Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Repeated removals of {{Cite check}} template

Extended content

The removals of the {{Cite check}} template have to stop. Numerous citation violations continue to be found, and the source check isn't even close to finished. The template has been removed three times in the last two days—this is editwarring and is unacceptable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC) You stop putting that template on. Your record of identifying problems on this page is not good. If you think there is a problem you can't solve start a talkpage discussion about the specific concern and editors can hash it out. Legacypac (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC) You're trolling now, Legacypac. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC) Curley Turkey: you asked at WT:Citing_sources#Where_to_find_help_for_a_full_cite_check?: "Is there a place to request cite checks?". I don't believe we have any place to request "cite checks". But what do really want? To "check the full citations"? Well, do you want to check that the full citations are complete and in proper form? Or to verifiy that the source identified by the citation actually supports the material for which the source is cited? You also mentioned that a number of editors are edit-warring. That looks like you on one side, and four editors on the other side, about keeping an "alert to readers" about issues that have been fixed. I particularly note the lack of any current {{verify source}} tags, let alone any {{failed verification}} tags, as well as a request (above) that you list any issues that need to addressed. Which is to say: there are NO indications of any "citation" problems. I also note your previous comment that the template "will remain until the source check is complete, and the next atempt to remove it will be brought to WP:ANEW." I beg to differ: there is no basis for alerting the readers of problems that don't exist, and the inclusion of this false alert violates WP:NPOV. Therefore I will be removing it. I hope you will show enough sense to let it be. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC) J. Johnson "for problems you can't find"—Every time I've checked the sources I've identified a problem that I or another editor has had to fix (several are listed in the discussions above). What do you mean by "you can't find", and and what do you base the comment "problems that don't exist"? Does that mean you've checked the sources to ensure that? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC) I think the right thing to do would be to simply continue with the cite check instead of editwarring over a template. As far as I can tell, nobody is objecting to the referencing improvements you have done. But the presence of maintenance templates is subject to a separate consnsus that seems to be lacking. It's a compromise, but it's geared toward focusing our efforts on the actual content. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Finnusertop: "nobody is objecting to the referencing improvements you have done"—actually, we have issues with that, as well. Look at Legacypac's comment at the top of this section, for instance, and previous editwarring over a {{Better source needed}} tag. There's a concerted effort here to prevent this article's sourcing issues from being fixed. Scroll up and you'll see Littleolive oil bringing up many of the same issues before being driven away—after having Legacypac attack their edits on their talkpage (as Legacypac has done about my own). The POV-pushers would love a "compromise" that allows them to bury sourcing issues and drive away those who try to fix them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC) I sat down for not even five minutes and found yet another misquote, and yet another quote that did not even appear in the source provided. Seriously, J. Johnson, this happens every single time I sit down to look at the sources—do you stand by your "there are NO indications of any "citation" problems"? or "the inclusion of this false alert violates WP:NPOV"? The {{Cite check}} will have to be restored until the article's scrubbing is complete. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC) And—surprise surprise!—someone is editwarring to restore the broken citations. See what I'm saying, Finnusertop? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Two uninvolved editors have now joined the five or so already here objecting to your use of these tags. They said this after, presumably, reading through all the talk page discussion where you've already raised these specific complaints. Stop removing sources. Stop leaving dubious tags. If you have a problem with a slight misquote (like say, "a slap on the wrist" instead of "a little slap on the wrist", then by all means go ahead and fix that. But this is just disruptive and wasting everyone's time. And calling one revert "edit warring" is ridiculous and inflammatory, further adding to the disruptiveness. I reverted because both references support the text. The exact quote itself is adequately supported by the first reference, but the second reference also supports the rest of the text, and is a perfectly acceptable source for everything in the two sentences but the quotation marks. Safrolic (talk) 07:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Yes. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Er, to be clear, is this a concurrence with everything in my reply, or just the first bit? 20:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Without getting hyper-analytical, I'll go with "everything". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Since I've seen Curly remove supporting refs and since they have heavily edited the page is it possible they are claiming the remaining refs don't support the text because they either changed the text or removed the refs? I've not seen any other editor messing with the article while being so partisan. Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC) I've only seen this once and the source link they removed had actually gone dead (the "better source needed" section above). Not appropriate to accuse them of this at this point. Safrolic (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "being so partisan"—Legacypac is trolling again. At least nobody's fallen for it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC) CT: Yes, I still stand by my statement (reaffirmed a minute ago, but who knows what might slip in as I post this) that "there are NO indications of any "citation" problems". By "NO indications" I mean that there are no citations tagged with 'verify source' or 'failed verification'. I also stand-by the NPOV violation, though if you want to argue that I suggest you start a separate discussion. You put great weight on having found misquotes, etc. Please note that if you fix a problem, the problem no longer exists, and therefore there is nothing to which the readers need to be alerted. If you find a problem, and do not fix it, then you should tag it. As I have seen no such tagging (whether by you, or anyone else) it is a reasonable assumption that no such problems exist, and again, no basis for an alert. By the way, if you are even for one moment tempted to add such tags: don't. At this point that would be seen as a purely disruptive action, not done in good-faith. If you believe there are existing verification (or "citation") issues then I STRONGLY SUGGEST — as you have already been advised — that you raise them in a discussion on this page. If you can't do that, then you really should back away, because you are building a case for disruptive editing. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "if you fix a problem, the problem no longer exists"—that's an enormous non sequitur. The problem is continued cite check failures throughout the article. That has not been fixed—it is a work in progress. By "NO indications" I mean that there are no citations tagged with 'verify source' or 'failed verification'.—which won't happen if they get fixed or removed when found. The article's sourcing remains problematic. "If you believe there are existing verification (or "citation") issues then ... raise them in a discussion on this page". No. I fix them. If you have a problem with that, and are concerned I have some sort of POV (which, like Legacypac, you can't even be bothered to name), then stop blustering and take it to ANI already. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC) The alleged cite check failures are generally not failures. Removing cites then claiming the sentences are not supported by cites is disruptive. Curly did that for LavScam in the lead and perhaps elsewhere. I have a really hard time believing a bunch of experienced editors are making grave errors that only Curly can see and fix. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Well, on your part, they're not "errors"—they're flat-out POV-pushing. The other editors have stated they understand the problems behind the sources I've brought up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Other editors can't understand these problems because you do not state them. The current dispute is ridiculous, there is nothing wrong with those citations that you are currently edit warring over. Please post on the talk page when you discover actual problems, and be specific as to their nature. SWL36 (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC) "Other editors can't understand these problems because you do not state them."—I sure do: my edit comments are "quote does not appear in the source ... again ...", "so you acknowledge the quote DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE SOURCE CITED", and "the source DOES NOT INCLUDE THE QUOTE CITED. This is a black-and-white sourcing violation." How more "specific" and black-and-white a sourcing violation can you get? The problem: the source does not include the quotation cited. Here's the source: John Paul Tasker (11 February 2019). "Trudeau says he has 'confidence' in Wilson-Raybould as ethics commissioner probes PMO over SNC-Lavalin | CBC News". CBC. Retrieved 9 April 2019. Here is the quotation it purportedly cites: Dion said he had "reason to believe that a possible contravention of section 9 [of the Conflict of Interest Act] may have occurred". Not one word of that quotation appears in the source! WP:INTEGRITY is not something a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can override—the source cannot be used to cite something it does not mention. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC) This is the same IDHT I have addressed multiple times, which nobody but you has a problem with. First of all, the quote itself is sourced from the first source, where it appears verbatim. You are taking issue with the second source, which supports all of the content in the preceding two sentences except the exact quotation. From that source, though: Dion informed the NDP MPs who requested the investigation Monday that there is sufficient cause to proceed with an inquiry into the actions of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in this matter. In a letter to NDP ethics critic Charlie Angus and his colleague B.C. NDP MP Nathan Cullen, Dion said he would investigate the prime minister personally for a possible contravention of Section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act. Your IDHT edits in the article and here are disruptive and tendentious, and AGF isn't a suicide pact. Desist. Safrolic (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC) I didn't touch the first source (in fact, I read it top-to-bottom to confirm WP:INTEGRITY). The second source is given as a source for the quote—a black-and-white violation of WP:INTEGRITY. If it's meant to source earlier portions of the text, then it belongs following the portions (and only the portions) that it supports—under no circumstances can it imply that it supports any of the material it doesn't. You've been told this before, so cut out the WP:IDHT—if you disagree with Wikipedia's policies, then the policy talk pages are the places to express that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC) From WP:CITEFOOT, "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." Is it that contentious whether or not Dion did in fact use all the same words in that exact order or not? Do you think readers are going to be unpleasantly surprised or confused if they pick the second link and read that Dion had sufficient cause instead of reason to believe? If you did, there are at least two ways you could have solved the issue without removing it; you could have added a quote to the relevant citation, or just moved it to the left of the quote marks. I will do the first now. Safrolic (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC) You've misunderstood what you've quoted—for example, an entire multi-sentence paragraph can be cited to a single source without having the source placed next to every sentence it cites—the assumption being the source supports everything that precedes it. In particularly contentious cases, the inline cite will be required to be repeated after every statement it supports—this is a convention on military-related articles, for example, but is also seen in other articles where disputes have arisen or have been foreseen. Some editors make a habit of doing it proactively, those others object that this interferes with readability. In the case of the cite I moved, it was and is not clear which part of the preceding text it supports. It did and does not support the text immediately preceding it. This edit does nothing to address the problem. There are two options: remove it as redundant, or move it so that it cites only the text it supports (even if redundantly). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Cite check

Extended content

Curly Turkey (talk · contribs) has re-added the cite check template to the article even though his previous concerns about sourcing have been addressed (specifically the "illegal interference" bit and the LavScam which is being addressed via rfc). This template is a powerful one, suggesting that the article could contain falsehoods or misrepresentations and its existence on this page should hinge on the actual presence of these things with specifics as to which sources or groups of sources are being used inappropriately. If Curly or another editor has issues with citations, please list them here so that we can address them and remove this template message. SWL36 (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC) That's not how it works, SWL36. Numerous citation issues have been identified and fixed; the template is there as a result of how widespread the problems have been and continue to be. It will remain until the source check is complete, and the next atempt to remove it will be brought to WP:ANEW. "suggesting that the article could contain falsehoods or misrepresentations"—this is exactly what has been discovered in the article, which is why it is undergoing a source check. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC) This is approaching major levels of WP:IDHT with regard to this issue and the LavScam bit. I don't want to start a second ANI thread for this article so I suggest that we cooperate on addressing the issues that the article currently has. Right now, we are at an impasse over sourcing so if you could list those sources that are problematic, we can address them systematically. Otherwise this is going nowhere fast. Refusing to collaborate with other editors and insisting on doing everything yourself IS WP:OWNERSHIP, so just help us with what your concerns are, the issues mentioned in the above section about citations were addressed and we need to know what the hold up is currently. SWL36 (talk) 05:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC) "the issues mentioned in the above section about citations were addressed": I literally addressed this WP:IDHT of a comment in the comment directly above yours. The concerns have not changed—every time I examine the sources, I find yet another policy violation, and I've barely begun making it through the article. Other editors have come around to understanding this and recognizing the issues here, and yet other editors identified such issues before and after I arrived. You yourself explicitly recognize legitimate sourcing issues that I've fixed. Yet literally the only edit you've made to the article has been an attack on me to disrupt my attempts to fix this very broken article. So follow up and "take this to ANI" to try to convince people you're not WP:NOTHERE and that policy counts only when convenient. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC) @Curly - would it help if you listed the actual problems that had to be fixed? I am ok with the cite check being there, but I honestly can only recall 3 or 4 major fixes ("lav-scam", incorrect use of illegal, 1 incident where a quote was not supported by three reference, referring to SNC-Lavilan as a construction giant). I recall many of the other fixes being fairly routine for any newly created contemporaneous article. Perhaps if others saw the magnitude/volume of what errors you've come across in the article and that it is not just one or two but is actually a dozen or so, they might see the reason for the cite check notice? Harris Seldon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC) Harris Seldon: I'm barely a few paragraphs into the article and have found nothing but inappropriate use of sources. Those "3 or 4 major fixes" were in the first few paragraphs. Given this density, I'd be shocked iff there were no more issues. But why would there be pushback against a cite check in the first place? A cite check is a requirement at GAN, where it's generally assumed there will be no major issues by the time an article is nominated. A cite check should be a welcome thing, not something to attack someone over. And now J. Johnson has joined in the editwarring. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Negative. I have made one edit; that is not edit-warring. That is your charge against everyone else. If you have a problem with that, by all means take it to WP:ANEW, and lets have a resolution. Please note that checking citaitons – I presume you have in mind verification – is NOT the same as alerting readers (per "cite check") to problems that exist in only one editor's mind. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC) You're in for a big surprise someday if you think "one edit" cannot be considered editwarring—particularly when you're tag-teaming with others to do so. "problems that exist in only one editor's mind"—you obviously haven't read the page, as other editors have acknowledged the problems I've brought up, and Harris Seldon directly above you states "I am ok with the cite check being there". I'm not surprised you haven't read any of the other disucssion sections, but how could you not bother to read the one you're replying to? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Whereas you read, but lack all understanding? Harris may have been okay with leaving the cite check template in, but I don't see that he is in any great hurry to put it in. More to the point here, you seem to have missed everything else he said. E.g., he suggested (and very politely) that you list any actual problems. But instead of doing that you keep blowing hard about edit-warring. You assume there are more problems (and for all I know that could be true), but you have not shown that there are any current (i.e., unfixed) problems. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Yes, JJ did read and understand what I said. Harris Seldon (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC) You should be a politician. Yes, I have indeed shown there problems (plural) have continued to exist after the template was added—and after the template was removed. And you have indeed shown that no matter how many turn up, you are poised to move the goalposts once more—below you even warn me not to add any {{failed verification}} tags if any of the sources fail verification! You're WP:NOTHERE to help improve the article. Shoudn't you be off to ANI with your fantasy accusations that my fixing the article's sourcing is POV-pushing? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC) This is getting realy old. If you want changes propose them. Be specific. That way we can discuss them. You really need to stop accusing anyone who disagrees with you of bad faith. We are going around and around and you just keep accusing everyone of bad faith. What do you want? --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) "What do you want?"—I want people to stop disrupting the fixing of this article's extensive sourcing problems. "If you want changes propose them."—no, I fix them. "We are going around and around"—so stop it then. Make positive contributions to the article instead of attacking someone trying to fix it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC) I don't know what your problem is but it is starting to look more and more like a topic ban is the solution to it. You refuse to hear others and have been attacking numerous editors, accusing them of bad faith all the while making unsubstantiated allegations that there is a vast conspiracy to push POV. Lets get back to discussing content, shall we? You proposed multiple alternative names along with LavScam. Have you narrowed the list at all? Which specific names you want to put forward? Have any sources supporting their inclusion? You have been invited to do this many times. You have provided ever changing terms and no sources aside from Google result screenshots. You are demanding a lot from others but seem to fall well short when asked to respond in kind. --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) "You proposed multiple alternative names along with LavScam."—I proposed no such thing, and have responded to this WP:IDHT repeatedly. I pointed out it was a violation of WP:WEIGHT to single out "LavScam" when other, more common alternatives were available, and then pointed out that giving prominence to a term that appears in a fraction of 1% of sources—the majority of which are to a single source—is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. "and no sources aside from" evidence you disregard without making the slightest effort to refute it. "You are demanding a lot from others"—I am demanding nothing more than adherence to policy, and you have no diffs to demonstrate otherwise. Is "adherence to policy" burdensome to you?Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC) You seem to have a lot of problems with policy here, with working with others and apparantly the truth. Yes, dealing with you on this is burdensome. Your arguments here have have been shifting, often vaugue, circular and ultimately dishonest. You need to check yourself. This has devolved into you attaking anyone else editing this article or commenting on the talk page. I don't know why you are behaving the way you are but it has to stop. --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) "Your arguments here have have been shifting"—you keep saying this, and yet I see no diffs to back it up. It's simple: follow our sourcing policies. Find me a diff of something I said that is not essentially that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC) Try reading discussion of LavScam above where you propose alterate names, then deny proposing alternate names, then propose a different alternate name, then say LavScam could be in the article if we could just find a way to put in some of these other names (or one of them) and then refuse to come up with any sources to establish use of any other name. I have no doubt that anyone reading this talk page can see the antics you have been up to. Have a good night.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) More WP:IDHT—I never "proposed" alternate names (and you've provided no diff that I did). I listed names that appear as or more frequently as "LavScam" and explicitly stated so. I also explicitly stated that including "LavScam" would require listing the alternate names per WP:WEIGHT, but that I was opposed to doing so for readability reasons. I strengthened my standing oppose when it was discovered that the term is used in a small fraction of 1%, 2/3 of which were from the Toronto Sun, per the same WP:WEIGHT argument. "and then refuse to come up with any sources to establish use of any other name"—I provided not only links, but also screenshots. They are all still on this page. You can't seriously be pretending I haven't. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC) And more WP:IDHT from you, and shifty arguments. RELIABLE SOURCES are what you were asked for, not Google screenshots and links to google searches. Those are not sources. The best anyone has been able to get out of you is that maybe you are talking about "Wilson-Raybould Scandal" as an additional term (although you have listed others, and have avoided committing to any, despite trying to create doing so as a condition for the inclusion of LavScam as an alternate name). You have then avoided providing specific sources to support that name. A quick look at the link to google "sources" you provided shows some news articles not refering to a "Wilson-Rabould Scandal" at all, but a "SNC-Lavlin/Wilson-Raybould Scandal" or "PMO/Wilson-Raybould Scandal". I say again what term are you proposing and what sources are you relying on? --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) I don't care if the Toronto Sun uses LavScam a lot. They have written a lot of articles about this story. I'm no POV pusher, I just want a balanced article that repeats what the RS say. Afyer all the messimg around by Curly to fit their agenda a full rewrite may be warranted. Legacypac (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Closure of Justice Committee hearings

I think we shouldn't use the word "closure" in this sub-heading. The reason for this suggestion is that "closure" has a specific meaning in Canadian parliamentary rules, namely a motion by the Government to shut off debate on a bill or other matter being debated in the House of Commons. As far as I know, the rule for closure only applies to proceedings in the Commons, not to meetings of committees. Unless there was a motion under the closure rules, I don't think we should use this term. Perhaps "Conclusion of the Justice Committee's review"? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm ok with changing Closure to Conclusion... you make a valid point. I still would keep it as "Hearings" instead of "review" though... as the sessions were commonly referred to as Hearings. Harris Seldon (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That sounds good to me: "Conclusion of Justice Committee hearings". Comments from anyone else? If not, I'll make the change later today. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Lisa Simpson's Questions to Cartoon Trudeau

I reluctantly raise this, because someone is going to sooner or later. Should we make any reference at all to the scandal's recent mention on The Simpsons? It is clearly notable, but I am not sure it is encyclopedic. Mention of it seems like trivia to me unless there is some better reason to include it. I note that it has been mentioned in sources including [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Likely WP:UNDUE, the Simpsons in 2019 is just regurgitation of pop culture and whatever is in the news. If we mentioned every current event parodied in the Simpsons over the last 5 years, Wikipedia would be inundated with useless trivia. This one got media coverage because someone mentioned it at a Trudeau press conference, but we are WP:NOTNEWS and memory of it will soon pass. SWL36 (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

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

ANI Notice

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

SNC-Lavalin Board and what they knew, and when they knew it

I have tried to clean up this edit to be fair to all the actors in play and maintain WP:NPOV, but there is a lot of them and what everyone knew and when etc. If folks have some time to help, that would be very much appreciated. As would another set of eyes. :)--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with how lengthy this section has become—the "background" shouldn't be a play-by-play or dumping ground of details about the case[s], but a brief summing up of what was at stake when things started to break down between the PMO and AG. I can imagine many readers simply giving up on reading the article in the face of so many numbers, dates, etc. that don't get to the point. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair comment. I thought the same the last time, I tried to read the article from beginning to end. Perhaps some topics are sufficiently notable to be spun off from this article and form their own. That may be appropriate concerning the underlying bribery charges and/or prosecution. If so, we should try to preserve that information elsewhere for editors to continue working on there. Agreed though, this article has certainly reached the point where revision, summary and condensing is required. I have been meaning to add some information about the Reform Act and Philpot's request for the speaker to review her and JWR's ejection from caucus, and info about the Scheer/Trudeau lawsuit allegations but I am not sure where that would go. There is definitely need to pare this down.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The background is a little weighty for the current article, but it's proportional to what the length of the article will be when I'm done building it. I'm sorry, but I've had to put my article rewrite on the back burner for the next 10-15 days- I have all my final exams and then immediately after I'm packing for my move. But I do assure you it's still in progress. I don't think right now that it should be spun off (unless you're thinking about making a SNC-Lavalin criminal activities catch-all page?) but after I finish building I will be going back through and moving things around/editing down again for clarity. Could we put this discussion on hold for now?

Also note again that the SNC-Lavalin affair is about SNC-Lavalin, its criminal activity in Libya, and the PMO trying to influence a criminal prosecution of it. It's not the Jody-Wilson Raybould affair, and it's not about JWR and JT getting in a tiff. Saying that background should be summing up "was at stake when things started to break down between the PMO and AG" is improperly limiting the scope of the article. Safrolic (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I just saw this. It's hard to know where to start. This is ownership: "The background is a little weighty for the current article, but it's proportional to what the length of the article will be when I'm done building it." You should not ask editors to stop a discussion because you aren't available. You should not be assuming you are the one building an article. This is not your article. You do not own it's construction or its progression.

This article is about the Lavelin conflict not about the underlying history. First suggesting the weight of the article now will be fine once you finish building the article is not how Wikipedia works. This is an encyclopedia not a research paper and it is a collaborative project. The extended history section is non-Wikpedia complaint because it is offtopic. The topic of an article is narrower than we might find in a research paper. Although we might include background that background both colours to tone of the article and overweights the topic of the article. Safrolic this is probably coloring your editing and your POV. This is big concern. That a new editor writes an article as if a research paper is common, that that same editor is attempting to control the article is another matter. This is big concern. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Prevalence of "LavScam"

Darryl Kerrigan has suggested bringing this back here from ANI.

Per WP:WEIGHT, we cannot give greater precedence to facts or terms than our sources do.

I've provided evidence that, compared to the number of sources on the scandal, "LavScam" appears in a statistcally small number of them—thus highlighting the term in th elead sentence is a violation of WP:WEIGHT. My evidence was as follows, from Google News Archive searches:

• trudeau lavalin
• trudeau lavalin -lavscam

The results show "LavScam" appearing in less than 1% of results. DK countered that there may be "false positives", as Lavalin has been around a long time and there has been another PM Trudeau. A further refined search gives us:

• trudeau lavalin raybould
• trudeau lavalin raybould -lavscam

This still gives "Lavscam" in only a small percentage of hits, and misses an awful lot of hits, as demonstrated with lavalin "justin trudeau" -raybould -lavscam

Which gives us a huge number of hits about the subject of this article (and undoubtably some false positives, none of which show up in the first several pages of hits). So far, "LavScam" has been shown to be used by a small minority of sources regardless of search terms used.

DK also brings up that CNN and the Washington Post have used the term. I'v countered that (a) CNN has used it in one article out of 6 they've published on the subject, and the Washington Post has used it in 6 out of 84 they've published; and (b) the social prominence of individual sources does not outweigh the fact that they make up a small percentage of the total; more significantly, they are used infrequently even with these newssources. Regardless, WP:WEIGHT does not make special exceptions for CNN or anyone else.

Can anyone provide concrete evidence that "LavScam" appears in a significant proportion of RSes? This evidence is especially important as multiple editors have raised concerns with POV issues with the article—the default is to leave out challenged material until the concerns have been adequately dealt with. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

That the press invents a word or phrase doesn't give us permission to use it here. We can use sources that display opinion but we cannot use those sources to create a position here. I'd agree with CT; there are some big POV concerns with this article. If we are truly neutral we would be looking for the most neutral language to describe the Lavelin controversy. Our policies are meant to underpin sensible editing practice so that we have articles that endure as objective views of knowledge. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but per the discussion here, let's keep this section narrowly focused on the term "LavScam". The Blade of the Northern Lights has agreed to monitor it to keep it on topic. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Thanks Curly Turkey for bringing this here from ANI. I am sure The Blade of the Northern Lights and others there appreciate it. This is a continuation of the RfC discussion above. I had meant we should continue things there, but it may be helpful for us to have a discreet section to discuss "the Google Search results" you have raised. I note at present the RfC above is at 10 for including the term LavScam and 3 against, if I am counting correctly.

For the benefit of editors who have not closely followed the lengthy ANI or RfC discussions, I will say using Google Searches in this way is problematic as SWL36 has said, because Google does not discriminate. It often includes sources which we do not consider WP:RS. It also catches many false positives when non-unique terms are used, or terms which could also appear in sources not about the topic at issue. The term "LavScam" is much more unique than "Trudeau" or "Lavalin". On it own, "Trudeau" will catch any mention of him, his father, or other family members. On its own, "Lavalin" will catch any number of articles about the company and any legal dispute, contract of mention, scandal (there have been other ones, some of which have been linked in some capacity to Trudeau or his party), or even business/investment news about its stock price or changes to management. Using the terms "Trudeau" and "Lavalin" together will reduce some of that noise but certainly not all. Articles about Trudeau Sr. and Lavalin during the time he was PM, opposition leader, and PM again will be included. So will many other articles concerning Lavalin during the time Justin Trudeau was leader of an opposition party, or PM before the LavScam story broke. Other noise shows up when there is a story about one of those topics, and another story about the other shows up in the sidebars which regularly exist on news sites (read more... etc.). Unfortunately, while those terms could generate a lot of noise. It is difficult to quantify how much exactly. I had hoped to provide you some numbers by using Google News' date range function. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to provide a total number of results when you do that:

• Searching the terms "Lavalin" "Trudeau" between 1900-Feb 6, 2019 (the day before the scandal broke) gets you 'lots' of results - sorry, when I search it doesn't show an actual tally.
• Searching the term "LavScam" for the same dates also seems to get you 'lots' of result - sorry again not tally.

This is the noise we are dealing with, or some of it anyway. None of these articles should be about LavScam as the Globe Article which started the media frenzy had not been printed yet. You will note that the articles concerning the "Lavalin" "Trudeau" search seem to at least mostly mention both those things, but some only seem to mention one or the others and may be sidebar false positives. The articles about LavScam in this period seem to be mostly of the sidebar false positive variety. Searching for only sources since the Globe story broke also begets 'lots' of results all around:

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

Without a tally 'lots' doesn't really help us, besides showing the problems with asserting this 1% calculation. Even these searches post-Globe story, will contain false positives. Sources like this reference "Lavalin" "Trudeau" but not with respect to LavScam, but with respect to a seperate scandal dating back to the early 2000s where SNC-Lavalin was accused of trying to skirt campaign financing laws. All of this just goes to show that using Google searches is a useful guide at best, and an unhelpful impediment at worst. For all of these reasons, I give little weight to the Google Searches you have provided. I think the list of sources above is more relevant to determining whether MOS:LEADALT applies. I also think while being careful to avoid WP:OR, we have to consider what terms are being used in other arenas: Parliament, MP websites, TV, Youtube, Twitter, by the general public etc. I haven't looked for many WP:RS concerning the mention of the term "LavScam" in those arenas. My gut is that it is being used. I note this source said "consensus is clearly forming on Twitter around the name #LavScam" (at least as of a week or so after the scandal broke). For all of these reason, I think we should mention the alternate term LavScam in the lede and not get bogged down in the trying to read tea leaves (er... Google Searches) for meaning on this topic.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

SWL36 referred to plain Google search, whereas my searches have been limited to Google News Archive searches, as guidelines such as WP:COMMONNAME recommend.

I see a lot of Whataboutism over false positives, but I see no concrete evidence presented that demostrates "LavScam" is used by a significant proportion of newssources.

"we have to consider what terms are being used in other arenas: Parliament, MP websites, TV, Youtube, Twitter, by the general public etc."—we consider what RSes and RSes alone use. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Regardless, you've presented no evidence that "LavScam" is a common term in any of these fora (except Twitter, as a hashtag). Please restrict your responses to providing such evidence. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

SWL36 was not only talking about general google searches (he mentions "google news" searches above). Google News searches include sources that we do not consider reliable. The problem is that your searches contain a lot of noise that is impossible to identify. I am not engaging in whataboutism. I just don't know how to isolate the noise out of the searches you have done. Without a means to do that, all I can do is point out the many flaws with those searches. What is clear, is that the 1% number is incorrect. Likely, very incorrect. But we can't know exactly how incorrect. Unfortunately, trying to remove the noise by dates does not give us a tally which would allow us to subtract out the noise. This is why Google Searches are instructive at best. Here they seem completely unhelpful given the amount of noise. As such, it is appropriate for us to focus on its use in WP:RS which is what is supposed to be our focus anyway. We can also look at its use elsewhere. I believe LavScam's prominent use in the RS listed above and on "consensus" use on Twitter as noted in this RS fairly conclusive evidence is is a common alternate name. I don't think we are going to get any further with Google, but if you have ideas to remove the noise from the terms you are using to get a better read, I am all ears.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

We're left with the fact that there's no concrete evidence that "LavScam" makes up a significant portion of RSes that cover the subject of the article. Such evidence is a basic requirement for the inclusion of any alt term in the lead, and the onus is on those who would have it to (a) provide that evidence; and (b) provide evidence that they've done due diligence to show that it is at least as prominent as other alt terms. This is especially important as POV concerns have been raised by four editors now. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a lot of evidence that LavScam is used in a lot of WP:RS. This cannot ever be a purely mathematical exercise, nor should it be. You providing Google Searches which include unreliable sources and articles about other topics is not a response to the question about whether this is a common alternate term.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"There is a lot of evidence that LavScam is used in a lot of WP:RS."—this assertion is (a) not under dispute (nor is the fact that it's one of a large number of minority terms); and (b) not evidence that its prevalence satisfies WP:WEIGHT. RSes are necessary but not sufficient evidence—please focus on the latter, as the former is only noise. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• a question: we have been discussing the word LavScam for the past month, with different google/internet searches. During that time, has there been any substantial change in its frequency of use... either up or down? I am just looking for a trend Harris Seldon (talk) 13:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• An easier question to answer is how many of the sources actually cited by this article use the term LavScam? Sorry if this has already come up. AdA&D ★ 13:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Why not conduct a survey of each reliable source by number of articles about this topic, and those that mention 'LavScam'. As an example, using DuckDuckGo with search terms 'LavScam' and 'SNC Raybould', I get:

Globe and Mail: LavScam - 1 article, SNC-Lavalin affair -at least 75 articles

CBC: 2 articles, SNC-Lavalin affair - at least 75 articles

Toronto Star - LavScam - 1 article, SNC-Lavalin affair - at least 75 articles

National Post - LavScam - 10 articles, SNC-Lavalin affair - at least 75 articles

Note that neither CBC article nor the Globe and Mail article actually uses the term 'LavScam', so these articles were likely associated to the term by an algorithm. As for the National Post, some of those hits are the result of those articles linking to other articles with a link title that includes 'LavScam' (for example - this article links to this one, neither of which mentions 'LavScam', but the former has a link to the latter with the title "Chris Selley: After Lavscam, Trudeau needs reality-based advisors".)

I'll leave it to editors of this page to do an investigation for other reliable sources. Mindmatrix 13:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Some more:

The Montreal Gazette uses it 2 times (after filtering out links) out of 30 articles.

The New York Times uses "LavScam" 0 times out of 25 articles.

The Washington Post uses it 6 times out of 22 articles.

Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Polling (Section 4.3.1)

While everyone was focused over in ANI, this section was added to the article. I removed it at the time, as it does not add value to the main points of the article and including political polls (especially specific ones) is too subjective and not in keeping with NPOV. The day after, it was added back (at least the more subjective source was removed). I want to remove it again, but thought it best to confirm there are no objections before I do so. I will wait a couple of days before making the change. Harris Seldon (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

My laptop's charger failed and it died right after my last edit. I'm offline til tomorrow night. Commenting on this section because the other one is too long for me to edit on mobile. Not ignoring anyone, sorry about delays. Safrolic (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• There's a rather long "summary" of this article at Premiership of Justin Trudeau that also includes a "Polling" subsection. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I added another poll which is specific to SNC-Lavalin scandal. It seems relevant (don't we want information on the impact of the scandal?), but if someone with more experience then me explains exactly why adding polling breaks NPOV I'd be happy with removal of that section. After all, this is a political scandal, and results of political scandals may include a drop in popularity. For instance, Iran–Contra affair article mentions a poll that measured Reagan's drop in popularity.PavelShk (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• PavelShk: thanks for the comments and your overall contribution as well. I agree it is relevant to have information about a scandal's impact, including feedback on how the population sees it. I think the concern I have with including individual polls is they are just a snapshot at a specific time, and may no longer be valid a week later. Plus, they often vary so much between each other that you can select specific polls to support one position or the other. Instead, I would aim more for showing patterns or trends in polls. To me, a better way of handling it would be finding reliable sources that make more overall statements like "at the time, various polls showed a decrease in popularity" or "polls taken showed a majority of Canadians thought....". Either way, I'll leave it there for now. Harris Seldon (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

per Harris above. I've removed the polling section. In a week's time this polling information will become outdated as polls do. This affair is ongoing and polls will change as the story begins to fade in the press; it's not the kind of permanent content Wikipedia is looking for. I do believe there may be a point in the future when a general trend will be noted and if a RS and indicated by the mainstream sources we might add that information. Because this article is BLP related and because it could impact the people involved; we should be scrupulous about and quickly remove potentially non–compliant content. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Summary of Affair in Lead - Discussion Points

Littleolive oil - you made some changes to the 2nd paragraph. No issues, but I noticed a couple things I wanted to check how best to handle given concerns about POV:

1) "Opposition parties called for an investigation." - the way this paragraph reads now implies that the opposition parties are calling for an investigation into the explulsion of JWR and Philpott from the liberal party, when the calls for investigation were both before that event and were a response to what the globe and mail raised. Yet, if we move the sentence to be more chronological (i.e. before the reference to the JWR/Philpott expulsion), it implies JWR and Philpott resigned and were expelled as a result of the these investigations, which is not correct either. Another option is to remove the phrase "Opposition parties called for an investigation." from this paragraph, but I'm not sure about that either as it appears to overlook the "other side" of the affair. Thoughts or proposals?

2) Gerald Butts resignation - this is an important event that occurred because of the affair, but it is not included in this paragraph (due to an earlier change). I think it should be included here as it is a substantial change in the PMO office directly caused by the affair (as Butts referred to in his resignation letter and most sources refer to it) but I am not sure the best way to do so? (and the wording would need to be precise) (I guess a similar discussion exists about Wernick as well) Harris Seldon (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Opposition parties called for an investigation. Wilson-Raybould, Gerald Butts, Principal Secretary to Trudeau who had resigned, and Michael Wernick Clerk of the Privy Council-add info here testified at Justice Committee hearings; Wilson-Raybould said there was a breach of prosecutorial independence when members of the government pressured her to offer SNC-Lavalin a DPA instead of criminal prosecution.

I'm not able to spend any time on this today but if I were you I'd just go ahead and add a little; I did give a possible example. I always find that trying to get the right info in the lede after it has been written can make for some awkward prose. The main thing is to keep it simple and short. Thanks for asking about it rather than reverting. If you can tidy it up or anyone can please feel free I'm not attached to what I wrote just trying to making sure we indicate there are several sides to this story. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Archive Talk Page?

Is it just me or is this talk page starting to become a little unwieldy? I expect it will become more so in the coming months. Should we consider setting up an Archive of some of the older discussions? I can't say I have done that before, or know how it is done. Anyway, we might want to think about that soon.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I see your point, but the oldest discussions are only from a month ago, and they're being referenced in the active ANI case here. (feel free to comment, at this point) Let's wait til that concludes one way or another. Safrolic (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. It has been a good time, but not a long time. Agreed, later. --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

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

Is it really WP:POV to call this a scandal?

This good faith edit by Littleolive oil is likely going to lead to discussion or edit warring, so here we go. I don't really think it is WP:POV to call this a scandal. With any scandal there is always some who will say that "there is nothing to see here", no wrongdoing, no collusion etc. There are numerous reliable sources which refer to this as a scandal. I will not attempt to provide them all here now. Here are a few: [8], [9], [10]. For what is it worth, I note The Simpsons referred to it as the "SNC-Lavalin scandal". I also note that this article appears in our List of political scandals in Canada already. Is there really a dispute that this is a scandal?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• The Simpsons also had Trudeau slither out a window. Regardless of whether scandal is POV, controversy is indisputably neutral, and at the very least arguably "more neutral" than scandal. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it is "more neutral" if there is no wrongdoing here, and "less neutral" if there is. False balance is a tricky mistress. "Scandal" certainly suggests wrongdoing, though its definition doesn't require wrongdoing. Merriam-Webster's definition includes:

2) loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety... and

3) a) a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it...and

4) malicious or defamatory gossip.

This seems to satisfy that and our definition of political scandal. It does not seem out of place in our list of Canadian scandals where there are other scandals where wrongdoing was not proven. Some "scandals" there are even occasionally referred to controversies. If this is a political scandal doesn't WP:NPOV require us to call a spade a spade?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

You haven't demonstrated where controversy is non-neutral, and whether there was wrongdoing (and by whom) is still hotly disputed. "Calling a spade a spade" is begging the question. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• It would potentially be POV to title the article "SNC-Lavalin scandal". It is certainly not POV to say it's a scandal in the article, as most media has reported on it as such, and it fits the dictionary definition, as supplied by Darryl. It would be blatant whitewashing not to call it a scandal in the article. Do we need to make another RfC on this? Safrolic (talk) 08:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't cherrypick our preferred definitions of words in Wikipedia articles—MOS:Words to Watch gives a plethora of examples of where we avoid words that the media commonly throw about, particularly at the section WP:CLAIM (which deals with loaded language, such as use of the word claim). If any of the definitions of scandal might be loaded, ambiguous, or potentially problematic in any way, and none of controversy's are, then Wikipedia prefers controversy.

Regardless—what concrete objection is there to controversy? What would be improved by reverting it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war over this. Scandal implies on seem level wrongdoing and only one side in this case says there is wrong doing. We use neutral language on Wikipedia and do not have the luxury of taking positions on what we are writing about. That's a very simple position and is neutral. That editors refuse to use the most neutral of language in the first line speaks volumes. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There does not need to be any actual wrongdoing for there to be a scandal over the event. Allegations of wrongdoing, and the surrounding hubbub over those allegations, make it a scandal in itself. It has also been reported on by the media as a scandal. Google news finds 30,000 results for "SNC-Lavalin scandal", vs 40,000 for "SNC-Lavalin affair". I've posted about this on the Canadian noticeboard and the NPOV noticeboard to get some outside opinions. Safrolic (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This is stepping into WP:IDHT territory rather quickly, Safrolic. I literally just responded to the "media sources use the term, therefore we can, too" schtick. This is also one of the arguments WP:CIVILPOV highlights (No. 2). Wikipedia has solid policy reasons for being extra careful with the terminology it uses, and doubly so for articles involving WP:BLPs.

But please answer this question in concrete terms: What is the issue with the term "controversy"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

A pointer to this discussion was placed on Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board. If the sources call it a scandal, we can use the word as well provided that it's not WP:UNDUE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Walter. :) To anybody coming here from the two boards I posted on, feel free to stick around and offer opinions on any other sections on this talk page. It's the same back and forth on all of them. Safrolic (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd disagree with you Safrolic. The action has to be considered wrong in some way, then comes the outrage. Until there is proof there is wrong doing we here should not be defining the situation per the outrage. I just made a long argument in favor of using the most neutral language we can in good part because this is a BLP. That a source uses a word does not give us permission to use it. That's backward. Cherry picking is a perfect example of selecting a word specifically to create an impression and arguing for that word because its in the source. I just don't understand why the push to use the least neutral language possible here; the only explanation is a desire to create a very specific impression. "It's the same back and forth on all of them." What the heck does that mean. I, for example, haven't been around on this article for weeks because of some of the non-collaborative actions here. And I'm arguing for the most neutral wording. Is "controversy" more neutral than "scandal", less sensationalist? I think so. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This article isn't a biography, so it can't be a biography of a living person. The content itself is about an interaction between a government and a corporation, and the discovery of that interaction by the media, not about a living person. (if I'm wrong about how this is applied, I would love for someone else to say so) There's also a difference between choosing to use a word that's in a source, and choosing to use a word that's in most sources, and part of the name of the thing itself in nearly half the sources. The word scandal appears in multiple other places in the article as well, including the section header "Scandal and discovery". Amusingly enough, one of the examples in WP:PUBLICFIGURE actually describes an event regarding allegations denied by one party as a public scandal, too; denial by the party being accused doesn't affect the scandalousness of the allegation, it seems. "The same back and forth in all of them" is about the general quality of these discussions- nobody is getting anywhere, despite all the time being spent. It's not directed at you specifically. Safrolic (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"This article isn't a biography, so it can't be a biography of a living person."—you've missed the banner at the top of this talk page:

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

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

I have bolded the part you missed. Saying this is a scandal is not the same as saying "Justin did a scandal on Jody". Safrolic (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The bolded part is your POV. Sources have focused at least as much on the interactions between the PMO and Wilson-Raybould. "not about a living person" is flat-out insupportable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"That a source uses a word does not give us permission to use it."—this has been a big issue throughout these discussions. These editors have had exactly this explained to them again, and again, and again, with quotations from various of our policies. It's extremely hard to take them in good faith when every response is WP:IDHT. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am suggesting we call a spade a spade. I agree with Safrolic and Walter Görlitz. There is a vast number of WP:RS which call this a scandal. It dominated news coverage in Canada for the better part of three months. In light of that, suggesting that it is WP:POV, loaded language, or not "neutral" is a rather extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I agree with Safrolic that refusing to use the term "scandal" when that is how it is described in many reliable sources, would likely amount to whitewashing. Calling it a scandal seems WP:DUE. Not doing so would not be WP:NPOV. I have a bit of a hard time taking this discussion seriously given that both editors advocating against referring to this as a "scandal" have referred to this as a scandal in the talk page already. Littleolive oil said:

* "This isn't about Trudeau yet... its about an allegation made by another person about the Prime Minister's office. And that is the scandal."

* "The sources do not say Trudeau was doing wrong what they say is there is a scandal which could by extension extend to him. Without the woman in this case there is nothing."

I used the word scandal in these instances to make sure my reference is clear. This has nothing to do with the article itself and the content we should use to write a neutral article nor can the words of an editor in any discussion be seen as permission to use those words in a well sourced neutral article. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a lot of discussion of the term "Wilson-Raybould scandal" above which was originally raised by Curly Turkey and he writes "compared to the number of sources on the scandal..." below. It does puzzle me that this is an issue given all of that, the dictionary definition, and our inclusion of it already on a list of Canadian scandals. I don't think we need to do another RfC here. I hope.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be trying to "gotcha" me. The terms I use in discussion are not sources for what to use in the article—for instance, I might belive it's a "scandal" and that "Trudeau" is guilty, and that might be colouring my comments. That's fine as long as this POV doesn't colour the article.

"Yes, I am suggesting we call a spade a spade"—so your POV is that it's a "scandal". Fine, but keep it out of the article.

"There is a vast number of WP:RS which call this a scandal."—I've responded to this twice in this section already. This is the IDHT I talked about litereally in my last comment.

"There was a lot of discussion of the term 'Wilson-Raybould scandal'"—there was literally no "discussion" of the term "Wilson-Raybould scandal", and I've taken you to task (with diffs) over this assertion more than once.

Darryl Kerrigan, you still haven't demonstrated where controversy is non-neutral. Are you IDHT-ing that, too? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you serious CT? You have discussed the term "Wilson-Raybould scandal" at length above. Anyone who skims the talk page can see that. You keep on saying, I didn't "propose" it, "mention" it, "say" it... there was no "discussion" of it. What word do you want me to use to describe you bringing up the term, based on google searches, while also dismissing using the term "Wilson-Raybould scandal" as an alternate term per MOS:LEADALT? You brought it up, now you are walking away from it. How do you want to describe you writing at length and repetitively "Wilson-Raybould scandal" all over the talk page? This is beyond the pale WP:IDHT and flabbergastingly false.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

This is all documented at ANI. But you seem to be going out of your way to avoid demonstrating where controversy is non-neutral. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It is also well documented above also. The problem with the term "controversy" is that it suggests no one did anything wrong. There are clear allegations of wrongdoing, that is why this is a scandal. It is not just that JWR and JT/Butts/PMO/Clerk disagreed. These weren't just "opposing views", differences on "a matter of opinion", or "public disputes". There were opposing allegations of wrongdoing. Not calling it a scandal as the RS do, whitewashes that and is not WP:NPOV.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

"The problem with the term 'controversy' is that it suggests no one did anything wrong."—this is a non sequitur, and plenty of RSes call it a "controversy" suggesting there was wrongdoing: "Scheer asks Liberals to sue him over SNC-Lavalin controversy comments" is all about accusations of wrongdoing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Also: the wording is "controversy in Canada involving allegations of political interference and of obstruction of justice"—one can't read that as implying "no one did anything wrong". These are allegations of wrongdoing! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Curly, I'm sick of the flinging about of IDHT and CIVILPOV in nearly every reply you make to all of the many editors who disagree with you on this point or that which you keep reiterating. At this point, it seems a lot like projection. I asked for outside input because I'm tired of exactly this back and forth right here; and the first (so far, only) person to come along from my pointers said that in fact, it is appropriate to use the word scandal. Hopefully more than one person will come along. As I said, and I'm sure you heard, not calling it one would in my view be whitewashing- but I am completely open to hearing from other editors who feel differently. After you proposed Darryl and I be banned outright from editing here, I have very little patience left for responding to your views, specifically. Frankly, I'm not sure if we're able to come back from that, or if coming back from that is even socially expected here. I am also glad that @The Blade of the Northern Lights: is around, and I hope that he weighs in at some point. Safrolic (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

BotNL has been asked to monitor the discussion below, and has expressed disinterest in getting involved in the rest of this mess, but I'm pretty sure you don't want to draw attention to the fact that you keep IDHT-ing the question: "What is the issue with the term 'controversy'?" Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster defines controversy as "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views". Dictionary.com defines it as "a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." Neither of those adequately describe this event, which does in fact involve allegations of actual wrongdoing by one party, the offense to propriety of the content of those allegations, and the damage to reputation from those allegations. That is why calling it a controversy would be whitewashing it. Stop with the IDHT-flinging. Safrolic (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this Safrolic. To be fair, I think there were actual allegations against more than one party here. There was JWR, and to a lesser extent Jane Philpot. Of course many political commentators like Andrew Coyne notably alleged wrongdoing based on the available facts. There was also the other side, if you can call it that. Allegations of wrong-doing were leveled at JWR re: the recording which are documented here. There was also suggestions (from some) in RS that she acted inappropriately by negotiating and making demands of the PM prior to her ejection. There were certainly a lot of allegations of wrongdoing all around. This certainly fits our definition of a political scandal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

We've talked about "definitions" and loaded terms already. It may be a "scandal", and yet be inappropriate to use the term scandal, just as it may be true that someone "claimed" an opinion per one common definition of the word, yet we avoid the word claim in our articles per WP:CLAIM, substituting an indisputably neutral term such as said. Let's stop talking about whether this is a "scandal"—it is correctly a "scandal" according to certain definitions, yet as scandal is a sensationalist term, it is best avoided in Wikipedia's voice. Also, please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-style arguments. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It certainly falls under "prolonged public dispute", and wrongdoing has not been established on either side. I hope you're not suggesting that Wikipedia not taking a side in an unsettled dispute is "whitewashing". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet again, we're going to get absolutely nowhere with this. If someone comes in from one of the three noticeboards where this is linked and agrees with you, I'm happy to come back to it. Otherwise, feel free to take The Last Word by continuing to reply. Safrolic (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Whitwashing, Safrolic, means removing something or covering it so it can't be seen. No one is suggesting we remove anything here. You have illustrated above with your concern for the reputation for those one side of this controversy while ignoring concern for the reputation of the person on the other side, a POV position. Second there are allegations of wrong doing, arguments for and against wrong doing but these cannot be confused with proof especially official definitive proof or legal proof that there was wrong-doing. And Wikipedia most certainly cannot contain language that indicates its editors have taken a position either way. Yet that's what you and others are doing. And yes you have some push back here from me. You haven't answered CT. Most of what I've added has been reverted. Your edit summary on recent edits in the article is misleading: Curley Turkey does have support for his position from me. So yeah, I hate this kind of discussion but I also hate to see BLP content slanted to damage another human being no matter who that is. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I just ctrl+f'd my name on this talk page, and I don't think I illustrated any special concern for one person's reputation over another's anywhere here. I believe I said "uninvolved" editors, which you aren't, sorry. I'm waiting for somebody, anybody, who isn't the two of you, or Darryl/Harris/Pavel/SWL, to weigh in. It's why I was so appreciative of Bradv and J.Johnson coming in, and why I invited Walter Gorlitz to stick around. A "scandal" doesn't require proof of wrongdoing on someone's part- the allegation is enough. It's the media attention and political fallout because of the allegations that qualifies it as a scandal. If the use of the word "scandal" in general to describe political scandals is inappropriate, there's a long list of articles available for you to fix over at List of Canadian political scandals. An argument that doesn't call out the similar inappropriateness of the term in those articles seems unfinished to me. A side note, I want to thank you for being respectful since coming back. I do appreciate it. Safrolic (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

"A 'scandal' doesn't require proof of wrongdoing on someone's part- the allegation is enough."—this is a perfect illustration of WP:CIVILPOV#Neutrality: "They try to add information that is (at best) peripherally relevant on the grounds that 'it is verifiable, so it should be in'." This is also an example of continued WP:IDHT with WP:W2W issues. Controversy is neutral; so is dispute, as far as I can tell; scandal is loaded, as it is potentially sensationalist.

"I don't think I illustrated any special concern for one person's reputation over another's"—you did express a POV: "The content itself is about an interaction between a government and a corporation, and the discovery of that interaction by the media, not about a living person." Our sources do not agree that this is not (also) about people. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Safrolic: please lay off the "undo" button. The wording is under examination for possible POV and other issues. If it turns out to be fine, then it'll be put back in due time—there's no need to be so aggressive if you are really here in good faith. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Respectful since coming back? I have always been respectful and this comment is patronizing. Good grief! I landed here with good intentions and was accused of coming from the PMO. Legacy Pac threatened me on my talk page. I did indeed identify concerns with SPA editors, absolutely and would again. And are you trying to limit who comments here. You can't do that Safrolic. If you want to ask for input you certainly can but you have no right to limit editors in good standing who comment here. Your definition of scandals is yours and I and others do not agree with it so please do not behave as if you are right and others are not, and this is really unfortunate, " If the use of the word "scandal" in general to describe political scandals is inappropriate, there's a long list of articles available for you to fix over at List of Canadian political scandals." Now that's patronizing. You don't own this article, you know. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Littleolive oil: try not to get baited into making emotional responses—this is a key WP:CIVILPOV tactic, and they've already tried to silence me this way at ANI over supposed WP:CIVIL violations. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CT but this isn't my first rodeo. I've pretty much seen it all. My response was intended. I am not emotional in the least, please don't confuse calling out Safrolic with an emotional or uncontrolled response. But thank you for your concern. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Let's put it another way—the more we talk about anything other than content and policy, the longer and harder to navigate the discussion becomes. This discourages others from participating, and the editors above thus claim a "victory" by default. Pretty much what happened at ANI—a filibuster of sorts. And here we are. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry lpac treated you that way. I don't agree with his behaviour, and I did agree with his indef block. I do disagree that you have always been respectful, and we've discussed that before; I'm happy to link you to the previous diff of mine if you want, as I stand by it. I am not trying to limit who comments here in the slightest, and it's odd that you would say I was. The definition of scandal and controversy I used was Merriam-Webster's, not my own. It's quoted above by Darryl. "I and others" should be "I and other", singular, because it's just the two of you. That statement is not patronizing in the slightest- it's me pointing out that it is commonplace for us to describe scandals as scandals here on Wikipedia, even if some people may disagree with the characterization. I have not tried to take ownership of the article. To Curly: My asking for outside input on your behaviour is not me trying to silence you, unless you think uninvolved editors are likely to feel your behaviour deserves silencing. You proposing yesterday that Darryl and I be topic banned is trying to silence us. This is straight up gaslighting. Safrolic (talk) 02:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Just a note that I've read over this so far, and while I think both sides are talking past each other some it's still a reasonable discussion that looks to be going somewhere. This does seem a bit thorny, so a bit of back and forth would be expected. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: the edits to the article, to head off an edit war, could you give us some input on how "it" works? And/or deal with any of the above recent edits, or point us to somewhere where someone else can step in? This is incredibly frustrating and it can't possibly be what Wikipedia editing is actually supposed to be like. I am desperate for intervention. Safrolic (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest you each put together some proposed wording, that way everyone knows what everyone is thinking and you can talk through each proposed wording from there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

You mean, again? Text that is challenged for policy issues remains out of the article until the dispute is resolved in favour of its inclusion. See WP:3RRNO No. 7: "contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced". The text is contentious and under examination for bias (an WP:NPOV violation). As you've countered that controversy may be biased, I've replaced it with dispute. This is how "it" works. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I have moved my edit back to where it was before; I did not ask you to explain it. I don't trust you to explain anything at this point. I don't believe you're acting in good faith. You've selectively quoted that policy. Here's the rest of it. Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. I will now request clarification on yet another noticeboard and hopefully, somebody, anybody, will step in and agree with somebody on either side. Safrolic (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This is for everyone else's benefit, as Safrolic has publicly declared they WILLNOTHEARIT:

Imagine a potentially biased term were inserted into an article—let's say one declaring "Barack Hussein Obama was the first Muslim President of the US". Of course this should be removed—but if one were to assert WP:BRD says the status quo is to keep it in until a consensus were reached on the talk page to revert it ... well, we can imagine where this would go. The editors who wanted this edit included could simply filibuster, WP:IDHT, and otherwise WP:CIVILPOV-push for months, ensuring the statement gets read by large numbers of readers on the 5th-most accessed website in the world. This is why the default is to keep the material that has been challenged for policy violations out of the article until a consensus develops that it's appropriate.

This is exactly what's happening with "scandal" and with the push for "LavScam" (which several editors editwarred to keep in the lead sentence). The cracks are showing—we have Legacypac's declarations of their POV, and we have Safrolic's declaration about what the article's "really about"—"not about a living person"—so as to avoid conforming to WP:BLP. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• For now, I would go with "political controversy" in the lede. To be clear, my first choice would be "scandal". It is the right word as it meets the dictionary definition and is commonly used with reference to this situation. I don't think either word is truly neutral, yet both are very similar in meaning and the difference between "controversy" and "scandal" can often be a sense of degree and perspective. But a valid point was made by littleolive oil? (apologies as I am losing track of who said what already) that if you read the rest of the sentence it gives a sense of what happened and using the word "controversy" will not detract from that.

I commend CT's intention to find a more generally accepted word to help sort this out, but I think "political dispute" is the weakest choice of the three options so far, as it is too soft and implies more a difference of opinion rather than potential wrongdoing or accusation of wrongdoing. An alternative could be "disputed political scandal" but I think that is just finding a way around by using "weasel words". Of the three options, I would edit it back to "controversy" as a more acceptable choice (not perfect but acceptable), unless a better option is proposed. Harris Seldon (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• My first choice is "controversy", followed by "dispute". I oppose "scandal" as it is sensationalizing and smells of POV, especially in light of the willingness to editwar to retain it. In light of their itchy triggerfinger with the "undo" button, dismissal of all policy concerns, dismissal of all compromises, and personal attacks above (gaslighting?! WTF?!), I have zero faith in Safrolic's willingness to engage in good faith. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't get it folks. Here's a definition: "scandal: an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage". This is exactly what it is. It is not a dispute. It is not a controversy. Let's call things their proper names. It's like Sponsorship Scandal, Iran-Contra Affair, Watergate, etc. All of those are called political scandals. What is there to discuss? Seems so obvious.PavelShk (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Most "scandals" are also "controversies" or "disputes". CBC for instance has used "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "SNC-Lavalin controversy", and "SNC-Lavalin dispute", as well as "SNC-Lavalin affair", which appears to be the media's preferred term. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

PavelShk. Once again we are dealing with allegations of moral or legally wrong doing in this article and not moral or legal wrong doing. This slight difference in wording makes a huge difference in meaning and in terms of people's lives. This article is BLP related; we cannot use language that infers guilt where guilt has not been documented. To do so creates a very specific point of view in the first line of the article which sets up the tone for the article and creates a very specific POV. This is Wrong. And once again an attempt to compromise based on discussion here, has been reverted.I am going to revert back to the compromise. If we cannot tolerate compromise then I may ask that the article be locked until we can. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Mr.Gold1 is another of these editors with an extremely low edit count (276 edits) who's been editwarring to get "scandal" back in the lead. Why is this article attracting such an army of aggressive newbies? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• • @The Blade of the Northern Lights:. I'd like to ask Blade to protect this article. I realize I am asking for a lock while my preferred version is in the article-I added it, so that's a problem. If there was a compromised version or any version in place that might be fine, with me at least. The big concern I have is that on this particular edit and with other content added, that we slow down. While a discussion was on going on one section an editor added a lot of content on that section. I tagged the section so discussion could continue but my tag was almost immediately reverted I don't like to edit war and generally hold myself to 1 revert but I have reverted twice here on the word scandal; and caught myself reverting more on this article. I won't revert again. At the same time I am concerned about new editors with SPAs or close to SPAs. I don't think there's anything wrong with editors who just edit one article or one subject area as long as the edits are neutral but in this case we have clear, probably innocent, ownership issues, (" The background is a little weighty for the current article, but it's proportional to what the length of the article will be when I'm done building it. I'm sorry, but I've had to put my article rewrite on the back burner for the next 10-15 days.. but after I finish building I will be going back through and moving things around/editing down again for clarity. Could we put this discussion on hold for now?"), and possible tag teaming. A locked article would force editors to use the talk page until a compromise is reached. I am referring in this case to Mr.Gold 1 who is edit warring a preferred version without participation in discussion. Maybe none of this is good reason to lock an article but thought I'd make the suggestion. While there are some very good writers doing a lot of good work on this article, I noticed Canada is close to a federal election and seems to me neutrality on articles referencing Canadian politics have to be scrupulously neutral. We shouldn't be influencing an election, even minimally. I think we're at an impasse at this point and it won't hurt us to slow down. Over to Blade and I'll have to move on for now. Littleolive oil (talk) 09:55, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: I've placed a personal warning on User: Mr. Gold1's [11] Talk page. He is engaged in a slow edit war seems to me. He is refusing to take part in the talk page discussion which adds an aggressive quality to his reverts. He's a new editor both in number of edits and experience as his edit summaries indicate so may be unaware of how WP works. AGF. Since I reverted him myself I'll leave my input to this issue to the talk page. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• • • I think you meant @The Blade of the Northern Lights: and not User:The Blade of the Northern Lights. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops yes, thanks. Up way too early and not as clear as I thought I was. Ack Littleolive oil (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• 'controversy' is a disagreement. 'dispute' is a disagreement. This is way beyond the disagreement. Scandal is 'an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage'. There is an event as documented in numerous JWR submissions, which is pressure applied on her to change her decision. You don't need a criminal conviction to ensure this is a political scandal. There is 'general public outrage' as documented in this article, with numerous newspaper articles, parliament hearings, statements by opposition parties and changes in public opinion. This is so obvious that this is a scandal, it's absurd. Anyone else supports reverting it back to political scandal? Besides, this has nothing to do with BLP. This is political scandal in full view and public deserves to know what it is. "Why is this article attracting such an army of aggressive newbies?" - Turkey, I consider this a personal attack and insult. And I'm tired of it. Anyone knows where do I complain? PavelShk (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The Blade of the Northern Lights is an admin watching this discussion. If he considers my comment a PA, he can do something now.

But anyways ... you do realize, PavelShk, that you are expressing a POV in your comment? Our sources have a variety of POVs: that Trudeau did indeed apply pressure; that he didn't, but Wilson-Raybould interpreted it as pressure; that there was no pressure, and Wilson-Raybould was making a power play; that Trudeau applied pressure and Wilson-Raybould made a power play; and I imagine other interpretations—there are thousands of articles, and I obviously haven't read them all.

"Besides, this has nothing to do with BLP"—I hope BotNL is taking note of how many editors are expressing that WP:BLP doesn't apply to this article. Also, could you please do something about the editwarring to frame this as a Quebec-related article?[12][13] The affair erupted in Ottawa, Ontario—where it has primarily unfolded—between politicians based in British Columbia and Quebec. Editwarring to have it set as a Quebec article is clear POV-pushing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, no I don't consider that a personal attack. And I do see the sentiment you refer to, which is obviously wrong; BLP applies to any material about living people anywhere, period. Any arguments stating otherwise should be discounted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I want to reiterate what CT is saying. There are two sides to this controversy. TWO. One side sees the PMO office as engaged in wrong-doing. The other side says the allegations aren't accurate or true and that there was wrong-doing when a phone conversation was recorded with out authorization and then leaked, and that apparent pressure applied was in actuality a misunderstanding. This is the controversy- two sides asserting wrong doing from the other side while seeing themselves as in the right. We cannot chose to see only one side of this or to describe this controversy as if there is only one side. The arguments given for including scandal in this article see only one side not both, and that is POV editing and reasoning. My larger concerns and has been since I first came across this article and actually is what brought me to this article is that this is exactly how this article was written in many places, that is, as if Trudeau and the PMO's office are guilty while the other side is not. Not understanding that this is BLP content, only seeing one side to the issue can change a POV.

I understand Safrolic's frustration. He wants to "build" an article, is a good writer and says he has mapped the whole thing out. But Wikipedia is collaborative AND an encyclopedia so contentious edits breed long discussions. To save yourself you must let go of ownership of your writing which may be a hard thing to do and included in that and maybe even harder is to understand most editors are truly concerned about content. Assume good faith means we have to exercise patience even when we feel the other guy is wrong and sometimes it means walking away. This can take a long time to learn, as most experienced editors know, since it involves ego and pride. Collaboration can be tedious more so than just writing ourselves but that's what we signed up for knowingly or not. The best time I've ever had on wikipedia was in working on an article in a collegial atmosphere led by a great editor, where everyone contributed, agreed to disagree, laughed and in the end created a great article. That's our collaborative side at its best. Can we strive for that? Littleolive oil (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't seem to be getting anywhere with this. I also understand Safrolic's frustrations here, I share them. PavelShk and Mr.Gold1 also seem to have frustrations about stripping political scandal out of the article. I had hoped we could avoid a RfC. Apparently not. I have created one below.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Note - I have created an RfC on this below. Also, I note that "dispute" doesn't really seem to be anyone's first choice here. Harris says it is the worst out of the three (political scandal / controversy / dispute), and supports "controversy" for the time being. CT seems to say his first choice is controversy. Everyone knows where I stand, nonetheless I am going to change it to "controversy" for the time being as discussion continues in the RfC below.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

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

The Quebec issue

BotNL: and the "Quebec" issue? Should I go ahead and revert? Most of the affair has transpired outside the borders of Quebec. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the rationale for including Quebec is that SNC-Lavalin is a Montreal based company, and considered by Quebec as one of its "Crown Jewel" success story companies. I remember early articles explained it this way with regards to why the Quebec press viewed things differently in this case, why poll results were different in Quebec than ROC and to further explain some of the Quebec premier's comments about the affair. (Apologies I don't have the sources handy). While most of the events occurred outside Quebec, much of the affair is about how Trudeau/PMO/JWR etc. made decisions regarding this Quebec based company. I don't see any issue with classifying this a Quebec article, but I am happy to go along with whatever the consensus is. My only request is that if this becomes another debated issue, we should try to isolate the conversation into another section Harris Seldon (talk) 09:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"SNC-Lavalin is a Montreal based company"—The company SNC-Lavalin has its own article. This article is about the "affair", which is not Montreal-based. It's happened almost entirely in Ottawa—even the accusations against SNC-Lavalin involve Ottawa (and Libya) more than Montreal, and the bulk of the article is about the dispute between the PMO and Wilson-Raybould in Ottawa. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see the admin who has been present here to remain neutral on anything even remotely approaching content. For admins to involve themselves in content driven decisions and especially edit a article while acting in an admin capacity is a major conflict worthy of reprimand and even in some cases a desysop so let's not even ask. Yikes! Sorry if this is an intrusion, CT but I really value the fact that we even have an admin who bothers to look in and would hate to lose that. TBOTNL can take of himself or herself I'm sure but thought I'd make the point. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Littleolive oil: editwarring and POV-pushing are behaviour issues, not a content dispute. We have several editors who have now expressed a POV and have demonstrated a willingness to fight for it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Without comment on the content, I do think removing it for the time being (pending a response from the editor who most recently added "scandals") is fine given ongoing discussion. If said editor continues to readd it without discussing I'll issue an edit warring notice. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

CT, I believe Blade was referring to Mr.Gold1 and this edit of his. Not to my edit to the talk page here or here. As you well know, I clearly set out my reasons for doing so in the edit summaries. Harris also explained them to you above, but you seem to have a hard time hearing. There have been many WP:RS commenting on the Quebec connection to this topic. Here are some of them [14], [15], [16] and [17]. It is not about the geography where all of the events took place, as Harris explained (and my edit summary did) SNC-Lavalin was seen as a crown jewel of industry, which Quebecers took great pride in. There was talk about SNC moving its HQ out of Montreal if a DPA did not occur, and concern the resulting bar from federal contracts would see workers having to work for foreign rivals (if their jobs were not lost). JWR said it was forefront that Justin Trudeau "was a Quebec MP and it was a Quebec company" [18]. This and the Quebec provincial election were cited as reasons JT was insistent on the DPA. Start listening, this is within the Quebec project.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

What Littleolive oil and Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! have been doing, watering down the article under false pretenses of neutrality is a darn disgrace and must stop now. The question is easy to answer, In English a Scandal = An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage while a Dispute = an argument or disagreement and a Controversey = Prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion. What we've to ask ourselves is the following;
Is SNC-Lavalin affair an action or event?
Did the SNC-Lavalin affair cause general public outrage in Canada?
Is the affair morally wrong (breaks ethics when PMO puts pressure on Justice Department, which in Canada and in the West, Departments of Justice are supposed to be independent)?
If the answer is Yes, then SNC-Lavalin affair is a Political Scandal not dispute nor controversy as defined in English that's as neutral as we gonna get.
Let us not be squeamish, a Wikipedia rated Good Article as an example is the Contra Affair. It was called what it was a Political Scandal.
Cheers. Mr.Gold1 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No way out

This is WP:3RR over "Quebec", and Darryl Kerrigan's "Quebec" statement above is another declaration of his POV.

MrGold1's statement below is even more explicit—one party is "morally wrong" who "breaks ethics", which is why it must be presented as a "scandal". "Let us not be squeamish" is not the statement of someone seeking NPOV.

• Wikipedia's core content policies are not negotiable; WP:CONSENSUS is not a raise of hands, and cannot overide WP:CCPOL.
• POV presentation of content is not a "content dispute".
• Cherrypicking of sources is not a "content dispute".
• WP:IDHT is not a "content dispute"—it is a key WP:CIVILPOV tactic.

"Talking it over" will not solve issues with parties who will not discuss in good faith. We've seen what an unreadably long filibustered mess it became at ANI, and that's where it has gone here—round and round, as every one of these "discussions" has—not because there is a legitimate "disagreement", but because this is an effective POV-pushing tactic.

I reassert this article is undergoing a POV push; if it is, "discussion" can only be in bad faith. The pushers have publicly declared "who is guilty" and "where it took place", are editwarring to ensure these POVs, and are engaging in a war of attrition against those trying to maintain NPOV and WP:INTEGRITY. We're spiralling in a dead end here; if an admin will not step in firmly on the side of WP:CCPOL, the only path out I see is ArbCom. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

1RR, 2RR, 3RR.

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

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

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

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

I did, but your modus operandi is to pretend otherwise, so that we go around in circles, drowning the discussion in such repetetive verbiage that nobody will want to get involved. Let's keep a count now of how many times you will deny I've responded—so far you're up to 3[19][20][21] This is more evidence of your unwillingness to engage bad faith, and I'm keeping a record of it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 18:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

A pattern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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