Talk:2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
12th Candidate
It appears that another person has entered the race.
Grant Abraham from Abbotsford, BC. First seen on Twitter: https://twitter.com/griroy/status/1509276517192318976.
He posted a YouTube launch video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBmrZRPzwyU, and his website is here: https://canadaspromise.com/.
I haven't seen any news organizations report on him yet, so I didn't add him to the page. Just thought I would mention it. Skylerbuck (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, Abraham has now been added and then removed (as unreliably sourced). In addition to the website, twitter post, and youtube video there has been reporting by Rebel News in this article, by this podcast, and by this local news website. I am not sure it is fair or helpful to completely dismiss Rebel as unreliable here. He probably drops out in a few weeks anyway. He seems like someone who likes to be a paper candidate (having run for the conservatives in Northern Ireland before), but the removing him on the basis of unreliable/insufficient sourcing seems weak to me. Looks like he is also a guest columnist for Western Standard.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps adding him in a publicly expressed interest section until the candidate deadline arrives or reliable sources cover his candidacy? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but why treat him differently than the other "declared" candidates? At this stage, all you need to do to be a "candidate" is to declare. He will probably drop out in a few weeks when deposits, then entry fees and signatures become due. So will others. Then we will move them to a "withdrew/failed to quality" sub-section, and likely reduce the content about them to a few sentences. How many WP:RS do we need to note that he has announced he is running? That is all we are doing at this point. I think the website, twitter, youtube, and news sources we have pass that rather low bar.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- You're literally saying here that all I need to do is make a Twitter post and a YouTube video declaring that I, too, have dreams of sticking it to Trudeau, and I can add myself here if the right-wing misinformation machine picks up on it. The "local news website" also cites this article as a source, which is cute. We don't need to cover every Jack, Harry and Dick who "declares" this way, as it is ripe for potential abuse of WP:PROMO. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- At this stage there is no barriers to "enter" the race, so yes to be a self-"declared" candidate all you need to do is declare. Here where there is a website, youtube launch video and coverage in Rebel that seems to cross the low bar to me.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- To be frank, what you admit to being a "low bar", I would call a violation of WP:PROMO, specifically WP:Advocacy. In my opinion, the best solution would be to eliminate the entire "declared" section and only list candidates in the article who are approved by the Party, with at most a brief list of the other "declared" candidates who received coverage in reliable sources for doing so. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 07:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- What you are proposing would be a break with how Canadian leadership contests have been written about in the past. It also seems to be me that it would be a WP:POV violation for us to implement it. Our job is not to decide which candidates are "worthy" of inclusion and which are not. After the application deadline there is no problem with us reducing the content about these candidates to give them their WP:DUE weight (ie these folks ran and failed to qualify). I would agree that at that stage going into great length about them might be undue. I expect removing them all completely would be as well. But what you are proposing, ignoring all sources about candidates that have not yet qualified would be us deciding on our own which candidates are "worthy" of inclusion. In my view, that is contrary to our policies about balance and neutral point of view. Not a road we should go down.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- To be frank, what you admit to being a "low bar", I would call a violation of WP:PROMO, specifically WP:Advocacy. In my opinion, the best solution would be to eliminate the entire "declared" section and only list candidates in the article who are approved by the Party, with at most a brief list of the other "declared" candidates who received coverage in reliable sources for doing so. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 07:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- At this stage there is no barriers to "enter" the race, so yes to be a self-"declared" candidate all you need to do is declare. Here where there is a website, youtube launch video and coverage in Rebel that seems to cross the low bar to me.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- You're literally saying here that all I need to do is make a Twitter post and a YouTube video declaring that I, too, have dreams of sticking it to Trudeau, and I can add myself here if the right-wing misinformation machine picks up on it. The "local news website" also cites this article as a source, which is cute. We don't need to cover every Jack, Harry and Dick who "declares" this way, as it is ripe for potential abuse of WP:PROMO. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but why treat him differently than the other "declared" candidates? At this stage, all you need to do to be a "candidate" is to declare. He will probably drop out in a few weeks when deposits, then entry fees and signatures become due. So will others. Then we will move them to a "withdrew/failed to quality" sub-section, and likely reduce the content about them to a few sentences. How many WP:RS do we need to note that he has announced he is running? That is all we are doing at this point. I think the website, twitter, youtube, and news sources we have pass that rather low bar.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps adding him in a publicly expressed interest section until the candidate deadline arrives or reliable sources cover his candidacy? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Rebel News - Valid source?
Hello fellow editors. I see Rebel News has been used as a source a few times, and I think we need to have a discussion about it. From what I could find, there have been a few discussions on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. For example, this discussion seemed to come up with a consensus of them being an unreliable source for the Yaniv article, given the clear bias. The discussion there did raise questions about the use of Rebel News wiki-wide, and drew some very fair comparisons to Breitbart News which cannot be used as a source. It was also mentioned on that noticeboard in another discussion, which did not have a resulting decision. Personally, I find Rebel News to be a highly unreliable website. It tends to spin and twist facts, and is more of a commentary site (as mentioned in its Wikipedia article), rather than a news site. I would recommend we do not use it as a source on this page. If this is a controversial discussion or we are unable to reach a consensus, perhaps we should open up a broader discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. There should be a clear-cut Wikipedia standard, given the amount of times this website could be referenced on Canadian politics-related articles. RoyalObserver (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes it is highly biased and prints false information - not WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- The Rebel should have been deprecated a long-ass time ago. I will never not advocate for such a move whenever I see it brought up in a discussion. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- +1. I may even start that discussion myself... RoyalObserver (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would always be careful about how to use Rebel. That said, I am not particularly concerned at all about it being used to confirm that candidates have declared. Completely discounting everything Rebel writes makes it more difficult for us to create a good encyclopedia covering right wing topics like this leadership race. In this race, Rebel has been the first to report new candidates who have declared on several occasions, which has then been followed by other sources reporting the same days later. I see Rebel as more like Fox News than Breitbart. Caution is certainly warranted, but they are not completely unreliable. Though when Rebel is contradicted by another source, I don't think there would be a real debate to be had about which source we would go with. When Rebel is the only source available and the issue is not overly controversial, I don't think we should completely discount it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- If "right wing topics" need bottom-barrel garbage like The Rebel in order to make a "good encyclopedia", then the "good encyclopedia" need not cover those topics. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any consensus that Rebel is not a reliable source for all purposes. Care to point me to one? I did invite folks to weeks ago, in a discussion above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- The consensus appears to already be forming here with multiple editors appearing to agree that The Rebel is a heavily biased social commentary website and not a legitimate news publication, whose editor has been described by judges as having a "reckless disregard for the truth". There is nothing at all reliable about this publication when it comes to any subject, especially politics. Perhaps if you feel otherwise, you may feel inclined to explain your case at RS/N, as while there may not be a consensus there, based on past discussions where they have been brought up, I highly doubt you'll establish a consensus of reliability. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 08:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure there is a consensus here to discount Rebel News for all purposes. Even if there was, I am not sure how useful a local consensus along the lines of "Rebel is garbage" is particularly useful. These matters are usually decided on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for a reason, as was discussed above. Many editors might think that "Fox News is garbage" but my understanding is that notwithstanding individual editors views on it we (as a community) have found it "generally reliable". Our job is not to dismiss right wing sources as the "right-wing misinformation machine". Simply trashing on Rebel is not dealing with the issue here head on: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I would agree (and have above) that caution should be taken with this news source. I think they can be trusted to report routine things like who is running in a right-wing party's leadership race.[1][2] That is what these two impugned citations are actually about. I see no problem with us using them for that limited purpose.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a problem with us reaching a consensus for this article. I do agree with previous points that there should be a broader discussion for the use of Rebel News across Wikipedia. It is my belief, given how Rebel operates and their extreme bias, that they are pretty much the Canadian equivalent of Brietbart. It doesn't matter if they get 1 thing right (ie. an announcement date). They should not be used as an Encyclopedic source. I would oppose any references to Rebel here, just like we would likely oppose the use of some random extremely biased blog run by someone in their basement. RoyalObserver (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- Darryl Kerrigan is correct, context matters. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am not sure there is a consensus here to discount Rebel News for all purposes. Even if there was, I am not sure how useful a local consensus along the lines of "Rebel is garbage" is particularly useful. These matters are usually decided on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard for a reason, as was discussed above. Many editors might think that "Fox News is garbage" but my understanding is that notwithstanding individual editors views on it we (as a community) have found it "generally reliable". Our job is not to dismiss right wing sources as the "right-wing misinformation machine". Simply trashing on Rebel is not dealing with the issue here head on: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I would agree (and have above) that caution should be taken with this news source. I think they can be trusted to report routine things like who is running in a right-wing party's leadership race.[1][2] That is what these two impugned citations are actually about. I see no problem with us using them for that limited purpose.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- The consensus appears to already be forming here with multiple editors appearing to agree that The Rebel is a heavily biased social commentary website and not a legitimate news publication, whose editor has been described by judges as having a "reckless disregard for the truth". There is nothing at all reliable about this publication when it comes to any subject, especially politics. Perhaps if you feel otherwise, you may feel inclined to explain your case at RS/N, as while there may not be a consensus there, based on past discussions where they have been brought up, I highly doubt you'll establish a consensus of reliability. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 08:19, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any consensus that Rebel is not a reliable source for all purposes. Care to point me to one? I did invite folks to weeks ago, in a discussion above.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- If "right wing topics" need bottom-barrel garbage like The Rebel in order to make a "good encyclopedia", then the "good encyclopedia" need not cover those topics. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would always be careful about how to use Rebel. That said, I am not particularly concerned at all about it being used to confirm that candidates have declared. Completely discounting everything Rebel writes makes it more difficult for us to create a good encyclopedia covering right wing topics like this leadership race. In this race, Rebel has been the first to report new candidates who have declared on several occasions, which has then been followed by other sources reporting the same days later. I see Rebel as more like Fox News than Breitbart. Caution is certainly warranted, but they are not completely unreliable. Though when Rebel is contradicted by another source, I don't think there would be a real debate to be had about which source we would go with. When Rebel is the only source available and the issue is not overly controversial, I don't think we should completely discount it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- +1. I may even start that discussion myself... RoyalObserver (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Humphrey, Drea (3 April 2022). "International lawyer Grant Abraham is the 10th to join the Conservative Party Leadership Race". Rebel News. Retrieved 4 April 2022.
- ^ Pollak, Yaakov (March 21, 2022). "Two MPs, two entrepreneurs enter Conservative leadership race". Rebel News. Retrieved March 22, 2022.
Limiting Infobox to "Approved" candidates
At the rate this is going, the infobox is going to be pretty big. Once candidates start being approved by the party, would it be worth shifting the candidates highlighted there to approved candidates rather than listing all announced candidates? RoyalObserver (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- We will likely have to do that, or find some other solution. I believe the infobox template we are using only accommodates nine.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well I would assume at least 2 of the "candidates" won't even be approved by the party, so we'll see how things go from there. ~// This is a contribution by The Edit King 👑 \\~ 12:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Ak-eater06, there was discussion about the issue concerning this edit here. But admittedly no decision. But we now have nine in the infobox, if Singh remains there. As such, we might need to make a decision at some point soon. Including only approved candidates might be a reasonable way to proceed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think it makes the most sense to only put approved candidates in the infobox. Wikipageedittor099 00:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
This was discussed earlier. Are we doing this? It only makes sense to have approved candidates in the infobox as opposed to declared ones. Wikipageedittor099 00:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I said above, I am not opposed to doing this when needed, but the infobox can accommodate the declared candidates now. If a tenth declares, we might have to do the switch (because I don't think we can fit in ten). And after April 19 (the application deadline), if a candidate has not applied they do not belong in the infobox. But some might get their paperwork in on the 18th or 19th and it could take a few days for approval from the party, so we might need to give a bit of a grace period there (if they have actually applied).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
It's highly likely all 9 candidates will be approved. This approval process by the way is mainly to check if they have a criminal record/affiliation with another party. Meeting the $300,000 fee deadline by April 29th makes you an "authorized contestant" and you will be able to appear on the ballot - as Leslyn Lewis said on her Twitter. Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Unless I am reading the rules incorrectly, the first $50,000 is due as part of the initial application process. Then the remaining $250,000 on April 29. So if any of them can't come up with $50,000, they shouldn't be "approved".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- My bad. Yup, you are correct; candidates must submit $50,000 by the 19th to get "approved". So Bobby Singh and Joseph Bergault have a high chance of being removed from the infobox. Also I'm pretty sure Poilievre got approved (considering he's widely popular among Conservatives and I don't see any reason with him struggling) but he hasn't Tweeted it out yet like Charest/Lewis/Baber did. Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I'd like to add that the likeliness of Bourgault or Singh being approved are slim, in my opinion, since you must also come up with 500 signatures from party members among 30 ridings and 7 provinces.... which I believe will be very difficult for Bourgault and Singh to do. Nevertheless, I think it wouldn't hurt to just have approved candidates in there and if they end up being approved we can add them in later. Cheers. Wikipageedittor099 12:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- My bad. Yup, you are correct; candidates must submit $50,000 by the 19th to get "approved". So Bobby Singh and Joseph Bergault have a high chance of being removed from the infobox. Also I'm pretty sure Poilievre got approved (considering he's widely popular among Conservatives and I don't see any reason with him struggling) but he hasn't Tweeted it out yet like Charest/Lewis/Baber did. Ak-eater06 (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
It looks like Leona Alleslev will be announcing soon, but hasn't yet.[1] If she does the infobox will break. It can't accommodate ten candidates. If that happens do we want to remove all candidates who have not been approved? Use a different type of infobox without photos? Remove the infobox? How should we deal with that?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Personally, I like the idea of just using approved candidates. In the scenario that all candidates end up getting approved -- which I see to be unlikely -- then we can cross that bridge when we get to it; but once she announces her candidacy I believe we should use approved-only candidates with photos in the infobox. Cheers! Wikipageedittor099 15:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would support changing the infobox to approved candidates. It is unlikely that will total more than nine by the time the dust settles and more likely to be six or fewer. - Ahunt (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- What about just keeping the candidates who are polling above a certain amount (even above just 1%)? This is usually how things are done for municipal elections, albeit informally. That we can just keep out the fringe candidates. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think we have enough polling to take that approach. Most of the polls we have didn't even have most of the candidates as options.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Understood. FTR though, I do have a poll in field at EKOS with all of the candidates (including Bobby Singh & Alleslev), and there's a clear division between the main candidates (Poilievre, Charest, Lewis and Brown) and everyone else. Does it count as original research if you work at a polling firm? ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Understood. I think the "main" candidates will quickly become approved. Presumably, the "serious" candidates will have an easier time obtaining the necessary signatures and raising the required $50,000. If that is the case, no need to rely on polling. Of course, a candidate needs to be approved to win, even the best polling doesn’t overcome compliance with the rules. Can't win the leadership, if you aren't approved to run.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Understood. FTR though, I do have a poll in field at EKOS with all of the candidates (including Bobby Singh & Alleslev), and there's a clear division between the main candidates (Poilievre, Charest, Lewis and Brown) and everyone else. Does it count as original research if you work at a polling firm? ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- My main concern with that is we have the candidates section separated by approved and declared candidates, so if we plan to keep that separation then I feel it makes sense to implement it in the infobox as well. Other opinions are appreciated. I agree with @Darryl Kerrigan for now. As more polling comes out, maybe we can change the approach, but for now I see approved candidates being the best option. Wikipageedittor099 15:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would agree with this approach. If we end up having more than 9 approved candidates, we can start exploring another alternative. Perhaps something similar to Next United Kingdom general election, which we could then revert back to the current format after the leadership election to show the top finishing candidates (like how 2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election only shows 1st and second place, and not anyone who was eliminated in earlier rounds.) RoyalObserver (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Approved Candidates is not even the correct word usage for this. (See the previous leadership election for an example.) The requirements designate individuals as such:
- 1. Approved Applicants
- 2. Authorized Contestants
- 3. Verified Candidates
- Only those that have submitted the full requirements by the deadline will become Verified Candidates and appear on the leadership ballot.
- Best, Discographer (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't think we are required to use the party's terminology for this. It may be wise for us to do so though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- If so, which terminology do we prefer? 1, 2, or 3? Should this be another section for discussion? LOL. Wikipageedittor099 20:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the different names/terms apply at different stages of the contest. Those candidates that satisfy the first hurdle (ie by April 19 they apply and pay $50,000) are "Approved Applicants". Then there is a requirement of paying a further $50,000 and turning in signatures before you become a "Authorized Contestant" and get access to party lists of members. Then to appear on the ballot you have to pay the remaining $200,000 by April 29 at which point you will be a "Verified Candidate" and will appear on the ballot.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- If so, which terminology do we prefer? 1, 2, or 3? Should this be another section for discussion? LOL. Wikipageedittor099 20:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I don't think we are required to use the party's terminology for this. It may be wise for us to do so though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Approved Candidates is not even the correct word usage for this. (See the previous leadership election for an example.) The requirements designate individuals as such:
- I would agree with this approach. If we end up having more than 9 approved candidates, we can start exploring another alternative. Perhaps something similar to Next United Kingdom general election, which we could then revert back to the current format after the leadership election to show the top finishing candidates (like how 2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election only shows 1st and second place, and not anyone who was eliminated in earlier rounds.) RoyalObserver (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think we have enough polling to take that approach. Most of the polls we have didn't even have most of the candidates as options.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- What about just keeping the candidates who are polling above a certain amount (even above just 1%)? This is usually how things are done for municipal elections, albeit informally. That we can just keep out the fringe candidates. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
I guess one of the problems of using this "approved" criteria though is that the party does not seem to have released any confirmation that any candidates have been approved, as far as I can tell. So we are just relying on the tweets from the candidates themselves to verify that they have been approved.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Pierre Poilievre has been approved and should be listed. His name is on the party's website as being approved. Humberland (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- You're right, I'll add him. https://www.cpcleadership.ca/candidates/ Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I assume that after April 29 (the deadline to pay the last installments of the deposit/fee), we will limit the infobox to verified candidates only.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think that would be the reasonable thing to do. I think we should also removed the "declared" section if they aren't all approved by the 29th. I would even consider removing the declared section now, but it's not that big of a deal.
- Regardless, I agree that as of April 29th the infobox should be verified candidates only. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. The declared section should stay, but be renamed "withdrew or failed to qualify". It should also be paired down to information that is relevant and due in the circumstances. Part of the story of the leadership campaign is that some candidates fail to qualify. And also how the rules (ie $200,000 entry fee, and $100,000 deposit) affect the contest. We need to tell that part of the story too. Previous years have left in almost all information about candidates who withdraw/fail to qualify (see 2017 or 2020). I am not sure that level of detail is appropriate, but I don't think we should remove all mention of them either.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Darryl Kerrigan, we do need at least a short section on everyone who ran, but who failed to come up with the cash or otherwise were disqualified. It is an important part of the story. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, I understand and agree that we should rename it to that then, when the time comes. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 17:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Darryl Kerrigan, we do need at least a short section on everyone who ran, but who failed to come up with the cash or otherwise were disqualified. It is an important part of the story. - Ahunt (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree. The declared section should stay, but be renamed "withdrew or failed to qualify". It should also be paired down to information that is relevant and due in the circumstances. Part of the story of the leadership campaign is that some candidates fail to qualify. And also how the rules (ie $200,000 entry fee, and $100,000 deposit) affect the contest. We need to tell that part of the story too. Previous years have left in almost all information about candidates who withdraw/fail to qualify (see 2017 or 2020). I am not sure that level of detail is appropriate, but I don't think we should remove all mention of them either.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
Debates
A few sources have said that official debates are on May 11th and May 25th... is there a point in keeping the May 5th debate? A few sources have said they will attend, but it's not an official debate and I don't see the point in keeping it there if it's not an official debate. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, we should keep the unofficial debates also. In many elections both official (party sanctioned) and unofficial (independent) debates take place. If the May 5 debate is cancelled, we can remove it (or note that it was cancelled). Do you have any reason to think it was cancelled?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see any concerns listing debates that aren't organised by the party itself. That was done on both the 2017 and 2020 leadership pages. If a bunch of random groups start organising "debates" and only have 1 or 2 participants, perhaps we can have a broader conversation about criteria for the page. I don't foresee the Canada Strong and Free Network having that issue though. It's part of their annual conference which attracts CPC members from across the country. RoyalObserver (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Additional photos to consider, if appropriate
| Additional photo options |
|
Left Poilievre in 2014 (currently used); right in 2022. Left Aitchison in 2021 (currently in use); centre in 2021; right in 2022 (likely to be deleted shortly though). Top left Brown in 2019; top right in 2022; bottom left in 2022; bottom right in 2017 (currently in use). Left Charest in 2017 (currently in use); right in 2010 |
.png)
_1080p_(cropped).png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Here are some additional photo options we seem to have. If anyone thinks we should change any of these speak up. The photos on the left are the ones we are currently using. Other photos on the right are available, although it would seem the 2022 Aitchison photo is likely to be deleted soon. I do not see any better options for any of the others. Generally, I think we are aiming for high quality photos, that are as close to current as possible, and "head on" with the candidate looking at the camera (no side shots). Of course we have to work with what we have, so trade offs can be necessary.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Hey! I uploaded that Patrick Brown photo! :D Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- There's also this image for Charest, but it's from 2012 so quite a bit older. Talk:Jean Charest#/media/File:Jean Charest 27 août 2012.jpg Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Personal preferences: keep Poilievre as it is now (seems fine to me), I prefer the second Aitchison photo because while both of the youtube-derived photos are blurry, the currently used photo has poor lighting with most of his face either in shadow or very bright light. I would prefer the second Brown photo because it is a sharp rather than a blurry image, willing to overlook "more current" criteria as it is only 2 years older. Charest I think we should go with the more recent photo because the Stampede photo is just so old now. Lilactree201 (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Poilievre's current image, second Aitchison's image is better, I like the right pic for Brown but I feel it might be deleted (maybe) but if it's not copyvio then I support the right Brown image and I 100% support Charest's 2017 image because it's the most recent one. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm indifferent about the Poilievre photo. Keep Charest. Both Brown photos aren't the greatest, but the 2017 one is clearer. Re: Aitchison, I would keep the current photo (I admit, I screenshotted it). At least he's looking square into the image, not mid-speaking. Lighting and quality in both images are pretty bad tbh. RoyalObserver (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- FWIIW, I prefer the 2022 image of Poilievre. He looks much younger in the one we are currently using. For Aitchison, the image on the right is also best, but if that one is deleted (as it looks it will be), the two remaining image seem about the same quality with different drawbacks of each (shadows, blurriness, casual/formal attire etc). No real preference there. Neither of the images of Brown are great either, the one on the right seems slightly better because it is clearer though it does make him look younger than he is. For Charest, the more recent image is far superior because it is much more recent, and doesn't have the thematic stampede baggage. Anyway, those are my two cents.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @RoyalObserver: & @Darryl Kerrigan: There's discussion on Charest's talk page about the image on the infobox. There's some disagreements about the 2017 image and I'm not sure how that consensus can affect this article. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have commented there. I don't think that this page is required to follow the decision made there, or vice-versa. Different pages can use different photos, just like we use different photos of Trudeau for his main article, the 2015 election, 2021 election, etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for flagging, @TDKR Chicago 101. I agree with @Darryl Kerrigan, but I will also go and comment on that page's discussion. RoyalObserver (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I found some new photos of Patrick Brown that are better quality. I was wondering what we think of using these images for his photo in the infobox? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Patrick_Brown_2_Crop.jpg
- Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- The first one is horrible. He is squinting hard. The second is okay, not sure if it is better than the one we are using now. Seems more recent and higher resolution though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah the first one may not be the best, but I do prefer the second one to the current one we have now. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'd recommend we stay away from the screenshots from that video. The uploader didn't provide appropriate license information when they uploaded the screenshots. Good chance they get deleted. Also, I think the current photo looks better. He's squinting too much in that video. RoyalObserver (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah the first one may not be the best, but I do prefer the second one to the current one we have now. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- The first one is horrible. He is squinting hard. The second is okay, not sure if it is better than the one we are using now. Seems more recent and higher resolution though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for flagging, @TDKR Chicago 101. I agree with @Darryl Kerrigan, but I will also go and comment on that page's discussion. RoyalObserver (talk) 09:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, I have commented there. I don't think that this page is required to follow the decision made there, or vice-versa. Different pages can use different photos, just like we use different photos of Trudeau for his main article, the 2015 election, 2021 election, etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- @RoyalObserver: & @Darryl Kerrigan: There's discussion on Charest's talk page about the image on the infobox. There's some disagreements about the 2017 image and I'm not sure how that consensus can affect this article. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- FWIIW, I prefer the 2022 image of Poilievre. He looks much younger in the one we are currently using. For Aitchison, the image on the right is also best, but if that one is deleted (as it looks it will be), the two remaining image seem about the same quality with different drawbacks of each (shadows, blurriness, casual/formal attire etc). No real preference there. Neither of the images of Brown are great either, the one on the right seems slightly better because it is clearer though it does make him look younger than he is. For Charest, the more recent image is far superior because it is much more recent, and doesn't have the thematic stampede baggage. Anyway, those are my two cents.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
Putting forward another option for Brown - eyes on camera, (very) slight smile. Lilactree201 (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, great photo. I like this. Vouch. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. It is not a perfect photo, but it is much better than the one we are using now. Unfortunately, he is not looking directly "dead centre" but the lighting, resolution and sharpness is much better. We should change to that photo. It will likely need to be cropped though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Given the feedback already provided, I will update the infobox. RoyalObserver (talk) 09:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. It is not a perfect photo, but it is much better than the one we are using now. Unfortunately, he is not looking directly "dead centre" but the lighting, resolution and sharpness is much better. We should change to that photo. It will likely need to be cropped though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of cleaning up this section by adding a collapsed table at the top containing all of the photos users have added to this discussion. The photos were leaking into other discussion items and it was becoming quite messy to read the talk page. RoyalObserver (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
Pierre Poilievre photo
Hey is they’re any chance we can get an updated photo of Pierre. The current one seems a tad bit old. 47.210.9.18 (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- We can only use photos that are not copyright protected. This can significantly limit the options available. We have these two options, but so far in the discussion above we seem to have decided to keep the current photo. While I prefer the 2022 photo, my understanding of other editors comments is that they prefer the current photo because his face is clearer and better lit (though it is an older photo).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah. I'm indifferent between the 2, to be honest. I think on Canadian political pages we get a bit too hung up on photos (never really seen discussions as extensive as this page in recent history, to be honest).
- It would be nice if more politicians uploaded photos to Flickr, like Scheer used to. Alas, unless someone goes to one of his events with a good camera and releases it for us to use, I'm not sure if we will get a better quality, recent photo. RoyalObserver (talk) 11:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Just pointing out that the 2022 image, taken directly from his candidacy announcement on YouTube, has been nominated for deletion at Commons here as it appears the claimed license doesn't exist at the source video. I would suggest not using it for that reason as well. Surely one of the people among the crowds he's drawing that the con media wants to talk about has access to a camera and uses Wikipedia enough to provide us a better, more recent image that isn't a copyvio. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 11:53, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Approved deadline
We may want to keep the section as declared until the party confirms the final "approved" candidates. The executive director, Wayne Benson, seems to be saying they expect to receive applications today, and will not be confirming the final approved candidates until they have completed the review of all applications.[2] I note Skylerbuck says in an edit description that Joel Etienne has filed, though I haven't seen the reporting on that. I guess, we could change the section to "Application pending, withdrew or failed to qualify." Even that might be a bit premature, but we might be waiting for a while depending how long it takes to "review" these applications.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- That was the Tweet that I mentioned in the edit description by Brian Lilley of the Toronto Sun (https://twitter.com/brianlilley/status/1516508277160525824). He said:
- "Joel Etienne has officially filed to be a leadership candidate for the Conservative Party of Canada. Joel is a lawyer who comes from the social conservative wing of the party. He submitted paperwork and funds today. #cdnpoli #cpcldr"
- Skylerbuck (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Seems Joseph Bourgault has submitted his application too.[3]--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe we should just leave it as declared for now, unless the party verifies through the media or releases a list of people who submitted and are "pending approval." I'm not sure it's worth labelling something as "Application pending" without the party confirming it. Then, once they confirm everyone who is approved, we can create a "Failed to qualify" subsection. Eventually, once the timeline passes for verification, we can add the "Approved" candidates who were not verified to that section as well. If anybody withdraws voluntarily, we can add language regarding that. RoyalObserver (talk) 07:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I wonder if the addition of Bourgault means they are done, we have all the approved candidates we are going to have. Benson seemed to be saying they would be confirming final approved candidates when we next heard something. I don't see anything on their website or in reporting that clearly states this is the whole list though. If anyone knows, please speak up.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I feel that after that April deadline, only verified candidates should be on the infobox because (to my knowledge) they are the ones that will ultimately appear on the ballot. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think we are generally in agreement that after the April 29 deadline only verified candidates will appear in the infobox. What I am trying to sort out here is who is approved, and whether we can assume all remaining "declared" candidates will not become approved in the future. If so, we can change that section to "withdrew/failed to qualify". It is just hard to tell whether the fact that they have not yet been approved means they will not become approved, because it is unclear whether the party has processed all applications they received by the deadline.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I think we can wait until the April 29th deadline since it's four days away. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, that doesn't really solve the problem. Like with the 2020 article, we are trying to show which candidates dropped out or were disqualified, when and at what stage. The answer to this isn't just an issue for the infobox. Though, we could also have this same issue with the "verifieds". Brown supposedly applied to be verified at least a week ago. The party still hasn't verified him. Baber said a week ago he would be applying to be verified (and that he was close). Others may also apply. We might not be able to switch the infobox to verified candidates on April 29, if we don't know who they are at that point. I don't know if we have any reason to think they will release the final verified list on April 29.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any reason to think they won't release the final verified list on that date. If for some reason they don't, we should keep the box as is until the final list is released by the party. Regarding candidates who fail to qualify, it might be hard to assign a specific date (are specific dates even necessary anyways?). I'm not sure if the party will say "xyz candidates did not meet 'approved' eligibility" and "xyz candidates did not meet 'verified' eligibility." If the party doesn't distinguish where certain candidates did not qualify, one option would be to just create a "Did not qualify" subsection with a description along the lines of "Candidates who declared their candidacy but failed to meet the qualifications required to be on the ballot" and just leave it at that. If the information isn't publicly available about which stage they were not approved at, it's all we can do really. RoyalObserver (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- Specific dates are nice if available, but not required of course. It is mostly helpful to be able to show at what stage a candidate has dropped out. Helps show the effect of various rules (including signatures, fees/deposits), and tell the whole story of the leadership election. It also shows to some degree how serious each of the candidates were, which may be relevant to folks insofar as these candidates seek election in a future federal election, or future leadership race. As I have said elsewhere, I think we need may need to thin out some of the information to what is balance and due in the circumstances about candidates that have failed to qualify or withdrawn. I think when or at what stage folks drop out is also relevant to those considerations, presumably it appropriate to have more details about the campaigns of notable candidates (who have articles) and those that were more serious because they raised over $50,000, than those that didn't. More so if a candidate withdrew after becoming verified. Anyway, hopefully those details are available. If folks locate any WP:RS with this sort of information, speak up.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think there is any reason to think they won't release the final verified list on that date. If for some reason they don't, we should keep the box as is until the final list is released by the party. Regarding candidates who fail to qualify, it might be hard to assign a specific date (are specific dates even necessary anyways?). I'm not sure if the party will say "xyz candidates did not meet 'approved' eligibility" and "xyz candidates did not meet 'verified' eligibility." If the party doesn't distinguish where certain candidates did not qualify, one option would be to just create a "Did not qualify" subsection with a description along the lines of "Candidates who declared their candidacy but failed to meet the qualifications required to be on the ballot" and just leave it at that. If the information isn't publicly available about which stage they were not approved at, it's all we can do really. RoyalObserver (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, that doesn't really solve the problem. Like with the 2020 article, we are trying to show which candidates dropped out or were disqualified, when and at what stage. The answer to this isn't just an issue for the infobox. Though, we could also have this same issue with the "verifieds". Brown supposedly applied to be verified at least a week ago. The party still hasn't verified him. Baber said a week ago he would be applying to be verified (and that he was close). Others may also apply. We might not be able to switch the infobox to verified candidates on April 29, if we don't know who they are at that point. I don't know if we have any reason to think they will release the final verified list on April 29.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I mean, I think we can wait until the April 29th deadline since it's four days away. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think we are generally in agreement that after the April 29 deadline only verified candidates will appear in the infobox. What I am trying to sort out here is who is approved, and whether we can assume all remaining "declared" candidates will not become approved in the future. If so, we can change that section to "withdrew/failed to qualify". It is just hard to tell whether the fact that they have not yet been approved means they will not become approved, because it is unclear whether the party has processed all applications they received by the deadline.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Should infobox only include verified candidates?
Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- No, not until the deadline passes on April 29. Candidates still have time to raise the $300,000. We shouldn't be in a rush. Frankly, we kind of jumped the gun with the switch to "approved" as that deadline to become approved passes on April 19. But I expect there was not that much resistance to that change in part because the infobox couldn't even hold all of the "declared" candidates when we made the change. That is not a problem now. The approved candidates have all put down $50,000. They are "serious" candidates and some/most will likely raise the remaining funds in time to become verified (if they haven't already).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I would also recommend we wait. The only reason we shifted previously was due to the limits of the infobox. As of April 29, we can limit to whoever the party states is on the final ballot. RoyalObserver (talk) 07:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Wait until April 29. After that, I recommend having "verified" candidates (as of now Charest, Lewis and Poilievre) on the infobox because these will be the candidates that will appear on the ballot and get some voting results. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Agreed. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
It's looking like it's time to revisit this conversation. If 2 of the "Declared" candidates become "Approved," we will be over 9 in the infobox again. If this happens, I would suggest we condense the infobox to "Verified." RoyalObserver (talk) 07:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- I see no issue with doing that; I also see no issue with doing that now since the verification date is quickly approaching in just over a week, so we'll very soon see who the official candidates will be. I think that as long as we keep the "approved" candidates in the approved section, it shouldn't be an issue regarding not having them in the infobox. Personally, if I hadn't kept up with the leadership race that would be what I would look for -- the official candidates; so I think it doesn't hurt to have this change happen sooner than later. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 12:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- We should keep the approved candidates in the infobox until the April 29 deadline passes or we are forced to make a change because the party has approved more than nine candidates (and the infobox only fits nine). We shouldn’t assume that two more candidates will be approved. They might. They might not.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
So… now that we have 10 approved candidates and they can’t all fit in the infobox, I see no issue with us moving forward to putting only the Verified candidates in the infobox, and changing it as needed come the 29th. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)