Talk:2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election/Archive 2

Platforms
There is an ongoing issue developing with editor Coolaid1965. This individual is copy-and-pasting direct quotes from candidates' websites and putting them in the platform section. This is obviously in violation of various Wikipedia rules regarding matters such as plagiarism, neutral language etc. Additionally these statements do not offer much useful information about the candidates' platforms as they are just broad statements and slogans. I've been fixing these edits several times each week and adding edit summaries to explain why. However this has not solved the problem. How should we fix this ongoing problem? (This is the same individual who has repeatedly been uploading images that violate copyright laws.) Humberland (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The normal procedure is to leave him at least a couple of warnings on his talk page and attempt to discuss the matter and then if not successful, enlist the help of an admin, or take it to Contributor copyright investigations or WP:ANI. - Ahunt (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Related: I think the ballooning size of the section is an issue, too, particularly since so much of it is sourced directly to the candidate's site. It's not really necessary (nor our place) to be a mirror for the campaign by listing each and every thing someone has proposed; I feel like we should restrict it to a few choice policies (the broader the better), or restrict it to anything that's been reported by media outlets. — Kawnhr (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I was looking to add in platform positions from Erin O'Toole, it doesn't look like the other candidates have released platforms, all I could see was policies on their website. I have a lot of suggested changes since the candidate's platform was quite large. The edits won't look like the original one I had posted, I am new to this and still learning. Cheers! - CanadianCon2020 (talk) 21:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also it makes sense to add in the extra sections since I am assuming the other candidates will also release information on those same topics - CanadianCon2020 (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I recommend we work to pare it down and put it into neutral language. Part of the problem is language like "Ending the Discriminatory Blood Ban" is not neutral (or clear) but saying "Allowing homosexuals (or gay men) to donate blood" is.  Similar rewording could be done to many of the other bullets.  If it was, then I expect it will be easier to get achieve a consensus to include them.  Some might not be able to be reworded as a clear specific policy, if not they should not be included.  That might help pare it down a bit.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, my issue was whether or not homosexual could be seen as derogatory or offensive, granted I should've put it in here first but I learned that lesson. I think whats best is that I put the previous suggested edits in the talk page then we can parse it down as a group. CanadianCon2020 (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Im not sure how the voting thing works but I have edited the platform points down and am open to editing any others. Let me know how to proceed. Thanks.

- CanadianCon2020 (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem, just leave it for a day or two and other editors will chime in, comment and help out. - Ahunt (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we still need to pare down and summarize much of the platform items. Take the first item on agriculture, Ease transfer of family farms from parents to children.  What does this mean?  His actual platform says Working with community stakeholders in order to develop policies facilitating the transfer of family farms from parents to their children.  That is a promise to talk to some people and maybe do something.  That should not be included unless there are some actual specifics.  I think it would be fine to include something like "implement a food security strategy" though that is also pretty vague.  In the example, where he supports permitting gay men to give blood that is an actual thing.  Promising to look into something, maybe talk to people about, etc. doesn't deserve mention here.  We really need to pare this down to specific actual policies, otherwise it is not valuable for an encylopedic purpose (as opposed to a political one for which it was written).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Darryl, I have cut it down more to a point where to my understanding only relevant policy is included. Specifically around foreign policy, there is a bit of exortation in most strategic decisions so I kept it in since it is also relevant policy, let me know what you think. - CanadianCon2020 (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not have time to go through all of this line by line. My advice would be narrow things down to a specific policy that you can articulate.  If it is too general or vague, we should leave it out all together.  If it is something that fits in one of the other categories we already have that would be good too, as then it doesn't look like the other candidates have "no policy" that affects the economy or agriculture etc.  If they have one in another section, then maybe O'Toole's policy should be in that section (not a new one), or perhaps we should start a new section and add the other candidates policies that overlap with that section.  In an encyclopedia (which is in essence a summary of a topic) less is more.  Hope that helps.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

No worries, I got rid of the posts that i felt were not relevant to policy last night. I'll try and parce it down some more so that some categories are not left empty. I think that some were before the platform was released though but I'll do my best. -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, just made some final edits, if everyone is ok with the proposed table I will update the information tomorrow at noon est. Feel free to change the table or provide feedback/suggestions. Thank you all. - CanadianCon2020 (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

New Scandal
The O'Toole campaign has formally accused the Mackay campaign of stealing confidential campaign data and the O'Toole campaign has sent this complaint to the RCMP. The story is developing. How should we proceed? https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-otoole-campaign-asks-police-to-investigate-alleged https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/otoole-campaign-asks-police-to-investigate-mackays-campaign-for-allegedly-hacking-internal-data-videos/wcm/ff562f58-1f96-4df3-8220-4607652401ab/

- CanadianCon2020 (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


 * It has already been added. - Ahunt (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I just saw, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadianCon2020 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC) - CanadianCon2020 (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know there was a development regarding the data theft allegation according to the National Post and I have added it to the timeline. (link here) https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/otoole-campaign-believes-alleged-hack-originated-in-mps-office - CanadianCon2020 (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't have an issue in general with YouHunt's comment but it's starting to pull away from the purpose of mentioning the scandal, since two of erins campaign managers (walied and Fred) have denied the claim and have said that its not a refute of theft which is what the scandal is about. I'd suggest that if we do add it back that we also add the comments from Erin's campaign in order to maintain a WP:NPOV. Since this is developing I don't mind updates straight to the page but this one in particular is a little questionable and we should probably discuss it. What do others think? - CanadianCon2020 (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

A CBC News article said that Erin O'Toole had sent confidential information and login passwords to 300 MPs and their political staffers and Peter MacKay's campaign did not hack into the O'Toole campaign, as Erin O'Toole has suggested. Youhunt (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You're misreading the article, he was sending the password to a single call not the campaign's zoom vault. This does not prove that Peter's campaign did not hack into the O'Toole campaign, you are reading that into the situation and I have a strong feeling that bias is being included in this new point you are making. - CanadianCon2020 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Use of Leger Poll in Conservative Party Supporter section
This poll had an extremely small sample size, is it suitable for Wikipedia purposes? -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 02:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * In my view, the only two polls that are legitimate are the two that are of actual CPC members. I am very surprised that these are the only two published polls though.  As for this one in question, what exactly is a "supporter" of the CPC?  A supporter is not a dues paying member who has the right to vote.  Obviously this particular poll is also spotty due to the small sample size.  I don't see any point in having polls of "supporters" or the general public, and including candidates who are not even in the race such as Rona Ambrose.  Also, this is going to be a very close race.  Nobody is going to take a poll seriously that has O'Toole at 10% or less.142.122.138.119 (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)TS
 * I disagree. It is fine for us to include polls of supporters and Canadians at-large.  While only members can vote, who ever wins will be taking the party into a general election.  It is relevant what supporters and Canadians at large think of them.  Also, what other supporters and Canadians think can indirectly affect how members vote.  We regularly include these sorts of numbers, as long as we are clear about who was polled (members, supporters or Canadians) there is no problem including all polls conducted by well regarded agencies.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think all the polls should be included for the reasons that User:Darryl Kerrigan explains. It is not a problem, as long as the sample population polled is cleared explained. - Ahunt (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Remove Ben Mulroney from the Declined Section
I think that his inclusion in this section is ridiculous, and quite frankly it could be considered fake news. He never once said that he was running or even pondering it. The media ran a number of fake news stories speculating that he might run. Obviously this was never going to happen. I think it is absurd that his name shows up in the article as if it is to be taken seriously, and I might even say that his name is being included to embarrass the CPC and make the leadership contest seem like a sideshow. I'm not sure who included his name, but I wonder if there was a motive to that edit. Why not include Jessica Mulroney while we're at it just because she has the name Mulroney as well? 142.116.67.148 (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)TS
 * I agree he doesn't belong: if Ben isn't going to make any overtures into politics, then it doesn't matter how much breathless speculation he gets because of his name— he's ultimately not notable in this context. In fact, I had removed him some months prior, but apparently someone went and added him back recently. So I've gone and removed it again. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this whole section needs to go. At very best it is WP:NOTNEWS. Most of these people never even considered running. It is much closer to National Enquirer level, than encyclopedic content. Lots of people aren't running. So what? - Ahunt (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As someone who took a machete to the Decline section months ago, I agree that there is a tendency for these sections to become bloated and start listing people who aren't relevant. But done properly, I think they provide context to the race by making note of who either a) received heavy speculation and/or courting or b) made overtures about joining before ultimately backing off— these speak to sentiments within the party. Ambrose, Charest and Poilievre, at the very least, were all high-profile demurrals. Also, these sections are commonplace in leadership elections, so I'd be wary of making a unilateral change here. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Many more of these people need to be removed. Bernier is now the worst example of nonsense given that he is the leader of a completely different party and would obviously never be allowed to run by the CPC.  The only ones who really belong there are Charest, Guzzo, and Poilievre since they were actively exploring the leadership and pulled out at the very last moment.  Virtually all of the others on the list are just people who could have run because they ran previously or have been in the movement for a long time, but there's little to no evidence that any of them were seriously considering it.142.122.138.119 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)TS
 * I can support that, then. Let's remove all except Charest, Guzzo, and Poilievre. - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe there are others who did seriously consider running and dropped out at the last minute, so feel free to double check that, but just going off my own memory these are the only three that would fit this criteria.142.122.138.119 (talk) 21:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)TS
 * Looking through the list of references in this section, it looks like Williamson might also qualify since he implies in a direct personal statement that he was interested but decided against it.142.122.138.119 (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)TS
 * I would be fine with excising all the figures who were only the subject of initial speculation and listicles, and restricting it to to candidates who had dedicated articles about a run. From a quick look, that includes the above three, plus Baird, Clark, Fortier and Williamson. I will also, once again, make the argument for keeping Ambrose: while she did not make any public signals, she was pretty obviously courted by the party and racked up two endorsements— from heavyweights Kenney and Wall— before definitively ruling herself out, and her initial silence was apparently a reason that Clark stayed out— her demurral shaped the race in some fashion and is thus notable. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

New "History" section
Since the hacking allegations are another major development in this race, and it's currently being covered awkwardly in the timeline section, I went ahead and made a dedicated "History" section that I suggested a while back. I grant that it's a little barebones right now (just the background and lead-up to the race, plus the hacking allegations), but it's still something of a WIP as there's at least a couple other things I plan to cover in the section (namely the impact of the coronavirus), so please don't delete it as unnecessary at this point in time. Otherwise, direct all coverage of notable events and developments to this section. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Debates Table
Perhaps we should add a table of the debates. That might be a bit of an undertaking, but volunteers are welcome to take it on.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Haha it would be a bit of a hassle and would it be just the two main televised debates or include all the smaller ones like the GTA one from last night? If you think it will add something to the article we could consider it, what do others think? It would also be long.-CanadianCon2020 (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It would look something like this. Yes, it would be the big two, and could include other small debates if two or more of the candidates attend.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I misred your initial point, if its just saying who showed up, I think that's a great idea. -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 01:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have put in a simple table, it just shows the two main debates. If there are others that at least two candidates have attended they should also be added.  Or perhaps if any high profile ones come up that candidates refuse to attend.  Anyway, it is a start, but please improve it further.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Ill add the GTA debate that happened a couple of days ago, (erin, leslyn and derek were there) cheers! - CanadianCon2020 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Should we link debates
I'll add the debate links here, if someone wants to attach it to the main page I think it would be a welcome addition. French Debate debate starts at 36:22 English Debate debate starts at 2:04 Etobicoke-Lakeshore GTA Forum/Debate debate starts at 0:00 - CanadianCon2020 (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If the debate links are required as citations for the content of the article/table etc, then we can add them as a reference. Generally, we are not supposed to be promotional so we probably don't need to provide links unless we need to use the debates themselves as a primary source for content we are including in the article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Photo needed: Derek Sloan
Based on the notices above, it appears the photo of Derek Sloan is going to be erased. It would be helpful for the article to have one. If someone has an opportunity to get one, that would be helpful.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear someone would need a photo they them self took, or one that is otherwise in the Commons. Photos from news articles are likely copyrighted and will likely be quickly erased.  Same for his House of Commons photo, as Crown copyright is a thing in Canada.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this would be ok for a temporary placeholder (recognizing it is of lower quality than the other candidate photos, and can hopefully be replaced soon).Lilactree201 (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ugh, no that is a dreadful photo, worse than none at all. - Ahunt (talk) 22:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ahunt agreed that it is a dreadful photo, but would disagree that it is better then nothing at all given that he is considered a legitimate candidate for the post and deserves a photo. Additionally worth noting the cropped photo is used on both the french language article and his personal page. should no doubt be updated once a new one becomes available. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think it is worse than no photo at all. He is not only basically unidentifiable in that photo, but it reflects badly on Wikipedia to use such a poor photo. - Ahunt (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with AHunt. This photo with him looking down is really bad.  Having it next to the other candidates much more professional looking photos, is of little encyclopedic value and may be seen as WP:POV because it is unfaltering, he is looking down (perhaps signaling something), etc.  It would stand out next to the photos of the others in the infobox, and not in a good way.  Also having no photo there, makes it more likely that someone will take one at a campaign event and upload it here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Is it possible to screenshot one still of Sloan from the debate last night or the one tonight? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXpgP8Hibvg there's the link to the french debate^ -CanadianCon2020 (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately not, as those are all copyright images. Under Wikipedia guidence we can't make a claim of "fair use" or "fair dealing" (under the Canadian Copyright Act) for a person who is still alive and thus a freely-licensed image could still be taken. Basically we need a freely-licensed image either taken by someone else or for his cammpaign to release an image under a free licence. - Ahunt (talk) 12:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Potentially we could search Instagram for people who tagged him in photos; then if we saw a suitable one, ask their permission to use it on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallvizier (talk • contribs) 04:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Flickr allows free-licesing of images, so you might find one there that could be uploaded to commons. - Ahunt (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

I added a picture of Derek I took of him, can someone add it to the top 4 pics? I don't want to screw it up :) thanks... the image is titled - Derek Sloan Image. Thanks in advance!Danman2110 (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danman2110 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Done.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)