 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Picture
editSomebody put a picture of a penis in place of wilfred Laurier, as I am new to this, I simply deleted all the offending content.
I uploaded a new photograph. Fishhead64, 22:09, 07 Feb 2006 (UTC)
Must have been a Tory that did it, who can't accept that Laurier was a much better Prime Minister than Robert Borden. -- Pacholeknbnj, 11:21 PM EST, 24 March 2006
"Laurier also holds the record for the most consecutive federal elections won(4)" It seems to me that he shares this record with John A. Macdonald, who won election in 1878, 1882, 1887, and 1891.
Anyone know why it's gone? I'm going to try to find some pictures in the Public Archives of Canada -- they should be free of copyright. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Relationship with Robert Borden
editOn Arthur Meighen's page, it states that "Meighen and King, unlike Laurier and Borden, had a very personal distrust and hatred for each other." They are political opponents, facing off in four general elections, nonetheless the Meighen and King quote implies that Laurier and Borden did have respect for each other. Could someone further elaborate on the relationship between Laurier and Borden? GoldDragon 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Religion
editWhy is there no formal discussion on religion? And not just within Quebec. This type of balancing act defined his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.143.137 (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
== New commons picture == no
.jpg)
I just spotted this picture in a blog post about some new Commons photos. It's very high resolution (3,889×4,927) and probably warrants a spot in the article, but I'm not familiar with the content or its current layout, so I'll just leave it here as a suggestion. Warrickball (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Education
editAn editor has added secondary schooling to the infobox; I've reverted, pending consensus for that change here. We usually limit this to postsecondary education, and I don't see a reason to do otherwise in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Please discuss the matter here to reach consensus. The status quo should remain in place in the interim. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Where is the rule that the status quo must remain if two people disagree? I compromised and allowed both fields. That should satisfy both of our views on what the box should contain. When the information is in the sources, it should also be in the box. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- WP:NOCON and WP:BRD. That "compromise" actually makes the situation worse: not only does it include the disputed entry, but it also repeats the undisputed entry, which is unhelpful and redundant. There is absolutely no requirement that everything sourceable should be in the infobox; in fact, MOS:INFOBOX says the opposite. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Where is the rule that the status quo must remain if two people disagree? I compromised and allowed both fields. That should satisfy both of our views on what the box should contain. When the information is in the sources, it should also be in the box. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- As you have argued at the template, the fields contain different concepts even if the information is the same. There is no rule saying that only one can be used at the template. You should be arguing there, not ad hoc at each use. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- First, I've argued no such thing; what I said was that
|alma_mater=is a more concise expression of the concept of education than|education=, which is true according to the documentation of the template at which that point was made (which is not the template used here anyway). Second, there is such a rule: MOS:INFOBOX, which instructs us to present information in short form and exclude unnecessary content (and it's absolutely unnecessary to include two representations of Laurier's time at McGill). Third, for what seems like the millionth time - unless/until a new consensus has developed here, you shouldn't be restoring your edit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Argue at the template to remove one of the parameters, not here ad hoc. "Present information in short form" means within the template parameters. It is telling us to be concise in how we word the data in the accepted fields. Type "Harvard University" not "He attended Harvard University". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that the parameter should be removed from the template; I'm arguing that the College should not be included in our use of the parameter here. That argument is entirely appropriate here and would not be there. What MOS:INFOBOX tells us is that, contrary to your argument above, not everything that can be sourced must be included within the infobox. And again, until you get consensus to include the College in the infobox, it should stay out. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- First, I've argued no such thing; what I said was that
Émilie Barthe
editSUrely Émilie Barthe and Armand Lavergne require a mention? Snori (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Racial Views
editWe need some better sources for this as of now it's a synthesis of stuff most are articles about MacDonald.--Moxy 🍁 22:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've added five scholarly books and articles for Laurier (& also Macdonald) --the topic is not new--it's been in the scholarship for decades. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've added five scholarly books and articles for Laurier (& also Macdonald) --the topic is not new--it's been in the scholarship for decades. Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Old text
It is a point of argument that over the course of Laurier's time as a politician, he had a history of racist views and racially charged action.[1][2]
In 1886, Laurier told the House of Commons that it was moral for Canada to take lands from “savage nations” so long as they paid adequate compensation.[3]
In 1900, Laurier raised the Chinese head tax to $100, due to a still growing influx of Chinese immigrants. In 1903, this was further raised to $500.[4]
in August of 1911, Laurier signed an Order-in-Council restricting black immigrants to Canada. The document signed by Laurier stated, "For a period of one year from and after the date hereof the landing in Canada shall be and the same is prohibited of any immigrants belonging to the Negro race, which race is deemed unsuitable to the climate and requirements of Canada.”[5][6]
References
- ^ "Is racism a Canadian value? - Macleans.ca". www.macleans.ca. Retrieved 2019-07-31.
- ^ "As America debates Confederate monuments, Canada faces its own historical controversy". Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-07-31.
- ^ News; Canada (2015-01-10). "Sure, John A. Macdonald was a racist, colonizer and misogynist — but so were most Canadians back then | National Post". Retrieved 2019-07-31.
{{cite web}}:|last=has generic name (help) - ^ "The Chinese Immigration Act, 1885 | CMIP 21". www.pier21.ca. Retrieved 2015-10-14.
- ^ "Order-in-Council P.C. 1911-1324 — the Proposed Ban on Black Immigration to Canada | The Canadian Encyclopedia". www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca. Retrieved 2019-07-31.
- ^ "Do we need to dump Laurier for his racist acts? -". 2018-01-31. Retrieved 2019-07-31.
Expanding Early Life or Family section
editI'd like to recommend adding something about the death of his mother and his relationship with his stepmother, which was described as loving. His half-siblings were quite a bit younger, but at least two are known to have taken positions in government with his support, one as a politician and the other as representative of the Canadian government in the US, where he remained for the rest of his life. catseyes (talk)