Talk:Marc Kielburger

Untitled
This reads like an ad - or as though it is cut and pasted from a promotional website —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.135.87 (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marc Kielburger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nsb.com/speakers/marc-kielburger/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080111020215/http://www.enfantsentraide.org/ftc/source/news/2005/north_bay_news_june9_05.htm to http://www.enfantsentraide.org/ftc/source/news/2005/north_bay_news_june9_05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Undisclosed paid editing
This article was affected by undisclosed paid editing. Please see for details. Feel free to remove anything from the article that is excessively promotional or improperly sourced. —  Newslinger  talk   06:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This was archived to Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 157 -- 65.94.170.98 (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find it. 142.116.116.36 (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You can find it in the archive page under the original title mentioned in Newslinger's first comment: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 157. — Bilorv ( talk ) 02:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Maitland accusation
I was looking at this this morning and, reading the references, it sounds more about the work environment at WE Charity than about Marc Kielburger per se. Maybe it should be moved?174.116.149.70 (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed it as more prejudicial than informative of the subject's life and career. It's just one source and rather vague at that.71.17.30.182 (talk) 05:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

”Scandal” sentence in the lede
This sentence as currently formulated implies a cause and effect that was explicitly rejected by Canadian Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion, who conducted a detailed investigation of these claims and cleared Trudeau and his family of wrongdoing. As a disproven allegation, I can’t see that it belongs in the lede of Marc Kielburger’s biography. It is already covered in the “Controversy and criticism” section, where it’s presented accurately and a lot more even-handedly.Fletcher07 (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the lead is to summarise the main aspects of the subject, generally by summarising material in the body of the article. You removed the only sentence in the lead that referenced one of the main sources of Kielburger's coverage in reliable sources. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Bilorv,
 * “The purpose of the lead is to summarise the main aspects of the subject, generally by summarising material in the body of the article”
 * You are correct that ledes should summarize the contents of an article as a whole, but this sentence is not doing that. Calling it a “scandal” asserts wrongdoing in Wikipedia’s own voice, which the first paragraph of the “Controversy and criticism” subsection rightly does not do While brevity is always a virtue, this paragraph is arguably deficient in not reporting that the findings of the Canadian Ethics Commissioner which determined the allegations against Trudeau and his family to be without merit. It seems to me that we lack the standing to say otherwise.
 * Looking at the “View history” tab, the original sentence which you modified looks to have been added by a contributor who is motivated primarily by Conservative politics and attacking Justin Trudeau. I am not sure why this kind of blatantly partisan editing is allowed on Wikipedia.
 * Besides this, it’s not exactly about Marc Kielburger. What is indisputable about Mr. Kielburger is stated in the Controversies section, that he personally falsely claimed to WE Charity’s volunteers that Trudeau’s office was involved in the decision to grant WE Charity the contract. I’m not sure if this is important enough to be worth mentioning in the lede as it seems quite minor in the overall arc of his life and career.
 * “You removed the only sentence in the lead that referenced one of the main sources of Kielburger's coverage in reliable sources.”
 * I find this comment surprising. I take it that you are not Canadian? There was a ton of coverage for both Kielburger brothers, mostly laudatory, in the mainstream Canadian press prior to the election-driven dispute about Trudeau and his family. Much of this is included in the current “References” section. These are not obscure figures known only or primarily for this “scandal”.Fletcher07 (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That I am not Canadian is an advantage rather than a disadvantage to my perspective: I see what Kielburger is known for internationally, which is the sort of thing we would mention in the lead. The article WE Charity scandal uses the term "scandal" in Wikipedia's voice, so Talk:WE Charity scandal would be the place to argue for a page move—using a word from the article title would only be a derivative problem. I am, to make an understatement, not a conservative, but people are permitted on Wikipedia whatever their political views (unless their views prevent a safe editing environment for all). In my view it is better, not worse, for someone to wear their biases on their sleeve than to deny that they have any. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Bilorv, It’s one thing for contributors to wear their biases on their own sleeves, quite another to hang them on the sleeves of Wikipedia articles.
 * Following the link you provided…looks like the “scandal” title was decided by only a few people, a year before the Ethics Commissioner’s investigation had concluded. It is mistaken to hold that bias in one article requires us to repeat it in another.
 * You are dancing around the main point here, which is that the allegation that Trudeau awarded the grants contract to WE Charity in exchange for payments made to Trudeau’s family was investigated in great detail at the highest levels of oversight, and was officially determined to be untrue.Fletcher07 (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I gather that you're quite new to Wikipedia,, but sadly the requested move you've linked strikes me as one of the better-attended ones, compared to the median. So far this discussion of only two people does not have consensus for your changes. There is, however, a strong consensus in that requested move that the use of the word "scandal" is encyclopedic. You are welcome to gather more opinions (without canvassing) if you wish to set a new consensus. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, biographies of living persons are held to much higher editorial standards than articles about events or organizations. For something to be a "scandal", it does matter whether the accusations are (or were) actually true, or if they actually lacked merit or evidence. Overall, looking at the discussion above, I'm a little disturbed that a long-time editor like Bilorv would express what appears to me a relative lack of care about following WP:BLP. We should try harder as Wikipedians to not malign human subjects with characterizations that don't fit. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I'm glad at least someone is listening. Read this report and decide for yourself.Fletcher07 (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for sharing that document. That the investigator found "in all of these instances, Mr. Trudeau was not, in my view, motivated by the identity of any person representing WE, including the Kielburgers or any of his relatives" is statement enough that labeling this a "scandal" in a biography on Wikipedia contravenes both the letter and spirit of WP:BLP. Again, that is a comprehensive source that ought to put this to rest. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the text. It says that the charity was involved in a scandal, not Kielburger, and there is still a consensus outweighing a three-person discussion here that this event should be described as a "scandal"—something that would apply equally to WE Charity scandal, as WP:BLP applies to content on all pages that relates to living persons. If the contention is that the word is inappropriate then you should raise this at Talk:WE Charity scandal, proposing a page move to the article title you would suggest instead, or nominate the page for deletion if you believe that it is non-notable. — Bilorv ( talk ) 23:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've brought this to the BLP noticeboard for further input. - Hard thoughtful work (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would leave it out of the LEAD (not lede, my own pet peeve) for NOW based on how the lead is currently written since it would give undue weight to this event. If the lead was written, say like Elon Musk's, where his entire life's work is covered then it makes more since. We see this alot, imho, in bios where "scandals" and "controversies" are "forced" into the lead like we are a news service, covering scintillating stories. I understand that the lead summarizes the body but again this seems like undue weight compared to the subject's whole body of work. Full disclosure, I came here from the BLPN board, and havn't studied all the sources in detail and I am opened to being convinced otherwise.--Malerooster (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

It is insane that this page seems so scrubbed of the scandal around his charity and his involvement in unethical activities in Kenya and India. Listen to The White Saviors. I don’t even know where to start and I’m not skilled at editing Wikipedia articles, but I at least wanted to flag it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:207:1:acf0:1ca5:ef3d:67f5:ad43 (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)