Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair/Archive 5

Discussion: Should "controversy" or "scandal" be used in the first sentence?
left some guidance in the RFC's closing summary:

We need to develop consensus on whether "controversy" or "scandal" belongs in the first sentence of the article. Relevant policies include WP:RS, WP:NPOV, MOS:LEAD, and MOS:FIRST (per the Barkeep49's closing summary). We shouldn't start another RFC on the matter until we've tried to reach consensus through discussion, so I put it to you: Should "controversy" or "scandal" be used in the first sentence of the article and why? Anne drew 21:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks Andrew. Some of the guidance Barkeep left for us was to consider secondary and tertiary sources.  's mention of Britannica may be helpful.  In its article about the Justin Trudeau's administration, the encyclopedia refers to the affair as a "political scandal" in the first sentence of that section.  In the Trudeau article itself, the affair is called a "political crisis".  I also had a look at The Canadian Encyclopedia articles.  It's an encyclopedia produced by Historica Canada (the "heritage minute" people).  Their article about Trudeau does not mention the affair.  Their article on SNC-Lavalin (the company) calls it a scandal in the relevant section, but not in the first sentence.  The article on JWR has a section titled "SNC-Lavalin Scandal".  It also refers to it as a scandal in that section.  Some more food for thought.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any books on this topic. I did a Google and JSTOR search, which unsurprisingly came up with nothing.  This affair only broke a number of months back so it is not that surprising that publishers have not prepared much yet.  I note that there has been further treatment of this in the media since discussion on the RfC effectively stopped when ArbCom took up the case (about the last month).  I have begun a list below:
 * We can perhaps add to this as we go. More food for thought.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Asking as someone who is far more a reader of Wikipedia than someone who edits it, how exactly do editors decide how to name its articles in this sort of a situation? I have often told friends I have issues with Wikipedia when it does things like redirect Bleiburg masscare to Bleiburg repatriations, because I am cynical of the appeal to WP:NPOV as a biased ploy to introduce less extreme language for more serious matters. As an editor, I am aware I have to AGF, but this just doesn't strike me as right. Wikipedia's editors should not be 'whitewashing' the language of a controversy so as to appeal to neutrality – if there is currently a dialog in Canada where sizeable, reputable media in the national dialog is calling this an "affair" and some of it is calling it a "crisis," I should think Wikipedia is responsible for documenting that aspect just as much. The lone exception I've found on spurious searching is Watergate, other than that, things like the Rape of Nanking, Dieselgate, and the Bleiburg repatriations, while doing what I glibly refer to as "whitewashing" insofar as the ultimate title of the article, at the very least acknowledge there are different names for the events in question, where alternate names are either ubiquitous in the common parlance or else were significantly used in the media/other reputable sources, and indeed do so in the first sentence. On the basis of consistency, I'd lose any argument to rename this article to the SNC-Lavalin crisis, but it does not strike me as adhering to neutrality to not use both the term affair and crisis in the in the first sentence. I respect the intention of those who wish to adhere to |NPOV to avoid using either term, but I don't think that it's right for Wikipedia to pretend politically charged terms are not being used in common parlance. – AVNOJ1989 (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Asking as someone who is far more a reader of Wikipedia than someone who edits it, how exactly do editors decide how to name its articles in this sort of a situation? I have often told friends I have issues with Wikipedia when it does things like redirect Bleiburg masscare to Bleiburg repatriations, because I am cynical of the appeal to WP:NPOV as a biased ploy to introduce less extreme language for more serious matters. As an editor, I am aware I have to AGF, but this just doesn't strike me as right. Wikipedia's editors should not be 'whitewashing' the language of a controversy so as to appeal to neutrality – if there is currently a dialog in Canada where sizeable, reputable media in the national dialog is calling this an "affair" and some of it is calling it a "crisis," I should think Wikipedia is responsible for documenting that aspect just as much. The lone exception I've found on spurious searching is Watergate, other than that, things like the Rape of Nanking, Dieselgate, and the Bleiburg repatriations, while doing what I glibly refer to as "whitewashing" insofar as the ultimate title of the article, at the very least acknowledge there are different names for the events in question, where alternate names are either ubiquitous in the common parlance or else were significantly used in the media/other reputable sources, and indeed do so in the first sentence. On the basis of consistency, I'd lose any argument to rename this article to the SNC-Lavalin crisis, but it does not strike me as adhering to neutrality to not use both the term affair and crisis in the in the first sentence. I respect the intention of those who wish to adhere to |NPOV to avoid using either term, but I don't think that it's right for Wikipedia to pretend politically charged terms are not being used in common parlance. – AVNOJ1989 (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the Wikipedia guidance on first sentence of the lead section: MOS:FIRST. It says that "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition". So our job is to provide the most fitting definition of the events that happened. So I still don't get why are we looking at various sources and what we are trying to do here. The word "scandal" is the best one from the dictionary that describes what happened. It's a much better fit for the facts then "controversy" or "dispute". The discussion IMO has to center on the most fitting dictionary definition, not what the sources say (especially newspapers each of which has a political leaning). The question of definition has been discussed multiple times in the old RfC. Other Wikipedia articles about political scandals use the word "scandal". Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it has to provide definitions. I think the consideration for correct dictionary definition should override any NPOV concerns in the first sentence.PavelShk (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I had always assumed that, if the RfC failed to get CONSENSUS for "political scandal" then "controversy" would be the next option. The closer has confirmed that those opposed to the description [of political scandal] mainly favor using the phrase political controversy. So I propose we use "controversy" in the lead sentence. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not use both terms? e.g. "The SNC-Lavalin affair, also known as the SNC-Lavalin scandal is a political dispute in Canada involving allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)." If the dialog surrounding this event in Canadian media is using alternating politically charged names for it, Wikipedia shouldn't shy away from documenting the fact those terms are being used, without necessarily endorsing either one. I think it'd make sense to rename the article itself to controversy instead of affair, but both 'affair' and 'scandal' should appear in the first sentence. AVNOJ1989 (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is what I found looking at the first three pages of results on Google for "SNC-Lavalin Affair", in the order they appeared in the search results. Video sources, categorization pages, and letters to the editor omitted from results. None of the following sources have either "scandal" or "controversy" in the title.
 * {| class="wikitable mw-collapsible autocollapse"

! Source !! Controversy in body !! Scandal in body
 * CBC || Yes || Yes
 * Macleans || No || Yes
 * Chatelaine || Yes || Yes
 * The Star || No || Yes
 * BBC || Yes || No
 * Policy Options || Yes || Yes
 * CNN || Yes || Yes
 * Global News || Yes || No
 * Global News (commentary) || No || Yes
 * The Globe and Mail || Yes || No
 * CTV News || Yes || Yes
 * Aboriginal Peoples Television Network || No || No
 * iPolitics || Yes || No
 * Toronto Sun || No || No
 * CTV News || No || Yes
 * National Post || No || No
 * National Post || No || No
 * The New York Times || Yes || No
 * CityNews || No || No
 * The Spec || No || Yes
 * The Post Millenial || No || No
 * Ivey Business School || Yes || No
 * rabble.ca || No || No
 * }
 * It's a toss-up. I'm not sure just looking for sources will settle this issue for us—there are plenty of sources we can find that use either word. Instead we should focus the discussion on which of these words is more suitable according to MOS:FIRST. Anne drew  14:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All the policy-based argumentation was done in the RfC and no CONSENSUS was established. So there is no point going back to that. The way forward now should be based on what terms are likely to have CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Some things where not really addressed in the RfC.  One of those things, is that Britannica and The Canadian Encyclopedia use the term scandal.  I agree it is not helpful to go over the same sources again, but BarKeep suggested we look at secondary and tertiary sources.  There are new ones which were not considered at the time of the RfC.  We should consider them now.  We should also consider the fact that other encyclopedias are using the term, something that was raised immediately before the RfC was closed but not considered in any detail.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * Other encyclopedias using this term is an excellent point. The first sentence of the lead must provide a definition. We are not a newspaper with a specific political agenda. We are an Encyclopedia and we have to give a dictionary definition for the term. If you look at definitions for scandal and controversy, and compare with the facts already outlined in the article, it becomes obviously clear that what we are describing is a scandal. PavelShk (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * CTV News || No || Yes
 * National Post || No || No
 * National Post || No || No
 * The New York Times || Yes || No
 * CityNews || No || No
 * The Spec || No || Yes
 * The Post Millenial || No || No
 * Ivey Business School || Yes || No
 * rabble.ca || No || No
 * }
 * It's a toss-up. I'm not sure just looking for sources will settle this issue for us—there are plenty of sources we can find that use either word. Instead we should focus the discussion on which of these words is more suitable according to MOS:FIRST. Anne drew  14:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All the policy-based argumentation was done in the RfC and no CONSENSUS was established. So there is no point going back to that. The way forward now should be based on what terms are likely to have CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Some things where not really addressed in the RfC.  One of those things, is that Britannica and The Canadian Encyclopedia use the term scandal.  I agree it is not helpful to go over the same sources again, but BarKeep suggested we look at secondary and tertiary sources.  There are new ones which were not considered at the time of the RfC.  We should consider them now.  We should also consider the fact that other encyclopedias are using the term, something that was raised immediately before the RfC was closed but not considered in any detail.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * Other encyclopedias using this term is an excellent point. The first sentence of the lead must provide a definition. We are not a newspaper with a specific political agenda. We are an Encyclopedia and we have to give a dictionary definition for the term. If you look at definitions for scandal and controversy, and compare with the facts already outlined in the article, it becomes obviously clear that what we are describing is a scandal. PavelShk (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ivey Business School || Yes || No
 * rabble.ca || No || No
 * }
 * It's a toss-up. I'm not sure just looking for sources will settle this issue for us—there are plenty of sources we can find that use either word. Instead we should focus the discussion on which of these words is more suitable according to MOS:FIRST. Anne drew  14:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * All the policy-based argumentation was done in the RfC and no CONSENSUS was established. So there is no point going back to that. The way forward now should be based on what terms are likely to have CONSENSUS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Some things where not really addressed in the RfC.  One of those things, is that Britannica and The Canadian Encyclopedia use the term scandal.  I agree it is not helpful to go over the same sources again, but BarKeep suggested we look at secondary and tertiary sources.  There are new ones which were not considered at the time of the RfC.  We should consider them now.  We should also consider the fact that other encyclopedias are using the term, something that was raised immediately before the RfC was closed but not considered in any detail.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * Other encyclopedias using this term is an excellent point. The first sentence of the lead must provide a definition. We are not a newspaper with a specific political agenda. We are an Encyclopedia and we have to give a dictionary definition for the term. If you look at definitions for scandal and controversy, and compare with the facts already outlined in the article, it becomes obviously clear that what we are describing is a scandal. PavelShk (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. Some things where not really addressed in the RfC.  One of those things, is that Britannica and The Canadian Encyclopedia use the term scandal.  I agree it is not helpful to go over the same sources again, but BarKeep suggested we look at secondary and tertiary sources.  There are new ones which were not considered at the time of the RfC.  We should consider them now.  We should also consider the fact that other encyclopedias are using the term, something that was raised immediately before the RfC was closed but not considered in any detail.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * Other encyclopedias using this term is an excellent point. The first sentence of the lead must provide a definition. We are not a newspaper with a specific political agenda. We are an Encyclopedia and we have to give a dictionary definition for the term. If you look at definitions for scandal and controversy, and compare with the facts already outlined in the article, it becomes obviously clear that what we are describing is a scandal. PavelShk (talk) 02:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually PavelShk that’s not true at all. We do not have to give a “dictionary” definition of anything. We are an encyclopedia and we must per our own Wikipedia guidelines and policies write as an encyclopedia. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I’m traveling with spotty computer access so not sure how often I will be able to comment. The most impactful statement in an article is the lead’s first sentence. Our responsibility is to make sure that sentence describes for the reader the range of content present in the article. The lead first sentence is based on the sourcing in the entire article on multiple aspects of the affair. There are multiple positions in the article on multiple sources and positions. We need an overarching term which can describe them all. Controversy is that term in my opinion. We aren’t here to sell newspapers so don’t need sensationalist language in the lead’s first sentence which scandal is. It might be possible in another part of the article to say something like numerous sources at the time described the Lavelin affair as a scandal. I am intractable on the lead sentence in good part because I believe the reasoning is wrong. And as an aside, I’d like to leave CT’s name out of this. We can’t second guess him and honestly guys I think he was misjudged. I do believe editors were trying to be reasonable so maybe that’s not the best term to continue on with. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be possible in another part of the article to say something like numerous sources at the time described the Lavelin affair as a scandal. That's an interesting idea. We do that in Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement; the first sentence doesn't call it a scandal, but later in the lead it says ...the procurement was labelled a national "scandal" and "fiasco" by the media. Perhaps "controversy" should be used in the first sentence and later in the lead it can say that the media has described the affair as a scandal. Anne drew  15:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * One source I think that is very useful for us is this: Scope of US political scandals. There, it looks like community also went through the process of trying to determine what is a scandal and what is controversy. So, I'm just going to cite that in full because it's very relevant:
 * I think this makes it obviously clear what are we dealing with. There are allegations of criminal activity, fairly serious allegations, so that Ethics Commissioner and Justice Committee both started investigations even though they are controlled by Liberal Party. There is public outcry. There is significant coverage in Canadian and foreign press. There are resignations. There is effect on popularity of the political parties. If this is not a political scandal, then what is? I'm not that concerned about adding LavScam or many other things, but I believe very strongly we must call things their proper names, and thus we must call scandal a scandal. PavelShk (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent resource and I want to concur with PavelShk here. I'm sorry I can't be more active in this discussion, as my work doesn't allow me the time currently. Like Darryl, I am currently intractable in my support of "political scandal". We have established that it is appropriate, and not sensationalising, to call it such- that found consensus in the previous RfC. The question now is not what is most sensationalist or most neutral, it's what word best fits. According to every definition that anyone has pulled up so far, that's "scandal". Safrolic (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this makes it obviously clear what are we dealing with. There are allegations of criminal activity, fairly serious allegations, so that Ethics Commissioner and Justice Committee both started investigations even though they are controlled by Liberal Party. There is public outcry. There is significant coverage in Canadian and foreign press. There are resignations. There is effect on popularity of the political parties. If this is not a political scandal, then what is? I'm not that concerned about adding LavScam or many other things, but I believe very strongly we must call things their proper names, and thus we must call scandal a scandal. PavelShk (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent resource and I want to concur with PavelShk here. I'm sorry I can't be more active in this discussion, as my work doesn't allow me the time currently. Like Darryl, I am currently intractable in my support of "political scandal". We have established that it is appropriate, and not sensationalising, to call it such- that found consensus in the previous RfC. The question now is not what is most sensationalist or most neutral, it's what word best fits. According to every definition that anyone has pulled up so far, that's "scandal". Safrolic (talk) 05:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Straw poll
These are the options discussed so far (feel free to add any that I may have missed):
 * 1) The SNC-Lavalin affair in Canada involves allegations...
 * 2) The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political scandal in Canada involving allegations...
 * 3) The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political controversy in Canada involving allegations...
 * 4) The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political controversy or scandal in Canada involving allegations...
 * 5) The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political controversy in Canada involving allegations... and later in the lead: The affair has been described as a scandal by the media.

This is not an RFC per se, but I'm interested in which of these options have support here so that we can narrow down the options of a future RFC.


 * I prefer option 2 or 5. I believe "scandal" is a more specific definition of the affair which should be used according to MOS:FIRST: If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition. However, I understand the reservations that some users have that "scandal" is a loaded term. As such, I also find option 5 to be acceptable. Option 1 is my least-preferred choice. Anne drew  20:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer options 2, 4, 5, and 3, in that order. I am opposed to 1.  The language of Option 1 is unnatural and speaks only of "allegations".  The placement of "in Canada" suggests the affair is only known in Canada, when we know there has been coverage internationally.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2,1,4 I see substantial evidence for the appropriateness of scandal in the form of: Breadth and depth of media coverage describing it as a political scandal, both tertiary sources cited so far describing it as a political scandal, google search result count disparities between affair, scandal, and controversy, all dictionaries giving definitions of scandal matching the events, past agreement from the editor opposing it that it is a scandal, and Wikipedia's own treatment of the scope of political scandals directly south of us. I feel like we're arguing about whether the sky is blue here, honestly. Because of this, 2 would be my first preference. 1 is a second choice, not one I'm happy about though. Though it is very awkward wording, 4 would be a distant choices. Safrolic (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2 or 5. I think "political scandal" is appropriate. If that fails to achieve consensus, then state it as "political controversy" and mention the "scandal" aspect in some other form, perhaps attributing it to media. The option 4 does not make sense to me. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2, 5 in preference order (and I could live with 3 or 1). I believe the affair meets the definition of a political scandal (both dictionary and Wikipedia), and calling it such is consistent with other Canadian political scandals and the definition of US scandals. I would however follow Safrolic's earlier suggestion of making sure that the next sentence starts with "The controversy...." as a reasonable way to address/reflect the split nature of the RFC result. Harris Seldon (talk) 07:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer #2. However, I think that #4 is a fair compromise, so that's my second choice.Handy History Handbook (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2. There's no other option. We have to give a correct definition. PavelShk (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Possible wording for a third RfC, and whether one is required

 * Comment: Feel free to keep responding to this straw poll, but based on the !votes so far (as well as comments elsewhere that expressed support for options 1 and 3), it looks like all of these should be included as options on an RfC. I've drafted an RfC in my sandbox; feel free to edit it as you see fit. I'll open the RfC once this one is closed. – Anne drew  14:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey Anne, I've got a similar setup on my talk page here ;) Safrolic (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops! I missed that. For your RfC, I don't think option B will be acceptable for people who oppose option A; it's still describing the affair as a scandal in Wikipedia's voice.
 * I think option 5 (listed here) has potential to gain the support of people who don't want "scandal" in the first sentence because it avoids describing it as a scandal in Wikipedia's voice.
 * (emphasis mine) – Anne drew  19:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. Still, I don't think we should go into third RfC unless we have to.  Before resorting to an RfC, we are supposed to try to work things out here or consider other dispute resolution.  Despite the previous disagreement on this, in this straw poll at least we appear pretty unanimous.  I note  has expressed support for Option 2 elsewhere on the talk page.  Unfortunately, one editor who was opposed to that option has withdrawn.  No editor who was initially opposed appears to have addressed the new sources, encyclopedia info, nor the Wikipedia community's treatment of the term "scandal" in US politics (as mentioned by PavelShk above). I think we should carefully consider whether another RfC is required before we open a third.  The comments of the closer of the second RfC below, might also be helpful in considering whether to do so.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm curious what you think about this option since you opposed calling the affair a scandal in the previous RfC. Does avoiding calling it a scandal in Wikipedia's voice alleviate your concerns? We do something similar on Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Canadian procurement. – Anne drew  19:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We established that calling it a scandal was appropriate in the last RfC. A result which doesn't say it is a scandal, instead saying it's been described as a scandal, is not acceptable to me- especially given all that new evidence that nobody opposing "scandal" has acknowledged yet. It'd be like saying "Tomatoes have been described by HGTV as plants"- it doesn't fit the scenario. Olive has also said they're not coming back so idk. Safrolic (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ohh, I hear you Andrew. At the same time, I note no one has commented on the new info since the RfC. I honestly do not know what their position is on Option 2 in light of that (besides Littleolive pushing proposing Option 1 below in the second RfC). I also do not know what the others' positions are in light of the closing comments of Barkeep49. It is good, that you and have wording ready for a third RfC, but I suggest we consider whether that is necessary upon the closing comments of the second RfC below, and any comments from other editors here who have not yet commented. I am not saying a third RfC will not be necessary, but not necessarily.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:09, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll hold off on starting another RfC. – Anne drew  21:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I should say in writing the above, I was partly assuming that the second RfC was going to be closed early. I don't think we are required to wait another 26 days before we try to lay this issue to rest.  Particularly, if further comment is not expected to be forthcoming from new editors or those who commented in the first RfC but have not commented in the straw poll.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Tomatoes have been described by HGTV as plants. Clearly it's not that cut-and-dry since there were serious concerns raised about the neutrality of the term "scandal" in the last RfC wheras Tomatoes being plants is an objective fact.
 * I share your view that the affair meets the dictionary definition of the word scandal. But they say a good compromise is one that leaves both sides equally dissatisfied. To-that-end, I think this option should be seriously considered.
 * I take your point that editors who opposed "scandal" haven't weighed in on the new evidence. I am curious what they think of other encyclopedias using the term "scandal". Personally I found that quite compelling. – Anne drew  20:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I take your point that editors who opposed "scandal" haven't weighed in on the new evidence. I am curious what they think of other encyclopedias using the term "scandal". Personally I found that quite compelling. – Anne drew  20:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

RfC: An alternative version of the lead sentence to the lead in SNC-Lavalin affair
Is the alternative version (or a slight variation) of the lead sentence (now in place) in the lead paragraph in the SNC-Lavalin affair article an acceptable version given the stalemate of the former versions below. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Alternative version now in place:
 * The SNC-Lavalin affair in Canada involves allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

Previously stalemated versions: -- Littleolive oil (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political scandal in Canada involving allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
 * The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political controversy in Canada involving allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).

Comments

 * Yes. Since other wording has not found consensus and discussion is not moving forward, as poster of this RfC I suggest another version to hopefully clear the air and make moving forward possible. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect, a virtually identical proposal did not receive consensus at the RfC either:
 * The SNC-Lavalin affair refers to allegations in Canada of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office(PMO).
 * What is your view on Options A, B and in the light of the new information Option C?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This is acceptable for the time being, but ultimately "controversy" or "scandal" should be used in the first sentence as per the result of the last RFC. Anne drew  13:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The RfC cited three possibilities for further discussion. Alternative phrasing is one. "Further discussion is therefore required to determine whether to use this alternative phrasing, one, or both words in the first sentence and how to use both words in the LEAD as a whole." So whatever the consensus is here alternative phrasing is viable long term option per the RfC. Further an RfC is a guide and not law. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No. I would instead propose:
 * The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political controversy or scandal in Canada involving allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
 * I agree that ultimately only one of controversy or scandal should be used. I see this as a stop gap measure to hopefully help us move forward.  Once we start to edit the rest of the article, we may have a clearer idea how best to edit the wording of the entire lede. Harris Seldon (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Barring use of political scandal on its own, this would be my preference also.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A similar proposal was considered at the last RfC and failed to achieve consensus. I oppose for many of the same reasons expressed there.  It is clumsy and fails to say what the affair is.  It attempts to say just that it "involves" allegations.  It is much more than allegations.  It is the political scandal, controversy and perhaps crisis that followed those allegations (ie the aftermath of them).  Respectfully, this RfC fails to consider other alternatives which we were discussing above, and may be premature because it effectively shuts down consideration and discussion of them.  We should consider:
 * Option A - The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political controversy or scandal in Canada involving allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
 * Option B - The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political controversy in Canada involving allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
 * I disagree that "controversy" or "political scandal" are hopelessly stalemated. With respect to "controversy" that was the second choice of many (and first choice of others).  We should also consider scandal:
 * Option C - The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political scandal in Canada involving allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO).
 * While "political scandal" failed to achieve consensus in the last RfC. New information has been raised which we have not considered.  In the hours before the last RfC closed,  raised the fact that the encyclopedia Britannica has called the affair a scandal.  I raised the fact that The Canadian Encyclopedia also uses the term scandal.   also called our attention to how the community has dealt with the issue in List of federal political scandals in the United States.  There is also lists above of new sources, which came about after the RfC.  We should not dismiss this new information without consideration.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This RfC is now in progress. once it runs its course if there is no consensus we can begin again with your proposals. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * With the greatest of respect, that is not how it works. It seemed like something like a consensus was forming around Option A before you started this RfC.  and  had expressed some support others had not yet sounded off.  said the wording would be awkward but did not appear to me to outwardly oppose the suggestion (perhaps he can clarify).  I am still awaiting your position on that proposal and others, which were raised before the RfC began.  RfCs are not meant to close down discussion, nor as a tool to prevent alterations to an article when consensus is starting to form around other wording.  I appreciate your effort to try to find a compromise here.  Lets keep working towards that and keep all options on the table.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Per Harris Seldon and Darryl Kerrigan, use "political controversy or scandal" for now, and, if possible, see if a consensus can be established for the more suitable term, "political scandal".Handy History Handbook (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose and speedy close as premature, lay out all the options on the table and then start a new RfC with all of them. It is improper to say that both options in the last RfC are now stalemated- we all know that one major factor in the last RfC's process has been removed. This is also an end-run around the new evidence in support of defining it as a political scandal- namely, all the other tertiary sources that have done so, and the lack of tertiary sources avoiding it, as well as the consensus from the last RfC that calling it a scandal is appropriate, not sensationalising. Safrolic (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll add more tomorrow but the accusation of an end run is a bad faith suggestion and a indirect personal attack. Please don't. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding more isn't going to be helpful, as the premise is fundamentally flawed- the question can't be "Should we do X," it must be "Which of V, W, X, Y, and Z should we do?". Neither controversy nor dispute have been rejected, and yet other options are not being given a fair shake. You should withdraw this RfC. Then, you or I can run a new RfC with all options listed and a request to rank options in each !vote. I have provided an example of neutral wording and an example vote on my talk page. Feel free to copy and paste it (and alter it/pad it out so the grammar makes sense and it's neutral) if you want to be the creator. Safrolic (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * No - The version on the main page is only a stop gap while the matter is being discussed. It doesn't qualify to be the permanent version. In the absence of consensus for "political scandal", I think political controversy is perfectly sensible. A "controversy" implies debate, disagreement, heightened political atmosphere, publicity, etc., all of which are true. "Political scandal" implies evidence or perception of wrong-doing. Since there is not yet agreement among the participants for labelling it a "political scandal", I think "political controversy" is automatically applicable. Nobody can argue that it is not a political controversy. It obviously is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Darryl has requested this RfC be closed at WP:RfCl. Barkeep49 and I have both commented supporting the closure as the RfC is improper. After that, I support the creation of a better RfC which lists all options, or further discussion over which options are appropriate. Safrolic (talk) 08:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion #1

 * Nice work. You could have as easily simply voted and let the RfC close which would have effectively explored and removed a third option which had been ignored. You Safrolic posted a bad faith comment. And some may wonder why Curley Turkey became so frustrated when working here. There are ownership issues here that I have noticed from my first days here. I have no interest in working on an article where there is control like this. And Safrolic don't patronize me along with your bad faith comment. I am usually ready to give the benefit of the doubt to other editors but this is really beyond my patience. Littleolive oil (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Look, nobody so far here has supported your RfC proposal. Close it per WP:SNOW, it's ridiculous to expect everyone to wait a month for new input before we can move on. Let's run a better RfC with all the options, all the evidence, and hopefully like 40% less verbiage. Rank your preferences and let's go. Safrolic (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * How many days has it been open? The RfC does not stop discussion, it does not stop another consensus from forming, it is not binding, it is not a vote. It is a request for input which by the way has been posted as is permitted on other Wikipedia pages. You and others are attempting to shut down another legitimate voice that was using legitimate means per Wikipedia. That the RfC is seen as over because the few editors who work here have voted no, so that must be consensus, speaks volumes about ownership. I am seldom angry but I am now. Littleolive oil (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we close this and start a new RfC with your preference here included in it? Your preference will be listed, unchanged. I have drafted an RfC text with all the options on it, including yours, at the bottom of my talk page for you to look at. Having all the options laid out up front for people rank their preferences will make the discussion a lot easier to understand than everyone saying no and individually suggesting something else. Safrolic (talk) 10:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Kautilya3. I have suggested this was a political controversy ad nauseam. This RfC option was not my first choice. This a legitimate question as too whether another option was viable.


 * I will be removing this article from my watch list. Please feel free to continue with out me. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have you leave Littleolive. I appreciate your attempts to come to a compromise here.  Before we open a third RfC on this issue, I suggest we all make best efforts to reach a compromise that we can all live with, either temporarily or permanently.  We should all be prepared to put some water in our wine if necessary, and to discuss all options proposed.  If we are unable to reach a consensus, hopefully that process will at least narrow the issues that need to be discussed in the third RfC.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It is probably a mistake for me to have looked in on this article again but I did wonder how fast scandal would end up in the lead. And it's coming soon I see. Darryl you accuse me of "pushing" my version. This is nonsense. The RfC closer said there were three possibilities for the lead. However no one was discussing the third option. Harris Seldon suggested a third option, Kautilya3 suggested the wording and I thought this was an idea we could explore but I was ignored. In order to bring to all of our attentions, on this page, this third option I opened an RfC. Some editors here behaved as if I had dropped a bomb one I had apparently invented. I don't like being mischaracterized as Safrolic has and Darryl as you have here. It's one thing to discuss content its quite another to be ignored and then mischaracterized. Anne Drew is making a very important point which once again the editors who control this page and the article content are ignoring. She/he suggests some of the wording must be qualified and not presented in Wikipedia's voice. The rigidity and intensity with which two editors at least are pushing for a single unqualified word is quite stunning. And Anne no I don't look at other encyclopedias for support for what we should add here. As editors I believe we have to be independent in how we write our articles. The articles across encyclopedias are not the same, the policies that underpin the writing of the articles are not the same so why should the language we use match the language of any other encylopedia. I do suggest an example for why scandal logically should not be used in the lead sentence. If I am writing about bees for instance, when I introduce the subject in the opening line I might use an overarching word and description, "Bees are flying insects..." I don't jump into that first line and introduce the most negative aspect of the bee. To do so would color the article. That a bee stings is a subset of the "flying insect" and will come later along with other characteristics of the bee. Controversy is colorless, a subset of that is scandal not so colourless. Which do we use as the overarching opening to the article? There is the mistaken idea that because something is sourced it can be included in an article. This isn't true. Sourcing means possibility not inevitability. In reading through this talk page again my grave concern is that there is COI editing going on here. The almost desperate way in which some editors are pushing for a word that will slant an article from its opening line is remarkable. I won't be voting and may or may not look in again. It makes no difference either way. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If me using the term "pushing" offended you, I apologize. I meant nothing by that other than you seem to support and be advocating that we consider adopting that option.  I do think the suggestion you made was done in good faith.  I was a little disappointed that you had not yet responded to the other options provided, or addressed the new considerations raised, but we are a volunteer force here.  You are free to respond or not respond.  I am however troubled by your accusation of WP:COI.  If you have any evidence of this you should report it.  If you don't, you should politely withdraw the accusation regardless of whom it was meant to be directed at.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That's a bit of a backhanded apology. Opening an RfC does not indicate a favorite option, or advocating for an option but instead asks for focus. Since one of three options was being ignored I thought I'd see what response we'd get if it was brought into focus. Supporting the third option would have ended the wall off text on scandal and controversy and we could have carried on with other issues so, yes I thought it was a better option than either option discussed to that point. I am not going to be part of this article; it is controlled by the same editors as have been in control since the beginning. I couldn't even keep a tag in place for a few minutes before someone removed it. I did not direct the COI concerns at anyone. It is almost impossible to prove COI except through edits and I have no desire to dig through and create a case on COI, but the edits and discussion are troublesome. What I am suggesting is that there is a level of intensity for certain kinds of edits which concerns me. And I will not withdraw that concern. I'm not sure why you thought I would respond; I with drew from actively working on this article. I have been around contentious articles on Wikipedia, unfortunately, for a very long time. One gets a sense when something is off. This one makes me feel uneasy... and because anything I do will have zero impact I see no reason to hang around. I don't like being mischaracterized, that's why I commented. I will not impact your straw poll or RfC in anyway. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Opening a RfC might not. But declining to answer in response to other options might be (ie. leaving it as just "controversy", using "political controversy or scandal", or "scandal" in light of the new considerations).  This all happened before you "withdrew".  Furthermore, your !vote for the "leave everything out" option is a pretty clear indication you support(ed) that option and think (thought) we should too.  There is nothing wrong with advocating for a certain change to an article here as long as it is done in WP:GOODFAITH.  I believe you were acting in good faith in recommending that option.  I have never said otherwise.  I apologize that using the term "pushing" may have suggested otherwise.  I disagree that option is the best way to build a better encyclopedia, but that is neither here nor there.  I will say though that I was disappointed by this suggestion that we should not consider any other options until the RfC you opened was finished.  I will also say I am extremely disappointed by your your baseless accusations of WP:COI, whomever you meant to direct them at.  That is not WP:AGF and it does not help us build a better encyclopedia.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Believe it or not I am not compelled to take part in a discussion I don't support. Declining to do so is not an offense but a right I have as an editor. My position was to take Kautilya3's suggestion (see below) which I thought should go over well with everyone since it by passed the contentious words. Of course, how mistaken I was.


 * "Leave everything out" is another mischaracterization and points to IDHT. I will repeat. There was third option in the last RfC:


 * Kautilya3: 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..."


 * Barkeep49: Quoting myself slightly amended, "Further discussion is therefore required to determine whether to use an alternative phrasing, one, or both words in the first sentence". There was, to be clear, no consensus about the first sentence in anyway.


 * I later gave up my support for "controversy" in favor of a phrase that might please everyone.


 * "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)


 * Since this suggestion was pretty much ignored I opened an RfC to bring focus to the idea and to ask for outside input but with almost immediate accusations of end-running, and further mischaracterizations by Safrolic I could see no way to be part of this discussion. Since the majority of the editors here seem to support scandal and since arguments I've presented have been for the most part ignored along with mischaracterizations there is no reason to continue. However, if editors continue to mischaracterize me I will correct those mistakes. I will be watching with interest to see how the article is trimmed. I suggested trimming before especially the history section but there was no support. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Do we have a majority supporting "scandal"?
The discussion seems to have died down. We had a straw poll above and it seem most people now support "scandal" as a first preference (and there seems to be a universal dissatisfaction with the current version). I would like to change it to scandal, to reflect the will of majority in straw poll, unless there's a desire to continue with various RfCs, etc. Please comment. PavelShk (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would leave it a bit longer in the hopes that we will get a close to the RfC above or comment from new editors or those whom were opposed in the last RfC. That said those that have commented in the straw poll appear to be unanimous, and others have been pinged and not responded yet.  I am not sure what the appropriate time to wait is, but I don't think we have to wait out the RfC if there is not a close or further comment very soon.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * I note we have not received any further comment in the RfC, straw poll or otherwise. It also seems that no one is working on a close.  How do you think we should proceed here?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * We already have consensus for both "scandal" and "controversy" in the lead according to the results of the last RfC. Based on recent discussion it appears that we have consensus for "scandal" in the first sentence, but let's give it another day or so for people to chime in if they disagree. Fair warning: if nobody opposes using "scandal" in the first sentence I'll go ahead and make the change tomorrow. – Anne drew  18:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Normally I would say keep the RFC open for at least two weeks, to give everyone a chance to respond on all sides. Especially a highly debated issue as this one.  But past experience is we are unlikely to get any new editors on this topic during that time. Harris Seldon (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a local majority as well as consensus for calling it a political scandal. However, local consensus cannot override a global RfC result. The latter can only be overridden by another global RfC. The only option is to replace the current RfC by a better worded one. can then self-close the current RfC, directing the participants to the new RfC. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If we are starting a third RfC, I suggest we change the lede to one of the other options from the straw poll first. Any of the other options is more popular than the current lede.  There is no consensus for the current lede, and never was.  There is no reason it should remain the lede for another 30+ days.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * Alright, we have let this languish long enough. I have made three WP:BOLD edits to the article, incorporating the three other options and settling on the one that has the greatest consensus at this time.  All of these options have a greater level of consensus than the current version of the lede.  Per, it seems we are going to have to have a third RfC on this.  That is disappointing.  I had hoped that we would be work through this or all agree on a stopgap.  It seems the current local consensus will have to serve as that stopgap, while a third RfC in the formation  or  have created proceeds. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've offered a compromise version that restores the long-standing lede text we had previously, and is more in line with the results of the recent RfC. Sorry for not being more involved on the talk page here, but I haven't had time to contribute to this discussion in length, especially when it keeps repeating itself. – bradv  🍁  20:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please read my compromise version more carefully. It includes both terms. And if you still reject it on the grounds of the RfC result, please restore the previous version, not the one including "scandal" in the first sentence. – bradv  🍁  21:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The RfC found consensus for using "scandal" or "controversy" to describe the affair in the lead. If you read the RfC discussion, everyone preferred using "controversy" or "scandal" over "dispute". I'm okay with you changing it to "controversy" while we await an RfC, but using "dispute" as a stopgap makes no sense. – Anne drew  21:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The long-standing lede text we had previously was "scandal". That is the original text. It was changed when the first RfC was opened. Can you please take a look at the new evidence that's been presented since the last RfC closed and then vote in the straw poll? Namely, treatment of the subject by other encyclopedias, and the criteria for "political scandal" used by our neighbours to the south. Safrolic (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , we discussed a large number of compromise options including using just "controversy" or both "political controversy or scandal" and narrowed down options to the five above. I suggest you consider !voting in that straw poll.  I believe the prevailing view is that an third RfC is going to need to occur including all five of those options.  At this time, there appears to be little support for an option including neither "political" or "scandal" or for using the term "dispute".  This issue has been languishing for one reason or another despite the considerable discussion here.  I think we are going to need to stick with option 2, 3, 4, or 5 in the meantime (as a stopgap).  These are the only options which appear to have garnered any significant level of support.  Then, regrettably, it seems a third RfC is in order.  We need to move this along though.  It is sucking all of the oxygen out of making improvements elsewhere.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I offered a version that went against my own vote in the RfC in an effort to try to find some closure to this endless discussion. I started with the version that was in use at the time of the RfC (which closed as "no consensus", so there obviously was some support for it). Nevertheless, I'd encourage more editors to make bold attempts at compromises, and sooner or later we'll find something that most people are happy with. Right now we're a little light on the B in BRD, and way too heavy on the D. – bradv  🍁  22:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The "dispute" option was proposed by an editor, who said he preferred the controversy option. It seemed to be a back-up for some who preferred controversy.  You will see it has received no support since the first RfC.  I hear you that there has been a painful amount of discussion on this point.  The problem in part is that nearly all who have been discussing this topic here since the closing of the RfC support "political scandal" (Option 2).  Those who were in the "controversy" camp have declined to meaningfully address the new evidence mentioned by  above.  Those supporting Option 2, are not likely to agree to a compromise until that occurs.  It seems to me that the fact that multiple other encyclopedias call this a scandal lays to rest the suggestion that there is something WP:UNDUE or WP:POV about using the term.  I am happy to be disabused of that notion if someone has a reasoned explanation why Britannica and The Canadian Encyclopedia use the term, but we should not.  I am happy to live with "political controversy or scandal" (Option 4) while this new evidence is considered and discussed.  As such, I will take up your invitation to WP:BRD and we will see where that takes us. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

What's going on? Is not everyone who voted in a straw poll preferred "scandal"? Are we starting another edit war? PavelShk (talk) 01:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No. has suggested perhaps the way through this impasse is to make bold edits, revert if necessary and discuss on the talk page here (ie WP:BRD). I agree that all who have commented in the straw poll support "scandal" (ie Option 2).  Littleolive and Bradv seem opposed.  I have made the last edit as an attempt to compromise, feel free to change it and discuss here the reasons why. As I explained to  above in light of the straw poll, I expect many editors will not accept a compromise without some discussion of why one is needed in light of the new Britannica/The Canadian Encyclopedia information.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggested a compromise which included the word "scandal", but not in the first line, per the results of the RfC. I hoped that would provide a way forward, and I'm still not sure my variation was duly considered. However, I would say that proposing compromises is very much the wiki way, and not at all edit warring. – bradv  🍁  01:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think there is some resistance to the use of the word "dispute" in the first sentence of the lede. Perhaps ironically, those in the "scandal" camp seem to prefer controversy to dispute.  The compromise you propose seems to look a little like Option 5 in the straw poll which recieved a decent amount of support.  I expect some would suport using "controversy" in the first sentence of the lede, if "scandal" was used in some way in a sentence that came shortly thereafter.  If something like that could work, perhaps we can work out what/where the scandal sentence would be and where it would be.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Predictable
I've reverted Pavel's change to the lead. I won't edit war but I will make the following observations. I was a sure as I am sitting here that once the so called stop gap version "scandal and controversy" was added the step to scandal alone would be very fast. The urgency with which some editors wanted to add a word to the lead is truly remarkable and also telling. Why won't I work on this article, this is why - I didn't hear that except what I want to hear, mischaracterization and ownership. I generally walk away from this kind of squabble; its one word after all. But here the desperation to hold on to this word in the lead, a word that colors an article is somewhat beyond belief and I was reluctant to let that slide. There have been suggestions which would have sidestepped the scandal controversy argument but they were shot down very quickly. I asked myself why. This is why.Littleolive oil (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The way to end this is to rewrite the lead and use different wording excluding both controversy and scandal. I'm wondering if there are enough editors with the courage and integrity to do this. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the current compromise revision for the time being. Would you consider withdrawing your RfC so that we can start an RfC with all of the options, and settle this issue once and for all? – Anne drew  16:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Anne. No I won't withdraw the RfC which would be seen as admitting it should never have been posted in the first place. That RfC was an obvious request for a third possibility which would have prevented all of this. If someone else wants to CLOSE the RfC so be it. As for the RfC with "all of the options"; I don't think the options represent all of the editors working on this article. Those who disagreed with what was going on here are no longer here. This is BLP content and a political article edited before an election. The truly neutral thing to do would be rewrite the lead at least the first sentence and remove all contentious words. I can't say or do more; I will be traveling again with only spotty internet access. Your choice, I guess. I am rushing so apologies for any hard to read material. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your answer to the new considerations? (ie. use in Britannica and The Canadian Encyclopedia and how US political scandals have been addressed) The effect of yourself and others withdrawing is that this question has not been properly discussed.  No editor is required to participate in discussions, but we are not required to give equal weight to the positions of those who decide not to explain and support their positions.  Many attempts have been made to discuss this.  The response to date amounts to WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.  Frankly, that is not good enough.  With the greatest of respect, if editors want their positions to be taken seriously, they need to be prepared to respectfully explain them.  It also helps if they refrain from making unfounded accusations of WP:POV or WP:COI against other editors, and if they do, that they retract those unfounded allegations and apologize.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Posted above: "And Anne no I don't look at other encyclopedias for support for what we should add here. As editors I believe we have to be independent in how we write our articles. The articles across encyclopedias are not the same, the policies that underpin the writing of the articles are not the same so why should the language we use match the language of any other encyclopedia." If I withdraw I do not expect my position to matter. I also expect that what I said about a position is noted and not mischaracterized. I have commented considerably on multiple issues including why I don't believe we can look to other encyclopedias for confirmation of what we do here. "I don't liKe it is" hardly fair given the number of times I tried to explain my positions and was ignored. When I with draw from a discussion I do not expect my position to matter. But I also withdrew because I felt my position was being ignored and mischaracterized. You accused CT of not explaining his position. I find this really confusing actually. I am explaining as did he. If you don't like the explanation fair enough but don't say I didn't try to explain. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You were never ignored. Your statement that we don't look to encyclopedias and we have our own policies is not helpful nor responsive.  CT and your initial suggestion was that use of the term scandal was WP:POV and WP:Undue.  Barkeep suggested we look at tertiary sources (ie other encyclopedias). Sure other encyclopedias are different than us but neither Britannica nor The Canadian Encyclopedia are partisan nor WP:POV. Both of them, have a vested interest in providing non-partisan information to their readers.  In light of their use of the term it is not credible to say that using it here is POV or Undue.  Simply dismissing these other sources, misses the point.  There is no evidence to support the suggestion calling this a scandal is POV or Undue.  There is a lot of evidence to suggest it is not.  But none of that addresses the way US scandals have applied our WP:POV and WP:Undue policies in THIS encyclopedia.  The truth is with out this feeble and now crumbling POV/Undue argument there is no reason to exclude the term scandal and we are back to calling a spade a spade not a garden implement.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * You cannot control how other editors see or respond to concerns. Nor is it acceptable to discount the response as a response because you don't agree with it. You accused me of not responding to the question of whether we should use other tertiary sources as guides to our own content; I said no and I said why. Yet you are accusing me of not responding to the question. That's just not true. You assert that my arguments for not using scandal are not legitimate that's an opinion not a truth. My opinions may not be helpful to you but they are legitimate responses to the situation. I made several other comments about why we should use other wording. No one responded to those suggestions. Further you and others have mischaracterized me multiple times. Heaven help you if you try these kinds of tactics on other articles where you do not have the power to lead a majority of editors. I have closed the RfC I in good faith opened. I'm sure it will be smooth sailing from here on in.Littleolive oil (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You keep accusing myself and others of mischaracterizing you. How about you come out and clearly state what your position is.  Are you still trying to argue that something about the term scandal is WP:POV or WP:Undue?  If so, based on what?  I have heard a lot to suggest it is not, but nothing besides WP:JUSTDONTLIKE. other encyclopedias to support that position.  You have still made no attempt to address the comments raised weeks ago by . Wikipedia has applied the WP:POV or WP:Undue in a matter contrary to your position here on US scandal topics.  You have no obligation to answer any of my questions here, but we sure are allowed to discount your views if you don't.  As you know, WP:Consensus is not about !voting it is about the reasoning behind the votes.  Feel free to explain your reasoning, or not.  That is your choice.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Possible/allegations of obstruction of justice
Thank you Anne drew  for this edit. We certainly should not be including the term "obstruction of justice" even if just noting there were allegation of it or "possible" obstruction, unless that is what WP:RS say. I think there has been some confusion here because Jody Wilson-Raybould said she personally did not think what occurred was illegal. This lawyer interviewed by CBC News said that does not settle the issue. This National Post article says Trudeau "probably" didn't break the law, mentioning obstruction. This op-ed from the Globe and Mail says it was "not criminal" again with reference to obstruction. This Macleans article also considers obstruction and this Toronto Star Sun one also discusses "allegations of interference and obstruction of justice". As does this iPolitics one. If this is just a sourcing issue, I think there are other sources out there and I don't think there is a real dispute that there were allegations/questions of obstruction at that time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a longer reply coming, but you accidentally referred to the Toronto Sun as the Toronto Star (there's a meaningful difference in terms of reliability) – Anne drew  21:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Yes, there sure is a difference. Corrected.  For what it is worth, there is this Star article.  There are also these sources for consideration, , and .  To be clear, these simply appear to be allegations of obstruction and/or calls for the RCMP to investigate.  It seems Andrew Scheer was pushing at least some of them.  There are some in the media and lawyers on both sides, who comment on the facts known and say this could be obstruction or is not.  As far as I know, the RCMP have never commented on an investigation, and there certainly have not been charges or a conviction.  We are just talking about whether there were allegations.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I put together a list of all of the sources we cite that contain the phrase "obstruction of justice" and I included the articles you listed above. The Washington Post link didn't work for me, and I was stuck behind a paywall for the Hill Times, but this should give us an idea:
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Source !! Person making allegation
 * ipolitics || Opposition parties
 * Ottawa Citizen (op-ed) || No allegation, just: We need to know whether pressure was brought to bear on our former minister of justice to go easy on SNC-Lavalin. And, if there was pressure, we need to know who applied it and if it rose to the level of criminal obstruction of justice.
 * CBC || CPC leader Andrew Scheer called for RCMP investigation into possible obstruction of justice
 * The Tyee (op-ed) || No credible allegation, just: It was the PM and his over-zealous operatives who put the government in jeopardy by...arguably obstructing justice
 * ipolitics || Former Ontario AG Michael Bryant says political interference allegations should be investigated for obstruction
 * CBC || Defense lawyer Michael Spratt: It's not clearly not obstruction. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger: This has stepped over the bounds of inappropriate; it has certainly crossed into the realm of criminal conduct.
 * National Post || The Post comes to the conclusion: Trudeau (probably) broke no Canadian laws, though they don't attribute that to an expert directly, they quote John Whyte, a "veteran law professor at the University of Regina", who said There appears to be an awful lot of weight put on Jody Wilson-Raybould but no specific direction, except the explicit direction to the next attorney general of firing the present one
 * The Toronto Star || A group of five former federal and provincial attorneys-general have sent a letter to the RCMP requesting the agency investigate "potential criminality"
 * Macleans || This article references the CBC and and Star article above
 * The Sun || Former AG Michael Bryant again
 * }
 * From these sources I'm seeing a whole lot of calls for investigation but no actual allegations of obstruction. This contrasted to "political interference", which JWR explicitly alleged.
 * There's also the question of due weight. Sixty of our sources include the term "political interference" versus only ten of our sources (yours included) have "obstruction of justice".
 * Based on this information, I think the obstruction claim should be taken out of the first sentence and rephrased to something like this:
 * – Anne drew  23:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In case you were wondering where I pulled those numbers from, here's the script I used. – Anne drew 00:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yep, I think that is probably the best tack.  I agree that the overarching sentiment in media, WP:RS seemed to be the question was likely one of possible/alleged political interference and the appropriate or inappropriateness of the steps taken.  The discussion in the media of criminality or obstruction seemed to be mostly -- notwithstanding JWR saying it was not illegal, could it be obstruction anyway?  Most of the coverage seemed to conclude no, or probably not.  I think that proposal is probably the best way to proceed.  I think you are right it is best to name who made the calls for investigation.  Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Macleans || This article references the CBC and and Star article above
 * The Sun || Former AG Michael Bryant again
 * }
 * From these sources I'm seeing a whole lot of calls for investigation but no actual allegations of obstruction. This contrasted to "political interference", which JWR explicitly alleged.
 * There's also the question of due weight. Sixty of our sources include the term "political interference" versus only ten of our sources (yours included) have "obstruction of justice".
 * Based on this information, I think the obstruction claim should be taken out of the first sentence and rephrased to something like this:
 * – Anne drew  23:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In case you were wondering where I pulled those numbers from, here's the script I used. – Anne drew 00:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yep, I think that is probably the best tack.  I agree that the overarching sentiment in media, WP:RS seemed to be the question was likely one of possible/alleged political interference and the appropriate or inappropriateness of the steps taken.  The discussion in the media of criminality or obstruction seemed to be mostly -- notwithstanding JWR saying it was not illegal, could it be obstruction anyway?  Most of the coverage seemed to conclude no, or probably not.  I think that proposal is probably the best way to proceed.  I think you are right it is best to name who made the calls for investigation.  Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yep, I think that is probably the best tack.  I agree that the overarching sentiment in media, WP:RS seemed to be the question was likely one of possible/alleged political interference and the appropriate or inappropriateness of the steps taken.  The discussion in the media of criminality or obstruction seemed to be mostly -- notwithstanding JWR saying it was not illegal, could it be obstruction anyway?  Most of the coverage seemed to conclude no, or probably not.  I think that proposal is probably the best way to proceed.  I think you are right it is best to name who made the calls for investigation.  Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and made those changes. Here's the diff of all the edits I made. – Anne drew  00:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks guys for doing this analysis. I was thinking about if it's appropriate to include it or not, back in April. I think it was I who originally put "obstruction of justice" there, based on reading JWR testimony, case law on prosecutorial independence, and the Justice Committee proceedings. I re-read JWR statements again now, and while she lays out evidence that clearly leads to possible obstruction charge, she was always careful not to call it so. Since no police investigation was launched and no charges were laid, and there was not enough sources to characterize it as obstruction, I agree with the changes. PavelShk (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Length of Article
I think we really need to trim some fat here. This article is getting awfully long and of labyrinthine detail.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. Given that the article was written as the situation was developing, it is understandable why it is like it is.  Now that things have settled down about the scandal with limited new information, it is probably the right time to restructure the article to make it easier to read, while at the same time reassessing what content should be kept and what may not be significant to include. Harris Seldon (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with this, personally; we're here to provide a well-written, well-researched, comprehensive treatment of the subject which a non-expert would not find lacking. The total prose size of this article is only 35kb, well below the point where Wikipedia suggests an article is getting too long (prose size of >60kb). You can read more about that at WP:TOOBIG. Deletion of material just to make the article smaller is discouraged in general, and splitting is encouraged instead- we are far from that point. Safrolic (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In my defence, I wrote the above before | seven paragraphs on Sheila Copps' tweets were removed. Still, I think there is room for some summary, clean-up, without losing information which is important to "well-written, well-researched, comprehensive treatment of the subject".  I note there has been little of any edits taking place as other issues have dominated editors time and energy.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If we're looking for fat to trim, I think Leaked information regarding Supreme Court recommendation section is a good place to start. It discusses:
 * Claims that there was a conflict between Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould about her recommendation for chief justice (which she has denied)
 * Claims that Trudeau leaked information about said conflict in order to politically damage JWR (which he has denied)
 * As of right now this section is mostly speculation. In particular, the second claim should be treated with some scepticism; it comes from a conservative commentator and Conservative MPs and is yet to be confirmed by the Privacy Commissioner's investigation.
 * I would either shrink that section to a couple of sentences and merge into the section above or remove the section outright . The extent of coverage we give to this somewhat tangential issue is undue when you consider how it's twice as long as the Resignations section – Anne drew  22:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a fair point. I think the fact that confidentiality around the judicial appointment process became a casualty of this scandal is relevant and notable.  The legal community was quite critical of how that played out. Also worth noting that apparently special privacy measures are being taken this time as a result.  That said, I agree the length of this section is likely not proportional to its significance to the topic.  It might be a good place to do some trimming.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and revised that section (before / after). Let me know what you think. It still hits upon the key points:
 * I did omit some information. Here's what I removed and why:
 * – Anne drew  01:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I should say I rather hate the sentence:
 * The truth is we don't really know why she was shuffled, and I don't really think we should really give an anonymous leaker that much weight. The leak is significant in that it was made, and shouldn't have been, but I am not sure it is appropriate for us to give this amount of weight to the theory (which is not really supported) that some disagreement between JT and JWR here is what head to her being shuffled.  JWR seems to suggest she was possibly shuffled because of SNC.  Various folks in the Liberal camp have suggested this, but also arguably contradictory things such as she was well respected and needed at Indigenous affairs, she was difficult to work with and needed to be shuffled out, and the shuffle happened because another Minister resigned and had nothing to do with the relationship between JT and JWR.  As far as I know, beyond this anonymous source and partisans referencing it.  I am not aware of anyone with knowledge ever saying that this dispute was what lead to the shuffle, so I am not sure it is WP:Due for us to suggest it in this way based on an anonymous source.  Full disclosure, I believe it was I that the comments by Wells and Coyne to try to balance this and give appropriate weight to speculation on both sides.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see you have reworded that:
 * I think the current wording is a good balance.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The truth is we don't really know why she was shuffled, and I don't really think we should really give an anonymous leaker that much weight. The leak is significant in that it was made, and shouldn't have been, but I am not sure it is appropriate for us to give this amount of weight to the theory (which is not really supported) that some disagreement between JT and JWR here is what head to her being shuffled.  JWR seems to suggest she was possibly shuffled because of SNC.  Various folks in the Liberal camp have suggested this, but also arguably contradictory things such as she was well respected and needed at Indigenous affairs, she was difficult to work with and needed to be shuffled out, and the shuffle happened because another Minister resigned and had nothing to do with the relationship between JT and JWR.  As far as I know, beyond this anonymous source and partisans referencing it.  I am not aware of anyone with knowledge ever saying that this dispute was what lead to the shuffle, so I am not sure it is WP:Due for us to suggest it in this way based on an anonymous source.  Full disclosure, I believe it was I that the comments by Wells and Coyne to try to balance this and give appropriate weight to speculation on both sides.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see you have reworded that:
 * I think the current wording is a good balance.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording is a good balance.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"political controversy or scandal"
The lede does a poor job identifying the subject. Which one is it? A political controversy or scandal? They aren't the same things. A political controversy is probably too light for this topic; I would describe "elbow-gate" as a political controversy, not something as significant as this. Either way, we should pick one and stick with. I'd prefer just "political scandal". TrailBlzr (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, . Controversy or scandal is the placeholder we're using until we decide what exact phrasing to use in the first sentence. Please take a look at this request for comment and feel free to voice your opinion there. – Anne drew  21:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

quoting laws
Can you explain or quote policy on why we cannot cite passages of Canadian law? Is it simply a preference for a secondary source? The Justice Law site is certainly reliable. Alaney2k (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We try not to quote anything unless it is vital to understanding the article or the only way to avoid mischaracterizing a person. Quotes tend to be long and where something can be reduced and summarized, we should do so. That is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do (see WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:QUOTEFARM). With citations to the specific legislation, we also have to be careful about original research.  We are not supposed to do our own research, only include what reliable sources say is true.  The problem with citing legislation and interpreting it without citations to other reliable sources, is that we can get it wrong.  Maybe some other law has been passed overruling that legislation, maybe it has been struck down, or maybe it doesn't mean what we think it does.  Most of us are not lawyers, so as a general rule we look for sources to confirm the effect of legislation.  Hope that answers your question.  Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see while I was writing the long winded response above, you found a reference for that in the CBC article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually referenced quotes in general are useful and can be included. They "weight" content at times so care is taken when using them. Primary sources can be used if carefully, and often their best use is when backed up by a secondary source. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources in the lead
"The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." In contentious articles sources are acceptable and may be necessary in the lead. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Removing content from lead
Removing vital content from the lead along with a verifiable, highly reliable source that both contains and explains the content appears to be POV editing and a push towards non-neutral content and article. Please exercise care. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

"Not Directed to interfere" and "no actual political interference"
With respect, both of these have been government talking points and do not belong in this article. They are WP:POV, and furthermore take Dion out of context. He wrote:

It is clear what Dion is saying here is that because JWR refused to follow through the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) was "likely" not influenced. That doesn't mean "actual political interference" was not directed at JWR herself as we seem to be saying in the beginning of our sentence on this. It is blatantly inappropriate for us to print here that she wasn't "directed" when a few sentences later, Dion makes clear that the steps taken were "tantamount" to direction. We also simply cannot say that no interference occurred. Dion is presumably referencing "actual interference" towards the DPP, but he only says there "likely" wasn't. It is also worth noting that he was denied access to information he requested, so his statement can't be used to suggest there was no actual interference (at best it can refer Dions opinion that there was "likely... [no] actual political interference" directed at the DPP.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but I disagree. The Ethics Commissioner is not a judge and the Conflict of Interest Act is not criminal law. It is the law regarding the behaviour of politicians. The Ethics Commissioner is an auditor, not a policeman or judge. I think it is important to state that Trudeau did not direct JWR, as even JWR has admitted. It's difficult to summarize I admit, but I think if we omit Trudeau's points then it becomes one-sided. Alaney2k (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I would tend to agree with Alaney2k. And actually, I'm not interested in making decisions based on what is judged to be government talking points– WP:OR. Nor do I agree that "tantamount to intervention" equals directed to intervene.  We can't second guess the wording of an Ethics Committee whose language is carefully chosen; to do so borders on OR. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What I was objecting to was the selective use of part of Dion's report to suggest that he was saying there was no direction. If you want to attribute those comments to Trudeau go for it (I am pretty sure he said them at some point). It is misleading to attribute them to Dion because he goes on to say Trudeau's actions were tantamount to direction.  We can take Dion's report for what it is, but not mischaracterize what he said.  It is also misleading to say that there was no "actual interference".  He is saying there was interference, pressure applied to JWR but she didn't give into it. He is saying there was interference, it just wasn't effective. Feel free to include government talking points as long as they are attributed to the government officials that said them.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)


 * Dion made the statement Trudeau did not.
 * This, " Feel free to include government talking points as long as they are attributed to the government officials that said them." This borders on non-neutral POV and ownership. Littleolive oil (talk) 10:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't mischaracterize the report. Also try not to push your Liberal Party WP:POV here. That is all. I am not going to discuss this further with you, because you are not here for an honest discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * You have two editors who agree on what the report said. How am I mischaracterizing the report? And your statement here is not accurate, "Well, I am not surprised. Littleolive oil says Trudeau at this point is not being accused of breaking the law so can we be careful about language. That is exactly what he is accused of, and has been found by the Ethics Commissioner to have done." Yet later you say,"I don't think anyone is saying differently." and yet you are suggesting I am not honest. That you see my position as Liberal when I am staying as close to the report as possible in the edits I made to the lead with out plagiarizing is telling; I even added quotes to part of the report itself, and yet you see that position as Liberal and I guess political? You might look at your own position. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * And this is what I understand the Ethics report to say:
 * Trudeau contravened the COI act.
 * Trudeau attempted to influence but did not explicitly direct WR
 * Trudeau did not break the law but the RCMP are watching for further developments.

I can't extrapolate anything beyond this because doing so would be WP:OR. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you want to say that Dion said that JT did not explicitly "direct" JWR, just say that he also said that what did occur was "tantamount to direction". Not doing so is misleading. And you know that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

You can stop accusing me right now as you have been for multiple discussions. And. I will not support manipulation of the article content to say more than is in the report; doing so is OR. I am happy to include in this article an inclusive quote from the Ethics report for the sake of accuracy but I will not support an editor's interpretation of what that report said. And what I am happy to do must be supported by other editors. Can you understand that there is a difference between the report and your interpretation of that report? Littleolive oil (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is anything further for us to discuss. If you do not accept that it is misleading to say that Dion said "no direction" when he said what occurred was "tantamount to political direction"... well, then we are not having an honest discussion.  Have a great trip.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I will try to rewrite this in the next few days. I am traveling again so internet access is spotty.Littleolive oil (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's how Wikipedia operates. I have to accept what you are saying or you won't discuss anything. I have no problem with you not discussing this with me. At the same time you are suggesting we present inaccurate information. You are selectively choosing to ignore part of the report while focusing on another-cherry picking. Dion says, " The fact that Ms. Wilson-Raybould was not directed to intervene..." You can't ignore this. He also says. "lead me to conclude that these actions were tantamount to political direction." So Dion is saying that Trudeau consistent with Shawcross doctrine did not directly intervene/direct WR. He says as well that Trudeau's actions while not directives to intervene where implied political direction. For an editor to choose one of these statements over another rests on a POV and the reasoning behind choosing one over another, ie, one is truer than the other because.... is WP:OR. We do not have the luxury of either POV editing or OR. You'll note that Pavel removed all of Dion's report on " direct intervention" so I returned it. That kind of editing is a concern. I also volunteered to rewrite the content. I had intended to include a summary of Dion's statement to include both of these statements. Littleolive oil (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Lead - Dion says "not directed", but conduct "tantamount to political direction"?
Is it appropriate in the lead to quote the Ethics Commissioner as saying [Wilson-Raybould] was not directed to intervene, when he also said what occurred was tantamount to political direction (and we omit that)?

Our lead currently reads:

This is the actual relevant portion of the report:

These WP:RS also mention the "tantamount to political direction" finding:

Discussion
This is illogical. I suggested that I would rewrite the lead in the next few days. I also said," I am happy to include in this article an inclusive quote from the Ethics report for the sake of accuracy" which I assume was understood to mean a summary of Dion's comments. Why are you running an RfC on a lead that will be changed, that is a holding sentence until there are changes when the changes are meant to include parts from all of Dion's comments. I replaced the lead that had been removed completely with one of the older versions. That was never meant to be permanent. Sheesh! Littleolive oil (talk) 22:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well it is inaccurate, misleading and WP:POV now. You reverting others changes and suggesting we all wait for you to make your edits sounds a lot like WP:OWNERSHIP to me.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I also do not think it's appropriate to have yet another RfC. I have placed specifics of the report at the end of the lede where they belong- Report details do not need to be in the first paragraph, and more details like quotes hsould remain down below. Safrolic (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * My thought was to add the quotes to that third paragraph and remove Dion's comments from the first paragraph. Anyway, I am traveling and haven't had a stable situation until tonight s couldn't made changes. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * @Fine with me. I already reverted this once, only to have claim ownership of the lead.  I don't want to edit war about this, but the lead that existed when I began this RfC was inappropriate.  The solution you have proposed is acceptable and appears to fairly summarize the report.  I will withdraw the RfC.  Thanks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I offered to include all positions by summarizing all of Dion's comments. I further offered to do it when I had time but I never suggested anyone wait for me to do so. I also returned content that was reliably sourced to the lead. Ownership? Pavel either through inexperience or because he actually has a strong POV had made several moves culminating in removal of content in the lead. This will not serve him if this article is looked at by outside admins or arbs. I didn't just return content I returned sourced content which added a second side to the Dion report and which Pavel's edit removed in its entirety. Note that another editor also suggested the article contain Trudeau's side for balance. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Darryl your repeated and flagrant mischaracterizations of my actions, your constant personal attacks are moving you towards a point where I may have to ask for intervention. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You do what you need to do. It is totally fine to put in "Trudeau's" position or the "government" position (I invited you to do so) but it is not appropriate to mischaracterize Dion's report. We should have been able to work this out earlier, but you dismissed my good faith concerns. Sure, you said additional text could be included for "accuracy", but in the same comment you suggested my "interpretation" (insisting on accuracy) amounted to WP:OR and that it was wrong. I have certainly had a hard time assuming good faith on your part. I am not the first to express such difficulties. I view your position that Trudeau has not been found to have broken the law as WP:IDHT, WP:DISRUPTIVE, and WP:CPP. I will try to put that behind us and assume the best of you going forward.  I suggest it may be wise for you to reflect on this also.  Have a good night.  I hope you are enjoying your trip.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, perhaps, none of this is worth responding to. You have twisted my good faith attempts to comment here, continue to mischaracterize me and now are baiting me with some nebulous reference to "not the first". This is not longer worth dealing with. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Use of editorializing "however"
In this, "However, he believed he did not have access to all of the evidence." Please don't assume anything as in, I'm going for synthesis or anything else. "...he believed he did not have access..." is a very simplistic bit of content and when linked by however reads as if it is the only piece of information. The situation is much more complex than that. I am not attached to the edit except to say its inaccurate and that its not a good idea to assume anything of another editor as was done here.Littleolive oil (talk) 00:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

and your edit summary is exactly right,"Dion himself specifically drew the connection (in great detail) between not finding actual interference and not having all the evidence." However diminishes the connection to something simplistic. It's not a great writing convention.Littleolive oil (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not want to imply there was evidence, only that he noted that he did not have access to all of the evidence. It's a bit complex, and don't have a better solution. I could use 'although'. Alaney2k (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Trudeau apology
Did Trudeau say he could or would not apologize because he was trying to save Canadian jobs? Did he or did he not? He did. Anyone who has read the sources knows he did. So why was this content removed? I will return the content to the article or Safrolic can but it is sourced, accurate, and provides context and should be returned. I'll ignore the incivility and the personal attack made in the edit summary. Please fix this. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We are not obligated to reprint Liberal talking points in the lead section, even if the PM did in fact say them and even if news sources quoted him saying them. This is POV editing, and saying that is neither uncivil nor a personal attack. Obtain consensus. Safrolic (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Listen to yourself! We are obligated to present what is in the sources. We are obligated to, without judgement, present the information in those sources. That you have decided that part of the information is acceptable and part is not is cherry picking. That you have decided that part of the information in the sources serves your view but part does not so you exclude it is cherry picking. "Liberal talking points".  What does that even mean? So Trudeau a liberal can make one statement and we include that as Wikipedia compliant but another statement made by the same person is a liberal talking point. Do you hear yourself. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You just spent the last three months arguing that we shouldn't call this a scandal even if reliable third-party sources describe it as such and the facts matched the dictionary definition of the word. Now you're trying to put Trudeau's rationale for the scandal into the lead uncritically. Safrolic (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I just saw this and cannot let this statement stand. Reliable third party sources also called the affair a controversy and the result of the last RfC decided that either controversy or scandal was appropriate. You and others must stop implying that my position and that of others who support controversy is not legitimate. And, it's not my job or yours to critique Trudeau, to make decisions about his guilt or non-guilt. It is my and our job to add reliably sourced content.Littleolive oil (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "Even if the PM did in fact say them and even if news sources quoted him saying them." And why is it ok to leave out this kind of content? Please clarify. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I've asked for outside input Littleolive oil (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with including Trudeau's statements about trying to save jobs, as this was the reason provided for what was done and has been reported extensively. For me, it adds balance by giving the other side of the report. But the phrasing "could not apologize for trying to save Canadian jobs" does come across as POV (mostly because it implies Trudeau had no choice and the reason was justifiable).
 * Perhaps the solution is to rephrase such as "did not apologize, citing the need to save Canadian jobs"? Harris Seldon (talk) 06:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are talking about the lead, I don't think we need to add anything. Try to keep it a synopsis of the main events and not add too much detail. Add as much as is needed in the relevant sections. Alaney2k (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems like, if Trudeau's statement is WP:DUE mention, we shouldn't be editing it to exclude key rationale. I don't personally buy his "saving Canadian Jobs" bs. But if we're going to address this, we need to do so in a complete and neutral way. That includes Trudeau's full apologia, not just the functional apology. Simonm223 (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with . The place to add this rational is in the body of the article, not the lead.  I also tend to think if we are going to include Trudeau's rational, we should also include some of the commentary that says it was unlikely to significantly affect Canadian jobs.  There are many sources that pointed out that if SNC was convicted they could lose their right to bid on federal contracts, but this would not affect existing contracts (which they already have many); the recent Quebec Pension program deal with SNC required the company to keep the HQ in Montreal (though they threatened to move it to London, UK anyway); and even if SNC was not able to bid on federal contracts (other companies would win these contracts and have to hire additional Canadian workers to fulfill them).  Many have pointed out that the jobs claim is dubious.  WP:Due requires us to give both points proper weight.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I agreed with Harris Seldon's rephrasing, but it's still detail, being Trudeau's explanation for *why* he did not apologize, and should go in the Ethics Commissioner Report section further down in the article. The lead is for the main facts/broad overview. Safrolic (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

When I added the content I did so because of this in which the significant points are that Trudeau takes responsibility but will not apologize and gives his reason. These points have been repeated multiple times in the press. I considered that these points summarize Turdeau's position. I used the word could not because Trudeau is clearly according to the press saying what he believes and the article's wording is "Trudeau says". So of course this is Trudeau's position and that's what we're writing about here. I have no interest in exploring Trudeau's motives or anything else that is not sourced. That's not my job as an editor. None of this is POV editing; it was an attempt to summarize the whole of the situation whether I or we agree with it or not. I will leave this open for comments as well as the NPOV/NB. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I took this to a NB to get outside input so comments by editors not heavily involved should hold most weight in terms of a neutral view of this content.
 * With respect, we do not give "extra weight" to editors who are newly editing a topic just because they were not involved in that article previously. In determining consensus, we consider the quality of arguments, the objections raised, and the responses to those objections.  Consensus is not determined by vote or by never ending appeals for outside input. While I expect it will be beneficial to the discussion have more editors have a look at this article and sound off, that is not a reason to ignore well reasoned comments by those editors who are already here (unless those new editors come with better arguments, objections, or responses).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not asking for consensus nor would I claim consensus for comments made here. Its pretty standard for editors looking for the most neutral position possible to ask for outside input while weighing those opinions as possibly more neutral than those of us involved in the contentious content. The best situation is for those of us editing the article to step back and seriously consider what others have to say. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so if Trudeau's statement is due in the lede, the entire statement is due. If his statement is not due in the lede, then the lede must endeavor not to make it seem like he didn't make a statement. Simonm223 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that is correct. Just because he made a statement does not mean all of it ends up in the lede.  For sake of comparison, if we had an article about the US response to recent hurricane fears, we would not put a quote in that Trump said nuking the hurricanes was the solution without also pointing out the serious problems (ie radiation, tsunamis, affect on aquatic life etc) that nuking a hurricane would cause.  Our current lede seems to balance Trudeau's statement now, by saying he said he took responsibility but did not apologize.  I think the place to go into the jobs angle and responses  is in the body of the article. In fairness, in providing the critiques of Trudeau's jobs claims, it may also be appropriate to also include François Legault's statements in support of Trudeau.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, it's an WP:NPOV nightmare to include part of Trudeau's quote but not all of it, when his statement had a pretty significant buuuuut in it. So we could say that Trudeau's quote is undue in the lede, mention only that he subsequently issued a statement, and then provide the statement in full in the body. That would be fine. And we could include the whole quote in the lede. That'd be fine too, it's really not that long. But to include parts of the quote and not others? No. And again, this isn't coming from somebody inside the big red tent. Since I'm a, you know, communist. I am not a fan of Trudeau. But I am a fan of neutral political articles on Wikipedia. Simonm223 (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood. Isn't it fairer to Trudeau (ie more neutral) for us to write that he said he took responsibility but did not apologize, than simply saying he "made a statement" without saying what it is?  And then leave it hanging.  I get it is not a perfect situation.  I think putting in the jobs explanation, and necessary responses/critiques to the jobs explanation (which would be needed to give due weight) is more than we should be putting in the lede.  Certainly adding François Legault's statement in support is not something that belongs in the lede.  What sort of wording are you suggesting to indicate "Trudeau" made a statement, but without going into the taking responsibility, lack of apology or jobs issues raised in that statement?  Of course, we need to aim for neutral wording.  We also have to ensure the lede is a summary, and does not become too bloated.  As with much editing here it requires balance.  Happy to hear your suggestion on how we do that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I see that while I was typing out the above you made this edit.  That seems to be a good balance, which allows us to go into more detail in the body.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the next step - if we go with my proposed route - would be to provide details of his statement, and anything subsequently said by Legault, Singh, May or other significant political figures into the body. A lede should be brief. That doesn't prevent us from diving deeper later. Simonm223 (talk) 19:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal and your edit. Safrolic (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Add new comment and remove old one: This should  say Trudeau takes or took responsibility for and defended his actions. I should have looked more closely. I could add this. As is the statement is incomplete. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

RCMP and confidentiality
I've rewritten the section on the September 2019 article in the Globe and Mail which discusses Scheer's call for Trudeau to lift confidentiality. Trudeau refuses. Calling this a lack of cooperation is legitimate but not for us a editors; doing so draws a conclusion about the content. The best route to make sure content is compliant in an encyclopedia which is simpler than drawing conclusions is to just report what the article says. Since the Globe and Mail is reporting on Scheer's first bid for election, it's necessary to be doubly careful to not include Scheer's opinions unless attributed to him. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With the greatest of respect, this does not seem to be WP:OR as you have suggested. The only mention of Scheer in the article is that he said there was "significant grounds" for an investigation.  The headline is "Ottawa blocks RCMP on SNC-Lavalin inquiry".  The article indicates that it relies on various unnamed sources.  Perhaps a discussion should be had about what we should make of those sources, or whether as an encyclopedia we should use the same sort of language the Globe and Mail is, but I do not think the correct approach is to attribute things to Scheer that the article does not attribute to him.  I do not believe it is correct to say that Scheer is the only one who called for the Clerk to lift cabinet confidentiality over the issue.  Nor does the re-write of the bit about the Clerk seem correct.  The Clerk reports to the PM.  He is the PM's deputy minister.  It seems to be infusing point of view to suggest that the Clerk made this decision independent of him (in our voice). Whiel that is clearly what the PMO spokesperson is saying, that doesn't mean we report that as the truth.  We should certainly note that the PMO said it had nothing to do with the decision.  It might also be appropriate to include, as the article did, the fact that Trudeau has made statements suggesting that he supports the decision made by the Clerk.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * When I clicked on the link in the ref I was directed to this article: "Scheer calls on Trudeau to allow all witnesses to testify to RCMP about SNC-Lavalin issues." There 's not much to say if we are talking about different articles. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe that what I wrote summarizes the article I was dealing with but have no comment on an article I wasn't referencing and can't seem to find or access although I know it exists. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Note: I'll see if I can get hold of the original article tomorrow sometime. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This is the article I was originally directed to: . Please take part in this discussion and stop the  accusations. I'm not sure why I didn't land on the article cited. I can't seem to access that article so I can't discuss it. I could add the rewrite and add the source I was using or I or others could add content that combines both sources and content that references both sources. I would like the Wikipedia to be true reflection of the source or sources. Littleolive oil (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * So. It looks as if I cannot access the article unless I buy a subscription; I don't need ongoing access to the Globe and Mail so I won't be purchasing that subscription. I see many other news reports citing the Globe and Mail article we are citing in our article. Scheer did call for Trudeau to override the Clerk. This fact is reported in multiple articles. Do you understand that we cannot do more than to report what the press says. In no article I can access does it say Trudeau was part of the Clerk's preliminary decision; while multiple articles say Trudeau has the power to override the Clerk and was asked by Scheer to do so but wouldn't. My rewrite was an effort to correct obvious OR content, that is, that Trudeau was not cooperating with the RCMP. Not cooperating is very different legally than Trudeau refusing to override the Clerk. It's a matter of wording so that we get the accurate meaning per the sources. At any rate, it's futile to discuss this both because I won't have the original source although I can see where that source has been referenced in multiple other news reports and as well Safrolic is reverting without discussion here and while making accusations. Who can work with that kind of non- collaborative editing. For now I'll remove myself; I can't add much more than I have so far. Littleolive oil (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added content from another RS. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)