Featured articleWilliam Lyon Mackenzie is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 28, 2021.
Did You KnowOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 31, 2021Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
February 27, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
March 8, 2021Good article nomineeListed
April 14, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
June 25, 2021Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 29, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that William Lyon Mackenzie was the first mayor of Toronto?
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 12, 2021, and December 7, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

unsuccessful[edit]

I am a decendent of william mackenzie and share a name but the susesfulness of the rebelion is a mater of opinion *sorry about spelling*

Correspondance with Papineau[edit]

It would be interesting to have more details on his correspondance with Papineau in the failed attempt to unite the uprisings in both Upper and Lower Canada.

Even if it was just once, it would be worth mentioning. Suddenly, that makes Papineau's struggle not only against English speakers (as it is taught in schools in Quebec), but against British Emperialism. Arasaka 14:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he had some contact with Papineau and also John Nielson who was another Quebec reformer. He also visited Quebec city with the purpose of meeting Lower Canada reformers. It was partly Papineau's corresondence that induced Mackenzie to open rebellion. Papineau wanted a parallel action in Upper Canada to dilute the British resonse. One inducement was that the rebellion in Quebec had drained British regulars from Ontario - Fort York arms and munitions were kept for safe keeping in Toronto city hall guarded by only two sheriff's men and the notion was that these items could easily be obtained by the rebels on marching to downtown Toronto. Gerald RW (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted Assassination[edit]

It says in the timeline that there was an attempted assassination of Mackenzie in March 1832, yet it isn't mentioned in the article. Does anyone have anything on that? The Last Melon 01:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "Tory magistrate William Johnson Kerr arranged to have Mackenzie beaten by thugs" which is weak. Actually, Kerr along with several accomplices dragged Mackenzie out of the place where he was meeting with a few associates and attempted to beat him to death in the street, very nearly succeeding, only prevented when friends and concerned neighbors intervened. Mackenzie was seriously injured and unable to even sit up for several days; however, he limped back into action 4 days later. Kerr was convicted of the offence but received only a small fine thanks to his Tory connections. At the time of the event Kerr was a justice of the peace, member of the assembly and government canal manager; he was of course subsequently 'punished' for his actions by being given higher posts. Mackenzie as well as competing journalists published detailed descriptions of the whole affair in considerable detail. Gerald RW (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Traitor[edit]

He was obviously a disloyal traitor to his own people - the canadians and the british. he even wanted canada and gb to join america. He wasn't fighting for us canadians, he was fighting for himself and hoping the usa would annex canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.65 (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YOU GO HOME! Mackenzie was a brave patriot who loved and fought for the people of his country. Canada is not the country of the British Empire and oligarchs, but the country of CANADIANS! 2605:B100:1132:3AB7:9412:FDA0:9F39:91D9 (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think Mackenzie was aiming to get Great Britain, apart Upper and Lower Canada, to join the USA.

And even the Canadas, he seems to have wanted as independent republics. Though how long such republics would remain separate from the USA, given the proposed American political system and likely influx of American settlers, is open to qluestion. LeftAlberta1968 (talk) 01:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Is it really necessary to link 300 times to the exact same thing? I don't think that is the intended purpose of footnotes. Why not just stick the reference at the bottom of the page, once? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you do, people complain about not having In-Line Citations. Have you ever been to a Wikipedia article? Approximately 95% of them have that annoying box at the top of them. Some of us are trying to avoid that?
But really, this is just the Wikipedia scissors, isn't it? No footnotes: template. Footnotes?: too many.
All, I can really say is: if you have so many opinions, put your money where your mouth is and improve the article yourself. Adam_sk (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie as mayor[edit]

"Mackenzie was largely ineffectual as a mayor". This was a busy year for Mackenzie but he did get some things done. When he became mayor, the only sidewalk was some hemlock bark laid on the street near a tannery; there were no paved or wooden streets (jokes about hats in the middle of Yonge street concealing an entire man who had sunk into the street ... seated on his horse); there was no water system; sewage drained into the streets; garbage was dumped in vacant lots; there was no city plan. During Mackenzie's term at least one street was boarded (a vast improvement over mud), a Board of Health was established, a city plan put in place, a common sewer begun; however, the city council was limited by lack of revenue and dealing with a second cholera outbreak. The council was controlled by reformers who were hamstrung by the adversarial family compact dominated colonial administration. A good part of the first council's effort was directed at sanitation and public health issues in response to the cholera epidemic of 1832, further complicated by a repetition and the governor's interference in the situation. However, Mackenzie's performance was seen as poor (it was even suggested he was responsible for the cholera outbreak, perhaps because he personally provided ambulance service to victims) and he polled last in his ward in the next election. More detail on this period would be appreciated; this site has some good info http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=bd98757ae6b31410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD Gerald RW (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Section heading[edit]

'Background and early years in Scotland, education and what has happened after that, 1795–1820' seems rather long and oddly phrased for a section heading. Should it be changed to Early years or something similar? Dunarc (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further Reading and External Links Sections[edit]

The "further reading" and "external links" sections have become large and hard for readers to navigate. In the spirit of WP:Further Reading and WP:BOLD I have moved these sections to this talk page at the top in the "Refideas" template. Works written by Mackenzie have been placed in the "Bibliography of major works" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compiling bibliographies for research is a major activity of historians and scholars here.-Should be restored for our readers. -Moxy 🍁 10:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think compiling great research for use in the article is important, but it should be used in the article as references whenever possible, not put in further reading and forgotten about. MOS:FURTHER says "Further Reading" should contain a reasonable number of publications". 21 works, as documented above, is beyond reasonable in my opinion. If a reference cannot be used as a citation then we can restore it to the Further Readings section. Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

copyvios[edit]

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=William+Lyon+Mackenzie&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talkcontribs) 07:18, October 28, 2020 (UTC)

Section sizes[edit]

Hi Moxy you added the ((Section sizes)) template to the talk page, but I am unsure what to do with this information. Should the larger sections be trimmed? If so, what can be deleted from the article? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:William Lyon Mackenzie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) 22:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I can do this review. I'll admit it's been a few years since I've had anything to do with the GAN process, but happy to help out a WikiCup contestant. Give me a couple days and I'll have this done preliminarily. I'm not familiar with Mackenzie at all, but as a politics degree-holder who works in journalism IRL, he looks fascinating! Go Phightins! 22:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The lede, in particular, could do a better job contextualising his historical legacy. The last section has some interesting material that could be better incorporated, perhaps instead of a recitation of his views on discrete political issues. On the whole, though, the article is pretty well-written. Comments—most of which you should feel free to take or leave—on the prose are below.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Very well-referenced.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    My over-arching comment is that, to a large extent, the article reads more like a list of events than an encyclopedia article that links them together, particularly in the middle sections describing the key years of his political/journalistic career. There is a lot of content delineating every publication he ever started and office he ran for; there is less coverage of what made some of his work successful, some of it not, and what motivated him through all of it.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    No concerns here.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Good.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    It is clear that an extraordinary effort has gone into developing this article, as reflected by the comprehensive coverage of key events in his life, impeccable citation/verifiability work, and the overall quality of the writing, which is quite good. My main concern, as I alluded at several points, is that one does not come away from the article with a clear sense of the historical legacy and impact that Mackenzie had on Canadian politics of the era or where he fits into the intellectual and political fabric of his time. My sense is that the literature you have consulted and referenced throughout the article may shed a bit more light on these factors; even if it does not present a single, agreed-upon narrative, I would not hesitate to do a bit of "XYZ scholars suggest ABC, while DEF scholars suggest GHI." You have brought to bear a lot material here; I think the only thing standing between this and satisfying the good article criteria is assembling it into a slightly more coherent narrative. Let me know if any of this doesn't make sense or if you disagree with any of the comments above or below. Really impressive work! Go Phightins! 00:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    'Update: I am now comfortable that the article meets all GA criteria and have passed it as such. Per the nominator's desire to pursue the FA process, I may leave a few additional comments on this page in the coming days, but I have listed the article. Go Phightins! 00:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments[edit]

Lede

 Done No idea why reform was wikilinked to a generic definition.
 Done I did a readthrough of the lede. I think the passive voice is an attempt to avoid starting every sentence with "He". Hopefully I have the right balance.

Early life

 Done
 Done
 Done
minus Removed I have no idea, there isn't a wikilink for it and this school is not referenced in any other source (if it was I would have switched the reference.) I decided to delete it.

The Colonial Advocate and early years in York (1823–27)

 Done
I will do a couple readthroughs to give variation to the sentences. I'll post here when I think I'm done.
 Done I think many of the "In XXXXX [time], Y happened" sentences have been reworded.
This will also require a couple readthroughs to find all these fixes. I will post when I think I'm done.
 Done I think I found them all.
 DoneIt wasn't a switch, the previous lawyer assisted Bidwell at the trial, but Bidwell was the lead attorney at the trial. I clarified in the article.
 Done The value was wrong, I fixed it.
minus Removed I was debating its inclusion in the article. Most other historians do not mention this part of his life, or it is a sentence in a 300+ page biography, so I decided to remove it so it doesn't receive undue weight.

Reform member of the Legislative Assembly (1827–1834)

minus Removed Yeah, this is difficult to summarize. Randal's influence in Mackenzie's campaign is only mentioned in one source, so I decided to remove it.
 Done
 Done He had been critisizing the legislature since the Colonial Advocate was created. I added language to clarify this.
 Done In his constituency. I added "by his constituents"

Upper Canada politics (1834–1836)

He was still running the Colonial Advocate while he was a legislator. At the beginning of "Reform member of the Legislative Assembly" I added info about still writing in the Colonial Advocate. Do I need additional info for this?
It was totally a reformer schtick. The source doesn't clarify what type of assessment laws these were. Should I just remove this sentence?
Maybe just clarify that it was something of a protest over the lack of these equitable assessment laws. It's helpful color; I just wasn't sure if it tied to something broader. Go Phightins!
 Done Whoops. Removed.
minus Removed James was the son of Isabel Reid, who was born in Scotland. He then married Isabel Baxter and they had 13 children together. I also felt that the children were kind of added on in the biography, but I didn't know how to include them. I don't think they are too relevant to Mackenzie's bio (except for James and maybe Joseph Hume Mackenzie) and I will go ahead and remove them. This will prevent a "X was born in YYYY" paragraph in a personal life section, and the 13 children are mentioned in the "Early years in Canada" section.
 Done Reformers like Mackenzie thought Bond Head was going to be their ally. Clarified.

Upper Canada Rebellion (1837–1838)

 Done I did a copyedit to move around the dates.
minus Removed
This will take some time to write as there are whole books about what caused the Upper Canada Rebellion. I'll come back to this.
 Done I added some information about Mackenzie's sadness on losing the 1836 election, the vigilance committee's support of self-government and a critique Mackenzie published calling Bond Head a tyrant supporting a corrupt government. Does this shortly explain Mackenzie's motivation to help start the rebellion? Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! Love it. Go Phightins!

Years in the US (1838–1849)

minus Removed removed info about his children, per above comments.
As per your comments on the regurgitation of facts: most of Mackenzie's biographies give 250 pages to pre-rebellion and rebellion events, then give 20 pages to the rest of his life. The main source for his post-rebellion life is a dry (in my opinion), 400 page book that basically regurgitates facts to the sacrifice of narration (again, my opinion). Unfortunately, it looks like the article reflects that writing style. I'll try to construct more narration into the post-rebellion sections, but this will take time.
plus Added language to clarify why this is important.
Neutrality Act of 1794 is wikilinked in the lede. Should I also wikilink it here?
I don't know if there's a policy about this, but my preference is that something can be linked once in the lede and then on the first reference in the body, particularly if it's pretty far down the article. Go Phightins!
The inflation amount and year are provided by the ((inflation)) template. Those numbers and years will be updated as the template is updated.
I never found a good explanation about this, but I assume his American supporters are the people subscribing to his paper. I'm going to look back at a source and try to find info about this.
 Done I added info about Mackenzie's supporters from his newspaper, how many signed petitions for his release and where people signed petitions. Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Return to Canada (1849–1858)

Yeah, it's back pay. He had to petition (and I think sue?) the government to get this money. Should I do something to clarify this?
Eh, I think it's probably clear enough. Go Phightins!
minus Removed I went back to the source and he verified that the constituents lobbied Mackenzie for a railway, but he also speculated that they would have supported Mackenzie's reelection even though Mackenzie was against the rail line. I removed the sentence.

Later life and death (1858–1861)

Oh man, this will take some work to summarize. I used to have a whole paragraph in the personal politics section explaining this, but the article got too big so it got deleted. I'm going to have to go back and find this section and see what I can add to the article.
 Done I added a sentence about why Mackenzie did not support the union in 1855. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writing style

 Done Most of these people are historians. A previous editor suggested that I remove the "A person says..." style in this section and I decided to do another copyedit right now to reduce the word count in this section and remove lots of similar opinions.

Political philosophy and views

Many academic papers, cited in this article, try to answer the above question. Basically, his political philosophy is a hatred of the Family Compact and their corruption. I try to explain this in the first paragraph, but it looks like I'm not successful. I will have to read this again and try to add a better explanation.
 Done I did a copyedit of the political philosophy section to remove some of the political references. Some were only mentioned in passing in the source, and others were not necessary to explain his philosophy. It might require a second look.
 Done I thought it fit better here because the source is describing the farmers and small business owners and Mackenzie's ideal economic system. I changed to "His ideal economic society"

Legacy

George Brown and Lindsey are linked earlier in the article, I moved John King's son-in-law description to the first paragraph and I added "historian" next to Albert Schrauwers. Should I re-introduce Brown and Lindsey here?
Maybe just briefly. I read the whole article in one sitting and had forgotten by this point who they were, and I imagine a lot of people will jump to a particular section of interest, so I think it can be helpful to reiterate when possible. Go Phightins!
 Done Yes, I will work that into the lede. Put in the lede
Lindsey and his son took Lindsey's original biography, cut out a bunch of sections, and reprinted it as part of the series. Is there a better word I can use?
Sorry that was asking whether you meant "condense" instead of what I assumed was a typo of "consense" ... Go Phightins!
 Done Whoops! Did not notice that. Z1720 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. He basically spent his whole life yelling about how everything in the government was wrong, and he screwed up his mayoralty, the one time he was actually in charge of a government.
 Done I changed the first sentence to describe what I think I need to say. The "moral crusador" line is a leftover quote from a different version of this section.
 Done changed the second legacy to "Depictions and in memoriam". Right now it's five paragraphs, which is a bit long for a section. If it gets reduced I might combine it.

Post review comments

Hi Go Phightins! I'm still working on a couple of comments, but most of the above have been addressed (marked with a  Done minus Removed or plus Added template.) I have questions about some of the points, and please add comments if a comments needs more changes. Thanks again for doing this. Z1720 (talk) 03:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Z1720: The improvements have already been great, and I just wanted to comment that the lede, in particular, is terrific. From my perspective, I think this probably meets most if not all of the GA criteria at this point such that's what left is really just more of peer review if you ever had thought of taking it through the FA process (a gauntlet I've only run once myself ...). I'll leave this open for another day or two maybe and then go ahead and list it? If there's anything else you need from me (or if by, say, Friday, I haven't listed it), feel free to ping me again. Great work!! Go Phightins! 17:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Go Phightins!, yes I will be taking this article to FAC in mid-April after conducting another PR. I would like to keep this GAN open for one or two days to get more feedback, in particular for the "Political philosophy" section. Can you take another look at it (maybe through the lens of an FA) and give more comments? Also, can I ping you when I take this article to FAC for additional feedback and to thank you for your help? Thanks again for your work on this GAN. Z1720 (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Give me a couple days and I'll have another, more detailed look. Go Phightins! 19:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I haven't had more time in the past few days to comb through this another time. I'm going to go ahead and list it as a GA, and I will try to find some time this week to leave any additional FA-related comments. Nice work on bringing this up to the GA level! Go Phightins! 23:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's no problem. Thanks for reviewing this and all of your comments. I look forward to your additional feedback. Z1720 (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by TJMSmith (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Lyon Mackenzie
William Lyon Mackenzie

Improved to Good Article status by Z1720 (talk). Self-nominated at 01:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: Approved ALT0. Appeared on main page as an "On this date" very recently, don't think that poses problems though, although we might wish not to promote this immediately. The QPQ is technically a few minutes before the nomination, but I don't think that poses problems either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda Gzowski[edit]

I find the reference to "a woman who married a descendant of Mackenzie named Wanda Gzowski" stilted. Wanda Casimir Gzowski was the great-granddaughter of Sir Casimir Gzowski and a relative of the broadcaster Peter Gzowski. The wording implies that no one knows who she was. I suggest we omit "named Wanda Gzowski." TFD (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Four Deuces I went back to the source to see if there was more information about Wanga Gzowski, but there is only one line about her. The source does not verify that the Wanda Casimir Gzowski you mention above is the same person buried with Mackenzie. I will take out the line if other editors think it should be removed, but I don't think the wording implies that we don't know who she is. Rather, it is just mentioning that a person who married into the family is buried in the same plot. Z1720 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen's Own Rifles of Canada Regimental Museum and Archive says that Wanda Gzowski was a great-granddaughter of Sir Casimir,[8] and the Ontario Archives says that her husband was related to Mackenzie.[9] (This article uses her father-in-law's book as a reference.) I don't have access to Sewell's book, but he would have recognized the name and probably assumed his readers did as well. But I would go along with just deleting it. TFD (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence has been removed, as suggested at the FAC. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Ford[edit]

I don't know how much weight this has, but I found the late Rob Ford's comments at his inaugural interesting: "In closing, I’d like to add that Toronto’s first mayor, William Lyon Mackenzie, was a bit of a rebel. He was a colourful character who was not accepted by the establishment because he fought against privileged and for the little guy. My plan is to be more successful than he was."[10] TFD (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a Torontonian, but I suspect that WLM enjoys a certain amount of prestige in that city simply as a result of having been the first mayor, and people tend to glorify the first person to hold a particular office, like Americans with George Washington.

Plus, he probably has some vaguely remembered reputation as a rebel, which seems to be what Ford was referencing. LeftAlberta1968 (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some notes on my bold edit[edit]

[11].

I'm not able to spend time going through, in detail, the whole article, but I can run my ETVP (=Easy to Visually Parse) script on it. The main changes, in this case, are (1) applying a consistent citation style (so all the citations are now short-form) and (2) the full citations in the main biblio listing are in a form that is much easier to read and to check.

I made a couple of small changes to the headings for the citations, much of the background for which is set out at WP:BCC. In particular, the term "References" is scrapped, and the short citations are under "Citations". Short citations are themselves a subset of "Notes", which is why they appear as a subsection of the "Notes" section. Method in my madness!

The script makes a large number of checks for MOS errors, but found only a few |p= which should read |pp=. So congratulations to the authors of this article for their diligence.

This change falls under the terms of WP:CITEVAR, so if anyone doesn't like it, they are entitled to revert it, and I won't object. But I hope that won't be necessary.

Comments welcome.

--NSH001 (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serving with $atan?[edit]

The summary pane notes the following:

In office 1845–1834 Serving with $atan

Serving with $atan? what's up with that?

Sounds like obvious trolling. LeftAlberta1968 (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LeftAlberta1968: Where do you see this? I did a ctr+F search and could not find it. Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything. Someone else said that they saw "Serving With $atan" in the summary panel, and I said that whoever wrote "Serving with $atan" was likely trolling. LeftAlberta1968 (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]