This is an archive of past discussions about SNC-Lavalin affair. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I remember reading a recent article that SNC was charged in 2016 (?) with excessive illegal campaign donations, mostly to the liberal party. I believe it is relevant and provides context, but am not sure how best to include. Plus all the references I can find are columnists, and I believe an article would be better. Harris Seldon (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
This is coat rack content. This is another issue altogether. If you want an article on this topic start another article but you cannot use this article to make connections not made in the sources. If there is some connection in a source, you can make the connection and add content per the weight the source mentions it in relationship to this topic. AS a note: columnists are not usually RS for Wikipedia. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Columnist from major newspapers are reliable sources and some of them are the best investigative jouralists around. Opinion columns (editorials) need to be treated more carefully. Legacypac (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Per WP: RS "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Bold mine. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that this and other articles related to this situation are subtly and perhaps sometimes not so subtly slanted towards a critical position on Trudeau and the Liberal government in Canada. There are multiple ways this is done and I've seen lots of it over the years. At this point in time the content in these articles is too established and convoluted for me to want to even touch and as I said above the number of editors SPA and IPs who suddenly appear to make sure Trudeau's position is viewed as negatively as possible is very clear to someone who has recently and unfortunately come onto the scene. I won't deal with this kind of editor; its a losing battle since as one disappears another takes his/her place. A clear indication of biased editing is that as long as the content is the way they -SPA, IP- like it they do not discuss and will continue to revert probably tag teaming until they have a preferred position. As a Canadian, although no longer a resident I find this sad, maybe deplorable and a black mark against us all. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Source it!
Per this: "in a move(by whom? non encyclopedic language) (widely... non encyclopedic, weasel) seen as a demotion" True means nothing on Wikipedia for heaven's sake... it wasn't sourced in the source given... just source it rather than edit war. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Your POV pushing edits need to stop. The statement is both true, easily supported with many sources, and further referenced in the last sentence of the paragraph where the former AG and the PM came out denying it was a demotion. If it was not widely deemed a promotion like all the sources say, then why did the PM deny it publically? If you are going to edit this page you need to check your POV at the door and start reading and adding sources instead of just removing stuff you don't like on flimsy excesses. Legacypac (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I missed the actual quote in the article. You are assuming bad faith and have since I first entered this discussion accusing me of coming from the PMO. Further, Some of your other arguments are not supported by the way this encyclopedia operates... "True", is not an argument. As I said, the subtle POV in the article is noticeable to anyone not involved here. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- for what it's worth, it is a direct quote from the original BBC source given (paragraph 16: "Ms Wilson-Raybould was attorney general and justice minister until January, when she was shuffled into the veterans affairs portfolio, a move widely seen as a demotion.") (emphasis mine). Harris Seldon (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
So the claim it was not in the source is incorrect. I just went looking for more sources. Could have added 50. Legacypac (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Then maybe add more, or point out I missed something rather than accuse. I've removed these articles from my watch list. I have no desire to deal with the stuff going on here with you and the IPs, SPA, and if you decide to go to a notice board I doubt the IP action, SPA action, and the subtle POV editing will impress anyone. No interest in continuing. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I removed the articles from my watch list late this morning before your warning/threat and responded here because of a notice. Your warning meant nothing; it was ignorant, attempted to threaten and was patronizing and had I the time I would take you and the IPs and SPA to ANI myself. The overlap of the edits by all would give pause at ANI. Truth is I don't care to fight these fights anymore and especially with what is going on here. I have no need to support Trudeau as you seem to suggest. For heaven's sake if his position depends on Wikipedia he's dead in the water. Why would I waste my time dealing with a world leader here. That fact that what you see in my edits threatens what you are doing and is seen a somehow important to Trudeau may be something you should look at in terms of your own editing. I truly wish you well on these articles and hope they can be edited fairly. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Editor preference does not matter. This is first, an allegation; that alone should give any Wikipedia editor pause. Wikipedia is not in the business of creating content which becomes a political soapbox. This is not about Trudeau but is an allegation which may include Trudeau. The main subject of this allegation and story is Jody Wilson-Raybould. Placing Trudeau's picture in the lead falsely places emphasis on Trudeau and this violates WP:UNDUE. But worse. It looks to me as if the content in the Trudeau article was changed from allegation to affair and then a new article created that links to "affair". Further there 's a good chance we have some meat and or sock puppets at work here. This is not a good scenario as far as Wikipedia is concerned and points to someone or someones trying to weight content against an individual. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Even CNN is talking about how this could end the Trudeau PMship. These allegations are all about the PM and his staff not about the former AG. It is pretty obvious there is an "affair" which is a typical word in Canada to describe this kind of story. Legacypac (talk) 22:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The page is well written and accurately describes what the scandal is about based on credible references. The scandal is about PM Justin Trudeau and his administration hence the PM's picture.
The term SNC-Lavalin affair accurately describes the event, Canadian media, the general public use SNC-Lavalin affair or scandal or controversy even American media including the New York Times use SNC-Lavalin affair.
User:Littleolive oil pointing to sockpuppets or meatpuppets for content that you disagree with or makes you uncomfortable doesn't work here. Are you from the PMO or sympathetic with the PMO? or both? that could explain things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Gold1 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The number of newer accounts, SPAs, and IPs who appeared to undo edits is striking. BLP also refers to talk pages and there are a few good admins who will make that kind of call. I have no idea what PMO is but I am a long time editor and I see political POV here. There is a trail which clearly indicates POV editing and I will be happy to note its path. There is no scandal per the encyclopedia and that's the problem; there are allegations and an encyclopedia is not in the business of laying blame which you certainly are. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
PMO = Prime Minister's Office. The advent of many different editors relates to the fact this scandal is in the headlines not just in Canada but abroad. The POV pusher here is Littleolive oil. Also restore my talkpage comments. Legacypac (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm happy to take this to a Notice Board; we can track the changes. When an article is bombarded with SPA editors and IPs then several things can happen. One is page protection. I have no trouble in being blocked for bringing this forward in such a way that attention is placed on my edits. I generally stay with 1 RR but lost track here; that's my problem. I have RL issues to deal with but will look at this again tomorrow. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
and by the way no, I have no connection to Trudeau or his office and cannot vote in Canada so I have no reason to slant the article. What I do have is a position on these topics which allows me to see bias when it shows up. Believe me I have no desire to get embroiled in this article but a path of crumbs led one step to the next and at the end when I did a little research was Trudeau and surprise, an election. Well! Littleolive oil (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
and further. No, this isn't about Trudeau. This is the problem with your comments here and with the way images have been positioned on the article page. This isn't about Trudeau yet and maybe ever; its about an allegation made by another person about the Prime Minister's office. And that is the scandal. No source says Trudeau is guilty of this. What the sources say is that an individual made an allegation about the PM's office. This means as I understand it, the Liberal party could be impacted in the next election and so too the PM. This is about Trudeau by extension at this point and yet here and on the article page with out sources you and others are trying to say this is about Trudeau rather than the allegation and the woman who this is really about. This is biased editing whether knowingly or not Littleolive oil (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I've done quite a bit of research for this article initially, especially around SNC legal proceedings, and read almost everything on the affair. I was more concentrating on legal aspects of SNC-Lavalin process, but if ask me about the picture, I think Trudeau's picture is most appropriate. It's about PM allegedly pressuring JWR to bend the law for SNC. He pretty much admitted it in the latest press conference. Butts is his closest friend and he resigned. And it's not only about pressuring JWR, there's a whole campaign here that started in 2015 and clearly led by Trudeau and his office, not the cabinet, to bend the laws and regulations in various ways to get SNC off the hook. Trudeau initiated DPA legislation, reviews of Integrity Regime, etc. So, this is a long-running affair to cover corrupt SNC, not just a single allegation, and Trudeau is at the center of it. (disclosure: I'm a Canadian interested in law and politics; don't work for any politicians or government, try to maintain neutral point of view.)PavelShk (talk) 01:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
CNN headlines: A political scandal surrounding Canadian PM Justin Trudeau. What's going on? [1] Trudeau: Crisis deepens as second minister quits [2] and from global "‘Canada’s golden boy loses his shine’: Headlines from around the world on Trudeau, SNC-Lavalin" [3] with a rundown of major media headlines all of which are about the PM. Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
As editors we have to have some ability to discriminate. It's clear to me that the impetus here is to implicate Trudeau in some kind fo wrongdoing. 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. However, I have no interest in repeating this argument nor do I have an interest in including anyone else in this. Given the IP who even reverted a compromised version on the article page and given that those here have dug in their heels, I'll leave you to it. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Trudeau's picture should not be included in the lede because it directly implicates him (as a person, rather than his administration) in the absence of evidence. It would not be consistent with the treatment of other Canadian political scandals listed on Wikipedia here, none of which have images of the prime minister (or other involved person) in the lede. The correct way to handle this is to add the SNC-Lavalin affair to the "Prime Minister of Canada" section of the Template:Trudeau sidebar and include the sidebar in this article. This is the way that political scandals under Stephen Harper have been handled. For evidence, see: Template:Harper sidebarBueller 007 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Lead POV
This is overkill trying to make a point and so POV.
During Justice Committee hearings, Wilson-Raybould testified on what she claims was a consistent and sustained effort by members within government to politically interfere in her duty as Attorney General in an "inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin".[4]
On multiple levels this, "inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin" added to the lead is a problem. First, quotes in a lead emphasize a single source which can create undue weight. The quote is a point of view position on what went on and is not appropriate in Wikipedia's voice. Added to "consistent and sustained effort" - more emphasis on the allegation - and we have a good example of WP:Undue Weight on that position and so POV first because a position on the allegation is being overly emphasized and second because this is a lead which should summarize in a neutral way. I'd add I have concerns with this article that although well written and some of the POV edits I was concerned with in the past have been adjusted, there is still a lot of coat rack content, that is, content that goes into too much detail on the auxiliary information on this allegation. I, as I said before, will not spend a lot of time dealing with this given ownership issues with some of the editors here but at the very least I hope there is an effort to try and keep the content itself neutral. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand your comments, especially about the lede. I can assure you, this was a good faith edit trying to achieve the following:
the phrase "by offering SNC-Lavalin a DPA" is not quite accurate, as it implies the concerns/allegations are about offering a DPA, when Wilson Raybould's testimony is about influencing / pressuring the attorney general to make a specific decision.
to attempt a neutral perspective, I used the phrase "inappropriate effort to secure a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin" as this is a direct quote from Wilson-raybould's testimony, provides her POV and therefore less subject to distortion.
Reading it again, I acknowledge it may give undue weight, and so would propose the following as a compromise to address your concerns, and accurately reflect her testimony:
During Justice Committee hearings, Wilson-Raybould testified on what she claims was a consistent and sustained effort by members within government to politically interfere in her duty as Attorney General by pressuring her to offer SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement. Harris Seldon (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Consistent and sustained is what creates the the pressure so using the phrase beginning "pressuring" along with the words sustained and consistent is POV in my opinion. I would suggest, Wilson-Raybould testified on what she says was an effort by members within government to politically interfere in her duty as Attorney General by pressuring her to offer SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement.
"says" instead of "claims" per WP:MOSWTW. I'd like to use either "consistent and sustained..." or "by pressuring her..." but not both which is still overkill and makes a point which we don't want to do per NPOV. Thanks for your efforts to discuss this. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I think says goes too light, as this is testimony; 'says' implies a less formal discussion. And can be too vague - better to restructure the sentence to eliminate the word entirely?
pressure can be either one time or multiple times. In this case, her testimony states there were multiple occurances over a 4 month period. Therefore I think we need to use something like e consistent or sustained, as it clarifies she is testifying there were many instances. 'Repeated' might be a more neutral option?
So how about the following:
During Justice Committee hearings, Wilson-Raybould testified regarding efforts by various members within government to politically interfere in her duty as Attorney General by pressuring her to offer SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement.
Admittedly, this is a multifaceted topic, that generates a lot of controversy (and corresponding emotion). Glad we can talk about it. Harris Seldon (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
The phrase "politically interfere" doesn't really mean anything with out explanation so I removed it. It's also redundant. If the AG's work was interfered with this might have political motives, and we have that information in the lead. Also, "politically interfere" is taken right from the source; its not a copy violation but runs close. This was an opinion with out proof, no matter who said it so I'd suggest it should not be included Littleolive oil (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I would keep it as politically interfere. The source of this phrase is JWR's own testimony, which the reference copies word for word with no editorializing (other than the choice of which Q&A at the hearing to include). In her testimony, JWR states the reasons given to her included the unfavourable impact on both the upcoming provincial and federal election, and the need to get reelected. Her testimony indicates politically motivated interference (as opposed to personally motivated or an altruistic motivation). i believe adding that level of detail here for the reasons she calls it political would give it undue weight, and so keeping just the word political captures the thought without too much emphasis too early. Also, removal of the word political could have the opposite effect and not maintain NPOV by downplaying the significance of her testimony. (Which is why my preference is always to use the speaker's words/phrasing when practical.)
keep in mind, the objective of this sentence is to describe the content of the AG's testimony, and that testimony is given at a parliamentary hearing (which is not the same as a court of law). In any case, the next sentence in the article gives the government's response after JWR's testimony, which is their offset and counter balance to her statements. Harris Seldon (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
also note this is a good faith reply to give some of my thinking and to help maintain a neutral pov for a complex potentially polarizing ongoing subject Harris Seldon (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
"...politically interfere" doesn't make sense grammatically. Politically is the adverb and adverbs generally follow the verb which in this case is interfere. The source is quoting but the grammatical use is weak no matter who uses it. If we want to say the interference was politically motivated we should say it in just those words and add "according to" because the topic is an allegation so we shouldn't making that kind of definitive statement in Wikipedia's voice and in the lead. We could also say, interfered politically, but its weaker and in and of itself doesn't have a lot of information. In the lead we want to be able to summarize the content succinctly so using content that we have to then explain is counter productive. Quoting in the lead is not a great idea; it places undo weight on the speaker and in this case since the speaker is alleging wrongdoing we shouldn't be supporting that position or any other by quoting. I'd like to emphasize that I assume good faith of editors. The subject is just another Wikipedia article; sometimes keeping that in mind keeps content neutral. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Different Views Over Leaked Information on Judicial Appointment
There has been some editing back and forth on this one in order to keep a NPOV. It would probably be better to move this to the TALK page and try to come to a consensus rather than just changing the article back and forth.
I'll start:
There does not appear to be any disagreement over the supported facts that there was a leak and what information was leaked. Where the differences start is over the statement The CTV report suggest the Prime Minister could have had reasons unrelated to the SNC-Lavalin affair for moving Wilson-Raybould out of the Justice portfolio. The reference is a realiable source, but this sounds like an opinion of and an interpretation of the facts, as there is no proof that this was a reason and it conflicts with previous statements made by the PM and Butts regarding why JWR was replaced. Also, it was only reported by some news sources (CBC, maybe CP) and not others. Personally, I would remove this statement completely, let the facts speak for themselves and allow the reader to interpret as they like, but others feel strongly this sentence should be kept.
Therefore, in order to maintain a balanced view, a different interpretation of the same facts was added, from reliable sources such as Macleans, National Post, Globe and Mail. This interpretation is also consistent with the facts, but is a different conclusion. Yet these views have been removed as partisan opinion that has not been proven.
So I guess what I'm not clear on is why is the statement The CTV report says the Prime Minister could have had reasons unrelated to the SNC-Lavalin affair for moving Wilson-Raybould out of the Justice portfolio is considered a NPOV fact. But the statement Andrew Coyne questioned this conclusion, pointing out that Trudeau had original claimed Wilson-Raybould would "still be [Attorney-General] today" had Scott Brison not resigned and necessitated a cabinet shuffle. or Paul Wells of Maclean's suggested the leak was an attempt to damage Wilson-Raybould and as an excuse to remove her from the Liberal caucus in the future. are biased opinions that we should wait to see if it's proven correct.Harris Seldon (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
As an aside, the original CTV article does not include this suggestion, and the reference supporting it is a CBC article (which does make the suggestion) Harris Seldon (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a compromise solution would be to phrase it like this?
The CTV report suggests the Prime Minister could have had reasons unrelated to the SNC-Lavalin affair for moving Wilson-Raybould out of the Justice portfolio, although this is inconsistent with Trudeau's original statements that Wilson-Raybould would "still be [Attorney-General] today" had Scott Brison not resigned and necessitated a cabinet shuffle.Harris Seldon (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
This reasoning is WP: Original Research and is something we might discuss on a talk page but is not encyclopedic and cannot be added to an article unless we have a source which specifically makes this argument. The content in the CTV report is verifiable and reliable. Whether it is of appropriate weight is something I haven't yet checked but it is at the very least worth one line. If there are more sources making this position it is worth more. Further, beginning the statement with "says" is neutral "suggests" is not because within our content we are adding a word that questions the complete validity of the content in the source. I will readd says. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I see the article has been adjusted; the content from the CTV report has been moved into another paragraph while content has been added to refute the statement. This is burying the content. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand the CTV article is verifiable and reliable, but as far as I can tell so are the National Post and Macleans articles. They seem to meet the criteria of verifiable and reliable and WP:NEWSORG. Both are published, well-established news orgs considered reliable, written by well known respected journalists that can be considered primary sources. They have also been edited to show they are statements attributed to them. Harris Seldon (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
moving the content from the CTV report to the following line is my bad... no intent to bury just to keep the disputed stuff together until this gets sorted out. Can reverse this one if you prefer.
The additional content you refer to are the original items that keep being removed and reinstated that led to this talk page topic. Harris Seldon (talk) 15:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
You originally removed the content which is why I wrote what I did concerning verifiability and reliability. Your suggestion above would have been OR. However, I see now that another user has added content to rebut the CTV report which with its placement buries the CTV content.
This is the problem I have with all of this. On the face of it we have content that reflects much of the press. But we are writing about an allegation. Wikipedia has become in this instance a summary of an allegation that is probably overweighted in the mostly Canadian Press against the PM in part because that's what sells, and a huge amount of what's in the press comes from the opposition parties, that sells too. Creating an article on an allegation gives that allegation substance it should not yet have. This allegation reflects indirectly on BLP content. We should never feel that Wikipedia has taken a position but it has when we write an article about one incident in living person's life and we weight that incident and content by creating a full article on the allegations. I note the number of editors without usernames and SP accounts, who have appeared quite suddenly (Trudeau article) and the accusations against me (Trudeau article) because I questioned POV. I don't have the time to fight this and there are too many accounts who would probably pop up to stand against my comments, but I am concerned. Wikipedia was not meant to reflect the positions of the popular press in real time as is happening with this article. This is a fundamental error, but one I am not prepared to fight. I am not questioning your integrity by the way just a mistaken direction, in my opinion, taken by many. I won't comment further at this time. I keep find myself in discussions these days with out the time to implement changes so best if I leave. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Obstruction of Justice claim
The lead states: [SNC-Lavalin affair] is an ongoing political scandal in Canada involving alleged political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office.
Can someone please provide a source that there was a credible allegation of obstruction of justice by the PMO, especially considering JWR says that no crime occurred? AdA&D★00:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I think much of the commentary on this is that it is likely not "obstruction of justice" or "perverting the course of justice" as Justin Trudeau is Prime Minister. Most have characterize this as political interference in a criminal investigation (as opposed to obstruction/perversion). There does appear to be a debate among legal expert though about whether it amounts to criminal conduct (ie. obstruction). So it is probably appropriate for us to refer to it as "alleged" political interference and/or obstruction, as we now are. It could be obstruction, or it could not be, but some people are certainly saying the conduct could amount to obstruction if proven. See [4], [5] and [6] as examples of reporting considering this obstruction angle.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I would probably remove the obstruction of justice reference. I don't recall any article extensively calling it obstruction of justice, except in passing. Plus it implies the affair/scandal is more about SNC getting a DPA or not, when it is actually more about interfering with the prosecutor decision. Harris Seldon (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I just looked at Darryl Kerrigan's links and see there are articles discussing it as obstruction. Still, I think most of the focus is on the interference. I would still remove it, but we could change it to "possible obstruction of justice" ? Harris Seldon (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the Background section is your best source (along with 2 written materials from JWR). Obstruction of justice is a very broad crime under s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. IMO the claim of obstruction is strongly based in the facts that (1) there's a law called Director of Public Prosecutions Act which prescribes specific public notifications if AG is to interfere in a federal prosecution, (2) PMO staff have been briefed on the prosecution and have been informed about DPP Act requirements and (3) PMO staff kept making threats and pressured JWR for other "resolution" not involving taking over of the prosecution under DPP directive (which is the only legal way). This is no laughing matter. JWR is an experienced lawyer and prosecutor and I think she clearly believed the crime is being committed, so she was willing to risk her career over this. The whole article kind of leads to this claim. This is not a political scandal where AG refuses to do what her boss the Prime Minister says, this may be a crime (that nobody is willing to investigate and/or charge the Prime Minister with such crime is another matter). So, let's leave it until proven otherwise. PavelShk (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Party expulsions - obtaining an NPOV
There has been a lot of editing back and forth in this section, so I thought better to create a TALK section, to discuss and hopefully find a consensus on the right approach. As far as I can tell, the edits relate to trying to achieve a Neutral POV, and how that works in practice with this topic, given its complexity, controversial nature, and the strong opinions people have on both sides. As it stands now, I think this section fairly reflects the current situation, but I am willing to listen to the consensus on this one.
To me, one way to keep a balanced point of view is to use direct quotes wherever practical to avoid misinterpretation, incorrect paraphrasing or potential dilution of the speaker's original meaning. This may of course result in some sensationalist phrasing, but I think the article makes it clear when it is the speaker's words, and not the editor's. Also, there are other quotes and reactions reported in the press which have rightly not been included in this section which I believe are more sensationalist than the ones which are included here or are not notable.
To help maintain balance, this section (like most of the article) also contains the perspective of the Liberals, the opposition parties and the individuals involved. It might however look like undue weight, but the reality is there 2 or 3 opposition parties and 2 individuals compared to 1 Liberal party.
Either way, those are my thoughts for now on the approach for this section (and others), but I am interested in what the consensus has to say. Harris Seldon (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Its not our job to make sure that each party has a say on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's concern is not with Canadian politics. It is our job to make sure that the information on the affair does not judge or weight any argument presented which would give the reader a biased view of the situation. The article must not hang Trudeau either. This is about allegations and our BLP policy indicates we must take great care in how we both present the information so that the reader has a clear unbiased view while at the same time "doing no harm."
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.
For that reason we must use quotes if at all, very carefully because quoting can place emphasis and can be sensationalist which weights content. We summarize, in a way, all content we add. And we do the same with quotes. We have a Canadian election 7 month away if what I read is right and there seem to be a concerted effort to make Trudeau look as bad as possible in this and other articles. This is being done in part by very new accounts some of whom are single topic accounts that are adding content that is pejorative towards Trudeau. POV editing is a serious issue. POV editing in instances where a human being's life is being fiddled with is worse. Worse than that is if editors are being paid to do so. I have been very uncomfortable with some of the editing here. We have new editors adding pejorative content who with very few edits seem to have an unusually good knowledge of Wikipedia without the obvious experience. I'm not accusing anyone, but in particular this last round of editing on the Expulsion section has made me very uneasy. I have to run off but will be back later. These are initial thoughts. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Or maybe this page is attracting casual and new editors because the topic is complex and in the news all the time? [7] is worth a read for background. Legacypac (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Your bias is showing. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC) And by the way, of all of the sources I'v read this is the most biased in what is a conservative leaning newspaper; the author is stating as fact what is only surmised. This is why I am uneasy with those editing this article. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
No my bias is not showing because I linked an opinion piece that lays out some of the issues. It is good background, not a source. Your bias has long been obvious from your edits to the page. You are obviously a Liberal supporter. Legacypac (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't live in Canada; I can't vote so no I'm not supporting anyone or anything. The article you linked me to assumes guilt. It's not a good background piece; it shows a heavily biased position. That someone would think it's either a good background education or that I would believe it is, is a concern. It shows more than any other sources I've read, a very one sided view and does so as if it's fact.
It's a mistake to assume that because an editor doesn't support what is in this case the Conservative position but instead tries to keep an article neutral, they must be in another camp. A common error made on contentious articles is for editors to see neutral as their position–as what they believe. From that position the neutral line is skewed towards the opinion of one side.
So we have two women who have been made to look as if they are saintly even heroic. One leaked a taped phone call she should not have recorded. Both women are instrumental in causing divisiveness in a party. The other party is pretty excited about that and this whole mess sells papers. The issue in some papers is being seen as a gender issue but it's not, it's about politics. Trudeau has always been a feminist and still is. Had these two women been men they would still be asked to leave the Liberal party to avoid a split in the party and one at least behaved in a way that does not engender trust–recording a conversation with a civil servant with out his permission is poor and erodes trust. This is a situation which could have been handled better by all involved. Both sides feel they are right and the sources show that. We have to show both sides with out taking a position of our own. I'm not convinced that is happening here. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Wow, so much to reply to! First of all, I want to compliment Littleolive oil on your commitment to WP:Retention by not directly naming these very new single topic accounts. I don't see any, but I trust you that they're there! I also want to thank you for avoiding directly accusing anyone of bad behaviour. I note that you've avoided directly [accusing] [anyone] [no] [fewer] [than] [seven] [times] that I can see on this page, which shows admirable restraint on your part- such accusations, absent actual evidence in the form of diffs, would surely be violating WP:AGF. However, I note from edit summaries that you've been removing others' contributions on talk pages, as well as warnings left on your own talk page, so I'm unable to be sure that it's only been seven times. Finally, I want to thank you for complimenting me on my "unusually good knowledge of Wikipedia". My process is, I read the relevant policy/how-to pages and remember what they say; then, when I do something, I refer back to them. I do dispute that the edits I made were "pejorative"; first of all, none of it insulted Trudeau or anyone else. Nobody called him any names. The edits, in their entirety, are direct quotes from major political leaders across the Canadian spectrum, specifically about the major event being discussed. These quotes were cited as being by the people who said them, not given Wikipedia's voice, and they were reliably sourced.
I want to say again that this is a major section; the expulsion of two high-profile Liberal MPs is just about as serious as the governing party can get. Far from being WP:UNDUE, this section deserves some significant expansion to cover the expulsion leadup and process, the aftermath, as well as reactions from public leaders who aren't politicians.
Now, regarding the article LegacyPac linked you to, Littleolive oil, (is there a short form you prefer?) you may not know this not being Canadian but Andrew Coyne is one of Canada's most well-known and respected journalists, across the political spectrum. He's also the former editor-in-chief of the National Post, before stepping down because (wait for it) the owners wouldn't allow him to publish a column in the last election asking voters to vote against the Conservative government. He is an eminently reputable and reliable source. And in this case, he's exactly right. The scandal is the attempt to politically interfere in the criminal process, to hide that interference, and to normalise it once it could no longer be hidden. The scandal is not that a man and two women disagreed on something, or someone recorded a phone call, or anything of that form. This is the SNC-Lavalin affair, not the Jody Wilson-Raybould affair.Safrolic (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Well said User:Safrolic. I fail to see how this is a Conservative position or issue when the NDP is calling for a public enquiry [8]. It's some sort of obstruction of justice political interference case that is still being investigated but has rocked the Liberal Party/Government like nothing else in many years. Maybe Adscam? Legacypac (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
The misunderstandings:
I didn't say I wasn't a Canadian. I did say I didn't live in Canada, I can't vote and I am not supporting anything or anyone.
I didn't name any editors or present diffs. I am concerned, as I repeated on several trips to this page, often after editing the article. I would name editors if I was sure I was dealing with socks or meats or COI editing. Until and if then, I am voicing concerns. Take that as you will.
I was presented with a diff to an article as something to read for background. I did not say it was not a RS; I did say it was heavily biased which it is, and I base that opinion as someone who has read most of the sources on this case. But NPOV refers to content not sources. We often do use sources that are biased and are opinions. What we are responsible for is to present content in the article that creates balance per weight in the article as a whole and per the mainstream sources.
I understand editors have opinions on what happened. I don't care about what those opinions are. Editing an encyclopedia is much simpler than that–balance per sources so that an article does not tell the reader what to believe or what the editor believes, but simply presents information so that the reader can decide for themselves. When the opinions of editors influence content then we have POV editing and that is a concern. What I see here by the way is a desire to make sure the parties have their say. My concern is to create neutrality in terms of the case itself. I'll say again we have no responsibility to give each party encyclopedic time; what we must do is make sure the case which includes how Trudeau sees this appropriate content. Responses from parties may be included in that balance of content but cannot be a driving force behind what we choose to add.
I am happy to deal with the section on Expulsion. (Rethinking my input here). No one has suggested removing the section on it. I may have more time this week. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Add: I'd be careful about accusing me of removing something from my own talk page. I do it seldom but when I do and of course we can all remove stuff from our own talk pages I do with good reason. I have never removed anything from anyone else's talk page, I had BLP concerns with an article and yes I did remove content that I felt violated BLP for article talk page space. BLP refers not just to article space but can also to talk pages of those articles. I felt my removal was iffy so I said in the end the content was fine. I want to be clear about retention. Telling an editor to be carful before they venture too far is a service. I deliberately did not name anyone. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
First of all, I'm sorry to have misunderstood that you were Canadian, just living abroad. For what its worth, I think you should still be allowed to vote. ;)
It's good practice to, unless you have actual evidence of bad behaviour, not to cast aspersions on unnamed editors. If you do have actual evidence, it's still better not to say much on the article talk page, and just go straight to the relevant investigatory process. Saying that other editors, whomever they might be, could be acting in bad faith in some way, can only lead to fights and hurt feelings. And I don't mean to accuse you of removing something from your talk page, since that's an acceptable thing to do; it'd be like accusing you of going to the bank today. But while acceptable, it can also be informative about other things. The only thing I'm taking issue with here, is a pattern of leaving vague insinuations of bad behaviour from unspecified users. We're all here to build a complete and well-researched article, not to fight editors who have a different point of view from us. Safrolic (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
And yet such aspersion were cast on me after very few edits. In my mind it's far better to warn in an indefinite way that there are problems than to drag a specific editor to a NB or check user or to tag an article as a whole. NB are notorious for less than positive interactions, not a good space especially for newer editors. I saw many instances of POV editing both here and on the Trudeau article which alarmed me in part because this is BLP content. Some of that has been changed. But some has not. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm ok with the changes Safrolic made to this section, it fleshes things out. I am a bit on the fence about including the Daughters of the Vote protest, but I can see how others would view it as relevant. I would just fix some of the dates as Philpott's statement and JWR's letter were same day as the Caucus vote
As an aside, is Philpott still the liberal candidate for her riding? I haven't seen a reliable source to confirm one way or the other Harris Seldon (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Philpott's status is unclear. She was booted from Caucus but she has already been nominated for reelection as a Liberal. The nomination was not blocked at the same time as her friends. I found speculation she is thinking of running for Ontario Liberal leader, so the PM may be waiting to see if her nomination resolves itself. Legacypac (talk) 17:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
So what you've done here is add a lot of content to a section and its content that was under discussion. That's not a generally accepted way of discussing or adding newer content. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
This is called WP:Bold. If you have a problem with some specific content, you can WP:Revert it, then leave a rationale for the reversion on the talk page to discuss the problems. This is an entirely acceptable way of adding new content. Safrolic (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, Harris Seldon. The chronology is pretty confused throughout this article which makes it hard to follow, another thing I'd like to fix. I think the Daughters of the Vote thing is the most noteworthy protest, given that several news outlets covered it, it was in the media for multiple days, and it was referenced in Philpott's interview. I wanted an example of political reaction that didn't come from a specific party. I think it doesn't deserve to be the final sentence of the section, but I didn't have anything else to add in the moment. LegacyPac, I didn't know that! Can you find a source? Definitely relevant to include. Safrolic (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
No. When a discussion is underway on concerns with content especially when there are concerns with NPOV we do not edit that section/content especially adding more content which is very like content which was disputed, such as quotes. This does not respect either the discussion or other editors and once agains points to POV editing and in this case Ownership. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Bold editing is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. You are wrong about this, and once again just barely avoiding a direct accusation of misbehaviour. If you have specific problems with the text that was added, list those problems and we can all deal with them together. If you want to keep accusing people of misbehaviour, please refer yourself instead to the appropriate noticeboard.
ADD: I see that you've added a POV tag to the relevant section while I was typing that. This is acceptable procedure, but you now need to list the specific problems you have with the section. This tag also does not preclude editors from modifying the section while discussion is underway. Safrolic (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I think Littleolive oil does have a point that discussing a changing section/moving target is more challenging. But in this case, after looking at Safrolic's editing, the previous content is still there. The changes are mostly additions specifically focused on the Liberal party (caucus discussions and rationale, Trudeaus statements before and after, emphasizing Wayne Easter was a solicitor general, etc). To me it gives more balance away from the opposition perspective (for lack of a better phrase). In this case, because the core content hasn't been changed, I don't think these changes should hinder this discussion. Yes it is BOLD, but it also demonstrates an intention to maintain an NPOV.
Apart from the additions mentioned above, the only real changes I see are sentence order (to a more logical flow), the replacement of Carolyn Bennett's quote with Melanie Joly (where I think Ms Joly's quote is more reflective of the scandal discussions/article to date), and the addition of the Daughters of the Vote (which is explained above, and Safrolic is right, there were a lot of other political reactions that could have been included. This was probably the least sensationalist one, and the most neutral way to describe it.) Harris Seldon (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree, it is currently just exchanging lawyer letters. Worth mentioning, but no need for separate section for now. It might develop, it might go nowhere. The paragraph in the article might need a little work though. Harris Seldon (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I was not suggesting a seperate section, unless of course it goes somewhere. Historically such threats go nowhere. Legacypac (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Curly Turkey edits
I added back the LavScam name with multiple cites and they edit warred it out again, deleting even more cites and name variations. Time to slow down and discuss this. Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Legacypac: are you even reading my edit comments? The G&M story is a widely-reported part of the story itself. Using it to source the summary that is the lead paragraph is facepalmingly inappropriate. I haven't even gotten through the lead yet, and I'm coming across nothing but this kind of bullshit. This article needs a very thorough scrubbing. The sourcing is extraordinarily sloppy—in the case of "LavScam", the source didn't even support the statement it was supposedly supporting! Please review our sourcing guidelines thoroughly. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!08:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
An article that reports previously unknown news is not itself part of the news. That's an interpretation which would see all kinds of reliable and important sources for articles excluded. Imagine if we said the New York Times report on Trump's historical tax evasion was inappropriate to use to describe Trump's historical tax evasion. If there's some part of WP:RS that is saying this in particular, could you please cite it? Re: the colloquialism/hashtag thing, I agree with you that a hashtag isn't the same as a colloquialism, but I want to point out that this is going to be a really lame argument. If there are articles which themselves call it Lavscam, it's appropriate to put it in as a colloquialism. If they only reference the hashtag, it's not.Safrolic (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Safrolic: "If there are articles which themselves call it Lavscam, it's appropriate to put it in as a colloquialism."—this is what's called a non sequitur. We cannot call it a "colloquialism" if our sources do not. That is a violation of WP:INTEGRITY and WP:OR. We also cannot prefer it to other widely-used terms (and there are many), per WP:WEIGHT.
"An article that reports previously unknown news is not itself part of the news."—this is not what I said. The G&M article has itself become a widely-cited and analyzed part of the story. Using it as the primary source for the entire lead paragraph is grotesquely inappropriate—Wikipedia requires us to rely as much as possible on third-party sources that are not part of the story itself. Given the wealth of such sources we have to choose from, we'd need quite the remarkable rationale for relying on this particular source at this point, especially as many of the details in that source have since been clarified, expanded on, or thrown into doubt. Imagine using J'Accuse…! to source the opening paragraph of the Dreyfus affair article. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!04:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm reading your comments and I disagree with some of them. A simple Google search for LavScam brings up diverse news orgs using the term in headlines. I added sourcing from Global, CNN, and the Georgia Straight plus could have added much more, but you just stripped it all out again.
Legacypac: "A simple Google search for LavScam brings up diverse news orgs using the term in headlines."—Jesus Christ, this is exasperating. You used a source talking about the hashtag #LavScam to support the statement "colloquially known as LavScam". I've found issues with literally every source in the lead paragraph. "Sloppy" is very polite way to put it. Do I have to hold your hand and walk you through our sourcing guidlines?
I hope you're not under the impression that I'm denying there are sources that use "LavScam"—that would be particularly embarrassing if that's what you're getting out of this. A source must explicitly support what is stated—this means a source must explicitly tell us that a term is used colloquially if we are going to state that a term is used colloquially. "The source uses the term in its title" does not do that. Please tell me you understand this. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!08:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
You object to the word Colloquialism? The use of the term in headlines and articles amd as a tracking tag by Global shows that whoever typed that word while writing the articles was correct. We don't need to source every English word we use here. When you removed LavScam you said the ref did not support the term LavScam, or at least that was my plain reading of your comment. Legacypac (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
With the greatest of respect that is ridiculous. I guess we could just change the name to "LavScam", but I am not sure that is the dominant name for this affair. Other articles just go by the name the media/public used for it (see Watergate, Elbowgate, etc.). Seeing that many have referred to this scandal/affair as "LavScam", it is certainly appropriate for us to note that it is "also known as LavScam". Refusing to do so, does not serve the reader (some of whom will no doubt be looking for an article about "LavScam").--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Darryl Kerrigan: the thing is also known as the "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "SNC-Lavalin case", "SNC-Lavalin controversy", and a host of other things. Shall we bury the lead in an interminable list of alternate names? Does that serve the reader? But whether anyone actually called it "LavScam" was not at issue—the issue was that it was cited to a source that does not support the statement made. This is disallowed on Wikipedia, per many of our guidelines (WP:INTEGRITY, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, etc). Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!23:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
No, I think those others are captured elsewhere in the article where it is referred to as a "case", "scandal" etc. I think just saying AKA "LavScam" should be enough, given the many reliable sources referring to it as such.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Darryl Kerrigan: you'll have to explain why "LavScam" deserves special focus in the lead when the others don't, or why it should be in the lead rather than the body. For example, "SNC-Lavalin scandal" gets 553,000 hits on Google, while "LavScam" gets 69,000.
I think you are the only one who seems to consider it inappropriate. Furthermore, I seem to get different results when search Google. By all means, if you want to change it the title of the article to "SNC-Lavalin scandal AKA LavScam" have at it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Darryl Kerrigan: "I think you are the only one who seems to consider it inappropriate."—The use of the source? It's a black-and-white infraction of our sourcing guidelines.
"if you want to change it the title of the article to 'SNC-Lavalin scandal AKA LavScam'"—this is not a response to anything I've stated—in fact, you're ignoring what I've explicitly stated. Please read carefully what you're replying to before you reply—you risk accusations of bad faith if you continue to make the kinds of responses you have been. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!02:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make accusations of bad faith, you go for it. I haven't seen anything to suggest that this would be an infraction of our sourcing guidelines, "black and white" or otherwise. This is a res ipsa loquitur issue. If reliable sources (the media, politicians and public) are calling it LavScam it is fine for us to note that. It speaks for itself. Safrolic is right:
If there are articles which themselves call it Lavscam, it's appropriate to put it in as a colloquialism.
Darryl Kerrigan: "I haven't seen anything to suggest that this would be an infraction of our sourcing guidelines"—in other words, you haven't read WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, or WP:INTEGRITY, which I've already linked to, or you've chosen to ignore them. "If there are articles which themselves call it Lavscam, it's appropriate to put it in as a colloquialism" is a ridiculous non sequitur, and a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The fact that there are sources that use "LavScam" tells us nothing more than that the term exists, but does not allow us to comment on it any further than what sources have commented on it.
Aside from your contempt for our sourcing guidelines, you seem to have a vested interest in including "LavScam" in the lead paragraph, even though several other terms are used as or more frequently (a violation of WP:WEIGHT). Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!04:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I have read the policies. I don't think they prevent us from calling a spade a spade. The fact that the sources use the term LavScam means we can say, that the term is being used to describe this affair. If you want to point me to a part of one of these policies that says we have to have an article that says "some folks are calling it LavScam" you go ahead. That interpretation of the policies is ridiculous. I don't have contempt for the policies. I disagree with your ridiculous interpretation of them. As to your suggestion that I have a vested interest, no I just dislike when it seems that others do. I think you just don't like others refering to this as a scandal or scam (despite the fact that the media is). I think it is pretty clear who is acting in bad faith. The community can make up their own mind on that point. Another Wikipedia policy is consensus, and you seem to be decidedly on your own on this limb of yours. In your country they say the nail that sticks up gets hammered down. That is kind of how Wikipedia works too. Anyway, I am going to put this stick down now. Goodnight and god bless.-~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl Kerrigan (talk • contribs) 05:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Darryl Kerrigan: "The fact that the sources use the term LavScam means we can say, that the term is being used to describe this affair."—that's right, but that's not what has been disputed, is it? You've now stepped back from insisting we can call it a "colloquialism" (the locus of dispute, along with misuse of sources), and now it's time to step back from insisting it take precedence over the myriad other terms that are in greater usage (per WP:WEIGHT). Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!06:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I never said we need to call it a "colloquialism", though I see little difference between that and noting that it is "also known as" or simply writing "SNC-Lavalin affair or LavScam". Bottom line is I agree with other editors that there should be some mention of the use of the other title: LavScam. I have already addressed your point about calling the SNC-Lavalin "scandal" as it is referred to as a scandal elsewhere including in the lede. There is no issue with WP:WEIGHT. Put down the stick.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
"the thing is also known as the "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "SNC-Lavalin case", "SNC-Lavalin controversy", and a host of other things. Shall we bury the lead in an interminable list of alternate names?
I understand these to be the "myriad of terms" you are referring to.
My answer, then, above, and again is NO. It is also referred to as a scandal in the lead, and as a case elsewhere. As such, your WP:Weight argument is a flat one. There seems to be consensus among others that use of the term LavScam in the lede is appropriate. Just stop.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
"I understand these to be the "myriad of terms" you are referring to."—given how many times I've brought up terms such as "Wilson-Raybould scandal", etc., that are not variations of "SNC-Lavalin affair" and that get more hits than "LavScam", it's remarkable that this could be the understanding you could come to. You don't get to violate WP:WEIGHT (which is official policy and overrides local consensus) by plugging your ears. There is a demonstrated, quantified violation here. What makes this violation so important to you? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!06:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I see, more non sequiturs. "Myriad" suggests many (ie. plural). You were not just talking about "Wilson-Raybould scandal", you are just being revisionist now. On that point, Safrolic correctly pointed out to you:
If you wanted to add "Wilson-Raybould scandal" to a paragraph somewhere about how the media differs on what it's called, and source it properly, then you should do that. Nobody's said you shouldn't.
Man, I'm so glad I picked this afternoon and evening to watch the entire second season of Netflix's Chilling Adventures of Sabrina. So, I looked at MOS:LEADALT, which says that " significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages.". WP:LEADCREATE advises us that a lead should only summarize content that is more deeply expanded on later in the article. Both it and MOS:LEAD say that we should fix the article first, then tackle the lead. My suggestion: We include also known as Lavscam in the first two sentences of the lead somewhere, and source it with [this]. Then, we include a small paragraph somewhere in the article about how different sources have debated whether it's a scandal or a scam or whatever, and called it different things, including "Lavscam", "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "SNC-Lavalin controversy" and whatever other names it's actually been called. Lavscam is the altname that goes in the lead because it's the only one which is significantly different from the base "SNC-Lavalin" name and therefore the only one which could be confused with other things. It's a redirect to here already too. Also, Curly, be respectful of the rest of us and the work we've put into this article. Yes, it's C-class and it needs more work. But it's still a lot better than it was before. Thanks for the editorial fixes you've been doing, by the way. Safrolic (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Respect goes two ways, Safrolic, and people have been putting an awful lot of effort into discrediting my edits, which have focused primarily on scrubbing the article of misuse of sources. That's not trivial work—most people will take a statement at face value that has a "source" and will not verify that the source backs up the statement. The fact that such misuse of sources has happened multiple times in the lead paragraph alone is troubling, and the sustained pushback against my trying to fix it is extraordinarily suspicious.
Safrolic: "Lavscam is the altname that goes in the lead because it's the only one which is significantly different"—no, there's also "Wilson-Raybould scandal" and its variations, "SNC scandal" and its variations, "PMO scandal", and so on. Listing them all would not be against the guidelines, but would be ridiculous and hinder readability. They may be appropriate elsewhere in the body, but cluttering up the lead paragraph with them benefits no reader. Of course, this won't happen—the discussion will continue to focus exclusively on trying to squeeze "LavScam" into the lead, a single-mindedness that should be treated with great suspicion. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!06:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
You don't need to ping me twice in the same reply to me on a page I'm watching. It comes off as aggressive and condescending, which I'm sure wasn't your intention. The sustained pushback on your work with article sources by the other three editors who've taken any notice of it should make you want to take a second look. The Lavscam thing is one of two changes you made to the article which weren't minor word-shuffling or punctuation/formatting. The other notable change you made was to remove the article which broke the scandal as a source in the lead, which two of us have also contested. I would appreciate it if you showed us the respect of supporting both these changes with policy/guideline citations. Safrolic (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I also contest the removal of the article that broke the scandal. I understand the primary source argument, just don't think it is. But i figure right now discussing any other topic will just get buried in the lavscam excitement Harris Seldon (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I think Safrolic has a reasonable solution. SNC-"Affair", "scandal", "controversy" are all using synonyms and are more or less different versions of the same expression. So I can see the point of not having all of them in the lead. But Lav-Scam is different. It is being used, but is a portmanteau and the word is not as obviously linked to the subject. Including it in the lead would help the casual reader, especially as Lav-scam seems to start being used more frequently (including the foreign press). Harris Seldon (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
If you disagree, then please give a rationale for why it would be appropriate. So far, all I've gotten is "nuh-uh". I've also seen no effort to replace it with a less problematic, more distanced source, of which there is a huge number. Why this source and not any other from the mountain we have to choose from?
"But Lav-Scam is different"—as are those in the list of names I've given that are not synonyms—"Wilson-Raybould scandal", for instance, gets 75,800 hits to "LavScam"'s 64,700, and nobody's spent so much as a subclause of a comment arguing to include that. Nobody seems satisfied putting it in the body, either—it's an all-out war to get it squeezed into the lead paragraph, and to characterize it as a "colloquialism".
I object to characterizing my edit as "removal of the article that broke the scandal"—it's still in the body, although inappropriately citing itself—this will have to be fixed as well. A common Wikipedia technique is to cite the statements in the text to a third-party source, and then also include a citation to the primary source for reference. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!08:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I've given you a rationale why the Lavscam inclusion is appropriate. If you wanted to add "Wilson-Raybould scandal" to a paragraph somewhere about how the media differs on what it's called, and source it properly, then you should do that. Nobody's said you shouldn't. As for whether the initial story source should be cited in the lead; The Globe and Mail, breaking a major story on the government, is a reliable source. The story itself has not been questioned or shown to be in error. It's also one of the most notable sources in this whole thing for same reason. MOS:LEADCITE says there's no specific exceptions to RS in the lead. The onus is on you to show why in this case RS is not enough. Safrolic (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Nobody said the G&M was an unreliable source, and nobody removed it from the article. Could you respond to actual concerns raised?
"If you wanted to add "Wilson-Raybould scandal" to a paragraph somewhere"—you or anyone else could do that, as well. Any of you could also add "LavScam" to the body with apporpriate citations that back up any statement made about it. That's not an argument for cluttering up the lead, nor is it an argument for the inexplicable focus on "LavScam".
"The onus is on you to show why in this case RS is not enough"—as I've done, demonstrating violations of WP:INTEGRITY (the sources didn't support the statements made), WP:WEIGHT (why this term when there are so many others that are more used?), WP:OR, and WP:SYNTH. I've also brought up issues of readability and accessibility. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!22:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
looking at WP:PRIMARY, it describes primary sources as "original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved". I don't think the G&M article meets the definition as it is reporting on what others have done, and is not part of the story itself nor is it written by someone involved. Yes, a lot of articles cite the G&M article, but that seems more like sourcing and giving credit rather than saying it is part of the story. To me, the story is clearly about a "disagreement" in the government. It is not about "the Globe and Mail reporting about a disagreement in the government".
But, even if it is a primary source, WP:PRIMARY says that you can still use it but only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be easily verified by access to the primary source itself. Only interpretation needs to be supported by secondary sources. So again, I don't see the concern with using the GM article in the lead, as it is only circular referencing if you see the Globe as part of the story and not just reporting it.
I do agree that this article would be stronger by supporting the G&M article with other references, and that can be done because there are other sources now. There wasn't much at the time the article was developing. But isn't the solution to add those references to strengthen what is there and not remove the only one that is there? Harris Seldon (talk) 12:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It wasn't removed. It's still in the article. Why do people keep claiming it was removed? It's wholly inappropriate to use as a source describe the scandal, as it did not become a scandal until after the story broke. The source cannot be used to describe the reaction to itself and the ensuing fallout, which obviously will not be covered in itself. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!21:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
"The source cannot be used to describe the reaction to itself and the ensuing fallout, which obviously will not be covered in itself."—and, seriously, ignoring how it viloates any number of sourcing guidelines, why would you even want to? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!23:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I did not use a source pointing to #LavScam but you took a source out and then when I restored the name LavScam with 3 or 4 sources you took that out. You are treating me like an idiot and putting words in my mouth. I know that alt names that are used by RS belong in the lede. LavScam without the # is a prominent alt name and a quick Google search confirms it. Now please be less cocky and consisending to your fellow editors. Most of us are just looking to creat a balanced informative article that reports facts about what happened and who did and said what. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
First sentence of the post "deleting even more cites and name variations" so nothing is "telling" LavScam however is the more unique name while the others are variations on the article title so I'm less concerned with them. Also I provided sources for LavScam that you promptly deleted. Legacypac (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I've pointed out more than once now that "LavScam" is not the only "unique name". I've also pointed out more than once that your sources do not support the statement made—a violation of WP:INTEGRITY. Are you simply going to keep repeating these things? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!21:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Date formatting
So, I'd kind of like to have the dmy format switch to mdy throughout the article. We've got a ton of specific dates where things happen, and we're building what amounts to a textual chronography. Calling it "February 7" instead of "7 February" would have a more natural flow I think. Is anyone like super vehemently opposed to that? Safrolic (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I read it before coming here. It says that the existing format should be kept, unless there is a consensus on the talk page. That's what I came here to find. I think, personally, that improving the flow and readability throughout the article would be a productive thing to do- more productive than spending our time arguing about the lead in the talk page, at least. I don't think it would take inordinately long, and I wouldn't have asked if I wasn't willing to step up and do it. Thank you all for fixing up my formatting and stuff on my edit earlier, by the way. That took a while. Safrolic (talk) 23:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Retain per MOS:DATERET and MOS:DATETIES, which explicitly mentions Canada. Both DMY and MDY are widely used in Canada and no credible argument can be made that either is "more natural"—Canadians say both "February seventh" and "seventh of February", which are how each format is read aloud (not "February seven" or "seven February"). Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!00:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Yup, there's no P&G argument specifically in favour of one or the other of them. To be clear here, this is really just a strawpoll of personal preference; whichever feels more natural to you personally. Personally, my internal voice reads "On February 7th, the.." more easily than "On the 7th of February, the..." and that's the predominant kind of date reference in the article. Safrolic (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely, keep fixing things :) I don't want this discussion to soak up my time and energy any more than any other editor's, so please don't let it soak up yours. Thanks for the !vote! Safrolic (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Change - it will help with following the continuity as February 7 followed by February 12 is less jarring. I recognize both are acceptable, And see people spend a lot of time changing them back and forth already, which hasn't bother me then either. If your willing to change the dates I have no issues. Harris Seldon (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Continued sourcing issues
I just keep running into violations of WP:INTEGRITY with this article, and I've examined only a fraction of the sources so far. For example, a quotation that didn't appear in two of the sources given, and was actually concatenated from two separate quotes in the one source it did appear in, and (much more seriously) the phrasing "illegal political interference", cited to three sources, none of which characterized it as "illegal".
Thanks for fixing that quote concatenation. I've added a second source for the quote in again. Re: integrity, does every source need to support all the material in front of it? Also, I'm sort of just working my way through rewriting each section from mostly scratch. I'm not too worried about the sections I haven't gotten to yet, including the lead. Safrolic (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
"does every source need to support all the material in front of it?"—Yes. For one thing, that's what any reader will infer from the source being there. Also, though not spelt out in the guidelines, normally every quotation is expected to be followed immediately with an inline cite, even if the cite is redundant to one that follows soon after the quotation. FA reviewers require that, for instance.
We can't say anything that's not in the source[s] cited, and cannot insert our "interpretations" of the material cited (even if such interpretation seems "common sense"). This is especially important for political articles and with articles involving living people (see WP:BLP). According to WP:BLP, sometimes we cannot include information even when we have citations for it—often for legal reasons. This is an article about an ongoing situation involving living people and the law, so we have to be double-plus careful with what we say, how we say it, and how we source it. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!23:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
First sentence, used in the article. You're right that CBC hasn't used it. But one website not using it is not justification for saying it's not commonly used. Please acknowledge the links I gave below, showing a 50:1 ratio in results for "lavscam" vs "Wilson-Raybould Scandal". Please stop telling us how suspicious you are about us disagreeing with you. If you think people here are acting in bad faith, then take it to ANI by all means. But threatening to do so isn't helpful, and personally I'd like it to stop. Safrolic (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I will be taking it to ANI, but I have to get the diffs etc sorted first. If this were a mere "disagreement", then we would be discussing the issue, not pretending there isn't one and accusing the one who's trying to clean it up of having an unnamed "agenda".
"Please acknowledge the links I gave below"—and who has acknowledged the links I've provided? Legacypac has denied I've even provided any. How is that good-faith behaviour?
The source for "LavScam" continues to be the Maclean's article that is exclusively about the hashtag. This is the second time it's been restored. It'll be interesting to see the defense of that. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!06:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I have switched out the sources for the inclusion, as you could have done at any time. I hope that this can solve the issue. Reminder that when we find sourcing problems, the preferable solution is to find a better source, content-removal being less desirable. Safrolic (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
"as you could have done at any time"—I've removed it twice, and it keeps getting restored. Removing it again would get me blocked for editwarring.
"content-removal"—now I'm being accused of "content-removal"?
By the way, here are a couple of screenshots. You can see that they are the results of following the links you provided below. For some reason, they return numbers close to what I gave, and not even remotely like the numbers you gave. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!07:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
didn't Safrolic link a CNN article above that used Lavscam and I recall seeing a BBC article as well that used the name Lavscam (it was used as a reference in this article when JWR was expelled from caucus?) Those would be examples of major international media using the term Lavscam Harris Seldon (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we're aware that many media outlets have used it. The question is—and always has been—whether it warrants to be highlighted in preference to all the others, per WP:WEIGHT. The term appears nowhere in the body at all—every ounce of effort has been put into highlighting it in the lead sentence, and slagging me and my unnamed "agenda" for removing it and its totally inappropriate WP:INTEGRITY-breaking source. That is not the behaviour of an editor seeking balance. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!06:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
"Yes, we're aware that many media outlets have used it." - the BBC / CNN examples were in response to your statement that three major Canadian newssources do not use Lavscam. I assume you brought up this example to support your argument for WP:WEIGHT by showing it is not commonly used in major media sources. I was responding to the point you were making.
"The question is—and always has been—whether it warrants to be highlighted in preference to all the others, per WP:WEIGHT." - Yes, that is the question. I believe Lavscam warrants inclusion because it is different enough from the other variations that it should be included in the lead. This to me takes priority over concerns about undue weight, is informative and if phrased as "also known as" is still consistent with NPOV.
"The term appears nowhere in the body at all" - valid observation
"slagging me and my unnamed "agenda" for removing it and its totally inappropriate" - I don't recall any of my posts doing this. I don't agree with your conclusion regarding Lavscam, but that is very different than slagging someone for a hidden agenda. Harris Seldon (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
It was legacy pack who accused me of having an unnamed agenda.
This is not a "fix" as it does not address the issue of WP:WEIGHT. We're aware there are sources that use "LavScam", as well as sources that use numerous other terms that are not variations of the article title. Cherrypicking the one you prefer is a violation of WP:UNDUE, and is exactly the kind of thing political articles attract. A simple solution is to put the term in the body (where it still inexplicably doens't appear) and leave it out of the lead sentence until the WP:WEIGHT issues can be resolved. LavScam would still redirect here and we'd still have the content in the article. What nobody can be bothered to explain is why it has to be shoehorned into the opening sentence while the appropriateness of doing so is under dispute. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!02:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
aka'LavScam' at Administrators' noticeboard
This is a continuation of the discussion above concerning Curly Turkey's edits. Specifically, the question of whether it is appropriate to refer to this matter also as LavScam as it has been on Twitter and in the media, including in numerous sources referenced here. Curly Turkey in a recent edit summary suggests we deal with this at WP:ANI:
If you continue to violate policy, we can sort this out at WP:ANI, if you'd like
I obviously don't think this is a problem of violating policy. Safrolic pointed out that MOS:LEADALT seems to support inclusion of significant other names (ie LavScam). The policy reads " significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages.". Other editors seem to support the inclusion of the term 'LavScam' in the lede given its use in sources.
Curly Turkey still opposes for reasons which still appear unclear to me, despite extensive discussions. He cites about every policy in the book without reference to any particular section (WP:INTEGRITY, WP:OR, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, among others). Perhaps, I am wrong, but I seem to think we reached a consensus among others. This seems to be devolving to a question of ownership.
I am not sure it is necessary to proceed to Administrators' noticeboard, but am prepared to do so if that is required. Happy to hear others' thought.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if it's specifically ownership, but it kind of bothers me to see threats to go to ANI whipped out like this. I would also like to see the specific sections of/quotes from the policies he's citing with his links, because I'm not seeing most of these arguments myself. That being said, both of us are a lot less experienced than him at this. But we still deserve some respect here. Let's try and de-escalate on all sides, and do our best to be clear and thorough in our policy arguments. Any relevant FA/GA review discussions also would be helpful, cause I would like to learn the ropes! Also, I'm going through each of these sections, rewriting from mostly scratch and expanding, and I'm going to do the lead last (as per my other cites in that comment), so this is really just entirely lame. Safrolic (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
The contempt editors are showing for policy here is a serious concern, and the willingness to editwar to violate WP:WEIGHT to push for this term (again, totally inappropriately reinstating it with a source about it as a hashtag—a violation of WP:INTEGRITY)—these are issues that have to be dealt with. These are not trivial things, especially as they are a symptom of the much wider sourcing issues I've been turning up throughout the article. The belligerence some of these editors continue to show—and the facile dismissal of all evidence provided—demonstrates this is a behavioural issue that won't be solved through discussion. The bad faith is so thick you can cut it with a knife—just take a look at Legacypac's FUD that I'm pushing some unnamed "agenda" below. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!01:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Curly turkey lost my confidence in their ability to edit this page with a NPOV a while back. Wikilawyering to get to whatever the heck their agenda is. Legacypac (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
In those examples, "AdScam" and "Robocall scandal" are extraordinarily well-established names for their respective affairs. "LavScam" is but one of many, and I've demonstrated, for example, that it gets fewer hits than even "Wilson-Raybould scandal"—it does not come anywhere close to the currency of "AdScam" or "Robocall scandal". If "LavScam" gets included, we will also have to include all of the alternate names that are more common than "LavScam". That would satisfy WP:WEIGHT etc. It would also be terrible from a readability perspective—and would still raise concerns, as the motivation for including so many names would be explicitly to squeeze "LavScam" into the lead.
I honestly don't know how else to deal with these constant violations other than taking it to ANI. You could demonstrate some good faith by undoing your most recent problematic edit and not reinstating it until you can concretely refute the evidence I've provided that it doesn't violate WP:WEIGHT. the edit is especially problematic as you reinstated it with the original source that was about the hashtag in the first place. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!01:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I haven't seen anyone debate that the term started as a hashtag. That doesn't really matter. The question is whether it is being used as a name for the scandal. It appears it is. The article specifically discusses that the scandal is widely being referred to as LavScam on Twitter. That name has been adopted at least in that sphere, and had been as of Feb 14, 2019, such that this article noted and commented on that. Usually, we don't put references in the lede. I felt compelled to do so here because you are taking issue with the term. In addition to Twitter, as we have noted it is described in numerous sources as LavScam. Google searches are instructive, but not determinative here. It is perhaps relevant that LavScam is a unique term as Legacypac notes below. Jody Wilson-Raybould scandal is less so, not that that really matters because we are not debating whether to also include that term/name now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
"because you are taking issue with the term"—I have never taken issue with the term, and have explicitly stated so; I've brought you to task over the intransigent, bad-faith, POV-pushing, policy-violating manner in which it is presented. ANI will decide whether you'll get away with it. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!03:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Never taken issue with the term? That is what this whole conversation is about: whether it can be included or not. You say no. You haven't called me out on any POV pushing, policy-violating. This is the only issue we have engaged on. A rather narrow one at that, despite the digital ink we have spilled on it. If you feel you need to start an ANI, you should do that. I am sorry we haven't been able to work through this, but c'est la vie.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
Just google "LavScam" and you will come up with scores of different RS using the term prominently. It is a 100% unique term so there is no noise in tne results. This is not complex. Legacypac (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I've addressed this so many times that's it's become impossible to assume good faith with you. The issue is not—and has never been—whether anyone uses the term. It is about preferring it to the large number of terms that are used more frequently—a black-and-white violation of WP:WEIGHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!01:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I have not seen any evidence there is a more widely used term then the present title or LavScam. Use quotes when you google to cut the background noise. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Two hours ago I linked to both sets of search results, and I got an approximately 50:1 ratio in favour of Lavscam. Could you take another look at that, please? Safrolic (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
There were about 4 secondsry terms before Curly cut them out. I'm ok with multiple bolded terms because multiole terms are used. I'm less hung up about the terms that are really close to the title like SNC-Lavalin scandal or controversy. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. LavScam is unique. There is less need to go through the word salad of alternating the words like scandal, controversy, affair, wrongdoing, allegation etc. and people/companies (ie. JWR, Trudeau, SNC-Lavalin, Phillpot) until we come up with all the variations. But this is not the conversation we are having now. It seems clear to me that LavScam should be included. The question of what else can wait for someone to propose a third term/name with sources.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
On that front, I note adding other terms/names to Jody Wilson-Raybould's page was less controversial. At least with the addition of JWR. An acronym which I suspect was also elevated into the public realm at least in part by Twitter usage during this scandal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Darryl Kerrigan—I've responded directly to you about "variations" already. We have alternate names such as "Wilson-Raybould scandal" that are not variations of the made title that also get more hits than "LavScam", and you keep pretending as if I've never told you this. Your focus is exclusively on shoehorning your preferred term into the lead. This is the behavioural issue that is forcing me to take this to ANI. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!03:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I've changed my mind and am moderately interested to watch the discussion after you list this talk page there. I will certainly be leaving a comment about behavioural issues myself. Safrolic (talk) 03:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I will say again, as others have too. If you want to add another term, do so. No one is stopping you.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
for a while now my sense is this topic will go to some form of dispute mechanism. It shouldn't have to, but between the pattern of circular discussions, competing statistics, hyperbola, interpretation of policies, comments about bad faith editing and hidden motivations, etc etc ad nauseum, I can't see it closing any other way. Right now, the discussion doesn't seem to be moving. Alternatives have been proposed and rejected or ignored, and we still seem to be discussing interpretation and application of polices about using an alternative name in the lead. Unfortunately this discussion is starting to overshadow and colour the efforts being done by all parties to maintain and improve the article. We all need to find a way to move on. Harris Seldon (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
"we still seem to be discussing interpretation and application of polices about using an alternative name in the lead"—no, we're "discussing" the appropriateness of highlighting a particular alternative name in the lead in light of WP:WEIGHT (which is sitewide policy), as well as extensive sourcing issues by the POV-pushers insisting on having it. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!02:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Also wanted to highlight Safrolic's efforts to redraft and cleanup some of the sections. I believe his approach is to cleanup the article content bit by bit and then work on the lead. As this article is being written contemporaneously, it needed to be done, as it is confusing in parts, and reflects discussions at the time, where the known facts may have changed later. Hopefully as part of that process it might also address some of the referencing issues found, likely caused by some of the edits and re-edits.Harris Seldon (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
ANI raised
I have opened an ANI report. I'm not sure what the etiquette is on other involved editors commenting there (and I'd suggest anybody double-check on that before doing so), but I still wanted to let you all know. It's here. Safrolic (talk) 05:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I just edited the page to remove the claim that Trudeau ejected them from the party as opposed to caucus. Not sure if that is correct. I don't believe the sources support that. While rare, a Parliamentarian can be a party member but not part of the party caucus. Senate "Liberals" are an example. They can't call themselves Liberals in the Senate, only go by the term "Senate Liberals". They can be members though, vote at conventions etc. We should make sure we are right on this.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
the sources I've read said ejected from caucus and ability to run as Liberals revoked. I've not seen anything about party membership, and neither woman has been talking about crossing the floor. They are talking like party members trying to reform. So I think your edit is correct. Legacypac (talk) 04:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
agreed. It seems like people and news sources are making a lot of assumptions about what a removal from caucus actually means. Best to stick as close as possible to what we know for sure. As far as I can tell, it means they cannot sit as Liberals in parliament. It was a seperate decision that they are not allowed to run as liberal candidates, as that is usually a party issue and not caucus. Harris Seldon (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
To run under any major party requires two things 1. Local party membership vote (this can be overruled or dispensed with though) amd the leader to sign your papers. In this case JT rescinded his approval or overturned the local nominations or something along those lines. In this and similar cases in the past it is the leader's final decision who runs. Look at what happened to one candidate in Burnaby South byelection, nomination pulled by leader during the campaign if I remember correctly. None of this impacts the membership card. Legacypac (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Curly brought this up with me on my talk page and I independently found the specific facts which were not included in the source. (I'm not sure if there are other parts he has issues with, though) I've found an RCMP press release covering them, but that's apparently not satisfactory either? Not sure. It's on my talk page. Safrolic (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Several details of the paragraph appear in none of the sources cited, such as the sections of Act and "Each firm was charged with one count of fraud" (the sources do not make it clear that each of the firms received a separate charge). This is less serious than some of the other material I've removed, such as the characterization of the "political interference" as "illegal", and I assumed there were sources that backed it up, which is why I tagged it rather than removed it. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!06:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
We've discussed this already on your talk page, and here you're continuing with the same WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT strategy.
"This feels like a semantic issue that you should just correct the wording on yourself"—I can't do that when you keep reverting and attacking my edits, and in the face of Legacypac's belligerance that "Curly turkey has been butchering the page". The lot of you have taken collective WP:OWNership of the page to ensure your particular POV, and screw Wikipedia's sitewide policies and anyone who might attempt to have the article conform to them. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!10:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
As I said on my talk page (which you didn't respond to), WP:Primary says, a primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.WP:SPS says, self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities. In this case, an RCMP press release is acceptable for citing what the RCMP non-controversially says they did. The only information for which it is the sole source is the specific sections of acts which charges were laid under- A minor claim of non-controversial fact for which the RCMP can probably be considered an expert in the field.
Regarding semantics, if you had just removed the word "each" I don't think anyone stand in your way. I don't think that it helps with understanding, but I don't think it hurts much. I am also unhappy about how Legacypac is behaving, though on a scale of civility, he's not at the bottom here. Saying that all of us have collectively taken ownership.... feels like gaslighting, honestly. Some examples of gaslighting from WP:GASLIGHT: pretending your question has not already been answered, misrepresenting what a policy actually says or means, prevaricating about the obvious meaning of a claim, or refusing to concede when your position has been disproved or rejected by consensus. I am really tired of the accusations of bad faith/POV editing, particularly the ones directed at me. Safrolic (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Hey so, it's been several hours and you've been active on this page throughout the intervening period. I'm going to take the lack of a response or acknowledgment here (or to the same argument on my talk page) as tacit acceptance, and I'm going to add this source in and remove the tag. Safrolic (talk) 10:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
You're free to remove the tag once the issues have been solved—either by finding an appropriate WP:RS that gives the missing details, or by removing those details (probably best to do the latter given that the thousands out there have not reported them).
"if you had just removed the word "each" I don't think anyone stand in your way"—I've already addressed this—I tagged it rather than deleting it because I assumed there were sources out there giving the details. When it turned out there weren't, I didn't remove them because I'm already under constant attack for what I've removed.
"I am really tired of the accusations of bad faith/POV editing"—yeah? Imagine how I feel with Legacypac repeatedly accusing of of some unnamed "agenda"—or your accusations now of GASLIGHTing ("prevaricating", am I?). You want gaslighting? Scroll through this page and you'll find assertions that the links I've provided simply don't exist.
Perhaps you're not a POV-pusher and I've mistakenly lumped you in which those who are because you've aligned yourself with them. If that's the case, I apologize. Wikipedia's sourcing policies need to be understood and taken seriously, though, and I'm not going to stand aside simply because a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS has decided they're bunk. Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!11:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your apology, because you have been and are wrong about me; I'm no more a fan of Legacypac than you. But that apology doesn't change anything about my concerns over your sourcing arguments, or the examples of incivility which I listed at ANI. You have made dozens of edits to this article, including to my contributions which I haven't complained about, even appreciated, because I want this to be a GA-class article. I think you're wrong about this change and the argument behind it though, and have explained why. If you can show me that high-class articles have stricter requirements than general Wikipedia source policy pages describe, then please do. I would love to read some GA/FA reviews, as I've said before. I'd also appreciate it if User:Bradv could weigh in maybe, because we've had this particular sourcing argument already and I'd like to move forward. Safrolic (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
"If you can show me that high-class articles have stricter requirements than general Wikipedia source policy"—they don't. This is the same high standard we have throughout Wikipedia, but things tend to fall through the cracks as sources tend not to get checked closely. For example, at FA reviews with established editors, sources are often spot-checked, and if the first few conform to policy, it's assumed the rest do as well, unless demosntrated otherwise. This is because full source reviews are exhausting—not least because a true "full source" review would involve looking at sources not listed in the article to ensure the article is comprehensive per 1b of the FA criteria, and that there are no WP:WEIGHT issues. I wouldn't have started sifting through the sources here if I hadn't run into so many issues in just the lead alone. The issue highlighted in this subsection is of low priority, but that doesn't mean it's a non-issue that can be brushed aside.
A Wikipedia article is supposed to be a summary of the consensus of WP:RSes. Unlike many articles, we have a huge number of sources to work from here. When we can't find a single third-party source out of many hundreds of thousands for any piece of information, we should be asking why Wikipedia would be the exception in including it. Exceptions should be exceptional—what makes this exceptional? Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!21:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Curly Turkey: When is it appropriate to use a Primary Source? I think I understand your point that for this article multiple secondary sources should exist to pick from, and your general point if something is not included in a secondary source we should question if it is important enough to be included in the article. But in general, that seems to imply that we should never use primary sources, which intuitively doesn't make sense to me. In what situation could or should we use primary sources (with regards to any article not just this one)?
Btw, this is a legitimate question to try and better understand how the WP policies work. Contrary to what you might think, I also appreciate your efforts to confirm the sourcing of this article, especially given its topic. Unfortunately, the overall tone of the discussion has become such that it often hides that benefit. Your catch about the incorrect use of the word "illegal" was valid, important to fix, and demonstrates that a review of the sources is worthwhile. While I disagree with you about one of your edits, i have no serious concerns about the others (have even supported some of them), and I apologize if you have a different impression. My only request is where possible/reasonable please use [better source needed] or [citation needed] instead of removing the source to help those of us who are trying to figure out how better to improve the article and use sources correctly. Harris Seldon (talk) 08:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
"When is it appropriate to use a Primary Source?"—a bunch of different cases. For example, when there are few sources for a subject, but we want to include something such as a birthdate or birthplace for the sake of standards of comprehensiveness; and they're often used for non-analytical plot summaries of fictional works. Non-primary sources are generally preferred even in cases where our policies and guidelines permit them, for a variety of reasons, including what I've already brought up: if we have literally hundreds of thousands of sources and none of them have bothered to mention these details, then how is including them WP:DUE? Further, it's very, very easy—when using a primary source—to step over the line between what our policies accept into WP:OR territory, which is strictly forbidden.
Political articles are particularly sensitive to these issues—there's a lot to be gained from painting people and situations in just the right light for a particular purpose on the fifth most-accessed website in the world. Thus the extreme suspicion over highlighting a term used in a small fraction of one percent of all hits ([20] vs [21]) in an article in which one editor has already declared their bias, and in which the word "illegal" was slipped in, supposedly supported by 3 sources that did no such thing. These things bring the whole article under suspicion, so that even minor infractions need exceptional rationalization.
Some advice in building even non-controversial articles: work by examining and summarizing a wide variety of sources, not what you "know", want to say, or what a preferred source says. Sloppy sourcing is not necessarily a big problem, either, as long as you allow others to clean it up (same with grammar, spelling, and formatting). Curly "JFC" Turkey🍁¡gobble!10:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thanks curly, I understand better now where you are coming from, and I appreciate the way it was clearly explained. You also make a very valid point when you say "These things bring the whole article under suspicion, so that even minor infractions need exceptional rationalization". Given the nature of the topic, and some of the items that have been fixed, it may indeed be better to be extra cautious. Harris Seldon (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Harris Seldon: Perhaps now you can appreciate the seriousness of the WP:WEIGHT issues involved in highlighting "LavScam" in the lead sentence. In light of the fact that only a fraction of a percent of sources use the term, let's examine the sitewide policy at WP:UNDUE:
"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.
... and ...
"Undue weight can be given in several ways, including ... prominence of placement ..."
... and ...
"An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject."
If you're aware of how common a technique Astroturfing has become, it's easy to see why certain actors would be motivated to have a certain minority viewpoint prominently highlighted on the fifth most-accessed site on the Web. And, lo and behold, it turns out the editor PavelShk, a WP:Single-purpose account who exclusively edits articles related to this one,[22] turns out to be the one who added "illegal political interference" to the article.
