Talk:John Diefenbaker

Friendship between Diefenbaker and Eisenhower

I am wondering about this sentence: "Diefenbaker became prime minister when Eisenhower was president and the two fostered one of the strongest friendships between American presidents and Canadian prime ministers." I am not disputing it, but wonder on what it is based. What evidence is there that this friendship was "one of the strongest" of any American president and eCanadian prime minsiter" HistoryBA 14:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Diefenbaker became prime minister when Eisenhower was president in 1957. The two were friends over the years and they both kept touch, even after leaving office (Eisenhower in 1961, Diefenbaker in 1963). [Contribution made by SNIyer12 on 24 May 2005.]

I understand that their terms overlapped and that the writer of this part of the article believes that they were close friends. I am asking what evidence there is that this friendship was "one of the strongest" of any president and prime minister. Does Diefenbaker say this in his memoirs? Have Eisenhower's aides commented on their closeness? HistoryBA 23:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I would refer you to page 157 of "One Canada: Memoirs of the Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, Vol II". There is a description of Diefenbaker's friendship with Eisenhower. Quoting... "I might add that President Eisenhower and I were from our first meeting on an 'Ike-John' basis, and that we were as close as the nearest telephone." He then goes on to share a personal letter from Eisenhower. Reading on in the chapter one reads about the rather acrimonious relationship he had with Kennedy, and the reasons for it. A good example of Kennedy's legendary ego and ill feelings for Canada and Britian. --Mf135gas 05:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to check this out. HistoryBA 13:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Clark Eulogy

Can anyone provide evidence to support this statement: "Joe Clark became the first prime minister to eulogize another during the burial services"? 70.48.170.216 23:19, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just finished watching an episode of Canada: A People's History, and if it's possible I would like someone to add a bit about how the Voice of Women played a big role in the whole Nuke decision. I would have, but I'm afraid of messing up the article. Also, the article can be constured as misleading, the part about "Dief's refusal to allow nukes into Canada", from what I understand, he was on the fence and the VoW was what changed his mind.

Other than, great article.

Order of Merit or Companion of Honour?

The wiki page on the Nickle Resolution states that Dief was made a Member of the Order of Merit and the Trudeau was a Companion of Honour, however on Dief's postnominals it says CH instead of OM. Which is correct ? Dowew 20:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Military Service

Dief never made it to France. He never saw action in the trenches. As much as I loved him and his Vision for Canada, I cannot let this go misreported in the article. For validation, see "Rogue Tory" by Denis Smith, ISBN# 0-921912-92-7. Dief claimed an injury whilst in training in England, spitting blood, and was discharged back to Canada where he was further judged unfit for Military Service due to heart irregularities. I have corrected that article to reflect this reality. (Posted by TrulyTory, 3 December 2005)

Can 16 months in the Army truly be considered "brief"? Granted he never saw combat but it seems strange to say that, considering he did become an officer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McDingus (talk • contribs) 04:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Point well taken. Correction made. Thanks. Instant Comma (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Exclusion from Clark cabinet

Any sustantiation for the claim that this was controversial? Diefenbaker was 83 and frail when Clark assumed the premiership, and I don't recall there being any serious discussion of his inclusion in cabinet. - Fishhead64, 05 Feb 2006

I'd be curious about the seating. Members are seated in proximity to the speaker by precedence, although everyone in cabinet is seated in the front and second rows around the prime minister, closeness to the PM roughly determined by precedence again. Was Diefenbaker assigned a seat near the Speaker, or out in the middle as close as possible to Clark without being among the cabinet ministers?

And yes, Diefenbaker did have a seat in the 31st Parliament - one of the last photos taken of him was of him sitting at his seat in Parliament, which had not yet been called into session. Presumably, after Clark's cabinet was sworn in on June 4, the house officials started figuring out where everyone would be sitting and attached their name plates. GBC (talk) 00:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The photo I looked at last night shows him standing at the side opposite the Speaker of the eighth desk from the Speaker in the front row, so the sixteenth seat from the Speaker. So I imagine it is the latter. Presumably not too close to Clark as the two did not get along. I don't think anyone would have expected him to be in the Clark cabinet, he was 83 and apparently suffered a mild stroke during the campaign though his people covered it up by saying he had gotten the flu.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Inaccuracies On This Page

Edna Mae Brower was born in 1899, not 1901.

Between his election to the Wakaw Town Council in 1920 and his election to Parliament in 1940, Mr. Diefenbaker was a losing candidate in five elections. They were: the Federal Elections of 1925 and 1926, the Saskatchewan Provincial Elections of 1929 and 1938, and the Prince Albert Mayoral Race in 1933. He never ran for office in Alberta.

Mr. Diefenbaker first mounted a campaign for Leader of the Conservative Party in 1942, and lost to John Bracken in the Convention of that year. The Leadership Convention was not held in 1943.

Mr. Diefenbaker's courageous stand against apartheid took place at the 1961 Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, not the 1962 Conference. PeterNixon 00:12, 9 December 2006.

As a matter purely of style, I can't tell from reading the early list of accomplishments whether Dief founded or abolished the Economic Council of Canada. It sounds as if he should be credited with founding it, but the verb immediately before it is 'abolished', with reference to the Avro Arrow program. Maybe the note about the ECC could be moved to before the mention of the Avro Arrow? The decision about the ECC is not mentioned elsewhere on the page, e.g. in the description of Dief's time as PM. Johndgregory (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

First PM with military service?

Was Dief the first Canadian PM with military service? None of the previous PM's articles mention any time in uniform. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 07:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Diefenbaker Time Magazine.jpg

Image:Diefenbaker Time Magazine.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 Wikipedia articles 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 insure 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The current content of the page does not allow for a meaningful fair use rationale, as the issue of Time Magazine is nowhere discussed. I've furthermore downgraded to B-class, because this article lacks in-line citations completely (which is a prerequisite for A-class). Sorry. Errabee 13:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Orange Order

This page is in the 'Orange Order' and 'Orangemen' categories, but doesn't say that Diefenbaker was an Orangeman. I know nothing about the guy, but the page should either mention he was in the Orange Order or be removed from those categories. --Helenalex 20:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• According to "The Orange Order in Canada" (2007) citing "The Sash Canada Wore" Diefenbaker was an Orangman.Threadnecromancer (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

He was a member of a lot of things, see below.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

• On the topic of a different Fraternal lodge, these folks http://ask.saskmasons.ca/ are claiming he was a Freemason, was he? If so he should probably be added to that list as well. Threadnecromancer (talk) 22:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

That is not a reliable third party source. 117Avenue (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

• Did I ever say it was? No, I specifically said that IF THAT WERE SO it should be included. But you are the editor who repeatedly reverted my edits including Diefenbaker in the Orangeman category, despite the scholarly agreement on the topic so whatever.
• Although that category has now been unfortunately removed (sad how people can delete one's hard work so quickly without you being aware that there is even a discussion of the topic) I think it is definitely worth mentioning somewhere in the body of the article. The Orange Order was an important organization, which had multiple PMs who were members and he was the last PM to be one, which is oft mentioned by scholars whenever they discuss the organization and its political relevance.

If there's something scholarly pointing out the significance, I would have no objection.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Honorifics

I am not sure that the listing of the | honorific-suffix = PC CH QC LLD (hc, McM) LLD (hc, StM) LLD (hc, UBC) LLD (hc, UNB) LLD (hc, PU) LLD (hc, UofT) LLD (hc, UW) LLD (hc, QU) LLD (hc, Dal) LLD (hc, MUN) LLD (hc, WLU) LLD (hc, UA) DCL (hc, Sask) DCL (hc, UWO) MA LLB BA FRSC FRSA in the infobox works well. I have moved these here to preserve the information. Comments? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC).

Avro Arrow Paragraph Expansion

The Avro Arrow paragraph would be strengthened with an examination of the causes leading to its cancellation. It should be noted that, had they been re-elected, the Liberal Party would have canceled the program. While criticisms were made by the Liberal opposition regarding the way in which the cancellation, they did not criticize the decision to do so. The program was eating up an increasing proportion of the defence budget. The cost of the planes had increased five-fold from that originally budgeted to the manufacturing costs when the program was terminated. There were no international buyers. Interestingly, the Avro Arrow had never been flight tested with both the Iroquois engine and its weapons system. PieterGordon (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Be aware that the decision was Diefenbaker's alone, that the issues were complex and no consensus is possible about the actual details behind the decision. If you are referring to former Liberal Cabinet member C.D. Howe's post-election statement, remember that he was no longer in government. Pearson made no commitments one way or the other about the continuation of the Avro Arrow or its related programs. The Hansard accounts specifically rebute your statement about the lack of Opposition criticism, especially in the aftermath of the cancellation. The "cost factor" was never brought up in the months leading to the February 20, 1959 cancellation, rather that appeared in the days after the decision and are only obliquely cited in the PM's speech that day. Interestingly, RL-206 was nearly ready for test flight but the government reneged on an announcement that the Arrow/Iroquois program would be reviewed at the end of March 1959. The company continued to work on readying the first Arrow MK 2 before the entire program was unceremoniously "scrapped." The government's contention that the Arrow was unnecessary in the wake of missile attacks had led to the purchase of Bomarc anti-aircraft missiles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC).

While the decision was indeed Diefenbaker's it is clear that the St. Laurent Government had, in light of the vast increase in expenditures on the project, began to scale back the program, including lowering the potential number of squadrons to be outfitted, as well as the initial order of planes to be built. The Chiefs of Staff Committee of the armed forces had begun to question whether, in light of the limited number of aircraft to be completed, the costs would yield appropriate defence returns. In 1958, ultimately, they, along with the PC Defence Minister Pearkes, recommended the cancellation of the program. In a letter to Pearson a month before the cancellation, CD Howe reiterated his post-election statement, declaring that the Arrow should be terminated, and the PC Government attacked on its handling of the decision. It is also important to note that, at the cancellation of the program, the Arrow story was regional; it was only later that it became a national concern, at which point the legend and mythology began. While there is room for criticism in how the Diefenbaker Government and its predecessor handled the project, and the PC line that military considerations were ultimately behind the cancellation, the decision to cancel was quite logical given the economic considerations. PieterGordon (talk) 20:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue of cancellation is a complex one but it was ultimately made by Diefenbaker with advice from but not necessarily consensus from defence and industry sources about the decision. Dief's decision was a significant one in that it negatively impacted the aerospace industry in our country for decades. The underlying issues stem back to longstanding Progressive Conservative antipathy for the previous Liberal government's "pet projects" which included the Seaway, oil pipelines and the Avro Arrow. What was not considered was that Pearkes was persuaded that the role of manned interceptors had been diminished. Contrast his support for the Arrow/Iroquois projects both prior to and post-1958. His visit to the Pentagon did much to shake his resolve in continuing with the Avro CF-105 Arrow. C.D. Howe was not elected in the 1957 election, and his comments were in start contrast to those of Paul Hellyer, the defence critic whose post-cancellation remarks can be found in Hansard records. The actual costs for the cancellation were neither "logical" nor "economically feasible." First the government was forced to pay out cancellation fees, the Avro Aircraft and Avro Orenda companies lost 15,000 employees while a further 40,000 jobs were affected in the "supply chain" of support companies all over Canada. The role of military aircraft design and production was severely affected as A.V. Roe Canada represented the largest industrial complex in the country at the time. The immediate ramifications of the cancellation was the loss of Canada's industrial and technological resources as many of the staff were lost for good; a group of Avro engineers went to NASA, many more of the 2,000 technicians and engineering staff left the country for jobs in the U.S. and the United Kingdom. After 1959, the RCAF never procured a Canadian-made design while indigenous aerospace technology was set back for over two decades until the Bombardier concern emerged from the remnants of the Canadair company. By 1961, the entire A.V. Roe company which had been the third largest industrial complex had collapsed. Politically, the Arrow cancellation can be seen as not only partisan but an ill-considered expedient that marked the decline and eventual end of Diefenbaker as a political force. The immediate economic repercussions of the cancellation led to the Progressive Conservative party's loss in countless elections in the "Golden Triangle" (a phenomenon that continues to this day). From that point on, through the "Night of the Long Knives," every decision, especially in the arena of national defence was challenged and with a series of mistakes regarding nuclear issues, led to Dief's defeat at the polls. Most poignantly, in 1961, the RCAF obtained F-101 Voodoo fighters (the very design that was rejected 10 years earlier) to undertake the same role that the Avro Arrow would have fulfilled; the Voodoo remained in service for approximately 30 years. Diefenbaker delayed the decision to acquire the Voodoo since his earlier acceptance of Bomarc missile defence had proved not only to be highly controversial (the missile only carried nuclear warheads but also proved to be an expensive failure) while equipping the RCAF with the Voodoo would have tantamountly led the public to perceive that the original decision to cancel the Arrow was in error. In his last years, Diefenbaker referred to the Arrow cancellation as a form of "watermark" of his years in office; he never came out with an formal statement of regret but in his memoirs and in speaking to colleagues and close confidants, he tacitly admitted that the whole affair was a disaster that had begun to undermine cabinet and public confidence in him. The final disgraceful act in the Arrow cancellation was the secret destruction of the aircraft, as well as all records of the project. Acting upon orders in council, Crown Assets undertook a scrapping of the aircraft that removed any possibility of the company being able to "save" the project or even salvage some aspect of the programs. Orders that were issued to the Dassault company for Iroquois engines were cancelled by the government while efforts to provide flyable examples for supersonic research at Farnborough were also summarily dismissed. The only viable Avro contracts remaining were for experimental VTOL aircraft designs that had been financed by the U.S. military. In a twist of fate, the Pentagon also proposed that the XF-108 Rapier be purchased by the RCAF to replace the cancelled Avro Arrow, in direct contradiction to the concept that manned interceptors were no longer needed. After 1959, Canada only purchased U.S. military equipment with the CF-5, CF-101, CF-104 and CF-118 (Hornet now reaching its 30th year in service with the Forces). FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC).

Iraqi ambassador's residence

Weeks before his death, Diefenbaker was indignant that very near his home, in the Rockcliffe neighbourhood, the Iraqi ambassador had a middle-east style wall built around the property. Diefenbaker strutted around nearby one day during news coverage of the controversy. Diefenbaker said that when Parliament met in the fall of 1979, he would demand in the House that the wall be demolished. Whether anyone took up the cause after his death is not known to me. GBC (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just an oversight?

I was reading this article about the St Lawrence Seaway turning 50 this year, and saw the following -- "The seaway held its official opening ceremony on June 26, 1959. Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip, U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower and prime minister John Diefenbaker sailed through the seaway and St. Lambert Lock on the royal yacht Britannia........." Very interesting report, so in an effort to learn more I followed my nose to our St Lawrence Seaway article and discovered it says "Queen Elizabeth II and President Dwight D. Eisenhower formally opened the Seaway........". No mention of Diefenbacker, which I thought was curious, to say the least. Comments? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In the event of a head-of-state being present, the official party representing Canada would be Queen Elizabeth II. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Aw shucks, shoudda guessed. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement

Hi, it is my intention to thoroughly work over the article with a view towards getting it to FAC in early 2010. Collaborators welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Birth/Death Dates

Most prime ministers have it as mf=yes for the birth/death date parameters. Perhaps we should change it to that? Connormah (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I had changed that ... while WP:MOSDATE says you can go either month first or day first, I find that day first is far more common in Canada. I would suggest leaving it. None of the Canadian prime ministers have made FA. Yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? Month first (M/D/Y) is far more common here, I live in Canada...and all of the other prime ministers use a MDY format, should we conform to those? Connormah (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You surprise me. Whenever I see a document from Canada, it seems to have a day month year. However, I guess popular usage is otherwise. What are your views on British versus American spelling, though?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe just government documents, but MF is used more casually, in books, etc. I don't really take note to spellings much. Connormah (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it is just the government, plus Quebec of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about the infobox dates in the article? DF or MF? I'll get you to decide. Connormah (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be consistent. One Canada, after all. Month first! I just wrote the final years section and I am really starting to like this guy. He just never gave in, never forgave or forgot.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

References

A references section would be useful, with Diefenbaker books, movies, and records listed.70.29.78.233 (talk) 19:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)70.29.78.233 (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

He did do the one record, of speeches as I recall. But his books are listed in the biblio section (oh, he probably did a ghostwritten book or two while party leader, but that hardly counts. I'm not sure there's enough there to be worth it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are records of his speeches, but also many songs that refer to him. Two are "Dief Will Be the Chief Again" by Stringband and "Die, Dief, Die" by the Vulcan Dub Squad. There is also a group called "Diefenbaker".70.29.78.233 (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm familiar with the first one. But I really don't think they are relevant to a biographical article on Dief, especially one that is going to be fairly long. It could be lumped into a separate article, Popular depictions of John Diefenbaker, along with the dog, the character in Bimbos of the Death Sun nicknamed after Dief, and so forth.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

Perhaps it might be wise to add a pronunciation in the lead? Connormah (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but how do you do it in a way that is helpful to the reader? I don't really believe IPA, however accurate it is, is helpful. I did mention it in a footnote how it is pronounced, or at least the last two syllables, which is what gives people pause who are not either of Dief's era or Canadian.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

That should be good. Connormah (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things

The lead refers to Dief as an "attorney". Why is this term, not used by lawyers in Canada, used here? Unless there is some reason, it should be changed to "lawyer" which I will do unless there is objection. The article cites Peter C Newman as saying Dief did 62 jury trials in one year. Surely not. I doubt that there were that many jury trials in the whole province in a year. Does someone have access to Newman's book to see whether this claim is actually supported by Newman's book? --KenWalker | Talk 05:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I own the book. I am presently traveling and will doublecheck when I get home. It did seem high, but God only knows what went on in Saskatchewan in 1920. I will change "attorney" to "lawyer" whereever it occurs, it is my American ignorance thinking they are synonymous. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The quote from Newman is "During his first year, he handled sixty-two jury trials, winning about half of them."--Wehwalt (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I would generally consider Newman a reliable source but I would bet a buck didn't do 62 jury trials in a year, perhaps in his career, but in a year, no way. --KenWalker | Talk 03:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Wilson and Wilson, Diefenbaker for the Defence gives no figure, but does mention him representing five of fourteen farmers charged with fraud, he got acquittals before a jury in all five, but his were the the least involved defendants. That kind of thing could run up the score.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Phrasing quibbles

In the introduction, it states "...his family trekked west to the portion of the Northwest Territories...". Did his family actually trek out to the west, or did they travel there as most others did? (If they did trek there, do we have a source for it?)

Other potential tweaks in the intro:

• For the sentences "He became a lawyer, and contested elections through the 1920s and 1930s. He had little success, until he was finally elected ..." could we merge them into one, perhaps as "...1920s and 1930s with little success, until..."?
• "After entering the Commons..." -> "Thereafter..."?
• "his poor relations with US President John F. Kennedy in part led to his downfall" -> "his poor relations with US President John F. Kennedy contributed to his downfall"

I'll add other suggestions as I read each section. Mindmatrix 22:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

They took the train. Is your point is that they didn't walk? Dare I mention Star Trek? I've changed it to "migrated west".

I'll merge the sentences.

Excellent on the Kennedy, I'll do that. Thanks for the help.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure "Thereafter" is the best way to start the paragraph. I changed the opener to "In the House of Commons"--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right about "thereafter"; it was a poor choice. Regarding "trekking", there was a general westward migration of Canadians from the 1880s onward via several methods, so I wanted to ensure this was clear in the text. Mindmatrix 23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't worth inserting in the text, but the main reason they went west is that William Diefenbaker had some sort of lung condition and he was told the air out there would be good for his health. I wonder if he felt that way when temps dropped to -40,--Wehwalt (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More tweaks:

• In Aspiring politician, there's a long, awkward sentence near the end: "Although in the 1925 federal election..."; could we invert bits of it to remove a comma, for example "Although the Conservatives had won the largest number of seats in the 1925 federal election, Mackenzie King continued...". And perhaps, largest -> greatest.
• In Early life, the phrase "told his mother at the age of eight or nine that he would some day be Prime Minister" should have a citation. Is it the same source as the one that occurs later in that paragraph (for "She would live to be proved wrong")?
• In Perennial candidate, we should change the phrase "Eleven names, including Diefenbaker's, were placed in nomination" to "Eleven names were nominated, including Diefenbaker's." or "Eleven people were nominated, including Diefenbaker.". Or have I missed the reason for this phrasing?

More to come. Mindmatrix 23:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Those things have been done. Thank you. Looking forward to more.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional points

I see that NormanEinstein has added a link to the Diefenbunker. Other info that may be of relevance:

• 1926 by-election for Prince Albert electoral district (on 1926-02-15), mentioned in the article, in which WLMK's only opponent was a local farmer and ex-WWI flying ace (David Luther Burgess) who ran as an independent; the date is useful, the fact he had one opponent may be relevant, the actual name may not be
• in Mandate (1958–1962), there is the claim about the Avro Arrow that it "had suffered from many cost overruns and complications", but there's no ref for it; also, the transition from Avro to civil liberties seems abrupt
• in Return to opposition, the statement He dismissed the adopted design, with a single red maple leaf and two red bars, as "a flag that Peruvians might salute". has no supporting reference

Other than that, this article seems complete and comprehensive. I've done a complete review, and conditional on the above (with your discretion for the first point listed) I'll add my support to the FAC. Mindmatrix 03:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I added the date. I think it trivial to add the name of the independent candidate; the point is to establish Mackenzie King as the Liberal MP for Prince Albert and set up the race. The article is about Diefenbaker, and he did not run (at the time, it was the custom not to run an opposing major party candidate when the leader ran in a by election, either because he had lost his seat or because he had to be confirmed as minister (Canada kept that until 1939). I moved the Avro into the Eisenhower Years section; the Bomarc and Arrow are all tangled up, so it makes sense to have it there. I added cites as required, hoping you will support once you look at it. Thanks for the review. If you do support at FAC, please mention that you reviewed the article on the article talk page, you'll give it more weight.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online

Good point on removing my external link to the article on Dief in the Dictionary -- sorry I didn't look closer before I did it. What do you think of including it in the bibliography? I suggest this because I think it's a very valuable source, being written by his primary biographer AND being super-easily accessibly by virtue of the fact that it's online. As well, because it's buried in the footnotes it might slip by many readers. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That is fine, just make sure it is alphabetical under Smith and uses the same citation format as the other references. Many thanks,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hope the formatting is to your specifications. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. I'm picky about MOS issues because I don't want to see articles I've worked hard on deteriorate.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Totally fair. This is an excellent article, which is a nice change of pace for Canadian history on Wiki -- something I'm hoping to help change. Hope to perhaps work with you in the future. Cheers. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll let you know if I do another Canadian article. I also got Canadian federal election, 1957 to FA. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Legacy section

"By the end of 1963, the first of the Bomarc warheads entered Canada, where they remained until the last were finally phased out during John Turner's brief government in 1984."

This sentence contradicts CIM-10 Bomarc (sections "Canada and the Bomarc" and "Operation") which states that the warheads were phased out twelve years earlier. --Voyager (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Source said June 30, 1984. Do you have an actual source (not a WP article) which says otherwise? Many thinks,--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Both the Canadian Air Force [1] and the Air Defense Radar Veteran's Association [2] say it was in 1972. --Voyager (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I'm currently translating this article into German. --Voyager (talk) 12:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well done. I will dig up my copy of Nash and look at the exact phrasing.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Revert justification

Didn't accept a change here [3] because [4] lists his father's name as William, not danny. Hobit (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Appears to be a vandalism-only account. Jumped to level 3 warning which I think was appropriate given history. Hobit (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert. Diefenbaker's father was named William, I can confirm that from many RS.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Term dates

The Government of Canada is a primary source for the history of Prime Ministers. It is the source used for the List of Prime Ministers of Canada. Why would we say the Government of Canada is wrong? 117Avenue (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

You tempt me ... it's easy enough to check contemporary newspapers and so forth, I guess. But why does there seem to be a widespread error? regardless of whichever one of us is right.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Prime Ministers don't resign at mid-night, before their successors are sworn in. For example, Martin resigned on February 6, 2006 - about 2hrs before Harper was sworn in. The primary source you mentioned, erroneously leaves out the last 'date' in office of outgoing prime ministers. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought so too, but the website says otherwise. 117Avenue (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That website is un-reliable in this case, as it chooses to end with the last 'full day' in office. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The 19th centuary prime ministerships hav had inbetween 'across dates' vacancies, though. GoodDay (talk) 23:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because of the deaths of Macdonald and Thompson, it taking a bit of time for the Conseratives to caucus. But I agree. I think we are seeing some sort of function on the Parliament web site which is unable to believe that two people can both be PM on the same day (because one resigns and the other takes over). But the website doesn't understand that.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the website can't handle the same date thing. I reverted 117 Avenue's changes on the PM bio articles & the List article. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible illegitimate child

Someone added information alleging Dief may have had an illegitimate child in the late 60s, and there will be DNA testing with the cooperation of the Diefenbaker Centre. I suggest we ignore it unless and until it's shown this guy is Dief's kid. If so, add something tasteful and sourced. But unless and until that happens, do nothing.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the testing will take place in December & the result won't be available until the new year. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with adding it, assuming it pans out. I doubt it will though. People said a lot of nasty things about Dief in his time, and since, but this guy is the first to say Dief played around on Olive. I think he was so loyal to Olive that this is the reason Edna is mentioned only three times in his memoirs (marriage, his first nomination in Lake Centre, and the Atherton case, during which Edna died.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he looks like Dief because Elmer fooled around.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

We shall learn the truth, in the new year. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently not, per this. I'm starting to think this guy is not all 100% all there, but as of right now, there is no evidence he was Dief's kid, and I suggest we ignore it until and unless there's something more. At least he isn't proposing digging up Dief, not that this is very practical in a Saskatchewan winter.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

8 January 2013 Another follow-up article, for consideration. At the very least, Children could be changed to "none confirmed" to reflect this possibility-- rather than burying the notion of an illegitimate child deeply in this talk page. From the following article: "Dryden said he still planned to change his name to Diefenbaker in light of an earlier DNA test he said shows he’s related to the ex-PM’s clan." With the surprising visual similarity, and enough result to suggest he's at least connected to the Diefenbaker family, it's worth opening up the consideration.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1312157--alleged-son-of-john-diefenbaker-wants-mother-to-confirm-paternit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.199.60 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but given the lack of actual evidence, I'm reluctant, as that may offend people who are consulting the article when we don't have a good enough reason to do so, as besmirching the man when this guy Dryden may be a couple of eggs short of a dozen. It's still the status quo as it was before, and he still hasn't gotten his mom to back him. I suggest we continue to monitor the situation.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Or perhaps two

A further DNA development in the news yesterday as reported here by CBC. If I have it straight, Dryden's DNA has now been shown to match that of three brothers named Goertzen in Saskatchewan, whose father (now deceased) was born in 1939 to Diefenbaker's housekeeper. Since Dryden and the Goertzens' father were born about 30 years and 2 provinces apart, it seems doubtful there would be anyone else in common in the backgrounds of both mothers. Dirac66 (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

It's still speculative in my view. Two things: the high percentage was that they were related, not that they were brothers. Second, they need to close the link to Diefenbaker, and the attempt to get DNA from artifacts in the Dief Centre in Saskatoon were not successful.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

To bring this issue back again, it is more likely than not that both the lately deceased George John Dryden and John Eric LaMarche aka Edward Thorne were both sons of John Diefenbaker and should be mentioned as a paragraph in their likely father's article. Evidence: 1) 99.99% probability that Thorne's sons and Dryden were related in a manner consistent with an uncle-nephew relationship. 2) The LaMarche/Thorne/Geortzen family and Dryden appear to have had no other commonality than the proximity of Mrs. Dryden and Ms. Lamarche to Mr. Diefenbaker. 3) Physical likeness of Dryden to Diefenbaker. 4) The DNA evidence from the discarded earwax of an uncooperative Diefenbaker relative is consistent with a distant relationship. It may not be provable on a "beyond reasonable doubt" basis, and the cumulative weight of the evidence is stronger than any single piece of it, but the "balance of probabilities" seems to be met. I can't think of an alternative hypothesis that is as persuasive (is Diefenbaker's brother as likely as Diefenbaker? Could this all be fabricated, and if so, to what benefit? All seem less likely than what Dryden and the Goertzens allege). RWIR 2 May 2016

If sensitivity is the barrier: We talk of the sensitivity of the matter for Diefenbaker's legacy, but we shouldn't forget the apparent descendants either. Perhaps some parallel to the Jefferson–Hemings_controversy and the time it took for their allegations to gain acceptance.RWIR 2 May 2016

I continue to believe that we should wait until the secondary sources accept the claim as true. I understand your argument about the feelings, but that has to be balanced against the feelings of those who believe in Diefenbaker, part of whose appeal was his loyalty to his wives. I think Wikipedia is ill-equipped to make such judgments, and therefore we await the verdict of history.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Two history teachers have now included the claims of Mr. Dryden and Mr. Goertzen in their books. They are John Boyko, Cold Fire: Kennedy’s Northern Frontier, (New York and Toronto, 2016), pp. 19-20 accessed at Amazon.com 30 May 2018, and J.D.M. Stewart, Being Prime Minister, (Toronto, 2018), p. ?, accessed at Google books 30 May 2018. Each gives a paragraph or two on Dryden's and Goertzen's assertions and evidence and then Boyko says this "certainly raises interesting questions about a secret life that ... stands in contrast to Diefenbaker's stodgy image", and Stewart says "the story is remarkable and cause for reflection on the Chief." These two secondary sources would seem to be sufficient to merit a paragraph on the alleged offspring of John Diefenbaker.RWIR (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure they say anything definite enough for inclusion but let's see what people think.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:59, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 March 2012

As a young man John served his community as a member of the Eclectic Club (4 clubs existed in Saskatchewan), which in 1926 merged with the Kinsmen Organization (Kinsmen and Kinette Clubs of Canada) of which he took an active role.

reference... http://reddeerkinsmen.com/about/11-history

70.73.120.184 (talk) 02:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't question that. After all, it's in the song. Nevertheless, it seems a relatively small point and I'm not certain it merits inclusion.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Nash anecdote

At his on-air retirement from CBC News, Knowlton Nash recounted an anecdote from when he was a foreign correspondent and had been sent to Cuba on assignment. The hotel where he was staying had a large portrait of Castro, another of Lenin -- and a third, of Diefenbaker. When Nash asked about this, he was told that they had heard Dief was honored for his anti-American stance (presumably on the missile question, given the implied time of this incident, although Nash did not say in the interview). 121a0012 (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I like it! Wonder if it's still there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Diefenbaker. 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/20111120080420/http://www.globalnews.ca/retrospective/6442481930/story.html to http://www.globalnews.ca/retrospective/6442481930/story.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Honorary degrees

The articles about most of the Canadian prime ministers who have followed Diefenbaker have sections about the honorary degrees they have received. See Lester B. Pearson#Honorary degrees, Pierre Trudeau#Honorary degrees, Joe Clark#Honorary degrees, John Turner#Honorary degrees, Brian Mulroney#Honorary degrees, Kim Campbell#Honorary degrees, Jean Chrétien#Honorary degrees, Paul Martin#Honorary degrees, and Stephen Harper#Honorary degrees. In light of this pattern, it would seem to be appropriate for Diefenbaker as well. However, an editor removed a section for that on the grounds that it was not encyclopedic. Does anyone else have an opinion about that? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

So how is that not WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS? Adding stuff does not create precedent for more adding stuff. This is a FA and has been through multiple reviews, and no one felt the need for honorary degrees. The others are not Featured Articles. Note that the other featured article on a Canadian prime minister, John A. Macdonald, does not include honorary degrees.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Diefenbaker. 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/20141201190014/http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=942b8255-2822-4d40-822c-70d8b0212305 to http://www2.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=942b8255-2822-4d40-822c-70d8b0212305
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150926180407/http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc-hsmbc/sep-gra/pms/diefenbaker.aspx to http://www.pc.gc.ca/clmhc-hsmbc/sep-gra/pms/diefenbaker.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Diefenbaker. 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/20100113101117/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=84909dc1-9a60-44b3-a939-2393ab563089&Language=E to http://www2.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=84909dc1-9a60-44b3-a939-2393ab563089&Language=E

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Family

I suppose that the roots of his grandparents' ancestors (probably called "Diefenbacher") lie in the village of Diefenbach which is situated just a few kilometres south of Adersbach and Sinsheim. --Kolya (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably but I'm not sure it's covered in the biographies.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Electoral history

Someone who knows how really ought to add his electoral record. He ran for many offices, and as a former PM, such information would be critical to making this a complete entry. BlewsClews (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

There is such an article ( I put it together a couple of years ago). It's a separate article because of the length of this bio. It doesn't appear to be linked on this bio page; I must have forgotten to add a link back then. I've rectified the omission by adding an "About" tag at the top of this article. Thanks for pointing this out! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Good job but I don't think it needs to be at the top of the article. I've moved it to "See also".--Wehwalt (talk) 08:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The only non-Liberal prime minister, between 1935 and 1979

Mentioning Diefenbaker as the only prime minister from the PC party (a successor-in-name only, to the original Conservative party) between 1935 and 1979, will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Since we focus on Diefenbaker's elections in the lede paragraph, having the endpoints be the previous and future election won by that party seems reasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No need to link to federal elections, to describe the near Liberal dominance of the 1935 to 1979 time line. GoodDay (talk) 05:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay what sounds better/more gramatically correct? "He led his party to three election victories, though only once with a majority of seats in the House of Commons." or "He led his party to three election victories, although only once with a majority of seats in the House of Commons." Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The current version we've got, will do. Don't wanna put too much in the opening. GoodDay (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If you both like, you can say he was the only non-Liberal prime minister, between 1935 and 1979. GoodDay (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

No, you have to name the party he led. The problem is, I don't think Ak-eater understands consensus. Consensus is not achieved by preselecting one editor you think might agree with you, and when they do, immediately acting on it. That's covered by WP:CANVASS. Nor is going to another page for editor's opinions, and canvassing there, and when the first editor does not agree, waiting for two more to come along, including the editor who was canvassed, and claiming consensus. Nor is consensus achieved as instantly as they claim it "literally" is.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC: First lead paragraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Which do you think should be in the first paragraph of the lead? Ak-eater06 (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

1. Between 1935 and 1979, he was the only prime minister from the Progressive Conservative Party (known as the Conservatives before 1942). He led his party to three election victories, though only once with a majority of seats in the House of Commons.
2. Between 1935 and 1979, he was the only federal leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (known as the Conservatives before 1942) to lead his party to an election victory, doing so three times, though only once with majority of seats in the House of Commons.
3. (the version that gained consensus at FAC) "John George Diefenbaker, PC, CH, QC (September 18, 1895 – August 16, 1979) was the 13th Prime Minister of Canada, serving from June 21, 1957 to April 22, 1963. He was the only Progressive Conservative (PC, or Tory) party leader between 1930 and 1979 to lead the party to an election victory, doing so three times, although only once with a majority of the seats in the Canadian House of Commons."
4. As above (C), but with the date range beginning in 1935.
5. "John George Diefenbaker, PC, CH, QC (September 18, 1895 – August 16, 1979) was the 13th Prime Minister of Canada, serving from 1957 to 1963. He was the only Progressive Conservative (PC, or Tory) party leader between 1930 and 1979 to lead the party to an election victory, doing so three times, although only once with a majority of the seats in the Canadian House of Commons." ("serving from 1957 to 1963" rather than "serving from June 21, 1957 to April 22, 1963").

A or B or C or D or E? Ak-eater06 (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey (First lead paragraph)

• A - Will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• C Longstanding version, no reason proposed for change.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• C The current version is the best option. The proposed restructuring of the sentence only makes it more cumbersome, and in B, approaches a run-on sentence. I also don't see why "(PC, or Tory)" was replaced; the parenthetical in the current version is a helpful introduction of a shorthand, while the suggested version turns it into some trivia (relative to the lede). — Kawnhr (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

My problem with "C", is that it may hide the fact that the original Conservatives were the gov't from 1930 to 1935. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

It's an interesting point but it's usual for governments to continue for some time past the election. The focus is on Diefenbaker's feat in winning elections during that time of Liberal dominance, something the half dozen or so other Tory leaders could not do (including Bennett after 1930 and before time ran out on him in 1935, when if he could have called an election and won, he would have).--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Note: C is not the current version. Instant Comma (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

True. Ak-eater06 changed it repeatedly, and I wasn't willing to edit war with them over it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• D A - Date ranges often include the end points. Or at least that's what writers intend and readers understand. To avoid ambiguity, we should start the date range with 1935. For some examples, see the article on the 180th Infantry Division (Wehrmacht), which describes it as being "active between 1939 and 1945". Or the Otto H. Kahn House, which was "built between 1914 and 1918". Or Eizo Kenmotsu, who "won seven world titles and three Olympic gold medals between 1968 and 1979". Instant Comma (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I changed from D to A. The important thing is to be clear about the date range. Instant Comma (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

• Modified C. I prefer the prose of C, but the version above has linking issues that need sorting. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
• A - I agree with GoodDay - the reference to 1930 is confusing, since Bennett won in 1930 and was in power until 1935. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion (First lead paragraph)

Comment It's very unusual for an RFC to propose a choice of "A or B", both chosen by Ak-eater. Isn't this something of a false choice? Neither represents the version that's been a FA for eleven years, or my personal preference, just two chosen by Ak-eater.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

You're free to add in an 'Option C', as the status-quo version. GoodDay (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment I don't know why the tag was removed from this RFC, but what's in the article intro is simply a dang mess. The 1930 to 1979 bit, gives the impression that the Liberals were in power for 49 consecutive years. Completely wiping out Richard B. Bennett. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• No, of course it doesn't. It is simply the version that was passed at FAC and had existed almost continuously for 11 years as a FA. It only states that during the space of 49 years, Dief was the only Tory to win an election. Period.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the RFC tag, as it was removed without explanation & the RFC was barely a week old. GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it again. The person who started it is allowed to remove it per WP:RFCEND, paragraph 1. They did. That ends the RFC.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Where was the prior discussion for this? Why is this an issue? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

There is discussion below indicating that it was accepted that the RFC had been closed. It's the proposer's right to withdraw it. Judging by their comments below, they accept that consensus was against them, though there seems to be some disagreement about the scope of the decision.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: the editor who opened & later prematurely closed the RFC, was inexperienced in RFCs. He didn't know that they are usually opened for a whole month - until the RFC tag expires. Anyways, the declaration of option-C being a consensus, is also premature. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

With so much drama in the R-F-C it's kind of hard bein' an editor on Wiki

Folks, I reopened this RFC, on the advice of User:GoodDay. I was new to this RFC stuff and wrongly instantly closed it as I assumed that the "C" side won. However, I did this prematurely as I didn't follow the rules of the RFC. Five responses was not enough and I'll leave this open for one or two more weeks. My apologies for the confusion I created.

The RFC for this is reopened. I encourage any user who hasn't inserted their opinion to please participate in the survey. Happy holidays. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Though it's unusual to have two RFC happening at the same time, at the same article. This situation is alright, as both are of different topics. GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yet they cover overlapping text and could come to different results.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

If they do? We can try to reach a compromise out of the two results or (after these two RFCs are closed) begin a third RFC. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

User:GoodDay, interesting idea. We can scrap these two RFCs and begin a third one with options A, B, C, D, or E for the first paragraph of the lead. Pinging User:Wehwalt too. Ak-eater06 (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I think GoodDay means after these two run their course, start a third. Scrapping RFCs that have generated comments for the purpose of starting a new one might not be a proper use of the process. Perhaps SMcCandlish, who has more experience in these things than I do, could advise.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you & Ak-eater06 are the main opponents concerning how & what should be in this bios's intro. I'll agree to scrapping the two current RFC, in favour of a new RFC with options that you both can agree to present. Would be best (if you both agree to close the two RFCs & open a new RFC) to contact every editor who's already given their input in the two RFCs-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I would agree to that. It can easily be covered inside the first RFC. In fact, with option E, it probably has.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well then, we'll let the two RFC continue onward. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

We can. But while I stand by my !votes, I'd be willing to see E as the basis of a consensus version and we can close both RfCs and go on our merry ways. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Option E has a major flaw. It creates the impression that Diefenbaker was the only non-Liberal prime minister, between 1930 & 1979. GoodDay (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What about language like "between the Bennett government (1930-35) and that of Joe Clark (1979-1980) to win an election, doing so three times ..." Something along those lines anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Something like that. We also need to keep in mind, prime ministers aren't elected, bur rather they're appointed. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, I'm proposing that we keep the existing lead, with the dates in the first sentence changed to years, but change the second sentence to "He was the only Progressive Conservative{{efn|Known as the [[Conservative Party of Canada (1867–1942)|Conservatives]] before 1942}} party leader between the Bennett government (1930-1935) and that of Joe Clark (1979-1980) to lead the party to an election victory, doing so three times, although only once with a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm find with that, even though it extends the lead. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06: Your addition of option E has taken the RfC statement outside the requirements of WP:RFCBRIEF, and consequently broken the RfC listings. You need to shorten it significantly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Redrose64 where in your link does it say that five options is too many? Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't, because the number of options is immaterial (I have seen valid, if confusing, RfCs with eight or more options). It is the length of the RfC statement as a whole that is the problem: this is the amount of wikitext (measured in bytes) from the {{rfc}} tag (exclusive) to the next valid timestamp (inclusive). Your edit that I linked above added 616 bytes to the RfC statement, and the next edit added a further 84: these two taken together tipped it over the edge. My edit yesterday shortened the statement from 2,511 bytes to 203, and so it is now well within the capabilities of Legobot, as evidenced by this edit. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFC: First sentence of the first lead paragraph

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the first sentence of the first lead paragraph show full dates, or just the years?

1. "...was the 13th Prime Minister of Canada, serving from June 21, 1957 to April 22, 1963."
2. "...was the 13th Prime Minister of Canada, serving from 1957 to 1963."

Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey (First sentence of the first lead paragraph)

• Version A since consensus already settled on it, and it is more informative. If anything, the other Canadian PM articles should be tweaked to give more specific dates.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• A - Precision is important in an encyclopedia. If uniformity is important, all the other articles should be changed to this style. Instant Comma (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• A - better to be precise. Please note that this was actually settled by the consensus gained in the RFC from last week. The lead paragraph now carries a recent consensus. I agree with SMcCandlish's comments in the discussion section.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• B - Stated my argument below in discussion. Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
• B and then put the precise dates in the body of the article (invited by the bot) Both are fine, but we're being asked to choose / help decide. But the lead is supposed to be a summary/summary form, and "B" aligns better with that. Also IMHO "A" is a bit too detailed for the first sentence of the article., Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• B - The specificity is unnecessary for the first sentence. Readers can already easily access that information in the infobox, and the more specific dates can also be put later in the prose (or indeed a later paragraph of the lead) of the article. - — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 14:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
• On the whole I'd go for option C, which has served its purpose admirably for ages and covers the ground satisfactorily. Tim riley talk 17:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• B - The exact dates are already in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
• B - Provided we keep the exact dates in both the infobox and the body. Adoring nanny (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• B for higher readability. All the detailed dates are there in the body and the infobox if more specificity is needed, but for a general intro to the uninformed reader only years are important. — HTGS (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

Discussion (First sentence of the first lead paragraph)

My argument: I believe that Option B is good as every single PM of Canada article (including John A. Macdonald) has years rather than exact, precise dates. Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

We've just achieved consensus in the section above, which you've conceded by removing the rfc tag. Why is there any need for a fresh rfc? How long is this to be belabored? The current version, A, has survived 11 years and there's nothing wrong with being specific. Saying "every other article has this" is an empty argument because the public is not consulting the articles in a series and expects information, not artificial conformity.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Anyone should be able to hold an RFC without an editor having a problem...that's what democracy is. Wikipedia is a community where anyone can edit and improve articles. Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:Wikipedia is not a democracy, and editors should not abuse process (see WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY) to try to get what they want over and over again. This was already settled above, and recently.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Ummm nope. Consensus was already settled on the "between 1935 and 1979..." issue. There was no consensus on whether we should put exact dates or years. Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Four versions of the lead paragraph were stated, and it was labeled "RFC: First lead paragraph". Of course what was settled was the text of the lead paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm a tad confused here. Why are some editors putting their 'vote' in the discussion sub-section, rather then the 'survey' sub-section. Also, why was the preceding RFC tag removed? GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I've had enough of this. The previous RFC was prematurely closed, I re-tagged it & it was prematurely closed again. That did enough to 'tick' me off. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Wehwalt it seems like you have rather controlled this article. Nearly all edits I make on this article are instantly reverted. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. I understand you made major contributions to this article but you do not own it. You shouldn't have a problem with an RFC either and you having a problem with it makes me a bit suspicious. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You withdrew the RFC, here, thereby closing it. We had two different perspectives on how the article should read, you called an RFC, others expressed their opinions, and after they did, for the most part not in support of your position, you chose to close the RFC. Per WP:RFCEND, point 1, "The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the {{rfc}} template." That is what happened. These are just the normal Wikipedia processes.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The usual course of action short of an RFC is to seek compromises. I'm always open to that. What do you propose?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did withdraw the RFC as I conceded. Then I started a brand new RFC on a completely different topic. But you had a problem with that for some reason.

P.S. it really would make sense if we didn't use specific dates and instead we used years for the first sentence of the first paragraph of this article's lead. Can you name any other PM article that uses specific dates in the first lead paragraph, User:Wehwalt? Please work with me. It's common sense that the first paragraph should show only years and not exact dates. Ak-eater06 (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I think I took the withdrawal as settling the whole first paragraph. That makes having a second RFC on the same text a little irregular. If we can consider the rest of the first paragraph as settled, and you'll say so, I won't stand in the way of changing the dates to years.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, on the question of reversion, outside of the first paragraph of this article, and Macdonald's, I don't think I've reverted anything you've done. It's always good to have more active editors and you seem to have hit the ground running.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I was invited to comment here after a talk page message from Ak-eater06 [5]. Honestly, this RfC seems like it is a waste of everyone's time; this detail is so insignificant that its exclusion or inclusion is unlikely to be noticed by readers, in my opinion. I encourage everyone to just WP:DROPTHESTICK, let this die from inactivity, and worry about actually improving the articles. I also note that April 22 is not mentioned in the body of the article and is not cited as Diefenbacker's last day in office; this should be corrected regardless of what happens in this RfC. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to concede the point if it will bring about an agreed consensus on the lead.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Wehwalt I only want to change the exact dates to years. I'm fine with the rest of the lead. Ak-eater06 (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. It would be helpful if you could add to the "Downfall" section something giving the exact date of the departure from office with a source, by the way, as commented above.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Wehwalt I reopened the RFC as I wasn't aware of the rules. Ak-eater06 (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. If we're not settled, we're not settled. Accordingly, I've reverted the last edit.

Ak-eater06, you're allowed to resume (via re-adding the RFC tag) the preceding RFC. Keep it open for a month (until the RFC tag expires) & then get an outsider to decide the result. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay User:Wehwalt, shall we close the RFC? Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

On the basis of the compromise I proposed?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Wehwalt ummm yeah I guess? Basically changing to "13th prime minister of Canada from 1957 to 1963" and keeping everything the same. Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to ping me each time, I have the article watch listed. Does this settle both RfCs? If so, fine, with the word "serving" before "from".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus"

I found out about this rule Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" and would like some people's thoughts on it, as a request for consensus has been drawn out multiple times on this article over the past few months.

I am not trying to create any argument or conflict and I don't even agree with this rule. However, maybe we should discuss/clarify this for future edits to the lead. Ak-eater06 (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not a rule. It is one person’s opinion. Read the top part about how it is an essay.—Wehwalt (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• John Diefenbaker in 1964.wav

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)