Talk:Jody Wilson-Raybould/Archive 1

Archive 1

Conflict of Interest Controversy

[1] This edit by Vancouver Granville EDA removed any mention of the conflict of interest allegations made against Wilson-Raybould following her nomination as a Liberal. I have undone that edit. I believe the conflict allegations are sufficiently notable, and that the article as currently written provides both sides of the story. The allegations are well sourced. I see no reason this information should not be included, but would be happy to discuss its inclusion (or exclusion) here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that since the riding where she's been nominated as a candidate is called Vancouver Granville, a user named Vancouver Granville EDA (EDA = electoral district association) has an obvious conflict of interest. Bearcat (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I thought the same thing. I am not sure we can assume that the user name means that the owner of the account has a connection to one of the campaigns in Vancouver Granville, but that is certainly a possibility. In any event, the controversy was well reported in reliable sources, so I see no reason it should not appear in the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest, Degree of Significance

Although the matter has been technically resolved, the socio-historic importance of Wilson-Raybould holding two titles simultaneously might warrant, in the eyes of many readers, a BOLDED Sub-Heading to highlight the lingering nature of this issue, rather than burying it obscurely in a lengthy and somewhat rambling segment. Canada, viewed from abroad and often from within, is seen as a multi-ethnic nation with strongly defined loyalties to specific ethnicities, rather than to the Country as a whole. Now, as a major player on the Federal level, the new Attorney-General needs to consciously convince observers of her devotion to justice for all Canadians. If she does so, THAT would be worth a sub-heading as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.149.254 (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jody Wilson-Raybould. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150815061116/http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand%2Fcanlim&document=index&lang=e to http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand%2Fcanlim&document=index&lang=e

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Jody Raybould Wilson

It is very unclear in the article that Jidy’s Mother is non indigenous I think that is a very relevant point and should be mebtioned Canmoregirl33 (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Could you clarify exactly what's important or "relevant" about it, and perhaps show an actual reliable source to support the statement in the first place? Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

NPOV

I've added a tag to bring attention to huge bias apparent in this article. It reads like her publicist wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:57A8:A300:3145:347E:DA7A:6F86 (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

What part(s) of the article are you referring to, specifically? I've been through a significant amount of it and haven't come across anything in particular that seems slanted, other than Awards and recognition, which are all referenced. PKT(alk) 17:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Given the IP is either unable or unwilling to highlight specifics, I'm removing the template. NickCT (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Known by initials

Re: March 6 revision by Bearcat

I believe Wilson-Raybould's initials, JWR, are "important and note worthy" enough to warrant including them in the intro.

The page for "JWR" lists her as a person it refers too.

The CBC believes she could be well known enough to be referred to as JWR, as well, a Calgary Herald article about her says "Jody Wilson-Raybould (or JWR as she’s become known)"

Examples of other people with their initials in their intro include Pierre Trudeau, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy.

As someone currently in the news, people may google "JWR" to find more info about her. The search page turns up articles about her, but there is no wiki page (for me). Including the initials in the intro will make the Wikipedia page appear higher.

WildComet (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Federal Politics Section Omission

The article unaccountably goes from her nomination to run to her promotion to cabinet omitting entirely her actual election to office. Orthotox (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Done.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

More Details on Election/Campaign and immediate aftermath

I have added a sub-section titled Election to try to fill in the gap noted by Orthotox above. The article does seem to gloss over that period (Nomination to appointment as AG). Any help expanding this would be appreciated.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hassan Diab Review/Public Inquiry

It was I that reworded this added a tag, and then ultimately removed this. I have now removed it again. WP:BLP and WP:NPOV require us to ensure this is accurate. That section needs sourcing before it is added back in. Here is perhaps a place to start [2]. It is either wrong or extremely misleading to say refused a call for a public inquiry or a review of Canada's extradition system. She ordered a review. I suspect you are saying that the review did not go far enough, should have been public, or they shouldn't have had someone other than Murray Segal do it. If that is what you think needs to be in the article, add it in with proper context and sourcing.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added some information about this to the AG section with the Globe sourcing. Feel free to expand on that further with proper sourcing.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I have added some further context. That said, I am not sure this much detail about the reviews or Hassan Diab belongs in an article about Jody Wilson-Raybould. The place to air all of these details may be his article. Feel free to try to improve. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you've made a good and sufficient addition to this article, Darryl.......PKT(alk) 21:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The very title of the article used as source 70 is "Internal review of Hassan Diab's extradition tainted by conflict of interest, says lawyer". CBC News. Retrieved July 31, 2019. So how could such a source lead to content that says simply "In 2018, Wilson-Raybould ordered reviews of the extradition of Hassan Diab to France, which had occurred under one of her predecessors, Rob Nicholson."? Diab and his lawyer are claiming the way Wilson-Raybold designed the review caused a conflict of interest and the preexisting source article emphasizes that claim. If we do not want to include that allegation then we should not use that article as a source, but then that could seem as if the content here is being whitewashed. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

My reading is that there were two reviews here, and internal one and an external one by Segal. Bayne's complaints about conflict seem to apply to the fist not the second. I am not sure we really need his conflict of interest allegation about the first review given that there was a second external review and his accusation that that was a whitewash is already noted. If we are going to mention the conflict allegation it should be properly attributed to him to avoid WP:Weasel.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Gosh, thanks. You're 100% right.Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Glen Assoun ?

Please, was this incident discussed for inclusion? Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC) I added a section but more details may be required given the numerous media sources concerning the 18 months Wilson-Raybough had custody of the file. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I made changes to summarize and reduce the length to be proportionate and give due weight. Diannaa hid earlier versions due to copyright concerns.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the copyright issue and I have tried to correct that while still adding a little bit more of the massive reporting that focused on this subject's handling of the Assoun file. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I reformatted the source you added. I am not sure it is needed as it appears to simply be a reprint of the WP:RS already listed there. The Halifax Examiner refers to a newspaper not some sort of legal or medical examiner. Why do we need to include the fact that they reported something which is already mentioned in the article (ie that 18 months passed)?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Article needs more work

I think we need to have a discussion about how much superfluous info should be in the Blp. For example, I just removed a sentence where Subject thanked her father for support. Yes, it had sources, but so does many more comments by her father, none of which are notable, imo. If the consensus is that all of the info in the article is notable enough to be there, so be it, but I think there should be a discussion about the size of the article. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure a discussion is needed. Be bold, and others will revert and discuss if they disagree. I think your removal of the tweet about her father is appropriate. Unless there is something I am missing there, that is drivel that doesn't really belong.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)