Talk:Maxime Bernier/Archive 1

Touted
He was touted by many (notably columnist Andrew Coyne) as a possible minister of Finance when Harper was making the cabinet. He could be a leader of the conservative party of canada in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.173.224.242 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 17 November 2006
 * Not anymore.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Reference
It should be noted that reduced/smaller government tends to be a conservative political position and is actually one adopted by the Conservative Party of Canada (of which Mr. Bernier is a member). A reference to Libertarianism (especially an unsourced reference) in this circumstance is quite irrelevant and even misleading. I will remove this line unless: A) one finds a reference to cite B) one can provide a valid reason for the line to stay. Rabrams20 (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * See the article "Lightweight MP appointed in a bid for Quebec votes," by Les Whittington, Toronto Star, May 27, page A4 which says "In fact, his right-wing libertarian beliefs made him ill-suited to run an industry department that has always tried to bolster business." Reggie Perrin (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The line, "In May 2008, he was also criticized for a promise to send a C-17 aircraft transporting several helicopters to Burma which was hit by Cyclone Nargis that killed tens of thousands of people in early May." makes it seem like he was criticized for sending aid. My understanding is that he committed to sending aid that we could not send without the help of another country. Generally, I would say he was criticized because he planned poorly. Writerz (talk)



Scandal
The scandal related to his departure, and the facts regarding Couillard should be expanded on. 70.55.85.131 (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do wiki links for Julie Couillard point here?
Julie Couillard wiki link points here. Why?

Given Julie Couillard's widespread attention including involvement with Bernier, Bernard Cote and alleged involvement with Kevlar Corp and Federal contracts as well as alleged influence peddling perhaps she is deserving of here own page? DSatYVR (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If she keeps making the news, she might need her own page. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 05:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Did Bernier actually say conspiracy etc.?
and anyone else who cares: I removed this statement: "He [Bernier] has made several public comments denying humans are responsible for climate change and has also suggested a global conspiracy among scientists exists to exaggerate warnings about fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions." I replaced it with: "He has suggested that there are uncertainties or exaggerations about anthropogenic climate change and its significance." There were three citations, which I have left in, including one saying that Bernier says there's a conspiracy. But were those among his actual words? All three citations ultimately point to the same thing: a letter that Bernier wrote to La Presse on Wednesday February 24 2010. So I found it and added a citation to it. He says nothing there about conspiracies etc. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I belive that their is a source by the Winnipeg free press where Bernier said climate change was caused by men.

BLP noticeboard
Section = 109 BLP articles labelled "Climate Change Deniers" all at once. This article was placed in a "climate change deniers" category. After discussion on [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive232#109_BLP_articles_labelled_.22Climate_Change_Deniers.22_all_at_once WP:BLPN] and [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_16#Category:Climate_Change_deniers WP:CFD] the category was deleted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Stereotype father
You insisted that these words must appear: "The intention was to bring his father back into federal politics, however, he declined. His father has been described by him as a conventional Quebecois politician, however, Bernier says that he tries to avoid the stereotype." But the source you like does not say that Bernier was trying to bring his father back into federal politics, says "more a conventional politician" rather than "a conventional Quebecois politician", and says nothing about a "stereotype" -- which is why I said it's poorly sourced. Please discuss. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 01:20, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You've done more editing without replying. I'll remove the sentences. If anyone else agrees or disagrees, please say so here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Update: NotSeenHere has put "stereotype" father etc. in again. I'm perturbed but not willing to do back-and-forth reverting or trips to WP:ANI; I give up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Bernier/Couillard
Can someone please rephrase the comments from Couillard's rag so that cohere with the rest of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.201.151 (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems like, potentially, some of his political operatives are re-writing his page. There is no reference to the scandal, and each policy position is outlined in almost bullet point fashion (which is unlike other Canadian politicians). http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/two-boobs-and-a-scandal/article25579670/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.236.66 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you are looking for a more indepth page, I suggest looking at My Story (Julie Couillard book) since it composed within Bernier page for bytes limits

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maxime Bernier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304045200/http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand%2Fcanlim&document=index&lang=e to http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand%2Fcanlim&document=index&lang=e

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Maxime Bernier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maximebernier.com/en/biographie/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://vigile.quebec/L-Albertain-du-Quebec
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111106053214/http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/13/maxime-bernier-ottawa-should-quit-intruding-on-provincial-jurisdiction/ to http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/10/13/maxime-bernier-ottawa-should-quit-intruding-on-provincial-jurisdiction/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151116155534/http://www.maximebernier.com/en/2010/02/press-review-my-opinion-piece-on-climate-change/ to http://www.maximebernier.com/en/2010/02/press-review-my-opinion-piece-on-climate-change/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

NPOV
This article sounds very pro-Bernier and not at all objective. Can someone run a Checkuser to see if any of the people editing this article are in Ottawa or, in particular, work on Parliament Hill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.27.60 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Going to break down the comments down into two sections:

1. Your application for applying a NPOV is very broad and your "pro-Bernier and not at all objective" statements can be refuted with the documents, the 1995 vote flip flop and dismissal from the shadow cabinet. A NPOV would work if they were left off.

2. Checkuser only works if have specific users to look at. You never specified it. This suggest you are argument is not based on evidence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.92.232.41 (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Bernier Tweet Controversy
Hey sisters, so looks like we have broad consensus in several reliable sources on Canadian media that Maxime Bernier's latest tweets have constituted to a controversy, and have sparked a national debate on racism, diversity, and inclusion. To uphold the neutral point of view, and wiki standards, a subsection has been added to elaborate upon the widespread response, and consequences of Bernier's tweets, which has been linked to several acts of hate-motivated vandalism, etc. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Ottawa11, sis, so I see you removed mention of the vandalism at that park mentioned in Bernier's tweets because there is no conclusive evidence that his tweet caused that, but I think in the way it was presented, which clearly mentioned that local community leaders suggested that his tweets *may* have caused the vandalism, was valid, and important information to include, as it is not completely implausible his criticism of "extreme multiculturalism" by singling out the Pakistani-Canadian community and one city, somehow is linked to the vandalism against the sign of the mark, which is the only visible association at that park with any symbol of Pakistani people, thereby suggesting it had something to do with the name of the park, something Bernier was very critical of, and was widely reported on. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Of course they need to be mentioned, but I think it's important to make sure that the tweets (and reactions to them) aren't given undue weight in the article. It could be a case of putting too much focus on recent events. Having multiple paragraphs about reactions of other politicians might be a bit much? At any rate, it's probably worth discussing here instead of continuing the current edit war. I'd strongly suggest that both edit-warring users stop reverting on the main page and hash out their differences here. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 20:47, 19 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, I did hesitate at first as I thought undue weight was given but for several reasons, and I did wait several days to see if ::there would adequate weight given on the wiki page, I think the weight given was justified.
 * Reasons such as:
 * 1. Maxime Bernier's claims about multiculturalism and diversity are not new, and represent a pattern on his part, he has been in Twitter spats that have generated controversy, much less significant though, over his "denial" of systemic racism, and now that there is a national controversy over his commentary, it is important to give weight to it.
 * 2. The due weight is given in the elaboration on this controversy in the section, which, from a neutral view, adequately explains the incident, his defense, and by sharing the responses of other prominent politicians, presents the nuance and complexity in the situation (e.g., Pakistani Senator, another member of the conservative party, criticizes him for singling out Pakistani names which also demonstrates the conflict created within the CPC over this controversy).
 * 3. There are reports that the Liberals are using this message in a fundraising campaign, and advertising that used Beniers's tweets yielded 75% more in donations, which does indicate that this is of significant importance in Canadian politics, and is being used against the Conservatives, as was made evident in the press conference Trudeau denounced the tweets in, and this has also again caused rifts in the CPC.
 * 4. Continued, and prolonged coverage was given to the incident and the political response by national and international media.
 * Sincerely, PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

That's what I a mentioning, Dawn Bard. I agree with your reaction of other politicians and it would be better to state that He was condemned by these politicians instead of their reactions because its undue weight in the article. Also, should we call it a controversy and give its own section like an Electoral record.

About the park, PresidentCoriolanus it still a ongoing event and we do not know if the perpetrator, who has not been caught has mention by Bernier as the reasoning tweets. Both articles fail to mention. That's why it's not in the subjection.
 * , your edits suggest you have an extraordinary interest in this subject, but that doesn't mean you should fill up this page with every single one of the subject's opinions. That they may be verified doesn't necessarily mean they are worth including; this is one of the things you need to understand about Wikipedia as a new user. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am not the one who wrote the information. Drmies Also I need more spefifc for information to be considered trival. explaining it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawa11 (talk • contribs)

Drmies, Drmies whatever you call yourself darling I think it is best to include that elaboration on his views, especially the views on diversity, which have sparked controversy and so I think that controversy carries enough weight to warrant a subsection at the least, also the edited personal views section tells way to little about Bernier's political views, and honestly if it is going be that small, should be refined by the person who cuts all the relevant information to be a little more precise and straight to the point. Thanks sister PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose filling this biography with undue emphasis on a recent Twitterversy and cherry-picked opinions. This must be a neutral biography of this person's whole life, not an anti-Bernier campaign brochure built on recentism. Also, I have no idea where this "sisters" form of address is coming from, but it will not deter me from speaking up for compliance with policies and guidelines. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, Firstly, it was not undue emphasis built on rececentism, it was a very valid controversy that came after his CPC leadership campaign and marked him being in the national spotlight again. If Bernier does in the future have so many more prominent incidents to include, sure, but for now, this is an accurate amount of weight to be put on a major national controversy, from over a week ago, which is very much not recent, and I think by now the wiki page should have it included. None of the opinions were cherrypicked but rather represented a neutral balanced perspective on the response to the commentary which has sparked much division. This obvs is not about being an anti-Bernier campaign, but about a balanced perspective on the individual's accomplishments, controversial or not. Sisters os just a polite way to refer to people, so please Cullen remain neutral in terms of how much weight is appropriate, rather than favoring a certain political biased viewpoint, and please follow the guidelines for etiquette too, I am being reasonable. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You are 100% wrong about my personal politics,, which are the opposite of Bernier's. My purpose here is to maintain the neutral point of view and oppose recentism. That, and nothing more. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Cullen328, okay then why am I being accused of not helping give it a neutral viewpoint. I simply elaborated upon a major incident that several other users agreed deserved more attention, and then another individual came and removed the entire Personal Views section without consensus for no reason which thereby rendered said elaboration useless. PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have accused you of nothing, . I am here only to defend Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Experienced editors take neutrality very serious here. If you want to restore the deleted content, you need to gain consensus for it. Are a bunch of tweets really a "major incident" in the grand scheme of things? To me, it looks like a relatively minor incident in the context of the life story of a 56 year old who has seved in Parliament for over 12 years. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've protected the article for the time being. Consensus needs to be reached through discussion here, or if necessary the other steps outlined at Dispute resolution. Edit warring is not advised. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 01:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ottawa11, you need to sign your messages properly, and "I need more spefifc information" is nonsense: this isn't about what you need. Ten percent of your edits are to this one article, and someone with five article talk page edits maybe shouldn't be telling others to go there. Coriolanus, don't call me darling; don't call me anything, and again, what you think is best is one thing, but with less than a dozen edits on only one article, you are the epitome of a single-purpose account and you are the last person who should be lecturing anyone on what Wikipedia needs. And the tweets are actually covered in the article: you trying to overplay that is WP:UNDUE., thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Drmies Ok, but what does mass removal of personal views have to due with the twitter controversy. A lot of the information you deleted had nothing to due with the Twitter controversy (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

DrmiesOkay, I will refer to you by nothing. Also, where in the wiki guidelines does it say you must be a veteran user to advise people on guidelines, I am simply following the wiki rules and etiquette, by discussing on the talk page as to my reasoning as to why I was not giving undue weight to the controversy, but rather an appropriate amount of weight, given its significance. Furthermore, the crux of the dispute here is that you removed an entire section of political views that were important to building the bibliography, after you had deleted the subsection where the controvery was addressed. I was not trying to overplay anything, I have a purely objective viewpoint over this, and my judgement (the reasoning I explained above) led me to reach the very reasonable conclusion that it was of appropiate significance to warrant that much weight. Thanks, PresidentCoriolanus (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You don't have to know the rules to talk about the rules, but it probably helps. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am pretty open about disliking Twitter drama and recentism in Wikipedia. However in this case I think the current page handles it well; Bernier's comments have been a key political talking point across the Canadian press in August; and between being removed from the Shadow Cabinet over his book and this, it lends context to in-fighting within the Conservative party which I think has off-Twitter notability. I'd say let's not push the bounds any further about how much attention we give to Twitter but as it stands, I'm satisfied. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 August 2018
If possible, insert the following parameter in the infobox: | nickname  =   Mad Max Nonztp (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * . You have failed to provide several impeccably reliable sources that would be required to add a pejorative nickname. Please read and study WP:BLP. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I am just wondering if it is possible to restore sections (such as economy, Foreign policy,Environment, Immigration) that Drmies mass removed. The user lacked proper etiquette and his reasoning did not make an sense such as its trival (when the source are no to be reliable such as Macleans, La Presse and National Post), he had an issuse with the head "personal view" which he could have replaced it with political views or at least with things that "garnered a real-life response" (when it included Bernier words in these sources). Thanks, (Ottawa11) 02:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is the wrong section to discuss this matter. Please keep the discussion in the proper section. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

So which is the right section and if it is the twitter controversy can you responded there. Thanks. (Ottawa11) 02:31, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a different matter from the Twitter controversy, then perhaps you should start a new section. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sources for "Mad Max" nickname:
 * His own website
 * - Vice (magazine)
 * - Toronto Sun
 * - National Observer (Canada)
 * and - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
 * - National Post
 * - The Globe and Mail
 * - Yahoo! News
 * - The Chronicle Herald
 * - The Times
 * - Bloomberg News
 * Given all those I would be inclined to say yes the edit, but as I've now done all this research I shouldn't make the edit (as it's an administrative action). <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 13:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * this page is no longer protected and may be edited directly. — xaosflux  Talk 17:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Leaving the cons?
Ok so that section may have been inserted by a sock, but it does look like Bernier has left the Conservative party Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

"Businessman"
Hello. Nothing really indicates that he was a businessman. Apparently, he had been a lawyer at a law firm, then at National Bank (in the absence of explicit sources we can only presume he was a lawyer among hundreds of others, not a high level executive). Then he was a director at the Securities Commission of Québec, which is a not-for-profit, regulating agency of the government of Quebec (this does not fit the definition of a businessman : " [...] someone undertaking activities (commercial or industrial) for the purpose of generating cash flow, sales and revenues", as per the article. Finally, it does not appear that there's sources at all characterizing Bernier as a businessman --Nonztp (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Sock puppets involved in this page and related pages
Sock puppets are users who create more than one user account "to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus, avoid sanctions, evade blocks, or otherwise violate community standards and policies" Unfortunately many edits and reverts on this page have been made by sock puppets, some of whom are listed below. A "small group of trusted Wikipedia users" uses various methods and tools, including CheckUser "to determine from Wikipedia's servers the IP addresses used by a Wikipedia user account, as well as other technical data stored by the server about a user account or IP address". The following cases against sock puppets have revealed that these editors have edited this article and related articles. The edits have been disruptive, and have included edit wars, reverts, etc.

One editor, under the guise of multiple puppets, has edited this article and related articles such as People's Party of Canada, Supply management (Canada), Doug Ford, My Story (Julie Couillard book), Caroline Mulroney, Andrew Scheer, Mike Harris, and Stephen Harper. The sock puppet case was originally opened under Ontario Teacher BFA BEd who began editing August 9, 2015 and was blocked May 2, 2017. The case name was later changed to Soulspinr Soulspinr] (blocked indefinitely February 2, 2018), who created 46 confirmed sock puppets including User:Ottawa11 (blocked indefinitely on October 18, 2018), User:LegLanCorois (blocked indefinitely on October 31, 2018) User:LeMatu, User:NotSeenHere (blocked March 19, 2018), User:LineCoding (blocked May 2, 2017).

Charles lindberg used sock puppets including User:Clubintermiamifan (blocked October 16, 2018), DrJenkins365 (blocked July 6, 2018), User:Dassilverberg (blocked October 16, 2018), and possibly User:VivaSlava (whose global account was blocked May 10, 2018 for abusing multiple accounts) to edit this article and related articles, such as [[People's Party of Canada], Andrew Scheer, Caroline Mulroney, Faith Goldy, and United Conservative Party (Alberta).

User:TroySchulz (blocked on December 27, 2016 for having multiple accounts including User:MatthewRenn and User:ColinSheffer (blocked indefinitely October 2018) User:Ciphers was banned on November 7, 2018 "from editing English Wikipedia because CheckUser evidence confirms that they have repeatedly abused multiple accounts" including Clarities.

User:Reginald Perrin was blocked indefinitely July 4, 2008 for "abusing multiple accounts: Sock of a banned user".

It should be noted users accused of using sock puppets have denied they used sock puppets.

It is very discouraging to see the numbers of active sock puppets working on this article, and talk page as well as related articles, but gratifying to see how many are caught and blocked. It could be of interest to revisit content that was added/deleted by these editors.Oceanflynn (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Some editors discussed cleaning up the mess that NotSeenHere left, but when I tried to do something about the Scheer article a real editor re-inserted and I gave up. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Climate change
I've added a sentence on Bernier's unique rejection of the scientific consensus on climate change per this source. "Five of the six political parties expected to have any chance of winning a seat in the upcoming campaign agree that climate change is real and caused by humans. Bernier is the one outlier: he believes that if climate change is real, it is part of a natural cycle and not an emergency."

There are certainly other sources on top of his many personal statements.Citing (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing it but the Canadian press makes no reference that Bernier denies climate change is real or thinks is not cause by human. Instead Bernier thinks it normal that If their is other sources please prove it
 * Because BBC is giving an different opinionBecause BBC is giving an different opinion: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49400492 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.112.25.120 (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The CBC article is a reliable source and states his stance clearly -- there's no reason to find a Canadian Press source specifically but if you want another version, see here ("An Elections Canada official warned groups in a training session earlier this summer that because Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People’s Party of Canada, has expressed doubts about the legitimacy of climate change"). The BBC article is not in conflict.Citing (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Canadian Press is a news agency that runs article on all outlets. CBC and Global News picked up the article which violates NP:Notability its significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Since they are from the same journalist it is usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability meaning their needs to be more source not matter is it is realible or not


 * If we used the BBC source to establish Notability states "Maxime Bernier, the leader of the People's Party of Canada, has said numerous times that he does not believe climate change is a crisis.


 * "There is no climate change urgency in this country," Mr Bernier said in June." and "The party's platform states that "it is an undisputed fact that the world's climate has always changed and will continue to change".The BBC article disprove that Bernier denies climate change or cause by human.This would fall under WP:SYTH which is argues that cautions against original research by synthesis, where an editor combines reliably sourced statements in a way that makes or suggests a new statement not supported by any one of the sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.112.25.120 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you please format and sign your comments when posting? They're very difficult to read and I don't want to keep formatting them.


 * WP:SYNTH doesn't apply because I'm not doing any synthesis - I'm writing what the source (the CBC article) is saying. The BBC article is not contradicting it in any way either. It is, however, less specific.Citing (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This does not appear to be a WP:SYNTH issue. It is not a WP:Notability one.  That rules applies only to whether a topic is notable enough to have its own article (and whether it should be deleted).  It does not relate to whether specific content should or should not be included in an article (see WP:NNC). The CBC article  mentions appears to be a WP:RS.  Here are some other sources concerning Max's climate change views:, , , and .--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Look at the sources and National Observer was relevant with the topic that is being raised.However,it only disprove the fact Bernier questioming the fact the climate change is real but points put the extant that human as the main cause.Would it be better if frame from "to disagree that climate change is real and caused by humans" to "disagree that climate change is mainly caused by human" --unsigned comment added by ‎142.112.25.120 at 16:20, 21 August 2019‎ (UTC)


 * The source states "if climate change is real...". I think the current wording reflects that more accurately without getting too deep into his specific views (which I find tough to pin down aside from "generally doesn't accept the science").Citing (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Because "if" is implict not explicited, which is encourge on Wikipedia to avoid publishing things taken that maybe taken out of context.Also you need more than one source to avoid violating WP:Recentism and used MOS:Quote to avoid violating WP:NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.112.25.120 (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This appears to be appropriate to me. I have added two citations:
 * These appear to make his position on climate change pretty clear.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These appear to make his position on climate change pretty clear.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These appear to make his position on climate change pretty clear.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These appear to make his position on climate change pretty clear.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem with your two citation is that CBC source refer to the party any CTV which is a more reliable source than National Observer, which is only reliable if it is fact-check, is giving a different viewpoint of the event.


 * CTV is giving a different recollation of the events than National Observers Here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.149.0.217 (talk) 22:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Not really, All the CTV proves is that the National Observor journalist slightly distorted his answer.For example,their is no reference if Bernier agreed UN report and it's does not point out that the comment about Scientific conceus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.112.25.120 (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The National Observer piece refers to a speech which took place at the Royal Canadian Military Institute in Toronto on about June 21st. It is unclear to me what speech the CTV link is a record of.  I am also not sure it is complete.  What is clear in that video also is that he is espousing climate change skepticism as the other sources say he has done on other occasions.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The CTV link is a record of the same event. Do you have other sources?
 * So you say. I do not see any caption to suggest that it was taken at the same event on the same day.  Where are you seeing that information?  We have three sources in the article talking about his stated positions on climate change at different times (two from the CBC and one from National Observer).  This CTV video is not a great source.  It is unclear if it is a complete recording of his comments when he made them, and it does not have a title or caption which gives us any background information about it. If you have any other sources or information, by all means bring it to our attention.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Simple,I am doing a WP:Verifiability to see if MOS:quotes does not violates WP:NEWSORG which the second CBC source failed and the second part of National Observer does also. Here is the CTV, you were asking.Its from the same date and location
 * What change are you proposing in the article? The excerpts I produced above were to show what those sources said (for discussion here). The CBC/The Canadian Press are regarded as a WP:RS.  There is no question there.  Neither of the excerpts I produced above have been included in the article (and I do not see anyone suggesting they be included).  On this relevant point, our article reads:
 * Are you suggesting we say Bernier has been inconsistent on this point? What are you proposing? Do you have any sources you would like us to consider? For what it is worth, his party's platform seems pretty clear on this by stating:
 * Happy to hear your suggestions, but I think it is appropriate based on the sources we have to say that Bernier is denying climate change is caused by human activity. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to hear your suggestions, but I think it is appropriate based on the sources we have to say that Bernier is denying climate change is caused by human activity. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to hear your suggestions, but I think it is appropriate based on the sources we have to say that Bernier is denying climate change is caused by human activity. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to hear your suggestions, but I think it is appropriate based on the sources we have to say that Bernier is denying climate change is caused by human activity. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * The sentence "Bernier is the only major federal party leader to disagree that climate change is real and caused by humans" is poorly sourced despite having four cites. The first cite, "Environmental groups were warned that some climate change ads could be seen as partisan during election period", is not based on what the CBC said, the CBC says that an unnamed Elections Canada official maybe said it (CBC does claim that Bernier believes that if climate change is real, it is part of a natural cycle and not an emergency, but that does not directly support the sentence.) The second cite, ""Maxime Bernier argues he deserves place in leaders' debates", does not say that Maxime Bernier disagrees that climate change is real and caused by humans, so it is irrelevant. The third cite, "Maxime Bernier recruits Renata Ford as he touts a plan that denies the climate crisis", says "Bernier reiterated human activity was not the main cause of the global climate crisis." Of course those are unlikely to be Bernier's actual words since he does not believe there is a global climate crisis, and the source (the National Observer) has a bias, so in context this should not be regarded as an RS for what Bernier said, and its use violates WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The fourth cite, "Global Warming and Environment: Rejecting Alarmism and focusing on concrete improvements", is not a statement by Maxime Bernier it is a statement by the PPC, so attributing it to Maxime Bernier is simply incorrect. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

With respect, that is not the case. This is the relevant portion of the first article:

This is the relevant portion of the second article:

This does not spell out that he believes climate change is a natural process, but is support for the claim that he is out on his own on this issue. It is agreed that this citation alone does not support everything that comes before it. The third article sets out the following:

The last citation is to the People's Party platform on this issue. The relevant portion is already produced immediately above, so I will not reproduce it again. --Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Our situation now is: I explained above why I believe the cites for the sentence "Bernier is the only major federal party leader to disagree that climate change is real and caused by humans" are not supporting the sentence or are poor sources. Darryl Kerrigan says the sentence is okay and the cites are okay. Darryl Kerrigan's last response is effectively a reiteration that "yes they are okay" to which I could reply "no they aren't" etc., but it is better to ask other editors if any are watching: who agrees with Darryl Kerrigan, who agrees with me? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Why do you think the first source is based only on what an Elections Canada official is saying? Notwithstanding the headline, the relevant portion sets out Bernier's position as stated by The Canadian Press with reference to quotes from Bernier himself. The second source has Bernier saying his positions on climate are different than all of the other parties.  The third source quotes Bernier denying climate change, which you seem to dismiss on the basis that National Observer is bias. Sure, it is a left-wing publication.  Does that matter if Bernier said what they say he did? Finally, do you really think it is completely inappropriate for us to consider the People's Party platform? In a section about his leadership of that party?  Sure, it is not a statement he made but it is not irrelevant either.  He is the leader of that party.  It is expected that he agrees with their policies unless he says differently. All of these sources together, support the phrasing that exists there (which by the way I did not write).  The first one seems to support it on its own.  If you are looking for additional sources, check out these ones also .  The last one indicates he has been denying the science since at least 2010.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Who agrees with Darryl Kerrigan, who agrees with me? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it would seem would agree as they are the one that added the text using the first source. If there is alternate wording you think is appropriate based on the sources that might be helpful for others (and you might find me agreeing).  If you feel there are alternate WP:RS we should consider, that might also be helpful. If you are suggesting we remove any mention of Bernier's climate policies, it might also be helpful to make that clear.  Your position that the sources we have are not sufficient is clear, what you are proposing instead is not.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The current wording and sourcing are fine. If you have a recommendation for the article please be clear on what it is.Citing (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it would seem 142.112.25.120 (whom I do not ping because I regard that as canvassing) would not agree with you, mentioning WP:SYNTH and saying that a CTV video shows the National Observer distorted something. And I shouldn't have to explain what is supposed to happen when a statement is unsourced or poorly sourced, you're supposed to have read WP:BLP. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * As has been explained, the statement is straightforward and well-sourced. Throwing out policies and guidelines like incantations doesn't tell me anything, and I can't read your mind -- what, if anything, do you want to change, and what reliable sources are you offering?Citing (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * His climate change denialism is well sourced. Furthermore, he's the founding leader of the party whose platform he pretty much single-handedly created. So yes, we can call him a climate change denier. It's not synth. Simonm223 (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If Maxime Bernier stated "Climate Change was an hoax" then I would agree with you but debate is if we have a source questioning if Bernier human caused not if he thinks if climate change is real or not which would fall under climate change denial not skepticism.Also I avoid citing the platform because in Canadian politics policies are not developed by the leaders but the grassroots.Do we have proof that Bernier wrote the platfrom by himself.Also, Kerrigan I would discard the Georgia Straight because it tabloid, while I found which suggest that he evolved from this source  and  which address the C02 is plant food comments.I am starting to think that Maxime Bernier is gaffle prone.Also the problem within National Observer is that it's bias. It that they juxtapose their information to play into their bias ... Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.112.25.120 (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2019‎ (UTC)


 * I gather that Darryl Kerrigan and Citing and Simonm223 believe the statement is well sourced, and I am the only confirmed editor who continues to say it is not. Unless someone else agrees with me, I will not contend further. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Major federal party leader?
Further to the conversation above, I have been thinking about the wording of the sentence on climate change. Would it be better for us to say "leader of a party represented in the HoC" instead of "major federal party leader"? Saying major party leader is clearer in most people's minds, but it is also a bit subjective. What makes a party major? Representation in the house? Polling above 4%? Raising over $500,000? Perhaps, it is fine for the CBC to use the term "major party leader" but not for us to do the same.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, represented in the HoC is much more neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 12:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I put it in, feel free to change the wording if you find it awkward.Citing (talk) 14:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

How should we frame Bernier's long tweet
I have decided reverse the framing of the first setence over concerns own framming the tweet. Here is what Bernier tweeted:

Trudeau keeps pushing his “diversity is our strength” slogan. Yes, Canada is a huge and diverse country. This diversity is part of us and should be celebrated. But where do we draw the line?Ethnic, religious, linguistic, sexual and other minorities were unjustly repressed in the past. We’ve done a lot to redress those injustices and give everyone equal rights. Canada is today one of the countries where people have the most freedom to express their identity.Trudeau’s extreme multiculturalism and cult of diversity will divide us into little tribes that have less and less in common, apart from their dependence on government in Ottawa. These tribes become political clienteles to be bought with taxpayers $ and special privileges.Cultural balkanisation brings distrust, social conflict, and potentially violence, as we are seeing everywhere. It’s time we reverse this trend before the situation gets worse. More diversity will not be our strength, it will destroy what has made us such a great country.

The problem with this framming is that  Justin Trudeau's support for multiculturalism and diversity calling it identity politics. Hell even the reaction was over "diversity is our strength," not immigration or his comments about Jinniah which seem trivial.To the reason it was included.

Just asking.

Weelandlka (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you're saying. Can you clarify what you are proposing?Citing (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Here is the tweets that I refered to []. I am asking how to frame it. Saying that " Justin Trudeau's support for multiculturalism and diversity calling it identity politics" make it seem that he is against multiculralism and diversity. When he is talking the use of using "“diversity is our strength” slogan". Also seperate multiculturalism and diversity with immigrants because people have a confusion over it. They are seperate concepts. Weelandlka (talk) 0:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you undo this edit? You've reverted me for the fourth time.Citing (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Except I did not; if I did it I would have not put some of your statements " like using the word "inflamatory". Reverting an edit means that everything is removed which is not. I just copy edit and tried to include some of your concerns. You asked me how would I frame it? So I gave you an example. Thus, next time please take it to a talk page.Wait before you get a conencus. Then make your changes. Sidenote: My concern is that when you are removing infromation from Wikipedia:RS, Yes At Issuse is consider a realible source from CBC a noted insitution in Canada, you could be over simplfiying things since Bernier is now seen as a major federal party leader. If you want to reduce UNDUE after certain passage be my guest.Just try to be as accruate as possible? - Weelandlka (talk) 1:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * From WP:3RR: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". You reverted about half of my text.Citing (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Speficy, which parts? I created a seperate conversation becuase I had issuse with the framming of your first sentence? Also I raised the concern if Jinnah should be counted as notable. I did a copy-edit of your information just to make sure it would not be written in a misleading way. For example he did not critized "diveristy" nor multicultralism just using the phrase"diversity is our strength". I literaly read the source you used. How does that undoes other editors' action, I just added something else. Just added stuff so you can edit around it without reverting. Weelandlka (talk) 1:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You undid my rewrite of the paragraph and also removed the part about Jinnah entirely.Citing (talk) 02:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Excepted I did not. I worked around it. If you tell me how we should frame the long tweet? then I will add the part as quickly as possible. I have asked you for addition sources to include the reference of Jinnah for notablity. Weelandlka (talk) 2:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * One of your sources already mentions Jinnah. I had added a CBC article about it as well, which you reverted earlier. You haven't "written around" what I did, you rewrote it to match your earlier version.Citing (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have added back Jinnah, my mistake. Howerver, can please adress the framing the first sentence about the tweets. I trying to fix that. Weelandlka (talk) 3:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The framing I prefer is what I wrote earlier today. Can you revert to that version? I've already stated a bunch of times the problems with the writing and organization as well as NPOV issues. Also I am very confused by the time stamps of your comments (some are the wrong day) as well as you changing them.Citing (talk) 03:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Time stamp were an accident.Thats why I had to fix them. Weelandlka (talk) 12:05, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's a version I prefer:

This is using the same sources as before, but more concisely written (+the other interview). The pundit opinions didn't really add anything. Unless there is a specific theme they are all speaking on, it's just a list of people who approve or disapprove of his statements. This version cuts down on direct quotes as well.Citing (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am going to break this down. Lets say you can't based your contribution on one article (Also, shouldn't you listen to the interview vist: Just to make sure that the article written was accurate):

1. What is the issuse saying he crituque “diversity is our strength” if you check the tweet that were he based it and this   (+) Also if you include "cult of diversity" then why not mention this article   (+)- Readers have different meaning of the wordDiversity

2.Why should we ingore Bernier's speech: (+)

3. The issuse with ignoring other pundits view point of is that they are arguing that his crituqe is normal and the those who critized his crituques:} (+), (+, (+]) this one is important (+]) - the point it "In Quebec, such views are considered mainstream". Take this As it happen interview which the Bernier interview was based on into habit: {{tqb|What do you mean by problems with multiculturalism? In Quebec, we have issues with reasonable accommodation. We have issues with religion in the public spheres.I think we have to address them. Because it suggest that People in Quebec different interpreatation of multiculturalism. such as [|Mathieu Bock-Côté] (+])

4. A couple of issuse with "When interviewed in August on Question Period, Bernier said it was time to focus more on what unites Canadians." you might want to copy edit again, check the month and your summerization ignores {{tqb|“Instead of always promoting the diversity in our country"}} (+).

5. "though he declined declined to provide examples where they did not." Check your source again; he gave example but it was not spefific (+the [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.4833110/maxime-bernier-explains-what-he-means-by-extreme-multiculturalism-1.4833113) {{tqb|Also, I have concern using As it happen, since he recently gave a speech; I have concern to include since its a primary source. Last year, in August, just before I left the Conservative Party, I published six tweets that caused quite a controversy.I was criticizing Justin Trudeau’s slogan that “diversity is our strength.” I attacked the Liberal cult of diversity and extreme multiculturalism.I recognized that of course, Canada is and has always been a diverse country. We have First Nations and Inuit, two official languages, a multiethnic population, and very different regional cultures. The culture of Cape Breton is very different from that of the Eastern Townships in Quebec, or that of southern Alberta, or Nunavut.All these regional cultures are intrinsically Canadian. They developed in Canada. They don’t exist anywhere else in the world. They deserve to be nurtured and to survive. My problem with Trudeau’s slogan, and with the policies that go with it, is not that I am against diversity. It’s the belief that more and more diversity is always better. And that there is no limit to it.As I wrote in one of my tweets, if anything and everything is Canadian, does being Canadian mean something? Shouldn’t we emphasize our cultural traditions? What we have built and have in common? What makes us different from other cultures and societies?In the past, immigrants who came here gradually integrated into our society. They kept some aspects of the culture of their country of origin, of course. And that influenced and changed our society. They became Canadian, but with a distinct flavour.This is a type of multiculturalism that enriches our society. And it is perfectly fine.But that is very different than coming here to recreate the society and culture you left behind.Living permanently in an enclave apart from the larger Canadian society.And moreover, being officially encouraged by the government to continue to do so rather than to integrate into Canadian society and adopt Canadian culture and values.A nation must be based on a sense of belonging, of participating in a common national project, sharing the same values, being different from the rest of the world.It’s only when these sentiments are widely shared that we can develop the trust and common understanding necessary for our institutions to function.Our country was almost torn apart because of the misunderstandings between Francophone Quebecers and the rest of Canada.Many First Nations members feel alienated from Canadian society.So why would we want to emphasize cultural, religious and ethnic differences, which have been one of the main causes of conflict throughout human history? This is insane.}} (+) [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.4833110/maxime-bernier-explains-what-he-means-by-extreme-multiculturalism-1.4833113) {{tqb|Also, I have concern using As it happen, since he recently gave a speech; I have concern to include since its a primary source. Last year, in August, just before I left the Conservative Party, I published six tweets that caused quite a controversy.I was criticizing Justin Trudeau’s slogan that “diversity is our strength.” I attacked the Liberal cult of diversity and extreme multiculturalism.I recognized that of course, Canada is and has always been a diverse country. We have First Nations and Inuit, two official languages, a multiethnic population, and very different regional cultures. The culture of Cape Breton is very different from that of the Eastern Townships in Quebec, or that of southern Alberta, or Nunavut.All these regional cultures are intrinsically Canadian. They developed in Canada. They don’t exist anywhere else in the world. They deserve to be nurtured and to survive. My problem with Trudeau’s slogan, and with the policies that go with it, is not that I am against diversity. It’s the belief that more and more diversity is always better. And that there is no limit to it.As I wrote in one of my tweets, if anything and everything is Canadian, does being Canadian mean something? Shouldn’t we emphasize our cultural traditions? What we have built and have in common? What makes us different from other cultures and societies?In the past, immigrants who came here gradually integrated into our society. They kept some aspects of the culture of their country of origin, of course. And that influenced and changed our society. They became Canadian, but with a distinct flavour.This is a type of multiculturalism that enriches our society. And it is perfectly fine.But that is very different than coming here to recreate the society and culture you left behind.Living permanently in an enclave apart from the larger Canadian society.And moreover, being officially encouraged by the government to continue to do so rather than to integrate into Canadian society and adopt Canadian culture and values.A nation must be based on a sense of belonging, of participating in a common national project, sharing the same values, being different from the rest of the world.It’s only when these sentiments are widely shared that we can develop the trust and common understanding necessary for our institutions to function.Our country was almost torn apart because of the misunderstandings between Francophone Quebecers and the rest of Canada.Many First Nations members feel alienated from Canadian society.So why would we want to emphasize cultural, religious and ethnic differences, which have been one of the main causes of conflict throughout human history? This is insane.}} (+ [https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-friday-edition-1.4833110/maxime-bernier-explains-what-he-means-by-extreme-multiculturalism-1.4833113) {{tqb|Also, I have concern using As it happen, since he recently gave a speech; I have concern to include since its a primary source. Last year, in August, just before I left the Conservative Party, I published six tweets that caused quite a controversy.I was criticizing Justin Trudeau’s slogan that “diversity is our strength.” I attacked the Liberal cult of diversity and extreme multiculturalism.I recognized that of course, Canada is and has always been a diverse country. We have First Nations and Inuit, two official languages, a multiethnic population, and very different regional cultures. The culture of Cape Breton is very different from that of the Eastern Townships in Quebec, or that of southern Alberta, or Nunavut.All these regional cultures are intrinsically Canadian. They developed in Canada. They don’t exist anywhere else in the world. They deserve to be nurtured and to survive. My problem with Trudeau’s slogan, and with the policies that go with it, is not that I am against diversity. It’s the belief that more and more diversity is always better. And that there is no limit to it.As I wrote in one of my tweets, if anything and everything is Canadian, does being Canadian mean something? Shouldn’t we emphasize our cultural traditions? What we have built and have in common? What makes us different from other cultures and societies?In the past, immigrants who came here gradually integrated into our society. They kept some aspects of the culture of their country of origin, of course. And that influenced and changed our society. They became Canadian, but with a distinct flavour.This is a type of multiculturalism that enriches our society. And it is perfectly fine.But that is very different than coming here to recreate the society and culture you left behind.Living permanently in an enclave apart from the larger Canadian society.And moreover, being officially encouraged by the government to continue to do so rather than to integrate into Canadian society and adopt Canadian culture and values.A nation must be based on a sense of belonging, of participating in a common national project, sharing the same values, being different from the rest of the world.It’s only when these sentiments are widely shared that we can develop the trust and common understanding necessary for our institutions to function.Our country was almost torn apart because of the misunderstandings between Francophone Quebecers and the rest of Canada.Many First Nations members feel alienated from Canadian society.So why would we want to emphasize cultural, religious and ethnic differences, which have been one of the main causes of conflict throughout human history? This is insane.}} (+)

Thus, while I think your framming is start, it should include other viewpoint.

Weelandlka (talk) 13:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Could you please replace this impenetrable text-wall with what text you intend to remove and what text you intend to replace it with? Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Issues with latest reorganization of the page
I appreciate the work done to expand and improve the page but I think the current state of the page has a couple issues that need to be addressed.

The first is just the organization. As it stands, the page is overlong, and with excessive headers and sub-headers. Breaking Bernier's career down by each parliament makes the page overly long, and giving a sub-section to each and every incident and event ("Support for LGBT", "Dismissal from Shadow Cabinet", "Alienation from cult of diversity" among them) is unnecessary clutter. Compare Andrew Scheer, Jagmeet Singh, Rona Ambrose: all of their bios are content to cover their entire careers under a simple "political career" (with the subsections corresponding to career stages), and another "political views" to discuss them more broadly. This earlier diff is more inline with other pages, and just a lot more readable and navigable.

The second issue I have is that a lot of these additions are really toeing NPOV. A subsection for Bernier's "support for LGBT" would be all well and good if this were significant part of Bernier's career and image, but it's not: as we can gleam from the section itself, which consists of a single line mentioning that he marched in a Pride parade once. To give a single event its own section, right in his biography, gives it undue weight and appear more important than it is. Or Bernier's comments on diversity being put under the header "alienation from cult of diversity", which uncritically adopts his own phrasing and thus lends his position extra credence. These are things we need to be especially careful of during an election season.

This page should probably just be rolled back to an earlier version. — Kawnhr (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making those changes/suggestions. I thought the same about a lot of those edits. I think the most logical organization would be a "political career" section divided between him being an MP and his split with the PCs/leadership of the PPC. A lot of it needs to be trimmed as well -- there's a lot of fluff about what various columnists think about every step of his career and a sentence about a "viral" campaign jingle that, as far as I can tell, was never described as such in sources and garnered at most a few tweets with <5 likes.Citing (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Its better to keep pundits comments just for a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wheather you like it our not. Apart from that just list what you see as "puff" and reach a concenus to get it removed. Weelandlka (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The section on diversity has a ton of problems. It shouldn't be a section at all (as stated above -- it's very short, clunky, and not presented in a NPOV way) and the revision you keep reverting to is stripped of context around the event. If you want to keep the pundit opinions it would be much better to present it with context. A typical reader isn't going to know who Pundits X, Y, and Z are or why their opinions matter.Citing (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So what do you want to be dicussed?Kawnhr do you have an idea what Citing is talking about? Weelandlka (talk) 2:40, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Also please mind the three revert rule. This article has a lot of problems in its structure and writing that need to be addressed.Citing (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * (Since you reverted my cleanup of the La Presse stuff). The way to go about writing in a NPOV manner is to give due weight to important topics as reflected in reliable sources. Right now the article has too many portions that follow the template of "Bernier did A Thing. Person X said A. Person Y said B. Person Z said C. Bernier said Another Thing in response [long quote]." The result is an article that is poorly written (because it is long, repetitive, and difficult to read) and consists of far too many quotes and not enough information about whatever is being discussed. The section on his leadership campaign is a good example of what I'm talking about. Same with the section on his book chapter.Citing (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Expect how do we frame it. This isWP:BIO we are dealing with so what do you want to disscuss? How would you change the framming of that thing. If Bernier responded to an incident are we supposed not to include it? Weelandlka (talk) 0:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Would there be objections to reorganizing everything under a "Political career" section, with the current sub-sections left as is but the "Bernier was elected/re-elected" prefaces junked? That's in-line with other articles and indeed an earlier revision of this one, but since edits have been a bit contentious here I wanted to clear it first. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. The current layout makes the article hard to read and lots of stuff is shoe-horned in arbitrarily.Citing (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and did it. I didn't remove anything (except the pointless "Bernier was elected/re-elected" intros, as mentioned), so it doesn't solve the problem of arbitrary content, but I think this is a lot more readable and, well, organized. I'm open to the idea that some sections could be split or spun-off but I think this makes a good starting point for any discussion. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If anyone wanted my opinon, I am okay with that but which sections should be split or spun-off. Should the unpublished book be its own section?Kawnhr Weelandlka (talk) 2:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I personally am pleased with how the page is now, I just meant that if someone wants to make a case for any splits or additions or whatnot then I'd be happy to hear them. For giving a section to the book or the diversity tweets… I get they're notable but I feel like it's a bit excessive to cover a period of one year with three sections (especially since none of the incidents have more than a paragraph or two). Moreover, I think these events are kind of linked and speak to a broader tension Bernier had within the party post-leadership race, and keeping them together reflects that.


 * Or maybe we could start a "Controversies" section? — Kawnhr (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't like putting "controversies" sections into biographies as they break the flow of the text and end up being POV battlegrounds. I like the idea of having one section for his political career (perhaps split into his time with the Conservatives, and then his own party) and another for his stances as it gives a more contextual overview.Citing (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2021
add "far-right" with reference

Maxime Bernier (born January 18, 1963) is a far-right Canadian businessman, lawyer and politician who served as a cabinet minister of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and as Member of Parliament (MP) for Beauce from 2006 to 2019. Imageswitch (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
I don't think it's standard to have [far-]left/right/etc in the opening sentence. His COVID stances and activities are noteworthy but shouldn't make up the bulk of the first paragraph.Citing (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * An observation on the political stance of a politician is normal in a lead. The first para has no mention of Covid. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 18:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, since I moved it to the end of the intro and posted my comment here, which was meant to cool an edit war over the intro.Citing (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I never looked at the article history, just responded to you after looking at the lead. All good. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 19:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Hah, yeah maybe I should have posted a diff. Thanks anyway.Citing (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2021
change "Maxime Bernier PC (born January 18, 1963) is a Canadian businessman, lawyer and politician who served as a cabinet minister of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and as Member of Parliament (MP) for Beauce from 2006 to 2019. He is the founding and current leader of the People's Party of Canada (PPC)." to "Maxime Bernier (born January 18, 1963) is a far-right Canadian businessman, lawyer and politician who served as a cabinet minister of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and as Member of Parliament (MP) for Beauce from 2006 to 2019." Hubertgardener (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Additionally, the source does not mention far right. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2021
"Bernier is fond of quoting James M. Buchanan, Friedrich Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt and been known as" should have "has" added before "been known as". Irishdude7 (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Favonian (talk) 11:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comma placement
In response to the revert here, I didn't add a comma to make the reader pause. I added a comma because of the date. Clover moss (talk) 01:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I know the perceived wisdom is to put a comma after the year in US style dates but you also have to read the sentence. A comma always means the reader makes a brief pause. In this sentence the only comma needed is after the cardinal date but if you add it after the year, it creates a second pause and forces the sentence to fragment. 2A02:C7C:1018:6E00:2001:C941:A9AA:EA12 (talk) 01:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Heads up that Wikipedia style includes placement of comma following a date. See MOS:DATECOMMA. Thanks — WildComet talk 06:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WildComet, spoken like a true bureaucrat. "It’s got to be done because the book says so." Jeez. 2A02:C7C:1018:6E00:2001:C941:A9AA:EA12 (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ehhhh just follow the manual of style. The whole reason it exists is for stuff like this. Citing (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Citing, so the Manual is like the Bible. It must be true because The Bible says so. It can never be questioned? Got it. 2A02:C7C:1018:6E00:E146:DFB4:3D82:8781 (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There has been no good reason not to follow MOS in this case, other than you think it looks awkward. If you want to discuss changes to the MOS, then propose it on that talk page, otherwise, we're going to keep articles consistent across the site. — WildComet talk 23:37, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the wikilink, . I was trying to find the part of the manual of style (I thought guidance would be at WP:DATE not WP:DATECOMMA) so I wasn't sure if the comma was a matter of preference or not. Clover moss  (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)