This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scott Moe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chevs1905 the information you're adding isn't necessary. Saying Moe was 18 in 1992 is superfluous and only goes to downplay the DUI charge by appearing to chalk it up as a youthful indiscretion. Giving Moe's personal reflections on each incident in this section also seems to be attempting to downplay what happened. BlewsClews ( talk) 02:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
BlewsClews Adding context and new information via reflection from an individual on his past experiences, especially when sourced from news articles, clearly adds new and informed perspective from the individual on that life event of theirs. In this case, note of an individual's age does not "downplay" such an event in their life, but does more precisely identify such an individual's possible life circumstances, situation, or placement at the time. Pointing out the life event (which in and of itself is just and right to do from a biographical standpoint) and then doing so in such a way that portrays a biography according to a certain narrative that ignores facts and is largely devoid of additional relevant information, lacks the thorough analysis and objectivity readers should be entitled to. An individual's comments on their own life event are indeed particularly relevant, especially when a story (or many stories) cast a light on the event itself, and the changes forthcoming from such a life event. Chevs1905 ( talk) 03:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Chevs1905 This isn't the space for an individual's own biased take on their controversies. And the age thing isn't needed--we already have the year when it happened. We should be providing information with as little influence or concern for "possible life circumstances, situation, or placement" of the subject. BlewsClews ( talk) 04:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
BlewsClews I am appreciative of your input thus far on this page. However, I have attempted to build consensus by making adjustments to the information included, per your feedback, whereafter you sought to simply undo these changes, which are properly cited, and do not detract from the objectivity of the biography. Please respect the contributions of other editors without engaging in an edit war. Chevs1905 ( talk) 15:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Bradv ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
I don't see this content in the source, so its removal was justified, in my view. Even if it were mentioned (some of it is mentioned here), this is not the place to put reworded quotations from the subject defending their actions. We need to base content on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, in accordance with the policy for biographies of living persons. I hope this helps. Brad v🍁 15:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Asked about the incident in the Fall of 2017, Moe said it is something that he truly regrets, and that it has informed decisions he has helped make in caucus and cabinet, making reference to the provincial government's introduction of stricter impaired driving rules, including the ability of police to seize and impound the car of an experienced driver found to have .04 to .08 per cent alcohol in their blood — on a first offence.
Recent edit history suggests some contention over what information should be included in the lead and on style. In the former case, there has been some editing and reverting around Moe's history of impaired driving and the fatal collision he was responsible for. Both of these topics are covered in the 'Early life' and 'Controversies' sections. It's not clear to me how it's decided what information is important enough to be highlighted in the lead section. However, as the collision seems particularly important, I've left it there for now and added a reference, but would be happy to see some discussion around this point.
In terms of style, there has been continuous re-arranging of material and headers added and reverted. The addition of headers for 'Bankruptcy' and 'Impaired driving' seem to me to be designed to draw extra attention to these points, even though they are covered in detail in the article. Is there any other rationale for this choice? Welcome to discuss! Other justin ( talk) 15:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Time to stand up for your province take away the equalization payments let the east starve and what are you gonna do about the sask high ways I wanna see Improvements all over sask 129.222.135.67 ( talk) 13:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Scott Moe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 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. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chevs1905 the information you're adding isn't necessary. Saying Moe was 18 in 1992 is superfluous and only goes to downplay the DUI charge by appearing to chalk it up as a youthful indiscretion. Giving Moe's personal reflections on each incident in this section also seems to be attempting to downplay what happened. BlewsClews ( talk) 02:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
BlewsClews Adding context and new information via reflection from an individual on his past experiences, especially when sourced from news articles, clearly adds new and informed perspective from the individual on that life event of theirs. In this case, note of an individual's age does not "downplay" such an event in their life, but does more precisely identify such an individual's possible life circumstances, situation, or placement at the time. Pointing out the life event (which in and of itself is just and right to do from a biographical standpoint) and then doing so in such a way that portrays a biography according to a certain narrative that ignores facts and is largely devoid of additional relevant information, lacks the thorough analysis and objectivity readers should be entitled to. An individual's comments on their own life event are indeed particularly relevant, especially when a story (or many stories) cast a light on the event itself, and the changes forthcoming from such a life event. Chevs1905 ( talk) 03:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Chevs1905 This isn't the space for an individual's own biased take on their controversies. And the age thing isn't needed--we already have the year when it happened. We should be providing information with as little influence or concern for "possible life circumstances, situation, or placement" of the subject. BlewsClews ( talk) 04:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
BlewsClews I am appreciative of your input thus far on this page. However, I have attempted to build consensus by making adjustments to the information included, per your feedback, whereafter you sought to simply undo these changes, which are properly cited, and do not detract from the objectivity of the biography. Please respect the contributions of other editors without engaging in an edit war. Chevs1905 ( talk) 15:30, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Bradv ( talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.
I don't see this content in the source, so its removal was justified, in my view. Even if it were mentioned (some of it is mentioned here), this is not the place to put reworded quotations from the subject defending their actions. We need to base content on reliable sources that are independent of the subject, in accordance with the policy for biographies of living persons. I hope this helps. Brad v🍁 15:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Asked about the incident in the Fall of 2017, Moe said it is something that he truly regrets, and that it has informed decisions he has helped make in caucus and cabinet, making reference to the provincial government's introduction of stricter impaired driving rules, including the ability of police to seize and impound the car of an experienced driver found to have .04 to .08 per cent alcohol in their blood — on a first offence.
Recent edit history suggests some contention over what information should be included in the lead and on style. In the former case, there has been some editing and reverting around Moe's history of impaired driving and the fatal collision he was responsible for. Both of these topics are covered in the 'Early life' and 'Controversies' sections. It's not clear to me how it's decided what information is important enough to be highlighted in the lead section. However, as the collision seems particularly important, I've left it there for now and added a reference, but would be happy to see some discussion around this point.
In terms of style, there has been continuous re-arranging of material and headers added and reverted. The addition of headers for 'Bankruptcy' and 'Impaired driving' seem to me to be designed to draw extra attention to these points, even though they are covered in detail in the article. Is there any other rationale for this choice? Welcome to discuss! Other justin ( talk) 15:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Time to stand up for your province take away the equalization payments let the east starve and what are you gonna do about the sask high ways I wanna see Improvements all over sask 129.222.135.67 ( talk) 13:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)