Talk:Irving family (New Brunswick)

Suggestion

Right now this article is very light on details and therefore not very encyclopedic. And yet I think it has value. I wonder if making it as a list and/or a category would be more logical? Just a suggestion. CT55555 (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@CT55555 I agree. There is an existing dab page, Irving (name). Maybe something similar to Kennedy (surname), where there is a section Members of the US Kennedy political family? S0091 (talk) 17:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I have significantly improved the article and resubmitted it. I see the original author is banned. CT55555(talk) 16:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

This article could be clearly notable if content about the family as a whole was added:

1. https://thestrand.ca/on-the-family-that-owns-new-brunswick/
2. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2016/06/06/news/what-have-irvings-done-new-brunswick
3. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/irving-offshore-split-1.6639780 etc etc

CT55555(talk) 19:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Possible merge(s)

Tagging in @Bkissin and @CT55555 re: discussion of how to handle this article, K. C. Irving, and Irving Group of Companies. Unless someone has a strong argument otherwise, I think K. C. Irving ought to remain, but the "criticism" section actually ought to be on this article or Irving Group of Companies. -- asilvering (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is best, but offering my (not strong) opinions and keen to see what others thing. I think:

1. Irving Group of Companies is in bad shape. Should maybe be a list article. I think the criticisms are about the companies rather than the family, but I don't like how they are presented, I think topic headers should be themes or "history" and should contain criticism (and praise, if there is any) but I don't like "criticism" as a section heading.
2. K. C. Irving is clearly independently notable, so keep as it is
3. Irving Family Weakly lean to keep.

In summary, weakly maybe keep all three, with major edits to Irving Group of Companies being needed. I'm willing to improve that one, but will wait for consensus before taking any action. I'm open minded to better/other suggestions.

@Asilvering I don't strongly disagree with your suggestion, but my first impressions are that the "Political patronage" is about family stuff and should be here. The rest of it is maybe (?) more about the business stuff and maybe should remain there. But you've been doing all this longer than me and I respect your opinion and am happy to defer to your expertise. CT55555(talk) 15:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the main group is in bad shape. I wonder if maybe the easier way is to do as you say, with the Group article becoming "List of companies owned by the Irving Family" (or similar, I don't care much about the wording), and the Family article being the host of the "criticism/patronage" section. The weak point I see with that is that the Family article is technically a BLP, so I wonder if that would complicate having a large "criticism" section? But I'm not sure that actually changes anything. -- asilvering (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

There are more articles for attention in the template at the bottom of the page. I think it's probably best to keep each individual biography separate from this article so that the article on the family as a whole doesn't get too overloaded with individual details. I've spot-checked a few of the individual companies' articles, and I think the "criticism" sections should be on Irving Group of Companies, with obvious links from each of the relevant articles. I think it's important to avoid content-forking by having a separate "criticism" section on each person/company, but I do also think it needs to be very obvious where to find this information, since it is quite important and relevant to the group of articles as a whole. -- asilvering (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: should the family article be a list style? That was my original intention, but as I started writing it, I found interesting content and changed path. If I knew there was a more natural home for it, I may have taken a different path.

Or would this all be easier if there was a more collective title that included the family and their businesses? As I write, that might be a more elegant solution. CT55555(talk) 15:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's basically where my last comment was going, in effect. Individual bio articles (except where too stubby, those redirect here), a "family and company" article, and a "list of Irving companies" article. I'll post to WP:CANADA for some more opinions. -- asilvering (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

So far, that seems like the most logical way to do it. CT55555(talk) 15:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Uncited information

A significant amount of uncited information has been added to the article. This is at odds with how we write biographies. I think perhaps we should delete the uncited information. Seeking thoughts from others. CT55555(talk) 11:34, 10 July 2023 (UTC)