Wikipedia

Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair/Archive 3

< Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Darryl Kerrigan in topic RfC: political scandal?
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

RfC: LavScam

Latest comment: 5 years ago59 comments16 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no consensus to include. While at a vote-count glance, it does appear that there is consensus to include the term, on closer examination, the argument as to the rather fractional usage of the term (which resulted in at least one editor changing their preference) has been key. The claim that it is a term which is designed to sensationalize the affair (argued for example by one editor who made a weak preference to include) was also a factor which was argued regarding the encyclopedic merit for inclusion. I should stress again, this one was close. El_C 20:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Should the alternative name "LavScam" be mentioned in the opening sentence of this article? – bradv🍁 06:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes it is a very common term for this scandal. Sources following: This line was by Legacypac. Source list is below I'm also happy to include other alternative names that can be sourced with a few different media outlets using them. I just know LavScam is commonly used in the media and on twitter and it is the most distinct unique name for the subject. Legacypac (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes MOS:LEADALT says that " significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, and significant names in other languages.". There have been multiple alternative names given for this, and Lavscam is not necessarily the most-used alternative by any clear margin. Other names used by various media include 'SNC-Lavalin scandal', 'Wilson-Raybould affair', 'SNC-Lavalin controversy', and etc of similar form. It doesn't make sense to list them all in the lead, but it does raise questions of weight for Lavscam to be the only one listed. However, this is not an RfC about including 'Wilson-Raybould affair', which has similar google result counts; I haven't seen anyone mention a problem with that. WP:LEADCREATE advises us that a lead should only summarize content that is more deeply expanded on later in the article. Both it and MOS:LEAD say that we should fix the article first, then tackle the lead. I would like to see a small paragraph somewhere in the article about how different sources have debated whether it's a scandal or a scam or whatever, and called it different things, including "Lavscam", "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "Wilson-Raybould controversy", "Philpott episode" and whatever other names it's actually been called. I think Lavscam is the altname of the pack which should then go in the lead, because it's the only one which isn't the same basic form as the article name, and I'm neutral on whether 'Wilson-Raybould affair' should also be in the lead. Safrolic (talk) 07:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Only if along with other frequent terms for the affair—per WP:WEIGHT, these concerns override any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. The term cannot be displayed more prominently than other equally- or more-used terms. As such a list would be burdensomely long, my preference is to leave them all out. Changed to No below. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
We had various other terms in the lede until you stripped them, so its pretty strange to say you want other terms now. Legacypac (talk) 07:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
This comment a grotesquely dishonest, bad-faith distortion of what has happened, and what has been discussed above. There were two variations of the current title, and no other alternate terms, even after I demonstrated several in the discussion above. No attempt has been made to restore those terms, or any of the other alternate terms—including terms that appear more frequently than "LavScam". Your focus is exclusively on ensuring "LavScam" is highlighted in the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect Curly. [1] When you took out LavScam the second time 15 minutes after I put it back with additional sourcing, there were other names for the scandal left in. My unwillingness to edit war with you as you reshaped the article to fit your political agenda is a feature not a bug. Legacypac (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
"there were other names ... left in"—they had not been removed yet, no attempt has been made to restorew them after they were, and your diff again shows a single-minded focus on ensuring "LavScam" gets highlighted in the lead, with the same WP:INTEGRITY-violating cite. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No—after doing further research and discovering "LavScam" appears in a fraction of a percent of available sources—and that two thirds of those hits are from a single source (torontosun.com)—there is absolutely no way that including "LavScam" in the lead sentence is WP:DUEWEIGHT. This is a black-and-white violation of our policies that cannot be overridden by a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No – this is a name chosen by certain news media designed to influence public opinion. As pointed out above, there are several other alternative names that are more popular, and more neutral, than this one. LavScam works fine as a redirect, but if we're going to use the name anywhere in the article it should be attributed to which news organization or politician is actually using the name. Bottom line: Identifying this as a "scam" in the opening paragraph of the article is a violation of NPOV. – bradv🍁 15:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. Whatever the reasons and motivations, both tier 1 RS such as CNN and the Washington Post have used this term in the title of articles on the affair, making it notable. Even in my part of the world, the tier 1 RS (and not right-wing) such as The Guardian [2] are using the term. Britishfinance (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes (but mild, and may change) – I have discussed above that I think Lavscam warrants inclusion in the lead as it is being used and is different enough from other variations of SNC-Lavalin Affair. SNC-"Affair", "scandal", "controversy" are all using synonyms and are more or less different versions of the same expression. So I can see the point of not having all of them in the lead. But Lav-Scam is different. It is being used, but is a portmanteau and the word is not as obviously linked to the subject. Including it in the lead would help the casual reader, especially as Lav-scam seems to start being used more frequently (including the foreign press). Including it is informative and if phrased as "also known as" is still consistent with NPOV. A section describing different names for SNC-Lavalin would also be useful. But, I am reflecting on this now, considering some of the comments made that LavScam is designed to provoke a reaction. I would not say it's to influence opinion, but see it being used more to get people's attention, which would be consistent with the observation Lavscam is only used in the title of articles, and not in the body. If so, then I would be less inclined to include Lavscam in the lead. I also noted with the sources given, Lavscam does not appear to be exclusively used by right or left wing media, which is consistent with my thoughts on it being used to get attention.Harris Seldon (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes Looking at the sources: being mentioned by The Guardian, CNN, and WaPo suggests that term is worth including, especially because it is now being adopted by international outlets. These organizations are hardly right wing tabloids as suggested in the ANI report and represent the center-left of international news organizations. That means that this term is being used across the spectrum as a short-hand for this scandal and definitely worth including. SWL36 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    SWL36—the ANI report itself lists non-right-wing sources that have used the term; the concern is WP:WEIGHT, in that it is relatively rare outside the far-right and Twitter in comparison to other terms. This, combined with the push to characterize it as a "colloquialism", have raised concerns of astroturfing—an attempt to promote more widespread, mock-grassroots usage of this term via Wikipedia by highlighting it in the lead. These editors have shown no concern with putting in the body (it's still not there), which again would be consistent with an astroturfing campaign—knowing most readers will not get beyond the lead, thus the lead becomes the exclusive focus. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    Accusing other editors of running an astroturfing campaign is not assuming good faith and is tantamount to suggesting other editors are paid or political shills. The argument for inclusion of the term is straightforward and grounded in guidelines: if "Lavscam" qualifies as a "significant alternative name" then it should be mentioned in the article per MOS:LEADALT. The use of this term across a swathe of diverse sources strongly suggests that it should be adopted. When there is coverage using this name across the political spectrum and coverage in sources that are regional, Canadian, and international under this name, I think it absolutely satisfies the significant criteria and that this diversity of sources also indicates that there is due weight for its inclusion. You may be unhappy that the Toronto Sun has taken a liking to the name, but it has now become mainstream and readers of the many articles within and outside of Canada are now likely associating this name with the scandal. SWL36 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    SWL36: I don't blame you for not reading through all the discussion above, but I certainly didn't start off assuming bad faith. Here's what I'm talking about: Google News search gives us 4940 hits for "Lavscam", but only 1,650 for '"Lavscam" -torontosun.com'. Two-thirds of hits come from a single source! Meanwhile "SNC-Lavalin affair" gets 83,800 hits, "SNC-Lavalin controversy" gets a further 22,400, "Lavalin scandal" gets 70,300 ... "LavScam" barely even shows up next to these, yet we're to give it equal weight? Keep in mind (per the ANI) that some of the editors pushing for these were also pushing to have the blame placed on one side in the lead before I ever showed up. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    I'll make one last reply, using google hits to decide WP:WEIGHT is not an acceptable method, because the policy is based on prominence in reliable sources and google and google news don't discriminate, they list everything that could be conceivably considered news, including various blogs and other outlets that don't meet the definition of WP:RS. SWL36 (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    Which only reinforces the point—two thirds of hits for the term come from a single source, and the rest may include blogs and other non-RS sources. We are still left with no evidence that "LavScam" is a widely-used term that warrants prominence over other terms—and we're still left with the fact that an open POV-pusher is one of the main proponents for it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - It is a widely used secondary name for this scandal. MOS:LEADALT supports its inclusion. I hear Curly Turkey's WP:WEIGHT concerns, but don't think we should omit the name because some folks don't like it or even because it is unfaltering to some actors in this topic. In politics, different sides often pick their own names for things. In doing so, political actors are engaging in politics no doubt. That is not really our concern. It is a widely used term and thus should be included. I agree with Curly Turkey that other sufficiently notable terms should be added, but do not agree that is a pre-condition to LavScam's inclusion. Wikipedia is an incremental enterprise. I invite all editors to add additional terms for this scandal. While not wishing to impose any hard rules on what terms would be appropriate (not that I could), I think a good starting point are the sorts of criteria which have been discussed here about this term (LavScam). Editors have noted RS using the term are useful. Evidence that there is a large number of RS using the term is also useful. As are, RS which specifically discuss the use of the term itself. Finally, that the term is unique and not just a variation of others (ie. synonyms affair/controversy/scandal). While none of these are likely determinative on their own (and obviously open to discussion) they may be a useful place to start in assessing the inclusion of additional terms. I should also clarify that I do not purport that these criteria are exhaustive. There may be others. All of this said, I do not think an all or nothing approach (ie no LavScam until other terms) is appropriate. Wikipedia is about incremental improvement. I think a review of other articles of Canadian scandals Robocall Scandal and Sponsorship scandal will find that improvement (including on the question of additional terms) was an incremental one.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    With regards to "Robocall scandal", which was soon moved to 2011 Canadian federal election voter suppression scandal—the article was originally at "Robocall scandal" (and includes the term in the lead) for the simple reason that "Robocall scandal" is far and away the most common name for the article, dwarfing all the others combined. The title was moved because—despite being the WP:COMMONNAME—it was not politically neutral, and was misleading as to the nature of the scandal. As "Robocall scandal" is the WP:COMMONNAME, though, leaving it out of the lead was never an option.
    As for Sponsorship scandal, both "Sponsorship scandal" and "AdScam" are the most common names for the scandal, with "Sponsorship scandal" being older and having something of a lead, but by a small enough margin that leaving "AdScam" out of the lead sentence was never an option.
    "LavScam" doesn't come remotely close to the cases of "AdScam" and "Robocall scandall", as it appears in a small minority of sources reporting on it, and is but one of a large number of labels being used. That doesn't mean it should not be in the lead per se, but it does mean it cannot be highlighted in preference to other more common terms. To put things in perspective: Trudeau Lavalin: 665,000 hits; Trudeau Lavalin -LavScam: 655,000 hits. "LavScam" appears in a fraction of a percent of sources—it barely registers at all. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    @ Curly Turkey - the obvious difference is "adscam" and "robocall scandal" are older more established scandals (for lack of a better phrase) that went on for a long time and have had a lot more written about them, while the SNC-Lavalin affair is still fairly current and has nowhere near the same depth of reliable reporting. If over time Lavscam did become more prominently used (over the other variations) and was widely used outside of just one newssource (I.e. Not just the Toronto Sun), are you saying at that time it might be appropriate to include Lavscam in the lead? Harris Seldon (talk) 10:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    Such could happen, yes. It could happen faster by Citogenesis if we were to include it now on the fifth most-accessed website in the world. Now—two+ months into the coverage since the scandal broke—"LavScam" occurs in but a small fraction of one percent of the hundreds of thousands of sources out there, making it ridiculously inappropriate. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
All editors should continue to strive to WP:AGF --Darryl Kerrigan 00:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm interested in a fair article, not a bias one. You seem interested in exaggeration and attacks against your fellow editors. You are uncivil and rude and continue to misrepresent my input here. Legacypac (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
No, Legacypac—you've come out publicly with your biases and your personal attacks have not stopped. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure, seems like a common enough alternative name for the scandal given the list of sources below. Though as a side note, I'm not sure the Beaverton is the best example of RS @Legacypac 🙂 AdA&D ★ 14:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    AdA&D—you've seen the list below, but have you seen the diffs above that show "LavScam" appears in a fraction of one percent of newssources? Does that count as "common enough"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    Changing my !vote to No per the prevalence discussion below. On further consideration, even though some reliable sources use "LavScam", most of them do not. Curly's WP:WEIGHT concerns are well-founded. AdA&D ★ 13:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

This is really simple - lots of different diverse reliable sources use it. Mcleans and CNN have no political agenda to push. The fraction of 1% story is unsupported by evidence. Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

List of sources for Lavscam
* Washingon Post [3] "LavScam" affair
  • Toronto Sun [4] LavScam scandal
  • Toronto Sun [5] LavScam twice in same headline
  • Macleans [6] headline ise Scheers LavScam fumble
  • Macleans [7] shall we call it LavScam than headline.
  • CNN [8] a variation with Lav-Scam scandal in title.
  • Georgia Straight [9]
  • The Province [10]
  • The Star [11] (Used in the article)
  • Hill Times [12]
  • National Post [13]
  • The Tyee [14] After weeks of being drubbed by the opposition over LavScam
  • Straight.com [15] Lavscam in headline (very liberal outlet) * The Hill Times [16] "And, for the whole term, we've been focusing on just one topic: LavScam."
  • Edmonton Sun [17] #LavScam in title * Straight.com [18] "best hope for burying his LavScam scandal "
  • National Post [19] " small relief from Lavscam"
  • Washington Post [20] "Canada's “Lavscam” affair exposed"
  • Canoe [21] "delving into the Lavscam scandal."
  • The Province [22] "Ever since Lavscam broke"
  • Owen Sound Sun Times [23] In wake of LavScam...
  • Ottawa Sun [24] talking about some other local issue "That the city is having any dealings with this company is beyond belief, especially with the Lavscam scandal occurring with our Liberal federa"
  • The Tyee [25] "Liberal government over LavScam"
  • Hill Times [26]] Title "Trudeau's top 10 mistakes at his LavScam press conference"
  • Macleans [27] Butts is gone but #LavScam rolls on headline
  • Vancouver Sun [28] "Trudeau accepts none of Lavscam blame"
  • Winnipeg Sun [29] tagging stories as LavScam
  • The Beaverton [30] LavScam arhives, again tagging and organizing by the term
  • The Western Star [31] "honest broker in the Lavscam scandal."
  • The Guardian [32]
  • Edmonton Journal [33] and [34] use Lavscam in text
  • Edmonton Examiner [35] Lavscam in headline
  • Sarnia Observer [36] "Bennett has nothing to do with LavScam"
  • Click Orlando [37] lavscam scandal in headline
  • Gulf News [38] third paragraph
  • Kingston Whig-Standard [39] term used twice
  • Ottawa Sun (letter to editor) [40]
  • Clinton News-Record [41] in sub-headline, and four times in article
  • The Chronicle Herald [42] in the headline
  • Toronto Sun [43] twice in article
  • Toronto Sun [44] three times in article
  • Toronto Sun [45] in headline
  • The Delhi News-Record [46] twice in article
  • The London Free Press [47]
  • Hill Times [48] in article, but note the paywall, some will not be able to access
  • Georgia Straight [49] multiple mentions
  • The StarPhoenix [50] headline
  • Lacombe Globe [51] headline
  • The Province [52] headline and article
  • Yes - it is an alternative term used by several prominent news organizations so why not include it? Is not the purpose of Wikipedia to give readers as much information as possible about a topic (including alternative names)? PavelShk (talk) 23:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of PavelShk edits, concern possible Sock Puppetry, denial, guidance --Darryl Kerrigan 00:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
(Why exactly do we have this banner on top? It implies to readers the article is inaccurate. What specifically is inaccurate? From talk page I see all recently found errors were corrected. Link says, "When the issue has been adequately addressed", this should be removed.)
which is uncannily similar to the edit comment the IP 184.151.179.197 made when [removing the same template earlier today:
(This article is very accurate. Why do we have the warning? It's misleading to the readers.)
So, it looks like our single-purpose account may also be a sock-puppet account. I'll be reporting. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
And the plot thickens—it turns out that PavelShk the one who added "illegal political interference" to the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand your concern here. But we should be careful in jumping to conclusions. If PavelShk is a Sock Puppet, that is not acceptable. That said, many users initially join our forces of editors because they are interested in one topic. Then they expand their focus from there. We should try to be a welcoming environment to new editors if that is truely who PavelShk is. This is a controversial topic, the sort that attracts new editors and sock puppets. We need to both encourage and educate new editors of our ways and rout out sock puppets. We must assume good faith until inappropriate, Trust, but verify.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
And Pavel has made controversial edits that didn't hold up to verification, followed by editwarring. When I first came to this article, I did assume good faith—that the edits were merely sloppy. Then people started attacking me and my attempts to clean it up (even naming me in a section above), and started treating our policies as if they were optional. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate the attempts to clean up the citations in the article. We do need to ensure that editors are aware of policy and following it (except in the rare circumstances where deviation is appropriate per WP:POLICY).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
FYI could use some help with the topic below, I think that edit/sourcing needs to be cleaned up.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm indeed a new Wikipedia user and I created an account specifically to edit this article, because I was not happy what was there back in February. I did a lot of research on SNC-Lavalin initially. You can see my edits. I have no idea what crimes I'm alleged of committing. I'm not colluding with anyone and this is my own account, I don't have any other accounts. I never edited Wikipedia before. I realize all you guys are editors with years of experience, so please give some benefit of the doubt. It is really disheartening that I invested countless hours of my spare time in research and editing of this article and now I'm some kind of wiki-criminal. When I started editing, this article was about as long as current French version. Sure very easy to criticize something that was done from scratch, of cause it does not reach your standards of perfection. So go ahead and help and explain. I'm ready to learn. Yes I did put 'illegal' because obstruction of justice is an illegal act. I agree with the removal of that word. I also corrected a bunch of stuff that's wrong. IP 184.151.179.197 was my edit because I was not signed in on different device. I still don't understand why that banner needs to be there if all errors are corrected. Thank you for warm welcome, Mr. Turkey. PavelShk (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Most of the sources have not been checked, and your own edits are a primary reason the {{Cite check}} was there ("illegal political interference"). We're not talking about lack of "perfection"—we're talking about multiple policy violations: WP:INTEGRITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. These issues were raised on this article long before I came along—look at the several sections at the top of the page. Here's a tip: if you want people to assume good faith, don't editwar. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, when I first heard of this case, the term used was LavScam. And I live on the other side of the planet. It's a pretty global monicker for the entire episode; although I'm surprised that unlike other sams or scandals, there's no -gate suffixed to it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - This RfC has been going for nearly two weeks. It seems there is largely a consensus to include the term LavScam in the lede. I note there is dissent from a couple editors. One of those editors, Curly Turkey, has raised the possibility of including other widely used terms to address WP:WEIGHT concerns. He has been invited to start a discussion of any other such terms, if he wishes to do so. He has so far declined to do so, and appears to ground his current opposition on other factors as above. I believe those other points have been address by others above. Should we go ahead and add LavScam now? Or shall we wait for more comments? I note the last new editor to comment, did so nearly 10 days ago.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
    Curly Turkey has not "raised the possibility of including other widely used terms to address WP:WEIGHT concerns"—I've brought this WP:IDHT behoviour of Darryl Kerrigan's up at ANI here, and will be including the above comment with the evidence. The fact remains the term is used by a small fraction of 1% of sources, two-thirds of which are by a single source, which is a black-and-white violation of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. The only reason to include the other available terms is to ensure "LavScam" makes it into the lead, which is POV-pushing. WP:CONSENSUS is not a raise of hands, and that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override sitewide policies or higher-level consensuses. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Are you serious? Above, you clearly say other terms could be used to WP:WEIGHT. You say "only if along with other frequent terms for the affair - per WP:WEIGHT". I know you have changed your mind several times on that. Hence you crossing it out above, and raising countless other objections (also addressed above). BUT YOU CLEARLY SAID IT!!!! There is only one person here who can't hear. Concerning your "google search evidence" about frequency of use, this is not helpful here and has been addressed above. Just stop talking.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Closure? - This RfC has been going for nearly two weeks. I note the last new editor to comment, did so nearly 10 days ago. Is it time to close this down? Or shall we wait hoping additional editors will comment?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
10 days with no new editors and more than that with no new points being made. I don't see it changing, but we could wait another week to be sure? Harris Seldon (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Tis been another week. We have collected another comment.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, given the passage of time, and the consensus which seems to exist here, I was going to suggest we close this down. But I note, CT is continuing to argue at ANI that supporting the use of the term LavScam in the article as a secondary term amounts to WP:POV pushing. I think the discussion here, MOS:LEADALT and WP:POVNAMING support its inclusion in the lede, despite the fact this is a term which appears to have originated on Twitter, and was used by some right wing and opposition politicians. Its adoption by outlets like the Washington Post and CNN, in addition to the many sources above appear to support its inclusion. I guess we have to wait out this ANI though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, now this RfC has been open for the better part of a month. The ANI seems to be going nowhere fast. Not sure how folks want to proceed here. How much longer do we want to leave this open? --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Good question, and no real answer. Given everyone's comments below under "No Way Out" (and elsewhere), I don't see consensus coming any time soon. While there still have not been any new discussion points, I would keep the RfC open to avoid any concerns about "premature closing".Harris Seldon (talk) 04:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, I note Legobot has closed this RfC by default as the month has expired. Do we want to reverse that? Should this RfC remain open for now, or should we leave it closed?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes Based on the above conversation, it does appear that a high percentage of reliable and neutral sources do at least include a mention of the alterative name. I don't think that there should be any neutrality problem with mentioning it in the opening sentence.Handy History Handbook (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I hope you meant something other than "high percentage", because the evidence literally shows a fraction of 1% of available sources have used the term. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
As noted at length below, this 1% calculation has serious problems with it. Google searches are problematic for the reasons SWL36 has noted. The searches you have done include a lot of noise from sources about other topics (concerning Trudeau Sr. and Jr., and Lavalin). They also include unreliable sources. They also include false positives caused by "read-more" sidebars on websites. This is not a credible way to determine prevalence of the term.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No (via FRS) I had to look this one up because I had only ever hear it referred to by other names, but after a quick review it became clear to me that LavScam was a somewhat common name. However, many other terms seem at least as common and it would give WP:UNDUE to include this in the lede. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Yes" Per "List of sources for Lavscam", proving that it is a common name. This list especially, among many of the other points made, firmly demonstrates its prevalence in reliable sorces. StoryKai (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section 2 heading

Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments6 people in discussion

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

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

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

For heaven's sake, we have an RfC so why are you guys editing the very thing we have an RfC about? That heading was 'scandal' from the very beginning and lets leave it as was, until we determine what it should be, and then edit. I did not start editing during RfC. I'm a new editor but I follow the process. Besides, most votes in RfC already are for scandal. PavelShk (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Moved Littleolive oil's (seriously, is there a short form you like? Olive, or oil, or LOO?) ping up to this section. Note that "scandal" was not added during the RfC. It was removed, and Pavel was restoring it to where it was before. I think that removing things during the RfC could just as easily be said to be pushing a POV- especially since some of the discussion referenced how the word scandal was already non-controversially present in several places throughout the article. Getting rid of it during the RfC, just before Arbcom puts in discretionary sanctions, doesn't look all that kosher to me. Safrolic (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I think you're splitting hairs. Scandal was "reverted" in a section heading during an RfC on that word. It's a contentious word so why revert now. And the word carries more weight in a section heading. ArbCom is not about to put in DS. DS was a suggestion. The case has not even been accepted yet. And I have no idea how you see my revert to a non-contentious version of the article as relating to DS. If my revert was seen as a POV edit and if I had a history of making such edits than DS would play against me.
There are certain conventions in terms of collaboration which if not adhered to are going to put people on edge: re adding contentious content during an RfC is one. And in my experience here: Adding content to a section while that section was under discussion. Removing a Tag almost immediately it was placed.
The word scandal is not a non-contentious word just because it's used in the article in other places and no one has protested its use in those places. It's contentious because it's the subject of an RfC right now. We respect other editors when we note contention and put off adding more of the same.
I don't care what I'm called as long as it's not swear words.:O) Generally my user name has been shortened to Olive. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

Story Pavel I thought you were referring the scandal RfC and I also mistook the Lavscam RfC for the scandal one. The scandal RfC will likely stay open the standard time which is one month unless an uninvolved editor closes. Reminder: RfCs are not calculated on a vote alone but also on the weight of the arguments as determined by the closer. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Scroll to the top of the talk page to see the WP: RfC. It was closed by an uninvolved editor as no consensus to add. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    I think Pavel is referring to the RfC on whether to describe the affair as a scandal, not the LavScam RfC. AdA&D ★ 13:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree, the alternative heading you've chosen (Discovery and initial reactions) is better. AdA&D ★ 13:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with new and improved heading added by Pavel.Littleolive oil (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually (Winter Summer — DS, that is) is coming and probably sooner than you think. El_C 22:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Good one! :O)
I saw that suggestion for DS but didn't see a lot of support for it among the arbs. We'll see, but probably not before Jon Snow becomes king. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@El C: I'm trying to wrap my head around DS. What would actually happen in this case under DS? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
It could vary, but I suspect 1RR and possibly other editing restrictions, such as forced BRD or consensus required. Protection, if needed, and so on. There could also be individual topic bans and blocks implemented via Arbitration enforcement (See WP:ACDS for an overview). El_C 03:48, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I've read WP:ACDS, and it just seemed like it was reiterating standard policies ... Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


RfC: political scandal?

Latest comment: 4 years ago114 comments15 people in discussion

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

The question is easy to answer, In English a Scandal = An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage while a Dispute = an argument or disagreement and a Controversey = Prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.
What we've to ask ourselves is the following;
Is SNC-Lavalin affair an action or event?
Did the SNC-Lavalin affair cause general public outrage in Canada?
Is the affair morally wrong (breaks ethics when PMO puts pressure on Justice Department, which in Canada and in the West, Departments of Justice are supposed to be independent)?
If the answer is Yes, then SNC-Lavalin affair is a Political Scandal not dispute nor controversy as defined in English that's as neutral as we gonna get.
Let us not be squeamish, a Wikipedia rated Good Article as an example is the Contra Affair. It was called what it was a Political Scandal.
Cheers. Mr.Gold1 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This is about as bald-faced a declaration of POV as you can get. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes - per my comments above. It matches the dictionary definition, WP:RS refer to it as a scandal, and our List of political scandals in Canada includes it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No—Wikipedia articles use the most neutral term available, and avoid loaded terms per WP:Words to watch. Appeals to cherrypicked definitions from dictionaries completely miss the point of MOS:W2W, and it is distressingly WP:IDHT to see the same people doing exactly that yet again. The discussion should not be about how we can lawyer a loaded term into the article, but about finding the most neutral term. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No "Is the affair morally wrong (breaks ethics when PMO puts pressure on Justice Department." This is a judgement declared by a Wikipedia editor on a situation in Canada for which there was no definitive judgement. Can we just understand that no one was proved to be morally wrong. The PMO says they did not pressure but were advising and that they were misunderstood. Others say the advice was pressure. This creates controversy around the action. The only concrete wrong may have been that a conversation was taped with out permission and leaked. We know this did happen. And as CT said, declaring a moral wrong when that has not been declared in the situation is a POV on the part of an editor; we cannot do it. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No – per the definition at political scandal. "Controversy" would be the NPOV term. – bradv🍁 12:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak no: I agree with the above points claiming that labeling this a "political scandal" under the current definition is tantamount to Wikipedia officially decrying the Canadian Liberal Party's actions as immoral. But I'm not sure if that ought to be the definition of "political scandal". I feel like it should be more like "ethically-disputed" than "immoral" (I might change my mind later). But anyways, for this article I prefer using "political controversy". — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  16:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes (pinged by bot) - I notice that neutral third-party sources have called it a "scandal": Washington Post, The Atlantic, Independent, The Week (UK), etc. There were multiple resignations, which to my mind push it up above the threshold. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
    Kautilya3: neutral third-party sources also use the terms "controversy", "dispute", "affair", etc. What the RfC asks is whether "scandal" is a more appropriate (more neutral) wording than the current "controversy" that's in the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 18:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, those terms are always available if we decide that "scandal" is not appropriate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3 I think the RfC wording is misleading; the RfC is based on several discussions about which of the "available" words is the most appropriate and not about which are sourced so can be used. (All are sourced although weight is a consideration.) The word we are discussing must characterize in the most neutral fashion all of the content in this Wikipedia article and all, not some, of the sources related to that content. If we chose scandal we are selecting the most non-neutral of all of the words available. This colors the article in a very distinct way. We must, seems to me, select the word which will not color the article at all or with the least amount of color which allows the reader to decide what happened. Just a thought since you were not involved in last discussions Littleolive oil (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, no. WP:NPOV does not say that we should decide for ourselves what is the "most neutral" language to describe a situation. It asks us to consult the best-quality reliable sources, and describe it as they do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3: that's actually not true—MOS:W2W goes into detail about why Wikipedia often prefers terms other than what sources use. For example, per MOS:CLAIM, we use the term claim in a much more restricted way than our sources typically do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd add Kautilya3: I am not talking about sourcing content. I am talking about the lead and the summarizing of content and the sources of that content for the article as a whole. To do that we must use the most neutral language we have. It is not in our remit to use language in such a way that it colors the article in a non- neutral way. In this instance we have two sides to a controversy; one side is claiming wrong doing, the other side is claiming no wrong doing and misunderstanding. We can't use language that supports one side of this controversy over another but must find language that indicates, well, controversy. I did not mean to gang up on you here or to to discount your opinion or vote. Just wanted to add some information you may not have had on past discussions Littleolive oil (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Curly, MOS ("Manual of Style") gives guidelines on how to write content. It doesn't define what content should be written, and it certainly doesn't override five pillars (of which NPOV is one).
Littleolive oil, you are again repeating a point to which I have already responded. "Neutral" on Wikipedia means describing the situation as described in the reliable sources. It doesn't mean that we should invent our own idea of "neutral" and use it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand your point. I am not nor is anyone suggesting we misuse sources or that we weight an article in a way that does not reference our sources. We use sources to underpin content. That content must be added per its weight in mainstream sources to describe the topic or subject. We also as editors have within our remit when actually writing an article to choose the language that we feel best represents the sources. While scandal is used in some sources so are other words. This RfC was worded as if there is only one option. There isn't. Its our job too figure out how to best represent the sources on this. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3: MOS:W2W is all about ensuring NPOV wording. Please explain how MOS:W2W "overrides" WP:NPOV or "invent[s] our own idea of 'neutral'".
"'Neutral' on Wikipedia means describing the situation as described in the reliable sources"—reliable sources describe the subject with a wide variety of terms. Please explain why you support one of them and reject other well-attested terms "controversy", "dispute", "case" etc. as well as wordings that avoid all of these. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
You are welcome to do an analysis of how the various newspapers/commentators describe it, making sure that they are highly reputed outlets and have sufficient distance from Canadian politics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Kautilya3: Nobody has provided such an analysis of "scandal" or raised doubts that the other terms are common. More importantly, your response in no way addresses the questions. Please address the questions, as you've made some remarkable assertions that you have not supported. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
But to keep you from hammering on that point and ignoring answering the questions:
CNN: "The controversy has caused a sharp decline in Trudeau's popularity in opinion polls just months before a general election."
BBC: "The political controversy, which has been dragging on for weeks, has caused Mr Trudeau's popularity to drop sharply in opinion polls a few months before a general election."
Washington Post (title): "Canada needs a public inquiry into Trudeau’s SNC-Lavalin controversy. Now."
New York Times: "While the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the former cabinet minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and a criminal case against SNC-Lavalin has preoccupied Canadians for about a month, it was over the last week that it seemed to capture international attention."
This is a trivially easy exercise; into the bargain, it demonstrates that nothing is being "whitewashed" with the term "controversy" (demands for immediate inquiries into the "controversy" cannot be interpreted as "nothing to see here", as Darryl Kerrigan has twice insisted). Now, Kautilya3, it's your turn to demonstrate that MOS:W2W "overrides" WP:NPOV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't need to "demonstrate" anything. I am a participant in the RfC process, which you seem to have very little understanding of. You do not achieve anything by bludgeoning the process. Secondly, "analysis" does not mean cherry-picking. And, this is not the place to do it either. You should start a separate thread and present detailed statistics and evidence with a view to influencing the views of the uninvolved editors who might come to comment here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
"I don't need to 'demonstrate' anything."—meaning you refuse to demonstrate your assertion that MOS:W2W "overrides" WP:NPOV (note: the policy actually summarizes and links here to MOS:W2W)? Then the closer is free to reject your assertion, per WP:NOTVOTE. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
RfC participants aren't required to hang around and defend their !votes until everyone else is satisfied with them, suggesting it should be ignored otherwise is unhelpful. Safrolic (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Nor do their !votes have to be considered when they make unsupportable claims. I assumed Kautilya3 wanted their !vote considered. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Just tacking on to your reply to say that three of Curly's four articles linked do actually use the word "scandal" to describe the thing, and include links to other articles calling it a scandal in the titles. The exception, BBC, does use the word scandal to describe the thing in other articles. Any of this can be trivially verified with ctrl+f. Safrolic (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Safrolic—to reiterate yet again: the claim was never made that sources don't use "scandal". You and others have claimed that "controversy" and other descriptors are "whitewashing". I've demonstrated this is false. Now that the claim has been refuted, the focus should be on demonstrating how "scandal" is the most neutral term. You keep ignoring that that's what the dispute is about and keep coming back to "But I have sources that use the term!" and "But the dictionary says ...!" Remember, that didn't work in the "LavScam" RfC, even with a majority of !votes for its inclusion. If you want the article to include "scandal", you really do have to demonstrate it is the most neutral way to handle the lead sentence, not just point to a bunch of sources that use your preferred term. I hope we're not going to see a repeat of the same behaviour here—refuse to respond, and then repeat the same refuted arguments elsewhere as if they were still valid. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
What the dictionary defines words as is important when choosing what words we use. (I really hope that doesn't need to be justified here.) From that, if the dictionary definitions for a pair of words differs, we should choose the word which accurately defines the thing being discussed, given that they're supported by reliable sources. As we've all discussed already, a scandal is the exposure or accusation of something which offends the public, often for moral impropriety, causing a loss of reputation (paraphrase). It may be marked by things like the firing or resignation of public officials, the opening of ethical or criminal investigations, and the creation of formal hearings by legislative panels. A controversy is a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views.
So what is the SNC-Lavalin affair? Well, it's not about a period of several weeks in February where the House of Commons got together and discussed whether SNC-Lavalin should be prosecuted or not, with frequent requests for input from cabinet ministers and PMO officials. It is about accusations (credible and mostly verified) of political interference into the criminal justice system by putting pressure on the attorney general, something that while not illegal still offends the public's sense of moral propriety, which caused a significant loss of public reputation (measured by polling). It involved the resignation and later expulsion of two cabinet ministers, as well as the resignation of the Prime Minister's Principal Secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council. Canada's Ethics and Privacy Commissioners have both launched investigations, the first over the allegations themselves, and the second into leaks which were described as a smear against Wilson-Raybould. The HoC Justice Committee held several hearings to hear more about the PMO's and Wilson-Raybould's interactions. One of the words, scandal or controversy (or dispute, or anything else of the same "vigourous discussion between opposing sides" form) more accurately describes the SNC-Lavalin affair. WP:NPOV#Words to watch says, "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source). WP:EUPHEMISM says that we should use words which neutrally and accurately describe ideas. The word scandal is accurate, while the word controversy is not. The word controversy is vague and promoting a minority point of view (according to polling of Canadians, included in my !vote below)- the word scandal is not. Safrolic (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
"The word controversy is vague and promoting a minority point of view (according to polling)"—come again? You've been very vague with your accusations of POV. Please describe the "minority point of view" that "controversy" "promotes". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I believe I just did describe it. I also believe I'm a fairly clear writer, and I think most participants here can understand what I said. Nobody here is obligated to re-describe their argument over and over, using different words, until (theoretically) you accept their position as valid. To keep demanding it, especially when you don't otherwise engage with what they said, is fairly rude. My reply made no accusations of POV. Safrolic (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
"My reply made no accusations of POV."—you made the accusation that "controversy" "promot[es] a minority point of view". "POV" is short for "point of view". This is an accusation of POV. Are you saying you're retracting it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Saying a word violates policy is not accusing you or anyone else of POV, and I was pretty explicit on how it does. You demanded a meaningful response, and now that yet another one's been given to you, you're picking at the edges instead of actually engaging with it- again. Either engage with the meat of the argument, or just drop it. Safrolic (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
You're bending over backwards to avoid telling us what "minority point of view" "controversy" "promote[s]". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
As you well know, I explained the reason for this above. If you feel it is best to change it back go for it, but doing so is likely to be nothing but disruptive. The question is between "controversy" and "political scandal". You proposed the compromise of "dispute" while noting that your first choice was "controversy". Harris agreed that "controversy" was okay for the time being, though his preference was political scandal. He agreed that "controversy" was an acceptable stopgap while this RfC was underway. I don't believe anyone expressed real support for "dispute" as a temporary or permanent solution here. Just stop trying to escalate things..--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
"Disruptive" is editing the text while it is under discussion. Incredibly, you link WP:IDHT while ignoring "while the RfC is open". You could just stop, but your modus operandi is to drown the discussion in verbiage. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 18:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
You've created 30% of the text on this talk page. Safrolic (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Darryl Kerrigan: You should never edit text while that text is under discussion. Just don't do it; it is not accepted protocol on any RfC. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Littleolive oil, I will keep that in mind. I was not trying to open a can of worms here. I did not think changing it to "controversy" was a controversial stopgap as that was the option you and CT supported (as a final option), and I don't believe anyone had expressed any real support for "dispute". The issue seemed to be between "controversial" and political scandal. I appreciate your attempt to mediate here. I should have known CT would attempt to make everything controversial though. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND for him. I am not sure if it is helpful to debate the "dispute option" as no one seems to have expressed any support for it yet, and many seem opposed, but I note the rule, and thank you for your comment.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes – it's obvious it is a scandal per dictionary definitions (see my comments above). It's absurd we are arguing about it. This has nothing to do with POV, in my opinion - we have a duty to call things their proper names. PavelShk (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. A political scandal was defined above in several ways. In it's article, "A political scandal is an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage. Politicians, government officials, party officials, lobbyists can be accused of various illegal, corrupt, or unethical practices." In the article for scandal, "A political scandal occurs when political corruption or other misbehavior is exposed. Politicians or government officials are accused of engaging in illegal, corrupt, or unethical practices. A political scandal can involve the breaking of the nation's laws or moral codes and may involve other types of scandal." Merriam-Webster gives a scandal five definitions, including "loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety" and "a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it" As others have said in this RfC and the discussion above it, other pieces can help judge whether an event is a scandal, like the resignation or firing of officials.
Now, here's Global News reporting on an Ipsos poll in March: "Sixty-four per cent of Canadians say they’re now following the issue — that’s 15 points up from two weeks ago. Most of them also say they believe the issue deserves all the attention it has been getting, compared to less than a third who say the matter is being blown out of proportion. [...] Sixty-seven per cent of respondents say they believe Wilson-Raybould’s version of events regarding inappropriate political interference by the Prime Minister’s Office into her prosecution of SNC-Lavalin on corruption and bribery charges. Worryingly for Trudeau, the SNC-Lavalin affair is concerning Canadians across the political divide, with Liberal Party supporters growing increasingly disapproving of the prime minister. Nearly a quarter of Liberal voters say they believe Trudeau should step aside while the SNC-Lavalin affair is investigated, with 73 per cent of Liberals agreeing that the RCMP should probe the issue and lay charges against politicians and bureaucrats where appropriate."
Here's The Star reporting on a Forum poll at the same time, saying "Former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould alleged she was subjected to improper political pressure by Trudeau and his senior staff to cut SNC-Lavalin a “deferred prosecution agreement.” Such an agreement would allow the Montreal-headquartered construction giant to avoid a conviction on criminal fraud and bribery charges that would disqualify it from bidding on future government contracts. The resulting scandal gripped Ottawa for two months, led to the resignations of Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from cabinet, as well as the resignation of Trudeau’s principal secretary. It also had a heavy cost for Trudeau’s personal brand, the Forum data suggests. Three-quarters of respondents said the scandal has worsened their opinion of Trudeau. The brand hit was especially pronounced among people with a college or university degree (80 per cent), respondents from the Prairies (91 per cent), and among Conservative (87 per cent) or NDP (84 per cent) supporters."
Now, here's Merriam-Webster's only definition of a controversy. "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" Wikipedia's political controversy redirects to political scandal. I think it's clear here that the word "scandal" is verifiable, accurate and appropriately weighted, while the word "controversy" does not accurately match how reliable sources and Canadian people see the thing. Safrolic (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. When I read the article (outstanding writing, btw, all the editors who've worked on this should be proud of the result), it clearly describes a political scandal. In search results, I noticed that in articles/columns not specifically about SNC-Lavalin affair but in which the writers mention the affair, they called it a scandal. Examples: In Ottawa's scarcity of ethics, As the SNC-Lavalin scandal metastasizes; Nanaimo-Ladysmith byelection voters guide In recent months, Trudeau’s popularity has dropped following the SNC-Lavalin scandal.; Did Indigenous issues influence Wilson-Raybould affair?, And it’s even fair to argue that the cabinet conflict over Indigenous rights is irrelevant to the most pressing issues emerging from the present scandal: protecting the judicial process from political interference; rethinking the conflicted role of the attorney general; reviewing the entire rationale behind deferred prosecution agreements; probing the moral character of the Trudeau government. "Dispute" seems too feeble to characterize the coverage of the affair. Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    Schazjmd: "dispute" was merely a placeholder that was nobody's preferred term; the other disputed term is "controversy". All of these terms are common in sources—we're trying to determine which is most neutral, per WP:NPOV and MOS:W2W. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. I believe it should be called a political scandal for the following reasons (In addition to what I said above):
1) it matches the dictionary definition of scandal. The definitions I have seen do not require proof or evidence of misbehaviour, but only for it to be seen/regarded as such. The definitions also include a sense of outrage, which can be seen in the massive changes in the polling numbers. I also noted political controversy redirects to the political scandal article in Wikipedia.
2) scandal would be consistent with other similar Canadian events referred to as political scandals in Wikipedia. My scanning of scandals such as Tunagate, and Shawinigate I see variable levels of evidence or in some cases were even cleared by ethics reviews. Yet they are still referred to as political scandals. I realise we don't have to do something because another article did it, but consistency is also an important principle and the use of scandal for those cases does indicate a pattern of reasoning by other editors.
3) the reasons I have seen for using controversy seem more related to "it is not scandal", rather than "it is the right word". I agree that we should be as neutral as possible, but we also have to reflect the situation accurately as well. Otherwise we could use the phrase "discussion" or "difference of opinion" as they are even more neutral. Any word choice can be used to reflect a POV, for or against, which is why we should pick the most accurate word. If we can tone it down, we should, but only if it is possible and does not change the meaning. Right now, I don't see controversy and scandal as equivalent, but I would be more comfortable with controversy if a clear dictionary definition supported why it best describes this situation. Harris Seldon (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. I don't how you could look at this event and not think the word scandal applies, especially considering the significant turn in the polls resulting from it. "Scandal" is also how prominent Canadian news outlets are describing the affair, including the Star, the Globe, and the CBC. AdA&D ★ 13:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • No. As an encyclopedia, we should be using more neutral and less inflammatory terms. As time goes by and we get further away from the intense news coverage and opinion pieces, we get something closer to secondary-source coverage – one example is this piece in The New York Times which refers to the SNC-Lavalin affair as a "controversy" and not as a "scandal". Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 18:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Note - This has now been open for about a month. I note Legobot has now removed the RfC tag. Should we restore it? It may be premature to close this. As this has been infront of the Arbitration Committee, I expect some may have been more reluctant to comment. It may be wise to leave it open for more time. Thoughts?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd leave it until after the arbitration closes. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, agreed. I added the RfC template back in. Not sure if I did that right. Please feel free to correct.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, clearly I do not know what I am doing with that. Legobot immediately removed it again. I will leave this for someone else to do then.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Andrew, the above hounding of CT (and me -- you seem to have noticed this whole mess after I took a public interest in it today) as revenge for ... whatever ... is clearly inappropriate (given subsequent events, it's practically grave-dancing), and has not gone unnoticed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Andrew Davidson. The wording used in Britannica may be a helpful consideration for us, when determining what is proper encyclopedic content.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No No need to use such inflammatory language when the "controversy" synonym is sitting right there for us to use. Additionally, as a procedural matter I don't want this to become another debacle of the "ArbCom ruled that we were right on the content -- or at least they implied as much by issuing a one-sided sanction against our opponent" variety. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for this comment and reminder. ArbCom does not address content, and I agree they have not done so here. We need to continue to dicuss this on its merits. Thanks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Alternative proposal

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

The SNC-Lavalin affair refers to allegations in Canada of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office(PMO). MP Jody Wilson-Raybould alleged the PMO pressured her to intervene in an ongoing criminal case against Quebec-based construction giant SNC-Lavalin while she was Minister of Justice and Attorney General, before she was shuffled to another cabinet position in January 2019. The Trudeau government maintained that there was no undue pressure or law broken, that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) could save jobs, and that the situation resulted from misunderstanding and an "erosion of trust". Harris Seldon (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I support this idea—any of the proposed terms are redundant with "affair" to begin with. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I support this compromise since it is more neutral in wording and improves syntax. Thanks for the suggestion Littleolive oil (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Support the alternative version suggested by MrGold1User:Harris Seldon as this seems to be a reasonable compromise. Schazjmd (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - Calling these simply "allegations" misses the point. These are allegations in that they have not been proven in court, and as the committee investigating this was shut down by the Liberal majority on the committee, we will not be receiving findings or a report from that committee either. All of that said, I believe focusing on whether this is "wrong-doing" or just unproven "allegations of wrongdoing" misses the point. I agree with Mr. Guye that a political scandal is anything that is sufficiently "ethically-disputed" (but also likely needs to be high profile enough). Referring to this as an "allegation" misses that (regardless of whether wrongdoing is proven or not) this led to significant coverage, over a long period of time (months), which included resignations, calls for resignations, calls for expulsions, expulsions, threats of lawsuits etc. This article is not just about "the allegations". It is also about the "scandal/controversy/aftermath/fallout" caused by those allegations.
All of this said, I will make one more point. While much of the sources focus on the "ethically-disputed" conduct (or alleged conduct) of the PMO/Trudeau/Butt etc, it is also likely a political scandal based on the "ethically-disputed" conduct (or alleged conduct) leveled by some against JWR and Philpott (without expressing a view on whether those allegations are fair or accurate). There were allegations that she inappropriately or illegally recorded the Clerk of the Privy Council, during the events of this scandal. There were allegations she inappropriately attempted to interfere with her successor's prosecutorial discretion (whether he could issue a DPA to SNC). There were stories suggesting she was difficult to work with, was shuffled out of Justice because she wrongly would not grant a DPA ("consider the jobs"). If I remember correctly, there were allegations that her and Philpott were the sources of leaks of concerning cabinet discussions or otherwise confidential information. In my view, there are many reasons this is properly referred to as a political scandal. Reducing it just to allegations, and ignoring the scandal (or for lack of a better word: "controversy") of it all, is not helpful. This is why "dispute" is the weakest of all of the options which have been expressed. "Dispute" is silent about consequences and by extension can suggests there may be none (or that the result is not yet known). While we cannot say anything definitive about whether there was wrongdoing, there sure have been consequences. Whether the consequences where fair or not, there have been consequences (resignations, expulsions etc.).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
"In my view ..." ... So you have strong opinions on what happened and are demanding that Wikipedia reflect that POV.
"'Dispute' is silent about consequences and by extension can suggests there may be none"—this is a non sequitur (it suggests no such thing), and none of the proposals are for "dispute", which is merely a placeholder until things are sorted out.
"Reducing it just to allegations, and ignoring the scandal"—the whole rest of the lead gives these details—nothing's being "ignored" except for POV wording. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose - the alternative proposal of omitting either scandal or controversy in the lede as it defeats the purpose of the RfC discussion, to come to a consensus on whether the SNC-Lavalin affair is a political scandal or not and as explained in the Yes vote, the article meets the characteristics of what constitutes a political scandal in the English language. Unlike the Airbus Affair the Contra Affair is a Wikipedia rated Good Article and has political scandal in the lede while at the same time meeting the standards of a Wikipedia rated Good Article which include; being well written, having a neutral point of view, and accurate and factual information hence an article can be neutral and have political scandal in the lede as demonstrated in the Contra Affair. Cheers. Mr.Gold1 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think I understand this. Controversy was suggested as language for the lead [54]. It was originally reverted by you Mr.Gold1. Dispute was added as a compromise to scandal and controversy which was also reverted. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Littleolive oil - The "alternative proposal" made by Harris is to have neither "controversy" nor "political scandal" in the lede. Instead the alternative proposal is that we should simply note the "allegations" and nothing else (as set out in the paragraph above). I note Harris seems to have put this forward "for consideration" but does not seem to be endorsing it himself (unless I am mistaken).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok Thanks. "omitting either scandal or controversy" did not read to me as omitting both.Littleolive oil (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. It may also have become a bit confusing because Schazjmd (I think in error) says above that the "alternative proposal" was made by Mr.Gold1. Of course, it was Harris Seldon. Anyway, glad we are on the same page now and the discussion can continue.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Darryl Kerrigan is correct in that my first choice is still "political scandal", but I will also go along with the consensus whatever it may be. While I see flaws in the alternative approach I presented, I thought it worthwhile to include in case other editors were ok with it, or to try and help move the conversation towards some consensus. Harris Seldon (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS, in the case of the Contra affair, the allegations were determined to be true—there's no "dispute". What happened in the SNC-Lavalin affair is still hotly disputed under multiple viewpoints. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I oppose this for largely the same reasons as Darryl. The affair is the package of all the different pieces; the accusations, the leaks, the resignations and firings, the media coverage, and the rise and fall of public opinion of the scandal and the participants involved. Not confirming that it is a collective package allows it to refer to each and any of the pieces/events independently instead of parts of a larger, interconnected series of events and fallout from them. We have a well known, well-sourced, and clearly defined phrase which accurately matches the package of events, and it's been part of this article from the start. Safrolic (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
"it's been part of this article from the start": It was put there by Mr.Gold1, who in the same edit added the unattested term "SNC-Lavalin gate", and whose first comment in this RfC was an open declaration of POV.
"Not confirming that it is a collective package"—how does it not do this? I can't make heads or tails of this argument. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, for all the reasons Darryl cited above. We have a duty to correctly define a topic. PavelShk (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, for the same reasons I stated for the original RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC is ongoing, discussion should continue

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

While I share your frustration with what appears to me to be an attempt to push a "nothing to see here" WP:POV on this article, Littleolive oil and Schazjmd are correct. We cannot prejudge the RfC. It must be allowed to run its course.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Mr.Gold1: It's not appropriate to try and limit the potential for compromise on content. The compromise above sidesteps the concerns and should satisfy all. As well this RfC was contentious in part because it was worded, hopefully unintentionally, so that uninvolved editors, who were not familiar with the discussions, would not know, unless they searched the multiple past discussion threads that there were alternatives to the word scandal. There is no neutral reason to close the RfC now. Especially because it is contentious we could and should leave it open at least until closed by a bot after a month from its opening. It hasn't been open even for a week Littleolive oil (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@MrGold1: In addition to what Littleolive oil said, there's also WP:NOTVOTE. An uninvolved editor reviewing the RFC would consider the arguments each editor makes, not just count the yes/no responses. Schazjmd (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

More "controversy" vs "scandal"

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

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

Isn't every scandal a controversy? Do you think the word "scandal" should never be used on Wikipedia? Just trying to understand your position. AdA&D ★ 14:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
AdA&D: The words do indeed overlap in meaning, just as "claim" and "said" overlap in meaning. for example, it's "correct" to say "AdA&D claimed 'every scandal [was] a controversy"—this is a very common and correct way to write and speak. But per the MOS:CLAIM section of MOS:W2W, Wikipedia discourages the use of "claim" because it can be a loaded term that can be interpreted in a POV manner—so we prefer words such as "stated" or "said" that avoid these "dangers"—not because "claim" is "incorrect", but because it can too easily be misinterpreted. The SNC-Lavalin affair is a "scandal" ... and a "controversy" ... and a "dispute" ... and a "kerfuffle" and many other synonyms. Several editors found "scandal" such a loaded term—especially given several editors want to paint events in a certain light—so it was changed to "controversy" ... then objections were raised to "controversy", so we got the current "dispute". We could avoid all of this by going with Harris Seldon's alternative proposal—but some have taken religiously to "scandal".
There are multiple perspectives:
  • that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) did something wrong
    • that the "wrong" thing was not illegal, but unethical (Wilson-Raybould's position)
    • that the "wrong" thing was illegal (CPC leader Andrew Scheer's position)
  • that it was all miscommunication
  • that Wilson-Raybould was in the wrong
    • that she staged the affair to avenge a perceived "demotion"
    • that she planned to "destroy" Trudeau in a bid for Liberal leadership
  • etc
Several of the editors here are on record that the "PMO did something wrong" POV must predominate in the lead. This was the same motivation behind pushing the term "LavScam". Keep in mind that this is an election year, and those on many sides (left, right, and other) have something to gain from painting the affair in just the right light on the 5th most accessed website on the internet—which would explain why even the alternate proposal (that avoids all the disputed terms) has raised such hackles. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
That was not the motivation for the inclusion of "LavScam". Its use in WP:RS, status as a unique alternate name, and MOS:LEADALT were. I don't recall any editor saying the term LavScam should be used to make clear the "PMO did something wrong". I have heard that about the term "scandal". Of course, we cannot make decisions based on that POV, but if "scandal" is the word that properly describes the topic we should not shy away from it either. All of your bullets besides "it was all miscommunication" clearly refer to scandalous conduct. Few WP:RS seem to accept the "it was all miscommunication" version. Furthermore, the consequences and negligence which would have had to have occurred for this to be simply "miscommunication" might itself make it a scandal. Negligence or mismanagement can certainly amount to a scandal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue whether the term is the right word to use or to anymore, but I'm not sure the arguments you are using apply to how Wikipedia operates.
  • Sources are only reliable per the content they support. Being a RS does not guarantee usage, but guarantees only the possibility of usage.
  • This is opinion: "clearly refer to scandalous conduct." It only refers to scandalous conduct dependent on how you define scandal. I don't care about how each of us defines scandal and neither does Wikipedia. What we must must must care about is that we use the most neutral language we can in our article, that nothing we write influences the reader, that nothing we write harms anyone per BLP while at the same time presenting accurate, to the mainstream, content. This is not watering down as Mr Gold1 accuses me of but scrupulously avoiding inserting, even subtly, content based on opinion–content based on subtle OR thinking such as: X did THIS; I think THIS is scandalous; some sources use the word scandal so THIS must be scandal and we must use the word while ignoring that THIS=ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STORY and other words also describe the situation perhaps in a more inclusive way. What word can we use per our sources, in the lede, that describes all the possibilities in our sources and our content, that is inclusive of the sources and the opinions they are suggesting rather than exclusive. What word do we have that is overarching. And remember sources are often opinions not truth, just the opinions of the news source. We want to encompass in a neutral way, in our lede, the word that encompasses, as far as is possible, what we will lay out in the article, that summarizes not one position but as close to all of our content and sources as we can. The lede summarizes and must be inclusive. Scandal is an exclusive, meaning-ladened word based only on one side of this political story.
  • This is your conjecture: "Furthermore, the consequences and negligence which would have had to have occurred for this to be simply "miscommunication" might itself make it a scandal." We can't make decisions based on conjecture. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
With the greatest of respect Littleolive, words have meaning. It is not my definition, it is the dictionary definition. As others have pointed out, we do not pick the "most neutral" term. We look for the most precise term and the terms that are reflected in reliable sources. WP:NPOV is not supposed to be an Argument to moderation or false balance. Some here are trying to espouse a definition of "scandal" which requires proven illegal or immoral conduct. That is not what the word means, as has been discussed in detail already. In raising other political scandals where "negligence" or "mismanagement" was the "scandal", I am not engaging in conjecture at all. I am responding to Curly. It is clear that a scandal can be created out of recklessness, indifference or carelessness also.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
"It is not my definition, it is the dictionary definition."—just bookmarking this IDHT.
"we do not pick the 'most neutral' term"—and this.
"We look for the most precise term and the terms that are reflected in reliable sources."—that term is "affair"—far and away the most common term, which is why the article title is "SNC-Lavalin affair", and not "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "SNC-Lavalin controversy", "SNC-Lavalin dispute", or something else—all of which are attested in RSes, sometimes together in the same article. You're fighting tooth and nail against the other attested terms, as well as compromises that avoid the need for any of them (the best solution, as all of the terms are redundant to "affair"). But you're going to take us around in circles again, aren't you? Tell us about the dictionary again, Darryl. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You need to relax. I only brought up the dictionary, because Littleolive suggested it was "my definition". I hear you quite well; I just disagree. You are fighting fiercely against "scandal" because based on "your definition" you see it as WP:POV. I disagree, and am similarly but oppositely opposed. I see the removal of "scandal" as WP:POV in the guise of "neutrality", which is really false balance. Those fault lines, are well defined. Littleolive says inclusion of "scandal" is "based only on one side of this political story". I disagree. As you have outlined in your bullets above, there are allegations against JWR that some have considered scandalous. I suspect you have understood (but disagreed with) that before, but Littleolive (at least in the comment above) appears to have missed that point. I could do without rehashing of these points, but if you start a new section called More "controversy" vs "scandal", you shouldn't exactly be surprised if you hear more about those things.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
"there are allegations against JWR that some have considered scandalous"—or "controversial", or a "dispute", or any other number of terms that you reject, as well as any solution that avoids any of these labels. Your goal is to shoehorn "scandal" into the lead, not to find the most appropriate way to describe the affair.
I see the removal of "scandal" as WP:POV in the guise of "neutrality"—a serious charge. You've studiously avoided answering the question: "What POV"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I think we may have officially gone full circle. The POV is something like "there is nothing to see here". Controversy and dispute both signal disagreement but not that there are "allegations of wrongdoing". Allegations of wrongdoing which, while may not be accepted by all (or even most), are accepted by many and fairly (or unfairly) disgrace those associated with them. A defamatory accusation (despite not being true) is a scandalous one if it is damaging enough to one's reputation.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yep, you've gone totally full circle—there's nothing to support your ridiculous "there's nothing to see here" accusation: the whole lead lays out exactly what there is to see—the allegations, counter-allegations, etc. "Scandal" adds nothing but sensationalized POV—it adds nothing to the substance of the lead, and leaving it out hides literally nothing. Nothing but the POV whose light you want people to read the article in, that is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you understand that you are stating an opinion in your above cmt. And can you understand that we are talking about two different uses of the word neutral and two different uses of the word scandal. That some sources say there is scandal is true so when we are describing the different aspects of the affair we can use scandal with those sources. There are multiple versions of what happened in this affair and multiple words used in the sources to describe those various versions. We can, per the sources in the mainstream, use those words to underpin those multiple aspects.

When we are writing the article we are looking for words to describe in a neutral manner all of the aspects of the affair, the entire article, and we need a word that describes all not some. This word which opens the article must present the article and its content in a neutral manner; that means we do not appear to take sides or to weight any aspect of the affair more than another per their weight in sources. That is why we use the most neutral word we can; this is different than leaving out content to create a non-neutral or biased position. The balance I am talking about is about the overall article. The neutral I'm talking about and we are talking about is a description of the entire article and the entirety of the affair. That's my last attempt to explain. Not sure how else to say it. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

"Can you understand that you are stating an opinion in your above cmt."—of course he does. He's doing it to exasperate, probably in the hopes of driving someone to commit blockable behaviour. See WP:CIVILPOV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Let's avoid opinions. Curly (and Olive), are there any of the following statements of fact which you dispute, and if so which ones?
1. Wilson-Raybould made allegations of political pressure into a criminal proceeding against the PMO. Some/many of those allegations were later supported by physical evidence in the form of a phone call recording and email transcripts.
2. The HoC Justice Committee held hearings about the matter, and the Ethics Commissioner opened an investigation into it.
3. Two senior PMO officials resigned due to the matter and public reaction to it.
4. Two senior Cabinet members resigned in principle over the matter, and were later expelled from the Liberal Party over it.
5. Most Canadians, according to polling, believe Wilson-Raybould over the PMO.
6. Most Canadians, according to polling, think the pressure was inappropriate or unethical.
7. The Prime Minister's reputation, and the party's vote share in opinion polling, have fallen due to the matter (with >60% of Canadians saying the PM has lost the moral authority to govern).
Just want to make sure we're all standing on the same ground here in the first place. Safrolic (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I do have issues with your presentation of the facts (sources disagree on how strong the evidence of the phonecall was, and polls are not currently and have not consistently been at >60%[55] and were already at 58% in December), but lets pretend I don't. Your conclusion, I presume, is we therefore must not fail to label it a "scandal"? This is a non sequitur. You've been given multiple alternatives—inlcuding avoiding superfluously labelling the affair at all—and have made it clear you will stonewall against all concerns and solutions. Come on, Safrolic—concerns were raised with "controversy", so I took them seriously and stopped pushing for it. Solid policy-based concerns were raised with "scandal"—stop stonewalling and take them seriously. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I didn't say they were proven, I said there was evidence supporting them. The polls in your tracker show disapproval around 60, mostly but not always just above it, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referencing this ipsos poll, done at the beginning of March, in which 75% of Canadians thought there was inappropriate political interference placed on Wilson-Raybould, 67% said they believed Wilson-Rabould over the PMO, 68% said it was fundamental to the moral authority of the government, and 62% said Trudeau had lost the moral authority to govern. (and other polls, both in my vote and removed from the article previously, which covered the same issues.) That's not where I'm going with this, though. I want to make sure that we're all looking at the same underlying facts here, not just pretending to. Safrolic (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
We're not going to be "on the same page" if you insist on privileging a single poll over a poll tracker, no. That'd be the very definition of POV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
And those fact may change tomorrow or next week or next month; that the problem with using polls and with writing an article of this length and depth (Weight) about an ongoing situation in the news. Wikipedia is not a news source. And this opinion (removed inadvertent reference to Safrolic) (following) of how to define sandal and we can't base an article on an editor's opinion. "Controversy and dispute both signal disagreement but not that there are "allegations of wrongdoing". Allegations of wrongdoing which, while may not be accepted by all (or even most), are accepted by many and fairly (or unfairly) disgrace those associated with them. A defamatory accusation (despite not being true) is a scandalous one if it is damaging enough to one's reputation." In one way I only care very little about one word, and would normally walk away, but IMO this one word issue is indicative of a larger concern, and that is, that opinion is being used to design potential content. I'm not sure how to get past this. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
That's Darryl's quote, not mine. My opinion on how to define a scandal is that we should use the dictionary definition. Or, heck, Wikipedia. But 1-4 are accepted as true, and 5-7 as true at the moment? Safrolic (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
With the greatest of respect Littleolive, it is not "my opinion". All of what you quote as "my opinion" is based on Merriam-Webster's definition which I provided at the outset:
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.
I also care about this one word, because I see its removal as part of a larger push for WP:POV by argument to moderation. I think we need to call a spade a spade. I see a spade. It is clear yourself and Curly see some other sort of garden tool. Safrolic is clearly trying to figure out why, if we seem to agree with much (if not all) of the underlying facts.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "It is clear yourself and Curly see some other sort of garden tool."—another empty IDHT accusation that you've backed up with literally nothing. I've gone into detail more than once how "scandal", "controversy", "dispute", etc. are all "correct", but that MOS:W2W requires more than bare, narrow "correctness". You are fully aware of this. Shall we call a spade a spade? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Relax. I am not trying to accuse you of anything but seeing things differently than I. Safrolic has been trying hard to see whether we can agree on the underlying facts. I don't know if we do or not. I have heard you say that all the terms (scandal, controversy and dispute) are correct, but that "neutrality" favours some over others. I have said some terms are "more correct" that others. I think that should determine the word we use. You seem to disagree. I don't know if we are simply disagreeing based on the underlying facts, the application of the labels to them, or both. These IDHT allegations are not helpful. Perhaps engaging with Safrolic's questions concerning the "underlying facts" could be. I expect we are at an impasse already. If there is hope yet, it is likely Safrolic's proposal of seeing whether we can reach some agreement on the underlying facts.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Please drop the passive-aggressive "Relax".
"'neutrality' favours some over others"—per MOS:W2W, we avoid loaded terms. It does not tell us which terms to "prefer", but to identify problematic terms and avoid their use. Other terms were proposed as alternatives—if they are also problematic, then we avoid them, too. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm trying to ascertain, first of all, that we are actually seeing the same set of facts. If we're not able to find agreement on points of fact, there is no hope whatsoever of reaching agreement on outcome. Safrolic (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I have also been thinking for a while now that part of the underlying disagreements for this article could actually be due to different thinking about what the underlying facts of the affair actually are. There may be some merit in parking the scandal vs. controversy discussion for now to see if there is common thinking on the facts themselves. Harris Seldon (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
There shouldn't be "thinking about underlying facts"—that's the road to POV editing. We do not engage in framing or commentary. We do not start with a POV and then hunt out sources to back up that POV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
If you want to dispute any of the facts that I set out, then please do so, specifically. I disagree that they're framing or commentary or that they have a POV. They're just the things that happened, and how Canadians polled about those things felt about them. But if you want to edit without regard to what the facts are.... well, I'll be honest, I don't know what to do with that. Safrolic (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
"If you want to dispute any of the facts" is not a response that engages "There shouldn't be 'thinking about underlying facts'—that's the road to POV editing." This is deflection. You keep doing this, Safrolic. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You are confusing moderation with neutrality. If you cited a dictionary definition you neglected to quote. If you are making a point based on your understanding of a dictionary definition, and please note not all dictionaries offer the same definition, then that is an opinion. I'm not sure why you are suggesting a POV push from an editor or editors who were able to do so little of the writing. Most of what I added was reverted, even a tag. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC) I can't se this discussion going any further. I've tried in every way I can to explain the differences in the way we use the word scandal, in how neutrality refers to content, but also refers to the overall tone of an article, that this is not to be confused with moderation, although if moderation means using language that does no harm then moderation might be a good description. Anyway, I'm going to unwatch until after the arbitration; I don't see any value in making the same points multiple times. Best to all. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is the original diff where Darryl quoted Merriam-Webster, three weeks ago. Here's Cambridge's, Oxford's, and Dictionary.com's (Random House) entries, if you'd like to see what the general consensus among English dictionaries on the definition of a scandal is. It's one thing to say there's a question of weight and NPOV on whether we should call it a scandal. But it's another thing to say that the article's subject is not a scandal, and I'd like to nail down where everyone is on that specific point. This is my last ditch effort to see if this discussion can go anywhere, because I feel the same way. Safrolic (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I've already gone into detail on this multiple times. How many times are you going to make me re-explicate? The affair can be described "correctly" with many words, but WP:NPOV and MOS:W2W demand we be careful not to choose potentially loaded terms. That is not an argument "that the article's subject is not a scandal", and it's dishonest to muddy the waters by suggesting that is the argument being made. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Alright, so you do agree that it is a scandal, but you also think it can be described as other things. That means that our point of disagreement isn't on whether it's accurate to call it a scandal, it's whether it's as accurate to call either of the other options you support, and if it is, which is the most appropriate word to choose. That's progress. So, can we move forward to assessing whether it's accurate to call it a controversy or dispute? Safrolic (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
"which is the most appropriate word to choose"—several of us have moved beyond this to Harris Seldon's proposed alternative. The subject of the article is already labelled "affair", which is the consensus term amongst sources, so I don't see the value in ranking the merits and demerits of multiple disputed superfluous terms.
I oppose "scandal" because it is sensationalizing and colours the interpretation of the text (violating MOS:W2W)—for the same reason, I oppose "fiasco", "débacle", and "clusterfuck", which have also been used accurately to describe the affair. I have no strong feelings about the other proposed terms, but reject the unsupportable idea that they contribute to hiding anything—and have provided links above about how untenable this interpetation is in light of actual usage. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
If we've moved on from supporting "controversy" as the first term used to describe the matter, I won't spend time talking about its inadequacy. Instead, let's talk about actual usage. "affair" isn't actually the consensus term among reliable sources. I did the whole google news search result thing, and found that "SNC-Lavalin affair" and "SNC-Lavalin scandal" had similar prevalence, with "affair" in the lead, and controversy as a distant third. This held for all the permutations of searches I tried. Standard caveats about the accuracy of gauging reliable source consensus this way apply, obviously. Usage didn't appear to be fractional, either- I built a partial list of media calling it a scandal, and it has depth across the political spectrum. Note to methods: I didn't bother trying to find so many tiny newspapers, I just grabbed links that I found starting with the biggest papers, trying to show comprehensiveness of coverage as a "scandal" among the major Canadian and international media. I only stopped here because I got tired of building the list.
Google News search result counts
"snc-lavalin affair": 34,600

"snc-lavalin scandal": 21,700

"snc-lavalin controversy": 6,930

"snc-lavalin" "affair": 35,100

"snc-lavalin" "scandal":28,000

"snc-lavalin" "controversy": 13,800

"snc-lavalin" "dispute": 10,300

"snc-lavalin affair" "scandal": 6,920

"snc-lavalin affair" "controversy": 4,690

"snc-lavalin affair" "dispute": 2,040 (the first page results look pretty unrelated)

"snc-lavalin scandal" -affair: 19,500

"snc-lavalin affair" -scandal: 24,200
Inexhaustive list of major reliable sources referring to the SNC-Lavalin affair as a scandal, or calling it the SNC-Lavalin scandal
Global News 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The Star 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Financial Post: 1

Hill Times 1

Edmonton Journal 1

National Post 1, 2, 3, 4

CBC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Globe and Mail 1, 2,3, 4

Macleans 1, 2, 3, 4

CNN 1

CTV News 1, 2,4, 5, 6, 7

Ottawa Citizen 1, 2, 3, 4,

Nunatsiaq News 1, 2

Vancouver Sun 1, 2, 3, 4

Winnipeg Free Press 1, 2

New York Times 1, 2, 3, 4

BBC 1, 2

London Standard 1, 2, 3

Fox News 1

The Spectator 1

Al Jazeera English 1, 2, 3, 4

The Times 1

HuffPost 1, 2, 34

The Province 1, 2, 3, 4

Vox 1

Washington Post 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
This isn't an RfC over whether we should call it a controversy, and I hear that you've moved on from that. Just as you and Olive agree that it *is* a scandal, I agree with you that there is controversy here. The question is about weight and POV. But we have results showing that reliable sources widely describe it as a scandal, that it's not even a settled question among reliable sources over whether scandal should be part of the name, that a large majority of Canadians also consider it to be a scandal (Ipsos above, Angus Reid, others), and that it matches the definition of what we consider a scandal to be- we being either Wikipedia or the English-speaking world. This is an RfC over whether it's appropriate to call the thing a scandal, or whether it's sensationalising. I think that given this evidence, it's not sensationalising- and further, given this evidence, we would be giving undue weight to a small number of political partisans if we avoided saying that it is one. Safrolic (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not getting any of the numbers you are, and "given this evidence, it's not sensationalising" is a non sequitur. I could point out that a wide majority of sources don't use "scandal",[56][57] but that again is missing the point. If all sources use the term "claim" in stead of "stated" in a non-legal context, we still avoid it per MOS:CLAIM.
The "inexhaustive list" schtick is getting old, and it's feeling like you're doing that to antagonize, as you're well aware at this point how inappropriate and obfuscating it is.
I've already pointed out what you're doing—you're starting from a conclusion and expending all your effort on promoting that conclusion. That is against Wikipedia's principals. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, this is arguing for an interpretation of MOS:W2W that would prevent us from ever using the words "political scandal" to describe a political scandal on Wikipedia. This is clearly not in line with Wikipedia consensus, since we use the words "political scandal" to describe article subjects, in Wikipedia's voice, all over the place. I think that what you wrote earlier could just as easily apply to you, for what that's worth. I'd like to avoid personal attacks here though, if possible, and focus on the content. Safrolic (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
"that would prevent us from ever using the words 'political scandal' to describe a political scandal on Wikipedia"—I've addressed this. How many more times will you make this statement?
It's impossible to focus on content—the issue is behaviour. You've given no indication that you would support or even consider any solution other than shoehorning "scandal" into the lead, and are resorting to the same stonewalling tactics as in other disputes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
When there's agreement among reliable sources that it is a scandal, and a large percentage of sources have named it the "SNC-Lavalin scandal", I don't think that it's fair to describe calling it a scandal "shoehorning". It's just reflecting reliable source consensus. Regarding your diff: I hear that you've made the argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not sufficient argument to allow it to exist here. That's not quite what I'm saying though. I'm saying that your interpretation of our policies doesn't match up with the consensus interpretation, and I'm pointing out the wide use of language on Wikipedia which would go against your interpretation but which nobody else has a problem with as evidence to that effect.
Specifically, you're arguing that in order to be called a scandal by us, the scandalous thing must be proven to have happened and proven to have actually been illegal or unethical, even though that's not what's required to class something as a scandal, per the dictionary definition and Wikipedia's definition. You argue that there can be no minority which believes it was not a scandal. So, looking just at the list of Canadian political scandals, I can see that the Munsinger affair, Shawinigate, 2011 Canadian federal election voter suppression scandal, ETS Scandal, and Quick Wins ethnic outreach scandal articles all describe their subjects as scandals, even though all of them would find significant minorities of Canadians who would disagree with the majority viewpoint on what happened and whether it was bad or not. You're right that what what exactly happened in the SNC-Lavalin affair is still disputed. But as Darryl said, the only viewpoint which wouldn't hold this package of events as a scandal is that it was all miscommunication; the alleged interference, the allegations, the commons hearings, the resignations, Philpott saying there was more to the story, the leaks of confidential cabinet matters, all of it. Any other viewpoint on the saga involves unethical behaviour by someone involved. I think you would be hardpressed to find a significant minority who agree with that specific viewpoint by now; I think that specific viewpoint might accurately be described as farcical.
Regarding your various prior accusations of WP:CIVILPOV, I want to quote from that page some of the hallmarks of a civil POV pusher: "They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV", "They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information.", "They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause.", "They will attempt to label others or otherwise discredit their opinion based on that person's associations rather than the core of their argument." I think we should all take a close look at the page going forward. Safrolic (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
"but which nobody else has a problem with"—aside from those who voted it was POV in this very RfC? I'm not even the one who raised the initial objection—but this isn't the first time these disputes have been framed as "Curly Turkey vs. everyone else".
"You argue that there can be no minority which believes it was not a scandal."—this reads like it was produced by a gibberish generator.
"You're right that what what exactly happened in the SNC-Lavalin affair is still disputed."—nice to see you acknowledge this.
"the only viewpoint which wouldn't hold this package of events as a scandal is that it was all miscommunication"—in which case it could still be a "scandal" under certain definitions of "scandal", as well as "controversy", "dispute", and all the others.
"I think we should all take a close look at the [WP:CIVILPOV] page going forward."—another FUD accusation of POV-pushing sans any indication of what that POV could be.
And we're back where we were: you will allow no alternative to shoehorning "scandal" into the lead because the alternatives are not "scandal". The same stonewalling as in the other disputes. How will you deflect from this fact next? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair/Archive_3&oldid=913471214"