Talk:Century Initiative

The Century Initiative and its policies have been discussed by articles from all of Canada's major newspapers and TV stations, meeting the notability requirements for organizations and companies, so I am removing the notability tag. --ScienceMan123 (talk) 12:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Century-initiative-logo-full.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of neutrality in article

I've been editing this article to remove what I consider non-neutral language and tone. Author @ScienceMan123 disagrees. Let's discuss a compromise here. Octagon.pinhole (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, here's my position, first, I consider myself in a position which is essentially neutral here, as I don't really care about Candian politics. However, I do care about neutral, balanced encyclopedia articles, which present all significant views with due weight. The information in the article was cited and the sources were OK, however I will not deny that issues with it existed. NPOV may have been an issue, but usually you can resolve NPOV problems without completely removing content, but there are other policies and guidelines here, such as WP:ONUS, WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:OR, which need to be taken into account. I'll keep an eye on this, but I'll try to keep out of the way from here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 14:42, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The connections to Blackrock are a strange addition to this article. Wiseman was previously at Blackrock, but he has lots of previous positions, too: CPPIB, etc. Should we also add a section about CI relationship to his current company? Furthermore, his exit from Blackrock is certainly not relevant to the story of CI.

The information about the formation doesn't seem relevant either. Whether it was in a boardroom, a seaside drive, etc. - why does the reader care it was a weekend trip at a cottage? Why are the roles at the time important? Octagon.pinhole (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The answer to your questions relates to Wikipedia:Due weight. It isn't so much if the readers will care, it's whether enough reliable sources care that he was previously employed at Blackrock to warrant a mention, and if so, do they connect it to the Century Initiative? If so, mention it, if not, it would be undue weight. The same goes for all the other contested information there.

As this also involves living persons, the requirements for due weight are stricter, and the bar for inclusion tends to be higher as well.

You may want to check what the sources are saying, and other material that may not be cited in the article too, to get an idea of what reliable sources are putting weight on. That weight should be reflected in the article. I trust this helps guide the discussion, and give assistance with the way forward.

Now, what I had dropped by to say: I'm going to be offline for several hours, so I won't be able to respond to anything for quite a bit. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 15:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The connections to BlackRock are relevant to include in the article given the mutually overlapping interests between BlackRock's real estate investment portfolio and the Century Initiative's goal of "massive" population growth. Those connections have been described in articles on the Century Initiative project published in reputable Canadian newspapers, which were cited. Could you please clarify whether you have a conflict of interest with respect to this topic, or why you are so passionate about removing this published information from the article? ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

I should also mention that if you look at the article history, the issue tag on the article was originally added because it was interpreted as promoting the subject, rather than the opposite. I have tried to keep the wording on this article impartial while including as much relevant information as possible. If I have failed, please do suggest alternate wording. ScienceMan123 (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@ScienceMan123:Since I gave Octagon.pinhole some guidance, I will do the same for you too: Basically, you are currently up against WP:ONUS, which means that you will need to prove that the material warrants inclusion, not just that it doesn't warrant exclusion.

"The connections to BlackRock are relevant to include in the article given the mutually overlapping interests between BlackRock's real estate investment portfolio and the Century Initiative's goal of "massive" population growth." This statement needs to be backed by reliable sources, and I would say, sources, because just one probably won't cut it here. That is basically what you need to find proof for. Even if the WSJ does so, you will still need to find at least one more reliable source which does so. I hope this helps you with your end of this discussion.

To assist your own argument, you may wish to show that a broad variety of media outlets are connecting BlackRock with the Century Initiative. I wasn't able to access the WSJ source, but the BnnBloomberg one does confirm that a link is made, and makes it fairly casually. Are there more sources that also make the connection? If there are more sources, could you please provide them to confirm that making the connection is indeed due weight?

Does the WSJ article explicitly link the house buying with the Century Initiative? If it doesn't then it may be Original research to imply a connection by including it in the article. If it does, you may also want to find some further sources for that specific connection as well, otherwise it may be challenged as undue weight, even if the connection is explicitly made.

I hope this assists with the discussion.

Also, ScienceMan123, I was disappointed to see this. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 09:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance, I will seek additional sources. Is it sufficient to demonstrate that the preponderance of newspaper articles found it worth mentioning that Mark Wiseman was working for BlackRock?

Sorry for the reversion, I did that before I saw there was a discussion on the talk page. ScienceMan123 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

If you could possibly link to those articles, it would be good, but it would still need more to show that the connection to Blackrock is worth more than a one sentence mention in this article, as thats about all it seems to have got in the news articles I've seen here. Unless the news articles are devoting an entire papragraph to the connection between Century Initiative and BlackRock (via Wiseman), then it wouldn't be due weight to do so in this article. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 23:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)