Talk:Margaret Trudeau/Archives/2014

Lack of Sources
I have tagged this article as lacking sources. While it does give two sources for more recent events, the majority of this article gives no source for the statements presented. 134.117.163.45 (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent attacks by vandals on Pierre
There seem to be edits attacking her former husband's faith and otter thins. Now these doeditors are going around to his wife... hmmm Chivista 14:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm ... that picture ... the comments state that the picture is Fair Use because Trudeau is a celebrity. Is that a valid reason? I wouldn't think so.

- Xamian 04:18, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I would just like to say that I think this is a very excellent article. I started it, and the gaps in my own biographical knoweldge have been superbly since filled-in. A true Wikipedia successs story.

user:J.J.

Requested Move/Title
Wikipedia uses a person's most familiar name whenever possible. "Correct name" is explicitly not Wikipedia's policy. She's generally known as Margaret Trudeau; even after her remarriage I doubt that even one in ten people could have told you that her new surname was Kemper. Bearcat 19:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Kemper is what the press is currently using, so I figured that was her current familiar name. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * She divorced Kemper, and sometime ago started reusing "Margaret Trudeau". All the latest media reports dealing with her Charter challenge refer to her as Margaret Trudeau. 209.202.119.248 16:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Press accounts I've seen in the past year and generally since Trudeau's death refer to her as Margaret Trudeau. Certainly, she is best known by that name.Homey 16:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Question to all (all who care, that is :)
"This latter relationship was the impetus for a popular joke of the time. It stated that, due to budget restraints, Pierre and Margaret were forced to build their own swimming pool; the punch-line was that Pierre was pouring the cement and Margaret was "laying the Stones"." (emphasis mine)

Should this quote be really there? I mean, really? In an encyclopedia article. I think she deserves a bit more respect, no matter what.

A simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice :) Regards, musti 15:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry for giving more than a yes or a no, but I do believe some discussion is in order. I would say no, not because she "deserves a bit more respect," but because the joke trivializes the article and undermines Wikipedia's ongoing search for respect.  HistoryBA 23:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not appropriate, and, what's more, not all that familiar a joke.--Marysunshine 00:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I am the author of this portion of the article that you are refering to. It goes without saying that I beleive that this particular joke should stay. It became a staple of numerous political newspaper columnists and radio commentators of the time. In my opinion it epitomizes the humour and "Oh who's Margret going to do next" type attitude that a lot of Canadians held towards her. Further, it exemplifies Ms. Trudeau's wanton disregard for any personal descretion whatsoever. (Hell! Read her books!) It is out of respect that I don't make reference to the "Sharon Stone - Basic Instinct Type Pose" photograph that made its' way into every Men's Magazine in the world, around the same time. How far do we go to sanitize a person's reputation? I'm not un-movable but I'd like to see something more than "I think she deserves a bit more respect, no matter what". (empahsis mine)--Niloc 02:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insight, Niloc. And you certainly have a point. But no one is trying to "sanitize" Margaret. If this were a public wiki for common knowledge where quasi-strict standards were not applied, sure. I'd have loved to include the Sharon Stone-type photo here for all its worth, as well. But this is Wikipedia, and as such, we have to follow certain standards. This is not to say the section is sub-standard. Let me give an example: How would I feel about Wikipedia if my daughter learned about Pierre Trudeau's wife on Wikipedia and came and asked about this joke? (I am not asking "How would I feel". I am asking "how would I feel about the content, credilibity and future progression of Wikipedia").


 * On a personal note...I am Canadian, though I wasn't born here. But this is my home. And as such, I have respect for the leaders (not blind respect, mind you), and the choices they had made as life partners. And in my book, Trudeau was a great leader. At the very least, I still do not need a passport visa when I go to Ontario and come back to Quebec.


 * Still waiting for opinions as to the exclusion of that section, folks. Best regards, musti 03:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Musti you make some interesting points, however the majority of them are just not relevant to the question of "is this section appropriate or not"? I feel it is because it reflects a general attitude that a great many Canadians held. FULL STOP!

Whether you liked Pierre Trudeau or you didn't, or you are a Canadian or you're not, or you worried about the sensibilites of your daughter or you're not, just simply doesn't matter.

If you feel it is inappropriate then please explain why (other than "just'cause") I just finished reading the Wikipedia article on  "Bill & Monica" and I'm not looking forward to explaining how oral / anal contact and the President Of The United States all ended up in the same story.......But it did! Because it is relevant!--Niloc 18:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, my irrelevancy point taken. And your relevancy point, as well. Yes. Consider this then: Clinton-Lewinsky affair is a fact, well publicised by the shock-news-hungry neighbours to the south, and beaten to death by all media, running all gamut from the respectible to the sleazy. Margaret Trudeau's affairs are facts, and you allude to the factness already in the article. Why go on presenting a joke to make the point stronger at the expense of dignity of the individuals? (not that they care, one has passed away-but wait, may be more so because he is dead) I am not old enough, but if I were, I'd have remembered those times and all the jokes and what not. My point is, Wikipedia is more for the upcoming generation than it is for us, or at least it is how I see it, hence the daughter argument. Hence the Wikipedia's "ongoing search for respect".
 * And I disagree with that anal/oral/whatever content inclusion on the same grounds as I disagree to the laying the Stones. It is just not a respectful entry in an encyclopedia (re:Clinton), though I can do absolutely nothing about it. But don't we always claim we are different from the neighbours to the south? Kinder, mellower, respectful, saying "I'm sorry" a gazillion times in a gazillion different contexts? How are we going to prove it if we follow the same less-than-respectful attitude in how we present our own people, let alone our own leaders and their spouses? Regards, musti 21:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Musti I now see what the problem is and I would like to propose a compromise.

You are of the opinion that I have included the joke for no other purpose than to denigrate her already sullied reputation. I can only conclude that if that is the way you perceived it, and you seem to be in good company on this page, others will perceive it the same way. As I have stated, this was not my intention. It is my opinion that jokes and to a lesser extent "urban legends" reflect the general attitude, fears, loathing and aspirations of the public and should be included in Wikipedia. Unfortuanatly, I appear to be in the minority and I accept your critism

Why don't you compose something that addresses my concern about the Canadian public's humourous / "what next" attitude towards Ms. Trudeau and I won't contest your deletion of the "laying the Stones" joke? Further you have to agree to let my "How does Gerta Munsinger get to sleep" joke stand for at least 60 days! Deal? --Niloc 02:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

(-: I just saw this before going to bed...for a change I really want to sleep early. But, OK. I accept the deal. I will write one sentence about her "what-next"ness, and I will remove the reference to the joke. If you don't like it, revert back, and we'll take up from there. Deal & regards musti 04:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * let me know what you think. I will not mingle with Gerta article. musti 18:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Your edit is acceptable (althought not as fun a read). --Niloc 10:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling you'd say something like that :) musti 17:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Degree in English Literature from SFU?
I do not believe that the statement that Margaret Trudeau received a degree in English Literature from Simon Fraser University is correct; she might have attended SFU for a few semesters but I am reasonably certain she did not receive a degree. I am a graduate of SFU (1977) and I do not recall her ever having been claimed as a graduate by SFU (alumni magazine and such); I think it would have stuck in my memory. Verification? 137.82.82.132 23:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I entered "margaret trudeau" + "simon fraser university" in the Altavista search engine (for Canada) and the second reference was an SFU public relations web page ( SFU PR web page ) which stated that Margaret Trudeau was an alumna of SFU -- that is, a former student, which is not synonymous with "graduate"; immediately following they definitely describe three B.C. premiers (former and current) as SFU "grads." I believe that it is this confusion between the meaning of "alumna" (or "alumni") and "graduate" which is responsible for the incorrect identification of Margaret Trudeau as an SFU graduate. 137.82.82.132 23:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Broken links
The filmography links are both broken. Fix. Mathwhiz90601 06:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Inline sourcing
I've removed this:

"On one occasion, she was criticized for not wearing a conventional floor-length dress to an official White House dinner, and on another occasion she acted as Cuban president Fidel Castro's photographer-for-a-day and is plausibly reported to have had a closer relationship with him. It has been reported that she once launched into an impromptu poetry recital during a state dinner with the President of Venezuela."

This needs, at the very least, inline sourcing to be compliant with Biographies of living persons. Unless we can say who made the reports and criticisms and why they were significant, we should leave them out. I've removed some other uncited, defamatory material from the article as well. Kla'quot 06:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)