Curly Turkey (talk | contribs) →RfC: political scandal?: '''No'''—Wikipedia articles use the most neutral term available, and avoid loaded terms per WP:Words to watch. Appeals to cherrypicked definitions from dictionaries completely miss the point of MOS:W2W, and it is distressingly WP:IDHT to see the same people doing exactly that yet again. The discussion should {{em|not}} be about how we can lawyer a loaded term into the article, but about {{em|finding the most neutral term}}. |
Curly Turkey (talk | contribs) →Is it really WP:POV to call this a scandal?: I reassert this article is undergoing a POV push; if it is, "discussion" can only be in bad faith. The pushers have publicly declared "who is guilty" and "where it took place", are editwarring to ensure these POVs, and are engaging in a war of attrition against those trying to maintain NPOV and WP:INTEGRITY. We're spiralling in a dead end here; if an admin will not step in firmly on the side of WP:CCPOL, the only path out I see is ArbCom |
||
Line 824: | Line 824: | ||
The question is easy to answer, In English a Scandal = An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage while a Dispute = an argument or disagreement and a Controversey = Prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. |
The question is easy to answer, In English a Scandal = An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage while a Dispute = an argument or disagreement and a Controversey = Prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. |
||
What we've to ask ourselves is the following;<br>Is SNC-Lavalin affair an action or event?<br>Did the SNC-Lavalin affair cause general public outrage in Canada?<br>Is the affair morally wrong (breaks ethics when PMO puts pressure on Justice Department, which in Canada and in the West, Departments of Justice are supposed to be independent)?<br>If the answer is Yes, then SNC-Lavalin affair is a Political Scandal not dispute nor controversy as defined in English that's as neutral as we gonna get.<br>Let us not be squeamish, a Wikipedia rated Good Article as an example is the [[Iran-Contra|Contra Affair]]. It was called what it was a '''Political Scandal'''.<br>Cheers. [[User:Mr.Gold1|Mr.Gold1]] ([[User talk:Mr.Gold1|talk]]) 21:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC) |
What we've to ask ourselves is the following;<br>Is SNC-Lavalin affair an action or event?<br>Did the SNC-Lavalin affair cause general public outrage in Canada?<br>Is the affair morally wrong (breaks ethics when PMO puts pressure on Justice Department, which in Canada and in the West, Departments of Justice are supposed to be independent)?<br>If the answer is Yes, then SNC-Lavalin affair is a Political Scandal not dispute nor controversy as defined in English that's as neutral as we gonna get.<br>Let us not be squeamish, a Wikipedia rated Good Article as an example is the [[Iran-Contra|Contra Affair]]. It was called what it was a '''Political Scandal'''.<br>Cheers. [[User:Mr.Gold1|Mr.Gold1]] ([[User talk:Mr.Gold1|talk]]) 21:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC) |
||
===No way out=== |
|||
: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=next&oldid=896164379 This] is [[WP:3RR]] over "Quebec", and Darryl Kerrigan's "Quebec" statement above is another declaration of his POV. |
|||
: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair&diff=896188121&oldid=896178163 MrGold1's statement below] is even more explicit—one party is "morally wrong" who "breaks ethics", which is why it must be presented as a "scandal". "Let us not be squeamish" is not the statement of someone seeking NPOV. |
|||
:* [[Wikipedia:Core content policies|Wikipedia's core content policies]] are not negotiable; [[WP:CONSENSUS]] is not a raise of hands, and cannot overide [[WP:CCPOL]]. |
|||
:* POV presentation of content is not a "content dispute". |
|||
:* Cherrypicking of sources is not a "content dispute". |
|||
:* [[WP:IDHT]] is not a "content dispute"—it is a key [[WP:CIVILPOV]] tactic. |
|||
: "Talking it over" will not solve issues with parties who will not discuss in good faith. We've seen what an unreadably long filibustered mess it became at ANI, and that's where it has gone here—round and round, as every one of these "discussions" has—not because there is a legitimate "disagreement", but because this is an effective POV-pushing tactic. |
|||
: I reassert this article is undergoing a POV push; if it is, "discussion" can only be in bad faith. The pushers have publicly declared "who is guilty" and "where it took place", are editwarring to ensure these POVs, and are engaging in a war of attrition against those trying to maintain NPOV and [[WP:INTEGRITY]]. We're spiralling in a dead end here; if an admin will not step in firmly on the side of [[WP:CCPOL]], the only path out I see is ArbCom. [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly "JFC" Turkey]] <span style="color: Red;">🍁</span> [[User talk:Curly Turkey|''¡gobble!'']] 05:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC) |
|||
== Prevalence of "LavScam" == |
== Prevalence of "LavScam" == |
Revision as of 05:52, 9 May 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Use of Trudeau's picture
Use of Trudeau's picture
|
---|
I prefer the PM's picture. This scandal is about him, not the former AG who was allegedly pressured Legacypac (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The page is well written and accurately describes what the scandal is about based on credible references. The scandal is about PM Justin Trudeau and his administration hence the PM's picture. The term SNC-Lavalin affair accurately describes the event, Canadian media, the general public use SNC-Lavalin affair or scandal or controversy even American media including the New York Times use SNC-Lavalin affair. User:Littleolive oil pointing to sockpuppets or meatpuppets for content that you disagree with or makes you uncomfortable doesn't work here. Are you from the PMO or sympathetic with the PMO? or both? that could explain things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Gold1 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
and further. No, this isn't about Trudeau. This is the problem with your comments here and with the way images have been positioned on the article page. This isn't about Trudeau yet and maybe ever; its about an allegation made by another person about the Prime Minister's office. And that is the scandal. No source says Trudeau is guilty of this. What the sources say is that an individual made an allegation about the PM's office. This means as I understand it, the Liberal party could be impacted in the next election and so too the PM. This is about Trudeau by extension at this point and yet here and on the article page with out sources you and others are trying to say this is about Trudeau rather than the allegation and the woman who this is really about. This is biased editing whether knowingly or not Littleolive oil (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC) Hello everyone! I've done quite a bit of research for this article initially, especially around SNC legal proceedings, and read almost everything on the affair. I was more concentrating on legal aspects of SNC-Lavalin process, but if ask me about the picture, I think Trudeau's picture is most appropriate. It's about PM allegedly pressuring JWR to bend the law for SNC. He pretty much admitted it in the latest press conference. Butts is his closest friend and he resigned. And it's not only about pressuring JWR, there's a whole campaign here that started in 2015 and clearly led by Trudeau and his office, not the cabinet, to bend the laws and regulations in various ways to get SNC off the hook. Trudeau initiated DPA legislation, reviews of Integrity Regime, etc. So, this is a long-running affair to cover corrupt SNC, not just a single allegation, and Trudeau is at the center of it. (disclosure: I'm a Canadian interested in law and politics; don't work for any politicians or government, try to maintain neutral point of view.)PavelShk (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC) CNN headlines: A political scandal surrounding Canadian PM Justin Trudeau. What's going on? [1] Trudeau: Crisis deepens as second minister quits [2] and from global "‘Canada’s golden boy loses his shine’: Headlines from around the world on Trudeau, SNC-Lavalin" [3] with a rundown of major media headlines all of which are about the PM. Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I remember reading a recent article that SNC was charged in 2016 (?) with excessive illegal campaign donations, mostly to the liberal party. I believe it is relevant and provides context, but am not sure how best to include. Plus all the references I can find are columnists, and I believe an article would be better. Harris Seldon (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
|
Source it!
|
---|
Source it!Per this: "in a move(by whom? non encyclopedic language) (widely... non encyclopedic, weasel) seen as a demotion" True means nothing on Wikipedia for heaven's sake... it wasn't sourced in the source given... just source it rather than edit war. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I missed the actual quote in the article. You are assuming bad faith and have since I first entered this discussion accusing me of coming from the PMO. Further, Some of your other arguments are not supported by the way this encyclopedia operates... "True", is not an argument. As I said, the subtle POV in the article is noticeable to anyone not involved here. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
|
Lead POV
|
---|
Lead POVThis is overkill trying to make a point and so POV. During Justice Committee hearings, Wilson-Raybould testified on what she claims was a consistent and sustained effort by members within government to politically interfere in her duty as Attorney General in an "inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin".[4]
I understand your comments, especially about the lede. I can assure you, this was a good faith edit trying to achieve the following:
Reading it again, I acknowledge it may give undue weight, and so would propose the following as a compromise to address your concerns, and accurately reflect her testimony: During Justice Committee hearings, Wilson-Raybould testified on what she claims was a consistent and sustained effort by members within government to politically interfere in her duty as Attorney General by pressuring her to offer SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement. Harris Seldon (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
So how about the following: During Justice Committee hearings, Wilson-Raybould testified regarding efforts by various members within government to politically interfere in her duty as Attorney General by pressuring her to offer SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement. Admittedly, this is a multifaceted topic, that generates a lot of controversy (and corresponding emotion). Glad we can talk about it. Harris Seldon (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
|
Different views over leaked information on judicial appointment
|
---|
Different Views Over Leaked Information on Judicial AppointmentThere has been some editing back and forth on this one in order to keep a NPOV. It would probably be better to move this to the TALK page and try to come to a consensus rather than just changing the article back and forth. I'll start: There does not appear to be any disagreement over the supported facts that there was a leak and what information was leaked. Where the differences start is over the statement The CTV report suggest the Prime Minister could have had reasons unrelated to the SNC-Lavalin affair for moving Wilson-Raybould out of the Justice portfolio. The reference is a realiable source, but this sounds like an opinion of and an interpretation of the facts, as there is no proof that this was a reason and it conflicts with previous statements made by the PM and Butts regarding why JWR was replaced. Also, it was only reported by some news sources (CBC, maybe CP) and not others. Personally, I would remove this statement completely, let the facts speak for themselves and allow the reader to interpret as they like, but others feel strongly this sentence should be kept. Therefore, in order to maintain a balanced view, a different interpretation of the same facts was added, from reliable sources such as Macleans, National Post, Globe and Mail. This interpretation is also consistent with the facts, but is a different conclusion. Yet these views have been removed as partisan opinion that has not been proven. So I guess what I'm not clear on is why is the statement The CTV report says the Prime Minister could have had reasons unrelated to the SNC-Lavalin affair for moving Wilson-Raybould out of the Justice portfolio is considered a NPOV fact. But the statement Andrew Coyne questioned this conclusion, pointing out that Trudeau had original claimed Wilson-Raybould would "still be [Attorney-General] today" had Scott Brison not resigned and necessitated a cabinet shuffle. or Paul Wells of Maclean's suggested the leak was an attempt to damage Wilson-Raybould and as an excuse to remove her from the Liberal caucus in the future. are biased opinions that we should wait to see if it's proven correct.Harris Seldon (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC) As an aside, the original CTV article does not include this suggestion, and the reference supporting it is a CBC article (which does make the suggestion) Harris Seldon (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Perhaps a compromise solution would be to phrase it like this? The CTV report suggests the Prime Minister could have had reasons unrelated to the SNC-Lavalin affair for moving Wilson-Raybould out of the Justice portfolio, although this is inconsistent with Trudeau's original statements that Wilson-Raybould would "still be [Attorney-General] today" had Scott Brison not resigned and necessitated a cabinet shuffle.Harris Seldon (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Obstruction of Justice claim
|
---|
Obstruction of Justice claimThe lead states: Can someone please provide a source that there was a credible allegation of obstruction of justice by the PMO, especially considering JWR says that no crime occurred? AdA&D ★ 00:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Party expulsions - obtaining an NPOV
|
---|
Party expulsions - obtaining an NPOVThere has been a lot of editing back and forth in this section, so I thought better to create a TALK section, to discuss and hopefully find a consensus on the right approach. As far as I can tell, the edits relate to trying to achieve a Neutral POV, and how that works in practice with this topic, given its complexity, controversial nature, and the strong opinions people have on both sides. As it stands now, I think this section fairly reflects the current situation, but I am willing to listen to the consensus on this one. To me, one way to keep a balanced point of view is to use direct quotes wherever practical to avoid misinterpretation, incorrect paraphrasing or potential dilution of the speaker's original meaning. This may of course result in some sensationalist phrasing, but I think the article makes it clear when it is the speaker's words, and not the editor's. Also, there are other quotes and reactions reported in the press which have rightly not been included in this section which I believe are more sensationalist than the ones which are included here or are not notable. To help maintain balance, this section (like most of the article) also contains the perspective of the Liberals, the opposition parties and the individuals involved. It might however look like undue weight, but the reality is there 2 or 3 opposition parties and 2 individuals compared to 1 Liberal party. Either way, those are my thoughts for now on the approach for this section (and others), but I am interested in what the consensus has to say. Harris Seldon (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Wow, so much to reply to! First of all, I want to compliment Littleolive oil on your commitment to WP:Retention by not directly naming these very new single topic accounts. I don't see any, but I trust you that they're there! I also want to thank you for avoiding directly accusing anyone of bad behaviour. I note that you've avoided directly [accusing] [anyone] [no] [fewer] [than] [seven] [times] that I can see on this page, which shows admirable restraint on your part- such accusations, absent actual evidence in the form of diffs, would surely be violating WP:AGF. However, I note from edit summaries that you've been removing others' contributions on talk pages, as well as warnings left on your own talk page, so I'm unable to be sure that it's only been seven times. Finally, I want to thank you for complimenting me on my "unusually good knowledge of Wikipedia". My process is, I read the relevant policy/how-to pages and remember what they say; then, when I do something, I refer back to them. I do dispute that the edits I made were "pejorative"; first of all, none of it insulted Trudeau or anyone else. Nobody called him any names. The edits, in their entirety, are direct quotes from major political leaders across the Canadian spectrum, specifically about the major event being discussed. These quotes were cited as being by the people who said them, not given Wikipedia's voice, and they were reliably sourced. I want to say again that this is a major section; the expulsion of two high-profile Liberal MPs is just about as serious as the governing party can get. Far from being WP:UNDUE, this section deserves some significant expansion to cover the expulsion leadup and process, the aftermath, as well as reactions from public leaders who aren't politicians. Now, regarding the article LegacyPac linked you to, Littleolive oil, (is there a short form you prefer?) you may not know this not being Canadian but Andrew Coyne is one of Canada's most well-known and respected journalists, across the political spectrum. He's also the former editor-in-chief of the National Post, before stepping down because (wait for it) the owners wouldn't allow him to publish a column in the last election asking voters to vote against the Conservative government. He is an eminently reputable and reliable source. And in this case, he's exactly right. The scandal is the attempt to politically interfere in the criminal process, to hide that interference, and to normalise it once it could no longer be hidden. The scandal is not that a man and two women disagreed on something, or someone recorded a phone call, or anything of that form. This is the SNC-Lavalin affair, not the Jody Wilson-Raybould affair.Safrolic (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The misunderstandings:
I'm ok with the changes Safrolic made to this section, it fleshes things out. I am a bit on the fence about including the Daughters of the Vote protest, but I can see how others would view it as relevant. I would just fix some of the dates as Philpott's statement and JWR's letter were same day as the Caucus vote As an aside, is Philpott still the liberal candidate for her riding? I haven't seen a reliable source to confirm one way or the other Harris Seldon (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Lawsuit?
|
---|
Lawsuit?[9] Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Curly Turkey edits (this is where lavscam issue was first brought up)
|
---|
Curly Turkey editsI added back the LavScam name with multiple cites and they edit warred it out again, deleting even more cites and name variations. Time to slow down and discuss this. Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Under what justification is the Globe and Mail a primary source? [10] The G&M did not create the scandal, they found it. Legacypac (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I see, more non sequiturs. "Myriad" suggests many (ie. plural). You were not just talking about "Wilson-Raybould scandal", you are just being revisionist now. On that point, Safrolic correctly pointed out to you:
As with Sponsorship scandal, AdScam or Sponsorgate it is completely appropriate for us to note its other names. Why are you so opposed to this? It seems you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I am yet to be referenced to specific sections of any of these polities which suggests this is inappropriate. It is clearly appropriate with the Sponsorship scandal. I am not seeing any credible reasoning it is not appropriate here. This source specifically discusses use of the term. These ones use it in covering the "affair": [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], among many others.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Man, I'm so glad I picked this afternoon and evening to watch the entire second season of Netflix's Chilling Adventures of Sabrina. So, I looked at MOS:LEADALT, which says that " significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages.". WP:LEADCREATE advises us that a lead should only summarize content that is more deeply expanded on later in the article. Both it and MOS:LEAD say that we should fix the article first, then tackle the lead. My suggestion: We include also known as Lavscam in the first two sentences of the lead somewhere, and source it with [this]. Then, we include a small paragraph somewhere in the article about how different sources have debated whether it's a scandal or a scam or whatever, and called it different things, including "Lavscam", "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "SNC-Lavalin controversy" and whatever other names it's actually been called. Lavscam is the altname that goes in the lead because it's the only one which is significantly different from the base "SNC-Lavalin" name and therefore the only one which could be confused with other things. It's a redirect to here already too. Also, Curly, be respectful of the rest of us and the work we've put into this article. Yes, it's C-class and it needs more work. But it's still a lot better than it was before. Thanks for the editorial fixes you've been doing, by the way. Safrolic (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I did not use a source pointing to #LavScam but you took a source out and then when I restored the name LavScam with 3 or 4 sources you took that out. You are treating me like an idiot and putting words in my mouth. I know that alt names that are used by RS belong in the lede. LavScam without the # is a prominent alt name and a quick Google search confirms it. Now please be less cocky and consisending to your fellow editors. Most of us are just looking to creat a balanced informative article that reports facts about what happened and who did and said what. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Date formatting
|
---|
Date formattingSo, I'd kind of like to have the dmy format switch to mdy throughout the article. We've got a ton of specific dates where things happen, and we're building what amounts to a textual chronography. Calling it "February 7" instead of "7 February" would have a more natural flow I think. Is anyone like super vehemently opposed to that? Safrolic (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
February 7 is better Legacypac (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Continued sourcing issues
|
---|
Continued sourcing issuesI just keep running into violations of WP:INTEGRITY with this article, and I've examined only a fraction of the sources so far. For example, a quotation that didn't appear in two of the sources given, and was actually concatenated from two separate quotes in the one source it did appear in, and (much more seriously) the phrasing "illegal political interference", cited to three sources, none of which characterized it as "illegal". I've notified WP:CANADA in the hope of getting more eyes to scrub this article of sourcing violations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Lavscam at ANI, ANI raised
|
---|
aka'LavScam' at Administrators' noticeboardThis is a continuation of the discussion above concerning Curly Turkey's edits. Specifically, the question of whether it is appropriate to refer to this matter also as LavScam as it has been on Twitter and in the media, including in numerous sources referenced here. Curly Turkey in a recent edit summary suggests we deal with this at WP:ANI:
I obviously don't think this is a problem of violating policy. Safrolic pointed out that MOS:LEADALT seems to support inclusion of significant other names (ie LavScam). The policy reads " significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages.". Other editors seem to support the inclusion of the term 'LavScam' in the lede given its use in sources. Curly Turkey still opposes for reasons which still appear unclear to me, despite extensive discussions. He cites about every policy in the book without reference to any particular section (WP:INTEGRITY, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, among others). Perhaps, I am wrong, but I seem to think we reached a consensus among others. This seems to be devolving to a question of ownership. I am not sure it is necessary to proceed to Administrators' noticeboard, but am prepared to do so if that is required. Happy to hear others' thought.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
ANI raisedI have opened an ANI report. I'm not sure what the etiquette is on other involved editors commenting there (and I'd suggest anybody double-check on that before doing so), but I still wanted to let you all know. It's here. Safrolic (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Are JWR and Philpott Liberal Party members?
|
---|
Are JWR and Phillpott Liberal Party members?I just edited the page to remove the claim that Trudeau ejected them from the party as opposed to caucus. Not sure if that is correct. I don't believe the sources support that. While rare, a Parliamentarian can be a party member but not part of the party caucus. Senate "Liberals" are an example. They can't call themselves Liberals in the Senate, only go by the term "Senate Liberals". They can be members though, vote at conventions etc. We should make sure we are right on this.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
|
Better source needed
|
---|
Better source needed@Curly Turkey: regarding this edit, which part of this paragraph do you feel needs a better source? – bradv🍁 05:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
|
RfC: LavScam
Should the alternative name "LavScam" be mentioned in the opening sentence of this article? – bradv🍁 06:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes it is a very common term for this scandal. Sources following: This line was by Legacypac. Source list is below I'm also happy to include other alternative names that can be sourced with a few different media outlets using them. I just know LavScam is commonly used in the media and on twitter and it is the most distinct unique name for the subject. Legacypac (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes MOS:LEADALT says that " significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages.". There have been multiple alternative names given for this, and Lavscam is not necessarily the most-used alternative by any clear margin. Other names used by various media include 'SNC-Lavalin scandal', 'Wilson-Raybould affair', 'SNC-Lavalin controversy', and etc of similar form. It doesn't make sense to list them all in the lead, but it does raise questions of weight for Lavscam to be the only one listed. However, this is not an RfC about including 'Wilson-Raybould affair', which has similar google result counts; I haven't seen anyone mention a problem with that. WP:LEADCREATE advises us that a lead should only summarize content that is more deeply expanded on later in the article. Both it and MOS:LEAD say that we should fix the article first, then tackle the lead. I would like to see a small paragraph somewhere in the article about how different sources have debated whether it's a scandal or a scam or whatever, and called it different things, including "Lavscam", "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "Wilson-Raybould controversy", "Philpott episode" and whatever other names it's actually been called. I think Lavscam is the altname of the pack which should then go in the lead, because it's the only one which isn't the same basic form as the article name, and I'm neutral on whether 'Wilson-Raybould affair' should also be in the lead. Safrolic (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Only if along with other frequent terms for the affair—per WP:WEIGHT, these concerns override any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally- or more-used terms. As such a list would be burdensomely long, my preference is to leave them all out.Changed to No below. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- We had various other terms in the lede until you stripped them, so its pretty strange to say you want other terms now. Legacypac (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- This comment a grotesquely dishonest, bad-faith distortion of what has happened, and what has been discussed above. There were two variations of the current title, and no other alternate terms, even after I demonstrated several in the discussion above. No attempt has been made to restore those terms, or any of the other alternate terms—including terms that appear more frequently than "LavScam". Your focus is exclusively on ensuring "LavScam" is highlighted in the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Incorrect Curly. [23] When you took out LavScam the second time 15 minutes after I put it back with additional sourcing, there were other names for the scandal left in. My unwillingness to edit war with you as you reshaped the article to fit your political agenda is a feature not a bug. Legacypac (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- "there were other names ... left in"—they had not been removed yet, no attempt has been made to restorew them after they were, and your diff again shows a single-minded focus on ensuring "LavScam" gets highlighted in the lead, with the same WP:INTEGRITY-violating cite. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Incorrect Curly. [23] When you took out LavScam the second time 15 minutes after I put it back with additional sourcing, there were other names for the scandal left in. My unwillingness to edit war with you as you reshaped the article to fit your political agenda is a feature not a bug. Legacypac (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- This comment a grotesquely dishonest, bad-faith distortion of what has happened, and what has been discussed above. There were two variations of the current title, and no other alternate terms, even after I demonstrated several in the discussion above. No attempt has been made to restore those terms, or any of the other alternate terms—including terms that appear more frequently than "LavScam". Your focus is exclusively on ensuring "LavScam" is highlighted in the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- We had various other terms in the lede until you stripped them, so its pretty strange to say you want other terms now. Legacypac (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- No—after doing further research and discovering "LavScam" appears in a fraction of a percent of available sources—and that two thirds of those hits are from a single source (torontosun.com)—there is absolutely no way that including "LavScam" in the lead sentence is WP:DUEWEIGHT. This is a black-and-white violation of our policies that cannot be overridden by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- No – this is a name chosen by certain news media designed to influence public opinion. As pointed out above, there are several other alternative names that are more popular, and more neutral, than this one. LavScam works fine as a redirect, but if we're going to use the name anywhere in the article it should be attributed to which news organization or politician is actually using the name. Bottom line: Identifying this as a "scam" in the opening paragraph of the article is a violation of NPOV. – bradv🍁 15:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. Whatever the reasons and motivations, both tier 1 RS such as CNN and the Washington Post have used this term in the title of articles on the affair, making it notable. Even in my part of the world, the tier 1 RS (and not right-wing) such as The Guardian [24] are using the term. Britishfinance (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes (but mild, and may change) – I have discussed above that I think Lavscam warrants inclusion in the lead as it is being used and is different enough from other variations of SNC-Lavalin Affair. SNC-"Affair", "scandal", "controversy" are all using synonyms and are more or less different versions of the same expression. So I can see the point of not having all of them in the lead. But Lav-Scam is different. It is being used, but is a portmanteau and the word is not as obviously linked to the subject. Including it in the lead would help the casual reader, especially as Lav-scam seems to start being used more frequently (including the foreign press). Including it is informative and if phrased as "also known as" is still consistent with NPOV. A section describing different names for SNC-Lavalin would also be useful. But, I am reflecting on this now, considering some of the comments made that LavScam is designed to provoke a reaction. I would not say it's to influence opinion, but see it being used more to get people's attention, which would be consistent with the observation Lavscam is only used in the title of articles, and not in the body. If so, then I would be less inclined to include Lavscam in the lead. I also noted with the sources given, Lavscam does not appear to be exclusively used by right or left wing media, which is consistent with my thoughts on it being used to get attention.Harris Seldon (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes Looking at the sources: being mentioned by The Guardian, CNN, and WaPo suggests that term is worth including, especially because it is now being adopted by international outlets. These organizations are hardly right wing tabloids as suggested in the ANI report and represent the center-left of international news organizations. That means that this term is being used across the spectrum as a short-hand for this scandal and definitely worth including. SWL36 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- SWL36—the ANI report itself lists non-right-wing sources that have used the term; the concern is WP:WEIGHT, in that it is relatively rare outside the far-right and Twitter in comparison to other terms. This, combined with the push to characterize it as a "colloquialism", have raised concerns of astroturfing—an attempt to promote more widespread, mock-grassroots usage of this term via Wikipedia by highlighting it in the lead. These editors have shown no concern with putting in the body (it's still not there), which again would be consistent with an astroturfing campaign—knowing most readers will not get beyond the lead, thus the lead becomes the exclusive focus. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Accusing other editors of running an astroturfing campaign is not assuming good faith and is tantamount to suggesting other editors are paid or political shills. The argument for inclusion of the term is straightforward and grounded in guidelines: if "Lavscam" qualifies as a "significant alternative name" then it should be mentioned in the article per MOS:LEADALT. The use of this term across a swathe of diverse sources strongly suggests that it should be adopted. When there is coverage using this name across the political spectrum and coverage in sources that are regional, Canadian, and international under this name, I think it absolutely satisfies the significant criteria and that this diversity of sources also indicates that there is due weight for its inclusion. You may be unhappy that the Toronto Sun has taken a liking to the name, but it has now become mainstream and readers of the many articles within and outside of Canada are now likely associating this name with the scandal. SWL36 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- SWL36: I don't blame you for not reading through all the discussion above, but I certainly didn't start off assuming bad faith. Here's what I'm talking about: Google News search gives us 4940 hits for "Lavscam", but only 1,650 for '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com'. Two-thirds of hits come from a single source! Meanwhile "SNC-Lavalin affair" gets 83,800 hits, "SNC-Lavalin controversy" gets a further 22,400, "Lavalin scandal" gets 70,300 ... "LavScam" barely even shows up next to these, yet we're to give it equal weight? Keep in mind (per the ANI) that some of the editors pushing for these were also pushing to have the blame placed on one side in the lead before I ever showed up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'll make one last reply, using google hits to decide WP:WEIGHT is not an acceptable method, because the policy is based on prominence in reliable sources and google and google news don't discriminate, they list everything that could be conceivably considered news, including various blogs and other outlets that don't meet the definition of WP:RS. SWL36 (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Which only reinforces the point—two thirds of hits for the term come from a single source, and the rest may include blogs and other non-RS sources. We are still left with no evidence that "LavScam" is a widely-used term that warrants prominence over other terms—and we're still left with the fact that an open POV-pusher is one of the main proponents for it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'll make one last reply, using google hits to decide WP:WEIGHT is not an acceptable method, because the policy is based on prominence in reliable sources and google and google news don't discriminate, they list everything that could be conceivably considered news, including various blogs and other outlets that don't meet the definition of WP:RS. SWL36 (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- SWL36: I don't blame you for not reading through all the discussion above, but I certainly didn't start off assuming bad faith. Here's what I'm talking about: Google News search gives us 4940 hits for "Lavscam", but only 1,650 for '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com'. Two-thirds of hits come from a single source! Meanwhile "SNC-Lavalin affair" gets 83,800 hits, "SNC-Lavalin controversy" gets a further 22,400, "Lavalin scandal" gets 70,300 ... "LavScam" barely even shows up next to these, yet we're to give it equal weight? Keep in mind (per the ANI) that some of the editors pushing for these were also pushing to have the blame placed on one side in the lead before I ever showed up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Accusing other editors of running an astroturfing campaign is not assuming good faith and is tantamount to suggesting other editors are paid or political shills. The argument for inclusion of the term is straightforward and grounded in guidelines: if "Lavscam" qualifies as a "significant alternative name" then it should be mentioned in the article per MOS:LEADALT. The use of this term across a swathe of diverse sources strongly suggests that it should be adopted. When there is coverage using this name across the political spectrum and coverage in sources that are regional, Canadian, and international under this name, I think it absolutely satisfies the significant criteria and that this diversity of sources also indicates that there is due weight for its inclusion. You may be unhappy that the Toronto Sun has taken a liking to the name, but it has now become mainstream and readers of the many articles within and outside of Canada are now likely associating this name with the scandal. SWL36 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- SWL36—the ANI report itself lists non-right-wing sources that have used the term; the concern is WP:WEIGHT, in that it is relatively rare outside the far-right and Twitter in comparison to other terms. This, combined with the push to characterize it as a "colloquialism", have raised concerns of astroturfing—an attempt to promote more widespread, mock-grassroots usage of this term via Wikipedia by highlighting it in the lead. These editors have shown no concern with putting in the body (it's still not there), which again would be consistent with an astroturfing campaign—knowing most readers will not get beyond the lead, thus the lead becomes the exclusive focus. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes - It is a widely used secondary name for this scandal. MOS:LEADALT supports its inclusion. I hear Curly Turkey's WP:WEIGHT concerns, but don't think we should omit the name because some folks don't like it or even because it is unfaltering to some actors in this topic. In politics, different sides often pick their own names for things. In doing so, political actors are engaging in politics no doubt. That is not really our concern. It is a widely used term and thus should be included. I agree with Curly Turkey that other sufficiently notable terms should be added, but do not agree that is a pre-condition to LavScam's inclusion. Wikipedia is an incremental enterprise. I invite all editors to add additional terms for this scandal. While not wishing to impose any hard rules on what terms would be appropriate (not that I could), I think a good starting point are the sorts of criteria which have been discussed here about this term (LavScam). Editors have noted RS using the term are useful. Evidence that there is a large number of RS using the term is also useful. As are, RS which specifically discuss the use of the term itself. Finally, that the term is unique and not just a variation of others (ie. synonyms affair/controversy/scandal). While none of these are likely determinative on their own (and obviously open to discussion) they may be a useful place to start in assessing the inclusion of additional terms. I should also clarify that I do not purport that these criteria are exhaustive. There may be others. All of this said, I do not think an all or nothing approach (ie no LavScam until other terms) is appropriate. Wikipedia is about incremental improvement. I think a review of other articles of Canadian scandals Robocall Scandal and Sponsorship scandal will find that improvement (including on the question of additional terms) was an incremental one.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- With regards to "Robocall scandal", which was soon moved to 2011 Canadian federal election voter suppression scandal—the article was originally at "Robocall scandal" (and includes the term in the lead) for the simple reason that "Robocall scandal" is far and away the most common name for the article, dwarfing all the others combined. The title was moved because—despite being the WP:COMMONNAME—it was not politically neutral, and was misleading as to the nature of the scandal. As "Robocall scandal" is the WP:COMMONNAME, though, leaving it out of the lead was never an option.
- As for Sponsorship scandal, both "Sponsorship scandal" and "AdScam" are the most common names for the scandal, with "Sponsorship scandal" being older and having something of a lead, but by a small enough margin that leaving "AdScam" out of the lead sentence was never an option.
- "LavScam" doesn't come remotely close to the cases of "AdScam" and "Robocall scandall", as it appears in a small minority of sources reporting on it, and is but one of a large number of labels being used. That doesn't mean it should not be in the lead per se, but it does mean it cannot be highlighted in preference to other more common terms. To put things in perspective: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. "LavScam" appears in a fraction of a percent of sources—it barely registers at all. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ Curly Turkey - the obvious difference is "adscam" and "robocall scandal" are older more established scandals (for lack of a better phrase) that went on for a long time and have had a lot more written about them, while the SNC-Lavalin affair is still fairly current and has nowhere near the same depth of reliable reporting. If over time Lavscam did become more prominently used (over the other variations) and was widely used outside of just one newssource (I.e. Not just the Toronto Sun), are you saying at that time it might be appropriate to include Lavscam in the lead? Harris Seldon (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Such could happen, yes. It could happen faster by Citogenesis if we were to include it now on the fifth most-accessed website in the world. Now—two+ months into the coverage since the scandal broke—"LavScam" occurs in but a small fraction of one percent of the hundreds of thousands of sources out there, making it ridiculously inappropriate. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ Curly Turkey - the obvious difference is "adscam" and "robocall scandal" are older more established scandals (for lack of a better phrase) that went on for a long time and have had a lot more written about them, while the SNC-Lavalin affair is still fairly current and has nowhere near the same depth of reliable reporting. If over time Lavscam did become more prominently used (over the other variations) and was widely used outside of just one newssource (I.e. Not just the Toronto Sun), are you saying at that time it might be appropriate to include Lavscam in the lead? Harris Seldon (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
All editors should continue to strive to WP:AGF --Darryl Kerrigan 00:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
|
Sure, seems like a common enough alternative name for the scandal given the list of sources below. Though as a side note, I'm not sure the Beaverton is the best example of RS @Legacypac 🙂 AdA&D ★ 14:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)- AdA&D—you've seen the list below, but have you seen the diffs above that show "LavScam" appears in a fraction of one percent of newssources? Does that count as "common enough"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Changing my !vote to No per the prevalence discussion below. On further consideration, even though some reliable sources use "LavScam", most of them do not. Curly's WP:WEIGHT concerns are well-founded. AdA&D ★ 13:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
This is really simple - lots of different diverse reliable sources use it. Mcleans and CNN have no political agenda to push. The fraction of 1% story is unsupported by evidence. Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
List of sources for Lavscam
|
---|
* Washingon Post [25] "LavScam" affair
|
- Yes - it is an alternative term used by several prominent news organizations so why not include it? Is not the purpose of Wikipedia to give readers as much information as possible about a topic (including alternative names)? PavelShk (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of PavelShk edits, concern possible Sock Puppetry, denial, guidance --Darryl Kerrigan 00:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
|
---|
|
- Yes, when I first heard of this case, the term used was LavScam. And I live on the other side of the planet. It's a pretty global monicker for the entire episode; although I'm surprised that unlike other sams or scandals, there's no -gate suffixed to it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - This RfC has been going for nearly two weeks. It seems there is largely a consensus to include the term LavScam in the lede. I note there is dissent from a couple editors. One of those editors, Curly Turkey, has raised the possibility of including other widely used terms to address WP:WEIGHT concerns. He has been invited to start a discussion of any other such terms, if he wishes to do so. He has so far declined to do so, and appears to ground his current opposition on other factors as above. I believe those other points have been address by others above. Should we go ahead and add LavScam now? Or shall we wait for more comments? I note the last new editor to comment, did so nearly 10 days ago.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Curly Turkey has not "raised the possibility of including other widely used terms to address WP:WEIGHT concerns"—I've brought this WP:IDHT behoviour of Darryl Kerrigan's up at ANI here, and will be including the above comment with the evidence. The fact remains the term is used by a small fraction of 1% of sources, two-thirds of which are by a single source, which is a black-and-white violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. The only reason to include the other available terms is to ensure "LavScam" makes it into the lead, which is POV-pushing. WP:CONSENSUS is not a raise of hands, and that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override sitewide policies or higher-level consensuses. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Are you serious? Above, you clearly say other terms could be used to WP:WEIGHT. You say "only if along with other frequent terms for the affair - per WP:WEIGHT". I know you have changed your mind several times on that. Hence you crossing it out above, and raising countless other objections (also addressed above). BUT YOU CLEARLY SAID IT!!!! There is only one person here who can't hear. Concerning your "google search evidence" about frequency of use, this is not helpful here and has been addressed above. Just stop talking.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - This RfC has been going for nearly two weeks. I note the last new editor to comment, did so nearly 10 days ago. Is it time to close this down? Or shall we wait hoping additional editors will comment?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- 10 days with no new editors and more than that with no new points being made. I don't see it changing, but we could wait another week to be sure? Harris Seldon (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Tis been another week. We have collected another comment.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Well, given the passage of time, and the consensus which seems to exist here, I was going to suggest we close this down. But I note, CT is continuing to argue at ANI that supporting the use of the term LavScam in the article as a secondary term amounts to WP:POV pushing. I think the discussion here, MOS:LEADALT and WP:POVNAMING support its inclusion in the lede, despite the fact this is a term which appears to have originated on Twitter, and was used by some right wing and opposition politicians. Its adoption by outlets like the Washington Post and CNN, in addition to the many sources above appear to support its inclusion. I guess we have to wait out this ANI though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Tis been another week. We have collected another comment.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- 10 days with no new editors and more than that with no new points being made. I don't see it changing, but we could wait another week to be sure? Harris Seldon (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes Based on the above conversation, it does appear that a high percentage of reliable and neutral sources do at least include a mention of the alterative name. I don't think that there should be any neutrality problem with mentioning it in the opening sentence.Handy History Handbook (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- I hope you meant something other than "high percentage", because the evidence literally shows a fraction of 1% of available sources have used the term. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- As noted at length below, this 1% calculation has serious problems with it. Google searches are problematic for the reasons SWL36 has noted. The searches you have done include a lot of noise from sources about other topics (concerning Trudeau Sr. and Jr., and Lavalin). They also include unreliable sources. They also include false positives caused by "read-more" sidebars on websites. This is not a credible way to determine prevalence of the term.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- No (via FRS) I had to look this one up because I had only ever hear it referred to by other names, but after a quick review it became clear to me that LavScam was a somewhat common name. However, many other terms seem at least as common and it would give WP:UNDUE to include this in the lede. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- "Yes" Per "List of sources for Lavscam", proving that it is a common name. This list especially, among many of the other points made, firmly demonstrates its prevalence in reliable sorces. StoryKai (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
SNC-Lavalin Board and what they knew, and when they knew it
I have tried to clean up this edit to be fair to all the actors in play and maintain WP:NPOV, but there is a lot of them and what everyone knew and when etc. If folks have some time to help, that would be very much appreciated. As would another set of eyes. :)--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm more concerned with how lengthy this section has become—the "background" shouldn't be a play-by-play or dumping ground of details about the case[s], but a brief summing up of what was at stake when things started to break down between the PMO and AG. I can imagine many readers simply giving up on reading the article in the face of so many numbers, dates, etc. that don't get to the point. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Fair comment. I thought the same the last time, I tried to read the article from beginning to end. Perhaps some topics are sufficiently notable to be spun off from this article and form their own. That may be appropriate concerning the underlying bribery charges and/or prosecution. If so, we should try to preserve that information elsewhere for editors to continue working on there. Agreed though, this article has certainly reached the point where revision, summary and condensing is required. I have been meaning to add some information about the Reform Act and Philpot's request for the speaker to review her and JWR's ejection from caucus, and info about the Scheer/Trudeau lawsuit allegations but I am not sure where that would go. There is definitely need to pare this down.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- The background is a little weighty for the current article, but it's proportional to what the length of the article will be when I'm done building it. I'm sorry, but I've had to put my article rewrite on the back burner for the next 10-15 days- I have all my final exams and then immediately after I'm packing for my move. But I do assure you it's still in progress. I don't think right now that it should be spun off (unless you're thinking about making a SNC-Lavalin criminal activities catch-all page?) but after I finish building I will be going back through and moving things around/editing down again for clarity. Could we put this discussion on hold for now?
- Also note again that the SNC-Lavalin affair is about SNC-Lavalin, its criminal activity in Libya, and the PMO trying to influence a criminal prosecution of it. It's not the Jody-Wilson Raybould affair, and it's not about JWR and JT getting in a tiff. Saying that background should be summing up "was at stake when things started to break down between the PMO and AG" is improperly limiting the scope of the article. Safrolic (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- I just saw this. It's hard to know where to start. This is ownership: "The background is a little weighty for the current article, but it's proportional to what the length of the article will be when I'm done building it." You should not ask editors to stop a discussion because you aren't available. You should not be assuming you are the one building an article. This is not your article. You do not own it's construction or its progression.
- This article is about the Lavelin conflict not about the underlying history. First suggesting the weight of the article now will be fine once you finish building the article is not how Wikipedia works. This is an encyclopedia not a research paper and it is a collaborative project. The extended history section is non-Wikpedia complaint because it is offtopic. The topic of an article is narrower than we might find in a research paper. Although we might include background that background both colours to tone of the article and overweights the topic of the article. Safrolic this is probably coloring your editing and your POV. This is big concern. That a new editor writes an article as if a research paper is common, that that same editor is attempting to control the article is another matter. This is big concern. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Fair comment. I thought the same the last time, I tried to read the article from beginning to end. Perhaps some topics are sufficiently notable to be spun off from this article and form their own. That may be appropriate concerning the underlying bribery charges and/or prosecution. If so, we should try to preserve that information elsewhere for editors to continue working on there. Agreed though, this article has certainly reached the point where revision, summary and condensing is required. I have been meaning to add some information about the Reform Act and Philpot's request for the speaker to review her and JWR's ejection from caucus, and info about the Scheer/Trudeau lawsuit allegations but I am not sure where that would go. There is definitely need to pare this down.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Cite check & repeated removals of cite check template
|
---|
Cite checkCurly Turkey (talk · contribs) has re-added the cite check template to the article even though his previous concerns about sourcing have been addressed (specifically the "illegal interference" bit and the LavScam which is being addressed via rfc). This template is a powerful one, suggesting that the article could contain falsehoods or misrepresentations and its existence on this page should hinge on the actual presence of these things with specifics as to which sources or groups of sources are being used inappropriately. If Curly or another editor has issues with citations, please list them here so that we can address them and remove this template message. SWL36 (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't care if the Toronto Sun uses LavScam a lot. They have written a lot of articles about this story. I'm no POV pusher, I just want a balanced article that repeats what the RS say. Afyer all the messimg around by Curly to fit their agenda a full rewrite may be warranted. Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC) Repeated removals of {{Cite check}} templateThe removals of the {{Cite check}} template have to stop. Numerous citation violations continue to be found, and the source check isn't even close to finished. The template has been removed three times in the last two days—this is editwarring and is unacceptable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
CT: Yes, I still stand by my statement (reaffirmed a minute ago, but who knows what might slip in as I post this) that " You put great weight on having found misquotes, etc. Please note that if you fix a problem, the problem no longer exists, and therefore there is nothing to which the readers need to be alerted. If you find a problem, and do not fix it, then you should tag it. As I have seen no such tagging (whether by you, or anyone else) it is a reasonable assumption that no such problems exist, and again, no basis for an alert. By the way, if you are even for one moment tempted to add such tags: don't. At this point that would be seen as a purely disruptive action, not done in good-faith. If you believe there are existing verification (or "citation") issues then I STRONGLY SUGGEST — as you have already been advised — that you raise them in a discussion on this page. If you can't do that, then you really should back away, because you are building a case for disruptive editing. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The alleged cite check failures are generally not failures. Removing cites then claiming the sentences are not supported by cites is disruptive. Curly did that for LavScam in the lead and perhaps elsewhere. I have a really hard time believing a bunch of experienced editors are making grave errors that only Curly can see and fix. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
|
Archive Talk Page?
Is it just me or is this talk page starting to become a little unwieldy? I expect it will become more so in the coming months. Should we consider setting up an Archive of some of the older discussions? I can't say I have done that before, or know how it is done. Anyway, we might want to think about that soon.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- I see your point, but the oldest discussions are only from a month ago, and they're being referenced in the active ANI case here. (feel free to comment, at this point) Let's wait til that concludes one way or another. Safrolic (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, you are right. It has been a good time, but not a long time. Agreed, later. --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Closure of Justice Committee hearings
I think we shouldn't use the word "closure" in this sub-heading. The reason for this suggestion is that "closure" has a specific meaning in Canadian parliamentary rules, namely a motion by the Government to shut off debate on a bill or other matter being debated in the House of Commons. As far as I know, the rule for closure only applies to proceedings in the Commons, not to meetings of committees. Unless there was a motion under the closure rules, I don't think we should use this term. Perhaps "Conclusion of the Justice Committee's review"? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm ok with changing Closure to Conclusion... you make a valid point. I still would keep it as "Hearings" instead of "review" though... as the sessions were commonly referred to as Hearings. Harris Seldon (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me: "Conclusion of Justice Committee hearings". Comments from anyone else? If not, I'll make the change later today. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds good to me: "Conclusion of Justice Committee hearings". Comments from anyone else? If not, I'll make the change later today. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Lisa Simpson's Questions to Cartoon Trudeau
I reluctantly raise this, because someone is going to sooner or later. Should we make any reference at all to the scandal's recent mention on The Simpsons? It is clearly notable, but I am not sure it is encyclopedic. Mention of it seems like trivia to me unless there is some better reason to include it. I note that it has been mentioned in sources including [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], and [82].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Likely WP:UNDUE, the Simpsons in 2019 is just regurgitation of pop culture and whatever is in the news. If we mentioned every current event parodied in the Simpsons over the last 5 years, Wikipedia would be inundated with useless trivia. This one got media coverage because someone mentioned it at a Trudeau press conference, but we are WP:NOTNEWS and memory of it will soon pass. SWL36 (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, let's leave it at that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
ANI Notice
FYI - This topic continues to be discussed at ANI.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Is it really WP:POV to call this a scandal?
This good faith edit by Littleolive oil is likely going to lead to discussion or edit warring, so here we go. I don't really think it is WP:POV to call this a scandal. With any scandal there is always some who will say that "there is nothing to see here", no wrongdoing, no collusion etc. There are numerous reliable sources which refer to this as a scandal. I will not attempt to provide them all here now. Here are a few: [83], [84], [85]. For what is it worth, I note The Simpsons referred to it as the "SNC-Lavalin scandal". I also note that this article appears in our List of political scandals in Canada already. Is there really a dispute that this is a scandal?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- The Simpsons also had Trudeau slither out a window. Regardless of whether scandal is POV, controversy is indisputably neutral, and at the very least arguably "more neutral" than scandal. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is "more neutral" if there is no wrongdoing here, and "less neutral" if there is. False balance is a tricky mistress. "Scandal" certainly suggests wrongdoing, though its definition doesn't require wrongdoing. Merriam-Webster's definition includes:
- 2) loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety... and
- 3) a) a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it...and
- 4) malicious or defamatory gossip.
- This seems to satisfy that and our definition of political scandal. It does not seem out of place in our list of Canadian scandals where there are other scandals where wrongdoing was not proven. Some "scandals" there are even occasionally referred to controversies. If this is a political scandal doesn't WP:NPOV require us to call a spade a spade?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
- You haven't demonstrated where controversy is non-neutral, and whether there was wrongdoing (and by whom) is still hotly disputed. "Calling a spade a spade" is begging the question. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is "more neutral" if there is no wrongdoing here, and "less neutral" if there is. False balance is a tricky mistress. "Scandal" certainly suggests wrongdoing, though its definition doesn't require wrongdoing. Merriam-Webster's definition includes:
- It would potentially be POV to title the article "SNC-Lavalin scandal". It is certainly not POV to say it's a scandal in the article, as most media has reported on it as such, and it fits the dictionary definition, as supplied by Darryl. It would be blatant whitewashing not to call it a scandal in the article. Do we need to make another RfC on this? Safrolic (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- We don't cherrypick our preferred definitions of words in Wikipedia articles—MOS:Words to Watch gives a plethora of examples of where we avoid words that the media commonly throw about, particularly at the section WP:CLAIM (which deals with loaded language, such as use of the word claim). If any of the definitions of scandal might be loaded, ambiguous, or potentially problematic in any way, and none of controversy's are, then Wikipedia prefers controversy.
- Regardless—what concrete objection is there to controversy? What would be improved by reverting it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to edit war over this. Scandal implies on seem level wrongdoing and only one side in this case says there is wrong doing. We use neutral language on Wikipedia and do not have the luxury of taking positions on what we are writing about. That's a very simple position and is neutral. That editors refuse to use the most neutral of language in the first line speaks volumes. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- There does not need to be any actual wrongdoing for there to be a scandal over the event. Allegations of wrongdoing, and the surrounding hubbub over those allegations, make it a scandal in itself. It has also been reported on by the media as a scandal. Google news finds 30,000 results for "SNC-Lavalin scandal", vs 40,000 for "SNC-Lavalin affair". I've posted about this on the Canadian noticeboard and the NPOV noticeboard to get some outside opinions. Safrolic (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is stepping into WP:IDHT territory rather quickly, Safrolic. I literally just responded to the "media sources use the term, therefore we can, too" schtick. This is also one of the arguments WP:CIVILPOV highlights (No. 2). Wikipedia has solid policy reasons for being extra careful with the terminology it uses, and doubly so for articles involving WP:BLPs.
- But please answer this question in concrete terms: What is the issue with the term "controversy"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- There does not need to be any actual wrongdoing for there to be a scandal over the event. Allegations of wrongdoing, and the surrounding hubbub over those allegations, make it a scandal in itself. It has also been reported on by the media as a scandal. Google news finds 30,000 results for "SNC-Lavalin scandal", vs 40,000 for "SNC-Lavalin affair". I've posted about this on the Canadian noticeboard and the NPOV noticeboard to get some outside opinions. Safrolic (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to edit war over this. Scandal implies on seem level wrongdoing and only one side in this case says there is wrong doing. We use neutral language on Wikipedia and do not have the luxury of taking positions on what we are writing about. That's a very simple position and is neutral. That editors refuse to use the most neutral of language in the first line speaks volumes. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
A pointer to this discussion was placed on Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. If the sources call it a scandal, we can use the word as well provided that it's not WP:UNDUE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Walter. :) To anybody coming here from the two boards I posted on, feel free to stick around and offer opinions on any other sections on this talk page. It's the same back and forth on all of them. Safrolic (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'd disagree with you Safrolic. The action has to be considered wrong in some way, then comes the outrage. Until there is proof there is wrong doing we here should not be defining the situation per the outrage. I just made a long argument in favor of using the most neutral language we can in good part because this is a BLP. That a source uses a word does not give us permission to use it. That's backward. Cherry picking is a perfect example of selecting a word specifically to create an impression and arguing for that word because its in the source. I just don't understand why the push to use the least neutral language possible here; the only explanation is a desire to create a very specific impression. "It's the same back and forth on all of them." What the heck does that mean. I, for example, haven't been around on this article for weeks because of some of the non-collaborative actions here. And I'm arguing for the most neutral wording. Is "controversy" more neutral than "scandal", less sensationalist? I think so. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- This article isn't a biography, so it can't be a biography of a living person. The content itself is about an interaction between a government and a corporation, and the discovery of that interaction by the media, not about a living person. (if I'm wrong about how this is applied, I would love for someone else to say so) There's also a difference between choosing to use a word that's in a source, and choosing to use a word that's in most sources, and part of the name of the thing itself in nearly half the sources. The word scandal appears in multiple other places in the article as well, including the section header "Scandal and discovery". Amusingly enough, one of the examples in WP:PUBLICFIGURE actually describes an event regarding allegations denied by one party as a public scandal, too; denial by the party being accused doesn't affect the scandalousness of the allegation, it seems. "The same back and forth in all of them" is about the general quality of these discussions- nobody is getting anywhere, despite all the time being spent. It's not directed at you specifically. Safrolic (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- "This article isn't a biography, so it can't be a biography of a living person."—you've missed the banner at the top of this talk page:
- "This article isn't a biography, so it can't be a biography of a living person."—you've missed the banner at the top of this talk page:
- This article isn't a biography, so it can't be a biography of a living person. The content itself is about an interaction between a government and a corporation, and the discovery of that interaction by the media, not about a living person. (if I'm wrong about how this is applied, I would love for someone else to say so) There's also a difference between choosing to use a word that's in a source, and choosing to use a word that's in most sources, and part of the name of the thing itself in nearly half the sources. The word scandal appears in multiple other places in the article as well, including the section header "Scandal and discovery". Amusingly enough, one of the examples in WP:PUBLICFIGURE actually describes an event regarding allegations denied by one party as a public scandal, too; denial by the party being accused doesn't affect the scandalousness of the allegation, it seems. "The same back and forth in all of them" is about the general quality of these discussions- nobody is getting anywhere, despite all the time being spent. It's not directed at you specifically. Safrolic (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'd disagree with you Safrolic. The action has to be considered wrong in some way, then comes the outrage. Until there is proof there is wrong doing we here should not be defining the situation per the outrage. I just made a long argument in favor of using the most neutral language we can in good part because this is a BLP. That a source uses a word does not give us permission to use it. That's backward. Cherry picking is a perfect example of selecting a word specifically to create an impression and arguing for that word because its in the source. I just don't understand why the push to use the least neutral language possible here; the only explanation is a desire to create a very specific impression. "It's the same back and forth on all of them." What the heck does that mean. I, for example, haven't been around on this article for weeks because of some of the non-collaborative actions here. And I'm arguing for the most neutral wording. Is "controversy" more neutral than "scandal", less sensationalist? I think so. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes per Curly Turkey. BLP references living persons whether in a BLP article or not.Littleolive oil (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have bolded the part you missed. Saying this is a scandal is not the same as saying "Justin did a scandal on Jody". Safrolic (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- The bolded part is your POV. Sources have focused at least as much on the interactions between the PMO and Wilson-Raybould. "not about a living person" is flat-out insupportable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have bolded the part you missed. Saying this is a scandal is not the same as saying "Justin did a scandal on Jody". Safrolic (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes per Curly Turkey. BLP references living persons whether in a BLP article or not.Littleolive oil (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- "That a source uses a word does not give us permission to use it."—this has been a big issue throughout these discussions. These editors have had exactly this explained to them again, and again, and again, with quotations from various of our policies. It's extremely hard to take them in good faith when every response is WP:IDHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I am suggesting we call a spade a spade. I agree with Safrolic and Walter Görlitz. There is a vast number of WP:RS which call this a scandal. It dominated news coverage in Canada for the better part of three months. In light of that, suggesting that it is WP:POV, loaded language, or not "neutral" is a rather extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I agree with Safrolic that refusing to use the term "scandal" when that is how it is described in many reliable sources, would likely amount to whitewashing. Calling it a scandal seems WP:DUE. Not doing so would not be WP:NPOV. I have a bit of a hard time taking this discussion seriously given that both editors advocating against referring to this as a "scandal" have referred to this as a scandal in the talk page already. Littleolive oil said:
- * "This isn't about Trudeau yet... its about an allegation made by another person about the Prime Minister's office. And that is the scandal."
- * "The sources do not say Trudeau was doing wrong what they say is there is a scandal which could by extension extend to him. Without the woman in this case there is nothing."
- I used the word scandal in these instances to make sure my reference is clear. This has nothing to do with the article itself and the content we should use to write a neutral article nor can the words of an editor in any discussion be seen as permission to use those words in a well sourced neutral article. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- There was a lot of discussion of the term "Wilson-Raybould scandal" above which was originally raised by Curly Turkey and he writes "compared to the number of sources on the scandal..." below. It does puzzle me that this is an issue given all of that, the dictionary definition, and our inclusion of it already on a list of Canadian scandals. I don't think we need to do another RfC here. I hope.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- You seem to be trying to "gotcha" me. The terms I use in discussion are not sources for what to use in the article—for instance, I might belive it's a "scandal" and that "Trudeau" is guilty, and that might be colouring my comments. That's fine as long as this POV doesn't colour the article.
- "Yes, I am suggesting we call a spade a spade"—so your POV is that it's a "scandal". Fine, but keep it out of the article.
- "There is a vast number of WP:RS which call this a scandal."—I've responded to this twice in this section already. This is the IDHT I talked about litereally in my last comment.
- "There was a lot of discussion of the term 'Wilson-Raybould scandal'"—there was literally no "discussion" of the term "Wilson-Raybould scandal", and I've taken you to task (with diffs) over this assertion more than once.
- Darryl Kerrigan, you still haven't demonstrated where controversy is non-neutral. Are you IDHT-ing that, too? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Are you serious CT? You have discussed the term "Wilson-Raybould scandal" at length above. Anyone who skims the talk page can see that. You keep on saying, I didn't "propose" it, "mention" it, "say" it... there was no "discussion" of it. What word do you want me to use to describe you bringing up the term, based on google searches, while also dismissing using the term "Wilson-Raybould scandal" as an alternate term per MOS:LEADALT? You brought it up, now you are walking away from it. How do you want to describe you writing at length and repetitively "Wilson-Raybould scandal" all over the talk page? This is beyond the pale WP:IDHT and flabbergastingly false.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is all documented at ANI. But you seem to be going out of your way to avoid demonstrating where controversy is non-neutral. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- It is also well documented above also. The problem with the term "controversy" is that it suggests no one did anything wrong. There are clear allegations of wrongdoing, that is why this is a scandal. It is not just that JWR and JT/Butts/PMO/Clerk disagreed. These weren't just "opposing views", differences on "a matter of opinion", or "public disputes". There were opposing allegations of wrongdoing. Not calling it a scandal as the RS do, whitewashes that and is not WP:NPOV.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- "The problem with the term 'controversy' is that it suggests no one did anything wrong."—this is a non sequitur, and plenty of RSes call it a "controversy" suggesting there was wrongdoing: "Scheer asks Liberals to sue him over SNC-Lavalin controversy comments" is all about accusations of wrongdoing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Also: the wording is "controversy in Canada involving allegations of political interference and of obstruction of justice"—one can't read that as implying "no one did anything wrong". These are allegations of wrongdoing! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- It is also well documented above also. The problem with the term "controversy" is that it suggests no one did anything wrong. There are clear allegations of wrongdoing, that is why this is a scandal. It is not just that JWR and JT/Butts/PMO/Clerk disagreed. These weren't just "opposing views", differences on "a matter of opinion", or "public disputes". There were opposing allegations of wrongdoing. Not calling it a scandal as the RS do, whitewashes that and is not WP:NPOV.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is all documented at ANI. But you seem to be going out of your way to avoid demonstrating where controversy is non-neutral. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Are you serious CT? You have discussed the term "Wilson-Raybould scandal" at length above. Anyone who skims the talk page can see that. You keep on saying, I didn't "propose" it, "mention" it, "say" it... there was no "discussion" of it. What word do you want me to use to describe you bringing up the term, based on google searches, while also dismissing using the term "Wilson-Raybould scandal" as an alternate term per MOS:LEADALT? You brought it up, now you are walking away from it. How do you want to describe you writing at length and repetitively "Wilson-Raybould scandal" all over the talk page? This is beyond the pale WP:IDHT and flabbergastingly false.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I am suggesting we call a spade a spade. I agree with Safrolic and Walter Görlitz. There is a vast number of WP:RS which call this a scandal. It dominated news coverage in Canada for the better part of three months. In light of that, suggesting that it is WP:POV, loaded language, or not "neutral" is a rather extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I agree with Safrolic that refusing to use the term "scandal" when that is how it is described in many reliable sources, would likely amount to whitewashing. Calling it a scandal seems WP:DUE. Not doing so would not be WP:NPOV. I have a bit of a hard time taking this discussion seriously given that both editors advocating against referring to this as a "scandal" have referred to this as a scandal in the talk page already. Littleolive oil said:
Curly, I'm sick of the flinging about of IDHT and CIVILPOV in nearly every reply you make to all of the many editors who disagree with you on this point or that which you keep reiterating. At this point, it seems a lot like projection. I asked for outside input because I'm tired of exactly this back and forth right here; and the first (so far, only) person to come along from my pointers said that in fact, it is appropriate to use the word scandal. Hopefully more than one person will come along. As I said, and I'm sure you heard, not calling it one would in my view be whitewashing- but I am completely open to hearing from other editors who feel differently. After you proposed Darryl and I be banned outright from editing here, I have very little patience left for responding to your views, specifically. Frankly, I'm not sure if we're able to come back from that, or if coming back from that is even socially expected here. I am also glad that @The Blade of the Northern Lights: is around, and I hope that he weighs in at some point. Safrolic (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- BotNL has been asked to monitor the discussion below, and has expressed disinterest in getting involved in the rest of this mess, but I'm pretty sure you don't want to draw attention to the fact that you keep IDHT-ing the question: "What is the issue with the term 'controversy'?" Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster defines controversy as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views". Dictionary.com defines it as "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." Neither of those adequately describe this event, which does in fact involve allegations of actual wrongdoing by one party, the offense to propriety of the content of those allegations, and the damage to reputation from those allegations. That is why calling it a controversy would be whitewashing it. Stop with the IDHT-flinging. Safrolic (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for this Safrolic. To be fair, I think there were actual allegations against more than one party here. There was JWR, and to a lesser extent Jane Philpot. Of course many political commentators like Andrew Coyne notably alleged wrongdoing based on the available facts. There was also the other side, if you can call it that. Allegations of wrong-doing were leveled at JWR re: the recording which are documented here. There was also suggestions (from some) in RS that she acted inappropriately by negotiating and making demands of the PM prior to her ejection. There were certainly a lot of allegations of wrongdoing all around. This certainly fits our definition of a political scandal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- We've talked about "definitions" and loaded terms already. It may be a "scandal", and yet be inappropriate to use the term scandal, just as it may be true that someone "claimed" an opinion per one common definition of the word, yet we avoid the word claim in our articles per WP:CLAIM, substituting an indisputably neutral term such as said. Let's stop talking about whether this is a "scandal"—it is correctly a "scandal" according to certain definitions, yet as scandal is a sensationalist term, it is best avoided in Wikipedia's voice. Also, please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-style arguments. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for this Safrolic. To be fair, I think there were actual allegations against more than one party here. There was JWR, and to a lesser extent Jane Philpot. Of course many political commentators like Andrew Coyne notably alleged wrongdoing based on the available facts. There was also the other side, if you can call it that. Allegations of wrong-doing were leveled at JWR re: the recording which are documented here. There was also suggestions (from some) in RS that she acted inappropriately by negotiating and making demands of the PM prior to her ejection. There were certainly a lot of allegations of wrongdoing all around. This certainly fits our definition of a political scandal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- It certainly falls under "prolonged public dispute", and wrongdoing has not been established on either side. I hope you're not suggesting that Wikipedia not taking a side in an unsettled dispute is "whitewashing". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yet again, we're going to get absolutely nowhere with this. If someone comes in from one of the three noticeboards where this is linked and agrees with you, I'm happy to come back to it. Otherwise, feel free to take The Last Word by continuing to reply. Safrolic (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- So you refuse to make the attempt to justify "whitewashing". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Whitwashing, Safrolic, means removing something or covering it so it can't be seen. No one is suggesting we remove anything here. You have illustrated above with your concern for the reputation for those one side of this controversy while ignoring concern for the reputation of the person on the other side, a POV position. Second there are allegations of wrong doing, arguments for and against wrong doing but these cannot be confused with proof especially official definitive proof or legal proof that there was wrong-doing. And Wikipedia most certainly cannot contain language that indicates its editors have taken a position either way. Yet that's what you and others are doing. And yes you have some push back here from me. You haven't answered CT. Most of what I've added has been reverted. Your edit summary on recent edits in the article is misleading: Curley Turkey does have support for his position from me. So yeah, I hate this kind of discussion but I also hate to see BLP content slanted to damage another human being no matter who that is. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I just ctrl+f'd my name on this talk page, and I don't think I illustrated any special concern for one person's reputation over another's anywhere here. I believe I said "uninvolved" editors, which you aren't, sorry. I'm waiting for somebody, anybody, who isn't the two of you, or Darryl/Harris/Pavel/SWL, to weigh in. It's why I was so appreciative of Bradv and J.Johnson coming in, and why I invited Walter Gorlitz to stick around. A "scandal" doesn't require proof of wrongdoing on someone's part- the allegation is enough. It's the media attention and political fallout because of the allegations that qualifies it as a scandal. If the use of the word "scandal" in general to describe political scandals is inappropriate, there's a long list of articles available for you to fix over at List of Canadian political scandals. An argument that doesn't call out the similar inappropriateness of the term in those articles seems unfinished to me. A side note, I want to thank you for being respectful since coming back. I do appreciate it. Safrolic (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- "A 'scandal' doesn't require proof of wrongdoing on someone's part- the allegation is enough."—this is a perfect illustration of WP:CIVILPOV#Neutrality: "They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that 'it is verifiable, so it should be in'." This is also an example of continued WP:IDHT with WP:W2W issues. Controversy is neutral; so is dispute, as far as I can tell; scandal is loaded, as it is potentially sensationalist.
- "I don't think I illustrated any special concern for one person's reputation over another's"—you did express a POV: "The content itself is about an interaction between a government and a corporation, and the discovery of that interaction by the media, not about a living person." Our sources do not agree that this is not (also) about people. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I just ctrl+f'd my name on this talk page, and I don't think I illustrated any special concern for one person's reputation over another's anywhere here. I believe I said "uninvolved" editors, which you aren't, sorry. I'm waiting for somebody, anybody, who isn't the two of you, or Darryl/Harris/Pavel/SWL, to weigh in. It's why I was so appreciative of Bradv and J.Johnson coming in, and why I invited Walter Gorlitz to stick around. A "scandal" doesn't require proof of wrongdoing on someone's part- the allegation is enough. It's the media attention and political fallout because of the allegations that qualifies it as a scandal. If the use of the word "scandal" in general to describe political scandals is inappropriate, there's a long list of articles available for you to fix over at List of Canadian political scandals. An argument that doesn't call out the similar inappropriateness of the term in those articles seems unfinished to me. A side note, I want to thank you for being respectful since coming back. I do appreciate it. Safrolic (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Whitwashing, Safrolic, means removing something or covering it so it can't be seen. No one is suggesting we remove anything here. You have illustrated above with your concern for the reputation for those one side of this controversy while ignoring concern for the reputation of the person on the other side, a POV position. Second there are allegations of wrong doing, arguments for and against wrong doing but these cannot be confused with proof especially official definitive proof or legal proof that there was wrong-doing. And Wikipedia most certainly cannot contain language that indicates its editors have taken a position either way. Yet that's what you and others are doing. And yes you have some push back here from me. You haven't answered CT. Most of what I've added has been reverted. Your edit summary on recent edits in the article is misleading: Curley Turkey does have support for his position from me. So yeah, I hate this kind of discussion but I also hate to see BLP content slanted to damage another human being no matter who that is. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- So you refuse to make the attempt to justify "whitewashing". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yet again, we're going to get absolutely nowhere with this. If someone comes in from one of the three noticeboards where this is linked and agrees with you, I'm happy to come back to it. Otherwise, feel free to take The Last Word by continuing to reply. Safrolic (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster defines controversy as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views". Dictionary.com defines it as "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." Neither of those adequately describe this event, which does in fact involve allegations of actual wrongdoing by one party, the offense to propriety of the content of those allegations, and the damage to reputation from those allegations. That is why calling it a controversy would be whitewashing it. Stop with the IDHT-flinging. Safrolic (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Safrolic: please lay off the "undo" button. The wording is under examination for possible POV and other issues. If it turns out to be fine, then it'll be put back in due time—there's no need to be so aggressive if you are really here in good faith. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Respectful since coming back? I have always been respectful and this comment is patronizing. Good grief! I landed here with good intentions and was accused of coming from the PMO. Legacy Pac threatened me on my talk page. I did indeed identify concerns with SPA editors, absolutely and would again. And are you trying to limit who comments here. You can't do that Safrolic. If you want to ask for input you certainly can but you have no right to limit editors in good standing who comment here. Your definition of scandals is yours and I and others do not agree with it so please do not behave as if you are right and others are not, and this is really unfortunate, " If the use of the word "scandal" in general to describe political scandals is inappropriate, there's a long list of articles available for you to fix over at List of Canadian political scandals." Now that's patronizing. You don't own this article, you know. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Littleolive oil: try not to get baited into making emotional responses—this is a key WP:CIVILPOV tactic, and they've already tried to silence me this way at ANI over supposed WP:CIVIL violations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks CT but this isn't my first rodeo. I've pretty much seen it all. My response was intended. I am not emotional in the least, please don't confuse calling out Safrolic with an emotional or uncontrolled response. But thank you for your concern. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Let's put it another way—the more we talk about anything other than content and policy, the longer and harder to navigate the discussion becomes. This discourages others from participating, and the editors above thus claim a "victory" by default. Pretty much what happened at ANI—a filibuster of sorts. And here we are. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks CT but this isn't my first rodeo. I've pretty much seen it all. My response was intended. I am not emotional in the least, please don't confuse calling out Safrolic with an emotional or uncontrolled response. But thank you for your concern. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry lpac treated you that way. I don't agree with his behaviour, and I did agree with his indef block. I do disagree that you have always been respectful, and we've discussed that before; I'm happy to link you to the previous diff of mine if you want, as I stand by it. I am not trying to limit who comments here in the slightest, and it's odd that you would say I was. The definition of scandal and controversy I used was Merriam-Webster's, not my own. It's quoted above by Darryl. "I and others" should be "I and other", singular, because it's just the two of you. That statement is not patronizing in the slightest- it's me pointing out that it is commonplace for us to describe scandals as scandals here on Wikipedia, even if some people may disagree with the characterization. I have not tried to take ownership of the article. To Curly: My asking for outside input on your behaviour is not me trying to silence you, unless you think uninvolved editors are likely to feel your behaviour deserves silencing. You proposing yesterday that Darryl and I be topic banned is trying to silence us. This is straight up gaslighting. Safrolic (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just a note that I've read over this so far, and while I think both sides are talking past each other some it's still a reasonable discussion that looks to be going somewhere. This does seem a bit thorny, so a bit of back and forth would be expected. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Re: the edits to the article, to head off an edit war, could you give us some input on how "it" works? And/or deal with any of the above recent edits, or point us to somewhere where someone else can step in? This is incredibly frustrating and it can't possibly be what Wikipedia editing is actually supposed to be like. I am desperate for intervention. Safrolic (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'd suggest you each put together some proposed wording, that way everyone knows what everyone is thinking and you can talk through each proposed wording from there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- You mean, again? Text that is challenged for policy issues remains out of the article until the dispute is resolved in favour of its inclusion. See WP:3RRNO No. 7: "contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced". The text is contentious and under examination for bias (an WP:NPOV violation). As you've countered that controversy may be biased, I've replaced it with dispute. This is how "it" works. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have moved my edit back to where it was before; I did not ask you to explain it. I don't trust you to explain anything at this point. I don't believe you're acting in good faith. You've selectively quoted that policy. Here's the rest of it. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. I will now request clarification on yet another noticeboard and hopefully, somebody, anybody, will step in and agree with somebody on either side. Safrolic (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is for everyone else's benefit, as Safrolic has publicly declared they WILLNOTHEARIT:
- Imagine a potentially biased term were inserted into an article—let's say one declaring "Barack Hussein Obama was the first Muslim President of the US". Of course this should be removed—but if one were to assert WP:BRD says the status quo is to keep it in until a consensus were reached on the talk page to revert it ... well, we can imagine where this would go. The editors who wanted this edit included could simply filibuster, WP:IDHT, and otherwise WP:CIVILPOV-push for months, ensuring the statement gets read by large numbers of readers on the 5th-most accessed website in the world. This is why the default is to keep the material that has been challenged for policy violations out of the article until a consensus develops that it's appropriate.
- This is exactly what's happening with "scandal" and with the push for "LavScam" (which several editors editwarred to keep in the lead sentence). The cracks are showing—we have Legacypac's declarations of their POV, and we have Safrolic's declaration about what the article's "really about"—"not about a living person"—so as to avoid conforming to WP:BLP. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have moved my edit back to where it was before; I did not ask you to explain it. I don't trust you to explain anything at this point. I don't believe you're acting in good faith. You've selectively quoted that policy. Here's the rest of it. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. I will now request clarification on yet another noticeboard and hopefully, somebody, anybody, will step in and agree with somebody on either side. Safrolic (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Re: the edits to the article, to head off an edit war, could you give us some input on how "it" works? And/or deal with any of the above recent edits, or point us to somewhere where someone else can step in? This is incredibly frustrating and it can't possibly be what Wikipedia editing is actually supposed to be like. I am desperate for intervention. Safrolic (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- For now, I would go with "political controversy" in the lede. To be clear, my first choice would be "scandal". It is the right word as it meets the dictionary definition and is commonly used with reference to this situation. I don't think either word is truly neutral, yet both are very similar in meaning and the difference between "controversy" and "scandal" can often be a sense of degree and perspective. But a valid point was made by littleolive oil? (apologies as I am losing track of who said what already) that if you read the rest of the sentence it gives a sense of what happened and using the word "controversy" will not detract from that.
- I commend CT's intention to find a more generally accepted word to help sort this out, but I think "political dispute" is the weakest choice of the three options so far, as it is too soft and implies more a difference of opinion rather than potential wrongdoing or accusation of wrongdoing. An alternative could be "disputed political scandal" but I think that is just finding a way around by using "weasel words". Of the three options, I would edit it back to "controversy" as a more acceptable choice (not perfect but acceptable), unless a better option is proposed. Harris Seldon (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- "if you read the rest of the sentence"—that was me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I stand corrected and apologise for missing due credit Harris Seldon (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn't looking for credit—you seemed to be wondering. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- understood; it is more about me wanting to give credit for a valid point Harris Seldon (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I wasn't looking for credit—you seemed to be wondering. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- I stand corrected and apologise for missing due credit Harris Seldon (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- "if you read the rest of the sentence"—that was me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- My first choice is "controversy", followed by "dispute". I oppose "scandal" as it is sensationalizing and smells of POV, especially in light of the willingness to editwar to retain it. In light of their itchy triggerfinger with the "undo" button, dismissal of all policy concerns, dismissal of all compromises, and personal attacks above (gaslighting?! WTF?!), I have zero faith in Safrolic's willingness to engage in good faith. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't get it folks. Here's a definition: "scandal: an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage". This is exactly what it is. It is not a dispute. It is not a controversy. Let's call things their proper names. It's like Sponsorship Scandal, Iran-Contra Affair, Watergate, etc. All of those are called political scandals. What is there to discuss? Seems so obvious.PavelShk (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Most "scandals" are also "controversies" or "disputes". CBC for instance has used "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "SNC-Lavalin controversy", and "SNC-Lavalin dispute", as well as "SNC-Lavalin affair", which appears to be the media's preferred term. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- PavelShk. Once again we are dealing with allegations of moral or legally wrong doing in this article and not moral or legal wrong doing. This slight difference in wording makes a huge difference in meaning and in terms of people's lives. This article is BLP related; we cannot use language that infers guilt where guilt has not been documented. To do so creates a very specific point of view in the first line of the article which sets up the tone for the article and creates a very specific POV. This is Wrong. And once again an attempt to compromise based on discussion here, has been reverted.I am going to revert back to the compromise. If we cannot tolerate compromise then I may ask that the article be locked until we can. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Mr.Gold1 is another of these editors with an extremely low edit count (276 edits) who's been editwarring to get "scandal" back in the lead. Why is this article attracting such an army of aggressive newbies? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- @The Blade of the Northern Lights:. I'd like to ask Blade to protect this article. I realize I am asking for a lock while my preferred version is in the article-I added it, so that's a problem. If there was a compromised version or any version in place that might be fine, with me at least. The big concern I have is that on this particular edit and with other content added, that we slow down. While a discussion was on going on one section an editor added a lot of content on that section. I tagged the section so discussion could continue but my tag was almost immediately reverted I don't like to edit war and generally hold myself to 1 revert but I have reverted twice here on the word scandal; and caught myself reverting more on this article. I won't revert again. At the same time I am concerned about new editors with SPAs or close to SPAs. I don't think there's anything wrong with editors who just edit one article or one subject area as long as the edits are neutral but in this case we have clear, probably innocent, ownership issues, (" The background is a little weighty for the current article, but it's proportional to what the length of the article will be when I'm done building it. I'm sorry, but I've had to put my article rewrite on the back burner for the next 10-15 days.. but after I finish building I will be going back through and moving things around/editing down again for clarity. Could we put this discussion on hold for now?"), and possible tag teaming. A locked article would force editors to use the talk page until a compromise is reached. I am referring in this case to Mr.Gold 1 who is edit warring a preferred version without participation in discussion. Maybe none of this is good reason to lock an article but thought I'd make the suggestion. While there are some very good writers doing a lot of good work on this article, I noticed Canada is close to a federal election and seems to me neutrality on articles referencing Canadian politics have to be scrupulously neutral. We shouldn't be influencing an election, even minimally. I think we're at an impasse at this point and it won't hurt us to slow down. Over to Blade and I'll have to move on for now. Littleolive oil (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Note: I've placed a personal warning on User: Mr. Gold1's [86] Talk page. He is engaged in a slow edit war seems to me. He is refusing to take part in the talk page discussion which adds an aggressive quality to his reverts. He's a new editor both in number of edits and experience as his edit summaries indicate so may be unaware of how WP works. AGF. Since I reverted him myself I'll leave my input to this issue to the talk page. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think you meant @The Blade of the Northern Lights: and not User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Oops yes, thanks. Up way too early and not as clear as I thought I was. Ack Littleolive oil (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- 'controversy' is a disagreement. 'dispute' is a disagreement. This is way beyond the disagreement. Scandal is 'an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage'. There is an event as documented in numerous JWR submissions, which is pressure applied on her to change her decision. You don't need a criminal conviction to ensure this is a political scandal. There is 'general public outrage' as documented in this article, with numerous newspaper articles, parliament hearings, statements by opposition parties and changes in public opinion. This is so obvious that this is a scandal, it's absurd. Anyone else supports reverting it back to political scandal? Besides, this has nothing to do with BLP. This is political scandal in full view and public deserves to know what it is. "Why is this article attracting such an army of aggressive newbies?" - Turkey, I consider this a personal attack and insult. And I'm tired of it. Anyone knows where do I complain? PavelShk (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- The Blade of the Northern Lights is an admin watching this discussion. If he considers my comment a PA, he can do something now.
- But anyways ... you do realize, PavelShk, that you are expressing a POV in your comment? Our sources have a variety of POVs: that Trudeau did indeed apply pressure; that he didn't, but Wilson-Raybould interpreted it as pressure; that there was no pressure, and Wilson-Raybould was making a power play; that Trudeau applied pressure and Wilson-Raybould made a power play; and I imagine other interpretations—there are thousands of articles, and I obviously haven't read them all.
- "Besides, this has nothing to do with BLP"—I hope BotNL is taking note of how many editors are expressing that WP:BLP doesn't apply to this article. Also, could you please do something about the editwarring to frame this as a Quebec-related article?[87][88] The affair erupted in Ottawa, Ontario—where it has primarily unfolded—between politicians based in British Columbia and Quebec. Editwarring to have it set as a Quebec article is clear POV-pushing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, no I don't consider that a personal attack. And I do see the sentiment you refer to, which is obviously wrong; BLP applies to any material about living people anywhere, period. Any arguments stating otherwise should be discounted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- I want to reiterate what CT is saying. There are two sides to this controversy. TWO. One side sees the PMO office as engaged in wrong-doing. The other side says the allegations aren't accurate or true and that there was wrong-doing when a phone conversation was recorded with out authorization and then leaked, and that apparent pressure applied was in actuality a misunderstanding. This is the controversy- two sides asserting wrong doing from the other side while seeing themselves as in the right. We cannot chose to see only one side of this or to describe this controversy as if there is only one side. The arguments given for including scandal in this article see only one side not both, and that is POV editing and reasoning. My larger concerns and has been since I first came across this article and actually is what brought me to this article is that this is exactly how this article was written in many places, that is, as if Trudeau and the PMO's office are guilty while the other side is not. Not understanding that this is BLP content, only seeing one side to the issue can change a POV.
- I understand Safrolic's frustration. He wants to "build" an article, is a good writer and says he has mapped the whole thing out. But Wikipedia is collaborative AND an encyclopedia so contentious edits breed long discussions. To save yourself you must let go of ownership of your writing which may be a hard thing to do and included in that and maybe even harder is to understand most editors are truly concerned about content. Assume good faith means we have to exercise patience even when we feel the other guy is wrong and sometimes it means walking away. This can take a long time to learn, as most experienced editors know, since it involves ego and pride. Collaboration can be tedious more so than just writing ourselves but that's what we signed up for knowingly or not. The best time I've ever had on wikipedia was in working on an article in a collegial atmosphere led by a great editor, where everyone contributed, agreed to disagree, laughed and in the end created a great article. That's our collaborative side at its best. Can we strive for that? Littleolive oil (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- We don't seem to be getting anywhere with this. I also understand Safrolic's frustrations here, I share them. PavelShk and Mr.Gold1 also seem to have frustrations about stripping political scandal out of the article. I had hoped we could avoid a RfC. Apparently not. I have created one below.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Note - I have created an RfC on this below. Also, I note that "dispute" doesn't really seem to be anyone's first choice here. Harris says it is the worst out of the three (political scandal / controversy / dispute), and supports "controversy" for the time being. CT seems to say his first choice is controversy. Everyone knows where I stand, nonetheless I am going to change it to "controversy" for the time being as discussion continues in the RfC below.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed - a reasonable stopgap while the RFC is in process.Harris Seldon (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The Quebec issue
- BotNL: and the "Quebec" issue? Should I go ahead and revert? Most of the affair has transpired outside the borders of Quebec. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think the rationale for including Quebec is that SNC-Lavalin is a Montreal based company, and considered by Quebec as one of its "Crown Jewel" success story companies. I remember early articles explained it this way with regards to why the Quebec press viewed things differently in this case, why poll results were different in Quebec than ROC and to further explain some of the Quebec premier's comments about the affair. (Apologies I don't have the sources handy). While most of the events occurred outside Quebec, much of the affair is about how Trudeau/PMO/JWR etc. made decisions regarding this Quebec based company. I don't see any issue with classifying this a Quebec article, but I am happy to go along with whatever the consensus is. My only request is that if this becomes another debated issue, we should try to isolate the conversation into another section Harris Seldon (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- "SNC-Lavalin is a Montreal based company"—The company SNC-Lavalin has its own article. This article is about the "affair", which is not Montreal-based. It's happened almost entirely in Ottawa—even the accusations against SNC-Lavalin involve Ottawa (and Libya) more than Montreal, and the bulk of the article is about the dispute between the PMO and Wilson-Raybould in Ottawa. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to see the admin who has been present here to remain neutral on anything even remotely approaching content. For admins to involve themselves in content driven decisions and especially edit a article while acting in an admin capacity is a major conflict worthy of reprimand and even in some cases a desysop so let's not even ask. Yikes! Sorry if this is an intrusion, CT but I really value the fact that we even have an admin who bothers to look in and would hate to lose that. TBOTNL can take of himself or herself I'm sure but thought I'd make the point. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Littleolive oil: editwarring and POV-pushing are behaviour issues, not a content dispute. We have several editors who have now expressed a POV and have demonstrated a willingness to fight for it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Without comment on the content, I do think removing it for the time being (pending a response from the editor who most recently added "scandals") is fine given ongoing discussion. If said editor continues to readd it without discussing I'll issue an edit warring notice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- CT, I believe Blade was referring to Mr.Gold1 and this edit of his. Not to my edit to the talk page here or here. As you well know, I clearly set out my reasons for doing so in the edit summaries. Harris also explained them to you above, but you seem to have a hard time hearing. There have been many WP:RS commenting on the Quebec connection to this topic. Here are some of them [89], [90], [91] and [92]. It is not about the geography where all of the events took place, as Harris explained (and my edit summary did) SNC-Lavalin was seen as a crown jewel of industry, which Quebecers took great pride in. There was talk about SNC moving its HQ out of Montreal if a DPA did not occur, and concern the resulting bar from federal contracts would see workers having to work for foreign rivals (if their jobs were not lost). JWR said it was forefront that Justin Trudeau "was a Quebec MP and it was a Quebec company" [93]. This and the Quebec provincial election were cited as reasons JT was insistent on the DPA. Start listening, this is within the Quebec project.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Without comment on the content, I do think removing it for the time being (pending a response from the editor who most recently added "scandals") is fine given ongoing discussion. If said editor continues to readd it without discussing I'll issue an edit warring notice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Littleolive oil: editwarring and POV-pushing are behaviour issues, not a content dispute. We have several editors who have now expressed a POV and have demonstrated a willingness to fight for it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think the rationale for including Quebec is that SNC-Lavalin is a Montreal based company, and considered by Quebec as one of its "Crown Jewel" success story companies. I remember early articles explained it this way with regards to why the Quebec press viewed things differently in this case, why poll results were different in Quebec than ROC and to further explain some of the Quebec premier's comments about the affair. (Apologies I don't have the sources handy). While most of the events occurred outside Quebec, much of the affair is about how Trudeau/PMO/JWR etc. made decisions regarding this Quebec based company. I don't see any issue with classifying this a Quebec article, but I am happy to go along with whatever the consensus is. My only request is that if this becomes another debated issue, we should try to isolate the conversation into another section Harris Seldon (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- BotNL: and the "Quebec" issue? Should I go ahead and revert? Most of the affair has transpired outside the borders of Quebec. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
What Littleolive oil and Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! have been doing, watering down the article under false pretenses of neutrality is a darn disgrace and must stop now.
The question is easy to answer, In English a Scandal = An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage while a Dispute = an argument or disagreement and a Controversey = Prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.
What we've to ask ourselves is the following;
Is SNC-Lavalin affair an action or event?
Did the SNC-Lavalin affair cause general public outrage in Canada?
Is the affair morally wrong (breaks ethics when PMO puts pressure on Justice Department, which in Canada and in the West, Departments of Justice are supposed to be independent)?
If the answer is Yes, then SNC-Lavalin affair is a Political Scandal not dispute nor controversy as defined in English that's as neutral as we gonna get.
Let us not be squeamish, a Wikipedia rated Good Article as an example is the Contra Affair. It was called what it was a Political Scandal.
Cheers. Mr.Gold1 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
No way out
- This is WP:3RR over "Quebec", and Darryl Kerrigan's "Quebec" statement above is another declaration of his POV.
- MrGold1's statement below is even more explicit—one party is "morally wrong" who "breaks ethics", which is why it must be presented as a "scandal". "Let us not be squeamish" is not the statement of someone seeking NPOV.
- Wikipedia's core content policies are not negotiable; WP:CONSENSUS is not a raise of hands, and cannot overide WP:CCPOL.
- POV presentation of content is not a "content dispute".
- Cherrypicking of sources is not a "content dispute".
- WP:IDHT is not a "content dispute"—it is a key WP:CIVILPOV tactic.
- "Talking it over" will not solve issues with parties who will not discuss in good faith. We've seen what an unreadably long filibustered mess it became at ANI, and that's where it has gone here—round and round, as every one of these "discussions" has—not because there is a legitimate "disagreement", but because this is an effective POV-pushing tactic.
- I reassert this article is undergoing a POV push; if it is, "discussion" can only be in bad faith. The pushers have publicly declared "who is guilty" and "where it took place", are editwarring to ensure these POVs, and are engaging in a war of attrition against those trying to maintain NPOV and WP:INTEGRITY. We're spiralling in a dead end here; if an admin will not step in firmly on the side of WP:CCPOL, the only path out I see is ArbCom. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Prevalence of "LavScam"
Darryl Kerrigan has suggested bringing this back here from ANI.
Per WP:WEIGHT, we cannot give greater precedence to facts or terms than our sources do.
I've provided evidence that, compared to the number of sources on the scandal, "LavScam" appears in a statistcally small number of them—thus highlighting the term in th elead sentence is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. My evidence was as follows, from Google News Archive searches:
The results show "LavScam" appearing in less than 1% of results. DK countered that there may be "false positives", as Lavalin has been around a long time and there has been another PM Trudeau. A further refined search gives us:
This still gives "Lavscam" in only a small percentage of hits, and misses an awful lot of hits, as demonstrated with lavalin "justin trudeau" -raybould -lavscam
Which gives us a huge number of hits about the subject of this article (and undoubtably some false positives, none of which show up in the first several pages of hits). So far, "LavScam" has been shown to be used by a small minority of sources regardless of search terms used.
DK also brings up that CNN and the Washington Post have used the term. I'v countered that (a) CNN has used it in one article out of 6 they've published on the subject, and the Washington Post has used it in 6 out of 84 they've published; and (b) the social prominence of individual sources does not outweigh the fact that they make up a small percentage of the total; more significantly, they are used infrequently even with these newssources. Regardless, WP:WEIGHT does not make special exceptions for CNN or anyone else.
Can anyone provide concrete evidence that "LavScam" appears in a significant proportion of RSes? This evidence is especially important as multiple editors have raised concerns with POV issues with the article—the default is to leave out challenged material until the concerns have been adequately dealt with. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- That the press invents a word or phrase doesn't give us permission to use it here. We can use sources that display opinion but we cannot use those sources to create a position here. I'd agree with CT; there are some big POV concerns with this article. If we are truly neutral we would be looking for the most neutral language to describe the Lavelin controversy. Our policies are meant to underpin sensible editing practice so that we have articles that endure as objective views of knowledge. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, but per the discussion here, let's keep this section narrowly focused on the term "LavScam". The Blade of the Northern Lights has agreed to monitor it to keep it on topic. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oops sorry yes. Off topic. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Curly Turkey for bringing this here from ANI. I am sure The Blade of the Northern Lights and others there appreciate it. This is a continuation of the RfC discussion above. I had meant we should continue things there, but it may be helpful for us to have a discreet section to discuss "the Google Search results" you have raised. I note at present the RfC above is at 10 for including the term LavScam and 3 against, if I am counting correctly.
- For the benefit of editors who have not closely followed the lengthy ANI or RfC discussions, I will say using Google Searches in this way is problematic as SWL36 has said, because Google does not discriminate. It often includes sources which we do not consider WP:RS. It also catches many false positives when non-unique terms are used, or terms which could also appear in sources not about the topic at issue. The term "LavScam" is much more unique than "Trudeau" or "Lavalin". On it own, "Trudeau" will catch any mention of him, his father, or other family members. On its own, "Lavalin" will catch any number of articles about the company and any legal dispute, contract of mention, scandal (there have been other ones, some of which have been linked in some capacity to Trudeau or his party), or even business/investment news about its stock price or changes to management. Using the terms "Trudeau" and "Lavalin" together will reduce some of that noise but certainly not all. Articles about Trudeau Sr. and Lavalin during the time he was PM, opposition leader, and PM again will be included. So will many other articles concerning Lavalin during the time Justin Trudeau was leader of an opposition party, or PM before the LavScam story broke. Other noise shows up when there is a story about one of those topics, and another story about the other shows up in the sidebars which regularly exist on news sites (read more... etc.). Unfortunately, while those terms could generate a lot of noise. It is difficult to quantify how much exactly. I had hoped to provide you some numbers by using Google News' date range function. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to provide a total number of results when you do that:
- Searching the terms "Lavalin" "Trudeau" between 1900-Feb 6, 2019 (the day before the scandal broke) gets you 'lots' of results - sorry, when I search it doesn't show an actual tally.
- Searching the term "LavScam" for the same dates also seems to get you 'lots' of result - sorry again not tally.
- This is the noise we are dealing with, or some of it anyway. None of these articles should be about LavScam as the Globe Article which started the media frenzy had not been printed yet. You will note that the articles concerning the "Lavalin" "Trudeau" search seem to at least mostly mention both those things, but some only seem to mention one or the others and may be sidebar false positives. The articles about LavScam in this period seem to be mostly of the sidebar false positive variety. Searching for only sources since the Globe story broke also begets 'lots' of results all around:
- Without a tally 'lots' doesn't really help us, besides showing the problems with asserting this 1% calculation. Even these searches post-Globe story, will contain false positives. Sources like this reference "Lavalin" "Trudeau" but not with respect to LavScam, but with respect to a seperate scandal dating back to the early 2000s where SNC-Lavalin was accused of trying to skirt campaign financing laws. All of this just goes to show that using Google searches is a useful guide at best, and an unhelpful impediment at worst. For all of these reasons, I give little weight to the Google Searches you have provided. I think the list of sources above is more relevant to determining whether MOS:LEADALT applies. I also think while being careful to avoid WP:OR, we have to consider what terms are being used in other arenas: Parliament, MP websites, TV, Youtube, Twitter, by the general public etc. I haven't looked for many WP:RS concerning the mention of the term "LavScam" in those arenas. My gut is that it is being used. I note this source said "consensus is clearly forming on Twitter around the name #LavScam" (at least as of a week or so after the scandal broke). For all of these reason, I think we should mention the alternate term LavScam in the lede and not get bogged down in the trying to read tea leaves (er... Google Searches) for meaning on this topic.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- SWL36 referred to plain Google search, whereas my searches have been limited to Google News Archive searches, as guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME recommend.
- I see a lot of Whataboutism over false positives, but I see no concrete evidence presented that demostrates "LavScam" is used by a significant proportion of newssources.
- "we have to consider what terms are being used in other arenas: Parliament, MP websites, TV, Youtube, Twitter, by the general public etc."—we consider what RSes and RSes alone use. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Regardless, you've presented no evidence that "LavScam" is a common term in any of these fora (except Twitter, as a hashtag). Please restrict your responses to providing such evidence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- SWL36 was not only talking about general google searches (he mentions "google news" searches above). Google News searches include sources that we do not consider reliable. The problem is that your searches contain a lot of noise that is impossible to identify. I am not engaging in whataboutism. I just don't know how to isolate the noise out of the searches you have done. Without a means to do that, all I can do is point out the many flaws with those searches. What is clear, is that the 1% number is incorrect. Likely, very incorrect. But we can't know exactly how incorrect. Unfortunately, trying to remove the noise by dates does not give us a tally which would allow us to subtract out the noise. This is why Google Searches are instructive at best. Here they seem completely unhelpful given the amount of noise. As such, it is appropriate for us to focus on its use in WP:RS which is what is supposed to be our focus anyway. We can also look at its use elsewhere. I believe LavScam's prominent use in the RS listed above and on "consensus" use on Twitter as noted in this RS fairly conclusive evidence is is a common alternate name. I don't think we are going to get any further with Google, but if you have ideas to remove the noise from the terms you are using to get a better read, I am all ears.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- We're left with the fact that there's no concrete evidence that "LavScam" makes up a significant portion of RSes that cover the subject of the article. Such evidence is a basic requirement for the inclusion of any alt term in the lead, and the onus is on those who would have it to (a) provide that evidence; and (b) provide evidence that they've done due diligence to show that it is at least as prominent as other alt terms. This is especially important as POV concerns have been raised by four editors now. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- There is a lot of evidence that LavScam is used in a lot of WP:RS. This cannot ever be a purely mathematical exercise, nor should it be. You providing Google Searches which include unreliable sources and articles about other topics is not a response to the question about whether this is a common alternate term.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- "There is a lot of evidence that LavScam is used in a lot of WP:RS."—this assertion is (a) not under dispute (nor is the fact that it's one of a large number of minority terms); and (b) not evidence that its prevalence satisfies WP:WEIGHT. RSes are necessary but not sufficient evidence—please focus on the latter, as the former is only noise. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- There is a lot of evidence that LavScam is used in a lot of WP:RS. This cannot ever be a purely mathematical exercise, nor should it be. You providing Google Searches which include unreliable sources and articles about other topics is not a response to the question about whether this is a common alternate term.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- We're left with the fact that there's no concrete evidence that "LavScam" makes up a significant portion of RSes that cover the subject of the article. Such evidence is a basic requirement for the inclusion of any alt term in the lead, and the onus is on those who would have it to (a) provide that evidence; and (b) provide evidence that they've done due diligence to show that it is at least as prominent as other alt terms. This is especially important as POV concerns have been raised by four editors now. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- SWL36 was not only talking about general google searches (he mentions "google news" searches above). Google News searches include sources that we do not consider reliable. The problem is that your searches contain a lot of noise that is impossible to identify. I am not engaging in whataboutism. I just don't know how to isolate the noise out of the searches you have done. Without a means to do that, all I can do is point out the many flaws with those searches. What is clear, is that the 1% number is incorrect. Likely, very incorrect. But we can't know exactly how incorrect. Unfortunately, trying to remove the noise by dates does not give us a tally which would allow us to subtract out the noise. This is why Google Searches are instructive at best. Here they seem completely unhelpful given the amount of noise. As such, it is appropriate for us to focus on its use in WP:RS which is what is supposed to be our focus anyway. We can also look at its use elsewhere. I believe LavScam's prominent use in the RS listed above and on "consensus" use on Twitter as noted in this RS fairly conclusive evidence is is a common alternate name. I don't think we are going to get any further with Google, but if you have ideas to remove the noise from the terms you are using to get a better read, I am all ears.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, but per the discussion here, let's keep this section narrowly focused on the term "LavScam". The Blade of the Northern Lights has agreed to monitor it to keep it on topic. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- a question: we have been discussing the word LavScam for the past month, with different google/internet searches. During that time, has there been any substantial change in its frequency of use... either up or down? I am just looking for a trend Harris Seldon (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- An easier question to answer is how many of the sources actually cited by this article use the term LavScam? Sorry if this has already come up. AdA&D ★ 13:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Why not conduct a survey of each reliable source by number of articles about this topic, and those that mention 'LavScam'. As an example, using DuckDuckGo with search terms 'LavScam' and 'SNC Raybould', I get:
- Globe and Mail: LavScam - 1 article, SNC-Lavalin affair -at least 75 articles
- CBC: 2 articles, SNC-Lavalin affair - at least 75 articles
- Toronto Star - LavScam - 1 article, SNC-Lavalin affair - at least 75 articles
- National Post - LavScam - 10 articles, SNC-Lavalin affair - at least 75 articles
- Note that neither CBC article nor the Globe and Mail article actually uses the term 'LavScam', so these articles were likely associated to the term by an algorithm. As for the National Post, some of those hits are the result of those articles linking to other articles with a link title that includes 'LavScam' (for example - this article links to this one, neither of which mentions 'LavScam', but the former has a link to the latter with the title "Chris Selley: After Lavscam, Trudeau needs reality-based advisors".)
- I'll leave it to editors of this page to do an investigation for other reliable sources. Mindmatrix 13:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Some more:
- The Montreal Gazette uses it 2 times (after filtering out links) out of 30 articles.
- The New York Times uses "LavScam" 0 times out of 25 articles.
- The Washington Post uses it 6 times out of 22 articles.
- Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Some more:
Removal of Polling (Section 4.3.1)
While everyone was focused over in ANI, this section was added to the article. I removed it at the time, as it does not add value to the main points of the article and including political polls (especially specific ones) is too subjective and not in keeping with NPOV. The day after, it was added back (at least the more subjective source was removed). I want to remove it again, but thought it best to confirm there are no objections before I do so. I will wait a couple of days before making the change. Harris Seldon (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
My laptop's charger failed and it died right after my last edit. I'm offline til tomorrow night. Commenting on this section because the other one is too long for me to edit on mobile. Not ignoring anyone, sorry about delays. Safrolic (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- There's a rather long "summary" of this article at Premiership of Justin Trudeau that also includes a "Polling" subsection. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I added another poll which is specific to SNC-Lavalin scandal. It seems relevant (don't we want information on the impact of the scandal?), but if someone with more experience then me explains exactly why adding polling breaks NPOV I'd be happy with removal of that section. After all, this is a political scandal, and results of political scandals may include a drop in popularity. For instance, Iran–Contra affair article mentions a poll that measured Reagan's drop in popularity.PavelShk (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- PavelShk: thanks for the comments and your overall contribution as well. I agree it is relevant to have information about a scandal's impact, including feedback on how the population sees it. I think the concern I have with including individual polls is they are just a snapshot at a specific time, and may no longer be valid a week later. Plus, they often vary so much between each other that you can select specific polls to support one position or the other. Instead, I would aim more for showing patterns or trends in polls. To me, a better way of handling it would be finding reliable sources that make more overall statements like "at the time, various polls showed a decrease in popularity" or "polls taken showed a majority of Canadians thought....". Either way, I'll leave it there for now. Harris Seldon (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- per Harris above. I've removed the polling section. In a week's time this polling information will become outdated as polls do. This affair is ongoing and polls will change as the story begins to fade in the press; it's not the kind of permanent content Wikipedia is looking for. I do believe there may be a point in the future when a general trend will be noted and if a RS and indicated by the mainstream sources we might add that information. Because this article is BLP related and because it could impact the people involved; we should be scrupulous about and quickly remove potentially non–compliant content. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Summary of Affair in Lead - Discussion Points
Littleolive oil - you made some changes to the 2nd paragraph. No issues, but I noticed a couple things I wanted to check how best to handle given concerns about POV:
1) "Opposition parties called for an investigation." - the way this paragraph reads now implies that the opposition parties are calling for an investigation into the explulsion of JWR and Philpott from the liberal party, when the calls for investigation were both before that event and were a response to what the globe and mail raised. Yet, if we move the sentence to be more chronological (i.e. before the reference to the JWR/Philpott expulsion), it implies JWR and Philpott resigned and were expelled as a result of the these investigations, which is not correct either. Another option is to remove the phrase "Opposition parties called for an investigation." from this paragraph, but I'm not sure about that either as it appears to overlook the "other side" of the affair. Thoughts or proposals?
2) Gerald Butts resignation - this is an important event that occurred because of the affair, but it is not included in this paragraph (due to an earlier change). I think it should be included here as it is a substantial change in the PMO office directly caused by the affair (as Butts referred to in his resignation letter and most sources refer to it) but I am not sure the best way to do so? (and the wording would need to be precise) (I guess a similar discussion exists about Wernick as well) Harris Seldon (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Opposition parties called for an investigation. Wilson-Raybould, Gerald Butts, Principal Secretary to Trudeau who had resigned, and Michael Wernick Clerk of the Privy Council-add info here testified at Justice Committee hearings; Wilson-Raybould said there was a breach of prosecutorial independence when members of the government pressured her to offer SNC-Lavalin a DPA instead of criminal prosecution.
I'm not able to spend any time on this today but if I were you I'd just go ahead and add a little; I did give a possible example. I always find that trying to get the right info in the lede after it has been written can make for some awkward prose. The main thing is to keep it simple and short. Thanks for asking about it rather than reverting. If you can tidy it up or anyone can please feel free I'm not attached to what I wrote just trying to making sure we indicate there are several sides to this story. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
RfC: political scandal?
Should the lede refer to this topic as a political scandal?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes - What Littleolive oil and Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! have been doing, watering down the article under false pretenses of neutrality is a darn disgrace and must stop now.
- The question is easy to answer, In English a Scandal = An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage while a Dispute = an argument or disagreement and a Controversey = Prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.
- What we've to ask ourselves is the following;
Is SNC-Lavalin affair an action or event?
Did the SNC-Lavalin affair cause general public outrage in Canada?
Is the affair morally wrong (breaks ethics when PMO puts pressure on Justice Department, which in Canada and in the West, Departments of Justice are supposed to be independent)?
If the answer is Yes, then SNC-Lavalin affair is a Political Scandal not dispute nor controversy as defined in English that's as neutral as we gonna get.
Let us not be squeamish, a Wikipedia rated Good Article as an example is the Contra Affair. It was called what it was a Political Scandal.
Cheers. Mr.Gold1 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)- This is about as bald-faced a declaration of POV as you can get. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes - per my comments above. It matches the dictionary definition, WP:RS refer to it as a scandal, and our List of political scandals in Canada includes it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- No—Wikipedia articles use the most neutral term available, and avoid loaded terms per WP:Words to watch. Appeals to cherrypicked definitions from dictionaries completely miss the point of MOS:W2W, and it is distressingly WP:IDHT to see the same people doing exactly that yet again. The discussion should not be about how we can lawyer a loaded term into the article, but about finding the most neutral term. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)