Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair/Archive 4

Please do not move around other editors' posts
If you are moving others' posts please stop. In one case at least a post was moved into a position that made no sense. In any case unless you have permission don't move a cmt by someone else. Doing so can confuse the person who posted the cmt, and can confuse the discussion. In the case of an arbitration moving a post does not give a clear picture of the way discussion occurred. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, but your indentation style can be a little confusing (this section for example). It makes it hard to figure out which person and specific comment you're replying to. Just a friendly observation! AdA&D  ★ 16:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * In this long drawn out discussion I agree. It's hard to know how to post something that is easy to read but which also hits multiple points and which is responding to the editor who posted given several posting styles. (CT cleaned my post up too so it was worse). If people are having trouble I'll try something else. At the same time, several newer editors have moved posts around and its just not a good idea; I couldn't find my post at first and it was placed as a response to someone else so best is to leave posts alone or ask to move. I'l try to fix my part of the problem. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom: Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affair

 * Please note that an ArbCom request has been submitted related to this article. Harris Seldon (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Also. Just for information of anyone not experienced in ArbCom cases. To the best of my knowledge


 * Once a case is filed anyone else than those initially named can include their names as involved parties if they were involved. However, doing so invites scrutiny by the arbs. Anyone else can make a statement outlining why the arbs should accept a case.


 * The filer of a case notifies those he or she includes as involved while those inclusions are at the filers discretion. If an arb or arbs wants to see input from others they will ask.


 * The filer does not and is not expected to notify anyone else.


 * WP:Canvassing is frowned upon. For those included in a filed case to contact anyone else about an ArbCom case with any kind of positioned statement could be considered canvassing.


 * Please be sure to read the top of the case request page for information on how to deal with a statement including statement length. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Question: Is the continued discussion on whether to describe the affair as a scandal pointless now that ArbCom has accepted the case? Not really sure how this works. AdA&D  ★ 20:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The ARBCOM does not rule on content issues. Editing and debating can happen normally, and the RfC's can be closed too. But you may be hard to put to find somebody willing to close the RfC's until the arbitration case finishes. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note - ArbCom has reached a proposed decision. It can be read here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: political scandal?
Should the lede refer to this topic as a political scandal?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes - What Littleolive oil and Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! have been doing, watering down the article under false pretenses of neutrality is a darn disgrace and must stop now.
 * The question is easy to answer, In English a Scandal = An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage while a Dispute = an argument or disagreement and a Controversey = Prolonged public disagreement or heated discussion.
 * What we've to ask ourselves is the following; Is SNC-Lavalin affair an action or event? Did the SNC-Lavalin affair cause general public outrage in Canada? Is the affair morally wrong (breaks ethics when PMO puts pressure on Justice Department, which in Canada and in the West, Departments of Justice are supposed to be independent)? If the answer is Yes, then SNC-Lavalin affair is a Political Scandal not dispute nor controversy as defined in English that's as neutral as we gonna get. Let us not be squeamish, a Wikipedia rated Good Article as an example is the Contra Affair. It was called what it was a Political Scandal. Cheers. Mr.Gold1 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is about as bald-faced a declaration of POV as you can get. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes - per my comments above. It matches the dictionary definition, WP:RS refer to it as a scandal, and our List of political scandals in Canada includes it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No—Wikipedia articles use the most neutral term available, and avoid loaded terms per WP:Words to watch. Appeals to cherrypicked definitions from dictionaries completely miss the point of MOS:W2W, and it is distressingly WP:IDHT to see the same people doing exactly that .  The discussion should  be about how we can lawyer a loaded term into the article, but about . Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No "Is the affair morally wrong (breaks ethics when PMO puts pressure on Justice Department." This is a judgement declared by a Wikipedia editor on a situation in Canada for which there was no definitive judgement. Can we just understand that no one was proved to be morally wrong. The PMO says they did not pressure but were advising and that they were misunderstood. Others say the advice was pressure. This creates controversy around the action. The only concrete wrong may have been that a conversation was taped with out permission and leaked. We know this did happen. And as CT said, declaring a moral wrong when that has not been declared in the situation is a POV on the part of an editor; we cannot do it. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No – per the definition at political scandal. "Controversy" would be the NPOV term. – bradv 🍁  12:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak no: I agree with the above points claiming that labeling this a "political scandal" under the current definition is tantamount to Wikipedia officially decrying the Canadian Liberal Party's actions as immoral. But I'm not sure if that ought to be the definition of "political scandal". I feel like it should be more like "ethically-disputed" than "immoral" (I might change my mind later). But anyways, for this article I prefer using "political controversy".&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 16:56, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes (pinged by bot) - I notice that neutral third-party sources have called it a "scandal": Washington Post, The Atlantic, Independent, The Week (UK), etc. There were multiple resignations, which to my mind push it up above the threshold. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3: neutral third-party sources also use the terms "controversy", "dispute", "affair", etc. What the RfC asks is whether "scandal" is a more appropriate (more neutral) wording than the current "controversy" that's in the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 18:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, those terms are always available if we decide that "scandal" is not appropriate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 I think the RfC wording is misleading; the RfC is based on several discussions about which of the "available" words is the most appropriate and not about which are sourced so can be used. (All are sourced although weight is a consideration.) The word we are discussing must characterize in the most neutral fashion all of the content in this Wikipedia article and all, not some, of the sources related to that content. If we chose scandal we are selecting the most non-neutral of all of the words available. This colors the article in a very distinct way. We must, seems to me, select the word which will not color the article at all or with the least amount of color which allows the reader to decide what happened. Just a thought since you were not involved in last discussions Littleolive oil (talk) 19:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no. WP:NPOV does not say that we should decide for ourselves what is the "most neutral" language to describe a situation. It asks us to consult the best-quality reliable sources, and describe it as they do. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3: that's actually not true—MOS:W2W goes into detail about why Wikipedia often prefers terms other than what sources use. For example, per MOS:CLAIM, we use the term claim in a much more restricted way than our sources typically do. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd add Kautilya3: I am not talking about sourcing content. I am talking about the lead and the summarizing of content and the sources of that content for the article as a whole. To do that we must use the most neutral language we have. It is not in our remit to use language in such a way that it colors the article in a non- neutral way. In this instance we have two sides to a controversy; one side is claiming wrong doing, the other side is claiming no wrong doing and misunderstanding. We can't use language that supports one side of this controversy over another but must find language that indicates, well, controversy. I did not mean to gang up on you here or to to discount your opinion or vote. Just wanted to add some information you may not have had on past discussions Littleolive oil (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Curly, MOS ("Manual of Style") gives guidelines on how to write content. It doesn't define what content should be written, and it certainly doesn't override five pillars (of which NPOV is one).
 * , you are again repeating a point to which I have already responded. "Neutral" on Wikipedia means describing the situation as described in the reliable sources. It doesn't mean that we should invent our own idea of "neutral" and use it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your point. I am not nor is anyone suggesting we misuse sources or that we weight an article in a way that does not reference our sources. We use sources to underpin content. That content must be added per its weight in mainstream sources to describe the topic or subject. We also as editors have within our remit when actually writing an article to choose the language that we feel best represents the sources. While scandal is used in some sources so are other words. This RfC was worded as if there is only one option. There isn't. Its our job too figure out how to best represent the sources on this. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3: MOS:W2W is all about ensuring NPOV wording. Please explain how MOS:W2W "overrides" WP:NPOV or "invent[s] our own idea of 'neutral.
 * Neutral' on Wikipedia means describing the situation as described in the reliable sources"—reliable sources describe the subject with a wide variety of terms. Please explain why you support one of them and reject other well-attested terms "controversy", "dispute", "case" etc. as well as wordings that avoid all of these. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to do an analysis of how the various newspapers/commentators describe it, making sure that they are highly reputed outlets and have sufficient distance from Canadian politics. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3: Nobody has provided such an analysis of "scandal" or raised doubts that the other terms are common. More importantly, your response in no way addresses the questions.  Please address the questions, as you've made some remarkable assertions that you have not supported. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * But to keep you from hammering on that point and ignoring answering the questions:
 * CNN: "The controversy has caused a sharp decline in Trudeau's popularity in opinion polls just months before a general election."
 * BBC: "The political controversy, which has been dragging on for weeks, has caused Mr Trudeau's popularity to drop sharply in opinion polls a few months before a general election."
 * Washington Post (title): "Canada needs a public inquiry into Trudeau’s SNC-Lavalin controversy. Now."
 * New York Times: "While the controversy surrounding Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the former cabinet minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and a criminal case against SNC-Lavalin has preoccupied Canadians for about a month, it was over the last week that it seemed to capture international attention."
 * This is a trivially easy exercise; into the bargain, it demonstrates that nothing is being "whitewashed" with the term "controversy" (demands for immediate inquiries into the "controversy" cannot be interpreted as "nothing to see here", as Darryl Kerrigan has twice insisted). Now, Kautilya3, it's your turn to demonstrate that MOS:W2W "overrides" WP:NPOV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't need to "demonstrate" anything. I am a participant in the RfC process, which you seem to have very little understanding of. You do not achieve anything by bludgeoning the process. Secondly, "analysis" does not mean cherry-picking. And, this is not the place to do it either. You should start a separate thread and present detailed statistics and evidence with a view to influencing the views of the uninvolved editors who might come to comment here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "I don't need to 'demonstrate' anything."—meaning you refuse to demonstrate your assertion that MOS:W2W "overrides" WP:NPOV (note: the policy actually summarizes and links here to MOS:W2W)? Then the closer is free to reject your assertion, per WP:NOTVOTE. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * RfC participants aren't required to hang around and defend their !votes until everyone else is satisfied with them, suggesting it should be ignored otherwise is unhelpful. Safrolic (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nor do their !votes have to be considered when they make unsupportable claims. I assumed Kautilya3 wanted their !vote considered. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Just tacking on to your reply to say that three of Curly's four articles linked do actually use the word "scandal" to describe the thing, and include links to other articles calling it a scandal in the titles. The exception, BBC, does use the word scandal to describe the thing in other articles. Any of this can be trivially verified with ctrl+f. Safrolic (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Safrolic—to reiterate : the claim was that sources don't use "scandal".  You and others  claimed that "controversy" and other descriptors are "whitewashing".  I've demonstrated this is false.  Now that the claim has been refuted, the focus should be on demonstrating how "scandal" is the most neutral term.  You keep ignoring that  what the dispute is about and keep coming back to "But I have sources that use the term!" and "But the dictionary says ...!"  Remember, that didn't work in the "LavScam" RfC, even with a majority of !votes for its inclusion.  If you want the article to include "scandal", you really  have to demonstrate it is the most neutral way to handle the lead sentence, not just point to a bunch of sources that use your preferred term.  I hope we're not going to see a repeat of the same behaviour here—refuse to respond, and then repeat the same refuted arguments elsewhere as if they were still valid. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What the dictionary defines words as is important when choosing what words we use. (I really hope that doesn't need to be justified here.) From that, if the dictionary definitions for a pair of words differs, we should choose the word which accurately defines the thing being discussed, given that they're supported by reliable sources. As we've all discussed already, a scandal is the exposure or accusation of something which offends the public, often for moral impropriety, causing a loss of reputation (paraphrase). It may be marked by things like the firing or resignation of public officials, the opening of ethical or criminal investigations, and the creation of formal hearings by legislative panels. A controversy is a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views.


 * So what is the SNC-Lavalin affair? Well, it's not about a period of several weeks in February where the House of Commons got together and discussed whether SNC-Lavalin should be prosecuted or not, with frequent requests for input from cabinet ministers and PMO officials. It is about accusations (credible and mostly verified) of political interference into the criminal justice system by putting pressure on the attorney general, something that while not illegal still offends the public's sense of moral propriety, which caused a significant loss of public reputation (measured by polling). It involved the resignation and later expulsion of two cabinet ministers, as well as the resignation of the Prime Minister's Principal Secretary and the Clerk of the Privy Council. Canada's Ethics and Privacy Commissioners have both launched investigations, the first over the allegations themselves, and the second into leaks which were described as a smear against Wilson-Raybould. The HoC Justice Committee held several hearings to hear more about the PMO's and Wilson-Raybould's interactions. One of the words, scandal or controversy (or dispute, or anything else of the same "vigourous discussion between opposing sides" form) more accurately describes the SNC-Lavalin affair. WP:NPOV says, "Strive to eliminate expressions that are flattering, disparaging, vague, or clichéd, or that endorse a particular point of view (unless those expressions are part of a quote from a noteworthy source). WP:EUPHEMISM says that we should use words which neutrally and accurately describe ideas. The word scandal is accurate, while the word controversy is not. The word controversy is vague and promoting a minority point of view (according to polling of Canadians, included in my !vote below)- the word scandal is not. Safrolic (talk) 04:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "The word controversy is vague and promoting a minority point of view (according to polling)"—come again? You've been very vague with your accusations of POV.  Please describe the "minority point of view" that "controversy" "promotes". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe I just did describe it. I also believe I'm a fairly clear writer, and I think most participants here can understand what I said. Nobody here is obligated to re-describe their argument over and over, using different words, until (theoretically) you accept their position as valid. To keep demanding it, especially when you don't otherwise engage with what they said, is fairly rude. My reply made no accusations of POV. Safrolic (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * —you made the accusation that "controversy" "promot[es] a minority point of view". "POV" is short for "point of view".  This is an accusation of POV.  Are you saying you're retracting it? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Saying a word violates policy is not accusing you or anyone else of POV, and I was pretty explicit on how it does. You demanded a meaningful response, and now that yet another one's been given to you, you're picking at the edges instead of actually engaging with it- again. Either engage with the meat of the argument, or just drop it. Safrolic (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You're bending over backwards to avoid telling us what "minority point of view" "controversy" "promote[s]". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note—While the consensus is leaning towards "controversy" rather than "dispute", Darryl Kerrigan should be editing the wording while the RfC is still open. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * As you well know, I explained the reason for this above. If you feel it is best to change it back go for it, but doing so is likely to be nothing but disruptive.  The question is between "controversy" and "political scandal".  You proposed the compromise of "dispute" while noting that your first choice was "controversy".  Harris agreed that "controversy" was okay for the time being, though his preference was political scandal.  He agreed that "controversy" was an acceptable stopgap while this RfC was underway.  I don't believe anyone expressed real support for "dispute" as a temporary or permanent solution here.  Just stop trying to escalate things..--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Disruptive" is editing the text while it is under discussion. Incredibly, you link WP:IDHT while ignoring "while the RfC is open".  You could just stop, but your modus operandi is to drown the discussion in verbiage. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 18:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You've created 30% of the text on this talk page. Safrolic (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You should never edit text while that text is under discussion. Just don't do it; it is not accepted protocol on any RfC. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will keep that in mind. I was not trying to open a can of worms here.  I did not think changing it to "controversy" was a controversial stopgap as that was the option you and CT supported (as a final option), and I don't believe anyone had expressed any real support for "dispute".  The issue seemed to be between "controversial" and political scandal.  I appreciate your attempt to mediate here.  I should have known CT would attempt to make everything controversial though.  This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND for him.  I am not sure if it is helpful to debate the "dispute option" as no one seems to have expressed any support for it yet, and many seem opposed, but I note the rule, and thank you for your comment.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes – it's obvious it is a scandal per dictionary definitions (see my comments above). It's absurd we are arguing about it. This has nothing to do with POV, in my opinion - we have a duty to call things their proper names. PavelShk (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. A political scandal was defined above in several ways. In it's article, "A political scandal is an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage. Politicians, government officials, party officials, lobbyists can be accused of various illegal, corrupt, or unethical practices." In the article for scandal, "A political scandal occurs when political corruption or other misbehavior is exposed. Politicians or government officials are accused of engaging in illegal, corrupt, or unethical practices. A political scandal can involve the breaking of the nation's laws or moral codes and may involve other types of scandal." Merriam-Webster gives a scandal five definitions, including "loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety" and "a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it" As others have said in this RfC and the discussion above it, other pieces can help judge whether an event is a scandal, like the resignation or firing of officials.
 * Now, here's Global News reporting on an Ipsos poll in March: "Sixty-four per cent of Canadians say they’re now following the issue — that’s 15 points up from two weeks ago. Most of them also say they believe the issue deserves all the attention it has been getting, compared to less than a third who say the matter is being blown out of proportion. [...] Sixty-seven per cent of respondents say they believe Wilson-Raybould’s version of events regarding inappropriate political interference by the Prime Minister’s Office into her prosecution of SNC-Lavalin on corruption and bribery charges. Worryingly for Trudeau, the SNC-Lavalin affair is concerning Canadians across the political divide, with Liberal Party supporters growing increasingly disapproving of the prime minister. Nearly a quarter of Liberal voters say they believe Trudeau should step aside while the SNC-Lavalin affair is investigated, with 73 per cent of Liberals agreeing that the RCMP should probe the issue and lay charges against politicians and bureaucrats where appropriate."
 * Here's The Star reporting on a Forum poll at the same time, saying "Former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould alleged she was subjected to improper political pressure by Trudeau and his senior staff to cut SNC-Lavalin a “deferred prosecution agreement.” Such an agreement would allow the Montreal-headquartered construction giant to avoid a conviction on criminal fraud and bribery charges that would disqualify it from bidding on future government contracts. The resulting scandal gripped Ottawa for two months, led to the resignations of Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from cabinet, as well as the resignation of Trudeau’s principal secretary. It also had a heavy cost for Trudeau’s personal brand, the Forum data suggests. Three-quarters of respondents said the scandal has worsened their opinion of Trudeau. The brand hit was especially pronounced among people with a college or university degree (80 per cent), respondents from the Prairies (91 per cent), and among Conservative (87 per cent) or NDP (84 per cent) supporters."
 * Now, here's Merriam-Webster's only definition of a controversy. "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" Wikipedia's political controversy redirects to political scandal. I think it's clear here that the word "scandal" is verifiable, accurate and appropriately weighted, while the word "controversy" does not accurately match how reliable sources and Canadian people see the thing. Safrolic (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)


 *  Yes . When I read the article (outstanding writing, btw, all the editors who've worked on this should be proud of the result), it clearly describes a political scandal. In search results, I noticed that in articles/columns not specifically about SNC-Lavalin affair but in which the writers mention the affair, they called it a scandal. Examples: In Ottawa's scarcity of ethics, As the SNC-Lavalin scandal metastasizes; Nanaimo-Ladysmith byelection voters guide In recent months, Trudeau’s popularity has dropped following the SNC-Lavalin scandal.; Did Indigenous issues influence Wilson-Raybould affair?, And it’s even fair to argue that the cabinet conflict over Indigenous rights is irrelevant to the most pressing issues emerging from the present scandal: protecting the judicial process from political interference; rethinking the conflicted role of the attorney general; reviewing the entire rationale behind deferred prosecution agreements; probing the moral character of the Trudeau government. "Dispute" seems too feeble to characterize the coverage of the affair. Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Schazjmd: "dispute" was merely a placeholder that was nobody's preferred term; the other disputed term is "controversy". All of these terms are common in sources—we're trying to determine which is most neutral, per WP:NPOV and MOS:W2W. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I believe it should be called a political scandal for the following reasons (In addition to what I said above):
 * 1) it matches the dictionary definition of scandal. The definitions I have seen do not require proof or evidence of misbehaviour, but only for it to be seen/regarded as such.  The definitions also include a sense of outrage, which can be seen in the massive changes in the polling numbers.   I also noted political controversy redirects to the political scandal article in Wikipedia.
 * 2) scandal would be consistent with other similar Canadian events referred to as political scandals in Wikipedia. My scanning of scandals such as Tunagate, and Shawinigate I see variable levels of evidence or in some cases were even cleared by ethics reviews. Yet they are still referred to as political scandals.  I realise we don't have to do something because another article did it, but consistency is also an important principle and the use of scandal for those cases does indicate a pattern of reasoning by other editors.
 * 3) the reasons I have seen for using controversy seem more related to "it is not scandal", rather than "it is the right word". I agree that we should be as neutral as possible, but we also have to reflect the situation accurately as well. Otherwise we could use the phrase "discussion" or "difference of opinion" as they are even more neutral. Any word choice can be used to reflect a POV, for or against, which is why we should pick the most accurate word. If we can tone it down, we should, but only if it is possible and does not change the meaning.  Right now, I don't see controversy and scandal as equivalent, but I would be more comfortable with controversy if a clear dictionary definition supported why it best describes this situation. Harris Seldon (talk) 06:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes. I don't how you could look at this event and not think the word scandal applies, especially considering the significant turn in the polls resulting from it. "Scandal" is also how prominent Canadian news outlets are describing the affair, including the Star, the Globe, and the CBC. AdA&D  ★ 13:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No. As an encyclopedia, we should be using more neutral and less inflammatory terms. As time goes by and we get further away from the intense news coverage and opinion pieces, we get something closer to secondary-source coverage – one example is this piece in The New York Times which refers to the SNC-Lavalin affair as a "controversy" and not as a "scandal". Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 18:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Note - This has now been open for about a month. I note Legobot has now removed the RfC tag.  Should we restore it?  It may be premature to close this.  As this has been infront of the Arbitration Committee, I expect some may have been more reluctant to comment.  It may be wise to leave it open for more time.  Thoughts?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd leave it until after the arbitration closes. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, agreed. I added the RfC template back in.  Not sure if I did that right.  Please feel free to correct.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, clearly I do not know what I am doing with that. Legobot immediately removed it again.  I will leave this for someone else to do then.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes To check encyclopedic tone for this, consider Britannica which has "SNC-Lavalin affair – Beginning in February 2019, Trudeau’s government became embroiled in a political scandal involving allegations that ..." and "SNC-Lavalin affair – Beginning in February 2019, Trudeau faced arguably the biggest political crisis of his premiership as allegations surfaced that...". The page in question started by calling it a political scandal with an appropriate blue link. The current term "political dispute" is more vague and there's no link to explain the concept.  This change is not an improvement and so should be reverted. Andrew D. (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Andrew, the above hounding of CT (and me -- you seem to have noticed this whole mess after I took a public interest in it today) as revenge for ... whatever ... is clearly inappropriate (given subsequent events, it's practically grave-dancing), and has not gone unnoticed. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . The wording used in Britannica may be a helpful consideration for us, when determining what is proper encyclopedic content.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No No need to use such inflammatory language when the "controversy" synonym is sitting right there for us to use. Additionally, as a procedural matter I don't want this to become another debacle of the "ArbCom ruled that we were right on the content -- or at least they implied as much by issuing a one-sided sanction against our opponent" variety. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this comment and reminder. ArbCom does not address content, and I agree they have not done so here. We need to continue to dicuss this on its merits. Thanks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Alternative proposal
Alternative proposal (for consideration) - if the concern is the word choice in the lede we could just rephrase the first sentence to not include either controversy or scandal (as was done with the Airbus Affair). For example the first paragraph would read:
 * The SNC-Lavalin affair refers to allegations in Canada of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office(PMO). MP Jody Wilson-Raybould alleged the PMO pressured her to intervene in an ongoing criminal case against Quebec-based construction giant SNC-Lavalin while she was Minister of Justice and Attorney General, before she was shuffled to another cabinet position in January 2019. The Trudeau government maintained that there was no undue pressure or law broken, that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) could save jobs, and that the situation resulted from misunderstanding and an "erosion of trust". Harris Seldon (talk) 07:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I support this idea—any of the proposed terms are redundant with "affair" to begin with. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I support this compromise since it is more neutral in wording and improves syntax. Thanks for the suggestion Littleolive oil (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the alternative version suggested by  as this seems to be a reasonable compromise. Schazjmd (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Calling these simply "allegations" misses the point. These are allegations in that they have not been proven in court, and as the committee investigating this was shut down by the Liberal majority on the committee, we will not be receiving findings or a report from that committee either.  All of that said, I believe focusing on whether this is "wrong-doing" or just unproven "allegations of wrongdoing" misses the point.  I agree with  that a political scandal is anything that is sufficiently "ethically-disputed" (but also likely needs to be high profile enough).  Referring to this as an "allegation" misses that (regardless of whether wrongdoing is proven or not) this led to significant coverage, over a long period of time (months), which included resignations, calls for resignations, calls for expulsions, expulsions, threats of lawsuits etc.  This article is not just about "the allegations" .  It is also about the "scandal/controversy/aftermath/fallout" caused by those allegations.
 * All of this said, I will make one more point. While much of the sources focus on the "ethically-disputed" conduct (or alleged conduct) of the PMO/Trudeau/Butt etc, it is also likely a political scandal based on the "ethically-disputed" conduct (or alleged conduct) leveled by some against JWR and Philpott (without expressing a view on whether those allegations are fair or accurate).  There were allegations that she inappropriately or illegally recorded the Clerk of the Privy Council, during the events of this scandal.  There were allegations she inappropriately attempted to interfere with her successor's prosecutorial discretion (whether he could issue a DPA to SNC).  There were stories suggesting she was difficult to work with, was shuffled out of Justice because she wrongly would not grant a DPA ("consider the jobs").  If I remember correctly, there were allegations that her and Philpott were the sources of leaks of concerning cabinet discussions or otherwise confidential information.  In my view, there are many reasons this is properly referred to as a political scandal.  Reducing it just to allegations, and ignoring the scandal (or for lack of a better word: "controversy") of it all, is not helpful.  This is why "dispute" is the weakest of all of the options which have been expressed.  "Dispute" is silent about consequences and by extension can suggests there may be none (or that the result is not yet known).  While we cannot say anything definitive about whether there was wrongdoing, there sure have been consequences.  Whether the consequences where fair or not, there have been consequences (resignations, expulsions etc.).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ... So you have strong opinions on what happened and are demanding that Wikipedia reflect that POV.
 * —this is a non sequitur (it suggests no such thing), and none of the proposals are for "dispute", which is merely a placeholder until things are sorted out.
 * —the whole rest of the lead gives these details—nothing's being "ignored" except for POV wording. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the alternative proposal of omitting either scandal or controversy in the lede as it defeats the purpose of the RfC discussion, to come to a consensus on whether the SNC-Lavalin affair is a political scandal or not and as explained in the Yes vote, the article meets the characteristics of what constitutes a political scandal in the English language. Unlike the Airbus Affair the Contra Affair is a Wikipedia rated Good Article and has political scandal in the lede while at the same time meeting the standards of a Wikipedia rated Good Article which include; being well written, having a neutral point of view, and accurate and factual information hence an article can be neutral and have political scandal in the lede as demonstrated in the Contra Affair. Cheers. Mr.Gold1 (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand this. Controversy was suggested as language for the lead . It was originally reverted by you Mr.Gold1. Dispute was added as a compromise to scandal and controversy which was also reverted. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - The "alternative proposal" made by Harris is to have neither "controversy" nor "political scandal" in the lede. Instead the alternative proposal is that we should simply note the "allegations" and nothing else (as set out in the paragraph above).  I note Harris seems to have put this forward "for consideration" but does not seem to be endorsing it himself (unless I am mistaken).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok Thanks. "omitting either scandal or controversy" did not read to me as omitting both.Littleolive oil (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It may also have become a bit confusing because  (I think in error) says above that the "alternative proposal" was made by . Of course, it was .  Anyway, glad we are on the same page now and the discussion can continue.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Darryl Kerrigan is correct in that my first choice is still "political scandal", but I will also go along with the consensus whatever it may be. While I see flaws in the alternative approach I presented, I thought it worthwhile to include in case other editors were ok with it, or to try and help move the conversation towards some consensus. Harris Seldon (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFFEXITS, in the case of the Contra affair, the allegations were determined to be true—there's no "dispute". What happened in the SNC-Lavalin affair is still hotly disputed under multiple viewpoints. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose this for largely the same reasons as Darryl. The affair is the package of all the different pieces; the accusations, the leaks, the resignations and firings, the media coverage, and the rise and fall of public opinion of the scandal and the participants involved. Not confirming that it is a collective package allows it to refer to each and any of the pieces/events independently instead of parts of a larger, interconnected series of events and fallout from them. We have a well known, well-sourced, and clearly defined phrase which accurately matches the package of events, and it's been part of this article from the start. Safrolic (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "it's been part of this article from the start": It was put there by Mr.Gold1, who in the same edit added the unattested term "SNC-Lavalin gate", and whose first comment in this RfC was an open declaration of POV.
 * "Not confirming that it is a collective package"—how does it not do this? I can't make heads or tails of this argument. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for all the reasons Darryl cited above. We have a duty to correctly define a topic. PavelShk (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the same reasons I stated for the original RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

RfC is ongoing, discussion should continue
Note - May 13 - It looks the Yes are in the majority, when the RfC discussion is closed, we gonna revert to political scandal as it clearly defines the article. No more alternatives or other proposals. Cheers Mr.Gold1 (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * While I share your frustration with what appears to me to be an attempt to push a "nothing to see here" WP:POV on this article, and  are correct.  We cannot prejudge the RfC.  It must be allowed to run its course.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It's not appropriate to try and limit the potential for compromise on content. The compromise above sidesteps the concerns and should satisfy all. As well this RfC was contentious in part because it was worded, hopefully unintentionally, so that uninvolved editors, who were not familiar with the discussions, would not know, unless they searched the multiple past discussion threads that there were alternatives to the word scandal. There is no neutral reason to close the RfC now. Especially because it is contentious we could and should leave it open at least until closed by a bot after a month from its opening. It hasn't been open even for a week Littleolive oil (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to what Littleolive oil said, there's also WP:NOTVOTE. An uninvolved editor reviewing the RFC would consider the arguments each editor makes, not just count the yes/no responses. Schazjmd (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

More "controversy" vs "scandal"
So ... this article is classified under both Category:Political controversies in Canada and Category:Political controversies in Canada.

My position remains the same: the article subject is both a "scandal" and a "controversy" (and a "dispute" and many other things) according to the dictionary definitions of these many words, but per MOS:W2W we must be careful about defining the subject with a loaded term. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Isn't every scandal a controversy? Do you think the word "scandal" should never be used on Wikipedia? Just trying to understand your position. AdA&D  ★ 14:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * AdA&D : The words do indeed overlap in meaning, just as "claim" and "said" overlap in meaning. for example, it's "correct" to say "AdA&D claimed 'every scandal [was] a controversy"—this is a very common and correct way to write and speak.  But per the MOS:CLAIM section of MOS:W2W, Wikipedia discourages the use of "claim" because it can be a loaded term that can be interpreted in a POV manner—so we prefer words such as "stated" or "said" that avoid these "dangers"—not because "claim" is "incorrect", but because it can too easily be misinterpreted.  The SNC-Lavalin affair is a "scandal" ... and a "controversy" ... and a "dispute" ... and a "kerfuffle" and many other synonyms.  Several editors found "scandal" such a loaded term—especially given several editors want to paint events in a certain light—so it was changed to "controversy" ... then objections were raised to "controversy", so we got the current "dispute".  We could avoid all of this by going with Harris Seldon's alternative proposal—but some have taken religiously to "scandal".
 * There are multiple perspectives:
 * that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) did something wrong
 * that the "wrong" thing was not illegal, but unethical (Wilson-Raybould's position)
 * that the "wrong" thing was illegal (CPC leader Andrew Scheer's position)
 * that it was all miscommunication
 * that Wilson-Raybould was in the wrong
 * that she staged the affair to avenge a perceived "demotion"
 * that she planned to "destroy" Trudeau in a bid for Liberal leadership
 * etc
 * Several of the editors here are on record that the "PMO did something wrong" POV must predominate in the lead. This was the same motivation behind pushing the term "LavScam".  Keep in mind that this is an election year, and those on many sides (left, right, and other) have something to gain from painting the affair in just the right light on the 5th most accessed website on the internet—which would explain why even the alternate proposal (that avoids  the disputed terms) has raised such hackles. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That was not the motivation for the inclusion of "LavScam". Its use in WP:RS, status as a unique alternate name, and MOS:LEADALT were.  I don't recall any editor saying the term LavScam should be used to make clear the "PMO did something wrong".  I have heard that about the term "scandal".  Of course, we cannot make decisions based on that POV, but if "scandal" is the word that properly describes the topic we should not shy away from it either.  All of your bullets besides "it was all miscommunication" clearly refer to scandalous conduct.  Few WP:RS seem to accept the "it was all miscommunication" version.  Furthermore, the consequences and negligence which would have had to have occurred for this to be simply "miscommunication" might itself make it a scandal.  Negligence or mismanagement can certainly amount to a scandal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to argue whether the term is the right word to use or to anymore, but I'm not sure the arguments you are using apply to how Wikipedia operates.
 * Sources are only reliable per the content they support. Being a RS does not guarantee usage, but guarantees only the possibility of usage.
 * This is opinion: "clearly refer to scandalous conduct." It only refers to scandalous conduct dependent on how you define scandal. I don't care about how each of us defines scandal and neither does Wikipedia. What we must must must care about is that we use the most neutral language we can in our article, that nothing we write influences the reader, that nothing we write harms anyone per BLP while at the same time presenting accurate, to the mainstream, content. This is not watering down as Mr Gold1 accuses me of but scrupulously avoiding inserting, even subtly, content based on  opinion–content based on subtle OR thinking such as: X did THIS; I think THIS is scandalous; some sources use the word scandal so THIS must be scandal and we must use the word while ignoring that THIS=ONLY ONE SIDE OF THE STORY and other words also describe the situation perhaps in a more inclusive way. What word can we use per our sources, in the lede, that describes all the possibilities in our sources and our content, that is inclusive of the sources and the opinions they are suggesting rather than exclusive. What word do we have that is overarching. And remember sources are often opinions not truth, just the opinions of the news source. We want to encompass in a neutral way, in our lede, the word that encompasses, as far as is possible, what we will lay out in the article, that summarizes not one position but as close to all of our content and sources as we can. The lede summarizes and must be inclusive. Scandal is an exclusive, meaning-ladened word based only on one side of this political story.
 * This is your conjecture: "Furthermore, the consequences and negligence which would have had to have occurred for this to be simply "miscommunication" might itself make it a scandal." We can't make decisions based on conjecture. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * With the greatest of respect Littleolive, words have meaning. It is not my definition, it is the dictionary definition.  As others have pointed out, we do not pick the "most neutral" term.  We look for the most precise term and the terms that are reflected in reliable sources.  WP:NPOV is not supposed to be an Argument to moderation or false balance.  Some here are trying to espouse a definition of "scandal" which requires proven illegal or immoral conduct.  That is not what the word means, as has been discussed in detail already.  In raising other political scandals where "negligence" or "mismanagement" was the "scandal", I am not engaging in conjecture at all.  I am responding to Curly.  It is clear that a scandal can be created out of recklessness, indifference or carelessness also.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * —just bookmarking this IDHT.
 * —and this.
 * —that term is "affair"—far and away the most common term, which is why the article title is "SNC-Lavalin affair", and not "SNC-Lavalin scandal", "SNC-Lavalin controversy", "SNC-Lavalin dispute", or something else—all of which are attested in RSes, sometimes together in the same article. You're fighting tooth and nail against the other attested terms, as well as compromises that avoid the need for any of them (the best solution, as all of the terms are redundant to "affair").  But you're going to take us around in circles again, aren't you?  Tell us about the dictionary again, Darryl. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to relax. I only brought up the dictionary, because Littleolive suggested it was "my definition".  I hear you quite well; I just disagree.  You are fighting fiercely against "scandal" because based on "your definition" you see it as WP:POV.  I disagree, and am similarly but oppositely opposed.  I see the removal of "scandal" as WP:POV in the guise of "neutrality", which is really false balance.  Those fault lines, are well defined.  Littleolive says inclusion of "scandal" is "based only on one side of this political story".  I disagree.  As you have outlined in your bullets above, there are allegations against JWR that some have considered scandalous.  I suspect you have understood (but disagreed with) that before, but Littleolive (at least in the comment above) appears to have missed that point.  I could do without rehashing of these points, but if you start a new section called More "controversy" vs "scandal", you shouldn't exactly be surprised if you hear more about those things.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * —or "controversial", or a "dispute", or any other number of terms that you reject, as well as any solution that avoids any of these labels. Your goal is to shoehorn "scandal" into the lead, not to find the most appropriate way to describe the affair.
 * —a serious charge. You've studiously avoided answering the question: "What POV"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we may have officially gone full circle. The POV is something like "there is nothing to see here".  Controversy and dispute both signal disagreement but not that there are "allegations of wrongdoing".  Allegations of wrongdoing which, while may not be accepted by all (or even most), are accepted by many and fairly (or unfairly) disgrace those associated with them.  A defamatory accusation (despite not being true) is a scandalous one if it is damaging enough to one's reputation.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, you've gone totally full circle—there's nothing to support your ridiculous "there's nothing to see here" accusation: the lays out exactly what there is to see—the allegations, counter-allegations, etc.  "Scandal" adds nothing but sensationalized POV—it adds  to the substance of the lead, and leaving it out .  Nothing but the POV whose light you want people to read the article in, that is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Can you understand that you are stating an opinion in your above cmt. And can you understand that we are talking about two different uses of the word neutral and two different uses of the word scandal. That some sources say there is scandal is true so when we are describing the different aspects of the affair we can use scandal with those sources. There are multiple versions of what happened in this affair and multiple words used in the sources to describe those various versions. We can, per the sources in the mainstream, use those words to underpin those multiple aspects.

When we are writing the article we are looking for words to describe in a neutral manner all of the aspects of the affair, the entire article, and we need a word that describes all not some. This word which opens the article must present the article and its content in a neutral manner; that means we do not appear to take sides or to weight any aspect of the affair more than another per their weight in sources. That is why we use the most neutral word we can; this is different than leaving out content to create a non-neutral or biased position. The balance I am talking about is about the overall article. The neutral I'm talking about and we are talking about is a description of the entire article and the entirety of the affair. That's my last attempt to explain. Not sure how else to say it. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Can you understand that you are stating an opinion in your above cmt."—of course he does. He's doing it to exasperate, probably in the hopes of driving someone to commit blockable behaviour.  See WP:CIVILPOV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's avoid opinions. Curly (and Olive), are there any of the following statements of fact which you dispute, and if so which ones?
 * 1. Wilson-Raybould made allegations of political pressure into a criminal proceeding against the PMO. Some/many of those allegations were later supported by physical evidence in the form of a phone call recording and email transcripts.
 * 2. The HoC Justice Committee held hearings about the matter, and the Ethics Commissioner opened an investigation into it.
 * 3. Two senior PMO officials resigned due to the matter and public reaction to it.
 * 4. Two senior Cabinet members resigned in principle over the matter, and were later expelled from the Liberal Party over it.
 * 5. Most Canadians, according to polling, believe Wilson-Raybould over the PMO.
 * 6. Most Canadians, according to polling, think the pressure was inappropriate or unethical.
 * 7. The Prime Minister's reputation, and the party's vote share in opinion polling, have fallen due to the matter (with >60% of Canadians saying the PM has lost the moral authority to govern).
 * Just want to make sure we're all standing on the same ground here in the first place. Safrolic (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do have issues with your presentation of the facts (sources disagree on how strong the evidence of the phonecall was, and polls are not currently and have not consistently been at >60% and were already at 58% in December), but lets pretend I don't. Your conclusion, I presume, is we therefore must not fail to label it a "scandal"?  This is a non sequitur.  You've been given multiple alternatives—inlcuding avoiding superfluously labelling the affair at all—and have made it clear you will stonewall against all concerns and solutions.  Come on, Safrolic—concerns were raised with "controversy", so I took them seriously and stopped pushing for it.  Solid policy-based concerns were raised with "scandal"—stop stonewalling and take them seriously. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't say they were proven, I said there was evidence supporting them. The polls in your tracker show disapproval around 60, mostly but not always just above it, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm referencing this ipsos poll, done at the beginning of March, in which 75% of Canadians thought there was inappropriate political interference placed on Wilson-Raybould, 67% said they believed Wilson-Rabould over the PMO, 68% said it was fundamental to the moral authority of the government, and 62% said Trudeau had lost the moral authority to govern. (and other polls, both in my vote and removed from the article previously, which covered the same issues.) That's not where I'm going with this, though. I want to make sure that we're all looking at the same underlying facts here, not just pretending to. Safrolic (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * We're not going to be "on the same page" if you insist on privileging a single poll over a poll tracker, no. That'd be the very definition of POV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And those fact may change tomorrow or next week or next month; that the problem with using polls and with writing an article of this length and depth (Weight) about an ongoing situation in the news. Wikipedia is not a news source. And this opinion (removed inadvertent reference to Safrolic) (following) of how to define sandal and we can't base an article on an editor's opinion. "Controversy and dispute both signal disagreement but not that there are "allegations of wrongdoing". Allegations of wrongdoing which, while may not be accepted by all (or even most), are accepted by many and fairly (or unfairly) disgrace those associated with them.  A defamatory accusation (despite not being true) is a scandalous one if it is damaging enough to one's reputation." In one way I only care very little about one word, and would normally walk away, but IMO this one word issue is indicative of a larger concern, and that is, that opinion is being used to design potential content. I'm not sure how to get past this. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's Darryl's quote, not mine. My opinion on how to define a scandal is that we should use the dictionary definition. Or, heck, Wikipedia. But 1-4 are accepted as true, and 5-7 as true at the moment? Safrolic (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * With the greatest of respect Littleolive, it is not "my opinion". All of what you quote as "my opinion" is based on Merriam-Webster's definition which I provided at the outset:
 * 2) loss of or damage to reputation caused by actual or apparent violation of morality or propriety... and
 * 3) a) a circumstance or action that offends propriety or established moral conceptions or disgraces those associated with it...and
 * 4) malicious or defamatory gossip.
 * I also care about this one word, because I see its removal as part of a larger push for WP:POV by argument to moderation. I think we need to call a spade a spade.  I see a spade.  It is clear yourself and Curly see some other sort of garden tool.  Safrolic is clearly trying to figure out why, if we seem to agree with much (if not all) of the underlying facts.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * —another empty IDHT accusation that you've backed up with . I've gone into detail more than once how "scandal", "controversy", "dispute", etc. are all "correct", but that MOS:W2W requires more than bare, narrow "correctness".  You are fully aware of this.  Shall we call a spade a spade? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Relax. I am not trying to accuse you of anything but seeing things differently than I.  Safrolic has been trying hard to see whether we can agree on the underlying facts.  I don't know if we do or not.  I have heard you say that all the terms (scandal, controversy and dispute) are correct, but that "neutrality" favours some over others.  I have said some terms are "more correct" that others.  I think that should determine the word we use. You seem to disagree.  I don't know if we are simply disagreeing based on the underlying facts, the application of the labels to them, or both.  These IDHT allegations are not helpful.  Perhaps engaging with Safrolic's questions concerning the "underlying facts" could be.  I expect we are at an impasse already. If there is hope yet, it is likely Safrolic's proposal of seeing whether we can reach some agreement on the underlying facts.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please drop the passive-aggressive "Relax".
 * neutrality' favours some over others"—per MOS:W2W, we avoid loaded terms. It does not tell us which terms to "prefer", but to identify problematic terms and avoid their use.  Other terms were proposed as alternatives—if they are also problematic, then we avoid them, too. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to ascertain, first of all, that we are actually seeing the same set of facts. If we're not able to find agreement on points of fact, there is no hope whatsoever of reaching agreement on outcome. Safrolic (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have also been thinking for a while now that part of the underlying disagreements for this article could actually be due to different thinking about what the underlying facts of the affair actually are. There may be some merit in parking the scandal vs. controversy discussion for now to see if there is common thinking on the facts themselves. Harris Seldon (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be "thinking about underlying facts"—that's the road to POV editing. We do not engage in framing or commentary.  We do not start with a POV and then hunt out sources to back up that POV. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to dispute any of the facts that I set out, then please do so, specifically. I disagree that they're framing or commentary or that they have a POV. They're just the things that happened, and how Canadians polled about those things felt about them. But if you want to edit without regard to what the facts are.... well, I'll be honest, I don't know what to do with that. Safrolic (talk) 19:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * is not a response that engages "There shouldn't be 'thinking about underlying facts'—that's the road to POV editing." This is deflection.  You keep doing this, Safrolic. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:49, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

You are confusing moderation with neutrality. If you cited a dictionary definition you neglected to quote. If you are making a point based on your understanding of a dictionary definition, and please note not all dictionaries offer the same definition, then that is an opinion. I'm not sure why you are suggesting a POV push from an editor or editors who were able to do so little of the writing. Most of what I added was reverted, even a tag. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC) I can't se this discussion going any further. I've tried in every way I can to explain the differences in the way we use the word scandal, in how neutrality refers to content,  but also refers to the overall tone of an article, that this is not to be confused with moderation, although if moderation means using language that does no harm then moderation might be a good description. Anyway, I'm going to unwatch until after the arbitration; I don't see any value in making the same points multiple times. Best to all. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Here is the original diff where Darryl quoted Merriam-Webster, three weeks ago. Here's Cambridge's, Oxford's, and Dictionary.com's (Random House) entries, if you'd like to see what the general consensus among English dictionaries on the definition of a scandal is. It's one thing to say there's a question of weight and NPOV on whether we should call it a scandal. But it's another thing to say that the article's subject is not a scandal, and I'd like to nail down where everyone is on that specific point. This is my last ditch effort to see if this discussion can go anywhere, because I feel the same way. Safrolic (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've already gone into detail on this multiple times. How many times are you going to make me re-explicate?  The affair can be described "correctly" with many words, but WP:NPOV and MOS:W2W demand we be careful not to choose potentially loaded terms.  That is not an argument "that the article's subject is not a scandal", and it's dishonest to muddy the waters by suggesting that is the argument being made. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:53, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, so you do agree that it is a scandal, but you also think it can be described as other things. That means that our point of disagreement isn't on whether it's accurate to call it a scandal, it's whether it's as accurate to call either of the other options you support, and if it is, which is the most appropriate word to choose. That's progress. So, can we move forward to assessing whether it's accurate to call it a controversy or dispute? Safrolic (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * —several of us have moved beyond this to Harris Seldon's proposed alternative. The subject of the article is already labelled "affair", which is the consensus term amongst sources, so I don't see the value in ranking the merits and demerits of multiple disputed superfluous terms.
 * I oppose "scandal" because it is sensationalizing and colours the interpretation of the text (violating MOS:W2W)—for the same reason, I oppose "fiasco", "débacle", and "clusterfuck", which have also been used accurately to describe the affair. I have no strong feelings about the other proposed terms, but reject the unsupportable idea that they contribute to hiding anything—and have provided links above about how untenable this interpetation is in light of actual usage. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If we've moved on from supporting "controversy" as the first term used to describe the matter, I won't spend time talking about its inadequacy. Instead, let's talk about actual usage. "affair" isn't actually the consensus term among reliable sources. I did the whole google news search result thing, and found that "SNC-Lavalin affair" and "SNC-Lavalin scandal" had similar prevalence, with "affair" in the lead, and controversy as a distant third. This held for all the permutations of searches I tried. Standard caveats about the accuracy of gauging reliable source consensus this way apply, obviously. Usage didn't appear to be fractional, either- I built a partial list of media calling it a scandal, and it has depth across the political spectrum. Note to methods: I didn't bother trying to find so many tiny newspapers, I just grabbed links that I found starting with the biggest papers, trying to show comprehensiveness of coverage as a "scandal" among the major Canadian and international media. I only stopped here because I got tired of building the list.


 * This isn't an RfC over whether we should call it a controversy, and I hear that you've moved on from that. Just as you and Olive agree that it *is* a scandal, I agree with you that there is controversy here. The question is about weight and POV. But we have results showing that reliable sources widely describe it as a scandal, that it's not even a settled question among reliable sources over whether scandal should be part of the name, that a large majority of Canadians also consider it to be a scandal (Ipsos above, Angus Reid, others), and that it matches the definition of what we consider a scandal to be- we being either Wikipedia or the English-speaking world. This is an RfC over whether it's appropriate to call the thing a scandal, or whether it's sensationalising. I think that given this evidence, it's not sensationalising- and further, given this evidence, we would be giving undue weight to a small number of political partisans if we avoided saying that it is one. Safrolic (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting any of the numbers you are, and "given this evidence, it's not sensationalising" is a non sequitur. I could point out that a wide majority of sources don't use "scandal", but that again is missing the point.  If  sources use the term "claim" in stead of "stated" in a non-legal context, we still avoid it per MOS:CLAIM.
 * The "inexhaustive list" schtick is getting old, and it's feeling like you're doing that to antagonize, as you're well aware at this point how inappropriate and obfuscating it is.
 * I've already pointed out what you're doing—you're starting from a conclusion and expending all your effort on promoting that conclusion. That is against Wikipedia's principals. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, this is arguing for an interpretation of MOS:W2W that would prevent us from ever using the words "political scandal" to describe a political scandal on Wikipedia. This is clearly not in line with Wikipedia consensus, since we use the words "political scandal" to describe article subjects, in Wikipedia's voice, all over the place. I think that what you wrote earlier could just as easily apply to you, for what that's worth. I'd like to avoid personal attacks here though, if possible, and focus on the content. Safrolic (talk) 22:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * —I've addressed this. How many more times will you make this statement?
 * It's impossible to focus on content—the issue is behaviour. You've given no indication that you would support or  any solution other than shoehorning "scandal" into the lead, and are resorting to the same stonewalling tactics as in other disputes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When there's agreement among reliable sources that it is a scandal, and a large percentage of sources have named it the "SNC-Lavalin scandal", I don't think that it's fair to describe calling it a scandal "shoehorning". It's just reflecting reliable source consensus. Regarding your diff: I hear that you've made the argument that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not sufficient argument to allow it to exist here. That's not quite what I'm saying though. I'm saying that your interpretation of our policies doesn't match up with the consensus interpretation, and I'm pointing out the wide use of language on Wikipedia which would go against your interpretation but which nobody else has a problem with as evidence to that effect.
 * Specifically, you're arguing that in order to be called a scandal by us, the scandalous thing must be proven to have happened and proven to have actually been illegal or unethical, even though that's not what's required to class something as a scandal, per the dictionary definition and Wikipedia's definition. You argue that there can be no minority which believes it was not a scandal. So, looking just at the list of Canadian political scandals, I can see that the Munsinger affair, Shawinigate, 2011 Canadian federal election voter suppression scandal, ETS Scandal, and Quick Wins ethnic outreach scandal articles all describe their subjects as scandals, even though all of them would find significant minorities of Canadians who would disagree with the majority viewpoint on what happened and whether it was bad or not. You're right that what what exactly happened in the SNC-Lavalin affair is still disputed. But as Darryl said, the only viewpoint which wouldn't hold this package of events as a scandal is that it was all miscommunication; the alleged interference, the allegations, the commons hearings, the resignations, Philpott saying there was more to the story, the leaks of confidential cabinet matters, all of it. Any other viewpoint on the saga involves unethical behaviour by someone involved. I think you would be hardpressed to find a significant minority who agree with that specific viewpoint by now; I think that specific viewpoint might accurately be described as farcical.
 * Regarding your various prior accusations of WP:CIVILPOV, I want to quote from that page some of the hallmarks of a civil POV pusher: "They attempt to water down language, unreasonably exclude, marginalize or push views beyond the requirements of WP:NPOV", "They frivolously request citations for obvious or well known information.", "They argue endlessly about the neutral-point-of-view policy and particularly try to undermine the undue weight clause.", "They will attempt to label others or otherwise discredit their opinion based on that person's associations rather than the core of their argument." I think we should all take a close look at the page going forward. Safrolic (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * —aside from those who voted it was POV in this very RfC? I'm not even the one who raised the initial objection—but this isn't the first time these disputes have been framed as "Curly Turkey vs. everyone else".
 * —this reads like it was produced by a gibberish generator.
 * —nice to see you acknowledge this.
 * —in which case it could still be a "scandal" under certain definitions of "scandal", as well as "controversy", "dispute", and all the others.
 * —another FUD accusation of POV-pushing sans any indication of what that POV could be.
 * And we're back where we were: you will allow no alternative to shoehorning "scandal" into the lead . The same stonewalling as in the other disputes.  How will you deflect from this fact next? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm counting nine yes !votes and six no !votes. I'm not sure who the editor who was blocked for socking is (was their !vote removed rather than simply stricken?), which based purely on !vote count is not a strong consensus for anything. And !vote tallies is all I can really work with if we are (partially?) dismissing arguments for superficial reasons like that ArbCom pulled their usual "We're not judging content, so you should definitely not use this a precedent for content, but we're not actually going to do anything to stop you if that is what you want to do" act. As I said above you cannot give less weight to the position of someone who is en route to be TBANned for matters not related to content. If you are going to discount anything that was present in the above RFC at the time you closed it, it should be Andrew Davidson's bad-faith WP:HOUND/WP:GRAVEDANCE move against Curly Turkey and myself, which would bring the tally to 8-6. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , as I'm guessing you know we don't go by strict headcount in these. It's not a vote and all. As for JFC, I considered his original statement on equal footing with everyone. The partial weighting came from how I weighed his replies. I hope that helps and I understand the frustration around an ArbCom decision that has impacted someone who has written so much content. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't explain who the editor who was blocked for sockpuppetry was (I'm guessing the sock said "no"?), and while I understand it's not about headcounts, I'm also not the one who closed the RFC: you noted in your closing statement that you took the ArbCom result into account (something I specifically noted should not be done, and even one of those saying "yes" explicitly agreed with me) while you did not note anything about taking bad-faith hounding comments into account. If all comments are made in good faith (and the only unambiguous bad-faith one I see is on the side you declared the "winner") and have valid, policy-based reasoning, then a near-50/50 headcount does is at best a "no consensus -- default to the safest option" (since this page does not have a status quo). It actually looks like you just counted the !votes and did a bit of selective judgment when it came to weighing and discounting certain editors' opinions. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 04:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , sorry I didn't realize you were asking who the sock was - that's . As for JFC, I am hardly the first closer to use the guidance of WP:CRFC in guiding my close - and it says, "Editors who were blocked, banned, topic banned, or otherwise sanctioned during the RfC, especially if related to conduct in the topic area in question, may also be partially or fully discounted." While the ArbCom decision is not final I choose to think that we're not a bureaucracy. If that were to change course, which if nothing happens it won't or it will close if 1 more arb votes in favor of closing, then that might be grounds for saying I mis-weighed things. But I will say again that JFC's bolded comment was given weight and his comments were read - twice. Where they were not read beyond the bolded comment, and thus not given weight, were the three more times I read through the bulk of the discussion to confirm that what people were writing matched the consensus I was representing in the close. We both certainly agree that there is no consensus for the wording of the MOS:FIRST and that there is no status quo version. What you seem to be suggesting, in the end, is that this should have been closed in a way that was no consensus where the article still ends up at your preferred version. We disagree that is how no consensus plays out in this instance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But the passage you quote clearly assumes some relationship between the ban and the content under discussion; ArbCom has as part of their standard modus operandi "we don't adjudicate content disputes". And you don't even need to take my word for it -- Darryl Kerrigan agreed. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 06:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This seems like a small element in a large close. I can continue to explain how my actions are grounded in practice, but this loses the forest for the trees. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on Closure of RfC:Political Scandal
One of the FoF of the case was, ''Between May 3 and May 8, multiple editors edit warred over the question of whether to use "scandal," "controversy," or "dispute" in the lead to describe the situation. An RfC was opened on May 8th by one of the involved editors, but discussion became contentious and it did not come to a resolution.'' This RfC is unbelievably long, stale, and most of the text comes from an editor Arbs have now blocked from the page for his behaviour. I'm going to archive it without a resolution and restart it after the Arbs reach a majority to close- I will include pings for everyone who's voted up til now, and a link to the archived discussion. Safrolic (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , while I agree it might be best to start fresh, I note is working on closing this RfC per a request on the noticeboard.  I am not sure we should archive it while that is happening.  If the consensus is to archive and start fresh, let's do that.  I just wanted to make sure the fact that BarKeep is working on this is not overlooked.  Thank you.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I just left a message on his talk page. Thanks for catching that! Safrolic (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As I noted on my talk page for contentious RfCs like this I like to do a complete reading separated by some time to make sure I am giving proper consideration to everything. I did my initial reading yesterday and it remains my intention to close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In the end this RfC did reveal the need for a fresh start but hopefully my close provides some help for the shape of that discussion to come. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So, your close says there's consensus for having it in the lead (and presumably elsewhere in the article) but not for the lead sentence. That is where it was originally being used, before it was removed via an edit war and the RfC started. Since you did find that it's not an NPOV violation, and no consensus closures usually result in the status quo, are we okay to put it back to the original wording, pending a further RfC? Safrolic (talk) 03:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * the first sentence of your reply which summarizes the close is correct - but please note that there's not consensus against having it, or controversy, in the MOS:FIRST sentence, just not consensus either way in that discussion. Attempting to gain consensus whether through bold editing (and the possibility of BRD), informal discussion, or another RfC all are options for what should be in the FIRST sentence. Given that lack of consensus it's beyond the scope of an RfC for me to say what editors of this article should do in regards to any status quo one way or another. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Now that we've established it is an appropriate word to use in the article, BRD works for me, so off I go. Thanks! Safrolic (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to think we are going to need another RfC to work through this, and get consensus one way or the other. While that RfC is underway, I am okay with either "controversy" or "political scandal" serving as the stop gap.  I think it is clear that there is consensus against "dispute", and as such that should not be used in the meantime.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * Well, on second thought before we jump into another RfC perhaps it would be helpful to prepare a summary of the sources out there and how this topic has been treated in other encyclopedias and books (ie not same day reporting). It might be unwise to jump into another RfC before we try to work through this issue a bit here first. At least then there will be more to ground the discussion, should another RfC be required.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

There is no consensus either way per Barkeep49. It may be appropriate to use a word but what supports use in a Wikipedia article is its weight not appropriateness. I’d suggest, given the recent turmoil, an RfC. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Saufrolic. Please revert. If you don’t I will per Bold. Your hasty change based on the word appropriate is a misreading of what the closer said. There is no consensus. I’d think a more collaborative approach would be a sign of a support for the people working here probably an RfC. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , what is your view on changing it to "controversy" as an agreed stopgap, while discussion continues. There seems to have been consensus against "dispute" even from Curley Turkey.  Is that an acceptable ceasefire while we continue to discuss it?  I am working on putting together some evidence/materials so we can discuss the more permanent wording (political scandal vs. controversy).  Hopefully, that will allow us to discuss this fresh in a more structured and constructive way, and consider sources and outside materials that have been created since this dispute started. , I would also like to hear from you whether this could be an acceptable temporary state of affairs.  I hope we can avoid an edit war about this.  That would not help anyone.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * There is consensus, found by Barkeep, to use both "scandal" and "controversy", in the lead. The edit I made does so. Both words should remain in the lead. Feel free to make a new RfC, but I believe the situation as it stands right now (and before this whole thing started) is a perfectly acceptable stop-gap as-is. It would be inappropriate, given the close, to re-remove "scandal" from the lead pending the conclusion of this planned new RfC. Safrolic (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you for the quick response .  Is using both side by side something we can all live with for the time being?  Ie. "political scandal or controversy". Barkeep said there was consensus to use both in the lede but not in the first sentence (and presumably not in the italic sentence above that).  If we use both in the first sentence for now, while we continue discussion, does that make everyone equally unhappy?  All good compromises are supposed to leave all sides a little unhappy (otherwise it is not a true compromise).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's going to be an awkward wording, but like my edit summary says, the lead needs a full rearranging. I'll wrangle with it and make sure they both get in. Safrolic (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, I understand it is awkward and not anyone's first choice. But it is a fragile peace, and I would rather we live with an imperfect solution for now and continue with the dialogue.  An escalation is not in anyone's interest.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting your edit. I think it was subverting the RfC result by using the phrasing that roughly half the participants opposed. The best thing to do as a stop-gap is to phrase the lead sentence without involving any of those terms, something along the lines of "The SNC-Lavalin affair in Canada involves allegations..."

The terms "scandal" as well as "controversy" can be used later in the LEAD as necessary. Just that it cannot be used as the typology in the lead sentence. Perhaps the involved editors can steer themselves guided by the various inputs given in the RfC, without needing another one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we're reading that differently. I saw it as saying there's no consensus on which of the two options should be used in the first sentence, not that there's no consensus for using either of them in the first sentence at all. That's why I replaced the original wording, and added the word "controversy" elsewhere in the lead, until we can reach consensus on whether/what to change it to. Safrolic (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kautilya3. I think your summary of RfC closing is correct.  There was not consensus for using either "political scandal" nor "conspiracy" on its own in the lede.  There was discussion and I think consensus against "dispute" or "nothing" (the alternative proposal).  I hope we can find a temporary stopgap while we continue the discussion below.  Perhaps we can agree to use both temporarily while we continue the discussion below, perhaps there is another solution we can use in the meantime, but I am resistant to using "dispute" as a stopgap as there was consensus against this option even by the editor who changed it to "dispute".  The original was "political scandal".  "Dispute" was created as an honest attempt at a compromise, but one that no one agreed to (and most if not all expressed opposition to).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Quoting myself slightly amended, "Further discussion is therefore required to determine whether to use this an alternative phrasing, one, or both words in the first sentence". There was, to be clear, no consensus about the first sentence in anyway. Anne quotes my suggestions about how to proceed at more length below, which editors are obviously free to take, or not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Barkeep. Others?  Now that the RfC is over, is there any hope of us being reasonable here and finding an acceptable stopgap while we continue discussion below?  Reverting this to "dispute" is nonsense.  Curley Turkey himself said he was opposed to that option (he wanted controversy).   agreed that "controversy" was okay for the time being, though his preference was political scandal.  I am not really sure, where  stands, but would love to hear it. Like I have said above, I can live with controversy while we continue the discussion below.  Another option is to put them both in.  Are my fellow editors really telling me, we cannot even agree on a stopgap in the meantime?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * My preferences still haven't changed, but I agree with Darryl's proposal to use "political controversy" as a stopgap until we can discuss/agree on a better solution for the first sentence. Another stopgap option could be using "political controversy or scandal", but I don't know the best way to weave that into a sentence. "Dispute" is not a good choice (which was also one of the few things the previous RFC did have consensus about).  A stopgap at this time would also let us move on to start reviewing other parts of the article, after which we can come back to the controversy vs scandal discussion.  Harris Seldon (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Compromise version
I’ve added a suggested compromise as a stop gap but I don’t see any reason why we can’t use that version permanently and avoid both controversy and scandal. It’s a great suggestion (thanks to Kautilya3) and if we go to permanent usage we sidestep many problems including another RfC. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We have been discussing other compromise versions above which have reached some level of support. I suggest we use one of those as a stopgap, maybe we will learn to live with one of them permanently.  The idea of removing any term scandal, controversy or dispute is not one which recieved much if any support in the RfC when proposed as an alternative.  I suggest we either use "political controversy" as a stopgap or use "political controversy or scandal".  Both of these options have recieved some support noted above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)


 * The RfC didn’t include this suggestion did it? I’m having trouble reading the RfC on my phone so I could have missed it. If the RfC didn’t include this suggestion we can’t say anything about whether there was support or not. I don’t see the advantage of another RfC with the same arguments. Time to move on. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The alternate proposal of leaving both terms out (ie no mention of political controversy nor political scandal) was proposed by Harris. Though I don't beleive he supported it (favouring political scandal, and failing that controversy). Harris please correct me if I am misrepresenting or have missed something in the nuance of your position. It appears yourself, CT and another editor supported (presumably as a fall back to "controversy"). Again apologies if this summary leaves something out.  Many others opposed.  There does not seem to have been discussion of leaving both in or using controversy as a stop gap (besides that, procedurally, doing so should wait until after a RfC).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)


 * Kautilya3 made the suggestion I refer to here The RfC is over and there was no consensus for controversy nor for scandal. We have to move on. If a suggestion comes up that editors like and can agree with we can use that suggestion. An RfC is a form of dispute resolution; no dispute no RfC. We are not bound to wait until after an RfC that doesn't exist to make changes. I would think that a change that steps over the contentious words suggested would make everybody happy and if it doesn't why not? Littleolive oil (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not saying we have to wait for a future hypothetical RfC. My mention of an RfC and waiting was summarizing what happened in the last RfC.  Just after I began the last RfC I changed it to controversy from dispute as there had been no support for "dispute".  At that time, you and CT pointed out that I should not make any change at that time (even away from an alternative which had no support apparantly).  That RfC is over so now we are free to do whatever we can agree on.  I remain opossed to using neither term for the reasons I explained in the RfC.  I suspect others are to (for the reasons they expressed being opposed to the alternative proposal raised in the RfC).  I suggest we consider the two other proposals I have made (ie. political controversy and/or "political controversy or scandal". As you are intractable, I am also intractable for political scandal and think we need to discuss its treatment in encyclopedia and new sources.  I am however prepared to live with these other options while we continue to dicuss.  I am opposed to dispute or the alternative proposal of neither to which Kautilya raised, a variation of which Harris raised in the RfC.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * Darryl is correct that during the RFC I gave an alternative proposal that used neither controversy or scandal. This was a potential compromise, although not my first choice. There was no consensus on that proposal; those who preferred controversy supported it while those who supported scandal opposed. With what I have read, I don't see that lack of consensus changing now.
 * If I understand the conclusion of the RFC correctly, there is consensus that the SNC Lavilan affair can be called a scandal and consensus that it can also be called a controversy, but there is no consensus which word to call it in the first sentence. If so, then the options would be either to call it both in the first sentence, reword the first sentence to use neither or use a different word entirely. The last two options were not accepted during the RFC, and again, I do not see consensus forming for them now. The option of calling it both in the first sentence was not discussed, but would be my preference now considering the results of the RFC and as a way to move forward.Harris Seldon (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Could I say again that whoever first suggested an alternative and I don't care who that was, I made a change based on the wording I linked to above. RfC are not binding and even if they were we cannot make decision based on what the RfC didn't say. If we come to another suggestion we can go with that. ````-- unsigned edit made by at 12:01, 8 July 2019

For the stopgap option, I support "political controversy or scandal". If no consensus is reached, we should leave that permanently. If there is consensus, I prefer "political scandal". It's just false to say that the word "scandal" is sensationalistic. There are plenty of fully neutral sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica, which use "scandal". I admit that some neutral sources use "affair" or "dispute", so no matter what word we use, it won't be a word used by every neutral source in existence. There will always be counter-examples. A pure vote count is the only solution. Thanks to the request for comment, we already know that it is okay to put the phrase "political scandal" in the lede. We just don't know what to use in the first sentence. If necessary, maybe we could do another request for comment with a variety of options concerning what to use in the first sentence.Handy History Handbook (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)