Talk:Justin Trudeau

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Canada: Ontario / Quebec / Ottawa / Politics High‑importance Canada portal WikiProject Canada Canada notice board This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario. This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec. This article is supported by WikiProject Ottawa (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. LGBTQ+ studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion. Explanation for inclusion in WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies: LGBT rights activistLGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 2010s High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Succeeded by: Mark Carney 38.59.180.97 (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done - Not until he's sworn in tomorrow morning.Wellington Bay (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.130.231 (talk) 11:34, 18 Mar 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Former prime ministers are members of the King's Privy Council for Canada, so the post-nominal of PC is correct. —C.Fred (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence: "He became the first sitting prime minister to break federal conflict of interest law" to the Summary section of the article. It was reverted with the explanation: "Unsourced editorial opinion. "He was sanctioned" is sufficient for the lede; details are in the body".

I contest this because:

1. It is not an unsourced editorial position. There are 3 citations in the body of the article from reliable sources that confirm this.
2. The notability of the sentence is higher than other sentences in the summary. That a sitting Prime Minister has broken the law is at least as notable as the following sentences that are currently in the summary: "He was chair for the youth charity Katimavik and director of the not-for-profit Canadian Avalanche Association", "In 2006, he was appointed as chair of the Liberal Party's Task Force on Youth Renewal", "He became the second-youngest prime minister in Canadian history...", "in late 2024, the NDP opted to terminate the agreement"

If the leader of a country breaks the law, and this is very unusual for the country, then this is one of the most notable things you can say about their leadership.

If you disagree, please advise how all the sentences in point 2 are more notable than the sentence I added. MensaGlobetrotter (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually turned out to be historically insignificant and generally not even mentioned in BIO introductions. It's actually weird the conservatives don't harp on this more. There's just no Legacy about it. Moxy🍁 21:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that this is historically insignificant. The Summary section explicitly mentions convictions, arrests or impeachments in the summary section of Wikipedia articles for Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Benjamin Netanyahu, Bill Clinton, Alberto Fujimori, Nicolas Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Park Geun-hye, Silvio Berlusconi, Ehud Olmert, Chen Shui-bian, Ivo Sanader, and many other world leaders. When Justin Trudeau was found to have breached the conflict of interest laws, it made global headlines on both occasions. These events should receive similar prominence for Justin Trudeau as it does for other world leaders who broke the law.

Further, it is far more notable than the other sentences in the summary that I have noted in my point 2. above. Those other sentences do not represent events that received the same global attention. MensaGlobetrotter (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An ethics violation is not the same thing as a crime. Trudeau received a reprimand from the Ethic Commissioner for inappropriate behaviour in this matter, but it was determined that it did not constitute a criminal act. This is why he was not arrested and/or impeached.

Furthermore he is not (as you stated) "the first sitting PM to break federal conflict of interest law". That dubious honour belongs to Sir John A. MacDonald for his involvement in the Pacific Scandal in 1872. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that an ethics violation is not a crime. Crimes are confined to violations of the criminal code. Most laws are not in the criminal code. I have not been asserting that Mr. Trudeau is a criminal. I have been asserting, based on reliable sources, that he broke the law. Mr. Trudeau's violation in question is a breach of the Conflict Of Interest Act. This is federal legislation, which means it is law. In violating this Act, Mr. Trudeau broke the law. Twice. It was a big deal and it made global headlines both times. All this is supported by reliable sources from around the globe.

I assert that the notability of breaking the law on two occasions, making global headlines both times, is higher than the sentences currently in the summary that I have noted in my point 2 above. Although I have received feedback in this discussion that seeks to minimize the notability of these legal violations, nobody is addressing why the notability of those other sentences is higher.

With respect, John A. MacDonald was involved in a scandal, as is common in politics. He was not found to have broken any laws. He resigned for political reasons to avoid a vote of no confidence. MensaGlobetrotter (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MacDonald was found guilty of taking bribes. So he did break the law, as was determined by the Parliamentary Committee that investigated it. The "political reasons" that led to his resignation was directly due to this ruling. In any case, it does not change the fact that your assertion that Trudeau was the first to violate the law is completely false. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with you as follows:

The sentence I have sought to add to the summary: "He became the first sitting prime minister to break federal conflict of interest law" has multiple reliable sources and is already in the body of the article (I did not put it there). I am happy to add inline citations to the summary statement per the guidelines for Verifiability and Biographies of Living Persons

I cannot find any sources to support your assertion that MacDonald actually broke a law. The Parliamentary Committee did not reach conclusions because Parliament was prorogued before they were done. A subsequent Royal Commission was convened. It did not submit any findings of any laws being broken. The Liberal government that followed passed the Election Act of 1874, which would establish rules for the future to clarify what are legitimate campaign contributions vs what is not legitimate.

If you can provide several sources that verify your claim that my many reliable sources are false, I am happy to review them. MensaGlobetrotter (talk) 03:00, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was also my perspective. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added additional citations because the sentence was challenged to be false in this talk page. I thought it was ok because other sentences in this article have more than 2 citations and even up to 5 citations. If you believe that more than 2 citations is citation overkill per WP:OVERCITE that is fine, but I trust you will trim the citation count for all the other sentences in this article that have more than 2 citations. If not, please advise why you would minimize the number of citations for this one globally reported finding, but not all the others.

Although Mr. Trudeau in reality is the first prime minister to have been found to have broken any of the many federal laws that Prime Ministers have been held to, most sources confined their reporting to ethics rules or law. However, they generally did not confine their reporting to that specific 2006 law, but to ethics rules or laws without that 2006 qualifier. This is the majority view of reporting and on Encyclopedia Britannica, so per WP:DUE, it is how it should be reflected in the article. Please revert the change you have made that adds the year qualifier.

For clarity, ethics rules in Canada that apply to Prime Ministers date back to 1973. No Prime ministers have been found to have violated those rules since 1973. MensaGlobetrotter (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]