Talk:William Lyon Mackenzie King/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removing an unqualified statement

"He understood labour and capital." This is sheer propoganda due to its lack of qualification. Presumably anyone falling under his ideology would like to say to claim that their interpretation is representative of absolute truth, but that is not appropriate for wikipedia. Qualify what school he understood labour and capital from, be it Marxism, Classical Liberalism, Keynsianism, Austrianism, and so forth, or quote a source, endorsing his qualification. --Akiva.avraham (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Dating conventions

Can we try to remember that in Canada, we write the Month first, followed by the day. Almost all of the Prime Minister rticles have day-month-year, the incorrect European style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.117.66 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

== Greatest

Modabitch!

No question he was an extremely influential, and obviously an extremely popular PM, but is it fair to say he was the greatest? It could be argued that Trudeau, Pearson, Macdonnald etc... could be considered the greatest as well. And for a pop-culture reference, he didn't make the top ten on The Greatest Canadian, but Trudeau and MacDonnald both did. mylesmalley 16:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

- It was based on a survey of political analysts. 207.161.117.66 (talk)

It strikes me that the section on the 1920s is unbalanced. He was prime minister for almost the entire decade. Surely he did more than triumph over Byng and Meighen in 1926. Does anyone have more details about the sorts of things he was doing in the 1920s? HistoryBA 20:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In addition, can someone straighten out the correct form of the surname, whether it's "Mackenzie King, William Lyon" or "King, William Lyon Mackenzie"? I think the first is correct, but this article uses a random mixture of the two surname forms. --Johnwcowan 21:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

King's surname was King. He called himself Mackenzie King to emphasize his ties with his grandfather Mackenzie. Mackenzie, however, was one of his given names, not his surname. Deleting Unnecessary Words 00:24, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and removed this bit: "In 1999 King was ranked by historians to be the gatest of Canada's Prime Ministers. (Granatstein & Hillmer, Prime Ministers: Ranking Canada's Leaders.)" Yeah, whatever, Granatstein and Hillmer.Bobanny(eyes rolling) 14:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• With all due respect, Granatstein and Hillmer are pretty good historians. King would certainly be among the greatest PMs, whatever the criteria, especially if longevity was a main criteria.Moomot 05:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Indeed, Granatstein and Hillmer aren't historians whose judgement we should should scoff at. I think you need to justify the edit with more than with just an eye roll. Boubelium 07:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think mylesmalley made a good point above that justifies removing that claim from the article. Granatstein and Hillmer's claim that King was the greatest PM is a value judgement and has nothing to do with their skills as historians. Besides, scoffing at Granatstein is a proud tradition of Canadian historians, and vice versa. Personally, I find that kind of gushing reverence for any Prime Minister nauseating, especially when it's cloaked as an objective fact, but don't worry, I'll keep my personal opinions out of the article. And please, don't remove the bit about Japanese Canadian being interned during WWII just because Granatstein says it never happened. Bobanny 07:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• You obviously are intelligent, perhaps if you were less sarcastic and more informative you would have found less issues with your edit. Having read your argument, I agree. You are correct that the greatest PM title does not belong in this article. As for your condescending comments about the Japanese internment, ironically, I spent some time expanding the racism section of this article. Regarding the Granatstein article, he does not claim that "it never happened" but instead argues the semantics of the term 'internment'. Your paraphrasing is either quite careless or malicious; you're essentially making him sound like a Holocaust Denier, which is far from the case. I do appreciate you pointing out the article though, because we (likely) both agree that Granatstein is on dubious ground. When Granatstein argues that there was a 'unanimous call for evacuation" he is exaggerating. See my racism edits on King for evidence. Then again perhaps those that didn't actually fear the Japanese could have supported the internment out fear for their safety, especially given the long history of anti-Asian violence in Vancouver. But, whatever, I don't agree with Granatstein's general perspective here. He's still a great historian even if we don't agree with him that the word 'internment' should be replaces with 'evacuation'. This reminds me, the internment article needs a lot of work. Perhaps we should be discussing this there. Regards Moomot 18:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• I see that you did read my additions to "Racism," and you improved the writing. Thank You. Moomot 19:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try and put my smarminess aside. I stand by my opinion that Granatstein's point about Japanese internment is more than semantics, because behind those words are the meaning of the event. "Evacuation" and "internment" are two different things. Yes they were evacuated, but it was quite a different circumstance than, say, an evacuation of an area during a flood or forest fire threat. In the connotation of the word "evacuation," it's purely circumstantial, or an unfortunate event, where no one is to blame but the forces of nature or history. "Forcible displacement" would be more precise to describe the actual removal of those people from their homes. "Internment" on the other hand, is an act of war, defensive or offensive, in which people are confined under threat somewhere and dispossessed of their property and belongings. If the Japanese had resisted the internment, it probably would have looked more like what Granatstein claims the word implies. The scale of the holocaust makes that comparison unfair, but the underlying principle is the same: a nationalist glossing of the past, and that's what I'm accusing Granatstein of. He's defending a view whereby the true or authentic "Canadian" identity or experience is represented by the most privileged people in society, the "great men" of history like King. Hence the unanimous call for evacuation. Japanese-Canadians were not calling for evacuation, nor were the RCMP operatives who reported that no national security threat existed from west coast Japanese. Local white entrepreneurs who scored some great deals on Japanese property and were able to take over that portion of the coastal fishing industry as a result were the voice of Canada in the national pride version. It's also worth pointing out that some Italians, who actually did have fascist sympathies and affiliations, were interned as well, but only for a short while and then in relatively swanky conditions in Ontario. The things I feel are most worthy of Canadian pride are where past mistakes are not forgotten or minimized, but are openly acknowledged and measures are taken to ensure they aren't repeated. This discussion is also relevant to the current issue of redress for the Chinese head tax, which has brought out some of that old racist sentiment here in Vancouver. But, the average Chinese or Japanese on the west coast are as prosperous, if not more, than whites, and that's a change to be proud of. I don't believe, as Granatstein does, that highlighting past injustices constitutes a chronicle of shame, as if it somehow cancels out the positive things in the past, just like King's racism doesn't cancel out his accomplishments. Similarly, again, I'm not questioning Granatstein's abilities as a historian or his notable contributions to Canadian historiography because of my opinion of him on this, just as, hopefully, your opinion that I'm condescending doesn't cancel out the one that says I'm intelligent (you could probably add "wordy" to that list :) Bobanny 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm pasting this to the internment section. Well said. Moomot 01:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Preceded/Succeeded

Seems to be a problem with either the names or the dates in the chart at the bottom. I don't have time to fix it now, and I'm not sure how to use these tables properly, but if it's not fixed i'll come back and try to sort it out.

• Huh? Looks OK to me... Fawcett5 04:28, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

my bad, got confused by Meighan's 28 day term --Goog 21:10, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Crystal Ball

I have been asked why I keep making this insert, I was watching a Canadian political talk show yesterday "Countdown", on CTV and they were talking about it, when they smelt like manure they were talking sillyilly about the Speakers BBQ, they talked about Mackenzie King because the house was his. At this time they talked about how he had a Crystal Ball and a Ouija board, which he used as advisors to help him make his important decisions. - Meanie.

With all due respect to "Countdown," journalists tend to sensationalize history, as they frequently do with King. The truth is better found in the work of scholars like Charles Stacey, Joy Esberey, and Blair Neatby. King did own a crystal ball, which was given to him by a friend, but did not use it or believe that it could be used to contact the spirits. His diaries contain no reference to a ouija board. He was, however, a spiritualist, beleving that he could contact the deceased through the help of a medium. HistoryBA 00:59, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He did use something called table-rapping apparently, and maybe we should list a few of his favourite psychics and mediums. 74.121.138.53 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the "famous" (or I should say infamous) crystal ball they have at Laurier House did belong to King, but was never used by him. It was a gift from someone who somehow heard about King's spiritualism. King was kind of embarassed by the gift because he felt his practice of spiritualism was a very personal thing. HE DID NOT HAVE A OUIJA BOARD. There is a lot of hype surrounding the spiritualist aspect of his life, but most of it is blown out of proportion. It is important to remember that King was a Victorian and a Romantic, and many other people at that time practiced spiritualism. 74.104.154.62 21:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Many people were racist and anti-Semitic back then too, that doesn't really change its significance. I reverted your edits on the spiritualism stuff because it replaced a fair bit of detail. If you think what is there is wrong, please back that up, with verifiable sources if possible. Having worked at the museum doesn't count - here, you're just a number to us, not an authority. King's diaries are available online btw, at the NAC website I believe. Much of what's there now isn't properly sourced either, and may well be incorrect, but in respecting other editors work, etiquette demands that changes are demonstrably improvements, not just steps sideways. Thanks, Bobanny 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

None is too many

Wasn't it Blair himself who said "none is too many"? HistoryBA 23:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was, and I'm removing the line from the bio. F.C. Blair was a notorious little anti-Semite (and back when that term meant "racist against Jews" and not "disagrees with Israeli policy") whose words shouldn't be attributed to W.L.M. King. -Scientz 15:34, 4 May 2006 (EST)

I think that this section rather unfair. King was not opposed to allowing Jewish refugees but submitted to the will of his cabinet, the majority of whom were opposed to the idea. His policy was the result of political expediency not any particular anti-semitism on his part.

• That is too kind to King. In the Canadian parliamentary system the leader holds a lot of power, if King was not an anti-semite then he could have spoken-up. Furthermore, he visited Hitler and felt that he was a kind and gentle man. This was long after Mein Kampf was published and the whole world knew Hitler's take on Jews. There is little doubt that King was an racist. Moomot 21:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Could someone please clean up the vandalism of this article? The first paragraph seems a bit out of hand.

Done. But you could have done it yourself :) Adam Bishop 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

Was he the only unmarried Prime Minister? If so, it seems that should be mentioned. Also, someone with some free time should move those quotes to WikiQuote :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 00:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No. R.B. Bennett was a bachelor. HistoryBA 02:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And Trudeau was a bachelor when he started. --Funkmaster 801 12:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

And Campbell was a divorceé when she was Prime Minister. Fishhead64, 15:14, 04 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh sure, exhibit my atrocious lack of knowledge about my own country! grins Anyways, in my defence I knew those except Bennett...so now I have to go read about Bennett. Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 23:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

"Anti-Semitism" Section

I changed the name of the section entitled "anti-semitsm" due to its content dealing with Japanese-Canadians, as well as Jews.

It seems that the material previously included on his antisemitism has been removed. Can someone more knowledgeable on the subject than me please (re)add this? It's actually the reason I came to this article. Thanks, Hu Gadarn (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The info is there under "Germany" (where he attacks Nazi's treatment of Jews), and "Ethnic policies" where it makes the point that antisemitism among the French in Quebec set national policy in 1930s . Rjensen (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was thinking though of his antisemitism (or at least such government policy under his leadership). Thanks (again), Hu Gadarn (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

It appears that most of this stuff was removed again - and there are potential references, like this one that make King an active participant in antisemetic policies. I don't think it is balanced to give as much exposure to a private entry in his journal as to acts like the refusal of refugees from the St. Louis. I'd like to expand on his antisemitism with references like the one I cited, but would like to discuss it here first. Alexgriz (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hee Hee...fortune teller

I think this line might contraindicate one's powers of prognostication- "Indeed, after his death, one of his mediums said that she had not realized that he was a politician." L0b0t 02:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

His Friends at the University of Toronto

I have noted that in the "Mackenzie King Diaries" found online, he makes continual references to his membership in the Kappa Alpha Society and cross-referencing with the names of his cabinet ministers over the course of both his terms as prime minister, nine of which are members of the Kappa Alpha Society. I realize someone has removed this said fact from his Early Life summary, however that deletion would be incorrect.

Flipped photograph

Resolved

It's obvious that the photograph with Churchill and Roosevelt has been flipped. British military officers wear their ribbons on the left, not the right. Can this be changed? (I made the same comment at the photo's image page.) Jhobson1 13:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Correct. It needs to be changed on Commons. Pharrar (talk) 08:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Pharrar, I assume this is why you changed the caption of that photo? I had to revert the changes because the photo is still clockwise and King is still on the right side. GiuseppeMassimo (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Legacy

The Legacy section does not cite sources, and makes some claims which whiff of original research.

1998 controversy re: memorial Quebec Conference of 1943 -- I can't find a reference for this. Anyone?

Some have suggested that King was racist, pointing to two policies; that only 4500 Jews were accepted into Canada during the Holocaust, and the internment of the Japanese Canadians during the Second World War. However, it must be noted that these were the mainstream attitudes of the time.

• Holocaust: History of the Jews in Canada says 5000. Which is it? Neither article cites a source.
• Mainstream attitudes of the time – according to... what source?
• "must be noted" seems like an inappropriate apologia.

Mackenzie King was not charismatic or media-savvy and did not have a large personal following. It is often suggested that he would not have held power as long as he did, or even at all, during the age of television which was ushered in not long after his retirement.

• Source attesting to his lack of personal magnetism.
• Speculation about television smells strongly of original research. Often suggested by whom?

Cleduc 06:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

"by quickly appointing a Royal Commission to investigate Gouzenko's allegations"

other wikis already showed that to be not true 75.163.147.50 (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of Entire "Racism" Section

I've reinserted the "racism" section after it was removed in its entirety by editor RucasHost. I left a message on that editors user page indicating that removing entire referenced sections without at least some prior discussion in an appropriate forum is unacceptable on Wikipedia.Deconstructhis 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've once again replaced an entire referenced section of this article that was removed by editor RucasHost. RucasHost appears to be unwilling to engage in discussion regarding this matter here on the articles "talk" page, despite the large amount of referenced material he is choosing to delete, the fact that most of the material is referenced, and considering that the subjects contained in the section have already been discussed and arrived at through consensus in the past. If there are objections to claims in this section, I would like to ask him to discuss his issues with the material here on the talk page before removing a relatively large part of the material contained in the article, providing counter references would be a good start. This Prime Minister was a fairly controversial figure in Canadian history,many of the facts of his life may appear startling to some at first glance, but dismissing negative allegations concerning him as "slander" without knowing the historical background supporting them is shaky ground to say the least. I'm hoping for support from other editors in this regard. I will attempt to provide other references for this section later in the week. Deconstructhis 00:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Once again reverted deletion of an entire referenced section of this article by editor RucasHost, who despite the fact that most of the section is specifically referenced with footnotes leading to reputably published sources:

^ Knowles, Valerie. Strangers at Our Gates: Canadian Immigration and Immigration Policy, 1540-1997, (Toronto: Dundurn, 1997)

^ Ferguson, Will. Bastards and Boneheads: Canada's Glorious Leaders Past and Present, (Vancouver: Douglas and McIntyre, 1999) pg. 168.

^ Sunahara, Ann Gomer. The Politics of Racism: The Uprooting of Japanese Canadians During the Second World War, (Toronto: Lorimer, 1981) pg. 23.

continues to insist that the entire section is "unreferenced" and constitutes, in his words, "slander". This editor appears unwilling to discuss this issue on the talk page for the article itself or proceed in a reasonable manner, such as placing citation requests for the specific material he disputes in the body of the article. I will place a second stage vandalism warning on this editors "user" page and continue to hope that he will proceed in a more reasonable fashion.Deconstructhis 02:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

None of the sources you cite use the word "racist". It is one thing to document his activities, it is another to apply your own pejorative description. (see WP:BIO, WP:RS, WP:OR). --RucasHost 03:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Please be aware that I was not personally involved in posting any of the material that appears in the section that you continue to delete, apart from placing the qualifier "alleged" in the title of the section itself. The allegations of "racism" applied to Mackenzie King *are* in fact supported by the references provided by the original poster(s) if you take the time to actually look them up and if you study the discussion section of this article you will see that this information was arrived at through consensus, in some cases, several years ago. My objection in our disagreement has to do with your editing practices, that despite the fact that the material does contain referenced footnotes for the bulk of the section, you choose to simply delete the entire section instead of challenging it in a manner keeping with Wikipedia policy. I am willing to discuss any of this in a reasonable fashion on the appropriate discussion page, but I am not willing to simply standby and watch referenced materials deleted from an article simply because a given editor appears to disagree with it for personal reasons. I have requested the opinion of an administrator in this regard and I'm quite happy to await another opinion. Thank you Deconstructhis 03:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't condone undiscussed deletions of referenced materials; however, I'd suspect the POV of some of the references given. It is no great feat to get published, especially if you can tantalize the public's tastes for sensationalism and controversy. Just because authors make accusations in print doesn't mean that we who are building an encyclopedia need to pander to the tactics. Why don't we seriously consider whether this man was a racist in the standards of his time, and whether he as the leader was in control of all of these alleged situations. If he is a racist, then so was Roosevelt, Churchill and other allied leaders. --Kevin Murray 22:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I've looked over the dispute, the article history and the talk page. The section appears to be properly sourced and was accepted by clear consensus as representative of the sources. If there is disagreement over the interpretation of some of the sources, there needs to be a discussion about the exact citations on this talk page before any deletion or major editing takes place; if no new consensus can be reached here, then dispute resolution may be required.

At this point, further unilateral deletions of the section would be properly considered to be disruptive editing. — Coren ^(talk) 19:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fourth opinion

I would say that wholesale deletion of this information is going too far, but the weight of the coverage is out of scale to the article. Many of the allegations are regarding typical actions and beliefs held at that time and could be asserted regarding most US and Canadian leaders of the era. I would prefer to see the section toned down and specifically realted to the man's actions or verifiable statements. Interpreting the motivation of the actions as racism violates OR, unless independent writers of sufficient credibility and stature have made the claim. Abe Lincoln would be a racist by today's standards. --Kevin Murray 21:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with your renaming of the section, and with tweaking it in general. I was, of course, only referring to wholesale deletion without consensus. — Coren ^(talk) 22:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! I am a bit concerned about this type of section creeping into several articles I've seen lately. I think that all of the information is good if POV is minimized, but it should be in a central location. For example last week there was an issue about a prominent section on post WWII allied looting in the article for a pestigous museum -- way out of proportion to their involvement through ownership of some artifacts. --Kevin Murray 22:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't condone undiscussed deletions of referenced materials; however, I'd suspect the POV of some of the references given. It is no great feat to get published, especially if you can tantalize the public's tastes for sensationalism and controversy. Just because authors make accusations in print doesn't mean that we who are building an encyclopedia need to pander to the tactics. Why don't we seriously consider whether this man was a racist in the standards of his time, and whether he as the leader was in control of all of these alleged situations. If he is a racist, then so was Roosevelt, Churchill and other allied leaders. --Kevin Murray 22:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Overall, I'm pretty much in agreement with your position. I've had certain reservations myself regarding the sectionsapproach and tone right from the start, my primary objection in the present situation had to do with what I think is a violation of an important principle on Wikipedia, that material that's appropriately referenced from reliable sources and arrived at through some form of consensus should not be removed in bulk by a single editor without the involvement of proper process. In terms of allegations that Mackenzie-King himself was a "racist", although I understand your point that, contextually ,historical figures are embedded in the "normal" prejudices of their time and subject to the same social influences that everyone else in their society is, in another sense, so long as there is a 'range' of opinion available to them to choose from in the context of their culture at that time; how can we not hold them to account for choosing to believe certain things and not others, as individuals? Not so much that Mackenzie-King was a "racist", but that he held certain "racialist" beliefs to be true and acted on them. The same was true of his contemporaries,both those in a leadership capacities and otherwise, some held to those positions, perhaps even a majority of the population, others did not. I'm in support of your title change for the section. All I'm really interested in is seeing a good properly referenced article.Deconstructhis 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Without being in the heat of the issue at the time it is hard to be critical, but could we have benefited from the wisdom of the concern and tried to tone down the POV of the section sooner. Perhaps one editor was too bold and one too timid. I would hate to see policy stand in the way of a better article. It can be tough and I think all concerned are in their own ways trying to build a better project. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 22:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Further opinion The term 'racism' is a pejorative in the sense that the practice is offensive and contrary to human decency. But it also has an objective definition, which could be descriptively applied to Mackenzie King (and, yes, Churchill) without charges of bias. It won't do to say that King "wasn't racist" by the standards of his time, for several reasons: 1. Our attitudes towards racism have not altered the denotative definition of the term, which applies perfectly well to King's ideology. At most, we could say that racism was more socially acceptable in the past; not that people were less racist on the basis that it was more common or acceptable then. 2. We do not have an objective 'read' on how common racist ideologies actually were at the time. We have repeated prominent racist ideas being expressed by those in power; this is evidence of two things -- a) Those in power have a greater chance of having their ideas recorded and preserved; and b) Those in power are often there because they subscribed to ideologies and practices of subordination and oppression of racialised groups. There were plenty of people who were either non-racist or explicitly anti-racist, e.g. socialists, but partly because they were not willing to participate in practices of racial oppression, they did not hold power, and therefore their ideology was marginalised. Much of the ruling class of an Imperialist system such as the British Empire was explicitly racist, since Imperialism is a structure that uses racial exploitation to gain power and wealth. The racist ideas of Imperialist leaders was *central* (i.e., dominant), but this does not at all mean that the *majority* of people subscribed to them; in fact, given that the majority of people in the Empire would have been oppressed by such ideas, it's fair to say that they would have been explicitly opposed by most people. 3. Even if racist ideas were central or dominant at the time, I do not understand how this excuses them. This sounds suspiciously like an example of the bandwagon fallacy. Surely it is fair to describe racist ideas, even when held by people in the past, as objectively harmful, antisocial, or ethically indefensible. This could easily be done in an objective fashion, giving examples -- for example, King's conviction that Canada should be a "white man's country" led directly to harmful policies such as the "continuous passage" policy, which in turn led directly to the tragedy of the 'Komagata Maru'.

I also question the premiss that describing King as a racist is inherently biased, while avoiding that description is inherently unbiased. What reason could there be to avoid the application of a term whose definition is known and understood, and objective, other than to 'rescue' a man's reputation? If you are not prejudiced in that you are committed to the idea that King automatically deserves to be shielded or exempt from the appellation 'racist', I do not see the point of omitting a description of his racist ideas and behaviour. He was a man who believed in the construct of racialised groups of human beings, approved of their hierarchical ordering with "white" Europeans on top, and used his power as both Deputy Labour Minister and Prime Minister to further support and entrench those ideas. I think it would show strong bias not to acknowledge this.

Fair use rationale for Image:CAD50 Front.png

Image:CAD50 Front.png 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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

King's Diaries Online

As is indicated in the links section, King's diaries are actually available online, although as primary documents they are not allowable in this context here on Wikipeida. Nonetheless I decided to replace an existing quote regarding King's opinion of Hitler (which I was unable to locate in the diary) with one that matches its sentiments and does appear in that source. I decided to leave the request for a citation in place at this time so that if they choose someone can provide a legitimate citation from a proper secondary source in the future. King's comments on Hitler appear in the diary entry dated March 27, 1938 pg. 4. It's interesting to note that on that very same page, King expresses a disagreement with Hitler regarding his treatment of Jews. The citation I provided for King's seminal influence on the development of narcotic laws in Canada, based on his experiences in investigating the opium problem in the asian community of Vancouver in the early 1900's, was one of many that are out there. After a quick run through, there appears to be little in the literature that indicates anything other than King's critical involvement in the founding of narcotic laws in Canada. I will attempt to find a proper source indicating King's participation in the policies leading to the incarceration of Japanese Canadians in the 1940's and related issues.Deconstructhis 02:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• The diaries are likely to be legitimate sources. We are precluded from perfroming primary research but not using primary sources. Primary sources are only precluded from use as a demonstration of notability. We should be careful that we are not taking information out of context, presenting the big picture,a nd not drawing conclusions from his statements. --Kevin Murray 03:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
• After reading the Hitler quote, I think that you should add the citation and remove the fact tag. --Kevin Murray 03:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for straightening me out on the sourcing issue. I've been operating under the assumption that primary sources were precluded in totality and that citing them in and of itself constituted "original research". The diaries are interesting documents. It's said that before MK died, he had instructed his estate to do 'extractions' of certain parts of their contents and that they were never to be published in their entirety. His wishes were not abided by and as a result, we have a much fuller perspective of MK, as a man, than obviously he ever intended us to have.Deconstructhis 04:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Longest Serving In British Commonwealth

According to Brian Nolan's 1988 Account he was longest serving democratically elected leader of any Western country, certainly a more prestigious and legitimate honour for King. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malachi is survivin (talk • contribs) 04:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Doctorate?

I notice that someone has recently changed the remark about King being the first Canadian PM to hold a Ph.D. to being the second.

But is it clear that King actually earned his Ph.D. at all? After all, the Ph.D. is not listed among his postnomial letters. And it would appear to me from his biography at the Canadian Dictionary of Biography Online that he left his doctoral programme at Harvard without finishing his Ph.D. in order to become Deputy Minister of Labour.

If no one can provide proof that King actually finished his Ph.D., I'll delete the reference to him having completed his doctorate.

Adam_sk (talk) 05:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm going to assume that he actually received his Ph.D. in 1909, as claimed in the current Wikipedia article and some other websites and add that to his list of postnomial letters. Though it would still be helpful if someone could cite a source as to when he got his Ph.D., and what his dissertation was about.

Adam_sk (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

King was awarded a Ph.D. from Harvard on the basis of work that he did as Deputy Minister of Labour in justifying the idea of Canada as a "white man's country" and restricting immigration and the franchise to those of European (British) descent. His thesis is available to be read, and is titled "Oriental Immigration to Canada." (He was against it).

Gallery

So, User:Biruitorul recently deleted the gallery section (which I spent a lot of time on), citing the WP:NOTREPOSITORY tag.

Now, I've read over WP:NOTREPOSITORY, and I see nothing in that description which was violated by the gallery on this page. I assume the pertinent part to which Biruitorul was referring is:

Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources.

I take the requirement to mean that a repository of photographs without accompanying text should not be done. But this was a gallery accompanying a detailed article on Canada's longest-serving prime minister and adding depth to an encyclopedic article, not attempting to stand in place of it.

Adam_sk (talk) 06:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

These photos do have an encyclopedic interest. I suggest moving some of those photos to the corresponding sections in the text. For example, moving "age 6" into the early life section, or "With friends at the University of Toronto, ca 1891-1896." into the University section, etc. That would enrich the overall article. GiuseppeMassimo (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

First, see MOS:IMAGES: "Use {{Commons}} to link to more images on Commons, wherever possible. If there are too many images in a given article, a link to the Commons is a good solution. Use of galleries should be in keeping with Wikipedia's image use policy." The article already has 10 images. A few more may be fine, but 75 more is clearly excessive. We have the Commons link; let's make full use of it.

Second, WP:NOTREPOSITORY implies that images should refer to text in the body of the article itself. For instance, if the line "King met with Churchill in 1941" appears in the text, then placing this picture beside the text would be appropriate.

The gallery remains too big. It violates the Manual of Style's injunction against having too many images, regardless of whether King served 20, 50 or 1000 years as Prime Minister. (And, as an aside, far more important leaders like Winston Churchill (a GA), FDR (an FA), Stalin, Hitler or Mao do not have any gallery.) It should be removed or at least drastically reduced forthwith. Shall we ask for a third opinion first? Biruitorul ^Talk 18:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Biruitorul generally believes what he's saying, but he's being incredibly fast and loose with the Wikipedia standards he's citing. I once again emphasize that this gallery does not violate any of the standards that Biruitorul cynically and self-interestedly cites (though why people have a self interest in keeping the quality of Wikipedia articles low is beyond me).

First, his characterization that "WP:NOTREPOSITORY implies" is not at all grounded in what WP:NOTREPOSITORY actually says. That tag says that you shouldn't have a Wikipedia article that is mainly an image repository if there is no accompanying article. Note the repeated use of the word "mere" in the WP:NOTREPOSITORY description - Wikipedia is not a MERE collection of photographs. That doesn't say that an otherwise valid Wikipedia article can't include a collection of photographs, and, quite frankly, I can't see how Biruitorul can in good faith say that this "implies" that all images ought to be in-text.

Secondly, Biruitorul is flat out LYING when he says that the Manual of Style has an injunction against having too many images. The MoS says, and I quote, "Use of galleries should be in keeping with Wikipedia's image use policy." So, we naturally next go to Wikipedia's image use policy, and under the image use policy on Photo Galleries, we find: "No decision on photo galleries has been made yet." Instead, the Image Use Policy lists four possible standards, and encourages users to comment on what standard they think is appropriate. Now, one of the POSSIBLE standards is Biruitorul's approach (#4 - "No photo galleries allowed"), while one of the possible standards is the approach I favour and which is taken in this article (#1 - "Photos at bottom of article"). Now, I sincerely hope that fascists like Biruitorul don't succed and that the "No photo galleries allowed approach" doesn't prevail on Wikipedia. I think that photo galleries add a tremendous amount to Wikipedia. However, if the approach ultimately does prevail, I guess I'd have little choice but to acquiesce in it. But it's a total LIE and MISREPRESENTATION on Biruitorul's part to try to enforce a standard before it's been decided on by the Wikipedia community.

Adam_sk (talk) 07:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. Adam, I kindly ask that you reread WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. The accusations of lying and being a fascist (!!!) are very innapropriate, and really unnecessary for you to make your point. I came to this discussion as a result of your post over at the WP:Image use policy talk page, but it's hard to pay attention to the content of your post here when it reads more like a rant than a reasoned reply. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating some of the stuff I have said to Adam over at the WP:Image use policy talk page, I have to agree and disagree with Adam. First, I think he's quoting the wrong section of the Image Use Policy. Although the policy acknowledges that there are different types of galleries, it then goes on to say galleries are generally discouraged and there has to be a good reason to have one in a Wikipedia article (as opposed to using the Commons). I have always understood that to mean that galleries that are mere collections of images are better kept at the Commons, but that Wikipedia can include galleries that provide information about a subject that is better shown visually than in words (and requires the use of a series of images). The examples I have used in the past are:

• A desirable use of a gallery: An article on a painter could contain a gallery of images that shows the progression of that artist's style over the years. In such cases, the purpose of the gallery ideally should be clear (e.g. the heading should read "Evolution of X's style" rather than simply "Gallery"), and the gallery images should typically accompanied by detailed captions to assist the reader in understanding what is being shown.

• An inappropriate use of a gallery: An article on a city that contains a gallery consisting of numerous, random snapshots of that city's landmarks probably does not constitute an appropriate use of a gallery in Wikipedia. That latter gallery should be transfered to the Commons. Sometimes these galleries arise when certain editors wish to shoehorn as many of their own images into an article as possible.

So, I agree with Adam in the sense that there is no "all galleries are bad" rule. We need to assess the gallery in the context of this article. However, I just think the proposed gallery is far too big (75 images is just way too much), and really doesn't add all that much to the article. All it really shows is that King, like every other human, aged over the course of his life. A (much, much smaller) gallery of key events in his career might make more sense, but I'm not sure.

I don't understand why this proposed gallery can't be transfered lock, stock and barrel over to the Commons. The images are already all over at the Commons, so it is simple to create a special WLM King chronology gallery over at the Commons. In additon to the Commons link at the bottom of the page, we could add a special link under the appropriate article heading directing people to the Commons chronology (something along the lines of "For a visual chronology of King's life, please see Life of William Lyon Mackenzie King at Wikimedia Commons." Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think a small gallery could be of encyclopedic interest but a 7-page gallery is not. There is no need to have all of the photos of King in the article. A picture gallery is a very good use of Commons; not Wikipedia. I tend to think that, in this article, the photos are of most interest and value when placed in context within the text. Perhaps even very small galleries within sections would be better than the massive 7-page gallery now here (check out the printed version). DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also note that the article already contains a significant number of images integrated into the article body itself. There's simply no need for an image gallery here; any image that can't be placed in the context of a suitable section of the article, with a caption explaining why the photo is here, simply isn't needed at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

REMINDER: Please Keep Comments Civil

When interacting with other editors on talk pages, it is important to remember that simply because someone does not agree with your own personal interpretation of Wikipedia policy, that does not constitute grounds for personally attacking that particular editor as a person. Policy is *very* clear regarding this matter. All communications must remain civil. Thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First Female Senator

I took out the phrase "whom he personally knew." It seems obvious to me that the Prime Minister would not appoint someone who was a total stranger! The phrase is also inappropriate, because it begs the question "just how personally did he know her?" John Paul Parks (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ignace850

Why is this person reverting factual changes I just made? King's grandfather was the first mayor of Toronto, and led the Upper Canada Rebellion. And Kitchener-Waterloo was Berlin, not Berlick. 70.27.144.213 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They have been warned to stop with the vandalism. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 09:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

In the Lament for a Nation, George Grant writes:

"..Seeds of Canada's surrender lay in Mckenzie King's regime..(pg.6). Can anyone open a criticism section ? He goes onto to state ..for twenty years before it's defeat in 1957, the Liberal party had been pursuing policies that led inexorably to the dissappearence of Canada.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

"Parliament" vs "term"

As a sign of good faith, I'd like to request that both sides in this contention provide reliable references to support the use of both of these expressions being utilized as a descriptor in the context of a Canadian Prime Minister. "Parliament" strikes me as sounding more Westminster tradition; but, perhaps "term" is more accurate, depending on the context. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Further Reading

I like the fact that this article has a further reading section but I propose to trim it down. For example, I don't think we should mention PhD theses here -- if they were important enough they'd have been published. And there doesn't seem to be much distinction between some of the works listed under "Biography" and those listed under "Scholarly Studies". If there are no objections I'll commence soon. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I object. the goal is to provide useful access to the readers to a range of scholarship, some of it focused on the person ("Biography") and some on his policies and the political scene. PhD dissertatations are especially useful because they are available online free to millions of Wiki users. The section is out of the way and will not bother anyone who is not looking for new sources of information. Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just to clarify, I do think that having other sections than "Biography" is useful, I just thought that some of the books put there really weren't biographical (like Wardhaugh's or Whitaker's), and belonged in the other sections. As to the point about the amount of sources we include here, there is at least one entire book out there that is simply a bibliography of works on King (which, as a side note, should be included). We can't take up that much space in this page, so when you start getting to the more obscure works on King, or those on less relevant aspects of his life to the general reader (like the Wardhaugh selection or anything that hasn't actually been published) there is trimming in order. We can't have every book on the years King was in power listed here. Otherwise it's a slippery slope. I do think most of those works should stay, but a number of of them should probably go, in my opinion. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The bibliography represents a selection of maybe 1% of the material in print. The problems with most users interested in the subject is a) they have a very hard time using a comprehensive bibliography with hundreds r thousands of titles of items; b) manhy people only have have access to limited libraries that have only a few of the titles, so a short list may leave them frustrated for lack of access. Mackenzie King dominated 20c Canada far more than anyone elese and historians have recognized that by many fine books. There is very little harm done in helping readers find the right title for further study. Rjensen (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's true that people generally have access to very limited libraries, but isn't that an argument against bothering to include some of the more obscure titles? No one's going to be able to look at them anyway. Really, I would only like to see 5-10 of them go with perhaps a replacement of a few of them. Here's some of the ones I'm looking at losing and my rationale:

• Wardhaugh: This is a very esoteric article (I study King a lot and I've never had any reason to look at it) and few libraries are going to have this journal
• Nolan: we've already got a bunch if biographies there and Nolan work is considered bad by scholars
• Esberey: again, we've got lots of biography and this work is iffy in scholarly terms
• The works on Lapointe: Yes they're important to King's life, but people can go to the Lapointe article (perhaps these works should be put in a bibliography there)
• Perras: like I said earlier, we can't include every book on Canada or something to do with Canada 1900-1945. The work is starting to get fairly tangential from King.
• the PhD thesis: that topic is covered mostly by Neatby. Also, I'm confused by your point about access to these online. I've never heard of such a thing. Care to explain?

Consider also that once people look at the main scholarly works (Granatstein, Stacey, Neatby, English, etc.) they have access to bibliographies and footnotes there that can guide their further research. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- it doesn't aim to be exhaustive. If someone wants to become an expert on King, they can look at that bibliography I mentioned (I'll find the source data) or the Reader's Guide to Canadian History (which I would like to include here), as well as the basic scholarly works. Cheers. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Fwansta makes good points about including poor sources like Nolan, so I will trim the bibliog today and also drop Perras and Slobodin. (By the way most PhD dissertastions can be read online in part through Proquest). Bear in mind that people come to the asrticle with different needs--some may be interested in WW2, others in spiritualism. Esberey emphasizes spiritualism--a part of MK's life that some people find fascinating as shown by the book reviews. The Betcherman biography of Lapointe has a great deal of fresh information on King and should not be missed. On articles: most libraries will now very quickly provide articles by inter library loan and users otherwise will not know about them unless we list them. As for Wardhaugh, folks out here in the west have an interest in history too and he is the first scholar to explore regional issues. :) Rjensen (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I like most of your cuts of the popular sources, although I think it might be a good idea to leave the Prime Ministerial rankings by Bliss, and Granatstein and Hillmer in there. They're all excellent historians and these are books that many public libraries would have. Plus, the fact that they're popular sources means they'd likely be good for the general reader.

• On Wardhaugh, how about if we lose the article but keep the book? You make a good point about regionalism.
• Same for Lapointe
• How about losing the Gordon article? Yes people come here for different reasons but we can't cater to everyone. This is pretty esoteric.
• Eayres too? We've already got Stacey, which I think would be enough for the general reader on foreign affairs/defence

There's more I would suggest but let's see how this first of possibly multiple rounds of trimming goes.

Also, besides trimming, I personally would like to simply clean up this section. A lot of the sources are capitalized differently. Some of them have short descriptions. Some of them page numbers, or the ISSN/ISBN. Thoughts? The Fwanksta (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC) The Fwanksta (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

agree that uniform style is a good idea--but don't lose the annotations and links. On Warhaugh I'll drop the book and keep the article. Lapointe is too important to downplay--we can assume there are readers in Quebec too. Eayres and Stacey have quite different approaches and both are very important scholars. Gordon offers a totally new perspective on MK that no one else has. Keep in mind that the Wiki philosophy is the more good stuff the better. Rjensen (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK fair enough on those points about which sources to keep. Once we do a little more work on this I may want to trim a few more but this is fine for now. I like the idea of annotations but they are of very variable quality, so it might be nice to standardize them. About the online links, most of them seem to be to Questia, which most encyclopedia readers (including myself) ikely don't have a subscription to, so I'm not sure if keeping them is useful. Also, what do you think about separating the official biographies (Dawson and Neatby) from the rest and labelling them as such? Just so readers know the connection between the two authors' works. (I believe Dawson died so Neatby finished the job. I also recall reading that the Neatby volumes are much better regarded by scholars. We could perhaps mention that.) -- The Fwanksta (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Another thought on the organization. Perhaps a good idea would be to put them organize all the works under the following heads: "Official Biography," "Scholarly Books", "Scholarly Articles", "Primary Sources", "Television", and "Popular books", and "Bibliographies" (I've found 3 that apply). I like the idea of perhaps separating the PM rankings from the rest of the scholarly works, because while they are written by scholars, they're written for a popular audience and not based on archival research, etc. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

OK bu keep the scholarly articles and books together. Is there a need for a "bibliographies" section? By the time a user is ready for that they are well beyond Wikipedia. Rjensen (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say arguably a "Bibliography" section would be the most valuable, because it would provide the reader with the most amount of information while taking up the least space. The Fwanksta (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

what I meant is that books that consist entirely of titles are not much use to Wiki users because a list of 1000 titles is totally overwhelming unless you are already an expert. What Wiki can do is guide users to the best books and articles--about 5 or 10 per decade of MK's active life should be about right. Rjensen (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I believe they are annotated, although I could be mistaken. I know for sure one of them is (the second volume of "Canadian History: A Reader's Guide"). -- The Fwanksta (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also that could be kind of the culmination of the stuff Wiki offers. The article still offers the more directed reading lists, but if people want to take the next step, we can provide them with some sources that would help with that. I could check to see if they're annotated, and approximately how many sources they contain to possibly warn the reader of such an information overload. It seems like something useful to provide, especially since all we'd be doing would be increasing our list by 3 works. -- The Fwanksta (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem with lead

The very short lead is a failure in that it does not summarize the article nor characterize the man. Is a stub and that is unacceptable and one of the major articles in Canadian history. One solution is to take discussion in the legacy section and move it into the lead. This text usefully describes Mackenzie King in action, and does not actually deal with his posthumous legacy. So I moved it up, but the lead also needs a summary of some of the main action in his years as prime minister. Rjensen (talk) 21:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Change needed in fifth parliament area.

Around here it says that King and Canada was largely ignored by Churchill despite its large role in providing food and supplies etc... In the Reader's Digest The Canadians at War 1939-45 volume one, chapter titled "the interpreter" talks in great lengths about the relationship between the three leaders. King, Churchill and Roosevelt. How could Churchill largely ignore Canada when they were actively making contingency plans for Canada to be the new home to the Royal Navy should Britain fall? That and communication between the 3 was very common. Despite what most Americans will tell you, Canada was the biggest and most important ally Britain had after the collapse of France. So its proven that communication between the three about all kinda of matters was common, Churchill did not ignore canada.

The books info is as follows. The title as stated before and the SBN is 0-88850-161-7.

I'm literally looking at pictures of them together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankar69 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Churchill used King (and Canada)--and took their money-- but did not ask advice or share secrets. At the Quebec conference King was the host, but was not allowed in the meeting rooms. Rjensen (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Biased picture. What about racism?

My readings about King's stance towards Japanese so far make me highly skeptical about the picture drawn on this page. The man appears to be quite a racist to me - and given his role in many jurisdictional concerns, this certainly deserves further investigation and elaboration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.17.247 (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Which picture are you referring to? I don't see how a picture can show racism. 117Avenue (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You genius, he means the way the chap is portrayed, not a literal photograph. And a photograph can clearly exhibit a concept such as racism whilst we're at it, chum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.46.174 (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Naming convention

William Lyon Mackenzie King's last name is King, not Mackenzie King. 131.232.11.118 (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Is it? Most of the references that don't use his full name have Mackenzie King in their titles. He signed his letters WL Mackenzie King.[1][2][3] The Canadian Encyclopedia bio[4] refers to him at one point as "Mackenzie King". (Lyon appears to be his middle name, as is customary with politicians.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, if his surname was "Mackenzie King" you would expect that his brother would also be a ""Mackenzie King", however this doesn't seem to be the case; see Dougall MacDougall "Max" King. I believe that having your mother's maiden surname as a middle name was not uncommon in Victorian times, two examples that I can think of are Woodrow Wilson, whose mother was Jessie Janet Woodrow, also Thomas Stearns Eliot whose mother was Charlotte Champe Stearns. In Mackenzie's case, it looks as though his parents wished to emphasise the link to William Lyon Mackenzie, but didn't continue in that vein with his younger brother. Alansplodge (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I concede the surname part. But that doesn't necessarily end the convention debate, especially in light of the very first sentence. (Down with the King.) Clarityfiend (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I am amenable to "Lyon King". Clarityfiend (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the post is already taken ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Conscription Crisis

Hebbgd (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC) I have corrected the quote from "conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription" to "not necessarily conscription but conscription if necessary". This is usually misquoted but what Mackenzie King actually said in Parliament on June 10, 1942, makes more sense.

Internment

I've replaced much of the text of the internment section. In its place I've put relevant text that well summarizes the sequence of federal legislative acts and their effects on Japanese-Canadians on the ground. I also copied in a sentence about Mulroney's apology, to clarify the modern view that this was a crime.Bhudson (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Redundancy

In the introduction, and again in the "Personal style and character" section, it says "he never married and lacked a hostess whose charm could substitute for his chill." This passage is repeated word for word.

In a third place, the same topic is discussed at greater length: "King never married,[108] but had several close female friends, including Joan Patteson, a married woman with whom he spent some of his leisure time; sometimes she served as hostess at his dinner parties..."

I'm not knowledgeable about Canadian history, so I don't feel qualified to edit this article myself, not even for style. But someone may wish condense this redundancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18A:C781:5680:9C51:A3D4:A45B:1AFA (talk) 00:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Large Portion of Page Deleted by an Unregistered User

I just noticed that an unregistered user deleted the majority of this page. They also edited some other parts, so I'm not sure that this is purely vandalism. I'm reverting to the previous version for now. Nmfwaterman (talk) 15:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)