Talk:Justin Trudeau blackface controversy

Should there be a separate article about the Blackface/Brownface scandal?
This article was converted from a redirect pursuant to a conversation here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. A paragraph at Justin Trudeau and mention at the election article is sufficient. It hasn't been consequential enough for its own article, if he'd resigned it would be another matter. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, it isn't notable enough or separate enough from the election to be a separate article, it should be merged back into 2019 Canadian federal election. - Ahunt (talk) 12:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. But given the stub already stands and I would anticipate a big fight I haven't asked for deletion. I have made some copy edits and removed a source that is not reliable. A bot should come by and fix the ref. As for the the stub itself; there are times when we have to distinguish something that is truly notable and something the press latches on to because it makes for sales. I see that the article creator did include pertinent content from multiple positions which is appreciated. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You don't need to take it for a deletion discussion, just merge in anything that needs merging in and then redirect it back to 2019 Canadian federal election. - Ahunt (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If there's agreement I'd be happy to merge. I'll wait awhile. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's give it a day or two to get a solid WP:CONSENSUS here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings either way. As I figured, creating it as a separate article has certainly furthered the discussion though.  I note WG's comments about the widespread coverage of the topic in Canadian and international media, and on late night shows.  It does seem to be a notable event, but if it can be dealt with appropriately within the JT and 2019 election articles without overwhelming those articles I don't see any reason not to do that.  I am not sure in a Personal Life/Other section is the right way to do that, but the question is can the topic be properly dealt with in the existing articles or is it better to have a separate one.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * I think the only case for a separate article would be that it is such a large subject that is cannot be adequately covered within the other existing articles that a separate article is therefore needed. I am not seeing that in this case. It is certainly notable enough for a section in those articles and should be covered, but essentially after a week, the media coverage has dropped to nearly nil and there seems to be little lasting effect, as shown in the polling. - Ahunt (talk) 18:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You may be right. Having sections specifically about the blackface controversy in those articles might be a way to deal with that.  I am not sure editors of those articles would agree with that approach though.  I suspect some would say a section about the controversy would be giving it too much prominence in the JT article.  I suspect that is why the content has been relegated to a section under Personal Life/Other.  The election 2019 article is (for now) divided into separate campaigns for each party, despite the fact that it is one election campaign and of course each of the parties are regularly responding to the actions of the others.  That means readers need to read about how one party dealt with the topic and then read through a lot of other content before seeing how the other parties dealt with it.  Not sure that is ideal.  I agree sections in those articles could deal with the topic, the question is whether that is the best solutions for those articles.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * I think you hit the main arguments and points there. Right now there seems to be a consensus here to merge it back in, but let's wait a while and see if anyone else has any thoughts on the subject. - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

If content is added back into the Trudeau article, seems to me, it must be added per weight, that is weight per the content in the article and weight per the life history of Trudeau as well as weight per the ratio of sources on this incident per total sources on Trudeau. There is discussion on what and how to place this content in the article which of course everyone is free to join and add too. I don't think we have to surmise how editors will deal with the issue they already have and welcome more input. This incident, and I don't see it as a controversy since there were allegations which Trudeau admitted to and apologized for, is small in the life of Trudeau and perhaps even smaller in the life of the politician since some incidents happened in high school and one many years ago before Trudeau had entered public life. We have to be careful to give this the appropriate weight neither more nor less than it deserves. And as a note, this incident or scandal was placed in the category "Other" because it along with a couple of other incidents didn't really seem to fit anywhere else. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We have a policy on just that at WP:PROPORTION. Feel free to quote it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news.

Littleolive oil (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, therein lies the problem, if there is one. If this topic is noteworthy enough for an article, but we decide not to have one because it is mentioned in other articles, but then is not covered in those articles in anything more than passing mention (because anything more would be out of proportion for the other articles)... well, then the topic is not going to be properly covered.  In that case a seperate article may be appropriate.  It might allow the other articles to trim the mention of the topic to something proportional while allowing for detail about the scandal/controversy/incident in a seperate article. I would suggest this "incident" may be just as notable as someothers like Elbowgate, Shawinigan Handshake, Fuddle duddle, 1993 Chrétien attack ad.  The correct approach to those articles is not to merge them into ones about the politicians responsible for those incidents or the parliamentary or election periods they occurred in. They are stand alone.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)


 * It all hinges on how much text there is. If the subject is long enough then it can have a separate article, but if it easily fits into the existing articles then it doesn't need one. - Ahunt (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think, actually, it all hinges on notability. Per the policy, "news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." I doubt very much that Trudeau's insensitivity as a teen-ager and later young adult if discovered at a different time, that is not before a Federal election, would have garnered the kind of press this has, as noted in, "This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." For that reason while we should have content about this issue, creating an entire article about this is in my opinion overkill. As well, there really isn't much material and detailing every nuance may be undue. I don't support a separate article, and I don't support isolating this and other similar less significant topics like Trudeau's tattoos in separate sections in the JT the article. Just my opinion. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Merger done...pls see redirect targets as follows ....some info moved to Justin Trudeau with an anchor added  at 2019 Canadian federal election where more  info then here is located. -- Moxy 🍁 05:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I reverted and then self-reverted when I discovered that there was a tag with no sub-heading. I simply added a sub-heading in the election article, although think a stand-alone article is merited. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Other details which should perhaps be added
If someone has the details and WP:RS concerning which of the videos/photos were leaked from the conservative campaign, that should likely be added. It might also be a good idea to add more about Jagmeet Singh's response/reaction (ie about the hurt this could cause minority communities, young children) and the talk/proposal that he and Trudeau have a private phone call or meeting about the incident.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, might need to add something about this high resolution video that was posted by the Star and the background. There seems to be some conspiracy theories about it being pulled, but these are not in reputable sources (ie Post Millennial, Daily Caller). As such, mention of that is not appropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)