Talk:2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election/Archive 1

Julie Tremblay-Cloutier
Julie Tremblay-Cloutier Dropped out of the race mid february, citing the entry fee as a barrier. Facebook Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlpvolt (talk • contribs) 01:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Endorsements and how to source them
So, as the contest moves forward, we're going to see more endorsements being made. Because people who want to add endorsements here are likely to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies, I think it's a good idea to include a short list of options for how to do this. This article contains material about living people, which means it's subject to WP:BLP rules. All claims about living people *must* be reliably sourced. That doesn't just include the candidates themselves, it also includes all the people who endorse them. In order to add an endorsement, you need to have a source for it.

Acceptable source options:

1. A self-published statement by the endorser, like a Facebook post, blog post, or tweet. Self-published sources are acceptable for statements about the person themselves. See WP:ABOUTSELF

2. A third-party reliable source, like a news article from a respected publication. See WP:RS

3. A video recording *showing* the person saying they endorse the candidate. This is effectively another instance of WP:ABOUTSELF, but WP:VIDEOREF also applies.

Sources that aren't acceptable:

1. The candidate's website. (Unless it includes a video of the endorser saying they endorse the candidate)

2. The candidate's social media. (Same caveat)

3. Third party unreliable sources of any kind (A Facebook post from your friend Carrie in Toronto who says she heard the endorsement)

Other editors, please feel free to edit the bolded section of this comment directly if I've missed anything. Safrolic (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * With every other leadership election we take the list of endorsements on a candidate's site as authoritative. I don't see the justification for changing that now. 107.179.157.132 (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * And your bolded statement above is your view. It's not an actual quote from wikipedia policy which does not say a candidate's website is an unacceptable source for candidate endorsements. 107.179.157.132 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:Endorsements is even stricter than this criteria, actually; I went looser because it's so hard to get Greens covered by the media. Normally 1 and 3 wouldn't even be acceptable sources. you closed the RfC on endorsements a few months ago, would you be willing to weigh in here? Safrolic (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy to. The RfC imposes a three part test for individuals:
 * The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one
 * This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources
 * Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym.


 * For organizations only 1 & 3 must apply - 2 may be decided by LOCALCONSENSUS. So for any organization endorsing a green party candidate you could agree to what kind of sources are OK. #2 on the list of "acceptable sources" is a requirement, however, for individuals. Hope that helps. As this RfC is only a few months old, was held on a community wide forum and appropriately advertised I would suggest its consensus still holds (meaning consensus has not changed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox "Riding" field
It looks like a sitting MP is not going to run for the leadership. Obviously, May has resigned and will not be running again. The two other sitting Green MPs, Jenica Atwin and Paul Manly, have also declined. As has rumoured potential candidate, and current independent, Jody Wilson-Raybould. So unless someone crosses the floor, there are not going to be sitting MPs running for the leadership. If that is the case, does it help to have a "riding field" in the infobox that says "N/A" for all of the candidates? Could we convert this to place of residence or riding in which they last ran?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed. I added the EFNs about the current candidates' previous runs (similar to how election infoboxes use "ran in…" or "running in…" for leaders who don't have seats), but since Murray declared his intentions I'm realizing how awkward, complex or cumbersome it could get for any candidate who doesn't cleanly fit into that mould and has experience elsewhere. I think we should replace it with a "province of residence" field, or just cut it entirely… upon investigation, it's not actually a common field in leadership elections. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm a lot less active these days, but I would agree that we don't really need the field. MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of giving some sense of where they are from, and think the footnotes are helpful. I just wonder if there is a way we could enter the information directly (ie. not have it all in notes).  With some of the candidates further info might still have to be in notes.  Murray comes to mind, given he has significant roots in both Toronto and Winnipeg.  Anyway, I note 2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election uses the field.  Perhaps, we leave it as is.  Perhaps we remove it all together.  Or perhaps, we change it to province of residence or just "residence" or "last ran in" something like that...--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , maybe we can put it in the candidates subsection instead of the infobox? That way we have the info and the infobox problem is no more. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Tight" election rules
, yes I very much get that the entrance fee was part of the election rules. I am just not sure if it is neutral for us to be saying that the rules were too "tight" or "strict" or "excessive" or anything like that. That is why I made those edits. I figured we should just note what they actually said, not say in our voice that the rules were too tight. That is like an opinion, man. I don't think we want to take a position on the rules ourselves. If you have another way to word that, happy to hear it. It seemed that the primary thing both of them noted was the fee and inability or unwillingness to raise that much money.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I understand your reasoning behind that, without a doubt. I'd like to cite Bryan Brulotte and Aron Seal's election withdrawal notes for the 2020 Conservative Party leadership election. For the record, I didn't add in the note of their withdrawal; that was added ages ago by someone else. They both withdrew because of the tight election rules set by the party, in turn meaning the $300k entrance fee. The same can be said for Rudy Husny and Rick Peterson's reasons for withdrawal as well, both also from the 2020 Conservative Party leadership election. I was mostly using that page's version of "I can't raise that much money" as a reference for when I added the "tight election rules" as the reason for withdrawal to Constantine Kritsonis and Julie Tremblay-Cloutier. If this isn't enough reasoning behind it, I'm happy to have those edits undone. I just believe it sounded more professional in its own sense.--Fulserish (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think those notes at 2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election should be changed too. The rules are what the rules are (or were). I think it is fine for use to summarize what these candidates have said about the rules, but whether something is too tight or strict is takes a position on the rules and whether they are fair or should be changed.  I don't think we can do that.  We can spell out what the rules are and why the candidates say they withdrew, but we have to let readers make up their own mind about whether a $50,000 entrance fee is too high, there aren't enough debates, the contest is too short etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand that we should be allowing the readers to determine whether or not they believe that the information which is presented is within the right or the wrong when it comes to the contest, but when it comes to the withdrawal, at least for the two candidates for the election race that is here, I believe that it is a proper summation from the reasons from their withdrawal that the rules were indeed something on the lines of 'tight'. I'd like to refer to Julie Tremblay-Cloutier's post in regards to her withdrawal, which is in French. A quick translation of her first paragraph states the following: "It's the end of the journey... Unfortunately, because of the requirements set out by the Party and my inexperience when it comes to fundraising, I am withdrawing my candidacy for the leadership." Although she does note her inexperience in her fundraising skills, she also signifies the requirements set out by the party, or in other words, the rules. Upon a second thought for things, I do believe that Mr. Kritsonis should indeed specify his note for withdrawal as it being due to the high entrance fee at the time of his withdrawal, so I will back down on that edit, but I believe Mme. Tremblay-Cloutier's note should remain the same. --Fulserish (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, she makes a vague reference to the rules (and needing to raise $10,000 a month). My point that it is HER opinion. I will try to identify the nuance of her statement better. We can quote her if necessary. We just cannot represent her views as our views.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, I'd like to apologize for my misunderstanding of your point. If it seemed like I was beating around the bush in regards to this issue, I apologize. After some thinking, I understand exactly what you mean about the issue at hand. And, just for the record in case, it wasn't clear, I'm not affiliated with any of the candidates. Hell, I'm not even a member or affiliate of the party. Just someone trying to make things more clear and easier for people to read about politics. --Fulserish (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I made some changes there. Feel free to try to word it better.  Sorry, I got a bit hot under the collar for a second there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries! We all have our moments of minor frustration, especially during the current time of which we're writing this (COVID-19 pandemic). Just happy to have this resolved! --Fulserish (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Home Province
Darryl Kerrigan, I don't think that the official residency of a presidential candidate is directly comparable with a home province in an internal election. Home province leaves more room for interpretation. For example, I refer to my home town as the city where I was born, not the city where I currently reside. Also, the official residency of a presidential candidate is where they are registered to vote, whereas in this leadership contest the voting is online or by mail and the winner is determined by national popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davebagler (talk • contribs) 14:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Darryl Kerrigan suggested the change from "riding", but I was the one who added the specific phrase "home province" to the page. I agree it's not a great turn of phrase, but I used it because it was more compact than something like "province of residence" (which would make the cell three lines high, and look extremely ugly) and because it's used on 2004 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election. I'd readily change it but I'm not sure to what. Simply "province" or "residence"? — Kawnhr (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Judy N. Green photo in the infobox
Could someone resize this? It is throwing off the rest of the infobox formatting.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, thanks to for doing this.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy to help! — Kawnhr (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

What does being an "approved" candidate mean? Details of Rules
We do not seem to have anything in the article about what being "approved" means, or what the rules are deposits required etc. That would be helpful and tell people why they should care (or whether they should care) that Amita Kuttner, David Merner, and Annamie Paul have been approved but Judy N. Green, Dimitri Lascaris, Glen Murray, Dylan Perceval-Maxwell and Alex Tyrrell have not. It would be good to know what the rules are so readers can form their own conclusions about whether they can or will become "approved" etc. It seems the actual rules are here, but at first glance this is not clear to me. Perhaps there are other sources out there which provide this information in a more digestible manner.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Removing the infobox (for the time being)
Yesterday, Courtney Howard joined the race, and was subsequently verified by the party, bringing the number of candidates to 10. This presents us with a bit of a problem, because the infobox supports only up to nine candidates at a time. Since the infobox can no longer said to be helpful at this time, we ought to remove it until either someone drops out and brings the number back to nine, or until the race concludes and we can put the results of the final ballot in the box instead. This is in-line with what was done 2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election once the number of candidates exceeded the infobox's capacity; for reference, here's the discussion on it (also see the RFC in the section below), and here's what that page looked like prior to the results coming in. I don't imagine this to be controversial here, but I wanted to explain my reasoning before taking action. — Kawnhr (talk)


 * I planned only to comment out the infobox, but the other hidden comments within it messed with that, so I removed it entirely. For quick reference when we need it again, here it is:


 * Glad to see it is back. Just commenting so this can archive.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Candidate-amita-kuttner.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Annamie Paul in Toronto Regent Park.jpg

Infobox
So I added all the names of the candidates to the infobox but with Courtney Howard being candidate #10, she's not displaying on the infobox. How do we fix that? Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing we can do about that, because the template only supports up to nine candidates. As such, the infobox has been removed until a time when when either 1) someone drops out and there's only nine (or fewer) candidates to consider or 2) the leadership is decided, and we use the results of the final ballot. — Kawnhr (talk) 04:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. I Was prepared to remove them myself but someone else beat me to it. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Candidates who failed to qualify, withdrew before qualifying or declined to run
Should the section related to these candidates be pared down? As these candidates did not qualify is it WP:DUE to mention much more than their name, and perhaps any objections they noted when withdrawing? Do we need to note their age, occupation, residence, where they own property, include photos etc? Also do we need to note those that declined to run anymore? This was encyclopedic and helpful before we knew who the final candidates were going to be. Is it still helpful? I note a similar discussion is occurring on the talk page for the Conservative race.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the section is appropriate to other articles such as 2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election. Me-123567-Me (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, as noted there is a discussion at the 2020 Conservative Race article about removing the declined section. We will see how that goes.  That said, we seem to be doing this post election for other similar articles, so you seem to right (see 2013 Liberal, 2017 Conservative and 2017 NDP).  Unless, we are going to change it there too.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I debated putting in a separate debates section from the timeline but again the CPC article didn't have a separate section. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I proposed one be added there as was done for 2017 Conservative and 2017 NDP. I don't think we have to wait until someone creates one there to have one here.  Perhaps the templates used for the 2017 articles is better, perhaps not.  The form I used is based on the tables from Canadian leaders' debates.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, I have now added a debate table on the 2020 Conservative page. That one is based on the one used on the 2017 page.  I have changed the one here to be similar to those ones.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it can safely be pared down by combining the "Background" and "Notes" sections, given how limited they are. I would also suggest using four equal signs to make a smaller (and non-TOC section) headline. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Tried something different, formatting the section in the same way as the "Declined" section. Definitely much smaller now, and doesn't take up extra space in the TOC. But it's definitely a big break, so feel free to restore the old version if you think it goes too far. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Debates
I had intended the Place column to refer to the location the debate took place at not where it was broadcast. I think it is pretty clear that the debate hosted by TVO was probably broadcast on TVO, but the candidates all zoomed in from their home office etc locations unless I am mistaken, hence online/virtual. Not sure if there is a better way to say that. The Conservative debates by contrast both happened in Toronto (in empty studios). The idea is if there was future in person debates we would put the actual place where they occurred.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I moved the references from the top to their own column in the debates table.
 * 2) TVO debate wasn't just online/virtual, it was also broadcast on TVOntario so added that to reflect the broadcast. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Candidate Social Media Links
Should we put more social media (twitter, fb, insta) links onto candidates' sections? TimeEngineer (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If we need them as sources, then Yes. Otherwise, No.  We are not promotional.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Amita Kuttner Image needs to be cropped
Assuming this image is indeed in the commons, could someone crop it for the infobox? Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad this is done.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Townhalls?
I am not sure how we should include these in the article. Are these townhalls actually debates? Also see the GPC website for details. Should we included them in the debate section as debates, or start a new section for "townhalls"? Or not include them at all? It seems one has received coverage as a result of racial slurs being hurled by an anonymous attendee.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not sure The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles calling it "a primary debate" helps resolve that question.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I've heard them referred to as debates, but I don't know. Does the moderator give the candidates the opportunity for a rebuttal? If so then they're definitely debates. TimeEngineer (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not sure if they get "rebutals". Some of the sub-pages say they have "moderators" and they all seem to welcome people to submit questions.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The candidates have rebuttals, so I think that they can be considered small debates. TimeEngineer (talk) 00:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, I have added them, but I do not have details about the candidates' attendance at all of the townhalls. If someone locates info about attendance, please add it, or provide the link here and I will.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Do we really need infoboxes for the candidates?
, further to your comment in this edit that we cannot selectively decide which candidates are worthy of having full infoboxes. I was not suggesting anything of the sort. I was suggesting that we not have candidate infoboxes at all. None for ANY of the candidates. Our article for the conservative leadership doesn't have them (only photos), not sure why candidate infoboxes exist here. This is not a biography, so I tend to think personal infoboxes are inappropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * , we don't necessarily need to base this page off of the CPC leadership page. The two parties have different philosophies of how their leadership races should proceed and the Wiki pages will reflect that.


 * That said, we're in agreement on having consistency either way (i.e. with or without the infoboxes). My concern is how the information in the infoboxes will be incorporated into the Wiki page if we are to remove them. Is the idea to just keep the photographs and move the information over to "Background"? --MPen92 (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

for
 * I think that its valuable to have them. Compared to the Conservative page, all of those candidates have their own wikipedia pages with infoboxes. Here, most candidates don't, and this page is used as the main page for many of the candidates (the AfD discussion of Dylan Perceval-Maxwell talks about this. The infoboxes give quick access to condensed information on the candidates, as is their objective per WP:Infobox. I would say that there should be consistency in which information is included in each one, though. TimeEngineer (talk) 01:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, we don't have to follow what is done on the CPC leadership page, but does any other leadership campaign have infoboxes for multiple candidates? I don't think this is a regular practice.  It also wasn't done during the last GPC leadership.  What we seem to be doing is creating mini-WP:PSEUDO biographies for otherwise non-notable people.  The conservative candidates have articles because they meet GNG.  We should not be creating biographies within this article.  If any of the GPC candidates without an article are notable, make an article for them, don't create a biography here.  Any summary of the candidates we provide here should be to further the topic of the article: the leadership contest.  I don't see why that can't be done with prose, a photograph and link to their website.  Our job is not to promote them (or write biographies about them), but to write an article about the campaign.  To that end, I think listing education, spouse, children, signature, place of birth, date of birth, awards etc in an infobox is unnecessary, inappropriate and off topic.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree in regards to not having education, date of birth, and awards included in the article somewhere since that information is listen on campaign pages, including the one for the CPC. Spouse and children may be superfluous, but if we're trying to make an article about the campaign that includes information about the backgrounds of the candidates. Which, again, was done on the CPC page. We should think of these articles more as summaries than biographies, honestly, since we're not trying to recount their entire histories but instead information that is relevant to the election. That much can be done with prose, sure. That's not being contested here. The question is whether that's the most effective way to relay the information. Personally, I think infoboxes (if they were more consistent in content, as pointed out) can help get this same information across concisely without inflating the page. However, I will defer to the majority opinion on the matter. MPen92 (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean. The CPC article does not include their DOBs. It includes ages at the time they ran in prose (but not their birthdates). Without the infobox this article already includes the GPC candidates educations and brief summaries of who they are as candidates.  What I take issue with is giving unnecessary prominence to certain information, inconsistency between the candidates, including irrelevant information, unnecessary duplicating information in multiple places, presenting this like it is bio and cluttering the article.  If it says their education in a one paragraph summary an infobox really isn't required to restate it. All that does is clutter the article, give prominence to education over other factors and invite other editors to treat these sections as bios (as they have been doing).  Once you have an infobox folks are going to add details of birthdays, place of birth, family, children, signature etc... that is how we got to this point where we have little pseudo bios.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * These should be removed. Not only have I never seen infoboxes like this on any other leadership race, but the infoboxes here are a misunderstanding of what infoboxes are for: they are not meant as primers, but a summarization of information already in an article. Fields like "education" and "spouse" are irrelevant to this article, while the non-standard fields— Howard and Kuttner have "board member of", Merner's touts his awards, Haddad has "movement" (huh?)— are completely inappropriate. If these are relevant to the candidate's CV or platform, it should be worked into the prose; otherwise, it should be left out entirely. Like Darryl Kerrigan says, we shouldn't be using this page as a backdoor for mini-bios for people who don't merit a full page. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Since we're unlikely to come to a consensus, and the majority (excluding myself in this case) is opposed to having them, I have transferred over anything from the infoboxes that was relevant to the prose section and just kept candidate names, images, and websites. Things like signatures, family, and "movements" have been removed entirely (we agree on their irrelevance) while things like education and affiliations are summarized briefly in the prose. I imagine there will be further discussion about what information should be in the prose, but the matter of infoboxes is hopefully settled. MPen92 (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Controversies section
This section focuses on controversies during the leadership contest. While the content currently there is relevant and should be addressed in some way in the article, I am not sure this is the right place to do it. Generally, we are supposed to avoid controversy sections and instead deal with such material in a the prose of a regular section where it can be balanced with other content. At this point, there is not very much in the way of a section including prose. Perhaps we need a "campaign" or similar section, perhaps between the current timeline and debates sections. Information about the campaign rules could also be included there, perhaps including the bit about members over 14 being able to vote (which is currently in the lede).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Maybe there could be collapsible "highlight" boxes in the timeline to add prose, but keep it from cluttering? TimeEngineer (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think we are supposed to have collapsed or hidden prose either (although I can't seem to find our policy on that at the moment). I think we just need to start a background, campaign, and/or rules section to deal with this sort of content and details about the rules of the contest, who can vote etc.  Most of the controversy has been about the rules (fundraising, entrance fee, May helping equity candidates raise money etc.) so it should naturally enough fit there.  The bit about Perceval-Maxwell during the TVO debate, could probably go in that section, if we added some prose about the debates generally (or what happened in them).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi everyone. Just a heads up that I am going to remove the second paragraph of the Controversies section as it references a two-year-old article that has nothing to do with this campaign. (Fulserish, désolé d'avoir effacé les fruits de ton travail!) Hyperkorea (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Common policies
I see that some candidates have guaranteed livable income in their policies section and some do not, however (as far as I am aware) they all support the idea, including the somewhat right-leaning Andrew West. Same goes for the electoral reform. Do you think it would make sense to create a section citing all policies they have in common? Hyperkorea (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Fundraising details
The Q1 fundraising details from Elections Canada came out a while ago. It might be appropriate to start a section like this one from the article on the Conservative race. If so, of course we would need to keep an eye and update it when EC releases more numbers.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like this is what we are dealing with for now:


 * 1) Annamie Paul - $11,310
 * 2) David Merner - $7,020
 * 3) Amita Kuttner - $3,040
 * 4) Glen Murray - $0 ??? (He announced after Q1)
 * 5) Judy Green - $1,960
 * I suspect Q2 and perhaps Q3 will be released before the vote on October 4.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should wait to include fundraising details until the Q2 numbers come out. That should include information on all of the current candidates.  The Q2 numbers could take on real significance if some of the campaigns are still well short of the $30,000 they will need.  The deadline for the last $20,000 is September 1.  Presumably any candidate who cannot raise the funds would not be permitted to proceed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Supposedly, the Q2 data has been released but I can't seem to find an official source.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I found it on the Elections Canada Website, and can give you the raw data in a spreadsheet if you like TimeEngineer (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, now we have WP:RS so I think we are good. Probably time to add this. I will try to put together a table when I have a moment.  I don't think we should treat this like they are on the conservative page.  I think they have done it wrong there, and have told them so (by bolding "winning" fundraisers).  Money is relevant here because it can help win campaigns, but it is just one factor.  It is even more relevant here in so far as candidates are under $30,000 (because that is the entrance fee to be on the ballot) but after that it loses a lot of its significance.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Fundraising Graph/Colours for Graphs/Maps
Thanks for putting this graph together. It looks great. I wonder if we should provide the monthly numbers in a table so people can see the actual numbers. We should also probably fix the colours one way or the other so they are consistent. Now the graph and infobox colours clash. It would be good to sort that out before maps are prepared using colours.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * My pleasure . I'm swamped with work, so I'll have to leave that to you. Do we even need a map? Its an instant runoff voting system, and its online, so its not like ridings are going to turn one colour or another TimeEngineer (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if we will need a map or not. I kind of assumed, since these articles tend to have them.  The Conservative leadership does which was also Instant Runoff, but they do a weighted point system based on riding level results.  I am actually not sure if the GPC does something like that as well or whether it is just a straight polling of the entire membership.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe it is a total membership vote, since a strong plurality of ridings don't have riding associations. I'd support removing the map. TimeEngineer (talk) 23:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You may be right. Neither the 2017 NDP leadership, nor the 2013 Liberal one seem to have maps.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna remove the map, and we can add it back in after the votes are counted if there is any benefit in doing so. TimeEngineer (talk) 15:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The graph will likely need to be corrected in light of this. Apparently, the party messed up the fundraising amounts for Glen Murray.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Total Fundraised Graphic
Total Fundraised Chart does not fit with datas