Talk:C. D. Howe

Multiple issues
This is an oddly written article. It presents a very positive view of Howe, and doesn't really explain why he was so hated by many people across the political spectrum. Parts of it sound more like boosterism than an encyclopaedia: "Howe knew that what Canada lacked was not money or resources but “managerial skill.” From all over Canada, he recruited his “boys.” The press called them the “buck-a-year men,” but they were the best in the business and now the business was winning a war." It makes various, bold opinions without sourcing:"The pipeline project, the first for Canada at that time, was eventually built, and proved to be completely sound in every respect."At least one passage seems to be plagarised."Unemployed workers of the 'Dirty '30s' built airstrips across the country, and Trans-Canada Airlines, Air Canada's predecessor, was established as a Crown corporation. Howe helped to establish the National Harbours Board and centralize the administration of ports. He reformed the debt-laden CNR and created the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation." appears to be taken from Transport Canada's biography. The article would benefit from more in-line citations. The positive slant may be due to Bothwell and Kilbourn's biography and not the Wikipedia authors themselves. Additional, contrasting sources would be of benefit, as would review by editors with a good grap of Wikipedia's POV policies. 128.100.52.93 (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * These issues seem very broadly tossed about with claims of plagiarism thrown in. I have removed the multiple issues tag as unjustified at present and replaced it with a need for referencing improvements. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 01:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC).

IT also claims he created the CBC, which is only partially true. The precursor to the CBC was the CRBC (canadian radio broadcasting corporation) created by Bennet's government in 1932 following the Aird Commissions report. Howe merely changed the name by dropping the R. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.216.96 (talk) 04:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Right Honourable?
The caption under the photo calls him the Right Honourable. I could be wrong, but I think Right Honourable is only designated to the Prime Minister. Support? Dissent? --The Fwanksta (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Prominent members of the cabinet are also styled "the Right Honourable". (See The Right Honourable.)  vıd ıoman  00:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Howe was appointed a member of the Imperial Privy Council in 1946, thus gaining the honorific "The Right Honourable".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Article assessment
I have adjusted all WikiProject ratings to "C" class because the article lacks inline referencing. It ought to be judged against the B class criteria before being designated a B class article.  PK T (alk)  21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement
I'd like to see if this can be gotten to FA either for the 125th anniversary of his birth in January or for TFA on a future Canada Day.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Recall, it already has a citation/bibliographical style. If you do the same thing you did at the Diefenbaker article, it will be reverted back to the original established style. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC).
 * The lede provides a brief, one to two paragraph summary; that is not what was added recently. Most of that information is found in the body of the article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC).
 * Jeez, Bzuk, give me a chance. I have to start somewhere. And that is only a rough draft, and I have to add what Howe actually did. I've got one book on Howe and two more coming. I'm looking to you to deal with the Avro Arrow matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, let's see how the article shapes up; but recall my initial reservation given at the beginning of this "string." FWiW, the lede typically does not require a boatload of citations but there will be a necessity to find the authoritative reference sourcing for the main body of text. Bzuk (talk) 22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC).
 * I am anxious for your feedback. I'm a year and 15 FAs more experienced than I was with Dief, I adapt my writing to what is there, so do not be concerned.  I don't put footnotes in the lede unless there is an extraordinary claim.  The lede will be modified as the article develops.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The lede image is almost certainly a technical copyvio as it is from the 1950s and the copyright is still active in the US. Library and Archives Canada has about five or so images showing Howe from before 1946 taken in Canada and so public domain everywhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Opposition" vs "opposition"
I think it should be capitalized. It is a short form of "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition"--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Two aspects of this, if used as a title, such as the Liberal "Opposition" Leader, capitals are standard but even Hansard uses "opposition" members in a non-capitalized form. FWiW, the connection to its etymology is correct but is now arcane in terms of popular usage. Bzuk (talk) 05:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Fair enough. I will play with it as opportunity presents because there may be the possibility of confusion--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Editing quirks
I know I said I would wait until the main revisions are in place, but if I or other editors do make a preliminary edit, it is because there is a need to revise or alter a statement. FWiW, see "dollar-a-year" club edit. Bzuk (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw it and I've been watching your edits. My main concern there is we need to find a way to use "dollar a year" only once in that sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood, but remember that the article is still in flux and may require slight changes all along. I have a major concern that there are only three sources that are assiduously being employed which makes the entire effort "top-heavy." FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Four now, because I'm drawing on the biography of St. Laurent. I may also use Smith's 1995 bio of Dief and I think I have a bio of Pearson somewhere around.  I will also use the Michael Bliss book.  When I get to the 1957 election, I have ample material on that, and when I was at the Dief Centre, I got copies of a lot of news articles from that election which detail Howe's troubles.  It is just one of those things, there are not that many books about Howe.  Most of your edits are fine, catching my boo-boos, for which I thank you. --Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We are also going to have to discuss the Avro Arrow, the article as it stands is a little too soft soapy on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * C.D. Howe's legacy has become so muddled because his story has mostly been written by his detractors. That prevalent contemporary view is creeping into this article and has to be addressed after the major rewrite is complete. The Arrow is now Canadian mythology more than fact and Howe's role is extremely a complex and convoluted one. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to write both sides, but I do see your point. However, I think the Dief story makes it clear that at least on that point, Howe was ill-used.  All three biographies I have of Howe are positive towards him.  Bliss is clearly negative.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the people we are talking about, can enter a room carried on his own shoulders and has a decidedly mixed acceptance/opinion amongst historians, including yours truly... (note use of ellipsis LOL) Bzuk (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It took me about three minutes to decode that. Yes, Bliss is a popular historian and I appreciate his faults.  Still, he's a usable source, just so long as you don't rely too heavily on him.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

If you see slant, I'm happy to discuss it now, after all, if a road is being built in the wrong direction best not to wait until after you've laid ten miles of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The recent edits on the Victory-A.V. Roe Canada story are fanciful to say the least, and need a very careful revision. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC).
 * What do you propose? I am reluctant to go into a lengthy discussion in the article, as it's starting to turn out a bit long.  What do you want to say?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a stab at it, re-inserting the beginning of the saga, which actually revolved around the troubled National Steel Co. which Howe took over. It became the Victory Aircraft plant which by war's end, was the most successful of his industrial giants. Reluctant to lose the potential of having a world-class aviation concern, he engineered a sale to Hawker Siddeley Group then stayed in the wings, carefully shepherding the A.V. Roe Canada company as it embarked on a number of leading-edge projects. Howe felt by 1957, that the company was over-extended as it purchased and absorbed numerous industrial and technology-based companies to become the third-largest industrial "empire" in Canada. The CF-105 Arrow was symptomatic of the success and eventual over-reach of the company and ultimately took on the mantle of being a beacon for Canada's scientific and technological aspirations. I agree that the article is becoming bloated; pruning may have to start with some of the extensive quotes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what you have written is overdetailed and really unnecessary. I'm trying to give the reader just a taste of things, I'm very much afraid that there's going to be a heavy load of aircraft materials running through each section (your edit summary sort of confirms that). This article is on Howe, not on retelling the Avro Arrow story again.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pot mean kettle! LOL, changes still need to come. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say balance, comprehensiveness, in proportion to the article, and at most two reasonably sized paragraphs.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's done, I've pruned more than half of the sections, but you do recognize the irony?! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Fine. You know, I don't give a rat's butt about the Avro Arrow, I never even heard of it until I started work on Dief.  I'm not Canadian, and I'm not an aviation gearhead, and I don't want to defend a fight I don't believe in.  All I want is a neutral statement that won't get the article I'm working on attacked by people who care far more about this matter than I do.  And from a read through the articles about anyone remotely associated with the Arrow, and my experience with Dief, I know there are such people and they care a lot and they are active on wiki.  So that's where I stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The irony to which I was referring is your asking for "proportion" which struck me as not in line with a very detailed and "comprehensive" account as it was being formulated. As to the Avro Arrow, there has been more written about this one episode in Canadian aviation history than almost any other subject, other than the Second World War. You are conversing with someone who has had a virtual cottage industry based around this iconic aircraft; seven books and two films at last count just from myself and I know a plethora of other historians and authors who have a similar profile. C. D. Howe's involvement in the project was tangential after 1955 and only because of one unfortunate statement made in the heat of the moment during the debate that followed the Arrow's cancellation, does Mr. Minister make an impact. FWiW, I will ensure that the statements made are accurate, attributable to authoritative sources and can be considered defensible. Just get ready for the brick-a-bats! Bzuk (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But neutral (and yes, I've read some of your talk page contributions on the subject). That means we neither say nor implied (and I'm good at subtleties) that it was right or wrong to cancel the Arrow.  I'm reading about the renewal of the Defence Procurement Act, btw and it seems Howe alluded to the project, saying it gave him the shudders.  But you probably already knew that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm actually of the studied opinion that the Arrow decision was reasoned and pragmatic, what was more consequential was the loss of thousands of employees in an industry heavily dependent on government support. The decision is forever known as "Black Friday" in Canada as it kneecapped an entire industry. This was at a time when Avro Canada and its various aviation subsidiaries represented 15,000 employees directly involved in manufacture and over 25,000 more ensconced in the Avro supply chain. Lockheed Aircraft, the US's largest aviation company had only 11,000 employees during the same period. The impact of job loss and industry collapse was dramatic but the wanton destruction of the aircraft in the factory as well as the five flying examples is the stuff of Greek tragedy. FWiW, Howe has no involvement in the ultimate cancellation, despite his ill-timed ruminations. Bzuk (talk) 03:06, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm not totally ignorant of this, plus many of the key personnel moved across the border and were lost to Canada. But I digress. I have a news clipping from the '58 campaign which mentions that Pearson's plane was delayed in Toronto because the runway was closed to allow an Arrow landing after a major flight, and the article states several quotes about how beautiful the plane was as Pearson and his people watched it land. Not that it helped Pearson. Or the plane.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Being entirely pedantic, a plane is an edged tool used in woodworking, A flat or level surface, a supporting surface or a level of development; perhaps you are referring to an airplane (fixed wing aircraft). Now forgive my digression, but that meaningless slip up in colloquialism and terminology can bring the wrath of the gods upon you (us). FWiW, it was a beautiful piece of machinery, but so was the Lunar Module and it wouldn't have reached the moon unless a former Avro engineer was on hand in NASA to design the equipment. Ten points if you know who! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Sorry, I don't. And I do make slips like that, which is why I really try to have someone knowledgeable look at my work.  If I were good enough to have golden words drip from my fingers, I'd do it for a living.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not write that about "Howe's behavior". I haven't gotten there yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jim Chamberlin, the Avro Arrow's chief aerodynamicist was one of 31 former Avro engineers and technicians that were recruited by NASA. BTW, the gig is not that well-paying and just to reinforce that view, both of my sons are also writers and married writers, guaranteeing they will all be paupers in perpetuity. My only hopes are for my wife, a politician, and my granddaughter who has shown a talent as a musician, giving her first piano recital at age six. FWiW, the article has had a storied past, so I only allude to another of its foibles... Bzuk (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Well, I'm pretty much done for the evening. I'm hopeful the first draft will be done tomorrow. There will be more to insert and plenty to polish, but the structure will be done. Didn't know there had been wikibattles over Howe.  Must have been fun.  Am I paving over old compromises?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As less than astute as I usually am, I had never even bothered to check your credentials. Geez Louise, you have left a substantial carbon footprint on Wikiwakywonderland. A prolific writer (I tend to abhor the editor label) and an admin to boot. You did mention you were not a Canajan? where for art though reside? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Virginia. But I've always had an interest in Canada.  And thanks for the praise.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"The Avro Arrow and its subsequent powerplant was controversially cancelled by the Diefenbaker government in 1959." True, but what is "and its subsequent powerplant" and why should it be in an article about Howe?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can easily be changed to just the Avro Arrow, as the cancellation of the Orenda Iroquois engine was of a secondary nature although there were proposed contracts for its use in other airframes. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC).
 * I think we should do that. Did you look over my mention of Howe's comment in 1955?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Also, in a footnote we say that 13 of Howe's Boys and Howe himself received an OBE. Howe never had an OBE. For sure it would be in this article as a postnominal, his bios don't mention it and I searched the London Gazette. He's in there once, when he's made a member of the Imperial Privy Council. And I checked the permutations of his name. Suggest we strike the mention of the OBE for anyone unless we can confirm the others all got OBEs through the Gazette.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Done? I noticed that the reference sources I added are "parked" in a "further reading (uuugh)" section. I would like to use these sources to supplement/replace some of the biographers' sources. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC).
 * I do not have a problem with that. The convention is, that if a work is not cited in an article, you should not use it in the biblio area. Once you use it, put it in the bio section.  What I was doing was orgainisation, rather than a judgment on the sources.  I will probably list it for peer review although they are badly backed up.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, that's a complete Wiki thing, in the "real" world, authors note all sources that are used in preparation, research and background reading, even if the material is not cited. How this became a "further reading/viewing" I attribute to the early years of Wiki, when there was a dearth of reference librarians in tow, see, the formation of the #^%$&%^(*& citation template Mafia. (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Granted, but we have to play by the wiki rules. A FA is a very strange thing indeed, but you have to do what's expected of you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I have abided by the contrary notion of "convention" in the FA reviews, but all of these "other" sources will inevitably have quotes and citations forthcoming. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we have enough about aviation.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You will still have to reconcile that Howe is now included in Canada's AVIATION Hall of Fame, as part of a lasting tribute to his role in developing commercial aviation. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC).

Image
I looked at the image page at LAC. It says it was taken by a private photographer in London. What the Canadian government does or does not do is irrelevant, it can't affect a British copyright. "Official" photographs may be subject to copyrights, we have dealt with this several times recently. By what theory do you say it is PD?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a better link to the image description page. And the fact that it says "expired" is interesting, but it is not final.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked Martin H. at Commons for his opinion here, he was knowledgable (and on the other side from me) in the Duncan Cameron image dispute, which also involved LAC. Feel free to weigh in.  On Air Canada, perhaps mention it as a parenthetical?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the image in a book, identified as Public Archives and also on the official site, now also expired, "Canada's Virtual Museum" as well, the Canadian government considered this the "official" portrait" on that site. FWiW, I've rewritten the lede mention to include both CBC and TCA, so that later mention of Air Canada is incidental. Bzuk (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC).
 * You might want to put that information on the image page. How do you know that the Time Magazine cover photo is PD?  The source here is Doug Fisher's website.  Please note that I do not object to more images, I object to pointless battles at FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it was taken in 1952, it is not in the PD for purposes of the Wikimedia Foundation, which is in the United States and US law applied. See here and the statement at the top of the page.  And the fact that an image is in the Public Archives does not mean it is PD, it just means someone stuck it there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Martin H. agrees with me on the 1942 image, and that there needs to be more information to determine if the Time is public domain or not. And watch, please, what you are adding. Roberts never said that, he was quoting Lord Beaverbrook, and it's misquoted, there's a missing "of". Since Beav was a contemporary, I don't really consider it part of his legacy, but perhaps add it further up.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fraser on p. 131: "In a biography of Clarence Decatur Howe published in 1957, Leslie Roberts quoted Lord Beaverbrook: C.D. Howe is one of the handful of men of whom it can be said 'But for them, the war would have been lost'." FWiW, I didn't include Lord Beaverbrook's name but the quote appears correct although I don't have Roberts to back it up. BTW, there are other honours and tributes in Howe's name. Bzuk (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is correct, you missed the "of" in transcribing it. It's quoted a few other places on the net, as well.  I'll put it in the Second World War section when I get a chance.   I know Howe got a lot of awards, I saw a bunch of honorary degrees (he and Dief both seemed to love them) but where I think the legacy section needs more work is more about present day views of Howe.  I did find a Globe and Mail article which took for granted that Howe had changed the Canadian economy (just a passing reference to him) but I didn't think it was meaty enough to put in the article.  I've listed it for peer review by the way, since right now I think the article is in the "polish and review" stage, which doesn't mean there is or is not more to be said, but that most things are in place.  I'm reasonably pleased at how it is turned out.  You alluded to quotes, I see no other way to capture that Howe was a touchy SOB who got things done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"credited with"
Congrats on the FA. Re this sentence: "He is credited with transforming the Canadian economy from agriculture-based to industrial." This could be reworded. Just because he was a leading politician during that period, that doesn't mean that he changed the economy from X to Y.--75.83.70.28 (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To quote Mackenzie King, "Read on." Thank you, though.  Do you have a specific suggestion?  I think this is backed up in the body of the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Victory Aircraft recovered - from what?
'setting up Victory Aircraft Limited as a Crown Corporation, with J.P. Bickell, one of Howe's "dollar-a-year club" as president and chairman of the board.[57] Victory Aircraft recovered and went on to become one of Howe's greatest industrial successes'

Recovered from what? Should this be "prospered" or something similar, instead? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think so. Bzuk wrote the portions dealing with aircraft, so you might want to poke him if he doesn't notice this.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The wartime company was under investigation and was being targeted for closure unless it had reformed its operational procedures. A shakeup at the the highest executive levels was necessary, carried out fairly ruthlessly by C.D. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC).

LAC photos
I was browsing the LAC and found some nice images of this 'non-elected hero' of our country. If you goto my recent uploads in commons you will see 2-3 of them. Someone may wish to include them in this article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will gladly look. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You are very welcome. LAC has a search - images function. I came across these when I was looking for other images. You may try C. D. Howe in search and see how many other good ones they have. Most are no copyright I assume.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly the ones of that era are.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on C. D. Howe. 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/20120412032010/http://www.casi.ca/cd-howe-award to http://www.casi.ca/cd-howe-award

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020 and partial revert
Hi talk page watchers and, I am conducting a review of this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, an initiative to review featured articles promoted before 2016. As I conduct my review, I also make changes to the article for flow, grammar, or other reasons. I also remove text that I think is unnecessary or off-topic. has partially reverted one of my edits,, so I want to slow down and give editors a chance to review my changes, make suggestions on how to improve upon this work and describe why the text I removed should stay in the article. After reverting an edit, Wehwalt has conducted further edits: do you want to review this article first, then I will continue my review afterwards? (so we don't cause edit conflicts?) If I review after you, I will only remove large parts of text after proposing them on this talk page. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and do what you want. I did not notice you were editing at the same time. There's no need to propose changes here; I'm sure we can determine things through normal editing back and forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I will post a note where when I am finished editing through the article. If you decide to revert any of my edits, please make a note here so that we can discuss the text: sometimes I remove information that can be better summarised or worded more effectively to provide context. Z1720 (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I know you said that I did not have to discuss changes here, but I have a question about the ""What's a million?"" section: This was added after the FAC. Was this added as part of a merge? I think this section is an unnecessary anecdote that can be removed. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we need some discussions because the phrase later used in attacks on Howe. It doesn’t need to be a separate section though.—Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So I think we can merge it with "Second World War". Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also another paragraph, starting with "The early 1950s saw an era of prosperity in Canada;": This was in the original FAC version from 2011, so I am hesitant to remove it. This section is already 7 paragraphs long and this paragraph takes a long time before Howe is mentioned. Was Howe part of implementing these programs? If so, can this be more explicitly stated? If not, can this be removed? Z1720 (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I’ve gone ahead and cut the first part of that paragraph.—Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just as a general note: reading through the article I am getting the sense that Howe was quoted a lot by opposition parties and it's important to note this in the article, so while a paragraph seems off-topic or too much detail in an earlier section, it becomes important later on for it to be in the article. I don't have a solution for this yet, but I'm thinking of trying to find a way to balance too much detail with describing the information that the reader will need later. I am also approaching this as someone who has heard of Howe, but doesn't really know much about him (and this article is a fascinating read!) so I hope editors will let me know if I removed something that is going to be important later in the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There's truth to that. Howe wanted to get things done and he saw Parliament as an obstacle to that. The "What's a million?" and "Who would stop us?" become important in his downfall so I tried to set out the facts even though they take up space and the relevance may not immediately be apparent to someone who is learning about Howe as they go through the article. It is all, I hope, tied up by the 1957 election.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

In the "Pipeline debate" section, the second paragraph is about the Department of Defence Production. I don't think it relates to the pipeline debate, but I also don't think it should be removed. Instead, I think the sections should be renamed to something like "Second St. Laurent mandate". Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "Increasing power and Pipeline Debate"?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, in this sentence, "While at school, he became a favourite pupil of Professor George Swain;" is this George Fillmore Swain? Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It would seem so.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have finished my review of this article: while I still think "St. Laurent government's second mandate" could be summarised more effectively, I won't let this prevent me from marking this as "Satisfactory" at URFA/2020. and other talk page watchers: if you think this article meets the FA criteria, can you also mark it as satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020B? This will help the working group review FAs more quickly. Thanks for all of your help, Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Legacy section
After finishing a copyedit, I am surprised at the lack of information on Howe's legacy, other than things named for him. What influence did Howe have on the structure of Canadian government, war efforts, or a minister's power in the government today? Perhaps a paragraph can be added about how he influenced politics. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's not there, I couldn't find it at the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)