Talk:Stéphane Auger

Neutrality
This article focuses almost solely on controversies, which violates WP:NPOV. In addition, this is made worse by the violation of Controversy sections. This article should be improved to focus on his career as a whole, rather than speculation on incidents. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Wow! I hadn't even heard of Auger before reading this article, but the Controversy section is so bad it makes me want to take Auger's side. For all I know, Auger might be terrible, but this reads like a hatchet job. Here's my takeaway from the current three paragraphs:
 * Paragraph 1. In 2005, Auger was accused of misconduct. The NHL concluded the charge was baseless.
 * Paragraph 2: In 2010, Auger was accused of misconduct. The league concluded the claim could not be substatiated, and "Referee Auger’s intentions were beyond reproach." Per an earlier cite, the accuser was fined $2,500 for making the accusation.
 * Paragraph 3: In 2011, Auger was accused of conspiracy. The aritcle says the NHL was looking into the matter, but no disposition is mentioned. At the end of the paragraph, another incident is mentioned, but Auger was found to be not at fault (and there is no citation for this sentence).
 * This section does a lousy job. It doesn't even offer citations saying the number of accusations is abnormal.
 * My feeling: remove the section header, cut the wording by 75%, and note that accusations were made against Auger several times in his career, but that all resulted in his being cleared (UNLESS the one in the 2011 incident turned out otherwise, in which case a citation is needed).
 * P.S.: Controversy sections is a mere essay, so has no formal weight, but I believe it offers good advice. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 01:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)