Talk:Tommy Douglas

Contradiction

In the Winnipeg General Strike article it states that there had been one death, yet in this article it says Douglas witnessed two deaths. I don't know which one is right, but this should be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.41.53 (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Boxing Champ

Tommy was a lightwieght boxing champ in Manitoba, that should be in there.

Problems with the article

I am not familiar enough with Douglas to know the correct particulars, though I do recognize some errors..

• The article says he returned to Winnipeg in 1920, however he was there for the Winnipeg General Strike in 1919.

• It says medicare was introduced during his first term, however it was introduced during his last! In fact, though the laws were passed under his administration, they did not take effect until after he had left the premier's office and moved to federal politics

There may well be other errors that I am not familiar with, someone who is more familiar with Douglas ought to repair this. - Jord 17:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's a difference between hospital insurance (which the article says was introduced in Douglas's first term, not medicare as you say) and medicare. The first dealt only with hospitalization, the second with all medical care. HistoryBA 16:32, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Douglas' original medicare did not cover anything near the broad number of services that are covered today. - Jord 19:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Privy Councillor

User:216.249.6.205 added a question mark to "He became a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada in 1984" with the summary "parl website says PC and Hon on his page, bu not listed as on privy council. Anyone know?". Everyking made it a comment hidden from readers, visible to editors (<!--comment goes here-->) it with the summary "questions on the talk page. i'll comment out your question mark so future editors can see it, but not readers". I trust he's not listed on the Privy Council only if it's a list of living Privy Councillors. Samaritan 07:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See webpage Historical member of the HoC

It says here "DOUGLAS, Thomas Clement (Tommy), P.C., B.A., M.A., LL.D.(Hon.)"

However see page list of privy council (past and present)

Tommy is not listed, however a few websites say he became a member in 1984.

That is why I added the question mark

216.249.6.205

One place I have seen it is here: [1]. However you are correct it should be listed here: [2] but it is not.

--YUL89YYZ 18:01, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Rideau Hall's list of Order of Canada recipients says that he was "P.C." HistoryBA 22:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I had the same question back when I worked at the Provincial Legislature. I contacted the federal Privy Council Office, and they have no record of Tommy ever being a member. ThePrairieDawg 04:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

According to this list he was nominated by PM Mulroney: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Queen%27s_Privy_Council_for_Canada_%281968%E2%80%932011%29 --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Added citation for his naming to the Privy Council. "Douglas named to Privy Council" on page D14 of the 30 November 1984 Toronto Star.--Abebenjoe (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Resources

Here's a small list of resources that can be used to improve the current article. Add anything you find that has relavence and merit.

• CBC: Tommy Douglas and the NDP
• CBC: Tommy Douglas and the NDP 2
• Canadian Medicine: Doctors and Discoveries
• Tommy Douglas A Remarkable Canadian
• The Tommy Douglas Institute

Notes

A couple of notes: I heard that Douglas supported the Eugenics movement. Not sure if this is true. Also, Douglas had an interesting view on homosexuality, speaking about it in the 1968 debate. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Eugenics, I'll quote from Walter Stewart's biography, page 79: "At McMaster, he produced a forty-three page M.A. thesis entitled "The Mentally and Morally Subnormal Family," based on a study of the Weyburn district. It not only embraced the notion of sterilizing mentally handicapped people, it wanted to extend the same courtesy to the morally deficient."

Now, an excerpt from Douglas's thesis quoted in the biography: "Surely, the continued policy of allowing the subnormal family to bring into the world large numbers of individuals to fill our jails and our mental institutions, and to live upon public charity, is one of consummate folly."

However Stewart's biography goes on to note that once he became Premier he was presented with a choice of implimenting some policies of sterilization on the mentally handicapped and he rejected them.

So in overview, yes at a time prior to World War II he believed in a degree of eugenics, but during and after the war there is no evidence that he continued to hold those views. I don't have the time right now to properly write these details into the article myself, but I wanted to try to answer your question. Kurieeto 15:46, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

On an added note, I see that his famous quote from the '68 debate was already on his wiki quotes page. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The references on the eugenics issue sourced to Stewart's biography of M.J. Coldwell are in fact from Margoshes (pp. 62-63) and McLaren (pp. 7-9 and 166-167). Perhaps someone more expert than I in editing Wikipedia articles could enter the corrections. All three books can be consulted on archive.org

Merge

Tommy douglas birthday does not appear to be a holiday, and I wouldn't think merits it's own article. Perhaps it could be merged here?--Esprit15d 15:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't deserve to be merged; it deserves to be deleted as sub-literate. CJCurrie 19:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Extra Degrees

Tommy Douglas does in fact have all of the degrees that I recently appended to his list. This is not vandalism as it was originally perceived, I believe it would strongly benefit the Wikipedia community to leave in this more detailed discussion of Dr. Chili. Douglas's accomplishments.

• Sorry, I'm pretty sure most people don't consider LSD a degree Liamkf 05:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• I'm so sorry, you're right. LSD (the Louisiana Scientologist's Degree) is not given, sadly, at any accredited universities. I have removed it from the list.

Weyburn Calvary Baptist Church

The current link directs to the "Calvary Baptist Church" in New York City, not the one Douglas was ministering. Would anyone could initiate an article for the Calvary Baptist Church in Weyburn, Saskatchewan, and correct the link? Investorjoe 12:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

How accurate was the movie?

Did Dr. Moulds exist? How about that Agriculture Minister, and was he really that evil? And I'd like to add I somehow doubt he missed his wife's 9-month pregnancy. That was odd. Any other untruths? - Darkhawk

Vandalism/reversions of true excerpts of Douglas' thesis

Care to enlighten us as to why you reverted information concerning Tommy Douglas' Masters' thesis, including his abhorrent views towards what he termed the "subnormal" family?

Just reverting an article is hardly acceptable, unless you have evidence to suggest that the addition is not within wiki guidelines, is untrue, or is outside of the context of the article. I have reverted your edits, and expect that if you care to rebut or expand upon them, that you do so.

Insofar as your 'classes' are concerned, be careful -- many professiors, especially of political science, sociology, or psychology, are ardent socialists who are not capable of seeing Tommy Douglas for who he was -- an opportunistic political figure imposing his false and flawed ideology on whoever was dumb enough to vote for him.

64.110.251.69 00:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for CJCurrie but I can tell you why I would have removed it. It is against Wikipedia's NPOV and original research policies. The newer version is even worse, and I'm going to remove it now. --JGGardiner 00:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Truth must really hurt, since theres 2 or 3 of you now reverting actual quotes of Tommy Douglas from the wiki.

64.110.251.69 01:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't the source material, it is the way that the section is written. CJC said, in the edit summay, that he thought that it was fair to include the topic and I am in favour of inclusion. I strongly suggest that you read theNPOV and original research and rewrite the section if you'd like to include it. Basically, you can't include your own opinions, characterizations or extrapolations, even if they are "correct". It's just policy. If you need a hand, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or you can ask for help here. --JGGardiner 02:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You're quite the Tommy Douglas fanatic, aren't you, JGGardiner? -- 198.20.40.50 02:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Was medical care really 'free' under Douglas?

I have spoken to some who actually lived in Saskatchewan during the early days of Medicare as introduced by Tommy Douglas. They distinctly remind me that the system introduced by the government of Douglas, at the time, involved a co-pay, ie: a nominal amount was due for use of medical services, acting as a sort of deductible, to prevent against abuses of the system. It was only with the national medicare system that the co-pay was removed.

Also, it may be inaccurate to suggest that hospitalization was 'free' because every taxpayer of the Province ended up shouldering the cost. "Socialized" or "distributed" might be a better use of terminology here.

I have not edited the wiki to reflect that the Douglas system was not truly 'free', as I do not have specific references or sources (aside from Oral history) to back it up, but it would be useful if someone were to check facts here.

BTW, if you guys want to hold me to strict proof and strict referencing of the truth about Tommy Douglas that I post here, then I will accordingly hold you to strict proof of claims made. It is not my intention to libel the dead, only to ensure that the most significant person in 20th century Saskatchewan history is properly and appropriately portrayed, instead of idolized and portrayed in a fantasious light as many within the contemporary Canadian NDP/socialist movement would prefer.

64.110.251.69 09:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable. You might also want to check out the sources policy. There are no different standards for different editors. If you have a problem with some content, you can edit it or bring it up on the talk page. That's why they are here. --JGGardiner 17:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh my, Tommy supported the concentration camps set up for Japanese during WW2 in Canada??

One of those referenced Tommy Douglas articles alludes to this, Douglas' support for concentration camps in Canada. Anyone have more information?

64.110.251.69 10:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Might I note that there were no concentration camps set up in Canada. They were internment camps meant for the Japanese-Canadian population along the West coast - and I have never seen any evidence supporting this mention about Douglas' opinion, although I wouldn't say it couldn't be true.

"Interment camps"?... a rose by any other name...

---

Internment camp/concentration camp. Now you are just getting tied up in semantics.

64.110.251.69 07:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an interview with Tommy Douglas and his daughter Shirley on You Tube where Tommy Douglas said that he fought AGAINST the internment of Japanese - Canadians (compared it to Shirley's work with the American Civil Rights movement which led her to be deported from the US). Also, David Suzuki, who was also in the top ten for "Greatest Canadian" specifically told his supporters to support Tommy Douglas instead. David Suzuki was a boy when he was sent to one of those internment camps and I doubt he would have said this if he thought Tommy Douglas supported this policy. - Vaudree

Tommy Douglas is revered for that which he questioned and that which he brought about. There are probably a few ideas at the time which he either did not question or failed to question completely. A "Controversial views" section would be in order for things which don't appeal to modern minds, but what made him "The Greatest Canadian" is what should be put first.

I hate "The Greatest American" Ronald Reagan with a passion, but I would not mention the Shamrock Summit or Reaganomics first thing about him - that would be low and undignified and unnecessarily insulting. Though these aspects of him should be mentioned after whatever qualifications he has that would make anyone feel esteem for him. And I would probably not waste time changing his entry to remind people that it was Paul Henderson, and not Reagan, who won the cold war against the Russians - that Russian was basically "Snowball" to Reagan's "Napoleon". What I am trying to say is that it should be the same for all of them. - Vaudree

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.37.48 (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC) 

Links

Six links is a bit excessive for a non-notable, non-academic commentary (The Man & the Myth). I don't want to remove them just yet but if you could remove most of those, that would be my preference. --JGGardiner 18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to find anti-Douglas sites, that's fine. But find a variety. Those six are all to the same site, same series, same author. Not to mention the author is an investment advisor and not a historian or a journalist or something in a related field. Six links to an accountant's essay is excessive. --JGGardiner 06:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And an investment advisor is somehow not qualified to perform historical research???

64.110.251.69 07:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Budget Surplus under Douglas? Only if you don't include unfunded pension liabilities!

Thats another 'myth' of Douglas -- balanced budgets. The accounting of the time didn't account for unfunded pension liabilities of the Crown for all those civil servants his government hired, yet exhorbiant pension promises were made (ask a retired or soon-to-be-retired government employee about the 'old' plan). Yet these liabilities remain liabilities of the General Revenue Fund, and were not properly accounted for by the government of Tommy Douglas (and his successors). More info to come. Seems your idol isn't looking so great lately, eh?

64.110.251.69 22:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm beginning to think that this anon is engaging in polemical behaviour. CJCurrie 23:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Go take a look at Brian Mulroney sometime. Both the good, and the bad are spoken of in that article, including the unpopularity of Mulroney government amongst many for introducing the GST. If Wikipedia just blindly accepts the idealized version of events that typical left-wingers will cite about Douglas, then the credibility of Wikipedia is in serious jeopardy. A more balanced approach is definitely needed in this article, as it seems to have been adopted in the article relating to the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney.

Douglas remains the single most controversial character of the 20th century in Saskatchewan, either completely loved, or completely hated. The article really ought to reflect that reality.

64.110.251.69 23:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, take a deep breath and read on. You, or anyone else, can add both the good or the bad or anything in between. But it must follow Wikipedia policies. I don't have a problem adding his controversial views. And CJC has said so also. The problem is the commentary and analysis that goes with them. Wikipedia is not a commentary website. If you need help with how the policies work, please, please ask. You will find editing a much more satisfying experience when you write content that stays in the article. --JGGardiner 05:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The material I have added does in fact mostly conform to the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, policies and guidelines I am quite familiar with. Simply playing a game of revert war with me (and others) isn't going to further the goals of Wikipedia -- to provide accurate and balanced portrayals of the subject matter being written of. If you don't like the portrayal of TC Douglas' Masters thesis as presented, then come up with one of your own -- don't simply delete mine because you don't like your prophet being portrayed in a somewhat negative light. The CUPE and the SaskNDP links are some of the most blatently pro-Douglas articles that exist on the Internet, from organizations that are openly ideologically bound in support of the policies of socialism that were enacted by Douglas. Similarily, the Prairie Centre articles are somewhat of the opposite. The facts are pretty much not in dispute here -- Douglas was one of the most controversial figures in Saskatchewan politics ever. I think we can all work together to add, edit, and organize content so that his accomplishments, both good and bad, are accurately reflected.

64.110.251.69 06:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been warring, not me. I haven't made the same edit twice. I removed the links (once) because I thought there were too many from one website (see above). Not because of the content although I find it rather ordinary. As for the other links, I agree that they are biased but his bio at his party's website is appropriate. The CUPE one I think is iffy and I wouldn't complain if someone removed it. As for your content, what I removed is original research and an NPOV problem:

"While this sort of thinking may have been fashionable in the 1930s, thinking that gave rise to the likes of Adolf Hitler, it epitomizes the ideological slant that most contemporary NDP/CCF governments have adopted -- a firmly held belief that society should take care of the people when people are not capable of taking care of themselves."

I didn't want to rewrite the rest and I don't think that I have to. You're interested in it, you can do the rewrite if you want it in. And by the way, I'm guessing that you're not familiar with Saskatchewan history but you might want to take a look at the James Garfield Gardiner article before you call me a Douglas fanatic one more time. --JGGardiner 07:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

64.110.251.69: You say that your edits are consistent with Wikipedia policies. I do not agree. I see particular problems with NPOV. Your POV is extremely negative towards Douglas and you seem to be attempting a hatchet job on the article. You are a minority of one, as far as I can tell. It is consensus that guides what goes into articles. That means we need to agree here. Going on and on about eugenics or plastering the article with negative tracts is not going to make one look like much more than a vandal. Eugenics is mentioned in the article and criticim is referenced. You say you think we can work together. OK, fine. Let's start by you explaining why you think that the article is not neutral. Bear in mind that it is not NPOV to write a negative biography about someone. If you doubt this, look at what other encyclopedias say about Douglas. Sunray 07:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no reasons for placiing the tag on this page, and since there has been no response to the above request, I have removed the NPOV tag. Sunray 06:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Tommy's Thesis

Okay, I found an online source with Tommy Douglas' Thesis:

http://www.katewerk.com/tommy/

A lot to digest, but I thought I would just post the URL so that we can all get up to speed, be on the same 'page', and maybe a more useful treatsie/sypnosis of the thesis can be generated as opposed to the one that I posted that has been so derided thus far. But there is no denying that the thesis is mostly opinion (rather than research), and is of very poor scholastic quality when benchmarked against modern standards of graduate-level research. I am obviously not qualified to comment on its quality in the context of scholastic standards, at the M.A. level, in the 1930s, of course, but the essay obviously does set the tone of socialism, ie: that the goals of the individual should be subordinated to the goals of the State, that Tommy Douglas' CCF/NDP governments practiced throughout their terms in office, a legacy that continues even today.

64.110.251.69 02:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Great. I think it is fine as long as we remember that we can describe the document but that none of us are really qualified to comment on it or analyse it. You might want to post your section for comment here for comment before you edit it into the article if you'd like to make sure that everyone is happy with it. But that's just an idea. Don't let me stop you from making a bold edit. --JGGardiner 03:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. I'm perfectly capable of commenting on and analysing Douglas's thesis. You think that because you are unqualified, so are the rest of us. Why would you think that?154.5.32.113 (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The document would also have to be described pretty succinctly, since this isn't an article on eugenics, but rather one on T. Douglas. An MA thesis is not all that notable and if it is available online, people who are curious can access it in its entirety. Oh yes, and do pay attention to your POV. You (64.110.251.69) said: "the essay obviously does set the tone of socialism. ie: that the goals of the individual should be subordinated to the goals of the State." This is your point of view and does not belong in the article. Unlike Saskatchewan, (with Douglas as premier), Alberta did implement eugenics:

... the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act passed on March 7, 1928, creating a Eugenics Board with the power to authorize the sexual sterilization of individuals. From 1929 to 1972, the board approved 4725 of 4800 cases brought before it, of whom 2822 were officially sterilized. (British Columbia passed a similar act in 1933 but was far less vigorous in its implementation. In any case the BC records have been destroyed.)[3]

I hadn't realized that Alberta had a socialist government back then :-) Sunray 06:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind Eugenics was a very socially acceptable, and even fashionable school of thought when he wrote his thesis. For example, Alexander Grahme Bell the (disputed) inventor of the telephone called that deaf people should not have children, even though he himself was the son of a deaf woman and was married to a deaf woman with whome he had children ! Dowew 02:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

RCMP spied on NDP politician Tommy Douglas

[could some one take information from this item and place it in the TC Douglas article?

Thank You Alex C.C.]

Updated Sun. Dec. 17 2006 11:34 PM ET

(news story removed) Sorry, I've removed the full-text Canadian Presss story because I believe that we are not allowed to fully repost such articles because of copyright. I do agree that this is relevant material for the article and I'm sure that anyone so interested can find these stories quite easily. Thanks. --JGGardiner 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Just in case an editor who wants to add the RCMP information can't find it online, here's the CP story from the Toronto Star: [4] 68.239.84.252 22:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Very nice. But what happens when THE STAR removes this item?

Thank You Alex C.C.

Diefenbaker

Sorry about marking my Diefenbaker birthplace edit as minor; I didn't realize it would be major until I read WP:EDIT. (Tommy_Douglas#Medicare referred to Diefenbaker as "another Saskatchewan born politician" [sic.] although he was born in Ontario, as it says in the Diefenbaker article, so I removed the word "born.") Once again, sorry, and I hope this doesn't cause any trouble. Łasica 07:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Name and Disambiguation

Someone recently changed the article name. It should say "politician" rather than "minister" in my opinion. Many people with a casual interest won't even know about his religious background. As well, Tommy Douglas currently goes to a disambig page but I think it should probably go here with a "see also" for the jazz musician. But I don't know the other TD so I'm not really sure how well-known he is. A quick google search looks like this TD is overwhelmingly more written/talked about however. --JGGardiner 17:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with JGGardiner. I don't understand why the page name was changed (without any discussion) from "Tommy Douglas." As JG points out, the current disambiguation page only shows one more name: Tommy Douglas (clarinetist), who is hardly in the same league with our Tommy. I agree that it would be best to simply have a see also link to the clarinetist at the top of the Tommy Douglas article. Sunray 21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as B Class, given its level of detail and organization, and of high importance, as I feel that the subject of the article plays a vital role in understanding Canada. Cheers, CP 16:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

==First Socialist Government in North America?"

Actually, the first socialist government in North America was established in Mexico. The Institutional Revolutionary Party was socialist for a long time, and the Mexican Revolution ended in 1920, so that was the first socialist government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.214.229 (talk) 04:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering the Mexican PRI socialist, even in the 1920s, is a stretch. It was established by already powerful folk who were more liberal-conservative/corporatist than anything. They were and are a centrist party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:188:C302:F8BA:CD41:8B4:5AC2:F1CC (talk) 04:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

North Dakota had a pretty socialist government at the beginning of the 20th century/during WWI. It's still illegal for corporations or banks to own farmland there. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Leader Post Cover.jpg

Image:Leader Post Cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Protecting against vandalism

This page has been repeatedly vandalised, mostly by anonymous users (IP address only) and contains derogatory remarks with regards to the person that is subject of this biographic article. For the sake of professionalism and efficiency, this page should be reverted to the last clean version and be locked from editing to unregistered users. Sufitul (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to delete superfluous repetitions but it was reverted. I have reported the case. What can I do? --Hans-Jürgen Hübner (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

reading

you are nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.174.135.76 (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

wording

"While the NDP did better in elections than its CCF predecessor, the party did not experience the breakthrough it had hoped for and didn't recognize his abilities till later in the days"

I would suggest a re-wording, but I can not figure out what the sentence is supposed to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.5.206.229 (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"...was a Scottish-born Canadian"

Is this term necessary or appropriate given whom Tommy Douglas was and how he spoke? Hear this recording of him speaking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE5fOJfKRNk It is identical to the position of Ken Galbraith as to the book he wrote in New Delhi while Jack Kennedy's American ambassador 1961-63: The Scotch. His London publisher advised, "You mustn't use that term; it's obsolete and offensive." To which he responded, "It's by, about and for Scotch Canadians and that's what we call ourselves." The compromise was the title of the British edition: The Non-potable Scotch. Surely it's proper to use the old Canadian term used by people of that ethnicity, particularly when spoken by two world-famous, great Canadians, is it not? Perhaps a footnote is desirable to explain why that term is the one used, but surely it is the one that should be there.Masalai (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Galbraith grew up in a community in Ontario that self-identified as "Scotch" - Douglas did not. TFD (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

To reiterate, hear this recording of him speaking: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE5fOJfKRNk Masalai (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

He is talking about income distribution. What are we supposed to be listening for, please state the point in the 6 minute recording it appears? TFD (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Father of Medicare?

I'd like to see the edits regarding Tommy Douglas as father of Medicare stop being removed. Hospital Insurance was indeed passed under Louis St Laurent under the Liberals in the 1950's. In the 1960's, Tommy Douglas worked with the minority Liberal Prime Minister Pearson to implement full blown hospital and doctor insurance. Things were still left out, like pharmacare, but it is a more accurate picture of history. It is simply inaccurate to call him the father of Medicare as he didn't lead the government, although he was a key player. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.85.119.50 (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

It says he is "widely known as the father of Medicare." That he is so regarded is true, whether he truly was or not. Incidentally, Douglas is so known for having introduced medicare in Saskatchewan, long before it became a national program. Had the American Medical Association managed to stop it there, it is unlikely the Liberals would have encouraged other provinces to introduce it. TFD (talk) 03:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Social Credit

I think that a little more detail regarding how he entered the Commons would be useful, I came across some interesting info about some sort of deal with the Social Credit organizer. http://peel.library.ualberta.ca/bibliography/10240.html but unfortunately Wikipedia is quite silent on the details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyndane5 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It is silent because very little has been written about the Socred endorsement. TFD (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• That's odd, it is a most curious thing, and certainly I would think the circumstances of how he first entered the Commons would be an important part of his life. But I suppose long term he probably wouldn't have wanted too much attention directed to it. Cyndane5 (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Cyndane5

Orange Order

Orange Order in Canada had a unverified claim (flagged in 2016) that Tommy Douglas was a member that i removed. Does anyone happen to have a reliable source on the topic? blindlynx (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

great article

This article is outstanding and represents what Wikipedia articles should look like. Thanks to @The Rambling Man: for the help!--Sunderlandweary (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)