Talk:R. B. Bennett

Thanks

This is the best written of the Canadian PM entries.--Simon.Pole 9 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me who copyrights this.

Bennett's New Deal

The following sentence, in Bennett's New Deal, makes no sense: Following the lead of President Roosevelt's New Deal in the United States, Bennett, under the advice of William Duncan Herridge, who was both Canada's ambassador to the United States....

The author was clearly going to say something about Herridge being both the Ambassador to the US and something else - External Affairs Minister? personal friend of Bennett's? - but lost his/her train of thought and simply went on to talk about Bennett's reaction to Roosevelt's New Deal. The clause describing Herridge's roles should either be completed to indicate his other role or the word "both" should be omitted.

Rhino (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Bennett and antisemitism

In the article about Adrien Arcand, the article states that Bennett covertly gave funds to the fascist in order to spread anti-smeitism. Is this true?

This is a finding Quebec investigative journalist Normand Lester made during his research for Le Livre noir du Canada anglais, translated as The Black Book of English Canada. The book examines the subject in its section from page 253 to page 266 (with the last few pages driving away from Bennett). It cites many examples of letters of Arcand pledging his loyalty to Bennett, asking him for funds for his newspapers and acknowledging a past meeting with him. The first avowed goal of the funding of Arcand was to help the Conservative Party win elections, starting with the one in 1930, by secretly paying them to help campaign for them. The choice of those very small fascist newspapers is however notable. I am working on an addition to this article. You might learn more when it's polished enough for me to include it. --Liberlogos 13:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It has been added (at Richard Bedford Bennett, 1st Viscount Bennett#Controversy). --Liberlogos 20:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nickle Resolution

If Bennett got a peerage why couldn't Conrad Black? Carolynparrishfan 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, the article above answers my question. Carolynparrishfan 19:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Move

I've moved the page here as the previous title was inconsistent with those on other Earls, Viscounts, etc. (such as Julian Byng, 1st Viscount Byng of Vimy, John Hamilton-Gordon, 1st Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair, Kenneth Thomson, 2nd Baron Thomson of Fleet, etc.).

Bennett's full title was: Viscount Bennett of Mickleham, Calgary and Hopewell, as referenced here --gbambino 23:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

No, his title was "Viscount Bennett", the rest being merely part of the territorial designation (in this case "of Mickleham in the County of Surrey and of Calgary and Hopewell in the Dominion of Canada"). Lord Byng of Vimy and Lord Thomson of Fleet were created "Viscount Byng of Vimy, of Thorpe-le-Soken in the County of Essex" and "Baron Thomson of Fleet, of Northbridge in the City of Edinburgh", and so aren't comparable examples. (I'm not sure what Lord Aberdeen has to do with anything.) Proteus (Talk) 22:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move to R. B. Bennett

I believe this article should be moved back to R. B. Bennett because that's how he was known for the vast majority of his life and he only gained the viscount title after he had mostly vanished from the public eye (compare Lady Anne Blunt). It also gives the article's title a distinctly British flavour which I think is somewhat misleading for such a notable figure of Canadian history.--Lairor 21:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, not to mention his distinct non-notability in Britain. Also, it violates WikiPedia's naming convention that states the most commonly associated name should be used in article titles. Could others weigh in on this? I'll check back in a while and move it if there's no discussion or a consensus to move. Bobanny 18:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do Viscounts have their titles in the name of articles at all? No one else gets their title in the article names, not even monarchs. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I put in a request to have it moved to R. B. Bennett. An admin needs to do it. Bobanny 18:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and have moved it to R. B. Bennett. - SimonP 16:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

groovy, thanks. Bobanny 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I haven't checked on this article in awhile. Thanks--Lairor 02:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody fix the canPM box (or show me how to do it)? Right now it points to the old article, and thus uses a redirect.--Boffob 00:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. dcandeto 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. There's no little 'e' button on the template and it wasn't categorized, so it took a little looking to find it. So it's categorized now too. bobanny 04:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Government Interference in the Economy

There are several references to things like 'massive Federal government inteference in the economy' and discussions about whether New Deal type programs were helpful that seem to have been written from a libertarian point of view. Perhaps that could be fixed and perhaps, except on the very edges of opinion, there is some consensus about government intervention in the '30s since it is so long ago.

I re-wrote most of that stuff and removed the POV tag. Bobanny 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fascism

The Arcand stuff should mostly be moved to Adrien Arcand, with only a paragraph here. It is interesting information, and important inasmuch as it shows that the far right fascist/ultra-nationalist fringe in this period of Canadian history wasn't relegated to the margins, as most history books seem to suggest, but often brushed up against the centre of political power, primarily to bolster the state against the common enemy of communism. At the same time, it doesn't stand out as a unique controversy of Bennett's reign; much of his leadership was controversial, and similar alliances with the far right lunatic fringe embarrassed the Reform Party in the 80s. Bobanny 23:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking action on this count. Too much of the article is devoted to this flimsy innuendo that's been constructed by Normand Lester only by letters to Bennett, without any evidence of his having provided support to these people at all (let alone been aware that they were fascists). Geoff NoNick (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

CBC - Who's reform was it?

The article on R. B. Bennett is unclear regarding the CBC - whose "lasting" contribution was it?:

"However some of Bennett's initiatives last to this day, including the Bank of Canada (which is responsible for the money supply and monetary policy), and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation."

later in the article:

"Many of King's other reforms continue today, including the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Bank of Canada, versions of minimum wage..."

The CBC entry in Wikipedia states: "CBC is the oldest existing broadcasting service in Canada, first established in its present form on November 2, 1936...," which would make it either Bennett's (in terms of policy planning), or King's (actual implementation, since he became PM in 1935).

The article begs for some clarity with regards to this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanbr (talk • contribs) 02:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This article has several inaccuracies. the CRBC and Bank of Canada were Bennett's creations. King reformed both, in the case of the CRBC he changed the mandate and with the Bank of Canada he bought out the public shares making the government sole owner. It's late so I'll edit it tomorrow. --Wilson (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Names

He was R. B. Bennett when he was PM and only got his creepy gimcrack "title" as he was dying in sad exile. He should be known by the name he was born with; it's not even as if he'd inherited the title. If someone is collecting peers, make a redirect from "Viscount Bennett of Ferret Choking" or whatever and point it to the article, rather like ex-convict Lord Black. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I object to Wtshymanski's remarks. As I understand it, Wikipedia is supposed to present a neutral, objective sort of viewpoint. Wtshymanski seems to have a political axe to grind. I don't think that belongs in Wikipedia.

Rhino (talk) 22:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)