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

Age references which will soon be dated
The article currently refers to the ages of the candidates without any reference to when that information was accurate. This is not consistent with MOS:DATED, MOS:RELTIME, and WP:ASOF. This information will soon be out of date and should be handled accordingly, as prescribed by our guidelines. In fact, multiple candidates have had birthdays since the beginning of the race.

The addition of as of? templates was reverted by who characterized them as "spam". , I am wondering how you reconcile your position with our guidelines as well as why you deem their good-faith addition to have been "spam". 207.161.86.162 (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Context matters. I cannot imagine anyone reading a page titled 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election and not being able to work out that the ages listed for a candidate are how old they were during the contest, and not simply their age as of the current date; nor can I imagine someone reading this page in twenty years' time and going "Why does it say Glen Murray is 62 when he turned 82 today?" After all, this page is following what is done on other leadership contests, and I don't see the as of? template to each age on those pages. Furthermore, I went and checked, and most of the ages listed here are attested to in the sources cited for the mini-bios (Haddadd, Kuttner, Paul, West and Kritsonis), or attested to on their own pages (Murray and Tyrell), so it's not like this is coming out of nowhere. If a reliable source calls Haddad 32, then we're not wrong to say that, too. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As candidates had birthdays during the campaign period, how is the reader to know what date "during the contest" is being used? This could be easily solved by providing years of birth, if we feel that information is sufficiently relevant for it to be included. The fact that specific ages have been used in the past in other articles would seem to be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and possibly a violation of WP:CONLEVEL). Given the fact that we can't be sure what point in the campaign period is being used for the ages, how do you reconcile your position with the relevant guidelines (MOS:RELTIME/MOS:DATED) here, ? For context, MOS:RELTIME provides:
 * If a reliable source calls Haddad 32, then we're not wrong to say that, too. Am I correct to assume that the sources you are referring to are either (1) promotional, and thus not concerned with an encyclopedic level of precision, or (2) specifically dated? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't have to assume anything. Feel free to review and assess the sources yourself, as they are all in the article. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is that there essentially a reversion war going on between an author who had a history of contribution to this page (and who was maintaining readability), and an IP account who was making the page less clear and less readable 'while' adding work for others to do. It seemed spammy in nature, and the appropriate place the the back and forth is in the talk page, not the revisions of the page. TimeEngineer (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * an IP account. What is the relevance of that, in your view?
 * who was making the page less clear and less readable. My issue here is, in fact, the absence of clarity. What was less clear about my revision?
 * 'while' adding work for others to do. Perhaps you could clarify what the relevance of this is to your rationale for reversion.
 * It seemed spammy in nature. This is now the second time you have used this language. Per WP:SPAM, "Spam is the inappropriate addition of content to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia." Is this what you mean by this? If not, perhaps you could clarify. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, not spam, but vandalism. In this case, "edits intended to obstruct" the clear reading of the article, while adding nothing positive. The repeated reverts without conversation lead me to direct the debate to this talk page, which is where conflicts should be hashed out. Also, it is the merit of the editing that we are here to discuss, not any particular editor's conduct. | TimeEngineer (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a serious accusation you just made. WP:VANDALISM provides that,
 * Are you honestly suggesting that's what I am doing here, ?
 * And that doesn't really answer the other questions pertaining to your edits and to your assessment of my edits:
 * 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with, context matters. It is pretty standard for us to describe the candidates by their current age during the election, and then after the election has occured just change it to "[candidate] was a 57 year old...[occupation]...".  In an article about a historic election, shouldn't we always be talking about the ages at the time of the election ?  It would be rather silly for us to FDR or JFK as "deceased" politicians when referring to elections they ran in.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. The current language is just fine. | TimeEngineer (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How would you handle candidates who have a birthday during the election, ? David Merner, for example, had a birthday less than a month ago. 207.161.86.162 (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * When it becomes a historical election, we would use their age on election day (or the last day of voting). Anyway, that is what makes the most sense to me.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
 * How would the reader be able to infer that it is specific to the last day of the month-long voting period which concluded the year-long campaign? And how might you propose the situation be handled in the meantime if we are to remain in accordance with MOS:RELTIME? 207.161.86.162 (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Why are you making this harder than it needs to be? The electon is on October 3.  Do you really think any of the candidates have thier birthday in the next ten days... and even if one of them does, if we accidently say they are a year older or younger for the next ten days that is going to be a tragedy.  You are wasting good editors time with this discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Meryam Haddad reinstated
Meryam Haddad has been reinstated. Sowny (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Endorsement Standards
Should we have a standard for what constitutes a notable endorsement? If I were to endorse any of the candidates, I would hope it doesn't make it onto this page, but there are some people who I really wouldn't describe as having any local importance or movement notability here. I think that an endorsement should be included if someone (a) has been affiliated with the GPC in an official capacity, (b) has held elected office in Canada, (c) is an organization that has existed since Dec 2019 and has some relationship with the election issues, or (d) is a national or international name (like Rodger Waters or Greta Thumberg).

What do you think? TimeEngineer (talk) 12:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree; there are definitely a number of non-notable people included on this page, and while it's not too bad right now it could easily get worse. Your criteria makes sense to me, though I'd say affiliation with any of the Canadian green parties, provincial or municipal, is notable. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Kawnhr I'd agree with that! TimeEngineer (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC


 * On another (endorsement-related) note, does it still make sense to include Former MPs section in the endorsements as 1) none of the candidates have any such endorsements, and 2) GPC has no former MPs? Hyperkorea (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't really see the need for that. And I'd maybe remove "Federal Politicians" & "Former MPs" and change "Former Candidates" to "Former and Current Federal Candidates". TimeEngineer (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For pedantry's sake, the GPC does actually have two former MPs: Bruce Hyer and Blair Wilson. But I agree the endorsements template has numerous "dead areas" and have no issue with it being simplified/condensed to better suit the realities of the GPC. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Removed Endorsements
All information removed is archived below in case of discussion:

First set of removals done by myself. I tried to be as evenhanded as possible, and stick to the criteria. TimeEngineer (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think if they have a Wikipedia article, they're notable. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It's more of a question of whether they are notable as endorsements. An Egyptian Nobel prize winner in chemistry would have a long wiki article, but to relevance to the GPC leadership election. The elected Sheriff of Cooke county would also have an article, and wouldn't have any relevance TimeEngineer (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I would restore the Sid Ryan and Helen Caldicott endorsements. Ryan is an important figure in the Canadian labour movement, and an endorsement from him is thus notable even if he doesn't have any prior affiliation to green politics (I'd argue it's actually somewhat more notable because of that, since it represents an ability to appeal outside the party's traditional support). Caldicott is an internationally-known activist, so even if there isn't a direct connection to green politics, I think she'd qualify as a notable "celebrity endorsement" in the same way Roger Waters does. I think a similar case could be made for Margie Gillis too (she's at least well-known enough to have a Wikipedia page) but I feel less strongly about that one. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with and their reasoning concerning Ryan and Caldicott.  The other removals seem appropriate.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Concur with the above. Ryan is a bit wishy-washy politically but his endorsement is notable anyway, maybe moreso because of it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I recognize the consensus, and will add those back in. Thanks folks. <- TimeEngineer (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


 * My apologies for adding endorsements without checking this page first. Hyperkorea (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)