Talk:Scott Moe

Controversies
Chevs1905 the information you're adding isn't necessary. Saying Moe was 18 in 1992 is superfluous and only goes to downplay the DUI charge by appearing to chalk it up as a youthful indiscretion. Giving Moe's personal reflections on each incident in this section also seems to be attempting to downplay what happened. BlewsClews (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

BlewsClews Adding context and new information via reflection from an individual on his past experiences, especially when sourced from news articles, clearly adds new and informed perspective from the individual on that life event of theirs. In this case, note of an individual's age does not "downplay" such an event in their life, but does more precisely identify such an individual's possible life circumstances, situation, or placement at the time. Pointing out the life event (which in and of itself is just and right to do from a biographical standpoint) and then doing so in such a way that portrays a biography according to a certain narrative that ignores facts and is largely devoid of additional relevant information, lacks the thorough analysis and objectivity readers should be entitled to. An individual's comments on their own life event are indeed particularly relevant, especially when a story (or many stories) cast a light on the event itself, and the changes forthcoming from such a life event. Chevs1905 (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Chevs1905 This isn't the space for an individual's own biased take on their controversies. And the age thing isn't needed--we already have the year when it happened. We should be providing information with as little influence or concern for "possible life circumstances, situation, or placement" of the subject. BlewsClews (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

BlewsClews I am appreciative of your input thus far on this page. However, I have attempted to build consensus by making adjustments to the information included, per your feedback, whereafter you sought to simply undo these changes, which are properly cited, and do not detract from the objectivity of the biography. Please respect the contributions of other editors without engaging in an edit war. Chevs1905 (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Third opinion
wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.


 * Viewpoint by : Adding in "at the age of 18" after stating the year his DUI happened is superfluous and appears to be an attempt to downplay and portray what Moe did as a youthful indiscretion, when, along with adding Moe's personal explanations for other "controversies" or negative events, appears to be injecting bias into the article.


 * Viewpoint by : The individual's actions, his age at the time of his actions, and his reflections thereafter are properly cited from the same source used by the other contributor. The follow-through on the individual's actions represent the aftermath of that life event, and are indeed newsworthy to readers who would like to expand on a one-sentence summation of the event. Far from my contributions injecting bias or non-objectivity, it appears as though additional context was deliberately left out of the other contributor's prior edits to sway neutrality on the biography itself. All I have done is expand on his prior edits, which again I am thankful for. Chevs1905 (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Third opinion by Bradv:
 * I presume this is the content in question: I don't see this content in the source, so its removal was justified, in my view. Even if it were mentioned (some of it is mentioned here), this is not the place to put reworded quotations from the subject defending their actions. We need to base content on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, in accordance with the policy for biographies of living persons. I hope this helps.  Brad  v 🍁 15:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input Bradv. Will endeavour to restore the changes that were agreed to by both of us as contributors, and reflect changes going forward that are based on reliable and objective sourcing, with less quotations from individuals themselves. Chevs1905 (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Lead and headers
Recent edit history suggests some contention over what information should be included in the lead and on style. In the former case, there has been some editing and reverting around Moe's history of impaired driving and the fatal collision he was responsible for. Both of these topics are covered in the 'Early life' and 'Controversies' sections. It's not clear to me how it's decided what information is important enough to be highlighted in the lead section. However, as the collision seems particularly important, I've left it there for now and added a reference, but would be happy to see some discussion around this point.

In terms of style, there has been continuous re-arranging of material and headers added and reverted. The addition of headers for 'Bankruptcy' and 'Impaired driving' seem to me to be designed to draw extra attention to these points, even though they are covered in detail in the article. Is there any other rationale for this choice? Welcome to discuss! Other justin (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed it from the lead section pending further discussion. IMHO, it's adequately covered in the subsection of Early life. The editors who have added it to the lead appear to be IP editors and/or recently-created WP:SPAs with a particular agenda to give WP:UNDUE weight to this bit of information. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help here. If you look through recent versions, what's your take on the addition of headers reading 'Bankruptcy' and some variation of 'Drunk driving' to the Early life section? It seems to me similarly an attempt to give undue weight to those pieces of information, even though the issues are spelled out already. I just posted a note on the user's talk page but looking at the history there I'm anticipating that they may just carry on. (And not to worry if you've got a lot on your plate). Other justin (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The bankruptcy and drunk driving charges are two major themes of his early life. Not including his drunk driving convictions is not giving this the weight it's deserved. BlewsClews (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Right, but the point is that those issues are detailed in that section (as well to an extent in the latter case in the 'Controversies' section). Why is there a need for headers to highlight those points further? The 'Early life' section is currently mostly concerned with those two issues; nobody appears to be trying to hide or downplay those issues. In other words, I don't see how anyone reading that section as it stands would not understand that these were significant issues. Not sure if there's a style-guide on this particular issue or not (the use of headers). Thanks for responding, by the way. Other justin (talk) 17:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Just to add, I might also dispute that bankruptcy is a major theme of Moe's early life. There's actually just one sentence about it in the article; most of that paragraph is about other ventures. If a case is to be made that this is a significant theme, I would think it needs to be fleshed out more in the article. Other justin (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Alberta won why can we
Time to stand up for your province take away the equalization payments let the east starve and what are you gonna do about the sask high ways I wanna see Improvements all over sask 129.222.135.67 (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)