This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the SNC-Lavalin affair article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 180 days
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Corruption, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CorruptionWikipedia:WikiProject CorruptionTemplate:WikiProject CorruptionCorruption articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Thought it would be a good idea to discuss this good faith edit. I am not sure it is appropriate for us to place JT and JWR's photos at the top of the article. Obviously, they are among the most significant players in this affair, but nowhere near the only ones. Gerald Butts, Michael Wernick, Jane Philpott also played significant roles are are also all mentioned in the lede. Why not leave JT and JWR's photos to later in the article? It seems perhaps undue to focus on those two actors to the exclusion of the many others right off the bat.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the JWR/Trudeau images from the top. We should discuss this in the context of MOS:LEADIMAGE. That said, I am not sure I think it is appropriate for the Trudeau sidebar to be given that prominence either. Perhaps there is another image or infobox that should go there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we decided it was appropriate to call this an attempt when the Ethics commissioner found it to be such. Is it neutral to use "alleged" in those circumstances? Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent consensus for the first sentence uses the word "allegations", but maybe there's another discussion you are referring to - feel free to link it. Regardless, Trudeau has denied the allegations and they have not been proven in court. – Anne drew18:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right. I thought the Ethics Commissioner's finding came out after the close of the above RfC. It seems to have come out after many had commented above, but before a close. It seemed to me that most of the discussion on the RfC was about the use of the word scandal and not so much on alleged, but you are right that since the finding came out prior to the close above, that would make the question of consensus complicated. Concerning Trudeau's denial, he hasn't denied that he attempted to interfere, just that he doesn't think there is anything inappropriate with the PM doing so (ie that the PM can voice his opinion on a deferred prosecution agreement). I am not sure when the "alleged" was dropped from the sentence of the article. Given that the next sentence makes clear what the Ethics Commissioner found, it is likely not worth too much debate. Including the word "alleged" may be appropriate. I will revert it to the sentence which received consensus in the RfC (slightly different from your edit): The SNC-Lavalin affair is a political scandal in Canada involving allegations that the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) politically interfered with the justice system. Although, I will take the liberty of changing "is" to "was" as I think it is fair to say this is not an ongoing scandal at this point. Do you think that wording is appropriate? Weird, the entire first sentence seems to have been re-written in a way that does not comport with the RfC. The wording before our recent edits was A political scandal erupted in Canada after attempted political interference with the justice system by Prime MinisterJustin Trudeau and the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). Not sure by who or when this was changed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the removal of the word "alleged" happened way back in 2019 and a more significant rephrasing happened earlier this month. I think reasonable people can disagree on whether to use the word "alleged" here, but it should at least be subject to a discussion. Personally I'm not sure the commissioner's finding was so conclusive or his authority so absolute that we can remove the word alleged and just defer to his judgment. – Anne drew20:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking that up. It seems "alleged" was removed about a week after the Ethics Commissioner made his findings, probably for that reason. Nonetheless, I think based on your comments above it is appropriate to keep "alleged/allegations" in, as long as the Commissioner's findings are also prominently set out in the lede, which is currently the case. Do you think reverting to the RfC consensus wording is the way to go?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We established pretty strong consensus for that first sentence so I think restoring it makes sense. In fairness though I'll ping Safrolic and Surtsicna who made those edits in case they want to weigh in. – Anne drew20:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is suggesting your edit was inappropriate, just that maybe we need to stick with the RfC consensus (option 2) above. Of course, consensus can be revisited. Not sure we need to though. What are your thoughts on reverting to the RfC consensus wording?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the RfC and did not mean to disregard its result. I think my edit is an improvement on the RfC result. Having "SNC-Lavalin affair" in bold and with a translation strongly suggests to the reader that "SNC-Lavalin affair" is the established name, which is misleading; it is merely a descriptive title chosen by Wikipedia. This affair is called numerous things in reliable sources, none of which deserve to be bolded, and MOS:FIRST advises against bolding titles that are just descriptive. Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Surtsicna, like you, I wasn't aware of the RFC, but I was aware that there had been extensive discussion of the lead paragraph back in 2019. My instinct was that given it had been stable for some time (since 2021), I thought it better to revert to that stable version and then come to Talk to discuss. Now that I'm here, I've read through this section, and I think that it would be best to keep it to the version from the RfC, perhaps with some tweaking.
I'm afraid I don't read MOS:FIRST the way you do. The format of the first sentence is to contain the bolded title of the article as early as possible, if that is the generally accepted name of the topic. Agreed. However, it then goes on to say that even if it's not a specific name, just the name of the article used for Wikipedia, the title of the article is still to be included in the first sentence: "Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way" and then gives an example of an article title bolded. So, I think we can and should use the article's title in the first line of the lead paragraph, bolded. (And I'm afraid as well that I didn't think "erupted" was an encyclopedic tone; sounded more tabloid to me, sorry.)
With respect to "alleged", the conflict of interest commissioner has a statutory mandate to investigate allegations of conflict of interest, and to make a report to the Prime Minister on any allegation of conflict of interest by any MP. A conflict of interest isn't a criminal matter; it's a matter of the internal administration of Parliament. Since the commissioner has a statutory mandate to make findings on conflicts of interest, and the commissioner did so in this case, I think it's moved past "alleged" - the statutory decision-maker charged with investigating the allegation did so and found that there was an infringement of the Act, by the PM. The fact that it's not gone to court is not relevant, as the Act doesn't provide for conflicts of interest allegations to be decided by the courts. The decision by the conflict of interest commissioner is final and can only be questioned by an application for judicial review to the Federal Court. No such application was made, so the decision is final. That leads me to conclude that we should take out the word "alleged", because the statutory decision-maker charged with making a report and finding has concluded that there was a conflict of interest caused by the PM attempting to intervene with the Attorney General's approach to the prosecution. Since that report came after the RfC, it is appropriate to change the wording of the lead as adopted by the RfC.
So, MOS:FIRST says the following: If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence, although there are exceptions ... If the article title is merely descriptive ... the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text. and then: If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence ... Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in a natural way The title can be accommodated in a natural way, but doing so misleads readers into thinking that the title reflects the proper, established name for the event. A quick Google search shows 95 results for SNC-Lavalin affair, 98 for SNC-Lavalin scandal, 91 for SNC-Lavalin case, 68 for SNC-Lavalin controversy, etc. We have to choose one of these for the article title, but we do not have to portray it as the name. It is a descriptive title, and readers should not be misled into thinking otherwise. Surtsicna (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for pinging me. It looks like I boldly removed the word 'alleged' after the allegations were confirmed by the office officially charged with examining them. Nobody said anything at the time, probably because all the reliable sources were busy sourcing about the Scandal Confirmed. As that confirmation changes the context of the discussion (which was focused on scandal vs. controversy, not allegedness), and it didn't cause controversy in the last 4 years, I think putting an 'alleged' back in would be inappropriate.
Surtsicna's edit doesn't change the content of the first sentence, though, and it does flow better. Plus, I agree with their reasoning about the whole business being called many things, not specifically an Affair. I support the change they made.
You're dealing with a highly partisan editor. I wouldn't bother attempting to establish consensus with this one. Take any complaints to ArbCom. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)