Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair/Archive 6

RfC about the first sentence
The last RfC concluded with consensus for "controversy" and consensus for "scandal" in the article's lead. There was no consensus around how to phrase the first sentence of the article.

Which of the following should be used as the first sentence?


 * 1) Omit "scandal" and "controversy"
 * 2) Call it a "scandal"
 * 3) Call it a "controversy"
 * 4) Call it a "controversy or scandal"
 * 5) Call it a "dispute"
 * 1) Call it a "controversy or scandal"
 * 2) Call it a "dispute"
 * 1) Call it a "dispute"
 * 1) Call it a "dispute"

You may rank your choices if you would like. – Anne drew  17:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Responses

 * 2, 3 and 4 in that order.
 * There is even higher evidence for characterising it as a scandal than in the earlier RfC, with even Encyclopedia Britannica using the term to describe the affair.
 * Calling it a controversy in the lead sentence would be acceptable if there is no consensus for characterising it as "scandal". But, the rest of the lead would still need to mention the fact that a considerable number of sources have described it a "scandal".
 * 4 is the worst option, to be used only if all else fails. It essentially implies that we can't make up our minds and put our house in order. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 2,1 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 (above, in previous RfC), both tertiary sources cited so far describing it as a political scandal, google search result count disparities between affair, scandal, and controversy (above), all dictionaries giving definitions of scandal matching the events, past agreement from editors 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 distant second choice. Safrolic (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * political dispute, 3, or 1. I agree that 4 is the worst option. – bradv  🍁  22:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added "political dispute" as an option. – Anne drew 22:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 3, 5, 1, 2, 4 in that order. Not a fan of "scandal" as (at least to me) it is implies it is a justified controversy.  I personally think it is justified, I just don't think WP should have an opinion on that.  #4 is the worst option - let's actually pick a word and stick to it, even if it is "scandal".  Galestar (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * 1 only for me. I am not involved with this page at all and have not followed this story closely, but the word scandal in any of its original meanings is not one I would normally expect to see used in a neutral report as in the definitions most attributed to the word, it implies some sort of judgment. For example, it can mean "a disgraceful / baseless imputation", "a grossly discreditable circumstance, event, or condition of things", an "offence to moral feeling or sense of decency", "the utterance of disgraceful imputations or defamatory talk". One of its meanings is "rumour or general comment injurious to reputation" which I suspect is the meaning that you would attribute to it in this sentence, but personally I cannot read it neutrally in this context which is why I would remove it. An alternative (but I accept much less elegant) solution would be to mention the fact that people are calling it a scandal without saying it is one, for example something like: "The SNC-Lavalin affair in Canada involves allegations of political interference and obstruction of justice by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and has been described as a scandal [by xxx]"DMew92 (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Option 2, or failing that, option 3. "Scandal" is a more precise term that should be used per MOS:FIRST: If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition. That respected tertiary sources are using the word "scandal"  should assuage concerns that the term is POV. "Dispute" doesn't sound quite accurate to me, while option 1 fails to define the affair and option 4 is needlessly verbose. –  Anne drew  14:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Adding to my point, certainly we can find reliable sources that use either "controversy" or "scandal"—I don't dispute that. We can also find sources that call mice "animals" and others that call mice "rodents". Our mouse article calls them "rodents" in the first sentence because that is the more precise term. We should call the affair a "scandal" because that is a more precise term than "controversy". That is to say, all scandals are controversies but not all controversies are scandals. –  Anne drew  13:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2 and nothing else. At stake here is the question of correctness. We have to correctly identify what we are talking about at the first sentence (per MOS:FIRST). The term "political scandal" is the only one that correctly identifies the sequence of events, which was discussed ad infinitum on this talk page. Yet all the proponents of watered-down descriptions did not present a single argument why the correctness is not the overriding consideration here. The fact that other encyclopedias called it a scandal is another good argument.PavelShk (talkinn) 17:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 3, controversy as first. Option 1 as second version. Since there seems to be confusion about what I've said I'll clarify my position with a vote. Controversy is an overarching term suitable for the leads of an article because as a word it summarizes. Scandal is sensational-ladened and does not describe all of the aspects of the affair-does not summarize. To write the article with out either scandal or controversy, option 1 summarizes while avoiding the long debate on this talk page on those two words. Per Barkeep3 who closed the first RfC. "The abundance of reliable sources shown by editors on all sides of this dispute show usage of both scandal and controversy, sometimes with-in the same reliable source." Littleolive oil (talk) 09:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC) Add: From CBC News Aug 14 in an overarching article describing what is learned from the SNC Lavelin Affair. The news source uses the word controversy. "Despite all that has been written about the SNC-Lavalin affair since this story began earlier this year, there is still more to learn about the controversy." Littleolive oil (talk) 02:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's also no shortage of articles published this week that use the word "scandal". Ex: The Star, Global News, CBC, Globe and Mail, National Post. – Anne drew  13:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

And there are no shortage of sources using controversy but this was not my point. I specifically reference above a source that is "overarching" per one specific point I've made which is that we use a term that is more OVERARCHING OR INCLUSIVE OF ALL CONTENT to summarize the entire affair as CBC is doing rather than a word that is more specific like scandal and which carries a "tone" thus coloring the article in the first line. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2 - This is a scandal which dominated political coverage in Canada for months. It led to three high-level resignations: Gerald Butts, Michael Wernick and Jane Philpott (as President of the Treasury Board).  It also led to the ejection of two Members of Parliament and former Ministers from the government's caucus: Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott.  It also led to the Leader of the Official Opposition calling for the Prime Minister to resign, and then trading threats of defamation litigation. Calling this a scandal is not sensational it is properly describing the topic.  Numerous WP:RS have done the same:


 * As Anne drew  notes above, Encyclopedia Britannica and The Canadian Encyclopedia have also called topic what it is: a scandal.  Per MOS:FIRST we must do the same. If we falter and become squeamish, Option 3 (w/reference to this being a scandal following the first sentence) is a distant second choice. Failing even that, Options 4, 5 and 1 (in that order).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with 's comments below. Now that the Ethics Commissioner has found that Trudeau violated the Conflict of Interest Act in his actions here, there is no honest dispute that this is a scandal and should be described as such in the lead.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with 's comments below. Now that the Ethics Commissioner has found that Trudeau violated the Conflict of Interest Act in his actions here, there is no honest dispute that this is a scandal and should be described as such in the lead.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2 (scandal) is my first choice.
 * If I look at the entire SNC Lavalin affair, I believe it is best described as a scandal because:
 * - it meets all the dictionary definitions of scandal I have seen
 * - it meets the Wikipedia definition of scandal
 * - it is a consistent treatment with how other Canadian scandals have been defined
 * - it is consistent with how American scandals are defined and treated
 * - It is consistent with how outside tertiary sources such as the Canadian Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica describe the case
 * I can accept that just because others sources call it a scandal we don't have to. But there should be a solid compelling reason why this article should be different. If there is, I haven't seen it.  The reasons I see are usually "scandal is too strong a word" or "it is not neutral".  The reason should be why "controversy" is the right choice, not why 'scandal' is the wrong choice.  I don't see the SNC Lavalin affair fitting the definition of "controversy" as well as it fits "scandal". Plus, selecting the word "controversy" is not a neutral choice either as it downplays the entire series of events leading up to last February and creates a perception the affair is only a difference of opinion.  Neutrality is important, but neutrality also encompasses describing something accurately and precisely, otherwise we err too far the other way.
 * Option 3 (controversy) would be my second choice, provided the next sentence refers to the affair as a scandal, or that some media refer to the affair as a scandal (as Anne Drew proposed). While I don't think controversy is the correct or most precise description, I can live with the consensus decision. Plus it would reflect the differences of opinion shown in these discussions. Without including a reference that some parties refer to this case as a scandal, my second choice would be Option 1 (neither word).
 * I agree Option 4 (controversy or scandal) is a poor choice as it shows we can't agree (which is the actual case I guess). But I would accept it just to move on, and potentially revisit later. Option 5 (dispute) is a non starter for me as the affair does not match its definition. Harris Seldon (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2 – The most convincing evidence is the fact that all other published encyclopedias are already using the term. This suggests that the affair has already reached scandal proportions.LoosingIt (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I prefer option #2. My next choices are 4 ,1, 3, 5, in that order. Is this going to be the definitive poll? We've already voted on this three previous times by my count.Handy History Handbook (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, this will be the last discussion on the topic (assuming we're able to find consensus for one of the options here) – Anne drew  17:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change so while there may be agreement for a particular word or phrase now another group of editors in a month or year may decide on something else. It’s fair to say whatever happens here will stay in place for awhile. Littleolive oil (talk) 11:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:CCC. Consensus can change but any change should generally be based on previously unconsidered evidence/arguments or a change in other circumstances.  If there is other information currently available that we should be considering, editors should raise it is now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 3, 5 second choice . I also prefer "controversy" as I see "scandal" as passing a value judgement which Wikipedia should not do, but "political dispute" also seems quite apt since every party now highroading the LPC over this affair has a controversy of exactly the same nature in its recent history. "Controversy or scandal" is awkward and shouldn't be used, it's a poor compromise that will just invite editors to "correct" it to one or the other, leading to further disputes. Option 1 seems to be a reasonable compromise but is also I think too short for an opening sentence, or maybe it just looks that way in a list with the others. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
 * By that logic, should Wikipedia never use the word "scandal" to describe the subject of an article? If there are some articles where "scandal" is appropriate, what are your criteria to determine whether the word should be used? Ping . – Anne drew  20:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pretty much never: articles should strive to be neutral and "scandal" is a loaded term, somewhat akin (in terms of the value judgement) to "terrorist", which we also strive not to use. Each situation is different of course, but we can almost always find a better neutral way to describe a happening, especially in the lede. Media may be widely reporting it as a "scandal", but media can also be counted on to sensationalize these kinds of things to drive readership, especially in an election cycle. At best we might say something like "media have reported it as a scandal", if there's a logical weight- and context-appropriate place in the article to discuss it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Does the use of the term by other non-partisan tertiary sources (ie Encyclopedia Britannica and The Canadian Encyclopedia as noted above) concerning this topic affect your view on whether the term is appropriate? It seems the approach you are advocating (ie almost never using the term scandal) is not being followed in similar political articles.  This definition exists on the List of US Scandals page:
 * Is a change required there too? Or is there a reason its use is appropriate there and not here? What about the Robocall Scandal?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is a change required there too? Or is there a reason its use is appropriate there and not here? What about the Robocall Scandal?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is a change required there too? Or is there a reason its use is appropriate there and not here? What about the Robocall Scandal?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is a change required there too? Or is there a reason its use is appropriate there and not here? What about the Robocall Scandal?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * A comment was made earlier about holding posters on this RfC to one comment. RfCs are not necessarily held to this standard but if there is agreement here to run this RfC this way then this standard must be applied to all editors. Why are some editors grilling others about their responses. I'm interested in the lack of consistency here.Littleolive oil (talk) 01:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't remember this comment, and certainly don't remember any kind of agreement among editors to such. I do remember you saying several times you were leaving? Just confused, I guess.Safrolic (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * . There was no agreement among editors which is part of the point I am making, but comments were moved anyway. Consistency is important. Either we allow threaded discussion within the RfC or we don't. I don't care myself but again we must be consistent. And yes I withdrew several times in frustration. I also came back in frustration. I am in a situation where I have spotty internet access and inconsistent time so I don't always have a situation where I can reply completely or the will to deal with this discussion. I said earlier as long as I am mischaracterized I will respond. I have a long response to make at some point and I will when I have the time. Safrolic I have no personal animosity to you or anyone here, but I will not allow myself to be mischaracterized or for policy to  be misinterpreted, (in my opinion). There are long term consequences for both if not corrected now. I will take care of this when time allows me to do so. Littleolive oil (talk) 11:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2 – I'd use scandal, even though it's not that scandalous. A kerfuffle, a fuddle duddle. Some cabinet ministers and civil servants acting badly. The fake level of outrage and the obvious political agendas bothered me more as a Canadian. I think people were and are trying to make it bigger than it was, including pushing scandal over controversy. But really it's not a big deal. The use of scandal here will not sway people, i.e. not make the article pointed. Alaney2k (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 5 scandal is a loaded term and this appears to still be playing out. It's not Watergate or Children overboard (the latter isn't even called a scandal on Wiki). What about affair? Recognising you would be repeating the word, but it might solve the dispute at least until the dust settles and the matter becomes historical. "The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political affair in Canada." --  [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   12:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * After reading more externally about this I rescind my !vote and prefer Option 2 scandal. It's in most reputable sources and I was particularly swayed by this one -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   14:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2, "scandal". I had previously argued against the use of the term, but a couple of things push me in this direction: (1) other encyclopedias' use of the term, and (2) findings of wrongdoing in the recent ethics report, rather than just allegations. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Option 2 Mostly per the argument of user Anne drew.StoryKai (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
I recommend that an uninvolved editor closes this RfC since it only included Littleolive oil's favoured version and excluded more popular options. – Anne drew  17:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Anne. The version was never my "favored" version. I favored controversy. I am beyond bewildered at the way I am being mischaracterized. Sheesh. Just close the RfC for heaven's sake. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2019 UTC


 * I closed it using a simple closure version. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Pinging you because you previously voted in a straw poll or RfC which is now being voted upon again, and you may not be aware of that already.
 * User:Safrolic, the above "ping" from July 18 did not work, as you did not sign it; see Help:Notifications. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Littleolive oil moved to Ivote of Rfc. Response to her below. Littleolive oil (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Are you withdrawing your accusation that there is anything sensational or WP:POV about using the term scandal? If not, the sources showing that you are out to lunch stay.  Also still awaiting your response to the points raised by  concerning the Scope of US Political Scandals.  There is no reason for us to classify things differently.  To date you have provided none other than to tell us to dismiss the sources, dismiss the dictionary definitions, dismiss the treatment of the topic in other encyclopedias.  We are to dismiss everything else and just do what you want because you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * There’s nothing to respond to here, to withdraw or to prove. Why would I try to defend a twisted version of my own statements? Why would I pretend your statements that suggest a position on content and sources is an accusation rather than a legitimate position, that discounts an entire range of sources, that states that if I don’t agree with your position I am “out to lunch”, that my reason for relying on Wikipedia because Wikipedia ‘s policies and guidelines are specifically crafted to deal with our own articles is dismissive rather than legitimate. It’s wrong for you to color another editor’s comments as if they were lightly given without evidence as if merely dismissive as you say. Your description is not honest and shows attempts to own this article.You cannot lead an article’s discussion while displaying a clear POV . Leaders cannot take a stance as you have and you cannot lead an article while attempting to discredit another editor as you have done in this last statement. I haven’t been good at staying away from this article and my limitations with computer access have hindered my input. I can’t change my input at this point except to call you out for making false statements. I’ll add that it astounds me that when Curley Turkey attempted to deal with poor sourcing he was met with a wall but now concerns with poor sourcing are fine, as they should be and should always have been. Your above statement is flat out dishonest and that should be a concern for anyone editing Wikipedia. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I am done discussing this with you. You stopped acting in good faith ages ago and my attempt to assume it were misguided. Everything in the above is accurate, you take issue with the word scandal because you say it is not neutral (ie WP:POV).  Now you have changed your choice of word to sensational.  When the first RfC closed and Turkey was TBANned, you were asked to justify that position in light of the new soucing, encyclopedia use (as originally raised by  ), and treatment in Wikipedia on US Scandals (as originally raised by ). You declined to do so.  Finally, you said we don't look at encyclopedias (we have our own policies without noting anything in them to support your position) and ignoring the fact that use in well respected encyclopedias suggest the term is neither POV nor sensationalist. When repeatedly asked about 's point (ie how THIS encyclopedia has applied these policies) you decided not to answer.  You then said we would be acting inappropriately if we discounted or gave less weight to your opinion, not withstanding the fact that you aren't prepared to justify it (contrary to WP:Consensus). Then you made blanket allegations of WP:COI editing that you are yet to withdraw.  Instead of explaining your position you resort to WP:PERSONALATTACKS and allegations that everyone is mischaracterizing you.  The question remains... how do you square your position that "scandal" is a POV or sensational word with how it has been treated in US Scandals?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * Your error is in thinking that others must comply with your reasoning. I and they don’t. If you don’t like my answers fair enough but they are my answers You do not have the right to discount them because you think they should be answered in a way you agree with. Nor must I respond to any question you comb through and find and I don’t or cannot given my circumstances. I gave pointed out multiple times at the time it happened that I am being mischaracterized. You can look for those instances or not but please stop suggesting those things didn’t happen. I don’t expect anything in these discussions but to be treated like anyone else but you have created a we and you situation. I did mention COI without naming anyone because if there is COI editing going on then it can be declared without personal attack’s against any individual. I won’t go further because you are repeating the same falsehoods over and over. There is no way out of this but to say I see what is going on and I don’t have to like it. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: I removed and obstruction of justice from the sample sentences per my recent changes to the article. See this discussion for more information. – Anne drew  14:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: I again updated the sample sentences to reflect my recent changes to the article. – Anne drew  19:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to closer: opened a new section below and commented on the first sentence wording (ie scandal vs controversy).  You may wish to note his comment if he does not comment in this RfC section.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * ALL: in light of the Ethics Commissioner report (released today) finding that Trudeau did contravene Conflict of Interest Act, can we retire this discussion and rename this a 'scandal' (which coincidentally is in the majority)? This is now officially serious business, well beyond the disagreement or controversy. It is an established fact that the law was broken. PavelShk (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the Ethics Commissioner's decision should lay this to rest, based on the comments of some others, I expect we are going to still have some holdouts (maybe I will be pleasantly surprised). In any event, I am not sure we should be changing the first sentence of the lead until this RfC is closed, given the debate so far.  I note we are a couple days away from the usual 30 day time period for discussion.  Hopefully, this can be closed soon, and we can move on.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is no longer a subjective question of impropriety; an independent body found that Trudeau broke Canada's ethics rules. If this doesn't qualify as a scandal I seriously don't know what does. Trudeau broke Canada's ethics laws, there were multiple resignations, MPs were expelled from caucus, the story dominated headlines for months, and (most importantly) our sources are calling it a scandal. – Anne drew  20:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Let the RfC run its course please. This was always serious business but serious business is a subjective position on what defines a scandal; whether the word itself should be used or not is not based on whether it is serious. Once the RfC closes we will have a community position on the words we could use. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Add: Trudeau violated, according to Dion, the COI act. Trudeau at this point is not being accused of breaking the law so can we be careful about language. This should not be left out of the findings: Dion himself suggests there's not enough evidence to suggest an obstruction of justice.


 * "The fact that Ms. Wilson-Raybould was not directed to intervene likely prevented the occurrence of actual political interference in the matter...".


 * And add: The issue was never what Trudeau did or what someone else did but rather how to summarize the content of an entire article which contains hopefully, fair documentation for the the entire situation. It might be scandalous that information was leaked but the entire affair is more than this one incident- the article is more than the sum of its parts. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not surprised. 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. He violated Section 9 of the Conflict of Interest Act, which is a law by the way.  The Ethics Commissioner found:
 * This conversation is over, or at least it should be.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This conversation is over, or at least it should be.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This conversation is over, or at least it should be.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Ethics Committee is not a judge or jury and note the RCMP while watching are not charging Trudeau at this point. Trudeau contravened a Conflict of interest Act which pertains to politicians. It is important that we do not conflate regulations that refer to politicians with criminal acts. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * So unless someone is convicted of a criminal act it is not a scandal? Sure, we should call things what they are and not suggest the Dion report is a finding of criminal wrongdoing. It is just a finding of regular wrongdoing (the ethical kind). I don't think anyone is saying differently.  Dion finding that JT violated the Conflict of Interest Act, is determinative of the question of whether this is a scandal though. It is a scandal when a PM violates the COI Act. It is appropriate to say so in the first sentence.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)


 * This is a red herring and not at all honest. You most certainly did say differently. "Well, I am not surprised. 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." Both you and Pavel are saying Trudeau broke the law. He didn't; he, to repeat contravened a COI act which guides politicians rather than civilians.
 * To say we have a scandal when anyone contravenes the COI act is a value judgement and whether I think it is a scandal or a mistake or just plain dumb or anything else is not what I am here for as an editor; it is my job to accurately summarize what is in an entire article, which by the way, is not just about Trudeau, and not to decide for myself what constitutes scandalous actions. The word we use in the first sentence must summarize the content while indicating why the article is notable and what is significant about that notability. We also cannot choose to use part of the report to prove a point but must fairly represent that report. The RfC will determine the possible language of that first line and while RfCS are not binding, that is, they are requests for input on how to word content and that input does not necessarily determine the final language of an article, I am pretty sure I and others will be happy to support the RfC once it is closed by an uninvolved editor. You seem determined to push me to a definition of what is a scandal along with this statement which mischaracterizes my input . No editor appreciates either being mischaracterized or pushed and there is a point where such actions become harassment and tendentious.


 * "Are you withdrawing your accusation that there is anything sensational or WP:POV about using the term scandal?"


 * "The question remains... how do you square your position that "scandal" is a POV or sensational word with how it has been treated in US Scandals?"


 * "So unless someone is convicted of a criminal act it is not a scandal?"


 * Let me repeat that how I personally define scandal is not at issue. How the opening sentence of an article is written so that it fairly represents the sources and summarizes the content of the entire article is. I am not positioning myself in terms of what Trudeau did or didn't do. I am not the judge here but an editor, as by the way, are you.Littleolive oil (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As you know, there are a plethora of WP:RS (primary, secondary and tertiary) which have described this affair as a scandal. A fair summary calls it that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. Trudeau broke the law by violating section 9 of the COI act.   That's different than saying he committed a crime. –  Anne drew  19:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Trudeau broke the law by violating section 9 of the COI act.   That's different than saying he committed a crime. –  Anne drew  19:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This conversation is becoming absurd. Trudeau did not break a law he contravened a regulation that pertains to Conflict of Interest which is in place for politicians. Had he broken a "Law" he would be dealing with civilian regulations and the RCMP. The sources are using law in the loosest way to mean contravened. We, however, are editors of a world-wide created and read encyclopedia and we should be using the most accurate language based on the most accurate information. That means we have to delineate the law and a contravention. Now Trudeau may at some point may be shown to have broken a law but that hasn't happened yet.Littleolive oil (talk) 10:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Andrew is correct. You clearly do not understand the difference between criminal law and other laws.  The Conflict of Interest Act is a law, it is not a regulation (ie statutory instrument).  In law, calling something a regulation means that it is "delegated legislation" (ie created by a regulation published by the Minister of Transport etc).  The Conflict of Interest Act is an Act.  Meaning it was passed into law by the Parliament of Canada.  Meaning it is a law.  One which the Prime Minister is found to have broken, according to the Ethics Commissioner.  We do not know if Trudeau also broke any criminal laws.  The RCMP does not want to say whether a criminal investigation is underway (though it seems they interviewed JWR).  We cannot say one way or the other anything about crimes here.  What we can say is that the Ethics Commissioner found that Trudeau broke the law (s 9 of the COI Act specifically).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Although law and act are sometime used interchangeably they are best understood as different from one another. To contravene an act means that the descriptive aspects of the act have been violated. A law on the other hand is the means of regulating and enforcing the rules that govern the society as a whole. You said above no one said Trudeau broke the law. Apparently you are changing your position. As Alaney2k said above Dion is not a judge so whether Trudeau broke the law, judges territory not ethics commissioner and will be charged has yet to be determined. You might consider not beginning a comment with out a personal attack, as an aside, Littleolive oil (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not said JT did not break the law. You said that, and I said you were wrong. Judges aren't responsible for applying the Conflict of Interest Act, that falls to the Ethics Commissioner (our article says as much). I am done discussing this with you.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Closure
'''This is getting ridiculous. We are past the 30 days. scandal is clearly in the majority, and always was. Ethics Commissioner's report has been released. We voted three times on this.''' What else are we waiting for? Another vote? Fourth or fifth? Still not a single logical reply to the question of why correctness is not an overriding consideration (if you edit an article on Holocaust, will you call it a historical event during which a lot of people died, in the interest of neutrality? Or will you correctly call it a genocide of Jewish people?). Whoever is against calling scandal a scandal, what are you waiting for? There's a clear majority consensus here for 'scandal', so let's be done with it. At this point I have a hard time assuming good faith of anyone who opposes a scandal. PavelShk (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Pavel please be patient. RfC's should be closed by an uninvolved editor who will analyze the comments. "At this point I have a hard time assuming good faith of anyone who opposes a 'scandal'." This includes multiple editors. You are assuming bad faith of anyone who does not agree with you which is a questionable position in terms of neutrality. Whatever the outcome of this RfC, that outcome will hold more weight if formally closed by an uninvolved person rather than by someone who has voted in the RfC itself. And by the way equating this in any way with the Holocaust is out of line and in poor taste. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Pavel, we have requested a formal closure on the noticeboard. Hopefully, that will come soon. A few editors have opposed scandal. They do appear to be the minority to me. As far as I can see only one editor has opposed the term since the Ethics Commissioner's report was released. We do not know what the others think about that. While my read is that there is consensus for scandal we should wait for a formal close (if possible). I do think it is unreasonable to oppose scandal in light of the report, but that is just my opinion. I am not closing this RfC. An uninvolved editor should be the one to close this.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)


 * Asking for an RfC to be closed in compliance with Wikipedia is a safe guard not an opposition to anything. If an involved editor evaluates the comments, and remember, RfC outcomes are not determined by Ivotes but by the arguments presented so we need someone outside the discussion for an objective view, then that close will always be open to question. I hardly care what that decision is but I do want procedures to be followed for the good of discussion and article development. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Correctness is a subjective and generalized evaluation and has nothing to do with article content or neutrality. That's why correctness is not being discussed by some here. Both scandal and controversy have support from the last RfC in good part because sources support both. Now what we have to determine is how editors decide between the two, and that comes down to arguments in this last RfC. I will respect that final decision (although RfCs are not actually binding). In the meantime, I guess we have to be patient. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course, it is fine to ask for a formal close. Although a formal close is only required in a contentious close. Why this is still contentious following the Commissioner's report is beyond me. But everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of how unreasonable that opinion may be. Hopefully, we will get a close soon because as some say the deadline is now. This debate has gone on for long enough.  I expect most of us can agree on that at least.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)


 * This article is highly contentious-has seen an arbitration and RfCs.
 * There is a group of editors that are almost unanimous in their edits and I votes
 * That group of editors could reach consensus among themselves to close this RfC informally and then close it.
 * That kind of close could generate questions about neutrality in the future
 * And as an aside in all of my years on Wikipedia I have never seen an RfC closed informally, in part because RfC are almost always, in my experience at least, contentious or there wouldn't be an RfC in the first place.
 * Your choice because my position will carry no weight when compared to block of editors should you ask for agreement to close but a formal close as I said above may carry more weight than one carried out by involved editors. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * One month since Pavel's comment and the RfC is still not closed... The election could be over before we've decided on how to phrase the first sentence of this article. – Anne drew  23:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)


 * And why would the election make a difference to a Wikipedia article unless there is an effort to affect the election one way or another through that article. Oops! Littleolive oil (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It would be inappropriate if someone was advancing a WP:POV in order to affect an election. If POV already existed in the article, however some would say we should fix it now as the deadline is now. Since "controversy" was added to the first sentence (without consensus to do so) nearly five months of talk discussions, a straw poll and three RfCs occured on the topic. We should certainly not "rush" to close but that has not been the issue here. The issue is that there is a clear consensus for "political scandal" and one editor insists on a formal close of the RfC which has stalled the change for more than a month, and may for another month (after months of delay that came before). In an article that will be read by many in the lead up to a federal election, improvements should not wait until after the election has occured when they really don't need to.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * Because SNC-Lavalin affair is an election issue and the number of readers of this article will drop off after the election takes place. It's a shame that the majority of our readers will see a compromise version that fails to give the subject of the article a concise definition. – Anne drew  16:11, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I wonder if either of you can understand what you are suggesting. First the deadline is now is an essay, an opinion, and holds no weight. You are both suggesting we hurry up and add a version of the article because an election is upcoming and this is an election issue. Is it? Are you telling us here that you know what is an election issue for Canadians here on a Wikipedia article talk page. Such a position or discussion should never enter into a Wikipedia discussion on content and is a superbly non-neutral position. I would never now consider closing this RFC personally, nor should any active editor on this article given these non-neutral positions. And there is a consensus for scandal, says an editor, who has pushed for that particular word from the beginning. The article says now, "controversy and scandal" which pretty much says it all, and yet that's not enough. What is astonishing to me is that either you both do not see that you are pushing a non-neutral position or that one or the other of you do. One may be worse than the other but neither excuse for non-neutrality does this article and its content any good. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What I am suggesting, is that it is ridiculous and a failure of our processes that the original version of this article was changed without consensus five months ago, and while we have consensus to restore it, this process took five months, and is now being held up indefinitely by the requirement for a procedural close (which has not been very forthcoming so far). There is no indication that it will be resolved before a federal election in which the topic is a significant issue. Our processes exist so that we can build a better encyclopedia in a reasonable time.  Hopefully, a close will occur soon.  So far, these processes do not appear to have served us well.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply to your comments.


 * The article and its original content was created by a now blocked editor who had misused multiple accounts. There was no editor agreement or consensus for that version because it had been created by one editor and additionally by an editor whose motivations should be questioned.
 * The lead was changed. Content changes as does consensus. This is a community supported Wikipedia process.
 * Our most recent RFC, so most recent agreement on what should be in the lead stipulated both controversy and scandal where acceptable.
 * In no way should any of us determine what consensus is for the present RFC. We are all too involved.
 * Right now the lead uses both controversy and scandal.
 * And again. Wikipedia does not run on a "reasonable time." We do not decide content is useful for elections and attempt to control articles and their content based on an election time line. We do not decide content in a Wikipedia article should be significant in an election so we should clip along and complete the article. FOr starters, in this collaborative environment, an article could change at any time; Wikipedia articles are never truly complete.
 * Your statement above indicates a serious POV position which concerns me especially that either you don't understand your own POV or that you are trying to push that position onto this article. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to knock it off with the POV accusations. The topic of the article has widely been described as a scandal. There appears to be a strong consensus for the term scandal, particularly following the Ethics Commissioner's report.  Some might think you have a POV in insisting on the term "controversy" and might view some of your comments here as an attempt to stall the removal of that POV.  I have tried hard not to mention such allegations.  I do not make any such allegations now, but suggest you also assume good faith despite the polarized character this discussion has taken.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Whether deliberate or not pushing an RfCs to be closed in favor of your preferred version while saying we need to push so the article is in that position before an election is a point of view stance. I'm not accusing, I'm telling you that what you are doing is a POV position. I actually don't care much what word is in the lead, but I sure as heck will not close the RfC, although I thought about closing just to get things going. I wouldn't now. Assuming good faith has been tested time and again, but this last issue is hard to ignore. I'm willing to assume you think what you want is  legitimate in terms of Wikipedia and that somehow you don't see this a problematic position but whatever the motivation, what you are describing is a point of view position which concerns me. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that it was highly inappropriate for Safrolic and Darryl Kerrigan to have pinged everyone involved in the previous RFC except me, including someone who was only involved because he had followed me here. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are talking about . I don't believe I pinged anyone here, who was not already part of the conversation after they had already commented.  If you check the time stamps, my ping of Andrew took place after he had already commented above my own.   is the one who made the unsigned mass ping (though as Paul Erik noted it might not have actually worked as it was unsigned).  Safrolic appears to have pinged those who commented in the straw poll, which I do not believe you did (despite being pinged there).  I expect failing to ping you was not an intentional omission, but Safrolic can comment for himself.  This was listed on the RfC board for a month, existed on this page for months before it was closed and was listed on the Request for Closure page for months.  No one was trying to keep this a secret.  I think this accusation of bad faith is unfair and inappropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize; I saw a comment of yours apparently pinging another editor on the live version of this page, but going back into the page history I discovered that you had in fact "pseudo-pinged" him in such a manner that he wouldn't get a notification because you didn't modify your signature. I am not sure if it was your intention to ping him and you didn't know it wouldn't work (in which case I should not be apologizing to you for my misunderstanding but you should be apologizing to me for your misunderstanding) or if you intended not to ping him but rather just link his user page (in which case I recommend you use Template:Noping in the future).
 * As for Safrolic, failing to ping me may have been an accident (although given this bad-faith personal attack, his only edit in close to a month, that seems unlikely), but certainly pinging Andrew, who only showed up here to get revenge on Curly Turkey and myself, was not an accident. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about your dispute with Andrew Davidson, nor do I care. I see you accused him of grave dancing.  Regardless of his motivations, which I certainly won't be looking behind, he raised a valid consideration for that conversation: how other tertiary resources where describing the topic.  As the following two RfCs and straw poll occurred after this, I do not apologize for noting that he raised that issue and that that consideration was never addressed by those opposed to the current wording.  You were pinged when we had the straw poll and decided not to contribute there.  I expect  would have pinged you here had you decided to weigh in.  I am sorry you were not pinged here as well (the last of many conversations), but I do not don't accept your allegations that I acted inappropriately, nor do I have any desire to wade into the apparent dispute(s) between yourself and Andrew.  Best--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not allege that you acted inappropriately; I apologized for having previously said something that could be interpreted that way. Your taking my apology the way you have, however, is inappropriate, and I would appreciate you knocking it off. On this occasion today (I first pinged you a week ago) you are indeed behaving inappropriately, and I wouldn't much care to point it out if you hadn't gone out of your way to drag me into it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, that appears to be the end of that. I apologize for misinterpreting your apology. I also apologize for the delay in my response to your original post.  I was not pinged, so the first time I saw it was on the 13th. Have a good day.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)