Talk:David Johnston/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Latest May 2023 edit war

User:Miesianiacal and I seem to be in another edit war over the inclusion of politically-inconvenient content in the article. I have been accused of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR, neither of which I believe have any merit, while I believe that Miesianiacal has been persistently violating WP:NPOV by attempting to sanitize/whitewash the article. Based on edit history, I suspect that WP:COISELF may apply due to a personal relationship between the user and the subject of the article. Input by other contributors would be most welcome. ScienceMan123 (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

If you really think there is a WP:COI you can report it at WP:COIN, but you should be able to show reasons why you belive that. I wouldn't discuss it here since editors have the right to remain anonymous. When reporting it is also wise to be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. That said you have already heard what I think about going into detail on Johnston's daughters: it just isn't necessary or really relevant to the article. I question whether any of them are notable, despite the article about one of them you created. It is appropriate for some limited amount of the content from the Allegations article to be included here, but it needs to be porportional. There have been many recent pieces where politicians, accademics, columnists and editorial boards have mentioned the issues with Johnston's past friendship with Trudeau, and perception issues affecting his current role. I would encourage you to find those sources and work towards an agreement on the talk page about what mention of those criticisms is appropriate for this article. Good luck.--

Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, ScienceMan123 is choosing to simply ignore the earlier discussion about Johnston's daughters and the reception of Johnston's appointment as rapporteur is already covered in this article, with expanded information appropriately at Allegations of Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections (none of the examples of support added there by ScienceMan123, of course). But, nothing short of blasting every criticism, every insinuation, and every possible besmirchment, in excruciating detail, everywhere and anywhere, will do for ScienceMan123. They can feign offence at the bias being pointed out; but, their edit history stands as irrefutable evidence. I can't find one instance where they added anything that balances out their preferred portrayal of Johnston as some kind of Chinese spy. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Your response is as usual a complete mischaracterization of previous discussions and events. The content in the article that you insist on whitewashing (now that Johnston is back in the public spotlight) already was a cursory summary compared with the original, reduced in detail in a good faith attempt to address your past concerns. It had seemed that we had reached a consensus in including at least such cursory details from media reports about Johnston's alleged conflicts of interest. But apparently including any coverage at all of the reasons for the allegations of conflict of interest is too much for you, despite it being a central topic of a federal political scandal and covered in numerous news articles. You are doing a disservice to readers with your one-sided editing in an attempt to censor content. I likewise cannot find a single instance where you have added anything critical of Johnston to the article. Censorship seems to be your sole purpose. ScienceMan123 (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the discussion at WP:DRN failed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

David Johnston Resigns as Special Raporteur

Time to open this up for edit already, enough of the censorship. 70.24.87.26 (talk) 22:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

HoC vote calling on Johnston to resign

I do think that this House of Commons vote calling on Johnston to resign needs to be noted here. It is already covered in article Allegations of Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections, but I think it is significant enough that it will always be an important footnote on Johnston and his career.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

But, Johnston hasn't resigned and a motion passed by the House of Commons--which, at present, seems like little more than minority parliament political theatrics--doesn't have the authority to compel him to. I'm not convinced it deserves a mention in this article. If it does, though, it can't warrant more than half a sentence. This rapporteur job has taken up a total of two months out of Johnston's whole life.

Regardless, the article's locked until the dispute over how much China stuff to include is resolved. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 05:01, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Would support inclusion, seems like a significant step to take even if non-binding. One sentence should suffice. ITBF (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Right. So, after "serious matters", something like, "the House of Commons in May passed a motion requesting Johnston resign the appointment, which Johnston declined on the grounds his mandate came from Cabinet, not Parliament"? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 06:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

To respect WP:NPOV, if explanation is provided for why Johnston declined to resign, explanation should also be provided for why Johnston was asked to step down.

Something like, "the House of Commons in May passed a motion requesting Johnston resign the appointment due to serious concerns about the special rapporteur process, the counsel [Johnston] retained, his findings, and his conclusions, which Johnston declined on the grounds his mandate came from Cabinet, not Parliament." [1] ScienceMan123 (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

That's too much for this article and 18 words to 10 words is not balance. The "on the grounds" part isn't Johnston's opinion, it's a matter of fact that needs to be made clear so readers don't assume parliament has control over who is rapporteur. We can instead go with, "Though the rapporteur's mandate comes from Cabinet, not Parliament, the House of Commons in May passed a motion, by 174 votes to 150, requesting Johnston step aside from the role, which Johnston declined." --₪ MIESIANIACAL 15:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

For what it is worth this is the actual wording of the motion. It says "serious questions have been raised about the special rapporteur process, the counsel he retained in support of this work, his findings, and his conclusions". The motion does not explicitly refer to a conflict of interest or an appearance of one, regardless of what Singh, Poilievre, and Blanchet said before and after the motion passed.[2] Since there have been significant reaction, it seems some takes the stance that opposition parties are treating Johnston unfairly.[3] Others say he has lost the confidence of "opposition politicians, editorial boards and the public, according to a recent poll", that his position following the vote is "barely tenable", and that his refusal to resign will "destroy faith in democracy". It is worth considering how to deal with this in a manner that takes a long term view and isn't sensational or newsy. That said, I do think this section is going to need to grapple more seriously with some of the criticisms Johnston is facing. Some of which have been mounting for some time, even before this vote, including these [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I don't think the solution is to essentially push the nature of these criticisms over to other articles, like Allegations of Chinese government interference in the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections. I think we need to explicitly note that it has been said he is in a conflict or a perceived one (or something like that) with appropriate attribution. Some of the criticism has been pretty blistering. I don't want to give too much focus to sensational statements, but I don't think the current wording appropriately addresses this. Since the protection continues for another three weeks, we have time to take a deep breath, and calmly think this through.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thea article already mentions the opposition to his appointment. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think there is a difference between the initial opposition to his appointment (on which that is based), and that which has occurred since the release of his first report. The motion is a sign of that. But so are editorial board and other commentary, and opposition statements. The current wording is politicians and journalists voiced both disapproval—concerns mainly focusing on Johnston's relationship with the Trudeau family, membership in the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, and state visits to China he made as governor general. No longer are there just simple concerns about relationships etc, now the opposition is jointly saying he is in conflict (Poilievre) or at least there is an appearance of conflict severe enough that he should resign (Singh, Blanchet?, May?) and that the public does not have confidence in him, and that doing damage to public confidence in institutions. I don't think we can or should include all of the commentary, but as noted above the tone has shifted to a point where the language in major papers includes saying he is in "a clear conflict of interest", that he should feel "shame" for his involvement, that he is complicit in an "assault on democracy", that he is a Laurentian elite, that his reputation is in "smouldering ruin", that his report amounts to sneering at the public, that his decision to stay on is "barely tenable", that he is "determined to destroy faith in democracy". There are others out there, but these gives a pretty clear idea of the amplified nature of the criticism since his report. In the circumstances, I don't think the current wording is sufficient. Nor do I think mentioning that the House of Commons voted he should resign, without saying why, is sufficient.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT is not about achieving balance by using an equal number of words, but by assigning weight "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in [the] sources." If anything, based on media coverage of the NDP motion and Johnston's response, there should be an even greater emphasis on the reasons for the NDP motion relative to what I have suggested. Probably 50 words to 10 would be more reflective of prominence in the sources. But I think just including the key words from the passed motion would suffice. ScienceMan123 (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

why does it matter if he resigns or not. The house voted to remove him from his Role hes refusing to that is more than noteworthy. 65.93.214.95 (talk) 18:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Further to the above, coverage since Johnston's testimony has included claims that his testimony raises more questions about his report, that he appeared confused, that his report was based on incomplete intelligence, that he is blind to the obvious, that he is pledging to do his job in protecting Trudeau, and that his most serious wounds are self-inflicted. Much of the editorials in mainstream sources including The Globe and Mail, National Post, Toronto Star and Toronto Sun, continue to be pretty scathing. Our wording on this, should balance the perspectives in RS, but not downplay them. Anyway, more material for consideration.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Hyperbolic, partisan editorials really ought to be left out of it beyond what's already stated. And inserting any interpretation by us of the media's tone will inevitably be subjective and therefore against Wikipedia policy. If a reliable source has said something about the media's tone toward Johnston, then, maybe.

It's difficult to say much more here without proposed wordings to comment on. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, for a start mention of the Parliamentary vote could include the stated reason for it, perhaps with reference Singh, Poilievre and/or Blanchet's comments about conflict of interest.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

He has now resigned. In the circumstances, a few sentences noting the vote, the reasons for it (ie alleged conflict of interest/apprehension of it), Johnston's inital reaction, and his resignation (and stated reason that it was due to the "highly partisan atmosphere around [his]] appointment and work") should suffice. Perhaps something like:

"In May, the House of Commons passed a motion requesting Johnston resign the appointment, after opposition leaders alleged he was in a real or perceived conflict of interest. Johnston initially refused saying his mandate came from Cabinet, not Parliament. A couple of weeks later, he announced his resignation effective the end of June citing "highly partisan atmosphere around [his] appointment and work".'

Thoughts?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts are that there are certain individuals on here who are blatantly bias and likely on the Liberal Party of Canada pay roll.. 70.24.87.26 (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Protected edit request on June 11 2023

Johnston resigned from Rapporteur position 3 days ago, this needs to be clearly reflected on this topic thank you. 70.24.87.26 (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 June 2023

Johnston has finally resigned as a special rapporteur. This article needs to be updated to reflect that if it wants to be accurate. 2605:B100:134:C036:80C6:4B01:C8BE:13EA (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

agreed, whos preventing this from happening? 70.24.87.26 (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 June 2023 (2)

Add he has resigned as of today from his position as special rapporteur. 2001:56A:F25F:6600:DD0E:25DF:D917:AC1D (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Actualcpscm (talk) 07:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)