Talk:WE Charity scandal

Bilorv content deletion
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WE_Charity_scandal&diff=1051416022&oldid=1050954169

Some guy Bilorv deletes my edits and invites me to the talk page. I never thought Wikipedia was the mouthpiece of the Tories but I am starting to wonder. At least one major contributor has done nothing besides attacking Trudeau related controversies beginning on this one. He seems to have successfully lobbied to change the title from Controversy to Scandal, assuming guilt where not much was found besides that Morneau should have recused himself.

I think if it’s relevant to the subject and comes from a credible speaker or outlet it should be included. That brings us to L. S. Rosen. I looked into his background and discovered that he founded the Canadian Academic Accounting Association, not just a CPA but a very prominent professor of accounting. For an accountant to baldly lie about something so important would be enough for disbarment and a ruined repoutation. Bilorv, if you have evidence of this give it here. If you find someone refuting his claims, put it in the article. Even if you do, Rosen’s published conclusion should also be there so you have something to refute.73.36.170.175 (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This articulate should be removed from Wiki
This article is just rambling and is completely an opinion. It diminishes the purpose of Wiki as a trustworthy, article medium. I am hoping a Bot would review it. 20:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObliqueFault (talk • contribs) - Agreed. This article is currently an opinion piece and biased. The way it is currently written is dismissive of the scandal and meant to portray everyone involved in a positive light, especially Justin Trudeau. A lot more should be added about the resulting demise of charity. I would not recommend removing, but improving the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:668:C092:B5DD:FFD4:3313:BF52 (talk) 21:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that some of the language seems to be a bit WP:POV. Some of the lede seems to be the main issue. For example, it may be a bit far to say Trudeau was "exonerated" as essentially it was determined that he didn't breach certain provisions of the Act, but a prominent member of his goverment did.  Also I am not sure the findings of an editorial board of the Cornwall Seeker seem WP:UNDUE. It doesn't seem to be a WP:RS. I am not sure the opinions of some random academics is appropriate as part of the lede either (perhaps as part of the article at all).-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 07:35, 15 November 2023 (UTC)