Talk:2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election/Archive 1

Bad Archive
I converted this page from a redirect to the last leadership election talk page (2020) to a new talk page for the likely 2022 contest. For some reason the archives seem to link to the old article, not sure why. Can someone fix this?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, that was a redirect issue too. Think I have fixed it.  Time will tell.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Section on Interim Leadership Election?
Should we really have an entire section about this? Articles about previous contests note the interim leader who was chosen but not like it is an election on its own right. This seems a bit undue to me. The article is about the leadership election not the secret process of electing an interim leader. We don't have articles/entire sections about secret elections of the Speaker of the House for example, at least not that I am aware of. We don't know how many votes were cast for each of the "candidates", seems odd to put this much focus on that selection process that lasted less than a day and was secret.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, I boldly summarized, reduced and cut a lot of this information into a Background section.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good move. - Ahunt (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The prefix 'Former', isn't required
I haven't checked the other past/future federal & provincial/territorial leadership election articles. But just want to make note. We don't require the usage of the prefix "Former", as we're already showing past service of office. GoodDay (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Good point. I have updated the Baird & Wilks endorsements for PP to reflect formatting from 2020: Name (MP for Riding, Year-Year). RoyalObserver (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Reminder - MP is a postnominal
Hi all. I just made a couple of edits, one of which included the formatting of an MP's name. Remember, when writing out the name of an MP, MPP, MLA, MNA, etc., these titles are postnominals. They do not replace Mr., Mrs., Ms., Mme. M., etc. Therefore, it should be written as (Mr.) John Doe, MP, rather than MP Jane Doe. Slight caveat. I believe it is okay to describe someone, like Conservative MP Jane Doe. But if you are using it as a title, like Pierre Poilievre's name was previously listed under the 2022 timeline (MP Pierre Poilievre), it would be more appropriate to write it as Pierre Poilievre, MP or just Pierre Poilievre. RoyalObserver (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Endorsements
A reminder: the guidelines are specified at Political endorsements. Many of the recent additions do not meet the requirements. Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)


 * @Paul Erik I get the impression that a lot of people editing the article are new editors. Some of them will check the talk page, but not all of them. I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 06:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: Gail Shea's endorsement of Pierre Poilievre. I haven't seen any external reference other than what Pierre Poilievre tweeted out. I'm not sure if she should be included until she herself confirms in some way, shape or form. Then again, it is doubtful that a candidate would forge an endorsement like that... Thoughts? RoyalObserver (talk) 10:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I think we need a better source than that to include her. - Ahunt (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Someone added Gail, but there is still no confirmation or credible source other than Poilievre's own tweet about her support. I have removed her from his list of endorsements. If she comes out herself or there is another credible source confirming her endorsement, we can re-add. RoyalObserver (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Did a quick google search. Appears that the Montreal Gazette is reporting her as a co-chair of his campaign. Will re-add given this development. RoyalObserver (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a question about listing Jenni Byrne's endorsement of Poilievre. She's working on the campaign. What is the past practice for listing employees as endorsements? RoyalObserver (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * More to the point, she is working on his campaign. It is not notable that campaign workers endorse the work they are doing. I'll remove that. - Ahunt (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the protocol for listing shadow cabinet positions and previous positions? There doesn't seem to be consistency in the current endorsement list (eg. Michael Barrett's includes his critic portfolio, Marilyn Gladu includes her past critic portfolio's and her leadership for the interim leadership, but Melissa Lantsman doesn't list her shadow cabinet portfolio and Tim Uppal's doesn't include his past cabinet positions). I think we should be consistent in formatting. 2020, for the most part, showed only current positions (although Leona Alleslev's endorsement of Peter McKay shows previous positions). My recommendation would be that we list riding and current shadow cabinet portfolio, if applicable. If not, we could get into a situation where we list tons of titles (for example, if we list every position John Baird ever held during his tenure as an MP and MPP...). Would be interested to hear the thoughts of other editors. RoyalObserver (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have said it before, and will say it again: the endorsement boxes are obnoxious. This is not encyclopedic content. It is promotional. Having endorsement boxes for one candidate take up a quarter of the article is WP:UNDUE. These boxes should be collapsed, removed, or moved to a separate article called "Candidate endorsements for the next Conservative Party of Canada leadership election". Endorsements are the least important information in the article, but a casual reader will think they are among the most important pieces of information due to the prominence and space we devote to them. This is a problem we have been ignoring for a long time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not really related to the question I was asking, but I do get your point. I think that is a longer conversation though. Most North American election pages that I have viewed have their endorsements listed in a similar format. Re: The question I posed, if there is no further feedback I will clean up the endorsements to match 2020 and be consistent. Endorsement boxes aren't CVs, and Marilyn Gladu being an interim leadership candidate isn't extremely relevant in my opinion.RoyalObserver (talk) 08:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 3 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Next Conservative Party of Canada leadership election → 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election – Date was set. It will be held in 2022. RoyalObserver (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, no need for a move request this is very clearly uncontroversial. Mannysoloway (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support, not controversial. WanukeX (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support now that the date has been announced this is non-controversial. We need to remember to move the talk page and archives (including telling the bot where to archive new content).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, clearly appropriate. Lilactree201 (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support since date has been announced. - Ahunt (talk) 01:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, not much to add what has been mentioned above. KoolKid147 (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, but unfortunately there is already a redirected page with that title.  Ak-eater06  (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think we can close this discussion as a WP:CONSENSUS to move it to 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election. - Ahunt (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Ahunt (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Candidate Colours
I have changed Lewis' colour to the green we used for the 2020 election. I would suggest we avoid using shades of blue for any of the candidates as blue is the party's colour.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I pulled the colours from their websites, which I think is the best approach to this, as it's not arbitrary. If we want to avoid blue, Poilievre uses a lot of black on his website, while Lewis uses a bit of red. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Black (Poilievre) and Red (Lewis) would be fine as far as I am concerned. Pulling colours from their campaign sites is not a bad approach. It is less arbitrary, but it does sometime lead to problems as most candidates in these sort of leadership elections try to use party colours.  As a result, it can be hard to use "their" colours sometimes and also have those colours be distinctive on maps.  I don't have a problem trying red and black, if that seems to be the best approach though.  It would be nice if Lewis' colour was the same as for our article on the 2020 contest, but trade offs are going to be required somewhere obviously.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree with pulling campaign colours from their actual campaigns. I'm also not opposed to using blue if that is a candidates colour, as it has been done in the past (Erin O'Toole in 2020, Belinda Stronach and Tony Clement in 2004, Patrick Brown in Ontario). Candidates tend to use different shades (again, Stronach & Clement), so it should be distinguishable. Alternatively, they normally have accent colours so if we see numerous candidates use blue, we can pull an accent from their website (again, red for Lewis). RoyalObserver (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, use campaign websites first to see which of the respective candidate's colours should be. I just added Baber into the infobox and based on his website, his colour is a dark navy blue as that is the colour used on his name for his campaign website. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mind avoiding blue during the campaign, though I think when it comes to making the maps at the end, we can give blue to the winner or perhaps the more right leaning of the top two candidates.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should change Baber's current color since it's almost similar to Poilievre's and it might be difficult to distinguish for readers who have a hard time processing colors. I think the navy blue would be better suited. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * He seems to have a gray accent in his RB logo. It would stand out more from Poilievre's. RoyalObserver (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone changed it to dark grey, but he uses a lighter grey on his website. I changed it back. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone changed it to yellow, I changed it back. It does seem that Baber is close to Poilievre, but we're going to have to decide if it's too close and go off precedent. I think that light grey is far enough. PoliceClarity (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@, I am not sure about the other contest/candidates you mentioned, but the Erin O'Toole/2020 blue colour selection occurred after the election was over. While it was ongoing, he was brown. As Earl Andrew alluded to, different considerations including map contrast may apply after the contest, and WP:POV concerns of us picking a favourite and giving them the party colour fall away once there is a winner.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Remove colours altogether. We can assign them after the results are concluded. We have no way of determining priority over colours as we are using secondary colours. There will certainly be too much overlap if we continue down this route. YumGullible (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, the colours seem a bit too arbitrary. Goldenstar2660 (talk) 00:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If we decide to "remove" colours until we have need for a map or chart that needs them, I suggest we just switch all the colours to conservative blue. Looks better in the infobox.  That said, I expect we will have need for colours prior to the voting results being known.  In the 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election article, tables were created before the vote to show publicly available fundraising data. I don't think we should assume there will be no table, map or graph that will need colours until the vote results are known.  In this article, we already saw an endorsement map, added and then removed. I am not sure that including that is encyclopedic content, but if we do include such a map, we would need colours.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree with YumGullible (talk). Like the reference that Darryl made, I anticipate that we will need colorus for tables created prior to the vote results. I don't see any issues with using campaign colours (other than blue), then changing the winner to blue. In all honesty, this seems like an extremely unnecessary conversation, especially given the formatting of leadership campaigns for the party since 2004, and the use of colours on those pages for all parties. The last leadership campaign to use all blue would have been 2003 Progressive Conservative leadership election. I don't think including the campaign colours hurts the article in anyway, and there will be a use for them once we start building tables, maps and graphs.RoyalObserver (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Making them all the same shade of Conservative blue would be ridiculous. Decoration for the sake of decoration. We know they're all Conservative. I also disagree that selecting their campaign colours from their websites is arbitrary. They're literally the colours used by the candidates themselves. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Candidate Bids?
Two candidates have seemed to indicate on their websites that they are running. I'm not adding it, because I'm not sure if it counts as official yet. But here they are:

Joel Etienne: https://joeletienne.ca/

Leona Allesev: https://www.leonaalleslev.ca/nominate

Skylerbuck (talk) 05:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you're right not to add it yet. Etienne hasn't put much on his social media about it, and it could be perceived as made soley for his own riding, as he is a candidate in York Centre. Alleslev technically hasn't been nominated, but I suspect we'll have to put her in soon. PoliceClarity (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Different page for endorsements
As Ak-eater06 had noted that there was no consensus on the changes that I had made by creating a separate page to move the endorsements to and creating a very toned-down section on the main page, I'm bringing this topic into the talk page to open a discussion about it. Sure, in the past we haven't moved the endorsements to a separate page, but I think there's always the opportunity to allow for change. Plus, surely I'm not the only one who believes that it's more important to focus on the candidates' policies on the main page as opposed to endorsements. It also allows for the pages to be more reader-friendly and not have to scroll as much. A good example of this being used is in the page for the 1993 Progressive Conservative leadership election, which, although it does list the endorsements on the main page, isn't as gruelling to scroll through as the current way we list them. I acknowledge that there is a way to hide the endorsements, but it would be much easier to simply list them in a separate page, and keep a table updated on the main one with an overall endorsement count. Fulserish (talk) 06:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, as I said above. Endorsement boxes are obnoxious. This is not encyclopedic content. It is promotional. Having endorsement boxes for one candidate take up a quarter of the article is WP:UNDUE. These boxes should be moved to a separate article (or deleted altogether). Endorsements are the least important information in the article, but casual readers are left to think they are among the most important pieces of information due to the prominence and space we devote to them. This is a problem we have been ignoring for a long time. Please move the content out of this article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to this suggestion for this page alone. Most recent Canadian leadership election pages include endorsements on the main page, as do the provincial leadership races from a quick glance. If we were to reformat it to be something like the UK 2019 Conservative Party leadership election where it redirects to another article, we should do it for all. I don't think this is a decision that should be made solely on this page, and one that should be discussed more broadly at the Wikipedia Canadian politics level. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. In the meantime, I would suggest we follow precedent and move this discussion to that project page. RoyalObserver (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out a small flaw in your statement here, if I may. The argument to reformat all of them is a fair one, but you had used the UK's 2019 Conservative Party leadership election as your example. The issue is, that isn't necessarily the best example of it, as the 2016 Conservative Party leadership election was formatted in a very similar way to how we do it now, just moving all the endorsements to their own section as opposed to their own page. I'm not opposed to having a further discussion on this, though I do think it's a good idea to attempt to implement the change now. There's also already some precedent on the Canadian politics level, as mentioned before with the 1993 Progressive Conservative leadership election. Fulserish (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, there does not seem to be a project wide consensus whether endorsements should be treated in the main page, or spun off. I think we absolutely can make a decision here, as was done at the other pages mentioned.  This article should be encyclopedic content. It should provide general knowledge about the leadership election. Its purpose is not to promote particular candidates or their endorsements. If highly interested readers want to dive into the specifics of the 51 endorsements PP has (and what ridings the endorsers represent) those highly-interested readers can do so, but there is no good reason to make the average casual reader sift through that wall of text. The proposal Fulserish has made is reasonable, our current approach is not.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I continue to disagree. This is just a back and forth at this point, let's let other editors weigh in. RoyalObserver (talk) 08:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * On second thought, this might be worth an WP:RFC... RoyalObserver (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to start a RFC if you wish. Of course, the onus is on those wanting to include this information in the article to show a consensus to do so, not the other way around.  From where I am standing, it looks like there is no consensus to include this sprawling list of names here.  It is already done in a separate article.  That article sets the information out better, and keeps this article more accessible and readable.  There is no reason to have the information in two places. I have boldly removed them.  If we keep having them in multiple places, the lists will increasingly diverge over time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Announcement pending?
Do we really need an "announcement pending" section? If you have announced you will be announcing in a couple days, haven't you already announced? It is also public that he has made a deal with Charest that they will each tell their supporters to rank the other as their second choice. It isn't a secret he is a candidate. It is publicly reported at this point. I think we can just treat him as a proper candidate now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to this decision. I have seen before in American electoral races that they have announcement pending sections until the announcement is formally made, which only then do they add the actual candidate to the list of declared candidates. That was my rationale in adding the Announcement pending section. Fulserish (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was not meaning to be critical. Mainly it is just kind of silly to announce that you are going to announce you are going to run. But that is on Patrick Brown, not any of the editors here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Platform section and table
I question the value of regurgitating the candidates policy "talking points" in a long section here. It was better as part of the candidates bios, but I think we should convert it to prose, not bullets pulled or copy and pasted from their websites. We had a similar discussion about this last time before deciding to remove the platform section entirely. I think there is value in having a short paragraph about each of the candidates more prominent policies (as part of their bios), but it is helpful if this is narrowed for us by what WP:RS think is important (not our own personal views). When we have attempted to make our decisions about what is important from their platforms (without reference to media coverage) it has led us down a path of WP:POV. Decisions to include everything from a candidates' platforms has resulted in an unenclopedic wall of text. I believe that is why we cut it entirely last time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, pose summary, not an unwieldy table. - Ahunt (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that talking points should not be regurgitated, the policies need to be specific. However, a table allows for the policy information to be easier to read and compare. It also reduces the possibility of bias because we do not use our subjective judgement to determine what is prominent. The table is standard practice for general elections, so it can be used here too. Humberland (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * From past experience policy summaries often resort to using broad/unclear terms like "fiscal conservative" and "social conservative". The views in the leadership are very broad and cannot be grouped under labels like these. Humberland (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The table creates a lot of problems. Beyond being a wall of text, it is also problematic for us as Wikipedia to decide what issues are important or try to classify them into rows. Is that promise about carbon capture an economic promise, an environmental issue, energy, industry, Indigenous?  Classification of this kind is not a useful exercise for us, and as I pointed out, last time we abandoned it all together for that (and other reasons).  Further, using a table makes it look like other candidates do not have policies on some issues.  This is avoided if we use prose. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The categories can be fixed or eliminated if needed, but this does not require the elimination of the entire table. Choosing categories in a table presents far less concerns about bias than would occur from hand-picking a few policies to list in a paragraph. Secondly, if a candidate does not have any policies listed in the table this does in fact mean they do not (yet) have a policy announced on this. I hope this answers your questions. Humberland (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This platform data is not tabular in nature and therefore should not be in a table, per WP:WHENTABLE. In a table format this content loses its context. It should be understood that this is election for leadership of an individual political party. That is it. The winner will have zero ability to "eliminate COVID-19 lockdowns" or "approve...pipelines". Though, the winner does have the ability to "oppose re-establishing the long-gun registry". That is a valid plank. maclean (talk) 05:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have taken a stab at converting this information to prose in the Candidate's bios section. It is probably a bit rough, please edit and improve.  I have also removed the table, now that this information is in the bio section.  There were a couple bullets for Poilievre that I did not move over, including rather unremarkable statements about somehow supporting First Nations, and also supporting Ukraine (which I assume all candidates support).  If anyone has strong feelings about those "policies" should be included, please add them under his bio.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I like Darryl's prose-ifying of the table. Only one candidate is framing his campaign as if he is forming a government (hint: the one who opened with "I'm running for Prime Minister"). Each campaign will pursue their own marketing strategy to reach party members and that need not involve government policy alternatives. maclean (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2022 (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) 09:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Scott Aitchison (cropped).jpg

Joseph Bourgault?
Should we be including this fellow? It seems pretty poorly sourced or based on semi-original research at this point. The only sources we have are a self published youtube clip, and one tweet from a "journalist", who works for think tank True North Centre for Public Policy. Google doesn't turn up any WP:RS yet. But perhaps better sources will come in time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should at least remove him from the infobox, at least for the simple reason that I don't know what colour to use for him, as he doesn't have a professional looking website.-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Judging by the hat and tie he was wearing in the video, I think red is his colour. I am a bit uncomfortable with us including him though, when despite announcing four days ago no mainstream media sources appear to even acknowledge he is running. He could easily be mentioned by CBC, Global, CTV in recent stories about Charest, Brown launching, but they appear to have decided against including him (they seem to only recognise Baber, Brown, Charest, Lewis and Poilievre).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's the right decision; unless recognized news sources mention his candidacy, then we should keep him out of the article. ~// This is a contribution by The Edit King 👑 \\~ 18:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

CTV has confirmed his candidacy at https://beta.ctvnews.ca/national/politics/2022/3/9/1_5811839.html so I think we should add him ~// This is a contribution by The Edit King 👑 \\~ 11:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the deletion, he is cited by Global News https://toronto.citynews.ca/2022/03/15/whos-in-whos-out-and-who-else-could-join-the-conservative-party-leadership-race/ as well, so meets WP:GNG, clearly cannot be ignored, regardless of his fringe politics. - Ahunt (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, even though he stands no chance at winning it's only fair to show his candidacy on the page now that he's been recognized by other sources. ~// This is a contribution by The Edit King 👑 \\~ 13:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Having just read his website, I predict he will end up being a fairly big story, mostly for how the party handles him. - Ahunt (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Now that there is coverage in WP:RS we should include him. I don’t think we should assign him that red colour though. It is far too close to Lewis' colour.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm also not sure if we should use the blue that is currently his colour, given the conversation in candidate colours section on this page. RoyalObserver (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the colours are a bit of a mess and will need to be reconsidered. I agree that we should avoid blue.  Also the green colours for Brown and Aitchison are too close to eachother.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think either Brown or Aitchison's colors should change to a new one TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Expressed Interest Section
The expressed interest section keeps getting deleted, but I propose that we keep it for now. The deadline isn't here yet, so it doesn't hurt keeping it. Also, there are sources saying that Allesev and Etienne are considering runs, and they even have campaign websites for a potential run, they just haven't officially anncounced it on social media yet. If they do not, we can simply move them to the declined section after the deadline. I see nothing wrong with keeping them on the page. What does everyone else think? Skylerbuck (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly that's why I re-added it again because the deadline is a month away meaning these individuals have a month to declare their candidacy or not. An election article isn't just for "they're in the race" or "not" because an election article also contains individuals mulling entering a race. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with 's original removal. The race is well underway, so it is cook or walk away from the pot time.  Not sure if there is much/any encyclopedic value in including them if they have not declared by now.  That said, presumably we will just remove them for good on April 19 if they haven't declared and applied by then. I don't see a big down side to waiting either.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Bobby Singh
Since there is an edit war over this, let's discuss it in the talk page. I believe Bobby Singh should be included, because: 1. He was reported on in 2020 in the leadership race, and will likely have news outlets mentioning him on Monday.

2. He mentioned it on social media and launched a campaign website.

Skylerbuck (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Add it only if/when covered in reliable sources (ie, that aren't self-published on Twitter/YouTube) per WP:CRYSTAL. Simple. - "Ghost of  Dan Gurney"  22:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, he shouldn't be added until reliable sources say he's entered the race. I believe both if not one of the individuals covered in the "expressed interest" section have a campaign website but no reliable sources indicating they have entered the race so that's why they are in this section. I would 100% support adding Singh into the expressed interest section though. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with this too. So far he hasn't been covered by a single source. I myself can also mention my "campaign" on social media and launch a campaign website and claim I'm running for leader and demand I be placed in the infobox ;) There are so many candidates now it seems like every Tom, Dick, and Harry is running for CPC leadership.  Ak-eater06  (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

At least three users in this discussion disagree that this candidate should be added with the current (self-published) sourcing. Why have you gone and added him anyway without seeking a consensus here first? - "Ghost of  Dan Gurney"  22:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Because this standard has not been applied in past Canadian leadership elections. Canada does not have sufficient local media saturation to provide for this standard. Also, because I didn't read the Talk page before adding the recently announced candidate. If you disagree, remove it. Or just stop being ridiculous with these arbitrary new standards that were not held to in 2020 nor in the Green races.
 * Wikipedia standards saying a literal primary source is insufficient are also absurd, why is a journalist writing about his announcement a better source than his literal announcement video. Pretending he isn't running for a few more days in the hopes that CBC will mention him in the eighth paragraph is mind numbingly wasteful of everyone's time. Also, since none of the hurdles have come up yet we don't get to decide who is a serious candidate. Editors claimed we shouldn't consider Lewis in 2020 then boom 3rd place TrentBrownlee (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I had re-added him previously because it was pretty clear he is running. I expect he will drop out in the next month when signatures and fees become due, but that is irrelevant to whether he is included. We have access to his website, youtube campaign video and an announcement from his twitter account.  We know he ran as a Conservative candidate for Parliament in 2019.  We also know he ran but withdrew/failed to qualify in the 2020 CPC leadership race.  This isn't a guy coming out of left field.  I was concerned about Joseph Bourgault (as noted above) because all we had was a youtube announcement from a guy that didn't seem to be connected to politics or the party. Frankly, I wondered if that could have been a joke. I don't have those concerns about Singh because of the primary sources noted, and the CBC and other souce about his prior runs.  The same pseudo-journalist at True North Centre for Public Policy has now noted on Twitter that Singh is running (admittedly not an RS).  So has this CPC fan page and twitter account covering the contest (also not RS). We can certainly wait for additional souces, as others are demanding. I am sure there will be some passing metion of the fellow soon, it is pretty clear that he is running. Guess there isn't a real deadline for us to get it right.  What is a few more days of us having it wrong.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See, here is the difficulty for us to make these lists with only journalistic sources. Wikipedia RS rules are incredibly politically biased and rule out most partisan right outlets (aka the only outlets who would be hyper-focused on an internal leadership race in a timely fashion). The rules being used were designed for the US climate where primaries are major news events...this just isn't that world.
 * We need a serious re-think of the rules. Also, they need to be applied more consistently. See the 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election including endorsement levels which were deleted by editors for the 2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election. For example, most Canadian activists or past candidates wouldn't qualify...we understand that it would be dumb to delete all Canadian "prominent individuals" who don't have Wikipedia pages for the Greens but lose that logic for CPC races.
 * As someone trying to create as useful a resource as possible it bothers me how little Wikipedia editing communities seem to be interested in introspection on their very clear rules problems and especially biases (both Amerocentric and partisan) within them. TrentBrownlee (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Now Rebel News has reported on his run also. Alright, I have WP:Boldly added him again. If someone wants to WP:BRD, and debate whether Rebel is a RS in these circumstances, please do.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Leona Alleslev
I don't think Leona Alleslev has announced yet. She will likely be announcing soon, but hasn't yet as far as I can tell. I don't see anything on Google or on her Twitter. But I am not going to remove her if someone has a source.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Based solely on the fact that she liked this Tweet (https://twitter.com/NatalieDMonty/status/1507005545814798351?s=20&t=D4F0qGuE5lowgGtK7gDSNw) I think that's valid enough for it to confirm that she's going to be running. Wikipageedittor099  16:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Could someone crop the photo of Alleslev?
The size is different so it won't work well in the infobox, and is larger than the others on the endorsement page, which editors have complained about. Thanks--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Done TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Ousted, not resigned.
It should be clarified in the secondary infobox, that O'Toole was removed as leader. He didn't resign. The Reform Act for the political parties doesn't require the outgoing leader to resign. GoodDay (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * He resigned BECAUSE he was voted out as leader, so yes, he did resign because he had to. ~// This is a contribution by The Edit King 👑 \\~ 15:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that he didn't resign, he was ousted.

The bottom line is that this leadership election was not triggered by O'Toole. It was triggered by his caucus colleagues who wanted a new leader. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 04:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Angus Reid football player vs Pollster
Hi I just though it might be pertinent to let people know that they link for Angus Reid goes to a retired CFL football player, rather than the well known Canadian Pollster Angus Reid.

I don't know how to fix it, but if someone could fix that it would be much appreciated. Hdbbfj (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Fixed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Crop the 2017 Patrick Brown Image?
We seem to have agreed to use the 2017 image of Brown (on the right). It is now being used in the article. Could someone crop this so it will work for the infobox (when needed) and for the photo array on the endorsements page?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2022 (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) 05:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Patrick brown (cropped).jpg

Approved, Authorized and Verified?
I am not sure it is a great idea for us to be making distinctions between the candidates based on their tweets alone. Appearing on this website seems to indicate that a candidate's application has been approved. That seems a fair enough distinction. But we seem to be relying wholly on self published tweets to identify the dates candidates reached each stage, and where they are in the process beyond approval. Furthermore, none of the deadlines have even passed yet. It seems problematic for a number of reasons to for example just take Lewis' word that she has been Verified already and will appear on the ballot, and then place her above all other candidates based on that claim.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue doing it when there is a reliable source. I agree that we shouldn't rely on the tweets of candidates alone, just like we try not to rely on their tweets for their endorsements. In Leslyn Lewis' case, the National Post independently verified. "The National Post has independently confirmed that she is indeed the first campaign to have completed all the required steps set out by the party." I've added this as a reference as well. RoyalObserver (talk) 10:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ditto -- I think there's no issue with making a verified section and putting the candidates in it. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 12:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, the national post reporting was not included when I made the comment about the sole source that she was "verified" being her tweet. That is no longer an issue for her with that new sourcing which has independently verified the information. The problem will likely arise again though, when the next candidate becomes "verified".  As noted, the dates that meet these milestones also seems to be completely reliant assertions by the candidates themselves.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)