This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WE Charity scandal article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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 rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
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)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
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[who?] 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)Reply
