Talk:Jody Wilson-Raybould

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Debad089.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Puffery
This should be removed: 'Upon her move to Veterans Affairs, Wilson-Raybould issued a public statement which outlined her milestones as the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General and stated that an Attorney General must be "non-partisan, more transparent in the principles that are the basis of decisions, and, in this respect, always willing to speak truth to power".'[73] imo, Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This should stay, but feel free to reword it or add reaction to balance the WP:Due weight. The letter was significant because it signaled that at least in her view something about her shuffle out of justice raised concerns about prosecutorial independence.  This is what started reporters asking questions and in part led to the fallout of the SNC-Lavalin Affair.  It was written by her so of course it needs balance, but it should not be removed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * Well, otoh, it may be too close to OR and/or Synthesis unless there's been actual news items about the nexus. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe there was at the time. I will have a look for it and add when I have time.  I only seem to be finding reference to her veterans affairs letter at the moment on my phone. Feel free to add a citation needed tag in the meantime.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * I have added a whack of sources citing and dissecting that statement. This is likely overkill, but I will leave them there for the time being as they may be helpful to balance the section as needed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Its puffery, imo, to include a Subject's own words listing what she herself considers her milestones. I'd like to see what others think about this. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to re-word it, go for it. The relevance of the release was that it was taken by media to indicate that she was unhappy with the shuffle, and that perhaps they should be asking questions about who she was "speaking truth truth to" and about what.  The relevance is not her opinion of her accomplishments, it is that she was suggesting something was amiss.  We can certainly balance this, but an AG suggesting she needed to "speak truth to" the PM or Cabinet is always going to be notable.  A few weeks after her statement was released, the Globe broke the SNC-Lavalin scandal story.  It deserves mention.  Happy to talk about how best to do that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Darryl, I do not disagree with anything you are saying; I'm just saying that the likely correct conclusions you are drawing do not belong in a Wikipedia blp, at least not that I'm aware of. Its simply injecting too much of your own, albeit quite intelligent and maybe even quite obvious, linkages into the Blp. Please listen to your own words. "it was taken by media to indicate...she was suggesting...an AG suggesting.."
 * I could be dead wrong about this; I'm hoping for some more opinions about this here on the talk page. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are wrong. I think you are right that her statements about her accomplishments need not be included, as they are likely self serving.  The same can be said for her "truth to power" statement. What is relevant here, is not what she said exactly, but that she said it.  It is unusual for Minister's to make statements like this which could be interpreted as criticisms of the government.  The fact that she did (knowing that some would interpret it as criticism) is particularly notable, and was noted by many WP:RS. I am not necessarily saying we need to say in the article that she was "suggesting" anything or that any particular media "took it" a particular way.  I am open to your suggestion that at current the sentence is "puffy" and needs to be reworded if included.  I haven't made up my mind on the final wording. Currently, it simply reads:
 * The many references listed here can perhaps assist us in a rewrite. Where we perhaps disagree, is that I think something about the statement must be included.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The many references listed here can perhaps assist us in a rewrite. Where we perhaps disagree, is that I think something about the statement must be included.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll agree with you about that. What wording would you suggest? Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is hard to write. I am open to suggestions. What about this? "Upon her move to Veterans Affairs, Wilson-Raybould issued a public statement concerning her time as Attorney General and the role.  She commented on the importance of public confidence in the judicial system and the absence of any perception of political interference saying that an Attorney General must be "non-partisan, more transparent in the principles that are the basis of decisions, and, in this respect, always willing to speak truth to power".  It appears the significant passage from that statement was the following:
 * It is the passage that has received attention in the sources.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is the passage that has received attention in the sources.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Her mother
Why is her father the only relevant part of her biography? Several profiles, done with her cooperation, have mentions her mother is White so I don't see why only her father's background should be mentioned? Cladeal832 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Anything we add on either parent will have to be sourced. The Interior  (Talk) 16:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Photo of 2018 Vancouver Pride Parade
This photo exists if there is an appropriate place to use it in the article. I don't see a relevant place now, but if someone else does, here it is.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)