Talk:Derek Sloan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Campaign Related Vandalism

Be wary that there has been some recent vandalism of this page which seems to fall under the WP:ADVOCACY policy or possibly SELF-PROMOTION / ADVERTISEMENT. In particular, a user with no prior edits removed any material that could be thought as shedding a negative light on Derek Sloan and replaced it with quotes from Derek Sloan himself. Just be wary of any edits meant either to promote or disparage the subject of the article.

Update: I've tried to build up the article while sticking to the facts and meticulously citing things. A citation to Patheos was flagged as unreliable when I was drafting the Political Career section (I was unfamiliar with the source) so I've replaced it with something reliable. I invite any good-faith edits to improve the article and keep it impartial but accurate. Loquacious Folly (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Life Site News Citations

An editor correctly noted that Life Site News, which is used to anchor the description of Derek Sloan's positions on various LGBTQ issues, is a depreciated source. Nevertheless, I think the use of Life Site News as a reference in this article is an acceptable use of a depreciated source given the context. The sources used are interviews with Sloan where he states his views on various issues, which we have no reason to suspect are inaccurate. In fact, I noticed that the discussion on whether to depreciate Life Site News centred mostly on worries that depreciating it would prevent it from being used as a source of information about socially conservative figures about which its reporting can generally be considered reliable, as is the case here. Given that, I hope we can agree that the use of it as a reference here is reasonable - although I'm certain I've seen some of these views of Sloan's reported elsewhere, so I'll try to find those sources if I get the chance. Loquacious Folly (talk) 00:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Loquacious Folly, LifeSiteNews is deprecated because it is unreliable. You need a compelling reason to include it, especially in a WP:BLP. If these views are significant then there will be other, reliable sources. If no reliable sources exist then the facts are WP:UNDUE. Here, we're using it to include, for example, support for conversion therapy, which is a serious allegation against a living person. Guy (help!) 12:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

That's fair. I've seen more reputable sources report these things elsewhere, so if I get a minute I'll find them. (EDIT): I re-introduced the info while citing a CBC News article and The Globe and Mail. The citation from Pink News immediately adjacent these sentences also backs up the conversion therapy claim. Loquacious Folly (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Loquacious Folly Someone has brought up this article at WP:BLPN (BLP noticeboard) with a fairly long list of problems. I had a bit of a look through the article myself, and they do have a point. There seem to be a few statements that are not fully supported by their citations, and there is at least one opinion piece which should be attributed as that, an opinion, not used as Wikipedia's voiceCurdle (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Curdle, yeah, upon reflection I think I agree. I'd appreciate any help to eliminate or re-source the offending statements and citations. If you point them out, as was done with Life Site News, I can do it myself - but I'm going to try to take a step back from this article and work on other things for a while. Loquacious Folly (talk) 14:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok, got a bit carried away there and went through the whole thing- quite a few of the refs were a bit muddled due to the chopping and changing, and some didn't have the correct headlines for their urls, so fixed them up as I went along. I cut out and reworded some; although most of what is written about him is the negative kickback from his tweets, there was a bit of overkill and did make the page come off as an attack page. There were also statements that just were not in the refs- possibly from ones that were removed earlier? however, if its not sourced, it cannot stay there - not at all good from a BLP angle. Do you have access to the Globe and Mail? I can't get through the paywall, and they seem to have different headlines, so I'm wondering if they were rewritten or something. Curdle (talk)

Thanks for the thorough job! I do have access to The Globe and Mail so I'll try to check those references. Your right in that some of the news sites like CBC, CTV, Global, and the Globe have dynamic stories so their content has changed. Loquacious Folly (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Racist?

How is it unbiased to introduce a politician's main heading as being a racist with no supporting links.

This is slanderous to say the worst, and to say the least it is an unfair and extremely biased accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.24.48 (talk) 00:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! To quote our article on bias, it "is disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing, usually in a way that is closed-minded, prejudicial, or unfair." In this case the fact in question is not afforded disproportionate weight or stated unfairly because it is well documented. Stating a well-documented fact is not an example of bias. Just as the fact Derek Sloan is a Seventh-day Adventist is a well-documented fact, so too is the fact that one of his main sources of notoriety is racist remarks he has made. A statement of fact is not biased simply because we're not fond of it - the facts don't care what we think of them.

The article's preamble has the first of these cited as its supporting link, but any one of these would suffice: Loquacious Folly (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

How are his remarks racist? you state this as fact, however the fact is that not once was race or gender used in his comments. Only peoples opinion of his comments have called his statements racist. Here is the full letter and original post, please explain where he makes racist comments. Just because someone says you are a racist doesn't mean you are. Danman2110 (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)— Danman2110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

https://twitter.com/DerekSloanCPC/status/1253452758075744257

https://twitter.com/DerekSloanCPC/status/1252738270632558599

See WP:NOR. We include what reliable sources say, rather than coming to our own conclusions. --Yamla (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

So that I understand correctly, if a credible source states something it is then a fact? What if there is no support for what they said? Just a question I want to make sure I'm understanding..Danman2110 (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Because I reviewed the cited references but none of them state as a fact his comments were racist only using other peoples opinions or their words and then using "" in the headlinesDanman2110 (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Danman2110, to clear up your confusion I'll explain basic tenants of epistemology. Something is a fact if it corresponds to the world. We have justification for believing something is true if we have evidence it occurred. Testimony is a form of evidence, and Wikipedia articles are dependent on testimonial evidence in the form of credible sources. If a credible source states that something occurred, we are justified in stating it did unless presented with evidence to the contrary. In this case, there are innumerable credible sources all stating the same thing and none stating anything to the contrary, hence we are justified in concluding that Derek Sloan made a racist remark.

Your repeated claims that these are merely "people's opinions" engage in the logical fallacy I've linked to here, wherein one claims something is merely a matter of opinion, so there is no fact to the matter. Now, you are correct that some of the sources put the word "racism" or "racist" in scare quotes because they are quoting people, but not all of them do, and I'm not convinced you read them closely. Some of them contain descriptions like this from the Bonokoski article: "[Sloan is] such a race-baiter that he even got a high-five from longtime 'white nationalist' Paul Fromm, Canada’s king of Aaryan whiteness even before the death in Germany of exiled Toronto neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel." That's hardly ambiguous. Loquacious Folly (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

So what your saying Loquacious is that if it “corresponds to the world” and/or “believing something is true if we have evidence it occurred. Testimony is a form of evidence“ and “If a credible source states that something occurred, we are justified in stating it did”. first off I believe you are wrong. In order to state a fact it should be a fact. It’s ok to say it was a claim or an opinion, but to state it is a fact is wrong. I ask you where in the articles does it state that he did make a racist statement? I’m convinced you are the one that has not read the articles closely. You show me where a credible source states that he made a racist comment? What is the relevance of Paul Fromm? I bet there are many people with harsh reputations that have supported many statements made over time... that means nothing. I would think that fact that the Mr. Sloan is in an interracial marriage speaks volumes and could correspond to the world of not being a racist.

Also, I’m new to this whole wiki thing and admittedly made some mistakes with protocol and totally understanding the rules to which I apologize. However, according to your profile you seem newer to this then me? You seem to have the knowledge of an admin or long time user. It seems curious to me that the edits you have made have been quite negative and state fact when “people feel” or “the opinion is” would be more accurate? Mr. Sloan is in a Leadership race that could potentially have him as the next Prime Minister of Canada I feel we should make sure that if its a fact then we state it, if its opinion then we state it as opinion. Our Prime Minister painted his face in brown makeup was criticized by many many “credible sources” with headlines of “racist”, admitted it was a “racist” thing to do, had even greater coverage but where on his page does it state he is a racist? Or did racist tings? I assume you will be posing this same argument and using your same points to have that edit added to his page?142.116.200.177 (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I explained these epistemological concepts is because your account of what "facts" and "opinions" are is confused. What I had explained is that it is a fact that Derek Sloan said something racist, and we have epistemic justification for believing that is so given our overwhelming evidence. You remain committed to the logical fallacy that there is no fact to the matter of whether Sloan is racist because it is merely an "opinion." An opinion is a claim that something is factual, so unless presented with evidence to the contrary the testimonial evidence of these sources is good evidence their opinions are accurate. Your argument is based on the specious view that opinions, as beliefs, are somehow neither true nor false - although this is a common misconception it's philosophically bankrupt.

Obviously, people can make racist remarks despite being in an interracial relationship, that's completely irrelevant. Equally irrelevant is Justin Trudeau wearing blackface, but you'll notice that his article does in fact state that it was racist in the section discussing his actions. If we're being consistent, we're obligated to do the same here with Sloan. Loquacious Folly (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi! I am by no means a Sloan supporter, but the statement in the main paragraph about his controversial LGBT views and allegedly racist remarks do not belong to the main paragraph of this page. I have looked at the main paragraphs of the Wikipedia pages of several Canadian politicians including Doug Ford, Stephen Harper, Justin Trudeau, Jason Kenney, Steven Del Duca, Peter MacKay, Erin O'Toole, Christine Elliott, Lisa Raitt, Kellie Leitch, Maxime Bernier, and more. Many of these politicians said have said or done things that were perceivably racist, anti-science, anti-immigration, unwise, or controversial. None of the main paragraphs have any mentions of their controversial remarks, actions, or their views. An unbiased page includes political history, ridings served in, positions held, previous employment prior to entering politics, and major life events in the top paragraphs. Political views and statements made are covered later in the article. Yet Derek Sloan's views are represented in the main paragraph. It clearly goes against the objectivity of this site and adds bias to the page. The problem is that Loquacious Folly believes it to be vandalism to remove that sentence from the main paragraph. I am not saying that Sloan's statements should not be addressed to the page, nor am I endorsing his behaviour, but in order to be consistent, objective, and fair, that sentence should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infometric21 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Infometric21. You mentioned that the introductory section should include "major life events." The only two times Derek Sloan has made national news is when (1) he expressed controversial views on LGBTQ issues, and (2) when he made allegedly racist remarks. It's not a matter of them being his views, it's a matter of them being the only two newsworthy things he's ever done - aside from announcing his leadership bid, which is noted in the same sentence as them in the opening. If Derek Sloan ever does something else newsworthy I imagine these statements will migrate away from the opening section. As I explained to another user above, bias is "is disproportionate weight in favor of or against an idea or thing." Excluding the main things for which Sloan is known would be biased, but not in the direction you allege, since it would involve disproportionately discounting the most newsworthy events in his life. Loquacious Folly (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Loquacious Folly. I understand where you're coming from, but recent news events are generally not included in Wikipedia pages of Canadian politicians. I am not even sure how you are defining what a newsworthy event is and whether or not to include it. Please see the pages for the 2017 Conservative leadership race and look at the introductory sections for the candidates. None of the pages introduce the candidates by stating instances when they were in the news. Let's take Kellie Leitch as an example. In the 2017 race Kellie Leitch received backlash for her statements about a Canadian values test, yet her introductory paragraph makes no mention of her allegedly anti-immigration views. Erin O'Toole made the news several times during this campaign, but the top paragraph on his page do not include any of his missteps. Justin Trudeau exhibited racist behaviour by wearing brownface and blackface multiple times as an adult. Yet these actions, far more newsworthy than what Derek Sloan did, are omitted. Just because Sloan made the major headlines once doesn't mean that those events must be mentioned. It's alright to have a short and sweet main paragraph. There is no need to flesh it out with whatever news stories we can find. I am a big believer in consistency and the introductory paragraph for Derek Sloan's page differs from the well-established pattern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infometric21 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

No problem, Infometric21. The point is not that Derek Sloan is "currently" in the news for these things, it's that it's the only time he's been in the news. Take your other examples. Justin Trudeau is the Prime Minister, he's done many other things aside from appear in blackface twenty years before becoming PM, so it makes sense that it's a minor point in his biography. The same goes for Erin O'Toole and Kellie Leitch, who have had comparatively long political careers. They have done many things and are not exclusively known for their controversial statements or opinions. Derek Sloan, conversely, is more or less exclusively known for controversial statements on LGBTQ issues and alleged racism. This is perfectly in line with other Wikipedia pages on Canadian politicians. Mike Harris? "He is most noted for the Common Sense Revolution." In Bob Rae's opening section it remarks that "he brought forward a number of initiatives that were unpopular with many traditional NDP supporters, such as the Social Contract." Sheila Copps' "was an advocate for legal rights of women, marijuana legalization, minority rights, and protection of the environment." It's perfectly consistent to describe in the opening section what a politician is best known for. Should that ever change in Derek Sloan's case, the page should be changed - this is Wikipedia after all. Loquacious Folly (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Photo needed for 2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election and here

It looks like the photo of Sloan currently being used in the leadership article is going to be erased due to copyright issues. It would be helpful for the articles to have one. If someone has an opportunity to get one, that would be helpful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

To be clear someone would need a photo they took themself, or one that is otherwise in the Commons. Photos from news articles are likely copyrighted and will likely be quickly erased. Same for his House of Commons photo, as Crown copyright is a thing in Canada.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have some pictures that I took at events I went too with Sloan. How do I upload them? -Fatma Hester (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Fatma Hester, on the sidebar (to the left), there is an Upload File link. If you want to upload a picture, click the link and follow the instructions. Username⁶⁸⁹² 17:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

Sentence of requested edit: "Sloan is running as a candidate for the Conservative Party leadership, and is known for his controversial views on LGBTQ issues,[3] and making allegedly racist remarks.[4]" -> Edit Request: I would like to request that " and making allegedly racist remarks.[4]" be changed to "making racist remarks". The comments expressed by Derek Sloan was in no way allegedly racist, it is racist. He asked Dr. Tam whether she was working for China or for Canada, this likely being said by Mr. Sloan since Dr. Tam was of Chinese origin. 64.119.220.180 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The source used put "racist" in quotations, which means they're quoting someone else, but they aren't outright saying it's racist, but that some people think it is (that's why we use "allegedly"). Username⁶⁸⁹² 02:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2020

I am suggesting two edits:

1: Please revert the recent good faith edit by Pharexia. The edit description says that it "removed biased language" but all they removed was a literal description of Bill C-16: An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code, and they removed the term "pseudoscientific" as applied to Conversion therapy, which is a descriptor from the first sentence of Wikipedia's own article.

2: There are some further developments to add to the final paragraph of the Political Career section. Please add a final sentence to the effect of: "In a statement on April 29th, Sloan said his comments were "rhetorical" but declined to retract them." Here is the source. Nothing seems to have happened after he declined to retract the comments, but I cannot find a source discussing that.

Loquacious Folly (talk) 16:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Hello Loquacious Folly. I appreciate your input, but I do not believe that the statement that bill C-16 "thereby protect[ed] the human rights of transgender individuals" is neutral. First, its scope includes more than just transgender people. The actual description of the bill is that it "adds gender expression and gender identity as protected grounds to the Canadian Human Rights Act". To me, this would be better and less potentially biased language to include in this article. The hyperlink to bill C-16 remains in the article so those interested are free to navigate there. As for conversion therapy; yes, it is a pseudoscientific practice, but I do not think that the phrase "the pseudoscientific practice of" needs to always precede the word conversion therapy. Again, the hyperlink exists so people can navigate to the main article, where they will find that same information. I am not trying to be controversial, but rather preserve the brevity and neutrality of this article. It isn't perfect, that I concede. Perhaps we could reach some kind of consensus? I'm happy to continue tweaking. Pharexia (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey Pharexia. Looking at it again, I think the current wording on the Bill C-16 passage is fine. I do think including the term "pseudoscientific" in front of conversion therapy is useful though. It doesn't need to be said every time the term is used, but here it summarizes in a single word why a federal ban has been proposed, which is valuable context for any unfamiliar reader. Let me know what you think.

In the meantime could you add my second suggested edit from above? Just add this to the end of the last paragraph: "In a statement on April 29th, Sloan said his comments were "rhetorical" but declined to retract them." Here is the source. Thanks! Loquacious Folly (talk) 18:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• @Loquacious Folly: I've made the changes you've suggested. Thanks for including source! Pharexia 19:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible astroturfing

I'm trying to figure out who to vote for in this leadership race. In looking at all the other candidates, Erin O'Toole , Peter MacKay , Leslyn Lewis , and even the section on the 2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election page pertaining to Jim Karahalios don't mention anything at the top of the page (or section) about things that they have been accused of. Even more controversial politicians like Justin Trudeau and Donald Trump have faced numerous scandals and accusations of racism, ect, and still this is not mentioned in the introductory paragraph. Should this not be moved in the case of Derek Sloan as well? BridgitCHennessey (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC) BrigidtCHennessey (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC) — BridgitCHennessey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@BridgitCHennessey: According to the Manual of Style, the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. This means that the lead section should adequately summarize the most impoertant points of the article, which are generally what the person is notable. The Theresa Tam situation is what he has made the most national news coverage for. Meanwhile, Trudeau has SNC-Lavalin mentioned in its lead section, though it is not one of only a couple of things he has made national news for, so it is a much lesser aspect of the lead. Username⁶⁸⁹² 18:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes but, as you put it, the notable thing that Mr Sloan made is the "Theresa Tam situation" not the characterization of the situation as "racist" by Rick Phillips and Jim Pine, who are the people making the allegations according to the cited source. So I find "and making allegedly racist remarks" is WP:UNDUE. I ping Loquacious Folly who put in the first edition of this wording in this April 23 2020 edit. I see from earlier threads that Infometric21 and 24.246.24.48 and Danman2110 have also objected and I am not impressed by Loquacious Folly's explanation of the "tenants of epistemology". Also see the WP:BLPN discussion Derek Sloan. I conclude that Loquacious Folly doesn't have (and didn't seek) consensus, so I removed. No objection, however, to wording like "and for controversial remarks about Canada's Chief Medical Officer". or "and for asking whether Theresa Tam works for Canada or for China". And I do not agree that this is "Possible astroturfing". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

There's off-wiki evidence, so unfortunately I can't reveal it without violating privacy, that the BridgitCHennessey account is a fake account which does not belong to a person named Bridgit Hennessey. I do, however, want to be incredibly clear; the evidence is circumstantial and not compelling, just enough to raise doubt. What is not in doubt is that the account was a WP:SPA account, one which had a conflict of interest they refused to declare according to WP:COI. There's also little doubt that there are a number of single-purpose accounts editing basically solely about Derek Sloan. Then again, there are a number of people working incredibly hard to keep this article fair and balanced, which is particularly challenging in this case. To those doing so, my very sincere thanks. It's a tricky line to walk in this case, and you folks are doing a good job. --Yamla (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand the concern Peter Gulutzan, but I think you've misread the situation. The nature of the national discussion over Derek Sloan's remarks was that they were alleged to be racist - to say anything else is to misrepresent why the event was noteworthy in the national media. Adding the "allegedly" wording was in fact settled on after we concluded that calling them outright racist was too problematic, I believe Curdle suggested that change. As Yamla noted, all of the opposition the "allegedly racist" wording has come from single-issue accounts or sock-puppets, which this page has had persistent problem with. I do think you're right that I was overzealous in arguing with some of the users on the Talk Page, but I think the allegedly racist wording was a good compromise.

To build consensus, I'm going to suggest that the former wording be restored and ask that other major contributors to this page to weigh in on the wording. The argument for inclusion is that what was notable about the event in the eyes of those covering it was that the remarks were "allegedly racist" - if you consult all the links I added to the Talk Page these are the terms in which the issue was discussed. If we leave out that the reception of Sloan's comments was as "allegedly racist" we're failing to accurately report the nature of the public debate over them. Alright, so that's my case for it, thoughts?: Yamla, Peter Gulutzan, Curdle, Darryl Kerrigan, Infometric21, Danman2110, Username⁶⁸⁹², or anyone else. Loquacious Folly (talk) 15:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate for us to mention it, and to mention those who SAID it was racist as long as we attribute those words to those who said them. I think we may want to change the wording "perceived as racist on social media" to something less vague. I am sure some on social media liked the comments, and others didn't think they were racist at all. It is better to just cite those that said it was like JT, Hastings County, Chinese Canadian National Council, the other Conservative MPs etc. We should also mention more about the expulsion discussion.[1]--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think that listing the people saying that it was racist in the lead may provide undue weight to the topic in the lead section. One possible option would be saying controversial and allegedly racist. Username⁶⁸⁹² 17:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that is a fair choice of words. Leaving it entirely out of the lede would be inappropriate given that is what he is most notable for. Further the majority of the article is about the controversial statements he has made on twitter.Elec junto (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I count two people (Loquacious Folly and Elec Junto) who specifically say that the wording "and making allegedly racist remarks" in the lead is good, and nobody has supported my alternative suggestions, and BridgitCHennessey is blocked and Danman2110 is indeed SPA so far. So I have self-reverted. There were other comments which were not about the lead, they were about the body, and perhaps they would fit better in another thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The inclusion of the following "and is known for his controversial views on LGBTQ issues" is sourced by an opinion column. That is not a valid source. Furthermore, Sloan's comments regarding Tam are not racist. They may be viewed as racist, but they are outright not racist. Asking if someone's loyalty is with one country or another does not meet the definition of racism. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Son's name

His young son's name (which I'll thank everyone not to use even on the talkpage) should be removed from the article as he is not notable; the fact Sloan HAS a son can be referenced and linked; but no purpose to naming a minor child. 86.106.90.101 (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for this view, but WP:BLPNAME says "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." I think we could certainly exercise editorial discretion that the names of his children (not sure why you only mention the son) is not relevant to a complete understanding of the subject. On the other hand, the information as it appears in this article is sourced to Sloan's Conservative Party of Canada biography, over which he presumably has a high degree of control, so it's not as though he hasn't put their names (and ages) out himself; this is hardly an invasion of privacy. On balance, I'd be in favour of removing the information as adding nothing, but I think it's something that requires consensus first. Steve Smith (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

"Child Abuse" Comments

A month ago Derek Sloan called the Liberal's proposed ban on conversion therapy "child abuse." These comments and the reaction to them were widely reported on in the media. I added a brief paragraph on these events with citations, though Peter Gulutzan did not think the publications I cited weren't notable enough since they were local newspapers. To make things easy I replaced the citations with articles from the national media that said functionally the same thing. However, Sportsfan 1234 has continually reverted my edits with no explanation aside from: "This does not belong here." The events are well documented and the cited sources are national broadcasters. I'm going to restore the edit; it shouldn't be removed unless there is some reason for removal. Loquacious Folly (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually I wrote "inquinte.ca and napaneebeaver.ca are not such hugely important sources that their quotes of Sloan's opponents must be in wikipedia". Loquacious Folly did not replace inquinte.ca and the quotes of Sloan's opponents are still there. Mr Sloan's remarks re conversion therapy, and the criticisms, were already mentioned in the article in a place where they belong. Loquacious Folly has made three reverts so far which is the WP:3RR limit, and has gone past the WP:BLP limit by re-inserting contentious material without seeking consensus first. What do other editors think of this? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, you're correct that Derek Sloan's views on conversion therapy were already mentioned earlier in the article. However, in June he made new comments that created a new national dispute. The purpose of the new paragraph was to describe the national dispute that occurred in June because of Sloan's new comments, not just reiterate his views. When you complained that the local news sources were not "hugely important" enough - which seems entirely arbitrary given these are the main sources of news in Sloan's constituency - I replaced two of the three sources with national outlets as a show of good faith, and to illustrate that these events were a national news story. I apologize for simply reinserting the material, but in your case I made an effort to address your concern about the citations. Sportsfan 1234 was merely reverting my edits without any explanation given, and has now issued me a warning for reverting edits when that was precisely what he was doing. Loquacious Folly (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Two editors, Peter Gulutzan and Sportsfan 1234, clearly oppose Loquacious Folly's insertions and re-insertions. So far no editor clearly supports them. I ask again whether anyone else has opinions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, I think his statement, quite apart from being a literal inversion of the truth, represents ludicrous hyperbole that has been ignored by the majority of sources (hence why no better sources have been provided). I don't think it belongs. Guy (help!) 15:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy: What is "it"? Do you mean that you think that Loquacious Folly's insertion does not belong in the article? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Peter Gulutzan, correct. We're not here to shame biography subjects by highlighting every lunatic thing they say. Guy (help!) 22:17, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Loquacious Folly: three editors oppose your insertion, zero support it. I have reverted. I see that Sportsfan 1234 placed an edit-warring notice on your talk page earlier; however, you can try legitimate ways to change the consensus so far.Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough. The comments here helped me understand why people oppose it's inclusion anyway - particularly how it's not editorially prudent to include everything a public figure says in their biography. I think that's sensible, I just wish someone had expressed it that way to me sooner so I could tell where folks were coming from. Loquacious Folly (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

"Controversial" "allegdly"

"known for his controversial views on LGBTQ issues,[3] and making allegedly racist remarks"

He is really only known for this. And who decided it was controversial? Those opposed to his ideas? The CBC? Controversial only means here not pleasing to progressive. I personally find Trudeau has many controversial views, on immigration for instance or what makes Canada a unique country, but the intro of wiki pages does not start with that I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.210.7 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Controversy is an issue that is disputed. It means that there are people both opposed and for his ideas. As for the lead issue, leads are supposed to summarize what the person is best known for. In Trudeau's case, he has done many things, the most notable of which are mentioned in the lead. Sloan has less notable things about him than Trudeau (he's only been an MP since 2019), so the things listed are much fewer and the views that made him news stick out more. If he became PM, chances are high that the part mentioned would be reduced and rewritten to explain that phase of his political career. Username⁶⁸⁹² 20:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why remark is pluralised. It was only 1 remark. He is certainly not known for being a racist. That's bullshit. This remark he made may be something to include later in the article, but certainly not in the lede. Sounds like a smearjob. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.244.32 (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2020 (UTC)