Talk:Julie Payette

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Julie Payette. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130807065215/http://www.montrealsciencecentre.com/home.html to http://www.montrealsciencecentre.com/home.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Most Wikipedia articles on Canadian topics use the date format 13 July 2017.
Why are we using the American format, July 13, 2017? Peter K Burian (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not solely an American format. As provided by MOS:DATETIES, articles with a close tie to Canada can use either format. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, good point: Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article. Peter K Burian (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the IP is correct here (there's a phrase you don't hear every day!) To clarify, the issue has always been that debates about "Canadian date style" persistently land no consensus — Canadian government sources typically use DMY while Canadian media sources typically use MDY, so both sides of the argument have always had evidence they could point to that their preference was "standard" in Canada. So the Canadian date formatting rule became "just stick with whichever format was used by the first person to add a full date to the article, and don't waste time changing dates from one format to the other except to correct any inconsistencies within the same article". Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we using the correct date format? 

message: I've reinstated some information that I believe was mistakenly removed, as both her assault charges and the incident an incident in which she struck and killed a pedestrian is a top of national discussion at the moment. I provided the most obvious reliable source (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/payette-vetting-trudeau-wednesday-1.4213743), but I can and am willing to provide more reliable sources if necessary.
MechanoidWarhead (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this readdition of this material. It has been covered in multiple reliable sources and is clearly a matter of public interest. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

text: Since it's now part of popular culture and in sources, I don't think that there is a problem with brief mentions which also specify that assault charges were dropped and that no driving charges were made for the accident.  It is mostly because of the future appointment that it made the news, perhaps that it could be part of a section or paragraph about this, rather than in the lead or in the personal life section...  —PaleoNeonate - 06:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks,  &  but it doesn't seem to matter. A user by the name of Dr. K has reverted the changes and then accused me of edit warring, which is weird, since I've only edited this article once. He also said I provided unreliable sources, but my reference was a Canadian Press article picked up by the CBC. I'm not quite sure how much more reliable of a source one can get. I want to give the benefit of the doubt to Dr. K, though as I am a relatively new user. Do you guys with more experience have any idea of how to escalate this kind of matter for review? Mostly, I'm miffed about being accused of edit-warring. MechanoidWarhead (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The assault charge really doesn't belong here as it was never proceeded with and indeed expunged.  This means that it could (although there is no data on this, although Payette calls it "unfounded") have been a false accusation.  The car incident one should be discussed here: again, though, whilst charges that go to court are probably notable, since it didn't, it was presumably decided that it was an accident (and thus, again, shouldn't be included in a BLP). Black Kite (talk) 12:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I fully agree with Black Kite. The reasons s/he provides are exactly the same as the ones I have considered for removing this material. In addition, explaining the full extent of these incidents would be WP:UNDUE for this BLP. For example, in the case of the auto accident, if we just mention that charges were dropped, without explaining that the victim was sick and perhaps fell in front of the car, then we give the wrong impression. But by the time we explain all this, this incident will be large enough to be WP:UNDUE for this bio. If we add the reasons explained by Black Kite, we can see that the proposed edit is even less acceptable for this bio. As far as the edit-warring warnings, the information about the two incidents was reinserted in this edit with the edit-summary : . "Restored" basically means "edit-warring". If you had looked more carefully at the history of the page, it would have become quite clear that this information was part of an edit-war by IPs and had been removed multiple times. In fact, the article had to be protected so that IPs were prevented from editing it. Anyone restoring this edit, participates in the  edit-war that was started by the IPs. Dr. K. 14:39, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

text:  My understanding is that the assault charges and the incident in which she struck and killed a pedestrian were notable because both incidents are major points in national discussion on the topic of her suitability for Governor General. Without trying to come off as obtuse, could you explain to me why the fact that she has a son is notable enough to go unquestioned, yet when it comes to two criminal run-ins with the law (though charges were dropped), it's not notable to mention even when it's being discussed on the news and in newspapers? Further, I'm also trying to wrap my head around why such an important and influential political figure causing the death of another person would also not be notable on its own. I really would be grateful if you could explain the reasoning. MechanoidWarhead (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that both incidents have been widely reported I think they should be mentioned in passing without going into detail ie "second degree assault charge which was dismissed and expunged from court records and which Payette describes as "unfounded" and a fatal car accident for which police deemed her not to be at fault."  I don't believe the car accident ever resulted in charges.Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Dr.K., rather than just linking to policy pages could you actually cite what specific sections / sentences you believe this content violates? There's nothing in WP:BLP that says we should remove any negative information about a person from their article. You've linked to WP:UNDUE twice in your above comment, but the first sentence of that states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". In my opinion blanket a removal of something that has been covered in every prominent Canadian media outlet in the past few days is in itself a violation of that guideline. With reference to the car crash specifically, it should be noted that other celebrities (e.g. Caitlyn Jenner and Venus Williams) who have been involved in car crashes have that information noted in their articles. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Caitlyn Jenner's was a larger incident and she had to settle out of court, while Payette did not have to. As far as Williams, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Dr. K. 16:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

text: And with this edit you removed information about Payette's marriages which was hardly controversial and was sourced to Maclean's and The Globe and Mail – if they're not reliable sources I don't know what is. Every other Canadian governor general has detailed biographical information in their article, I don't see any reason why Payette should be any different. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, not so fast. The edit I reverted claimed . First, Astronautix is not a reliable source. Second, the MacLeans source did not have a link so that it could be verified. This looks like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. Dr. K. 15:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

text: User:Dr.K. you also warned me for edit-warring, even though I have made no reversions to this page. Furthermore, you accused me of "adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons", even though all my edits to this page were supported with reliable sources. Could you please provide an explanation for why you left those warning templates on my userpage? If you have made an error please remove them. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The information about the assault is added by an IP. The IP edit was reverted multiple times. After the IP edit was reverted you reinserted the assault information in this edit. As I explained before, this is participating in an edit-war. Dr. K. 15:51, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You do realise this article will expand, and part of that expansion will be the former charges, as well as their being raised very publicly just after the announcement of her pending appointment as vicereine, right? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: These are some forward-looking statements. Sorry, I don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Also, rhetorical questions are annoying, especially ending with affirmatives in question form, such a . If you disagree with my points and those of  there are better ways to phrase your objections, starting with not pointing them only to me. Dr. K. 03:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

text: I just stepped into this article and its discussion re: Personal life content from the Help Desk posting (see below). My 2 cents on this (with COI / sockpuppet aside) is that for the subject's notability for inclusion at WP, the section itself reads very negatively and tabloid-ish. IMHO. I find it actually to be very poor writing for WP. If the editors involved can get past all the edit warring and COI, I would suggest a heavy scrubbing and an experienced WP editor to create a better section with a NPOV understanding as to why content should be added for this subject. Numerous marriages? piano playing? singing in a chorus? killed a pedestrian? assault charges that were expunged? Come on ... and only 1 source for each? Since when does a BLP who has actually killed someone get a single line without detailed explanation and only one source? I'm calling NPOV and undue weight: in reverse. In other words: "Is this really the best we can do, folks?" Honestly, if I were the subject, I would try editing this page, too. Look at everything she's accomplished in her career; and in her Personal life there's death, divorce and domestic abuse. Maineartists (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I removed the worst bits about the alleged legal issues. Dr. K. 02:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Fortunately (or unfortunately) there are no "good" or "bad" bits on Wikipedia. Just reliably sourced facts that are deemed notable for inclusion. If these fact are included on an article for a BLP, "good" or "bad", they must remain if 2 conditions are met: 1) reliable sources to back the claim - and - 2) consensus for notable inclusion. The "unfortunate" part of this BLP's article is that she is set to become the 29th Governor General of Canada; and any "worst bits" might appear unfavorable. WP is not a resume: WP:RESUME or a personal webpage. That being said, I would advise that you refrain from edit warring, and let other editors arrive at a consensus to better the article in the correct manner with proper WP procedure. Cheers. Maineartists (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing I did was to say that I agree with you on the points you raised. Yet your comments above, are presumptuous, patronising and insulting. I remind you of WP:CIVIL. To elaborate, your comment:  "...let other editors arrive at a consensus to better the article in the correct manner with proper WP procedure."?  Can you clarify why you think I should do that? "Refrain from edit-warring"? This is a contentious piece of information that there is no consensus to include as this discussion reveals. Removing it per BLP, until consensus forms, is not "edit-warring". As far as my expression of "worst bits", I used it to express the parts that dealt with the legal issues, which are more severe in nature than the more mundane tidbits of playing the piano or what have you. For sure I did not use that expression to invite a patronising lecture on what constitutes reliably sourced information worthy of inclusion and, even worse, to be fed links to WP:NOTRESUME etc.. Your comment about a "sockpuppet":   is also baffling. I haven't seen any. Have you? Dr. K. 17:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) My apologies if my comments felt patronizing, presumptuous, insulting or lecturing. That was far from my intent. I raised the issue with  in the reverse for having put back the content without the proper sources and consensus (please see below). Re: sockpuppet - there has been raised concerns regarding certain editors for this page (see section: Recent edits). My comments still are as they stand and hopefully will be re-enforced by: WP:RECENTISM. (I honestly don't feel they belong) However, regarding my advice on "edit warring": no BLP violation has occurred. It is strictly "opinion" that requires consensus at this point; and thus it is considered "edit warring" until the issue has been resolved. An editor that is closely related to the subject (and suspicious of SPA) removed the content originally; any re-instating of the material was correct in doing so and then discussion should be brought to the Talk Page (which it was). What you are doing is now "edit warring" along the lines with the original SPA. The original content should actually remain until consensus is reached because the removal has been contested and challenged. I don't mean to lecture. Maineartists (talk) 18:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  They are as I described them on my previous post. That you don't want to admit it, is ok.  Don't keep repeating this red-herring. If controversial material of any kind appears in a BLP, it is to be removed, until consensus for its inclusion develops. The crimes information is sketchy at best and the details in the reporting are not clear. There is a good case to be made that the reporting is poorly sourced. That an SPA also initiated that removal is irrelevant. I also told you in the section below to retract your insinuation "(if  is a SP of )" but you did not. I will remove your insinuation per WP:NPA. Dr. K. 20:09, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You're just going to have to believe me when I say that your "ping" (17:34) never showed up (and does not now) in my notices. If I had seen it, of course I would have redacted it. The SPs are clear from the IP history edits and Talk Page summary. There is no "red-herring". But the edit history is clear as to the OP and the rvs. No insinuation; sorry we won't see eye-to-eye on this. And although we both agree on non-inclusion for content now; I worry we may lose this one in the long run. I wish tempers weren't so quick to rise so we could have worked together. But: c'est la vie. I'll redact whatever I've said in this post if I've offended again. Best. Maineartists (talk) 21:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no reason to disbelieve you about the pinging. I also appreciate that you mentioned that you would have redacted the sock accusation. From your response, I can see that you are a fundamentally decent editor, and I have no problem working with you now, or in the future. Since we have cleared the socking allegation, I will reinstate your comment fully. Best regards. Dr. K. 22:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I readded the pedestrian bit here, and while searching for more sources for it, I found many (although only added 1 more at the time), such as at Google News. There are some news articles here: Like it or not, Payette’s past is news, Trudeau's silence on Payette's expunged assault charge shows double standard: Robyn Urback, PM Trudeau faces questions over Julie Payette appointment. I am uninvolved before readding this. I would like to ask  what they mean by "removed the worst bits about the alleged legal issues", what do you mean by "worst bits"?  Seagull123  Φ  13:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on. OK, so the "assault" part may be "notable" (let's stop using the word: news). WP is not a newspaper WP:NOTNP. There still is no consensus as to reinstating the pedestrian content as "notable". I do not believe at this time that it is; and furthermore, I still believe the section to be undue weight in negative content. Playing piano and singing in a chorus does not even out accidentally killing a pedestrian and domestic abuse. Not buying it. Sorry. I am all for including this information if it is covered correctly and fully (with reliable sources to prove its notability); and the section is properly enhanced to weight. But do not get caught up in WP:RECENTISM; which this section is leaning towards at the moment. Furthermore, the little "personal life" material that is left after the pedestrian / assault is removed comes from sources that aren't even reliable: biography related to the subject (encyclopedia). If the subject is this much of a public figure to warrant a personal life section that delves so deeply as though she were a celebrity, there should be ample enough sources online to retrieve notable information to create a well-formed section without one-line bites. So, far, that's all I'm seeing. Maineartists (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

text: *I fully agree with your points. Dr. K. 18:45, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure if you saw my question above, but could you answer it please? Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  22:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  ignore that, just saw your answer to this above my question.  Seagull123  Φ  22:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Some more RS's I've found: And to clarify my point above, I would support readding this in a short, purely factual way, such as "Payette was involved in a fatal car crash where she was found not at fault and was not charged. She also was charged with assault, but these charges were later dismissed and expunged" or something like that. I believe this is in keeping with WP:PUBLICFIGURE.  Seagull123  Φ  23:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi  Thanks so much for replying. What I think I'm having difficulty with at present is the fact that this article was created in 2012. The incident regarding the pedestrian occurred in 2011. The "reliable sources" are all dated 2017; and have started to appear in this article on account as such. To me, this seems "tabloid" in nature; and not notable due to her recent appointment possibilities. If it was indeed notable to the subject, it would have been included long before this. Could you please present a clear defense against this argument? Thanks! I think this blog should also be taken into consideration with this subject: The Media Mobbing of Julie Payette in gathering "reliable sources". Maineartists (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

text: The guideline you quoted specifies that in addition to sources existing for it, the information needs to be noteworthy and relevant. For example, a politician's article does not need to document every single time they ever showed up at a community event to hand over a plastic novelty cheque representing a government donation — while sources will certainly exist for that appearance, noteworthiness and relevance are still lacking, so we just don't add it. So the question you would need to answer here isn't whether sources exist or not: it's whether the information is noteworthy and relevant to an article about Payette. For example, an accident in which she hit a pedestrian, but wasn't charged with anything because the pedestrian was found to be the one at fault, is not noteworthy or relevant, because it doesn't speak to anything meaningful or important or relevant about Payette. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from agreeing with your analysis, Bearcat, I wish to state that this is as cogent an analysis as I have seen about inclusion criteria in a BLP. Dr. K. 17:17, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, . Certainly on the same page. Hard to argue with this line of presentation. Maineartists (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Julie Payette's dismissed assault charges and incident where she struck and killed a pedestrian 

message: Just a note to clarify, because there's been a bit of editwarring over whether she has one son or two. The fact is that all current sources about her state that she has one son, while the source for two sons dates from 2009 rather than 2017 — the discrepancy is because the older son in 2009 was her then-husband's son from a prior relationship. Payette was his stepmother, not his biological mother, so she has no legal relationship to him anymore now that she and Flynn are divorced — which means that she has one son, not two, because only one of the two sons in 2009 came out of her babymaking parts. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children 

message: Recently,  has been removing a lot of content from this page. They made a request at the help desk, some of which I have copied below:  This may be a shared account, due to "our team", and may be a COI, possibly a paid editor. I thought I would leave this here for other editors to be aware of this.  Seagull123  Φ  23:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: , a SPA with a conflict of interest, has removed well-referenced content from the article. I believe it should be restored. Maproom (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously brought about by my statement to the discussion above. The section will need to be semi-protected at some point; but certainly not until a consensus is formed regarding BLP content that not only displays "good writing" representational of WP standards and quality, but also reasoning for notable inclusion past the tendency for tabloid fodder. It's just not a good section in relation to the rest of the article IMHO. Maineartists (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I thought your comment  was meant in jest and this is the reason, I initially sent you thanks with the "thank you" button. But now I'm no longer certain about how you meant it, based on your response to me in the section above. If you were serious about this, I expect you to retract this AGF-defying PA. Dr. K. 17:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

text: I have now removed the original PA. Dr. K. 20:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the way  worded the request, it is reasonable to assume a Canadian education, as I have noticed that type of vague and indirect comment arising from such sources. I also have my suspicions as to where the "team" is located, which could be easily verified by an IP search. However, let's not go therethat's for Canadian journalists to dig up. Let's hope the user read and understood the message left to them at the help desk, and don't unduly interfere with this article in future.Raellerby (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that  is still busy stripping content from this article, with edits occurring as recently as 12 October. Is there no way to police this person's activity?Raellerby (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Put this article on your watchlist and keep an eye on it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by {{u|AB10002}} 

message: There are two tags to this article. One is on the talkpage, and it states:  and the other, in the main article, stating that . I find two problems with these tags. The talkpage tag implies that user AB10002 was paid on behalf of Payette. Yet we don't have any proof of that, other than AB10002's own statement, which is vague in that regard (that he was actually paid). Jumping to conclusions, implicating Payette by name without proof, and based only on statements by a pseudonymous account, is in my opinion a violation of BLP. The in-article tag is also problematic. AB10002 is by no means a "major contributor" to this article. He only edited it a few times and from what I can see not in a major way. Currently, there is not much text in the article directly contributed by AB10002. So this tag should also be removed and replaced by a better one. Dr. K. 15:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that AB has declared they and their team are working on Payette's behalf, Dr. K. I'm wondering what further evidence you think is necessary???? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mike. My problem with that is, that AB is a pseudonymous account.  IMO, a statement from a pseudonymous account is not reliable enough to implicate Payette by name. If there is further proof, by all means, let's make that statement. But, imo, we should not explicitly name Payette, based on a statement by a pseudonymous account. Also, what do you think about the other tag, on the main article, given that AB is not a "major" contributor? Dr. K. 15:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

text: That would be fine also. Thanks for your suggestion. Dr. K. 16:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

text: Given that there has been no issues, I've removed the tag on the article, which is public facing. I've kept the tag here for documentation. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

text: Having looked at AB10002's edits and the complaint at AN/I, I'm not seeing proof that the person(s) behind the account were paid directly for any edits. There is certainly a strong suggestion of an external relationship, but it's far from an open-and-shut case. I've removed  from this page accordingly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI tags  

message: *  If that is how she wishes to be known, that would be the most acceptable option. I thought that had been the settled convention going back to the 1970s.Raellerby (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In favour of "Ms." 

message: * Support But only from birth to the date of her marriage to her first husband. While married, a woman is styled as 'Mrs', unless she expresses some preference for it to be otherwise. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 20:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In favour of "Miss" 

message: *Every adult who exists at all automatically holds the honorifics of "Mr." or "Mrs./Ms/Miss", regardless of any actual distinctions earned or not earned, just by virtue of existing as adult humans. So it holds exactly zero value whatsoever as a piece of encyclopedically useful information about the subject. And that's especially true if there's a dispute about whether she was a Ms. or a Mrs. because it's not clear what legal name she was signing her credit card receipts with when she was just a private citizen whose shopping habits weren't of public interest at all. So it's useless and unnecessary and prone to dispute here — and if it's done in her predecessors' articles it should be removed there too. Literally all it communicates is "they didn't hold any special titles yet, but just had the exact same one as you and I and your gardener and your pharmacist and the barista who sold you that latte this morning". It's not important information, because it's not a distinction — it's no more needed here than it would be to call special attention to Margaret Atwood's status as "Ms. Atwood" or Tom Petty's as "Mr. Petty". Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: But, your remark still focuses on "prefixes". The section is about styles and titles. That is more than just "prefixes" and is pertinent information, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to contain. Are you trying to say this section and this section aren't informational? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  In favour of stopping this tradition to avoid the conflict 

message: The NASA and Ordre de la Pléiade ribbons should not be included in the ribbon bar as they are not approved for wear in Canada. Neither do they appear in photos of the Governor General wearing a Canadian Forces uniform. http://wearingyourmedalswrong.blogspot.com/2018/03/can-you-wear-medals-in-space-governor.html Jagislaqroo
As a longer-term project, the honours and awards section should clearly delineate official (Crown) and unofficial honours as is often done in other articles.
 (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honours and ribbon bar 

message: Is it time to lock this page with all of the :WP:SPAs that come here? Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The SPAs are back 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The article uses the word creationism in reference to Governor General Payette’s statement where she criticized those who believe the beginning of life was divine intervention, as opposed to a natural process. She does not use the word creationism, which is a fundamentalist or literal interpretation of the Bible. Payette uses the divine intervention to mean the author of life. Many people believe in evolution and also believe in God. Could this be clarified, as her point is about people believing in God.2001:1970:5DAB:7400:1C05:FE79:20A3:1261 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of faith 

message: Per WP:YESPOV, opinions must be attributed and deeming a world leader a boob in hindsight is an opinion, regardless of whether CBC is a reliable source for facts. I tried to credit "unnamed sources", per the first reference, was told (implicitly) to blame "the opposition" and "others". Tried to add a clarity tag, was sharply informed "the media" did it. Asked the reverter for clarity on whether I could credit the columnist "we" cite here, was reverted a third time and sent here. So yeah. Any better ideas, fellow editors? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trudeau was criticized" [by whom?] 

message: Assuming that Mary Simon will be appointed by the queen as governor general. I'm guessing to keep with consistency, we'll be replacing Wagner with Simon as Payette's successor. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The description of the coat of arms is missing a reference to the helm ( Helmet_(heraldry) )
It is intended to represent an astronauts helmet.  I came here to see the helm, but, not knowing anything about heraldry, didn't know what I was looking for, and had to do more research before I realized that it was an unlabeled element in the picture. 124.187.219.128 (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heraldry -- Arms -- helm