Talk:Nolan Crouse

claim not founded in source
I note that a claim that the person collected money "under the table" is unsupported by the source given. I am perversely barred from point this out except here, but it is as blatant a violation of WP:BLP as one might wish to find. http://www.stalbertgazette.com/Mayor's-board-income-to-be-disclosed-20141022  does not make that claim at all. I also note that having someone make a motion is not exactly earthshattering at all. Collect (talk) 17:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I just reverted another set of edits that had similar issues - presenting one councillor's informal calculations of amounts owed as fact (when it was contested), adding the "first mayor" bit (which wasn't in any of the sources), etc. The person adding this stuff needs to read the BLP policy and pay more attention to what's actually documented in the sources. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to assume good faith as much as long as I can, but the user name "Nolanwatcher" might indicate there is someone trying to do a little WP:RGW. Anyway, I keep the content to what can be found in reliable sources and will continue to look for some more, but IP 66.222.243.32's claim at BLPN may have some merit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversy section
We have had people adding and removing different controversies all day, can we talk about what should and shouldn't be there? I just removed the info about a provincial inquiry into council's governance: it claimed that the investigation was prompted by the private citizen's "pecuniary interest" allegation, but the source makes it clear that this is not correct. I'm on the fence if the investigation is relevant to the bio, but if it is we should explain that it was prompted by the hiring of Gilles Prefontaine, and was requested by council itself. The source doesn't really seem to tie it to Crouse at all - maybe others do?

Other controversies include the expense claims, the "pecuniary interest" accusation & civil action, and an as-yet undocumented charge that he's unusually litigious.

So - what's worth including? What can be sourced in a way that us verifiable and gives due weight? Fyddlestix (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Personally, I not totally sold on limiting the section to simply criminal complaints. Politicians do for sure tend to be an easy target for all kinds of questionable claims, but if something has been covered in reliable sources like perhaps this or the last part of this, then it may merit mentioning within the article. I do think extreme care needs to be taken to make sure everything is as neutrally worded as possible and just reflect what independent reliable sources are saying, but I'm not sure we should simply exclude civil matters just because they may not or did not ultimately lead to a criminal complaint. COI issues have always been a problem associated with politics for as long as there have been politicians. So, when questions are raised about ethics, etc. and these questions have been covered by the mainstream media, then maybe consideration needs to be given to mentioning them the article. As long as we avoid citing primary sources or opinion pieces, then I feel it might be OK to include some of these things. Just for reference, one of the things I was concerned about with "Court application to remove mayor from office" was that there was no follow up to what happened at the November 21 Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench hearing on the matter. I've been looking for something online about this, but have not yet found it. I think we should not try as much as possible to leave these things hanging and so it might be best to wait until they have been resolved or can be cited from start to finish before adding such content. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My bad on the court date thing. Yesterday I assumed the court date was scheduled for November 21, 2017. It was actually two months ago. In any event, court rulings are rarely provided the day of the hearing. It could be weeks or months away yet. Hwy43 (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC) AlbertaGal (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC) The court case has been concluded and Nolan Crouse was found guilty of breaching the Municipal government act on two occasions.


 * The Prefontaine hiring is not Crouse's controversy. It is a controversy of the now-fired Patrick Draper and maybe council as a whole (or the voting majority thereof). It is entirely speculation to pin this controversy on the mayor or any other councilor. If the provincial inspection uncovers anything and assigns blame to Crouse, then this becomes a controversy attributed to him. Until then, this controversy should not be on his article. Hwy43 (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just for reference, my comment about the Nov. 21 court date were not directed at you or any other editor in particular. It was more of a self-reflection that I probably shouldn't have tried to re-add that info to the article without knowing more about the outcome. I thought stripping it down to a single basic sentence was probably good enough given the source being cited, but perhaps it would've been better to wait a bit until more could be found on the matter. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Also just for reference, my comment about the date was a poorly introduced tangential comment about an error made in my edit last night that I owed up to after seeing it removed and the court date mentioned by chance here. :) Turns out I'm not even convinced the error was even noticed before the whole paragraph was removed anyway. Speaking of, why is there now so little in the controversy section? The content I reviewed last night was fair and neutral as I recall it. Hwy43 (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Marchjuly, we don't need to have a criminal conviction to include something. The key factors are that it needs to get significant coverage in RS (to the point where including it is giving due weight), and that we are careful to distinguish between facts & mere allegations. As long as we stick to what the RS actually say its fine. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

There has been a ruling about the pecuniary interest charges and he was found guilty on two counts. This is a signifigant enough issue that it should remain in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlbertaGal (talk • contribs) 04:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

IP editing/blanking
Recently, there have been a couple of IPs editing/blanking this section without giving any reason as to why. The reason why I first came across this page had to do with this BLPN post by IP 66.222.243.32, who identified himself as Nolan Crouse. Since then the same IP has blanked the section here, while IP 66.222.240.204 has edited and blanked the section as well. The IP address are similar and they both geolocate to St. Albert, Alberta so perhaps they are the same person. It's also possible they are Crouse himself, but I'm not sure how that can be verified. There are also other IPs editing the article as well including blanking the section, and these "199" IP addresses also geolocate to St. Albert. Again there's no way to be sure if they are connected to Crouse or anyone associated with him. It does seem, however, that there is an attempt by various SPAs to remove anything which might possibly be seen as negative about Crouse from the article, and this is probably going to continue for some time being now that he has announced he intends to run for the Alberta Liberal Party leadership: there have been similar POV pushing edits made by some of the same IPs at Alberta Liberal Party leadership election, 2017 as well. The question is whether what is in currently in the article should be treated as a BLP violation or as case of some bad press a politician has received in reliable sources. To me it seems to be more of a case the latter, but perhaps others feel differently. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The article has now been semi-protected until the January 27th so that IP and new accounts can't edit it. If the problem recurs subsequently, please request semi-protection again at Requests for page protection, say that the problem has returned since the first semi-protection period expired and ask that it be restored for a longer or indefinite period. McArthur Parkette (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Background
Looks like much of the content in the Background section can be found at this link, but isn't his campaign website essentially a self-published source? If so, is it satisfactory to support this content? Hwy43 (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It could be OK per WP:BLPSELFPUB, but it would be better to find a secondary source in support if possible. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was able to find this and this. The first one seems to be about an award Crouse received for a technical paper he co-wrote back in the 1970s, but I can't tell if this is the same award mentioned in the article, while the second source has to do with Crouse being a hockey coach. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Irma High School
It looks like "Irma High School" that Crouse is supposed to have graduated from might be Irma School, but I'm not sure since I can't find any find any mention of him on the school's website. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It is the same school. Given he graduated in the early 1970s, I'm not surprised there is no mention of him. Hwy43 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Should it be referred to as Irma High School or Irma School since it appears to be for grades K-12? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The former is fine. See the "Irma High School" emblem on the school's webpage. Likely common name for the 7-12 or 10-12 grades of the school. Hwy43 (talk) 08:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Legal issue
One of the two sources cited in the "Legal issue" section states that "St. Albert lawyer Brent Rathgeber represents Stone for this application. An Edmonton Court of Queen's Bench judge will hear the matter on Nov. 21 at 10 a.m." at the very end. I've been searching online for something further about this, but so far have not had any luck so far. The outcome of the Nov. 21 hearing should be mentioned somewhere in the article if we can source it; otherwise, it just leaves the entire section hanging at "will be facing a court application" and increases the chances of edits such as this as the party leadership election draws nearer. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Amazingly enough, the "financial interest" alleged is, on its face, tenuous, and I am unsure that, given that fact (Crouse had zero direct interest in the property discussed), that the entire "legal issue" raised by a single private individual is notable enough for inclusion. If anyone suggests removal, I would concur.  Until then, it is proper that we make clear that the only conceivable "financial conflict" is a city block away. Collect (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If this matter went before a judge, then it seems to me that something was decided. I have not, however, been able to find any coverage of such a thing yet. The narrative of a "Legal issues" should have a beginning, middle, and end if it is discussing things which are supposed to have already happened. We've got a beginning, but that's all. It's surprising that there is not even one story somewhere about what happened on Nov. 21. Most reporters covering something like this would do a follow-up, wouldn't they? The outcome of that hearing should be included; otherwise, I'm not sure there's not much of a point in mentioning it in the first place because the section will always begin "Crouse will be facing..." which is no longer correct and completely leaves the reader hanging.
 * If the section is kept, I have no problem with using the term "block". However, maybe "only a block away" would be WP:SYS because that's not the wording used by the source and "only" seems to imply an opinion is being asserted. The term "block", however, may not be very well known or known in a different context outside of the US and Canada, so I think the "70 m" should be used too. Also, the phrasing "as a company owned by him owned land" is a bit awkward and could probably be written better. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's mentioned in passing | here. It states the trial is still ongoing  (As of April 1  2017  - yeah I know, disregard the date, it's not a joke ).   Nothing yet about what happened or is happening in the trial.    I don't see an issue reporting what the sources tells us, that he is being brought to court because of xxx, I would definetly oppose any editing that implies that he's guilty, or outright says it as this hasn't been proven yet.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ   15:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input . Do you think there are any BLP issues with the content as currently written? Does it seem a bit WP:UNDUE to be in its own subsection with that particular heading? -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, yeah, on the heading legal issue.  Even though it's reporting what the sources say, it could imply guilt, so if it were up to me, I'd remove everything in the legal section (not a big section anyway) until either guilt is proven or it's dismissed.
 * After all, we have no deadline and we need to write BLP's from a conservative point of view.  Ҝ Ø Ƽ Ħ  12:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward moving the section to the talk page as well until its resolved one way or another. Otherwise, it's just going to be a target for more IP POV editing. Any opinion on doing something like this? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

AlbertaGal (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC) In regards to the legal issue guilt has clearly been established.
 * I have removed this material since there seems to be some disagreement over its inclusion. There needs to be consensus for inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)