This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Quebec C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec. Politics C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Corruption Unassessed (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Corruption, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CorruptionWikipedia:WikiProject CorruptionTemplate:WikiProject CorruptionCorruption articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Business Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FYI - Anne drew Andrew and Drew has now created an archive. Thanks Andrew.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Done. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], and [60].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed, let's leave it at that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - This topic continues to be discussed at ANI.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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: [61], [62], [63]. 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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:

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes per Curly Turkey. BLP references living persons whether in a BLP article or not.Littleolive oil (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

So you refuse to make the attempt to justify "whitewashing". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My proposed wording is the status quo prior to today. It's an ongoing political scandal.Safrolic (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

"if you read the rest of the sentence"—that was me. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected and apologise for missing due credit Harris Seldon (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't looking for credit—you seemed to be wondering. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

understood; it is more about me wanting to give credit for a valid point Harris Seldon (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• • @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)[reply]

Note: I've placed a personal warning on User: Mr. Gold1's [64] 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)[reply]

• • • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• '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)[reply]

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?[65][66] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Agreed - a reasonable stopgap while the RFC is in process.Harris Seldon (talk) 03:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [67], [68], [69] and [70]. 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" [71]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My edit bringing this article back under the Quebec project was not WP:3RR as you well know (suggesting so is dishonest). These edits happened over a number of days, and for good reasons which have been detailed above (which you have ignored). You seem to be the only one hung up on it, based on applying a strict geographic interpretation. You have ignored and not addressed the points Harris and I noted above.

Concerning your comments against Mr.Gold and generally about an alleged "POV push", I will simply say that the feeling is mutual. Your edits seem to make your POV quite clear. You want to whitewash the article and create false balance. It is not our place to decide who is "morally wrong", nor are we to downplay these allegations or call the affair something it is not. While I disagree with Littleolive oil on some content issues, I appreciate his involvement here, and think he is proceeding in good faith. I feel the same about all the others who have contributed here. Unfortunately, I do not believe the same is true for you. Your behaviour has been disruptive, WP:POV, WP:BATTLEGROUND, and dishonest. I expect that behaviour is what has resulted in statements of frustration from editors like Mr.Gold. I am similarly frustrated even if I would not use Mr.Gold's words. I am not sure my perception of you can be repaired. We certainly have a problem, but it is clear you and I very much disagree on its cause.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1RR, 2RR, 3RR.

I'm not taking the WP:BAIT of the rest of your dishonest comment, all of which has been refuted ad nauseam—you are not engaging in good faith. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know as an experienced editor, WP:3RR prohibits more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. This is not that. It happened over 3-4 days and for the good reasons explained by myself and Harris above. You have ignored those points and are yet to address them.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

So you admit you've been deliberately timing your editwarring to technically avoid the 3RR red line? And you will not stop editwarring to ensure your anti-Quebec POV version of the article? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to dignify that baseless allegation with a response. You have yet to read and/or respond to the points raised by Harris and myself above. I recommend you do so before making further reverts on this issue.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

I did, but your modus operandi is to pretend otherwise, so that we go around in circles, drowning the discussion in such repetetive verbiage that nobody will want to get involved. Let's keep a count now of how many times you will deny I've responded—so far you're up to 3[72][73][74] This is more evidence of your unwillingness to engage bad faith, and I'm keeping a record of it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 18:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You MO is not to listen. Your response that most of the issues occured in Ottawa is not responsive to the my suggestion based on WP:RS that the motivation behind the actors was linked to the fact that the company is a Quebec one, JT is a Quebec MP, many of the jobs are in Quebec, and there was talk of the company moving its HQ if there was no DPA. I do not wish to filibuster here, but when you misrepresent the conversation, I feel dutybound to correct it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

That in no way (a) refutes that the affair happened primarily outside Quebec (b) demonstrates it's a "Quebec" article. The affair relates to Quebec, Ontario, BC, and the nation as a whole, and you will not find a single source to refute that statement. Neither will you try—you'll repeat what you've been repeating repeatedly as if it hasn't been refuted already, and then repeat "WP:IDHT". Again. And again. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not hearing me. (a) I concede this affair happened primarily outside Quebec, but (b) think these other factors create a specific connection to Quebec which warrants it being under the Quebec portal. (c) If you think there are sufficient grounds that this in with in the BC portal, add it. I already told you that here. Same goes for Ontario; if you think there are grounds place it under the Ontario portal, do it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You "concede" it "happened primarily outside Quebec", but are editwarring to highlight Quebec. No, there aren't "grounds" for adding the BC or Ontario portals—it has happened primarily in Ontario, but it's a federal issue happening in the capital, involving people from all over the country. What next—Nova Scotia because of Gerald Butts' involvement? Libya? We don't load it up with every "involved" province just to make sure it gets the "Quebec" label—that's not an NPOV approach. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to hearing from you when you are ready to respond to the factors mentioned above. Otherwise, we are done here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

That's four. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A pattern

A pattern that I've noted before and that's at play again here:

• When one seeks NPOV: survey the RSes and report a weighted summary of what they say.

  In this case, start by listing the article under WP:CANADA. Sub-projects? As a federal-level issue that unravelled primarily in the capital, one could reason no sub-projects apply. One could also reason that the majority of it took place in Ontario and add the WP:ONTARIO sub-project—which nobody has. One then might look at other provinces that might apply, and would perhaps add WP:QUEBEC as it involved an MP in a Quebec riding and a Quebec-based company. Then perhaps WP:BRITISHCOLUMBIA given Raybould-Wilson represents a BC riding. Perhaps editors disagree, and thus discuss the details, providing evidence and counterevidence, framing the issues within Wikipedia's policies.

• When one seeks POV: start and end with the term you wish to highlight.

  In this case, one wants to highlight "Quebec", so simply add the sub-project and be done with it. If someone removes it, editwar it back. If someone hits you with policy reasons why highlighting your POV term, put on your "Voice of Reason" and say (even in an editwarring edit comment) that the other party is free to add any other terms they like ... as long as the POV term remains highlighted. Make no effort of your own to add these other terms—that's not your goal.

This is the same pattern displayed in the "LavScam" and "scandal" disputes—editwarring over that term and that term alone, putting on the "Voice of Reason" that anyone can add any other terms they feel like ... as long as the POV term remains ... provide cherrypicked sources, misrepresent them, deny the existence of other sources, analyses, and policies, raise Whataboutist concerns, but never, ever, ever acknowledge the validity of evidence or in any way ever sway from The Goal—get "LavScam" and "scandal" in the lead no matter what.

This is not the behaviour of editors seeking to produce a balanced NPOV article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• trudeau lavalin
• trudeau lavalin -lavscam

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:

• trudeau lavalin raybould
• trudeau lavalin raybould -lavscam

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oops sorry yes. Off topic. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• "Lavalin" "Trudeau" since February 7, 2019
• "LavScam" since February 7, 2019

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Should the lede refer to this topic as a political scandal?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

This is about as bald-faced a declaration of POV as you can get. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• No "Is the affair morally wrong (breaks ethics when PMO puts pressure on Justice Department." This is a judgement declared by a Wikipedia editor on a situation in Canada for which there was no definitive judgement. Can we just understand that no one was proved to be morally wrong. The PMO says they did not pressure but were advising and that they were misunderstood. Others say the advice was pressure. This creates controversy around the action. The only concrete wrong may have been that a conversation was taped with out permission and leaked. We know this did happen. And as CT said, declaring a moral wrong when that has not been declared in the situation is a POV on the part of an editor; we cannot do it. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No – per the definition at political scandal. "Controversy" would be the NPOV term. – bradv🍁 12:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak no: I agree with the above points claiming that labeling this a "political scandal" under the current definition is tantamount to Wikipedia officially decrying the Canadian Liberal Party's actions as immoral. But I'm not sure if that ought to be the definition of "political scandal". I feel like it should be more like "ethically-disputed" than "immoral" (I might change my mind later). But anyways, for this article I prefer using "political controversy". — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes (pinged by bot) - I notice that neutral third-party sources have called it a "scandal": Washington Post, The Atlantic, Independent, The Week (UK), etc. There were multiple resignations, which to my mind push it up above the threshold. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Kautilya3: neutral third-party sources also use the terms "controversy", "dispute", "affair", etc. What the RfC asks is whether "scandal" is a more appropriate (more neutral) wording than the current "controversy" that's in the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 18:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, those terms are always available if we decide that "scandal" is not appropriate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 I think the RfC wording is misleading; the RfC is based on several discussions about which of the "available" words is the most appropriate and not about which are sourced so can be used. (All are sourced although weight is a consideration.) The word we are discussing must characterize in the most neutral fashion all of the content in this Wikipedia article and all, not some, of the sources related to that content. If we chose scandal we are selecting the most non-neutral of all of the words available. This colors the article in a very distinct way. We must, seems to me, select the word which will not color the article at all or with the least amount of color which allows the reader to decide what happened. Just a thought since you were not involved in last discussions Littleolive oil (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. WP:NPOV does not say that we should decide for ourselves what is the "most neutral" language to describe a situation. It asks us to consult the best-quality reliable sources, and describe it as they do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3: that's actually not true—MOS:W2W goes into detail about why Wikipedia often prefers terms other than what sources use. For example, per MOS:CLAIM, we use the term claim in a much more restricted way than our sources typically do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add Kautilya3: I am not talking about sourcing content. I am talking about the lead and the summarizing of content and the sources of that content for the article as a whole. To do that we must use the most neutral language we have. It is not in our remit to use language in such a way that it colors the article in a non- neutral way. In this instance we have two sides to a controversy; one side is claiming wrong doing, the other side is claiming no wrong doing and misunderstanding. We can't use language that supports one side of this controversy over another but must find language that indicates, well, controversy. I did not mean to gang up on you here or to to discount your opinion or vote. Just wanted to add some information you may not have had on past discussions Littleolive oil (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curly, MOS ("Manual of Style") gives guidelines on how to write content. It doesn't define what content should be written, and it certainly doesn't override five pillars (of which NPOV is one).

Littleolive oil, you are again repeating a point to which I have already responded. "Neutral" on Wikipedia means describing the situation as described in the reliable sources. It doesn't mean that we should invent our own idea of "neutral" and use it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3: MOS:W2W is all about ensuring NPOV wording. Please explain how MOS:W2W "overrides" WP:NPOV or "invent[s] our own idea of 'neutral'".

"'Neutral' on Wikipedia means describing the situation as described in the reliable sources"—reliable sources describe the subject with a wide variety of terms. Please explain why you support one of them and reject other well-attested terms "controversy", "dispute", "case" etc. as well as wordings that avoid all of these. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to do an analysis of how the various newspapers/commentators describe it, making sure that they are highly reputed outlets and have sufficient distance from Canadian politics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3: Nobody has provided such an analysis of "scandal" or raised doubts that the other terms are common. More importantly, your response in no way addresses the questions. Please address the questions, as you've made some remarkable assertions that you have not supported. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But to keep you from hammering on that point and ignoring answering the questions:

CNN: "The controversy has caused a sharp decline in Trudeau's popularity in opinion polls just months before a general election."

BBC: "The political controversy, which has been dragging on for weeks, has caused Mr Trudeau's popularity to drop sharply in opinion polls a few months before a general election."

Washington Post (title): "Canada needs a public inquiry into Trudeau’s SNC-Lavalin controversy. Now."

New York Times: "While the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the former cabinet minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and a criminal case against SNC-Lavalin has preoccupied Canadians for about a month, it was over the last week that it seemed to capture international attention."

This is a trivially easy exercise; into the bargain, it demonstrates that nothing is being "whitewashed" with the term "controversy" (demands for immediate inquiries into the "controversy" cannot be interpreted as "nothing to see here", as Darryl Kerrigan has twice insisted). Now, Kautilya3, it's your turn to demonstrate that MOS:W2W "overrides" WP:NPOV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to "demonstrate" anything. I am a participant in the RfC process, which you seem to have very little understanding of. You do not achieve anything by bludgeoning the process. Secondly, "analysis" does not mean cherry-picking. And, this is not the place to do it either. You should start a separate thread and present detailed statistics and evidence with a view to influencing the views of the uninvolved editors who might come to comment here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't need to 'demonstrate' anything."—meaning you refuse to demonstrate your assertion that MOS:W2W "overrides" WP:NPOV? Then the closer is free to reject your assertion, per WP:NOTVOTE. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just tacking on to your reply to say that three of Curly's four articles linked do actually use the word "scandal" to describe the thing, and include links to other articles calling it a scandal in the titles. The exception, BBC, does use the word scandal to describe the thing in other articles. Any of this can be trivially verified with ctrl+f. Safrolic (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Safrolic—to reiterate yet again: the claim was never made that sources don't use "scandal". You and others have claimed that "controversy" and other descriptors are "whitewashing". I've demonstrated this is false. Now that the claim has been refuted, the focus should be on demonstrating how "scandal" is the most neutral term. You keep ignoring that that's what the dispute is about and keep coming back to "But I have sources that use the term!" and "But the dictionary says ...!" Remember, that didn't work in the "LavScam" RfC, even with a majority of !votes for its inclusion. If you want the article to include "scandal", you really do have to demonstrate it is the most neutral way to handle the lead sentence, not just point to a bunch of sources that use your preferred term. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I understand your point. I am not nor is anyone suggesting we misuse sources or that we weight an article in a way that does not reference our sources. We use sources to underpin content. That content must be added per its weight in mainstream sources to describe the topic or subject. We also as editors have within our remit when actually writing an article to choose the language that we feel best represents the sources. While scandal is used in some sources so are other words. This RfC was worded as if there is only one option. There isn't. Its our job too figure out how to best represent the sources on this. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note—While the consensus is leaning towards "controversy" rather than "dispute", Darryl Kerrigan should not be editing the wording while the RfC is still open. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you well know, I explained the reason for this above. If you feel it is best to change it back go for it, but doing so is likely to be nothing but disruptive. The question is between "controversy" and "political scandal". You proposed the compromise of "dispute" while noting that your first choice was "controversy". Harris agreed that "controversy" was okay for the time being, though his preference was political scandal. He agreed that "controversy" was an acceptable stopgap while this RfC was underway. I don't believe anyone expressed real support for "dispute" as a temporary or permanent solution here. Just stop trying to escalate things..--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruptive" is editing the text while it is under discussion. Incredibly, you link WP:IDHT while ignoring "while the RfC is open". You could just stop, but your modus operandi is to drown the discussion in verbiage. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 18:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've created 30% of the text on this talk page. Safrolic (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darryl Kerrigan: You should never edit text while that text is under discussion. Just don't do it; it is not accepted protocol on any RfC. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Littleolive oil, I will keep that in mind. I was not trying to open a can of worms here. I did not think changing it to "controversy" was a controversial stopgap as that was the option you and CT supported (as a final option), and I don't believe anyone had expressed any real support for "dispute". The issue seemed to be between "controversial" and political scandal. I appreciate your attempt to mediate here. I should have known CT would attempt to make everything controversial though. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND for him. I am not sure if it is helpful to debate the "dispute option" as no one seems to have expressed any support for it yet, and many seem opposed, but I note the rule, and thank you for your comment.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes – it's obvious it is a scandal per dictionary definitions (see my comments above). It's absurd we are arguing about it. This has nothing to do with POV, in my opinion - we have a duty to call things their proper names. PavelShk (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes. A political scandal was defined above in several ways. In it's article, "A political scandal is an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage. Politicians, government officials, party officials, lobbyists can be accused of various illegal, corrupt, or unethical practices." In the article for scandal, "A political scandal occurs when political corruption or other misbehavior is exposed. Politicians or government officials are accused of engaging in illegal, corrupt, or unethical practices. A political scandal can involve the breaking of the nation's laws or moral codes and may involve other types of scandal." Merriam-Webster gives a scandal five definitions, including "loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety" and "a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it" As others have said in this RfC and the discussion above it, other pieces can help judge whether an event is a scandal, like the resignation or firing of officials.

Now, here's Global News reporting on an Ipsos poll in March: "Sixty-four per cent of Canadians say they’re now following the issue — that’s 15 points up from two weeks ago. Most of them also say they believe the issue deserves all the attention it has been getting, compared to less than a third who say the matter is being blown out of proportion. [...] Sixty-seven per cent of respondents say they believe Wilson-Raybould’s version of events regarding inappropriate political interference by the Prime Minister’s Office into her prosecution of SNC-Lavalin on corruption and bribery charges. Worryingly for Trudeau, the SNC-Lavalin affair is concerning Canadians across the political divide, with Liberal Party supporters growing increasingly disapproving of the prime minister. Nearly a quarter of Liberal voters say they believe Trudeau should step aside while the SNC-Lavalin affair is investigated, with 73 per cent of Liberals agreeing that the RCMP should probe the issue and lay charges against politicians and bureaucrats where appropriate."

Here's The Star reporting on a Forum poll at the same time, saying "Former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould alleged she was subjected to improper political pressure by Trudeau and his senior staff to cut SNC-Lavalin a “deferred prosecution agreement.” Such an agreement would allow the Montreal-headquartered construction giant to avoid a conviction on criminal fraud and bribery charges that would disqualify it from bidding on future government contracts. The resulting scandal gripped Ottawa for two months, led to the resignations of Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from cabinet, as well as the resignation of Trudeau’s principal secretary. It also had a heavy cost for Trudeau’s personal brand, the Forum data suggests. Three-quarters of respondents said the scandal has worsened their opinion of Trudeau. The brand hit was especially pronounced among people with a college or university degree (80 per cent), respondents from the Prairies (91 per cent), and among Conservative (87 per cent) or NDP (84 per cent) supporters."

Now, here's Merriam-Webster's only definition of a controversy. "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" Wikipedia's political controversy redirects to political scandal. I think it's clear here that the word "scandal" is verifiable, accurate and appropriately weighted, while the word "controversy" does not accurately match how reliable sources and Canadian people see the thing. Safrolic (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. When I read the article (outstanding writing, btw, all the editors who've worked on this should be proud of the result), it clearly describes a political scandal. In search results, I noticed that in articles/columns not specifically about SNC-Lavalin affair but in which the writers mention the affair, they called it a scandal. Examples: In Ottawa's scarcity of ethics, As the SNC-Lavalin scandal metastasizes; Nanaimo-Ladysmith byelection voters guide In recent months, Trudeau’s popularity has dropped following the SNC-Lavalin scandal.; Did Indigenous issues influence Wilson-Raybould affair?, And it’s even fair to argue that the cabinet conflict over Indigenous rights is irrelevant to the most pressing issues emerging from the present scandal: protecting the judicial process from political interference; rethinking the conflicted role of the attorney general; reviewing the entire rationale behind deferred prosecution agreements; probing the moral character of the Trudeau government. "Dispute" seems too feeble to characterize the coverage of the affair. Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Schazjmd: "dispute" was merely a placeholder that was nobody's preferred term; the other disputed term is "controversy". All of these terms are common in sources—we're trying to determine which is most neutral, per WP:NPOV and MOS:W2W. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I believe it should be called a political scandal for the following reasons (In addition to what I said above):

1) it matches the dictionary definition of scandal. The definitions I have seen do not require proof or evidence of misbehaviour, but only for it to be seen/regarded as such. The definitions also include a sense of outrage, which can be seen in the massive changes in the polling numbers. I also noted political controversy redirects to the political scandal article in Wikipedia.

2) scandal would be consistent with other similar Canadian events referred to as political scandals in Wikipedia. My scanning of scandals such as Tunagate, and Shawinigate I see variable levels of evidence or in some cases were even cleared by ethics reviews. Yet they are still referred to as political scandals. I realise we don't have to do something because another article did it, but consistency is also an important principle and the use of scandal for those cases does indicate a pattern of reasoning by other editors.

3) the reasons I have seen for using controversy seem more related to "it is not scandal", rather than "it is the right word". I agree that we should be as neutral as possible, but we also have to reflect the situation accurately as well. Otherwise we could use the phrase "discussion" or "difference of opinion" as they are even more neutral. Any word choice can be used to reflect a POV, for or against, which is why we should pick the most accurate word. If we can tone it down, we should, but only if it is possible and does not change the meaning. Right now, I don't see controversy and scandal as equivalent, but I would be more comfortable with controversy if a clear dictionary definition supported why it best describes this situation. Harris Seldon (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. I don't how you could look at this event and not think the word scandal applies, especially considering the significant turn in the polls resulting from it. "Scandal" is also how prominent Canadian news outlets are describing the affair, including the Star, the Globe, and the CBC. AdA&D ★ 13:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal

Alternative proposal (for consideration) - if the concern is the word choice in the lede we could just rephrase the first sentence to not include either controversy or scandal (as was done with the Airbus Affair). For example the first paragraph would read:

The SNC-Lavalin affair refers to allegations in Canada of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office(PMO). MP Jody Wilson-Raybould alleged the PMO pressured her to intervene in an ongoing criminal case against Quebec-based construction giant SNC-Lavalin while she was Minister of Justice and Attorney General, before she was shuffled to another cabinet position in January 2019. The Trudeau government maintained that there was no undue pressure or law broken, that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) could save jobs, and that the situation resulted from misunderstanding and an "erosion of trust". Harris Seldon (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support this idea—any of the proposed terms are redundant with "affair" to begin with. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support this compromise since it is more neutral in wording and improves syntax. Thanks for the suggestion Littleolive oil (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support the alternative version suggested by MrGold1User:Harris Seldon as this seems to be a reasonable compromise. Schazjmd (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Calling these simply "allegations" misses the point. These are allegations in that they have not been proven in court, and as the committee investigating this was shut down by the Liberal majority on the committee, we will not be receiving findings or a report from that committee either. All of that said, I believe focusing on whether this is "wrong-doing" or just unproven "allegations of wrongdoing" misses the point. I agree with Mr. Guye that a political scandal is anything that is sufficiently "ethically-disputed" (but also likely needs to be high profile enough). Referring to this as an "allegation" misses that (regardless of whether wrongdoing is proven or not) this led to significant coverage, over a long period of time (months), which included resignations, calls for resignations, calls for expulsions, expulsions, threats of lawsuits etc. This article is not just about "the allegations". It is also about the "scandal/controversy/aftermath/fallout" caused by those allegations.

All of this said, I will make one more point. While much of the sources focus on the "ethically-disputed" conduct (or alleged conduct) of the PMO/Trudeau/Butt etc, it is also likely a political scandal based on the "ethically-disputed" conduct (or alleged conduct) leveled by some against JWR and Philpott (without expressing a view on whether those allegations are fair or accurate). There were allegations that she inappropriately or illegally recorded the Clerk of the Privy Council, during the events of this scandal. There were allegations she inappropriately attempted to interfere with her successor's prosecutorial discretion (whether he could issue a DPA to SNC). There were stories suggesting she was difficult to work with, was shuffled out of Justice because she wrongly would not grant a DPA ("consider the jobs"). If I remember correctly, there were allegations that her and Philpott were the sources of leaks of concerning cabinet discussions or otherwise confidential information. In my view, there are many reasons this is properly referred to as a political scandal. Reducing it just to allegations, and ignoring the scandal (or for lack of a better word: "controversy") of it all, is not helpful. This is why "dispute" is the weakest of all of the options which have been expressed. "Dispute" is silent about consequences and by extension can suggests there may be none (or that the result is not yet known). While we cannot say anything definitive about whether there was wrongdoing, there sure have been consequences. Whether the consequences where fair or not, there have been consequences (resignations, expulsions etc.).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In my view ..." ... So you have strong opinions on what happened and are demanding that Wikipedia reflect that POV.

"'Dispute' is silent about consequences and by extension can suggests there may be none"—this is a non sequitur (it suggests no such thing), and none of the proposals are for "dispute", which is merely a placeholder until things are sorted out.

"Reducing it just to allegations, and ignoring the scandal"—the whole rest of the lead gives these details—nothing's being "ignored" except for POV wording. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - the alternative proposal of omitting either scandal or controversy in the lede as it defeats the purpose of the RfC discussion, to come to a consensus on whether the SNC-Lavalin affair is a political scandal or not and as explained in the Yes vote, the article meets the characteristics of what constitutes a political scandal in the English language. Unlike the Airbus Affair the Contra Affair is a Wikipedia rated Good Article and has political scandal in the lede while at the same time meeting the standards of a Wikipedia rated Good Article which include; being well written, having a neutral point of view, and accurate and factual information hence an article can be neutral and have political scandal in the lede as demonstrated in the Contra Affair. Cheers. Mr.Gold1 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand this. Controversy was suggested as language for the lead [75]. It was originally reverted by you Mr.Gold1. Dispute was added as a compromise to scandal and controversy which was also reverted. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Littleolive oil - The "alternative proposal" made by Harris is to have neither "controversy" nor "political scandal" in the lede. Instead the alternative proposal is that we should simply note the "allegations" and nothing else (as set out in the paragraph above). I note Harris seems to have put this forward "for consideration" but does not seem to be endorsing it himself (unless I am mistaken).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thanks. "omitting either scandal or controversy" did not read to me as omitting both.Littleolive oil (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It may also have become a bit confusing because Schazjmd (I think in error) says above that the "alternative proposal" was made by Mr.Gold1. Of course, it was Harris Seldon. Anyway, glad we are on the same page now and the discussion can continue.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Kerrigan is correct in that my first choice is still "political scandal", but I will also go along with the consensus whatever it may be. While I see flaws in the alternative approach I presented, I thought it worthwhile to include in case other editors were ok with it, or to try and help move the conversation towards some consensus. Harris Seldon (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS, in the case of the Contra affair, the allegations were determined to be true—there's no "dispute". What happened in the SNC-Lavalin affair is still hotly disputed under multiple viewpoints. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this for largely the same reasons as Darryl. The affair is the package of all the different pieces; the accusations, the leaks, the resignations and firings, the media coverage, and the rise and fall of public opinion of the scandal and the participants involved. Not confirming that it is a collective package allows it to refer to each and any of the pieces/events independently instead of parts of a larger, interconnected series of events and fallout from them. We have a well known, well-sourced, and clearly defined phrase which accurately matches the package of events, and it's been part of this article from the start. Safrolic (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"it's been part of this article from the start": It was put there by Mr.Gold1, who in the same edit added the unattested term "SNC-Lavalin gate", and whose first comment in this RfC was an open declaration of POV.

"Not confirming that it is a collective package"—how does it not do this? I can't make heads or tails of this argument. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for all the reasons Darryl cited above. We have a duty to correctly define a topic. PavelShk (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, for the same reasons I stated for the original RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RfC is ongoing, discussion should continue

Note - May 13 - It looks the Yes are in the majority, when the RfC discussion is closed, we gonna revert to political scandal as it clearly defines the article. No more alternatives or other proposals. Cheers Mr.Gold1 (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I share your frustration with what appears to me to be an attempt to push a "nothing to see here" WP:POV on this article, Littleolive oil and Schazjmd are correct. We cannot prejudge the RfC. It must be allowed to run its course.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Mr.Gold1: It's not appropriate to try and limit the potential for compromise on content. The compromise above sidesteps the concerns and should satisfy all. As well this RfC was contentious in part because it was worded, hopefully unintentionally, so that uninvolved editors, who were not familiar with the discussions, would not know, unless they searched the multiple past discussion threads that there were alternatives to the word scandal. There is no neutral reason to close the RfC now. Especially because it is contentious we could and should leave it open at least until closed by a bot after a month from its opening. It hasn't been open even for a week Littleolive oil (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MrGold1: In addition to what Littleolive oil said, there's also WP:NOTVOTE. An uninvolved editor reviewing the RFC would consider the arguments each editor makes, not just count the yes/no responses. Schazjmd (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More "controversy" vs "scandal"

So ... this article is classified under both Category:Political controversies in Canada and Category:Political controversies in Canada.

My position remains the same: the article subject is both a "scandal" and a "controversy" (and a "dispute" and many other things) according to the dictionary definitions of these many words, but per MOS:W2W we must be careful about defining the subject with a loaded term. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please note that an ArbCom request has been submitted related to this article. Harris Seldon (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also. Just for information of anyone not experienced in ArbCom cases. To the best of my knowledge

• Once a case is filed anyone else than those initially named can include their names as involved parties if they were involved. However, doing so invites scrutiny by the arbs. Anyone else can make a statement outlining why the arbs should accept a case.

• The filer of a case notifies those he or she includes as involved while those inclusions are at the filers discretion. If an arb or arbs wants to see input from others they will ask.

• The filer does not and is not expected to notify anyone else.

• WP:Canvassing is frowned upon. For those included in a filed case to contact anyone else about an ArbCom case with any kind of positioned statement could be considered canvassing.

• Please be sure to read the top of the case request page for information on how to deal with a statement including statement length. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What should the heading of section 2 be? (Before I changed it, the heading was "Scandal and discovery"). I think "Allegations of political pressure" is more descriptive. This whole affair is (arguably) the scandal, including the resignations, hearings, and expulsions - information that isn't restricted to that section. Ping PavelShk & Littleolive oil AdA&D ★ 16:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I mistook the heading "Discovery" as yours. I agree that the best heading would be, "Allegations of political pressure" and I will readd. I do not want to see scandal added during an RfC when scandal is contentious. Adding it again as it was–not your edit– really pushes a POV. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PavelShk: For heaven's sake. We have an RfC that is looking at the neutrality of this word and several editors believe it should not be used as it is in the lead and then in the middle of an ArbCom case you add the word in another place in the article. This doesn't in any way suggest neutral editing. Littleolive oil (talk)

For heaven's sake, we have an RfC so why are you guys editing the very thing we have an RfC about? That heading was 'scandal' from the very beginning and lets leave it as was, until we determine what it should be, and then edit. I did not start editing during RfC. I'm a new editor but I follow the process. Besides, most votes in RfC already are for scandal. PavelShk (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Littleolive oil's (seriously, is there a short form you like? Olive, or oil, or LOO?) ping up to this section. Note that "scandal" was not added during the RfC. It was removed, and Pavel was restoring it to where it was before. I think that removing things during the RfC could just as easily be said to be pushing a POV- especially since some of the discussion referenced how the word scandal was already non-controversially present in several places throughout the article. Getting rid of it during the RfC, just before Arbcom puts in discretionary sanctions, doesn't look all that kosher to me. Safrolic (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're splitting hairs. Scandal was "reverted" in a section heading during an RfC on that word. It's a contentious word so why revert now. And the word carries more weight in a section heading. ArbCom is not about to put in DS. DS was a suggestion. The case has not even been accepted yet. And I have no idea how you see my revert to a non-contentious version of the article as relating to DS. If my revert was seen as a POV edit and if I had a history of making such edits than DS would play against me.

There are certain conventions in terms of collaboration which if not adhered to are going to put people on edge: re adding contentious content during an RfC is one. And in my experience here: Adding content to a section while that section was under discussion. Removing a Tag almost immediately it was placed.

The word scandal is not a non-contentious word just because it's used in the article in other places and no one has protested its use in those places. It's contentious because it's the subject of an RfC right now. We respect other editors when we note contention and put off adding more of the same.

I don't care what I'm called as long as it's not swear words.:O) Generally my user name has been shortened to Olive. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed to alternative which I think is better and neutral. I still strongly believe we should call this thing its proper name, which is scandal. Until RfC concludes, I'm OK with neutral name. BTW, anyone knows when RfC should conclude? Nobody is voting anymore and Ayes clearly have it. PavelShk (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Story Pavel I thought you were referring the scandal RfC and I also mistook the Lavscam RfC for the scandal one. The scandal RfC will likely stay open the standard time which is one month unless an uninvolved editor closes. Reminder: RfCs are not calculated on a vote alone but also on the weight of the arguments as determined by the closer. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Scroll to the top of the talk page to see the WP: RfC. It was closed by an uninvolved editor as no consensus to add. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I think Pavel is referring to the RfC on whether to describe the affair as a scandal, not the LavScam RfC. AdA&D ★ 13:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, the alternative heading you've chosen (Discovery and initial reactions) is better. AdA&D ★ 13:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with new and improved heading added by Pavel.Littleolive oil (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually (Winter Summer — DS, that is) is coming and probably sooner than you think. El_C 22:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Good one! :O)

I saw that suggestion for DS but didn't see a lot of support for it among the arbs. We'll see, but probably not before Jon Snow becomes king. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I'm trying to wrap my head around DS. What would actually happen in this case under DS? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It could vary, but I suspect 1RR and possibly other editing restrictions, such as forced BRD or consensus required. Protection, if needed, and so on. There could also be individual topic bans and blocks implemented via Arbitration enforcement (See WP:ACDS for an overview). El_C 03:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've read WP:ACDS, and it just seemed like it was reiterating standard policies ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]