Talk:David Eby

Possible refs for future

Eby's made a couple of policy announcements in the last couple days that, while I don't think are especially notable right now, could be helpful in future if we start breaking up the "Premier of British Columbia" section by issue. So I'll drop them here for reference:

• B.C. Premier outlines new public safety plan
• Premier proposes giving cities building targets in bid to tackle B.C.'s housing crisis
• B.C. government announces new minister to focus solely on housing

— Kawnhr (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Publisher Kawnhr - Misleading Edits and Removal of Factual Material

Kawnhr is removing factual entries and edits which may appear unflattering to Eby. The edits Kawnhr is removing are fully supported with cites from independent third parties sources. These efforts appear to be intended to slant the wiki which results in a page that is misleading and not an accurate representation of independently verifiable facts. Others experiencing these types of edits by Kawnhr are encouraged to report the vandalism. HFR YVR (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate these aspersions (though I'm tickled I count as a publisher). I am not trying to "slant the wiki" or "create a promotional entry"; I edit widely and have worked on pages for parties and politicians of all stripes. I reverted your edit because — and I will admit I should have put this in the edit summary — I saw it as outside Wikipedia's policy on WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Because far from adding content that is "fully supported with cites from independent third parties sources", you regularly went off into your own interpretations that are not remotely neutral. I'll refresh your memory by quoting a few (entirely uncited) passages you added:

Eby, however, tends to omit mentioning his prior opposition to civil forfeiture laws and the fact the entire regime would not exist but for his political opponents. All of which has led some citizens to observe that Eby’s stance on money laundering seems to vacillate to align with his perceived political fortunes of the day.

The EY findings are based on demonstrable and immutable facts, which are available for independent verification, and sit in direct contradiction to Eby’s testimony before Parliament. There is no indication Eby has done anything to correct the record.

The lack of consonance between Eby’s rhetoric on money laundering and Cullen’s findings, the fact that there has not been a single individual charged, prosecuted, or convicted of a money laundering offence involving the real estate or casino sectors despite claims of overwhelming evidence of such offences, and the racial overtones have led some to conclude the entire exercise was a costly exercise in political adventurism motivated by a desire to create political advantage through damage to the opposition.

You're really going to tell me you don't think any of that counts as — to use your word — slant?

I continue to disagree with your edit but I will not revert for the time being, as we are essentially having a content dispute and I don't want to get into an edit war. Since individual Canadian politics pages generally don't get much traffic, I will raise this on WP:CANADA to get additional input so we can get a consensus. Cheers. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree with Kawnhr's initial revert... there is tonnes of material in the new version of that passage (which also fails MOS:HEAD) that 100% violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Support restoring to this version and excising all recent additions by HFR YVR unless they can be reliably sourced and verified and written from a NPOV. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The edits are entirely neutral and fact based. You question this section:

The EY findings are based on demonstrable and immutable facts, which are available for independent verification, and sit in direct contradiction to Eby’s testimony before Parliament. There is no indication Eby has done anything to correct the record.

If you go the cite for the EY findings and the cite which points directly to Eby's testimony before parliament it is clear this testimony is directly contradicted by the EY audit. How is this any way editorial?

Your edits, on the other hand, appear to focus on removing any material that does not paint the subject in a favorable light. 24.85.120.160 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

If you go the cite for the EY findings and the cite which points directly to Eby's testimony before parliament it is clear this testimony is directly contradicted by the EY audit. How is this any way editorial? Because it's Wikipedia policy to reflect what secondary sources are saying, not to make our own interpretations and analysis of the source. Please read WP:OR. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

NPOV in Money Laundering section

Terms used in the money laundering sections don't discuss what happened so much as make claims that certain policies were incorrect. Language seems very biased and not appropriate for wiki. Sorry I don't have the ability to research and correct the article. 2605:8D80:441:6F2D:1504:7FFA:590F:C81F (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

We discussed this a little above, but I was reluctant to do anything with only one other editor's input. But now with yours, I'll take the initiative to restore an earlier version of the section. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The "input" from another you are accepting is a simple expression of opinion that the "language is biased" without any reference to which language and without anything cited in support. To the contrary, each statement in the section is supported by an independent third party cite - if you believe any of the cites are not accurate or do not support the statements made, you need to explain, with evidence, before editing out others contributions. I note further that you simply delete the entire sections which is not in keeping with fact based, evidence supported editing, and is indicative of your efforts to simply remove anything not flattering to the subject of the wiki. Indiscriminately deleting entire sections, where virtually every sentence is supported by an authoritative cite, and without challenging those cites with evidence, is simply vandalism. HFR YVR (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

You baldly state "Language seems very biased..." Which language. Each statement is fully supported by an independent third party cite. You have offered no support or evidence for this assertion. At this stage it is simply and opinion without foundation. HFR YVR (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Kawnhr - Misleading Edits and Removal of Factual Material

Kawnhr continues to remove entire sections where he disagrees with the content. He suggests the content is not in keeping with guidelines, but provides no specific examples - he just deletes the entire section. Each section deleted is supported by extensive independent third party cites, including court cases, references to statutes, and transcripts of testimony from the Parliament of Canada. Kawnhr makes no effort to refute or otherwise prove the cites are inaccurate or do not support the statements made. Thus the repeated deletion of entire sections that appear to be perceived by Kawnhr as unfavorable to the subject of the wiki is inconsistent with fact based editing and these actions are more consistent with vandalism. HFR YVR (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

HFR YVR, I gave a clear explanation of what I disagree with and why in the section above, citing Wikipedia policy and offering three specific examples of offending text. Another editor agreed, and a second editor, just recently, stepped forward with similar concerns. Don't try to spin this as me acting unilaterally or maliciously. You're the one who has, so far, refused to engage in anything other than aspersions. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The stuff on civil forfeiture would be interesting to have in the article to note the shift in position, but it needs to be backed by reliable sources that actually make this point, and not just your own WP:SYNTHESIS of the sources. Even RSs that mention the past BCCLA connection unfortunately do not delve into this [1] Neither the SCC judgement nor the working paper mention Eby, while the opinion column isn't a great source as an RS and is actually praising Eby. So while the new civil forfeiture provisions should be mentioned, and the new BCCLA et al. criticism mentioned, without better sourcing, we shouldn't be making a connection to Eby's past position.

As for the money laundering, most of the sources are either from opinion columns, which are not great as reliable sources, or your own assessment of various reports, submissions to the Cullen commission, and Parliamentary testimony. For biographies of living people such as Eby, such material typically must be used to supplement secondary sources (WP:BLPPRIMARY). Instead, you use them to draw conclusions and frame facts in a biased way that is not actually supported by those sources. For example, framing German as a former police officer, when he is also a lawyer and the author of a legal textbook on money laundering. Your text also says that German was unable to answer questions about the calculation of the $100 million valuation at the press conference for the publication of his report and cites that to his report, which would obviously not be a suitable source for either the later press conference or to prove a negative about itself. Secondary sources are required.

The paragraph on the cheques is also suspect. The Cullen Commission also found (pg. 559) that the EY audit results didn't contradict the German report, and the report itself clearly notes that the period in question was not the same as the study period of the German report and did not "look at every casino cheque issued". Though practically the latter probably doesn't make a difference because it was a value cutoff, but this is still exaggerated in the thoroughness of the EY report, which doesn't mention Eby at all. The Cullen Report section on alleged corruption and Eby's role in that makes no mention of "Eby's aspersons" (pg. 767-770). Again, some or all of what is in the text may be true, but it has to be backed by reliable sources. Also, it is borderline improper to cite the Cullen Report directly without a pinpoint to a specific page, given that it is 1831 pages.

The Sinophobia stuff is the best sourced, though still not great. Eby is barely mentioned in the CBC article, but The Volcano article is very in-depth and compelling and could be a RS, but without further knowledge of their editorial record, I can't say for sure. It's much easier to find established stuff for this which is also more recent and captures the apology Eby made to the Cullen Commission (e.g. [2]). The apology should probably be in the article, but the current writeup is not it.

The paragraph on the cost of the Cullen Commission and lack of charges is sourced to an opinion column. There is also no statute of limitations in Canada and the Cullen Report was released less than a year ago, so even if there were reliable sources, we shouldn't be saying this with such a degree of certainty. The remainder of the sources are to radio shows, which while potentially useful, are totally unverifiable without links and given the state of your content, would be required. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 09:39, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Your selective critique is interesting. Note that opinion columns were used extensively throughout the ICBC section as cites - without objection or criticism, yet this is your primary basis of complaint on ML. Additionally the ICBC section contained a number of statements that were pure political advocacy in favor of the NDP, yet drew no criticism. Your assessment appears to be only focused on material that some may perceive as unfavorable to the subject of the page.

German's legal text is, and has always been, on Part XII of the Criminal Code dealing with proceeds of crime provisions in that statute. The subject matter of the review he was engaged to conduct was the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act - a completely different and much more comprehensive statute than the limited provisions found in the Criminal Code. The PCMLTFA deals specifically and exclusively with money laundering and ML controls. This is an area in which German had no expertise and is far beyond the Criminal Code sections on which he has written. Therefore it is you who have frame German as "police officer, lawyer, expert", in a way that is misleading and biased. Thus if you feel German should be identified as a lawyer and author you should make that edit (not delete the entire section), and at the same time, to be accurate and provide the proper context you profess to aspire to, you will need to add that he is a lawyer and author with no expertise or specific knowledge of the PCMLTFA. At the same time you will need to point out that German, as a police officer, never worked in matters falling under the PCMLTFA either (read the transcript of testimony at the Inquiry). This lack of expertise is reflected in the quality and appropriateness of German's recommendations, and summarized nicely by the evidence given at the Commission of Inquiry by Deputy Solicitor General Mark Seiben (now deputy to the Premier) and then Deputy to the Premier Lori Wannamaker where they testified that German's report lacked completely the professional standards normally required of expert reports and further, they opined the findings and recommendations throughout the report lacked an evidentiary basis. (Both transcripts are available here: https://cullencommission.ca/witnesses/) Given the foregoing one can agree with your criticism that HFR YVR did not provide the full context on German, but in the opposite way you suggest. HFR YVR could have provided greater context which would demonstrate that German's appointment is curious given his lack of experience and expertise on the PCMLTFA. In that regard HFR YVR was being more than fair - contrary to unsubstantiated claims of bias. Additionally, HFR YVR could have also pointed to the media stories reporting that German was granted a highly sought afer Queen's Counsel designation (now King's Counsel) by Eby's office IN THE MIDDLE OF CONDUCTING his reportedly independent review.

I have read the two sections to which you object in their entirety and have looked at each cite. The sections are reasonable characterizations of statements of fact supported by fairly extensive cites of a quality equal to other topics covered on the page. As noted you only raise objections to material in these two sections not favorable to the subject yet make no mention of the exact same quality of cites used in other sections which are favorable to the subject. I note also you do not make corrections or edits based on evidence but rather simply delete the entire sections. This is not in keeping with policy or balanced and fact based editing. WilliamR2021 (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Wow, we sure are seeing a lot of new editors with an interest in this page.

As with the editors before you, I urge you to read and familiarize yourself with WP:OR, because you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding here. "Original research" doesn't just mean conducting an interview with the subject or whatever, it also refers to making analysis and interpretations of a primary source. So it doesn't matter if your criticism of German is founded or not, or if you back back up your criticism of Eby by pointing to a contradiction in a testimony or whatever — it's not Wikipedia's place to be doing this to begin with. Wikipedia reflects what the secondary sources are saying. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

This goes triple when the original research regards biographies of living persons. Original research about living persons is supposed to be removed immediately until a reliable source can be found to also state such assertions. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any opinion pieces from a quick skim of the sources in the ICBC section now, so they might've been removed. In any case that's not relevant to whether the material I removed should have been kept, if you have any specific concerns about the article going beyond what the sources say, you are free to do that. As for the rest of your post, while some it might be potentially concerning and worthy of mention if true, it is original research to base it on a testimony of a transcript. Please provide a secondary source that makes the claim such as a newspaper article, academic article, published book, or even a citation to the final conclusion of the Cullen Commission, which processed all of the original testimony. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)