in either direction, but they do receive a pay cheque from the government of the province in which they work... Should it be considered public service? I think that is beyond debate, and that was the salient issue of the previous post. 72.38.235.87 (talk) 07:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Photo grossly oversized

Title says it all, I find the main photo in this article to be several times too big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghyslyn (talk • contribs) 20:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Information

Justin Trudeau is not the MP for Papineau. At this moment he is the MP-elect. He is not the incumbent, he is not (yet) preceded by Vivian Barbot. This is an oversight, and should be corrected until he is sworn into office. BostonWinger (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

correct, and has been updated. Feel free to make such corrections yourself. PKT 22:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

schools in Vancouver?

Didn't he go to University Hill school in the UEL in Vancouver? and/or a Vancouver high school? The bio passage only mentions he was raised in Montreal and went camping with his Dad, then plunges into where he got his degrees at.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Current Image Should be Changed

When despised politicians get images which cast them in the most positive light possible, I think that Justin Trudeau deserves a better image the current one. Many Canadians admire him and hold hope that he might be the man that his father was, and rival the government currently in power. The current image displays him with an odd expression. Let's find an image that shows him a better light (like that of any other popular political figure on Wikipedia.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurolanis (talk • contribs) 16:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The current photo in the infobox is one he posed for. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously. My argument was that it isn't a good photo. I've posed for pictures that didn't turn out right, most people have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurolanis (talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with the photo? It was taken by a professional photographer and in the information on the photo it says ir is a promotional photo. Trudeau is obviously fine with it if he's using it as a promotional photo, your argument is weak and frankly very odd. If you think the photo is unflattering maybe you should go take a picture of Trudeau, or contact his office to get a photo of him, set up a Wikipedia account and post a picture that you prefer. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems like a professional, respectable photograph to me. This is coming from a fan of Trudeau. 24.212.238.251 (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The image isn't terrible, but it is out of date. Trudeau has been keeping his hair shorter lately. And the Liberals have an official portrait that is available to use: http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/official-graphics/ https://www.liberal.ca/files/2014/04/justintrudeau-official-1.png Matsnowie (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Says there the copyright is held by the Liberal Party, Wikipedia can only accept free images. 117Avenue (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

PHOTO UPDATE : I agree with the other posters here, the picture seems unofficial and definitely outdated. If I gave a link to a more recent picture of Trudeau actually looking into the camera and a bit more professional looking could it then be changed? as long as its a free image? I'm not sure if this is an acceptable photo or if its free but just an example.

Such as perhaps - http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/images/news/201510/n_90144_1.jpg

OR

http://storage.journaldemontreal.com/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/jdx-prod-images/9be01afa-94eb-4835-91fb-00b95185aae2_JDX-NO-RATIO_WEB.jpg?quality=80&version=11&size=968x

We need pictures that we are free to use. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't make much sense, the Liberal Party has made official head shots of him for use, 95% of all world leaders have professional looking photos on their wiki page, Trudeau's is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.224.154 (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@PeaceUT: The copyright notice on that website states that images and content are covered under Crown Copyright unless stated otherwise. It also notes the use of CC under the terms of such a license for some media, but given I can find no such notice for this specific image, we need to assume that the image is restricted by Crown Copyright. I would also be willing to bet that any images that are licensed under Creative Commons will have an NC tag applied, which would also make such photos ineligible for Wikipedia's use. Could you please show me where you determined this image is licensed CC0? Resolute 01:03, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Boxing Match

There should be some mention of his boxing match with Patrick Brazeau. It goes to his character.202.131.233.59 (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/31/trudeau-shows-grit202.131.233.59 (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Support and added. I think it is foolish not to contribute said event to this person's Wiki page. This was clearly a unique and infamous event not only in this person's biography but also in Canadian politics as a whole in 2012. I agree that neutral point of view should be held and that all other attempts at BLP should be maintained, however mentioning details of the event itself does not violate this. Given that the video of Trudeau's knockout has received over 100,000 views on Youtube is a testament to the popularity of this event. Efforts should be made to best retain some mention and details of the event without its removal. Krazytea(talk) 20:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Unimportant trivia of the same value as the annual bets between mayors of Super Bowl cities - of no actual biogra[hical value at all, and assuredly of the same level as a Boston mayor having to give lobsters to another mayor as a result of an athletic contest -- in fact of less value since the purpose of the entire "comptetition" appears to have been charity. BTW, being seen on YouTube is not a mark of actual importance! Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The boxing match received significant coverage. It's definitely notable enough to mention in my opinion. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Will a hve to agree - still mentioned ever time they talk about him.Moxy (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree Collect that if it was just mayors making a friendly wager over some beers and trading lobsters it would be a different story. But to compare this to two sitting politicians strapping on gloves and punching each other in the face coming out bloodied to some sporting wager it is a different story. This was really quite unprecedented and notorious in the world of politics. Secondly why do some wiki editors have to come off as such assholes when the sign off, have we lost all civility by communicating on the internet? Anyways I will wait for some further thoughts on this. Krazytea(talk) 04:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The charity boxing match got essentially zero coverage outside Canada. Really. There is no indication that any serious injuries occurred or were contemplated. The publicity was intended to raise money for a charity. It was truly not biographically important. And was not "unprecedented in the world of politics." Cheers.

The problem we have is how prominent the story is in Canada - Its still being mentioned way after the fact like on March 7, 2013 were it describes the event as "widely publicized charity boxing" CBC.ca. You may personally believe its not notable - but the Canadian press sees this otherwise. Would also like to point out that notability is not temporary.Moxy (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The story received on-going coverage and is therefore significant. Whether or not it received coverage outside Canada is irrelevant, candidates for the leadership of a third party in a minor power generally do not receive much international attention. TFD (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like we have consensus so I am going to add it in once again. Krazytea(talk) 01:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-neutral tone and encyclopedic notability in Controversy section

I have deleted this addition to the Controversy, which in my opinion is neither neutral nor notable. The characterization of the original remark as "infamous" is not neutral, and the assertion that this self-described twitter "frenzy" -- a non-neutral and frankly frivolous term imo -- is notable for our purposes as an encyclopedia is not backed up by multiple reliable sources. As a regular on twitter myself, such "controversies" are as 'frenzied' as they are short-lived; it's what twitter does. I'm not at all convinced this hand-written note and the brief notoriety it sparked on social media has any lasting notability, but of course I won't revert if someone restores this with the NPOV issues addressed, and more sourcing offered. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Btw, I should add that I'm quite active on twitter and was a participant in the 'just watch' meme the moment it broke. Amusingly, a tongue-in-cheek tweet of mine was cited in another web news item on the twitter reaction. I just think that twitter is forever zinging one public figure or another, and that should not be confused with lasting notability in our BLP articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The message received a fair bit of coverage in the media. I don't know if I'd classify it as a controversy or not but I think it could be argued it is notable enough to have mentioned in the article. I don't think it should be deleted before others give an opinion. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to restore it, if you feel strongly. I would ask that you address the NPOV language issue if you do, though. Or tag it accordingly. Preferably the former. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care if its restored or not. I didn't really see anything wrong with the language though and I think you should have discussed it here before deleting it. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks NL for the vote of confidence on the language. I feel I have successfully revised a couple of words to address Shawn's concern's related to characterisations of the quote and reactions to its use, while remaining true to the essence of the item.hirenny (talk) 7:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Justin acceptance speech to the party

The fact is that he was just elected leader of the Party, and very few people doubt he will be Prime Minister. What he said to Quebecers is the most important thing he has said in terms of history, and it is how the world will judge his politics. That's why it belongs in the lead; it's what people around the world want to know about Justin Trudeau--not as to his political viability, but as to a matter of fact. -Paul63243 (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Paul63243. Could you please take a look at MOS:LEAD for explanation of how Wikipedia handles lead sections of articles? It's meant to be a summary of the rest of the article; furthermore, it must keep to neutral point of view (as with the entire article). Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right, of course; the fact that he said that belongs in an article about the leadership acceptance speech given at the 2013 Liberal Party of Canada Leadership Convention, not in an article about Justin Trudeau. -Paul63243 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC) And why bother leave the fact that "over 104,000 party members voted"? That fact would only have significance to someone knowledgeable about voting statistics among Canadian federal political parties. The significance is that he is more numerically and statistically significant than any other leader of a federal political party in Canada. Then again, such an assertion might not constitute a neutral point of view, especially considering the looming possibility of a coup d'etat in Quebec (sic). You've got to be kidding me with this mechanical-application-of-biased-interpretation-of-the-rules nonsense. As if most people glance at this article for some esoteric fact about when Justin Trudeau's birthday is. -Paul63243 (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Page Organization

It appears some things are getting added to sections where they don't really make sense and the page is becoming messy because of it. The controversy section now discusses his policies towards pipelines, despite it being a non-controversial issue. With regards to the paragraph in the controversy section, it says that he supports the Alberta government's policies more than other leadership candidates which doesn't make much sense. There's been a few things written with regards to Trudeau's comments regarding the Nexen deal and pipelines that say he was the only one in support among the leadership candidates, but there doesn't seem to be any proof to back this up. With regards to the Nexen deal he seemed to be the only candidate to come out 100% in favour of approving it, but not all of the other candidates were against it. On Martha Hall Findlay's website she said that she supports the deal in principle, but had some questions regarding it. I believe Marc Garneau's views were very much the same as her's, so they hardly oppose it. If people actually want to improve this page I think we should discuss a better way of organizing it. What sections are needed and what information should fit in those sections. Locking the page might be required for a while to get it up to date. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with ya. Some of the things that were posted I kind of wrinkled my face at but was leaving it up to others to suggest that this was perhaps a little unnecessary. Things are coming fast and furious now that he is leader, leaving it to trusted editors for a week or two is probably a good idea. Krazytea(talk) 20:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There hasn't been any vandalism since Sunday night. 117Avenue (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll be available in a few days to update the page. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not much on controversy sections anyway. I think it is just sloppy writing, and it can lead to a laundry list of stuff the odd person doesn't like. I would prefer it if such stuff, if notable, was integrated into the text of the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no such section in articles on most politicians, like Harper for example. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Predecessor

The article previously indicated that Justin Trudeau succeeded Bob Rae as leader of the party. Although Rae was interim leader, he was still the leader, no? Currently, the articles for both Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff recognize that Rae was preceded by Ignatieff and succeeded by Trudeau. However, User:KBillie has twice now modified this article to read that Trudeau directly succeeded Ignatieff, which seems to be a very tenuous argument based on the fact that the party's constitution defines the details of the interim leader position separately from the details of the "permanent" leader position? I think common sense tells us that Trudeau succeeded Rae, but either way, I think the articles should be consistent one way or another (and right now, they are not). user:j (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Stephane Dion's page says he succeeded Bill Graham and not Paul Martin. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems a little silly to not acknowledge that Rae was the leader. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

KBILLY: No. In response to, "Although Rae was "interim" leader, he was still "the" leader, no?" No. No, Bob Rae was never, ever, the "Leader" of the Liberal Party of Canada.

1. I cited the constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada in my edit. The section I named shows that "Interim Leader" and "Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada" are distinct offices.

2. There is no suggestion anywhere that Bob Rae was ever elected "Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada."

3. Since Bob Rae was never elected "Leader," it is impossible for Trudeau to succeed him as "Leader." The most recent "Leader" is Michael Ignatieff, so I would accept "Ignatieff" or "vacant."

4. Some mention has been made of the Dion article, that he succeeds Bill Graham. I submit that this is also an error, and Bill Graham was never elected to be Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. If we can resolve this dispute correctly, then we should make subsequent amendments to other articles to correctly reflect the succession of LPC leaders.

5. As to the point "seems a little silly not to acknowlege that Rae was the leader," please note that Rae was not ever the leader. He did run for leader, twice. Once in 2006, and again in 2008, losing the first time and dropping out in favour of Michael Ignatieff the second time. He also flirted publicly with the notion of running for leader again in 2013, but did not run. It is material, therefore, and not silly, to note as a matter of history that Bob Rae was never the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, despite his best efforts.

6. I respectfully suggest that I have submitted the only authority on this subject, the Constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada. Whatever others may think, whether they like Rae, or whether their "common sense" says that he was Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, or Pope of Rome, or winner of the Tour de France, it behooves you to cite some authority before repeatedly changing the succession edit, which I submit should read "Michael Ignatieff."

-KBillie — Preceding unsigned comment added by KBillie (talk • contribs) 18:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have had an issue with Bill Graham being listed as Dion's predecessor. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Rae was not the leader, Ignatieff is Trudeau's predecessor. 117Avenue (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Liberal party Wiki page seems to suggest that Rae was Trudeau's successor does it not? Liberal Party of Canada#History of leaders Krazytea(talk) 06:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Or what about Jack Layton and Nycole Turmel, I guess what is at stake here is the definition of leader, is it someone who led during an election, or the person who leads the party in parliamentary sessions. Both very different. To me the first definition is extremely limited and near-sighted. Krazytea(talk) 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

(←) I love the "Don't change this without discussion!" argument from editors who change things without discussion. Anyway, on to the edits and not the editors... There's nothing in the constitution of any of the major parties that asserts that their leadership position is "vacant" when there is an "interim" leader... There is an obvious distinction is how the individual was selected, but reliable sources did not assert that Rae, Graham, Turmel, etc. did not actually serve as the leaders of their parties, even if for a set and "interim" period of time. Trudeau was preceded by Rae, Mulcair by Turmel, and so forth. On a side note, based on the peculiar theory being pushed here, I think Gerald Ford was never even president of the United States... user:j (talk) 08:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

As per #3 technically Ignatieff was never elected leader, if we are being sticklers for rules, he was acclaimed. Meanwhile Rae was elected as leader in an poll between himself and Garneau. [1]. Krazytea(talk) 20:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually he was elected leader at the party's 2009 convention, it was an endorsement vote. That's neither here nor there though. :) Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the initiative of changing the "predecessor" section to read "Bob Rae (interim), then Michael Ignatieff," which I hope will close the matter. CJCurrie (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Ignatieff did not succeed Rae. 117Avenue (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say keep Rae there with a note explaining things at the bottom. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk)

To me the way it is is just fine. Anyone with any curiousities about the matter can click on Bob Rae's name in the infobox and it will navigate them to his page where it clearly states when and why he was the Liberal leader in HIS infobox. That's the point of Wiki and hotlinks, is it not? Krazytea(talk) 18:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I don't think it's a big deal to have a note at this bottom of the page saying Rae was interim leader following Ignatieff's resignation. Personally I don't care because like you said it's on Rae's page and Ignatieff's and the leadership page. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why not put "Preceded by: Bob Rae (interim)"? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:37, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot more issues on this page that people should be more concerned about. :) Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

That may be true, but we might as well bring this discussion to a conclusion. I see that my initial idea didn't go over well, and I can also see why: "Preceded By: Bob Rae (interim), then Michael Ignatieff" creates a confusing timeline. (I had meant that Trudeau was preceded before Rae by Ignatieff, but not everyone would read it this way.)

In any event, I think "Preceded by: Bob Rae (interim)" would solve the matter to the satisfaction of most readers ... and it would also have the advantage of following the precedent set on the Thomas Mulcair page. CJCurrie (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

How about "Preceded by Michael Ignatieff (Bob Rae, interim)"? 117Avenue (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Or, to kill any ambiguity:

{{plainlist|
*[[Michael Ignatieff]] (2008–2011)
*[[Bob Rae]] (2011–2013, interim)}}

...which produces:

Preceded by

Michael Ignatieff (2008–2011) Bob Rae (2011–2013, interim)

———Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It is not necessary and it's confusing to readers. Trudeau did not immediately succeed Ignatieff. Period. Full stop. The party itself and reliable sources referred to Bob Rae as the "Liberal Leader." There was a leader of the Liberal Party immediately prior to Trudeau, and his name was Rae, not Ignatieff. The infobox isn't designed to (and shouldn't be manipulated to try to) inexplicably shove in both the immediate and next-immediate predecessor just to try to satisfy a completely-unsupported-by-reliable-sources desire to pretend there wasn't a leader of the Liberal Party for the past two years for the purposes of Trudeau's infobox. user:j (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. No. There has never been another issue before with interim party leaders and I do not know why it is such a big fuss now on Trudeau's page. As others mentioned there are more important issues to focus on, there is no need to Liberal this and look for a compromise as it would just create a silly situation. Anyone who wonders about the leadership situation has multiple sources on Wiki upon which to draw from to determine the above. Trudeau's infobox does not need to include multiple details about past leaders and minor tidbits, that is what the other pages are there for. I agree to close the matter and move on. Krazytea(talk) 04:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘* Agreed. Uninvolved editor here via the DR/N. The predecessor, according to five reliable sources with a quick search, was Rae (with some explanation, which is covered in this article.) ([in French] "d'abord remercié Bob Rae, qui a assuré l'intérim du parti depuis la démission de Michael Ignatieff en mai 2011.") This looks settled, closing the DR/N. EBY (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

By KBillie: I have to continue to take issue. Krazytea - you ask why this is an issue here, where it has never been an issue with any other Interim Leader? No other Interim Leader (besides Ignatieff himself who was later elected Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada at a formal convention) ever presumed upon the title of Leader or aspired to it.

As for the DR/N, I wonder what "five reliable soureces" are more reliable than the Constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada, which clearly describes the Interim Leader as a seperate office. @EBY3321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.197.151 (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Pot advocacy and developing view

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/08/22/pol-michel-justin-trudeau-marijuana-pot-huffington-post.html

Details his admission of pot use while a sitting MP, and his change from demanding mandatory minimums for pot offences to instead fighting for legalization (as opposed to decriminalization). 216.65.182.66 (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I see from his twitter page this is going to be a hot topic. Lets wait a bit and see what more is said...as in a clarification on the position in more details that without dough will be coming. There is not rush..but there is a concern we get it right.-- Moxy (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Moxy stole the words from my keyboard..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to explain how you wish to change the article. TFD (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau's stance on legalizing marijuana was first made public in Kelowna, B.C. on July 24th, 2013. Currently, the WP article states that his transition from advocating for decriminalization to full legalization of marijuana was following Colorado's experiences with legalization, which only can into effect in January 1st, 2014. Therefore Mr. Trudeau's stance in favour of legalizing marijuana predated Colorado's implementation of the legalization of marijuana. Additionally, Mr. Trudeau's use of marijuana while a MP is relevant to his legalization stance. These corrections will be made to the article, with strong sources from reputable Canadian news and media outlets. If there is a disagreement about the accuracy of these sources, please post your concerns to the talk section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk • contribs) 06:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Article Protection

The Justin Trudeau page has received a lot of vandalism recently (today's 6 July 2015). I hope someone is able to request some sort of protection on the page as was done to Stephen Harper's page, to prevent further vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CentreLeftRight (talk • contribs) 05:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 Election

I noticed that there wasn't any mention of next month's election. So I added it. It's an important part of his CV.YoursT (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that we ought to wait until the campaign ends, unless something really big happens. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree we should wait till its over as per WP:CRYSTALBALL having unsourced guesswork it not what we are looking for. Even the press like CBC is still taking a guess at what is going to happen.....with no clear winner inmind. i dont think we should be adding speculation when the article clearly states " the Liberals a high probability of reaching the 170-seat mark required for a majority government. It is also not wide enough to rule out the possibility the Conservatives could eke out more seats than the Liberals nationwide......So, though the Liberals are favoured in the polls today, it still makes the outcome of tomorrow's election uncertain." -- Moxy (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

See Yogi Berra and WP:NOTNEWS. We can wait for actual results at this point - and the article cited shows a substantial overlap in numbers of seats likely for the two major parties. Collect (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's over. It's a landslide! So I added a "prime Minister designate" section which I expect to be changed to "prime minster" when appropriate.

Harper has already resigned, effective when Justin is ready. YoursT (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

He resigned as party leader, not necessarily Prime Minister. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 16:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a formality. Harper congragulated Trudeau on his victory. The transition has begun.YoursT (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Under the section on Canadian federal election, 2015, the article states:

"On October 19, 2015, after the longest official campaign in over a century, Trudeau led the Liberals to a decisive victory in the federal election. The Liberals won 184 of the 338 seats, with 54.4 percent of the popular vote, for a strong majority government"

Not quite. 184 out of 338 is 54.4% of the seats. The actual percentage of the popular vote was 39.47%, as per the Wikipedia article on the election.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Justin Trudeau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130313171356/http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/03/13/pol-marc-garneau-liberal-leadership.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/03/13/pol-marc-garneau-liberal-leadership.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Prime Minister-designate

We've always added office-designate to individuals who party won the most seats in any provincial election. We should do the same here, particulary as CBC news as projected a Liberal Majority Gov't. GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

As of 10:53 central, only 182 seats confirmed; only slightly less than 2/3 of that for Liberals. Not a majority for them. Ergo, no certainty Trudeau is the designate. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

We've always made these types of changes whenever projections for government changes were made provincially. Why resist this time? GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Breaching WP:CRYSTAL somewhere else doesn't justify doing it here.

Still only 203 seats confirmed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Liberals now at 130. Not even enough for a minority, yet. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

138. Even at 140, that's only a minority (I think). Though, I think it's certain enough the Conservatives and NDP won't be allying to allow Harper to remain prime minister. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Someone wants the Harper Conservatives to win! Need some homour to lighten the mood? :) Best regards, Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I certaintly didn't face this kinda opposition to my edits, after the 2015 Alberta provincial election. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

GoodDay, I was mostly aiming my comment to Miesianiacal haha Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I know ;) GoodDay (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Your attention is much appreciated. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we update the infobox, now? GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's pretty clear he's won the election. Should be updated now. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 04:20, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

171 Liberal seats now. So, majority. Trudeau is the one likely to be appointed prime minister. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Moronic?

Who added moronic to the article? I am not a registered user but someone needs to delete this. 130.126.159.201 (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Moxy (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Subjective point of view

I'm not a registered user. Just noted the issues 6.1 and 6.3 about Political Positions on Abortion and Religion seem to have been edited to add moral recomendations for him at the end of the paragraphs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.32.53 (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2015

Please add Justin Trudeau's template to Justin Trudeau's Wikipedia page !!! 99.235.156.199 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done added {{Justin Trudeau}} --Moxy (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a source that says he will swear office in November?

See title. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 22:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

No. From what I can see, the Nov. 4 date is coming from this article but, that's not talking about Justin Trudeau. Unless a valid confirmation comes, the date can't be there.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Trudeau said today in a news conference he held that the cabinet will be sworn in on Nov 4. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. A source confirming that should be added to the infobox so everyone knows. My question now is: Are we "crystal balling" by even just having the infobox? I obviously agree that him being sworn in is "notable and almost certain to take place" however, per wikipedia, "dates are not definite until the event actually takes place," so, even with any possible source, should we be stating it? Curly Turkey: I hope it's okay to tag you here; you were the first person who came to mind. Thanks in advance for any advice you may provide.Cebr1979 (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I try to stay away from politics articles, but ... the only thing I see about November 4 is that he'll be naming [his cabinet then. Maclean's has an article that suggests the date hasn't been set yet. The Canadian Press says he takes office November 4, but doesn't say that's the day of the swearing-in ceremony. I'd leave the date out if it's not explicitly known. Do other articles on Prime Ministers even bother to note the swearing-in dates? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the article says "Taking office: TBD". I guess that means the last source I linked to would be the source you're looking for, but it probably shouldn't be added until after the fact. Blue-and-red-garbed partisans could still assassinate him before he gets sworn in, judging from what I see on Facebook. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

That's the best date we have, but it's entirely possible for Trudeau to get sworn in as soon as Harper submits his formal resignation as PM, and then appoint a cabinet afterwards. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:57, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Well in parliamentary systems without coalitions its almost immediate (See uk and india (commonwealth countries) in the last 18 months). It needs a concrete affirmation not hearsay/presumption.Lihaas (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal political views

The obama article does not mention his stances on a limited number of specific issues, but instead is more biographical. Likewise, this need not highlight just a few issues. Alternatively, it could be placed on a campaign page for the recent election or somewhere similar.Lihaas (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Thomas Mulcair WP article includes a political views section. The Barack Obama and Stephen Harper articles do as well, although these are separated into domestic policy and foreign policy sections. Perhaps these subtitles would be more appropriate and consistent with other world leaders. this may be a better solution than removing 5000 characters worth of sourced content.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 03:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request/Clarification

This line

>In addition to taking all of Atlantic Canada and all but two seats in the city of Toronto, Ontario,

is incorrect. He took all of the seats in Toronto, Ontario (city proper). Thornhill and Markham-Unionville are ridings north of Toronto. 173.32.168.16 (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Seeing as the departure date (November 4, 2015) has been inserted at Stephen Harper's infobox. Shall we insert November 4, 2015 as the assumption date in this infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

148-seat gain is not in the citation but 150 is

Quote from the cbc.ca citation: +150 Increase in seats since 2011 election. This is also independently verifiable by looking at the 2011 election results when the Liberals had 34 seats and the 2015 results where they have 184 seats. Yet the 150-seat gain keeps getting changed to 148 for some reason. Dr.K. (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

The confusion is due to the Liberals having 36 seats at the time of the disolution of the 41st Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay. I was thinking along similar lines. It may be due to by-elections. But the origin of reference is the 2011 election not the seat-count after the by-elections. Dr.K. (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The Liberals picked up 2 seats in by-elections, one in Labrador (electoral district) in Nfld/Lbr (2013) & the other in Trinity-Spadina in Ontario (2014). GoodDay (talk) 02:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I suspect you are an expert in this area. :) Take care. Dr.K. (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

No probs. PS- I peeked at By-elections to the 41st Canadian Parliament ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Only an expert knows the right article to peek at. :) Dr.K. (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2015

Request removal of a reiteration of "the" in the following paragraph by changing this:

"He led his party to victory in the 2015 federal election, defeating Conservative Party Prime Minister Stephen Harper and leading the then third-placed Liberals from 36 seats to 184 seats in the House of Commons, the the largest-ever numerical increase by a party in a Canadian election."

To this:

"He led his party to victory in the 2015 federal election, defeating Conservative Party Prime Minister Stephen Harper and leading the then third-placed Liberals from 36 seats to 184 seats in the House of Commons, the largest-ever numerical increase by a party in a Canadian election."

SynapticHammer 11:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Done thanks for catching that Cannolis (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Trudeau is PM now

He's PM now!

Mhoppmann (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

rough work

I want to make sure there is an article for each cabinet member:

Federal cabinet of Canada as of 2015-11-04

image	name	region	portfolio	elected	notes
	Justin Trudeau	Quebec	Prime Minister of Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Youth
	Ralph Goodale	Saskatchewan	Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
	Lawrence MacAulay	P.E.I.	Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food
	Stéphane Dion	Quebec	Minister of Foreign Affairs
	John McCallum	Ontario	Minister of Immigration, Citizenship and Refugees
	Carolyn Bennett	Ontario	Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs
	Scott Brison	Nova Scotia	Treasury Board President
	Dominic Leblanc	New Brunswick	Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
	Navdeep Bains	Ontario	Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development
	Bill Morneau	Ontario	Minister of Finance Minister
	Jody Wilson-Raybould	B.C.	Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
	Judy Foote	Newfoundland and Labrador	Minister of Public Services and Procurement
	Chrystia Freeland	Ontario	Minister of International Trade
	Jane Philpott	Ontario	Minister of Health
	Jean-Yves Duclos	Quebec	Minister of Families, Children and Social Development
	Marc Garneau	Quebec	Minister of Transport
	Marie-Claude Bibeau	Quebec	Minister of International Development and La francophonie
	Jim Carr	Manitoba	Minister of Natural Resources
	Mélanie Joly	Quebec	Minister of Heritage
	Diane Lebouthillier	Quebec	Minister of National Revenue
	Kent Hehr	Alberta	Minister of Veterans Affairs, and Associate Minister of National Defence
	Catherine McKenna	Ontario	Minister of Environment and Climate Change
	Harjit Sajjan	B.C.	Minister of National Defence
	MaryAnn Mihychuk	Manitoba	Minister of Employment Workforce Development and Labour
	Amarjeet Sohi	Alberta	Minister of Infrastructure and Communities
	Maryam Monsef	Ontario	Minister of Democratic Institutions
	Carla Qualtrough	B.C.	Minister of Sport, and Persons with Disabilities
	Hunter Tootoo	Nunavut	Fisheries and Oceans, and Canadian Coastguard
	Kirsty Duncan	Ontario	Minister of Science
	Patricia Hajdu	Ontario	Minister of Status of Women
	Bardish Chagger	Ontario	Minister of Small Business and Tourism

In some cases you have combined portfolios. Trudeau is Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Youth. These two departments were held by two different people under the last government and have not been merged AFAIK. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration Canada already existed. I don't know if it is being renamed. TFD (talk) 07:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Minister of Finance Minister? GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

The article is protected, so I can't fix it myself, but in the 'Religion' section, there is a reference to the Quebec charter of values, which goes as follows:

Trudeau, a Roman Catholic,[148] has expressed opposition towards the proposed Quebec Charter of Values, a controversial charter in that city and elsewhere that among other things prohibited public sector employees from wearing or displaying "conspicuous" religious symbols, justifying that it would make the people of Quebec "choose between their freedom of religion and freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and their economic well-being and their acceptance in the workplace. That for me is a real concern."[149] The Charter was dismissed after the Quebec Liberal Party won in the 2014 provincial election.

What city? I mean, Quebec city exists, but clearly that is not what is being referenced here. As the section seems to reference the Province, not any particular city. Also, I'm not disputing that it was controversial, having witnessed it myself in the media there. But the fact that it was controversial isn't even sourced here, as far as I can tell. Plenty of people were in favor of the charter, it's a biased way to present it. It barely gives a mention of the entirety of the charter : "....among other things..." as if the charter mainly about religious displays. It wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.182.5 (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

fixed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015

I would want to change the photo into a more recent one Awesome7879 (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2015 (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. Do you have a more recent one that is free to use? Cannolis (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2015

(English: Justin Peter James Waterhole) 75.156.151.32 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done This would constitute vandalism.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Somebody's been reading Stanley Burke again, I see. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

quotes

Got a quote farm growing....anyone want to tackle this.... who's good at paraphrasing?--Moxy (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

DATE FORMAT in Canada

Since this article is purely about Canada, the date format should be DMY, as in 23 December 2015. Granted there should be consistency so if all dates are in the MDY format, that makes sense. However, this is not the format for dates used in Canada. Peter K Burian 19:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Peter_K_Burian

WP:DATETIES states that "Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article." That's taken directly from manual of style policy. There are 200 or so references in the article, all following the same format, which is why I changed them to the format the rest were using. I won't bother to change anything else, but all dates should be in the same format, whichever one the article uses. Cmr08 (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

One problem with the sources using different date formats is that the citation tool in visual editor uses the YMD format, while gadgets such as Reftoolbar and ProveIt (both under gadgets) uses DMY formatting.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's reasonable: consistency. I still feel that DMY is the better format for Canada, but I won't argue with Wikipedia on that. 174.95.157.129 (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that in most places and uses in Canada, MDY is by far the preferred style. It is also the original style used for this article, so it will take precedence. Though had DMY been the original style, I would have argued for it. Resolute 00:51, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

One of the key problems with date style has always been, and continues to be, that it's by no means clearcut that DMY is standard usage in Canada over MDY — certainly we see DMY a lot more often here than one ever does in the US, but we also see MDY a lot more often than one ever would in the UK. Nobody's ever been able to show a source which explicitly dictates one form or the other in the Canadian context; what we have had is a lot of subjective assertions which essentially boiled down to "this is my preference", with no evidence that either form is genuinely accepted as standard. To be honest, at least if the month is being spelled out in word form instead of the digit I see MDY a lot more often — so much more often, in fact, that I've always suspected that the real case for DMY has less to do with any observable reality of how Canadians actually write, and more to do with a conscious desire to impose Britishisms onto Canadian English whenever possible in order to de-Americanize it. That said, I will also grant that there is a bit of cross-interference from Quebec, because date format in French is "le 8 juillet" — but I typically encounter DMY in contexts that can be explained far more readily as "Speak more UKishly, crikey!" than as franco crosstalk. And at any rate, I'm the guy who originally proposed the compromise position that Wikipedia's "Canadian date style" should be to just stick with whichever format was used in the article originally rather than editwarring over DMY vs. MDY, so my own feelings about either style don't carry any special weight. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Justin Trudeau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100806223758/http://events.liberal.ca:80/Event/lawrence-macaulay-fundraising-dinner-with-justin-trudeau.aspx?Lang=en to http://events.liberal.ca/Event/lawrence-macaulay-fundraising-dinner-with-justin-trudeau.aspx?Lang=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Lacks balance

There are few sections on policy - it is early in the mandate - but the article reads like a hagiography. Trudeau promised to liberalize the laws on marijuana - what is not mentioned in this article is the fact that Canada is signatory to international treaties that prevents him from doing so. The article mentions the promised withdrawal from combat operations against ISIL, but fails to mention the backlash from NATO and the freezing out of Canada to international discussions. Are these being intentionally deleted, or have WP editors been negligent in adding them?96.51.16.28 (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Career before politics

It would be useful to know what he did before he went into politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.100.105 (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It sure would. It's a good thing this is discussed already in the article (see "Early life"). Sasata (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

It could be that the IP was wondering what else he did. TFD (talk) 20:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone split up some of the run-on sentences in the Early Life section? I noticed two egregious ones:

• "Trudeau lived at official residence of Canada's prime minister" ... "for the rest of the summer while he slept at his friend's Ottawa apartment." which, as only one sentence, comprises just over five of the eight lines of the paragraph on my screen.
• "His father originally intended Trudeau begin his formal education" ... "followed by one year at the private Lycée Claudel d'Ottawa" which is the entire paragraph.

I didn't copy the entire things because I didn't want to clutter the page. I'd fix it myself but I don't have an account. There's one more that I noticed, but it's much less jarring than the two I highlighted. I skimmed to the Advocacy heading and didn't see any others. 70.72.44.2 (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! Feel free to create an account so in the future, you can make these changes yourself. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit Request

Under religion, this wiki page implies he's a lapsed Catholic. It doesn't include the end of the quote from the source it uses to deliberately mislead readers. It needs to be changed ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.38.122 (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

copyedits

User:Littleolive oil just adjusted the lead to change "is the current Prime Minister of Canada as well as the leader of the Liberal Party" to "is the Prime Minister of Canada and the leader of the Liberal Party". This edit was referred with the explanation "take it to the talk page - it's been like this for a very long time", or something to that effect. That is a pretty weak reason for restoring a longer, wordier version that says 'exactly the same thing' as the new, shorter version.

Let's parse this since someone thinks that a simple copyedit like this needs to be discussed on the talk page:

1. the present tense of a verb - in this case, " is" - tells us what is going on at the present or current time. Adding "current" to "Prime Minister" is unnecessary. "Is the Prime Minister" can only mean one thing, so the modifier does not change the meaning of the sentence.
2. in this sentence, "as well as" means the same thing as "and". It's just longer. That's all.

We're not getting paid by the word here, so adding extras words that don't add meaning does no-one any favours - certainly not the readers.

Let's restore this sensible edit. Ground Zero | t 02:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

He's not 'a' leader of the party, he is the leader of the party. As well, saying he is the current PM is correct, while yes he is the 23rd PM, it I think makes sense to have current in there. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

" the" is a fair comment, and I corrected it above, but "current" is not needed. It would be incorrect to say that "Stephen Harper is the 22nd PM", because he isn't the PM now. He was the 22nd PM. Saying that Trudeau is the 23rd PM can only mean that he is the prime minister now. Ground Zero | t 03:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I won't argue this further after this comment but Wikipedia content must be "current" now and in the future years. For that reason, we do not use terms which limit the meaning to now. Instead what we do is date, for example, Trudeau is the leader in 2016 or is the 23 Prime Minister. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

I looked at many other world leader articles, you have a long task ahead of you if you want to change them all to read like the people are not in power currently. When people are no longer in power we can edit articles, it is pretty easy and happens usually almost immediately. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I've worked on multiple BLP articles over the years where the standard was to make sure the article did not date itself with the passing of time. No desire to fight anyone about it or run around changing other articles I am not working on. I happen to have an interest in this Prime Minister as a Canadian so have the article watchlisted.(Littleolive oil (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC))

Yeah, I don't think we have to worry about an article on the prime minister of Canada becoming dated. When Trudeau announces that he's going to resign, or losses an election, there will be excited people rushing to update the article will before he actually steps down. Ground Zero | t 15:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Trudeau's explanation of the how and why of quantum computing

A few days ago Trudeau held a press conference at Waterloo's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. A reporter planning to ask about Canada's mission against ISIS opened his question good-naturedly (given the setting) with "“I was going to ask you to explain quantum computing." But before he could get to his actual question Trudeau launched into an explanation of how quantum computing worked (namely packing more information into one qubit), and what it was good for (namely smaller computers).

His two answers instantly went viral. This is just one of the many hits Google returned today on this topic.

Is that sufficiently notable for the article?

(Trudeau was an English major who after a stint as a teacher in Vancouver went into engineering and from there to environmental geography. Not the sort of background that would have let him answer that question off-the-cuff without some coaching. Speculation is that he was coached earlier that day. Speaking as someone who was trained in quantum mechanics in the 1960's, who wrote a couple of papers on the logic of quantum behavior in the 1990's, and who has been keeping a close eye on QC since, my take on what Trudeau said was that his coaches if any weren't all that up on quantum computing themselves. One could pack a better answer than his to both questions in a single tweet. I had a shot at this myself this evening.) Vaughan Pratt (talk) 02:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I would say no. Independent of some greater, more notable context, this is basically just trivia, and is immaterial to his career as a politician. We routinely struggle with bloat on political articles as it is! Resolute 22:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Trivial fluff. Keep it out. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Good Lord, no. The media, especially foreign and social media are obsessed with his looks and persona. An encyclopedia shipbuilder focus on substance, unless we can find a reliable source that discusses this cult of personality that the media is building around him. Ground Zero | t 01:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's not exaggerate with terms like "cult of personality" - we hardly talking about the Kims. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Trivial in the context of a G7 leader. Maybe it could be added to the Perimeter Institute page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree with the "this is trivial" side of the debate. Politicians routinely stage photo ops, and routinely receive coaching or briefing before they speak on issues or topics where they don't already have established expertise or credentials (or even on issues where they do already have established expertise, for various reasons such as not being naturally good at public speaking) — that's just part of the game of politics, not something that's inherently noteworthy in and of itself. It would be worth mentioning if something noteworthy happened because of it — e.g. in the remarkably unlikely event that some organization decides that his speech on that topic has somehow earned him a notable science award — but the idea that it would already be somehow worthy of the amount of press it's getting suggests to me that we're in the midst of what used to be called a "slow news week" before the conventional media decided to become Buzzfeed. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Resolute and Bearcat. Would also point to our WP:RECENTISM essay. Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The consensus is clear, thanks all. Just checking. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Half sister Sarah Coyne

Sarah Coyne is missing from siblings list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.105.237 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Informative quotes from trudeau to use in the article

"I don't read newspapers or listen to the news. I figure if its important for me to know, someone will just tell me."

"I have a lot of respect for people who don't think a lot about politics, terrorism."

"We shouldn't call honour killings "barbaric" it's an inflammatory word."

"Even if ISIS did a Paris style attack, we won't fight them back... we will help them."

Some of these informative quotes might be of relevance here.--Omegaalephnull (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

We don't just add unsourced quotes. I fail to sed how any of this would improve the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's important criticism. And it is very easy to google and find sources. Do I detect an emu with its head in the sand?--Omegaalephnull (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I think you ought to go read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Listing quotes, that's not how we write articles. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a venue for "criticism" of our article subjects. We're a neutral encyclopedia, not an opinion forum. The thing about quotes is there are a number of ways in which that kind of content can be falsified or misrepresented:

1. a quote can be entirely fabricated. There is, for example, a quote that's followed Mariah Carey around for years about how the most heartbreaking thing about famine is that she's not as skinny as the starving children. But she never said it — it was concocted by an early, now-defunct pre-Onion venture into internet satire, but has somehow gotten misrepresented as something the real Mariah Carey once said in a real interview.
2. a quote can be garbled into something very different than what was actually said: see Kim Campbell, "an election is no time to discuss serious issues". Not at all what she said, and what she actually did say wasn't nearly as unreasonable or untrue as the alternate reality version that the collective memory turned it into is. It was still a politically unwise thing to say, admittedly, but what she's remembered as saying is completely different from what she actually said.
3. a quote by one person can be misremembered as coming from someone else: see Sarah Palin, "I can see Russia from my house". She didn't say that — Tina Fey said it while playing Palin on SNL, but some people now misremember the quote as being real-Palin.
4. quotes can be taken out of context to sound as though they mean something very different than they actually do. There was a US government bureaucrat a couple of years ago who got into hot water for saying something outrageously "reverse racist" about white people — but she was eventually absolved because if you watched her whole speech, it was painfully clear that she was not expressing an unreasonable opinion in the slightest; her critics merely isolated one sentence from the speech that sounded more outrageous and offensive when divorced from its context than it really was. See also reality show editing.

These examples are why we require reliable sourcing for Wikipedia content. We do not simply list unsourced quotes like we're Bartlett's Dictionary of Quotations; our job is to provide sourcing and context for why the information we include in our articles matters. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Electoral Reform

There seems to be some confusion concerning terminology in this section. Just to be clear, a majority of seats is not required for a political party in the current FPTP system to form government. A majority of seats is only required to form a Majority government. There is a large difference between forming government, and forming a majority government.

Also, PR is not used in the majority of democracies. It is used in only 35% of the world's nations. Adding the Weasel word mature does not make this statement true either, as how does one define mature?

Most importantly, in accordance with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, this content should be written with a disinterested tone. It must not be written as an opinion-based essay for or against electoral reform. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Patar knight,

Thank you for correcting the terminology in regards to a majority governemnent.

However, PR is still not used in the majority of nations, nor is it used in the majority of democracies (see above). Adding the weasel word "mature" does not change this fact. For this information to be included, the source would need to provide a definition for 'mature democracies'. Does this mean democracies which have existed for more than 50 years, 100 years, or 200 years? The source would also need to include a list of nations which qualify as democracies (i.e. not communist countries like North Korea), and provide a comparison chart. As of right now, no source exists which supports this statement.

Lastly, this section should not be a persuasive essay in favour of PR. Please review the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy in regards to undue influence, balance, and impartial tone. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 05:29, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2016

I want to edit this please— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:e008:43:24a0:f8c7:3c8d:25e:3ada (talk • contribs) 07:30, 11 May 2016‎

Not done: Your offer is appreciated, but please read up on how edit requests worked. JWNoctis^{talk to me} 00:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Approval Rating

I think Justin Trudeau's approval rating and the public's opinion on him should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.159.157.246 (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2016

The read date in the spoken wikipedia template is given as 2016-22-02. Obviously, what is meant is 2016-02-22. Please change. Thank you. nats-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/SWC/ 80.171.71.39 (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I changed it as per the request. I don't think I've ever seem a YYYY-DD-MM, but if anyone wants to revert, feel free to do so. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Sir Joseph: the day-first vs. month-first issue definitely comes into play if the year is being placed at the end of the construction, but if you're putting the year first then it's always year-month-day and never year-day-month. Bearcat (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Deal with Saudi Arabia

I have reverted the second, abbreviated, addition of the Saudi arms deal. Part of the reason for the revert is in my edit summary. I also think that the Saudi arms deal would be undue weight to add to this article. Dr. K. 17:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the publishers of The Globe and Mail, Toronto Star, The Montreal Gazette, The Vancouver Sun or CBC News think the story is relevant, I see no reason why we shouldn't. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

As I explained in my edit summary and I also repeat here, your edit: In April 2016, Trudeau has defended the $15-billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia as "a matter of principle. does not make any sense to the reader since there is no prior mention of the Saudi arms deal anywhere in the article. So to mention the deal in a vacuum, without mentioning the details of the deal or the surrounding controversy about it, is confusing to the reader. But by the time we explain all this, it would be WP:UNDUE since this is a biographical article and not a Trudeau government policy article. Having said that, I realise fully that you are very likely not to agree with my rationale, so instead of going back and forth in vain, I would wait for other editors to chime in so as to gauge consensus on this matter. Dr. K. 19:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If we start listing every single policy position the government takes or every single piece of legislation the government proposes this article is going to get very big very fast. I think any mention of this, currently is WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

However, Trudeau's policy toward Saudi Arabia has been met with strong criticism, see the first addition of the Saudi arms deal.

• What the Saudi arms deal says about Trudeau’s foreign policy
• Updated: Why should Trudeau re-think the Saudi arms deal? Because it's 2016
• The Trudeau government’s Saudi hypocrisy
• Human rights groups ask Trudeau to end ‘immoral’ arms deal with Saudi Arabia
• Trudeau won’t back off Saudi arms sale despite warning from Amnesty
• Michael Den Tandt: Trudeau Liberals should pull the Saudi arms deal and find another buyer
• As Liberals defend Saudi arms deal, U.S. report highlights human rights concerns
• Saudi arms deal tests Canada's 'boy scout' image -- Tobby72 (talk) 21:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The first addition was too much. On balance, I still think that adding the full background of this controversy will be be undue for this biography due to the large volume of the text needed to explain it adequately and also due to the fact that the controversy was not very significant compared to the body of issues facing Trudeau's foreign policy. Dr. K. 22:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ancestors

The part of the early life section talking about Trudeau's ancestors is ridiculously long and should either be shortened greatly or removed. --Kuzwa (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this is an article on Justin Trudeau, not his ancestry. I've cut down the section appropriately. If someone wants to create an Ancestry of Justin Trudeau or Trudeau family page with this information and add a {{main}} link to it here, they should feel free to do that. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

good call. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

If nothing else, if you are going to remove it, make it accurate. It's ancestry is also ingenious to Nias Island, which are not same Malay. I'm guessing North Americans not care, but William Farquhar connection has been mention in several Singapore media outlets have reported on it. Cladeal832 (talk) 06:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Superhero

Marvel Comics. Please add this. --74.190.107.124 (talk) 04:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Justin Trudeau. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512064059/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=ebc9fd2f-3f9b-4c33-8c5c-43f804b9bb76 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=ebc9fd2f-3f9b-4c33-8c5c-43f804b9bb76
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140614071015/http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=702673aa-fed1-4cfb-af94-3ed54d57a57d&k=63212&p=1 to http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=702673aa-fed1-4cfb-af94-3ed54d57a57d&k=63212&p=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120630014520/http://www.liberalcalgary.ca:80/node/153 to http://www.liberalcalgary.ca/node/153
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140426140534/http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=ac33a9de-1ebc-47c7-960a-43df367acd07 to http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=ac33a9de-1ebc-47c7-960a-43df367acd07
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121105100457/http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=9b14c1bf-e87a-40a6-8053-564930d09ed9 to http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=9b14c1bf-e87a-40a6-8053-564930d09ed9
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120930121934/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/28/andrew-coyne-the-son-is-not-the-father-and-the-future-is-not-buried-in-the-past/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/09/28/andrew-coyne-the-son-is-not-the-father-and-the-future-is-not-buried-in-the-past
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130216235606/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com:80/2013/02/14/kelly-mcparland-marc-garneau-challenges-justin-trudeau-to-take-a-stand-any-stand/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/02/14/kelly-mcparland-marc-garneau-challenges-justin-trudeau-to-take-a-stand-any-stand/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140816071049/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/21/john-ivison-why-justin-trudeaus-new-guiding-light-could-have-a-dramatic-impact-on-canadian-public-policy/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/21/john-ivison-why-justin-trudeaus-new-guiding-light-could-have-a-dramatic-impact-on-canadian-public-policy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

great-great-etc-grandson of William Farquhar

This relationship is listed twice, once in Ancestry and birth, then again in Personal life. Surely this genealogical ephemera isn't that important that it merits duplication. I would further suggest that when we are talking about this many generations, the precise number becomes unimportant, and he can simply be described as a "descendant" of Farquhar rather than using the awkward "great-great-great-great-great-grandson" or "5th-great-grandson" formulations. 50.37.121.232 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. See above, Talk:Justin_Trudeau#Ancestors, for more on how long the ancestry section used to be. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Books on Trudeau

Hi,

I think we should add a list of books on Trudeau. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.149.36.178 (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2016

From: Justin Pierre James Trudeau PC MP (born December 25, 1971) is a Canadian politician.

To: Justin Pierre James Trudeau PC MP (born December 25, 1971) is a Canadian politician and the current Canadian Prime Minister. Kteckca (talk) 10:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: 23rd and current is right next to it in the second sentence. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2017

Add under siblings Step sister Sarah Coyne. </ref> 2607:FEA8:1CDF:F854:D00:DA2F:1287:C5B7 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2017 (UTC)