Talk:People's Party of Canada/Archive 1

Suggestion regarding ideology
I think we should be careful to only assign to the party ideologies that can either be reliably sourced back to the party itself or to Bernier. We're seeing a lot of rapid changes to the infobox (some of them mine) and I just want to make sure none of us (myself included) jump the gun on anything. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree I suggest we use this article https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bernier-peoples-party-canada-1.4823647 to determine the ideology of the party. Ottawa11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, September 14, 2018


 * The source is certainly reliable, but it doesn't say much about the ideology of the party. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I am basing on the comments that Bernier has said like "respecting the consitution" Ottawa11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:03, September 14, 2018


 * To use that statement as a basis for calling Bernier an Autonomist is WP:SYNTH. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough but what should we call it. Ottawa11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, September 14, 2018‎
 * What Bernier says has no relevance whatsoever with this discussion, we only rely on secondary sources. Bernier's words are a primary source. Dassilverberg (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Strangely the most obvious ideology: Conservatism, has been completely ignored Dassilverberg (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * That's not actually what WP:PRIMARY says; but the truth is that unless Bernier says, "I am an anarcho-communist" we're not calling him an anarcho-communist. Plenty of sources call him a conservative, a libertarian, etc. But let's try and make our article reflect what reliable sources actually say, rather than making up patently false things. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Conservativism was in the infobox until about five minutes ago perhaps can speak to the removal of it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I just need a source with his own words Ottawa11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, September 14, 2018


 * Please read WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY - we don't need to use Bernier's own words if a reliable source, like the CBC, says "Bernier is a conservative," likewise, if he says "I am a conservative," we can report, "Bernier says he is a conservative," and this is fine with WP:PRIMARY - but we run into problems when you try to take out reliable statements (Bernier is a conservative) when RSes describe him that way. Likewise we can't say, "Bernier subscribes to a European tendency of Anarcho-Communism" on the basis of inference from his comments on constitutional primacy. This is WP:SYNTH - taking statements from a source or sources and inferring additional information into them. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh and one last thing about WP:SYNTH that will matter the second the party has more than one member in it, we can't infer that Bernier's political views automatically map to those of his party unless a reliable source says so. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Bernier recently stated his views represent "real conservative ideas": https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/maxime-bernier-says-his-opinions-represent-real-conservative-ideas/Nitrous295 (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * What Bernier says does not matter, we rely on secondary sources on Wikipedia. Dassilverberg (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, please read WP:PRIMARY we can't make inferences or interpretation from a primary source, but we can use them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well if we cannot conclude the party is a conservative party, then perhaps it is to premature to classify it as Populism, Anti-establishment, Canadian nationalism, Right-libertarianism, and Economic liberalism as others have already decided.Nitrous295 (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that calling the party populist and conservative would be the easiest to support with extant RSes. Calling it right-libertarian or anti-establishment is do-able from extant sources but depends a bit on sources about Bernier himself, which makes them problematic in the long run. Economic liberalism... the party passes the duck test but it's a bit WP:SYNTH - I'm inclined to let it slide for now. Ultimately everything here is going to be changing rapidly as the party comes to assert its identity as more than the Mad Max bloc of Conservatives Against Dairy Regulation. But by then we should have a fair number of RSes that don't conflate the party with Bernier and will be able to pries out the party ideology from Bernier's personal views. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding political position
Should we call it right wing or its too early to determine Ottawa11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, September 14, 2018
 * A reliable source calls the party right wing. Therefore we do. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thats not the issue I have, I belive calling the party right-wing maybe vauge and need more than one source to prove it.Ottawa11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, September 14, 2018


 * If you can find any reliable sources that don't think the party is right wing we can have a WP:DUE discussion about weighting the sources. But if we have a source or sources that call him right wing which is reliable, and none that contradict, we can easily call this thing that quacks a duck. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * 'Centre-right' is a more valid term. 'Right-wing' suggests the party and its platform are further right than they actually are. 2607:FEA8:4DE0:2A6:F:846A:C1C1:A27C (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No one has yet come up with a source for the assertion that this party is "centre-right". Brad  v  02:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Brad v  Whould these articles (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/23/maxime-bernier-quits-conservatives-new-party_a_23508059/)(https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/whos-on-the-team-for-maxime-berniers-new-political-party-right-now-its-just-max) (washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2018/08/23/maxime-berniers-rebellion-comes-from-the-right-to-upend-canadian-politics/?noredirect=on) make the party centre right Ottawa11 13:44, 1 October 2018 UTC


 * Based on this quote "We are a party that is still a coalition - a coalition of people who are disenchanted with traditional politicians who say one thing one day and the other the next". <> It sounds more like centerism Ottawa11 (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It would be original research to use that to justify any particular label. Brad  v  02:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * True, but what would you call it. It does not sound right wing. Also " The People’s Party of Canada as his entry on the right of the Canadian political spectrum." original research Ottawa11 (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2018 UTC


 * Personally, I would call that "populist", and judging by the comments later on the article, "libertarian", which are both right-wing ideologies. The existing source does identify the party as "on the right", but this source could also be used to justify the label "right-wing". I still can't find anything that labels the party as "centre-right", although it's obviously still early. Brad  v  02:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am talking about spectrum not ideologies. Two different things Thanks.(talk) 02:54, 15 September 2018 UTC
 * Agreed, and populism and libertarianism, at least in North American usage, are both on the right of the political spectrum. Brad  v  02:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Even though I think have moved passed labeling it Far-Right. Just in case it is questioned again by anyone in the future. Heres a recent article just to give further credence that the party does not want to, at least currently, have further discussions with a party in the far-right political spectrum. (http://nationalpost.com/wcm/63774bfe-ae6a-4abb-a65a-e613eca89c6a) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LastBeginning (talk • contribs) 15:59, September 15, 2018 (UTC)

Should we call it a split
Just asking? Ottawa11 (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Do reliable sources call it a split? Usually a split involves a whole group of MPs changing their party affiliation at the same time, not just one. Brad  v  03:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thats what I am thinking but we need more than one source Ottawa11 (talk) 3:50, 17 September 2018 UTC (UTC)


 * It is still not entirely clear whether this is Bernier's own disagreement or whether there is further division within the Conservative party. Some sources have stated up to 3-4 other MP's may have interest in joining Bernier's party but at this point none have publicly stated anything to suggest they would join the PPC.Nitrous295 (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * While more sources are obviously better, there's no Wikipedia policy prohibiting Wikipedia from making statements from a single source if it's reliable, not contradicted by other sources and notable. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, especially given Bernier's history as a cabinet minister, his public profile, and very close leadership election result. Clubintermiamifan (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Party Spokesperson
The Party Spokesperson is Martin Masse, the proof is in these articles. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4827241 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4828043 I ask every user to please read this article and place your vote of who you believe is right. So let’s do a democratic solution and place a straw-poll. The Smart Mind (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2018 UTC

Do you believe that Martin Masse is the spokesperson of the party, yes or no?

Yes: You Agree with User:The Smart Mind

No: You Agree with User:Ottawa11

First here is the definiation of a spokesperson, my concern is that The Smart Mind is trying to pass him as the leader of the party because under wikipedia guidelines their is not category for spokesperson but leaders.Ottawa11 19:38, 19 September 2018 UTC

Here are other parties, do you see the words spokeperson such as the Liberal Party of Canada or Conservative Party of Canada

My concern is that he didn’t see other parties like Quebec solidaire, and saying that I am saying, that I’m trying to put him as a leader well that is completely inaccurate, he is just assuming another leadership position but he is not the leader of the party I never said that. It’s very concerning that Ottawa11 makes stuff up. The Smart Mind 19:56, 19 September 2018 UTC

Do not compared the People Party to the Quebec solidare because another articles states that he is Bernier main organizer https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/bernier-says-he-has-raised-over-90-000-since-quitting-the-conservatives-1.4081142 and the party has not developed a structure which the Québec solidaire has. Also you need to be nominated to be considered a spokerson whithin the solidare, do you have proof that Masse has interest in being nominated Ottawa11 Then please don’t compare the party to others if, you fail to understand that everybody is different, that they can have whatever they want in their own party and you cannot compare the parties to others. The Smart Mind - 20:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

En Marche! it was founded by Emmunal Macron who left the the french socialist party after disagreement of issues. Also, I am not the one who listed the party comparisons. There are other users that did.For example, I was not the one that that put the reform party as an example.Ottawa11 Actually you made comparisons about The Liberal and Conservative Parties. The Smart Mind - 20:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Smart Mind] no, I used their wikibox to show that [[spokeperson are not in their wikibox. You used a democratic socialist party to compare to the People Party.Ottawa11 22:39, 19 September 2018 UTC

Edit warring
There have been far more edits to the article today than to this talk page, and that's a problem. If the active editors can agree to discuss things here rather than revert each other on the article, then there is no need for this page to be protected. Please see WP:BRD. Brad v  20:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * For you to be aware, User talk:Ottawa11 just made an edit now changing ideologies that I have put, and putting his own preferred way, which violates the WP:3RR and the message you left the user on the talk page The Smart Mind. —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am aware. You violated WP:3RR as well, and I have also left you a message on your talk page. Brad  v  20:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am aware as well. I reported the problem and now I see that you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet which I am very concerned about this. I find it concerning that you didnt make any claims about Ottawa11. The Smart Mind 20:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Smart Mind you need to make adressed the concerns that User:Simonm223 made with Ideology and UN:due weight and explain why his platform should be used to determine ideology when I have argued against. Ottawa11 —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, September 19, 2018


 * Note: The Smart Mind has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Brad  v  00:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding platforms
Should we put headers underneath platforms, it comes off to promtional to me. Ottawa11 19:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Allowed to starve to death
If there's no other source of funding then provinces have two choices - they either raise their own funds or they can't fund healthcare. Considering how defunding healthcare is something of a third-rail in Canada this is equivalent to requiring them to raise their own funds. "Allowing" is WP:WEASEL in this instance. Simonm223 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Provinces aren't currently allowed to tax for healthcare. Hence Bernier would be allowing them to. I've seen the interviews and allow is the correct word. There would be nothing legally compelling the provinces to fund healthcare, hence he can't be said to "require that they fund healthcare." Zortwort (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that the principle behind his idea is that the provinces are allowed more control over healthcare, with emphasis on reducing the power of the federal government. To frame it as a "requirement" by the federal government for provinces to fund their own healthcare is dishonest. You're suggesting that giving provinces the power to determine their own policy and secure funding for it is somehow a burden and an extension of federal control, when it's just the opposite. Zortwort (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Lede?
I noticed that on 20:33, 11 October 2018‎ 204.40.194.132 decided to make changes to lede of the page by arguing the changes would match "Matching the structure that are on other federal parties pages" I decided to take a look at other federal parties such as the Liberal Party of Canada Conservative Party of Canada and Bloc Québécois. Thus, I formatted the Lede? starting at 1. who founded it, 2. Type of party/ ideology 3. When it was founded 5. The number of parliamentarians. If anyone has an issue, they should voice it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawa11 (talk • contribs)


 * I think the lede is pretty good now expect for the first sentence. I suggest turning it into two sentences and moving the second sentence to later in the paragraph after Bernier is introduced as the leader. eg. "The People's Party of Canada (PPC, French: Parti populaire du Canada) is a right-wing federal party in Canada." ... "Bernier considers the party to be "a coalition of people who are disenchanted with traditional politicians who say one thing one day and the other the next"." 204.40.130.130 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:204.40.130.130, it would read better that way. - Ahunt (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

See Also?
i added the examples of En Marche !, People's Alliance of New Brunswick, Coalition Avenir Québecin the see also. Does anyone have issues Does anyone have issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.28.21 (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ideology and WP:DUE
It might be time for us to start considering scaling back ideology as some of the elements are beginning to contradict each other - classical liberalism vs neoliberalism for instance. I suggest a source review might be worthwhile. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that may be easy, do not use the leadership platform that Bernier as an indication of ideologies or platforms ran for the Conservative party as a source and avoid Tertiary source I need to mention that the website says that "The People's Party of Canada's platform is still being finalized" Ottawa11 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * As per my previous suggestion, I've been doing a source review. A single Don Pitts opinion piece is not WP:DUE for us making a claim in Wikipedia's voice. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Simonm223 How is Don Pitts piece an opinion peirce, it states that it is analysis and have multiple academic sources  . Ottawa11 (talk)  17:23, 20 September 2018 UTC (UTC)


 * He's making an argument, his opinion that Bernier is classically liberal. It's the very model of an opinion piece. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Also Pitts is a business columnist so not only is this an opinion piece, it's an opinion piece written by a writer off his beat. So it's a very weak source to use for a Wikipedia-voiced claim. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Simonm223 However, Pitts got it from Barbara Arneil head of the political science department at the University of British Columbia. Ottawa11 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2018 UTC (UTC)


 * I don't consider this source to be WP:DUE to speak in Wikipedia's voice can you please address that assertion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Simonm223 This is her website https://politics.ubc.ca/persons/barbara-arneil/ and here is what she said to told to Pitts "When I read Bernier's quote to her over the phone, she responded, "Yes, that's classical liberalism." Ottawa11 (talk)  17:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That does not answer that you're making an opinion into Wikipedia's own voice which was my actual complaint all along. That he's reporting somebody else's opinion is irrelevant. It's still grossly undue. And the newly added Colby Cosh source is even worse. He speculates Bernier might be a good leader for a classically liberal party. Neither of these are appropriate references for stating that his party is "classically liberal" Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Simonm223 I did not post the Colby Cosh article it was 2607:FEA8:4DE0:2A6:151E:16D2:A9AA:5DE3 Ottawa11 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2018 UTC, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I wasn’t suggesting you did. Just noting that the source was also inappropriate for the claim as it didn’t actually say the party was Classical Liberal - just that the author felt Bernier could lead such a party. Simonm223 (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok guys hold onto your hats because I'm going to say something you will probably never hear from me again (and have never heard before) but I think that the Sun article that was added overnight is a good source for establishing Bernier as "classically liberal." In that it quotes him claiming that dubious ideology. I am going to remove the other two refs, but I'll leave the ideology up. NO this does not mean he's not conservative. "Classical Liberalism" largely means progressive by the standards of 1700, so it's pretty conservative anyway. Simonm223 (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I also advised people to keep definition explicated with the source.(talk)LegLanCorois 20:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Is it wrong to add increase to the membership numbers
I noticed that the Conservative Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party show an green sign against their membership. Would it be fine if it I included increase beside the membership numbers(talk)LegLanCorois 20:46, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * What purpose would it serve? As far as other articles go see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - Ahunt (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * To tell the direction of the party. If the party sold more membership than the previously. It would indicate to the reader that the party is growing. Vice Versa.(talk)LegLanCorois 01:51, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I guess any party will let the media know if their numbers are up, but is there any indication that they will releases numbers if they are going down? - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Usually after an election or before an leadership race, a party will release their membership numbers the Liberal Party did that after their 2011 election or the PCPO party did that in 2014 election show how many members they lost. (talk)LegLanCorois 14:05, 22 October 2018 UTC


 * I would expect so, but all that adds up to it not being very unexpected or reliable, so why include it? Another factor is how often are numbers made available? Few organizations have running total on their website, it is usually just hit-or-miss reports of numbers. - Ahunt (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Well Bernier has currently put out a twitter the current numbers and it seems like they have grown (talk)LegLanCorois 13:37, 31 October 2018 UTC


 * Let's wait until it gets reported in reliable sources. Brad  v  14:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Party ideology
Of all the ideologies listed in the infobox; Conservatism, Libertarianism, and Populism are well sourced. However, Classical liberalism's Source is about Bernier in the 2016 CPC race, not about new People's party. Also it was only a remark in passing about classical liberalism, not a full endorsement of the whole ideology by candidate Bernier. I am therefore pulling this out of the infobox. Emass100 (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur. That source doesn't even mention the subject (as it predates it), so this qualifies as original research. Leave it out until and unless someone comes up with an appropriate source. Brad  v  05:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Brad would this article is points to political theorists that algin some of the statements to classical liberalism. 174.92.71.200 (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2018  (UTC)


 * I think this article is so I will add it back, please argue that it the term should be put back in 70.50.215.66

Lede
The lede of this article included a bunch of quotes from Bernier about the party, which is inappropriate. The content of this article must be based on reliable sources, not Bernier's own statements. The lede of the article should be a summary of the article, which this version was not. From the manual of style: I trimmed the lede in an effort to comply with these policies, and my edit was promptly reverted by. Please explain. Brad v  14:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Brad utI just noticed that in the Talk:People's Party of Canada the lede was a topic raised and it was developed with the consensus of other users When you removed it, you never voiced your reason.Also, your lede over simplify the page, however, I agree with you that some parts can be trimmed. Also, are you arguing that we cite our sources within the lede because all the Bernier quotes came from reliable sources.(talk)LegLanCorois 14:11, 31 October 2018 UTC
 * The trimmed lede provided a concise overview of the topic, per above, and an accurate summary of the article. Quotes from Bernier should be entirely excluded from the lede, although some of those quotes may be relevant to an "Ideology" section. Brad  v  14:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * True but since this is a federal political party in Canada, should we keep the lead in line with other federal political parties like Liberal Party of Canada Conservative Party of Canada and Bloc Québécois. (talk)LegLanCorois 14:33, 31 October 2018
 * I believe I offered a version of the lede that was a concise overview of the article's topic, based upon reliable sources, and free of advertising and promotional language. You've reverted that edit, and now are fiddling with the grammar, but the same problem still exists. Brad  v  14:57, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the accidental revert on the lede stuff. I thought I was just cutting out En Marche! Odd... Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, your edit was correct. I just restored an earlier version, so it probably showed up in your notifications as a revert. Brad  v  15:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. For the record, I prefer your lede. Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree but should the lede focus more on the party and note Bernier 65Karlson (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)



Why not leave it at "Conservative-Libertarian?"
The hook sentence brands this party as "classical liberal." Maxime is actively trying to get support from both Conservative and Libertarian supporters, since his party represents the values of both. While "classical liberal" is correct, most people not indulged in political lingo will open this article, see classical liberal, and think "oh just another sleazy liberal party." So why not change it to "Conservative-Libertarian?"

This is merely an unbiased suggestion. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiguru64 (talk • contribs)


 * In general we go with precision over pandering to readers who don't understand the subject basics. - Ahunt (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

To remind people
In light of the disruptive editing that had to be reverted: 1. Keep all contents to be related to the party. They was a lot of information that was well written but was more apporaite for other pages.

2. Avoid putting headers.I belive when putting headers on polices indicated that importance. However, a lot of information is vague. I would rule out until the platform is being realased,which should be within a month or two — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.139.130 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * You reverted my entire 2 paragraphs of edits within hours of their creation. My edits were not disruptive. Deleting 2 paragraphs of neutral Wikified content fully sourced with reliable sources, cited with inline citations, that is relevant to the topic of this article, is disruptive. By removing all the content so quickly without any discussion on the talk page, you bypass the the very productive but slower process through which editors discuss the merits of words, phrases, RS, etc. on the talk page.

Bernier is presenting himself for leadership in a national party, that if elected, would be creating far-reaching policies on the environment, immigration, economic policies. His well-known views on these issues - past and present, as recorded, reported, and analysed by the contemporary media and other published reliable sources, are relevant, as they provide background and context and are, therefore, not only useful, but crucial to the quality of this article. RSs are publishing relevant stories about Bernier and this party enhancing understanding of the who, what, when, why, where, and how of the PPC. There is no need to wait until a platform is packaged to discuss the context in which it exists.

Bernier has been known, particularly since his February 24, 2010 La Presse opinion piece, for his views on climate change. This is inseparable from his current project in terms of understanding. A political party is not created in a vacuum. As editors, we are not writing a promotional advertisement for the PPC, which is what this article sounds like at this time.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

I have placed the edits that you deleted below:


 * According to a November 1, 2018 article in the National Post Bernier's PPC platform does not include "any specific climate policy" as Maxime Bernier trusts that the private sector will "solve the problem" of climate change once Bernier proposed economic policies, which include a "flat, lower tax rate for business, are in place. According to the PPC spokesman Martin Masse, "No government policy that is now being debated, certainly not the government’s carbon tax, is likely to have any effect on global climate change." In the Post interview, Bernier said that his comment on Twitter saying that, "CO2 is NOT pollution. It’s what comes out of your mouth when you breathe and what nourishes plants," had been misinterpreted.


 * Bernier's February 24, 2010 opinion piece published in Montreal's La Presse earned national attention when he wrote that there was "in fact, no scientific consensus. What’s certain is that it would be irresponsible to spend billions of dollars to impose unnecessary stringent regulations to resolve a problem whose gravity we are still not certain about. The alarmism that often characterized this issue is no longer at stake. Canada is right to be cautious." Bernier added, "The debate over climate change, stifled for years by political correctness, has finally broken out in the media." At that time, Bernier was Beauce MP, but he was no longer Minister of Foreign Affairs. He had been a "star" in Stephen Harper's cabinet but had stepped down in 2007, following the Julie Couillard allegations. By 2016, when he was running for party leadership, Bernier "softened his stance". He was described in the National Observer article as being "among a small group of Conservatives who have openly cast doubts about scientific evidence that has long demonstrated humans are to blame for most of the global warming observed in the last century."

Libertarian conservatism in See Also section
Hiveho

From the Libertarian conservatism article: "Libertarian conservatism or conservative libertarianism is a political philosophy and ideology that combines right-libertarian politics and conservative values."

This article lists both Libertarianism and conservatism as the party's ideology. Connection established, and so the contentious line can stay in the article. Emass100 (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The issues isn't that can't stay in the article; its where it placed "See also" . See Also is jusy links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. Ususally when we put see also is ideological links its in context within the country; See the Liberal Party or the NDP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiveho (talk • contribs)


 * I mean, Libertarian conservatism is tangentially to the topic of this article, as it is the combination of both of its ideologies (as so matches its views), but the party was never really described as such in sources.


 * There is no fixed rule for only putting ideologies with reference to a specific country in the See Also section. I did find a counter-example: the New Anticapitalist Party. Emass100 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Problems with this article
I've tagged this article for not adhering to the principle of neutral point of view. The lede also needs to be completely rewritten, as the current version does not provide a concise summary of the contents of the article, and engages in unsourced speculation. The rest of the article needs to be reviewed for accuracy and neutrality against the sources. Bradv 🍁  20:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Where is the unsourced speculation in the lede? - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it now, but I was referring to the sentence "The EDAs will facilitate the nominations of a full slate of candidates for the 43rd Canadian Federal Election." At this point it plans to do that, but the party doesn't actually have 338 candidates yet, so we need to be careful how we word this. Bradv 🍁  21:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Could we replace right-wing with Libertarian Conservative since right-wing is vague term. 21:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65Karlson (talk • contribs)
 * So, does this mean the problem with the lede is fixed now? Emass100 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I was hoping for more input on the lede. This edit just reinstated the problems I identified. It is common in articles about political parties to broadly identify its position, and "right-wing" is the most concise and what is used by the vast majority of sources. And regarding the other part of that edit – the only source for the number of "founding members" is Bernier himself, so if we really can't include that in Wikipedia's voice without some sort of qualification. Bradv 🍁  21:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that however, their is a National Post article; we it was revealed that Bernier showed it to the journalist; who verrfied it, 65Karlson Here "The initial goal had been to sign up 10,000 members by Nov. 1. In his office a few days before that deadline, Bernier interrupted an interview to retrieve his iPad so he could show the Post some numbers in NationBuilder, sophisticated fundraising software used across the international political spectrum from pro-Brexit campaigners to NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. The screen showed 27,896 members. By midnight on Halloween they had tripled their goal, with more than 31,500 members". 21:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I mean, it only comes from Bernier's iPad, but that appears to be the way things are done – party membership numbers are self-reported. Either way, I don't think this needs to be in the lede at all. It's already mentioned in the body of the article, and in the infobox, which is in line with our articles on the other federal parties. Bradv 🍁  21:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Fine but can we remove " right wing " from the lede or replace with "libertarain Conservative right wing populist party." Also, would it be fine if we brought back the fact that the did ralies. 65Karlson 21:58,, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, we should concisely identify the party's political position in the lede, as we do with other articles on political parties. "Right-wing" is what is used in the preponderance of reliable sources. I realize that's a broad term, but it includes all of the terms you just used as well, so it is definitely precise enough for the lede. And I'm not sure what you mean by your second sentence. Bradv 🍁  22:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I feel like if the lede focuses to much on Maxime Bernier such as the fact it mentions the fact that he was a member of parliament, cabinet minister and former leadership candidate. It detracts from the context of party. Bernier qualifications are suited more on his wiki-page. 22:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiveho (talk • contribs)
 * Seeing as how Bernier is the party's only MP, and there are no sources that discuss the party without also discussing Bernier, I'm not sure how the topics could be separated any further. What particular changes would you suggest? Bradv 🍁  22:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am just saying that instead of pointing out that Bernier is the only member in parliment and his background as a leadership candidate becuase it makes him look to qualified maybe we simplfy to a member of parilment since 2006. Hiveho 22:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All of that provides very important background information about the party though – it was formed by a former leadership candidate and cabinet member for the Conservative party, the party has a leader, and the party has one member of parliament. I don't understand why we would want to hide any of that information. Bradv 🍁  22:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Fine should I remove the lede templete Hiveho 22:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * You say "The rest of the article needs to be reviewed for accuracy and neutrality against the sources". Can you please point to the specific sentences that you feel might be innacurate or biased so they can be corrected? Emass100 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I check the sources they seem fine to me; if their isn't any complaints; I suggest it should be removed. 65Karlson 23:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't see any further glaring problems with the sourcing, and have removed the tags. Thanks everyone. Bradv 🍁  23:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

By-elections
Regarding this edit, I have no objection to including this information, but it should be cited to reliable sources rather than party press releases. Are there better sources availalbe? Bradv 🍁  05:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are fine for factual information, like who they are running in which ridings. Media sources are only going to regurgitate the information from the press releases anyway, since there is no other source of who the party is running, other than the party itself, anyway. - Ahunt (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the section appears to be under dispute, it's reasonable to ask if better sources are available. Regardless, can we please have some discussion here regarding this information rather than continued edit warring? Pinging, . Bradv 🍁  16:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really care if we list the candidates or not. I reverted its removal because of WP:BITE, and that the reason given for the removal made no sense. The "compromise" offered involves pointless over sourcing of claims. I also feel that we should not constantly be comparing this party to the other Canadian parties because this party is new. However, it is important to note that the Bloc Québécois's first ever by-election candidate is named on their article. Better sources for the candidate are:   Emass100 (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My concern has more to due with the timing, I put it as a note because we do not the impact these candidate whould have per say. Lets wait until after the by-election to determine its importance. Also I don't see other parties post information of their by-election candidate particular those wo by-election has not been called unless the other candidates. Its better to post the name of candidate the by-election page. Also I think is talking about Guerts and Seale. Hiveo (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yea, sure. Let's keep it that way and add them in if they end up getting a score deemed notable. Emass100 (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)


 * So, can I remove the information about Clarke since her by-election will not be called. Hiveo (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Since the by-elections are in the article the results need to be included as well. Your edit note that it's too early to include the results doesn't make sense since the February by-elections have occurred and the results are final. To omit the results looks like bias ie trying to keep a poor result out of the article. Since they are the first election results the party has ever received they are notable and need to be included, especially since you thought it was important to include the fact that the party was running candidates in the by-elections and their names in the article. To say that without having the actual results makes no sense and is non-standard. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I only have issues with the timing; Clarke by-election was only delayed because of the provincial by-election; the by-election results on 25th were to broad and it not impact the party positively or negativly.After, her by-election occured we can put the by-election.Hiveo (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2019
 * I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense. The fact that the PPC was running candidates in the three Feb 25 by-elections received a lot of attention, as did the result in Burnaby. The results are in, there is *absolutely* no reason not to include them now. The fact that there is an additional by-election in May does not change the February results and is no reason to delay including them in the article now. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 1. You are being over-descriptive; the attention it received was minor in comparison in Canadian politics. They only put candidates because it was a requirement in order to be registered. If Election-Canada didn't have this requirement then they would have not put candidates. 2. The May by-election is within a month 3. It's not about the results, it's about the impact; every party contest by-elections but its the impact that important. Does it change poll results, does it help with recruitment or does it force a leadership change.Hiveo (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2019
 * If the fact that they ran candidates had enough impact to include that in the article, which you did, there's no reason not to include the results. It's the obvious thing anyone reading the article is going to wonder about - how did these candidates do? I haven't seen one good reason from you why the vote results should be excluded. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Fine, but I put out a compromise; that include the vote share.Hiveo (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2019

RfC about People's Party of Canada byelection results
Should the results of the three by-elections held on February 25, 2019, the first ever contested by the People's Party of Canada, be included in the article? At present, the fact that the party ran candidates in the three by-elections, and the names of those candidates, is included but not the actual vote results. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the results should be noted in the article. I'm having trouble making any sense of Hiveo's reasoning in the above discussion at all, in fact. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, they should be included. I have read the above and I also cannot make any sense of Hiveo's arguments against this. Facts are facts, include them. - Ahunt (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes and speedy close there is no negative to providing these facts and they're clearly encyclopedic. ModerateMikayla555 (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Reaffirming guidelines for infobox.
I have decided to remove desruptive recent edits made by Heven5 base on the factors such as using terminology that are not classified as political ideology such as anti feminism or climate change denial, the use of sources that are not precise,contradict or has nothing to due with the party.Thus, should the guidelines for the inform be estsbaised around these concern and previous conversation on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.111.18 (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They are not "disruptive edits", they are all properly sourced. If you are going to start a discussion then wait for a consensus before removing material, especially sourced material. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mean disruptive editing in the context of using WP:SYTHN meaning while the sources are reliable they Don't have an exploited reference and valid reasoning why it should meet these term. For example, climate change denial, which I could not find a single classifying as a political ideology ,one of the sources States that Bernier believes in climate change. Isn't this a contradiction? When I mean previous conversation on the talk page. I am refering that the editor did not seek a conseus when making edits. The editors that is Simonm223 who no other editors have challenged or seek to change the coneseus,established that every ideglogy must be source,that they spefifcal refer to the party and not Bernier,and is not an op-ed piece. I suggest we remove the edits until Heven5 give their reasons for the edits  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.111.18 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Some other political parties, like that the FvD in the Netherlands also have "Climate change denial" as a political ideology. The AfD in Germany has "Anti-Feminism" in theirs. The edits removed by 72.143.111.18 were sourced properly, and with reputable sources. If you read the sources, they prove that the edits are correct. The sources do talk about Bernier, but overall talk about the ideology of the PPC Party, and not Bernier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.40.50 (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I suspect that 98.124.40.50,who is blocked and Heven5,who is suspected of being a sockpuppet, are the same user.The reason has to due with the fact that 98.124.40.5 responded when I stated that Heven5 should and they edits history is very similar.In addition, Bradv who reported him call these edits redundent: Here . Thus leading to me referring the edits.However, if Heven5 is not a sock puppet, they should use the talk page to make their case.

Inclusion in Leaders' Debates
I added a sub-section about whether the party's leader will be included in the 2019 debates held by the Leaders' Debates Commission. Given that this could or could not happen and may have a significant effect on the parties electoral prospects, I think it may be appropriate to include it. I struggle whether this is too much detail, but am not sure if removing the criteria and just talking about what Gould said is appropriate. Anyway, improve away.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Since you started the debate you should have waited a couple of debates. Personally, I think the Leaders' Debates Commission page would be an appropriate place to talk about it. I mean that the edits violated the guidelines of Wikipedia such WP:due where most of the edits talks about the debate guidelines and not the party.Also using the word possibly falls under the category of gossip/rumors which goes against Wikipedia encyclpida guidelines. Remember Wikipedia is an encylodia not a forum to discus political strategy. However if the party is included or excluded being it back with less weight.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.85.96 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Point taken that the debate section I created was broad and talked about the criteria for debates generally. I expected it would need to be widowed down, and invited others to do so.  The solution is not to remove any mention of that 90% threshold and how it will apply to the party as mentioned in WP:RS.  The strategy the party is taking to confirm candidates in all ridings is likely informed by that criteria.  Whether it is or not in a section about registrations, it is perfectly appropriate to mention that the party needs to reach 90% to be included in debates.  One sentence about that is certainly WP:Due.  The solution is not to hide this information in a footnote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Spelling. Grammar. Sentence structure.
This entire article needs to be put through a spelling, grammar and sentence structure editor. Preferably one with a native speakers level of proficiency. i.e. "-which could accelerate the party's fundraising efforts and nominated candidates." "-which were called for February 25, 2019" "-the entire People's Party of Canada board in a Elmwood—Transcona publicly sent a resignation letter, claiming-" "They felt disillusioned because the party was catering towards them instead reasons why the board members joined the party which were more economic based."

There are dozens more of these spelling, grammar and sentence structure errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.100.71.111 (talk)


 * I completely agree -- the article needs a top-to-bottom review, and substantial portions of it would benefit from being completely rewritten. I added a copy edit tag to the article on September 2, but User:Weelandlka removed it fifteen minutes later without consulting anyone else. I've re-added it.


 * At some point I may take a crack at cleaning up the article, but I expect that that would take hours, and to be completely honest I don't have the time at the moment. Stephen Hui (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2019
This party's political position is NOT right-wing rather it is centre-right or libertarian. This can be seen just by reading the party policies which do not attack individual freedoms. Usually a right-wing or left-wing ideology/policies limit different individual freedoms such as free speech, abortion etc. The Conservative party of Canada should be considered right wing and the New Democrat Party should be left-wing. The PPC should be centre-right and Liberal Party should be centre-left. Please change this as the information on Wikipedia is misleading right now. Areebja (talk) 14:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – bradv  🍁  15:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2019
Change "phrasing out" to "phasing out" in the passage below.

"Prominent platform planks include ending corporate welfare and phrasing out supply management" over a number of years to allow farmers to adapt", through compensation yet "save Canadians billions of dollars annually" through lower prices. Pjs902 (talk) 17:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Done, nice catch. Zortwort (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2019
Add additional date specificity to the following line:

The party's registration documents were officially submitted to Elections Canada on October 10.

It should read as follows:

The party's registration documents were officially submitted to Elections Canada on October 10, 2018. Jeremyfelix (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Though the dates are reading a little clunky at the moment, might need to re-format the way things are presented in that section at some point. Zortwort (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2019
Hi, please edit this page to change the political position of The People's Party of Canada from:

Political position	Right-wing[10][9] to far-right[11][12][13]

TO:

Political position: Center-right to right-wing.

The sources for "far-right" are terrible, it's a Communist politician Jagmeet Singh smearing Maxime Bernier for two of them, and a the Toronto Star, a paper that calls everyone who disagrees with them as far-right for the other. The PPC has about 30-40% members from the left to the center, and any one of the 41,000 members found to have affiliation with far-right or extremist views looking to infiltrate the new party has been removed.

Also, please remove

Ideology: Anti-Immigration

and replace with:

Fiscal Conservatism.

The sources are talking about a 3rd party billboard not affiliated with the party that said "Say no to mass immigration". The party supports immigration/capita in line with other western nations. Anti-Immigration is false. Almost every one of the PPC's policies is focusing on fiscal responsibility, except when they are focusing on improving life for all Canadians. Reviewer199 (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌ - We aren't going to remove cited information and replace it with uncited information. Your labelling Singh a "communist", plus your remarks supporting the PPC here indicate you may have an undeclared conflict of interest on this subject. If you have a an affiliation with the subject of the article you need to declare that conflict of interest here or on your user page. Please see WP:COI for more information. - Ahunt (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I would recommend removing far-right as a political position as that implies some sort of connection to ideologies such as fascism, neo-nazism, ethnonationalism, and other extremest and authoritarian positions. Although it is right-wing, it has a very different ideology than to other right-wing to far-right parties (such as the AfD in germany). Thank You. ELUnderwood (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * We have reliable sources calling it "far-right". To remove this you would need a source that says it isn't or at least a preponderance of reliable sources that say otherwise. - Ahunt (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Project Cactus
I am just wondering if this should be included [], []. Basically, its a political strategy from the Conservative Party and Warren Kinsella. that may have influenced the political vote. Weelandlka (talk) 12:49:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It definitely needs to be included in this article. - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clear "it may have influence public perceptions". However, I would focus Project Cactus more on the wikipage of Warren Kinsella and maybe the Conservative party. Before focusing on People party and Bernier. Weelandlka (talk) 04:20:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Anti-immigration
Having "anti-immigration" in the infobox when the party wants to allow 150 000 immigrants per year is deeply intellectually dishonest. The PPC is anti-mass immigration, here's a source: https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/third-party-buys-billboard-to-promote-berniers-anti-mass-immigration-stance You want to slander the party that's fine but at least try to show some intellectual honesty while doing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryptoSiD (talk • contribs) 17:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, the PPC is not " anti-immigrant", wikipedia is infected with woke leftists parasites.

Can someone stop Helper201 from vandalizing the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryptoSiD (talk • contribs) 02:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is how reliable sources have referred to the party. The linked page for anti-immigration links to the page opposition to immigration, which states in its introduction -


 * 'Opposition to immigration ranges from calls for various immigration reforms to proposals to completely restrict immigration to one's nation; these often also include measures to combat immigration of existing citizens'.


 * The party seems to conform at least in part with that description, so the linked page is apt to use here. I'm open to possibly changing what is stated in the infobox to 'anti-mass immigration', however this would likely fall under WP:SYNTH as this is not what the sources given state. We would need to find sources that state this explicitly, and preferably a third party source stating this, not just a quote from the party leader. I make sure to take a neutral point of view in my editing and edit pages from across the political spectrum. I am simply adding cited information that is stated by reliable sources. Statements such as 'wikipedia is infected with woke leftists parasites' display a clear point of view. Please also respect Civility. Helper201 (talk) 02:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

So you're telling us that a party that wants to lower immigrations from 350 000 per year (which is 1% of Canada population), to 150 000 per year (which is 0.4-5% of Canada population) is anti-immigration? I'm sorry but it feels very dishonest to me. There's no need to have "anti-immigration" nor "anti-mass-immigration" in the infobox, but if you really want to have it, change it to anti-mass-immigration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CryptoSiD (talk • contribs) 11:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * My own views are irrelevant, per WP:OR. I am simply putting what reliable sources have stated. As I have stated we could change it to anti-mass immigration if reliable sources support this claim. We would need to find reliable sources that state this. So far I have seen none that aren't quoting Maxime Bernier directly. It would be fine to use one of those as a source but we should also have a reliable third party source that explicitly calls the party anti-mass immigration. So far all three sources given currently explicitly refer to the party simply under the term anti-immigration. Therefore this claim has more validity because three reliable sources are calling the party anti-immigration, whereas I have only seen the party leader call the party 'anti-mass immigration'. Identifying and using independent sources. Helper201 (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have opened this discussion for 'request for comment' from other editors to get their views on the matter. Helper201 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As RfCs go, this is not one of the clearest. Please have a look at how it is showing at Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. Then read WP:RFCST. Then remove the tag and try again. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * . Done. Thank you for highlighting this. Helper201 (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Requests for comment
Disputed whether or not anti-immigration should be among the listed ideologies in the infobox. Further details can be found on the talk page. Helper201 (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge the PPC is the only major political party whose platform explicitly includes a reduction in the number of immigrants allowed into the country. Their proposal is to limit immigration to between 100,000 and 150,000 annually. Per Statistics Canada, that would be a reduction of 50%-70% from current levels, the lowest number in absolute terms since the 1980s, and the lowest number as a percentage of the population since World War II. If they have the most explicitly immigration-unfriendly platform of any major Canadian political party, and are proposing the least immigration-friendly national policy in the past seventy years, it seems fair to bill them as "anti-immigration". Stephen Hui (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I vehemently disagree that PPC is anti-immigrant. If they truly were anti-immigrant, they would completely shut-down immigration, and start booting immigrants over the past decade out of the country. According to Lexico by Oxford, the definition of immigration is, "The action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country". If people are able to enter Canada to live there permanently during a PPC government rule, then that by definition means that PPC is not anti-immigration. Perhaps a more appropriate identifier for PPC would be pro-"melting pot", anti-globalism (globalism is a very different term than globalization, mind you), or anti-mass-immigration; but not "anti-immigration". Therefore I'm adamant that deeming the PPC as anti-immigration is academically dishonest. WiiDS (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the term Anti-Immigration should either be removed or replacing it with a term that is more suited for the party. Using the term Anti-Immigration implies that the party is opposed to immigration as a principle and although they state that they would drastically reduce immigration I don't believe it sustains the term Anti-Immigration. Thank Yoy. ELUnderwood (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Should not list anti-immigration. Plainly a position and not an Ideology among the List of political ideologies, it also appears to be false.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I have repaired the page following what obviously seems to be vandalism done by far-left activists who are destroying Wikipedia pages of every right-wing parties. The People's Party is a populist party, it's promoting canadian nationalism, but it has nothing of a far-right party and it's very dishonest to say it's anti-immigration, as the party wants to reduce immigration numbers. Olivierveer (talk), 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Please WP:AGF and do not attack other editors for adding well-sourced material. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The difference between "anti-immigration" and "anti-mass immigration" is subjective and can easily descend into semantics. Within the Canadian political context, the PPC is the only party to support significant reductions in immigration meaning it is reasonable within our country's context to label them as "anti-immigration" (a less convoluted and subjective term than "anti-mass immigration"). If we were discussing a nationalist party in Japan, where immigration is notoriously restricted, that argument might have some validity. Regardless, I stand by my earlier decisions to add the labels "right-wing nationalism" and "anti-immigration" to the PPC's list of ideologies. Economic libertarianism did not constitute the bulk of their electoral messaging. To completely ignore the issue Bernier campaigned on the most is misleading and inaccurate. Chris-Gilmore77 (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Ideologies and Political Positions
I can understand the hesitance to label the PPC as "Far Right," as the term is often associated with fascism and Neo-Nazism (albeit not exclusively, and I don't necessarily think it's an entirely inaccurate label). However, at the very least a term such as "right-wing nationalism," or "anti-immigration" should be added into the list of ideologies, because at the moment the ideologies listed only give the indication that the "People's Party" is a run of the mill libertarian party, and that is not accurate (anti-immigrant nationalism comprised 70% of their messaging). Chris-Gilmore77 (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed that ideologies have been added (such as Climate Change Denial) that aren't really ideologies as the definition of ideology is "a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.". Using this definition the term Climate Change Denial isn't an ideology. Secondly, I have noticed that the label far-right is used to describe the party. Although there are articles which claim the party is far-right it should be noted that a sense of proportion is needed. I would just put the party's political position as Right-Wing and leave it at that. Using the term Far-Right compares it to parties such as the National Front in France or the BNP in the UK (vastly different ideologies). Far-Right also implies ideologies such as Facism, Neo-Nazism, and Authoritarianism; the party doesn't fit into any of these. I'd also remove the term Anti-Immigration as it implies that the party disagrees with the principle of immigration (which it does not). The party being "Anti-Mass Immigration" fits under the ideology of Right-Wing Populism and does not need another section under the ideologies tab. Also I highly suggest removing the term Canadian Nationalism from the ideologies tab. This term is misleading at best as supporting Free-Trade, Humanitarian Aid, and Multilateralism goes against this idea. Also there is absolutely no need to put "Canadian Conservatism" as an ideology instead of just Conservatism. It is implied that a Canadian political party adheres to Canadian Conservatism and not some other form. You can however have it redirected to the "Conservatism in Canada" page. Thank You. ELUnderwood (talk) 09:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that we are talking about Canada here, we don't have fascist or neo-fascist political parties here. Everything is relative and in a Canadian context this party has been described in reliable sources as "far-right". - Ahunt (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes that is true that this is a Canadian context, however we do have actual far-right parties like the new Canadian Nationalist Party. If you see the conservative representing broadly centre-right and the CNP representing the far-right then this party fits right within the term Right-Wing. ELUnderwood (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think... If 'Canadian Nationalist Party' is just a "far-right", then 'People's Party of Canada' is a more "right-wing to far-right".--삭은사과 (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Not all far-right are based on Nazism, fascism. Both international standards and relativism should be considered when marking the political spectrum. The bottom line is that People's Party of Canada is far-right. The source is also a reliable source.--삭은사과 (talk) 13:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The thing is that this party does not display any sort of extreme nationalism and could be debated whether it is nationalist at all for the reason i put forth above. It doesn't really have a nativist ideology nor have authoritarian tendencies. If any party deserved the right-wing to far-right label it would be the National Citizens Alliance. ELUnderwood (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * We don't make judgement calls in editing Wikipedia, based on our perceptions of things like absolute or relative "far-rightness", we are, instead bound by what reliable sources say. It is not a matter of our opinions here. - Ahunt (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I question the political leanings/neutrality of the sources. The Guardian, according to it's own Wikipedia article, seems to be left leaning. Cganuelas (talk) 22:12, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The consensus amongst editors is that The Guardian is generally reliable. Some editors have indicated the Guardians' politics section is biased, in which case WP:BIASED applies. Media Bias/Fact Check ranks The Guardian as 'High' on factual reporting "due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record." CremationLily (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that The Guardian is reliable, though I do wonder at what point we separate judgements of political character which have been made by reputed authorities, and those which have been made by the authors of the referenced articles. Certainly The Guardian, reporting researched fact, is a reliable source, but can the somewhat-incidental and uncited description of the PPC as "far-right", which is not the subject of the article and is in no way rationalized, really be considered reliable, and can the individual author of the article be verifiably free from bias? Certainly not. In my opinion the political character of a party should only be discerned from scholars and authorities discussing that party's platform and rationalizing a characterization of it-- that is: unsupported, off-hand descriptors in newsprint should not be used as the only source for such a characterization. Ultimately, these political descriptors in the article, used to describe a party which is in its infancy and is yet to be characterized politically by any academic interest, don't add much to it anyway. When scholars, historians, political authorities or politically relevant individuals who are reliable and reputable for claims of political characterization comment on the party, then those characterizations can be cited, or (if contentious/disputed by other sources) analyzed. Zortwort (talk) 22:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zortwort (talk) point. Context matters and we should rely on reputable for claims of political characterization comment on the party, then those characterizations can be cited, not reliable. However, should remove any "ideology" Ideology among the List of political ideologies such as "anti-immigration" or "immigration-reform" from the infobox. Weelandlka (talk) 22:31:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

How exactly is the PPC far-right? It seems like our culture is so far left that anyone who is even remotly anti-PC is now considered " Far-right"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shj648 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia donor and contributor, I am really disappointed to see this page being modified by people relying on sensationnalist news titles produced by left-wing biased medias like The Guardian. The People's Party is not a far-right party because a journalist has called it a far-right party. The far-right is all about fascism, racism, totalitarianism, imperialism and hateful policies in general. The People's Party is only calling for a reduction of immigration for reasons other than national preservation or hate. I'm also really disappointed to see that it is allowed by moderators to insert "Climate change denial" as an ideology of the party, while its leader Maxime Bernier has often said he does believe in climate change. He however disagrees with the necessity of taking urgent decisions to fight against it. I will admit you that I am a conservative voter. I have always supported the Conservative Party, but in no way the People's Party has something to do with the far-right. If I had to follow the same logic, I could act with dishonesty and call the NDP a communist party and a far-left party, but I won't, even if biased right-wing medias are calling the NDP a communist party. I am please asking the moderators here to restore this page and erase all these false informations, because I have always trusted Wikipedia as a reliable source of information to inform myself on political parties around the world, but when I see that kind of thing, I lose confidence in this website and it saddens me a lot. Thank you.Olivierveer (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the Guardian is just a center-left media outlet. The NDP does not call it far-left in the center-right media outlet. I think there would be reasonable reasons if the reliable center-right media called a certain non-mainstream left-wing party a far-left.--삭은사과 (talk) 10:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is... I think the PPC is the far-right party. The Guardian isn't the only source of the PPC being the far-right party, is it?--삭은사과 (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Why does this have to even be explained? The textbook definition of far-right implies extremism. Whether "reliable" sources call it far-right is irrelevant here, unless those arguments can be justified by said reliable sources then it's a moot argument. If you can provide sources that, by your own standards (whatever they may be), are reliable and make a convincing point that the PPC is, indeed, far-right, then maybe you'd be right. I can also provide further arguments against using the term far-right. For example, as others have mentioned, there are or have been numerous others parties in Canada that are considerably more extremist, some of which that are registered in this election are the Nationalist or Citizen's Alliance. I recall you (or someone else here) making the argument that the PPC may be called far-right because by Canadian standards it's more right-wing than the traditional spectrum of politics. Regardless of whether this is true or not, it's irrelevant. The Green Party isn't "far-left", is it? I mean, it is further to the left than the NDP, which is, out of the top 3 parties, the furthest to the left. Heck, it's not even classified "left-wing" even though I'd argue it is. So those are just my two cents. The terminology "far-right" is fundamentally wrong and misleading. Sources don't mean shit if the content is unjustified or arguably wrong. Garirry (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well to add to Garirry point; how come the Reform Party or  Canadian Alliance are classified as right-wing. Have you seen their polices? Weelandlka (talk) 12:38:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well said Garirry, great points. It doesn't matter how "reputable" a source appears to be. A source's claim holds no merit if it presents no evidence to support that claim. PPC is not anti-immigration, nor is it even close to being a far-right party. WiiDS (talk) 15:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WiiDS (talk), you are thinking about reliable sources. Reputable means a figure of authority like a political scientist. I believe that Zortwort (talk) Weelandlka (talk) 16:18:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Zortwort (talk) sure; but nonetheless my point still stands. WiiDS (talk) 04:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You might want to tell Wizard  💙 that. I keep trying raising cocerns from you and  Weelandlka (talk) 4:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I'm closing this edit request until the RFC has concluded. Please feel free to re-open it, if necessary, once consensus has been achieved. NiciVampireHeart 05:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

National Conservatism is a more fitting ideology. While the PPC is not completely anti-immigration, they are in favour of drastically curtailing it, ending official multiculturalism, and encouraging social integration into Canadian culture. National conservatism does not prescribe an economic policy, of even social policy necessarily, it simply refers to preservation of a traditional national identity. Alderwood History (talk) 06:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

National Conservatism ideology
National Conservatism is a fitting ideology for the PPC. While the PPC is not completely anti-immigration, they are in favour of drastically curtailing it, ending official multiculturalism, and encouraging social integration into Canadian culture. National conservatism does not prescribe an economic policy, of even social policy necessarily, it simply refers to preservation of a traditional national identity. Bernier has insisted on the importance of Canadian values, like other contestants in the Conservative Party leadership contest (eg: Kellie Leitch). These sources identify what National Conservatism means in Canada, and the PPC's alignment is fairly clear. https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-is-maxime-bernier-and-his-peoples-party-selling/ https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/federal-leaders-debate-who-is-max-bernier-and-why-is-he-here/ https://thevarsity.ca/2017/03/19/the-emergence-of-national-conservatism/ https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/canadian_identity_ending_official_multiculturalism_and_preserving_canadian_values_and_culture Alderwood History (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is what's called synthesis of sources: putting together several different reliable sources to form a conclusion that none of the sources actually states. Wikipedia does not do this. In order for Wikipedia to state that the People's Party follows national conservatism, you must find sources which state that explicitly. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, this would be WP:SYNTHESIS to add this to the article. To put the party in this political pigeon hole we need one reliable source that directly classifies the People's Party of Canada as "National Conservative". That said, now that this has been flagged we can look for sources that say that. I just did a search and didn't find anything at this point in time, however. It may be worth noting that with their sole seat gone, no voice in the House of Commons, not invited to future debates, etc, this party may not have a lot more written about it in the future, unless some political writer does a sort of post mortum book. - Ahunt (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

RFC on what to note in the lede

 * The following discussion 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.

Should the lede mention that the party is seen by its opponents as far-right? Vanilla  Wizard  💙 00:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Obligatory support as nominator. I'm sure this would be a controversial change, so I'm not even going to consider boldly adding it myself. In short, I noticed that the lede and the body have one notable difference in how they cover how the party has been referred to, and this doesn't appear to have been discussed in the archives of this talk page.
 * In the lede:
 * "The party has been referred to as conservative, libertarian, populist, and classical liberal, and is positioned on the right-wing."
 * In the body:
 * "The party has been referred to as conservative, libertarian, populist,, and classical liberal, while being seen on the right to far-right    of the political spectrum."
 * The two sentences are almost verbatim mirrors, with the obvious exception being that the lede doesn't include that critics of the party often refer to it as being on the political far-right. Would it be appropriate to add this information to the lede? Vanilla   Wizard  💙 00:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Personally, while, their is a discussion about the ideology simply because the lede of the ideology is placed inside the box,I would wait. My concerns about on the change is the questions about the party viability - whats going to happen to them. Also the impact of the Kinsella story has on shaping the political future of Canada Weelandlka (talk) 04:20:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm having some difficulties understanding what you're trying to say, but if you're suggesting that the party may soon cease to exist, that would be speculation and that's not exactly a reason to not continue to discuss how we can cover notable aspects of the article's subject. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 04:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, their was already a discussion on the talk page already about the party spectrum. If you had concerns you did not need to start a new section. I am just saying not to put anything until questions are address did Warren Kinsella play. Check the "project cactus" section Weelandlka (talk) 04:20:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have another questions 💙, did you use these articles to make changes in multiculturalism sections? Weelandlka (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose if its not in the infobox than its should not reference as a description of the party. Side note, I thought you did not make the edit 💙 thats why I removed it. Weelandlka (talk) 04:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am surprised that this has to be articulated, but it would be added to the infobox if a consensus finds that it ought to be in the lede of the article. The current state of the infobox does not dictate what the future of the article should look like, that wouldn't make any sense. Infoboxes are simply a quick way for the reader to learn about a particular topic. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 05:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about the future, I would remove any article refering to Bernier since he neither resign or stay on. I do not no if the party would be deactivated or the direction it would take if Bernier is still thier. I also think it might be giving Otherwise,See I am making the comment since their was an ongoing disscussion about "Ideologies and Political Positions". My concerns is their is still a discussion about it. It would my confuse readers why its not on the infoxbox  on the lede. Also, I don't know what context why they are calling "far-right". Is it a prejoritive? Do they understand about [[Populism in Canada is differnt from Populism in different coutries? These sources does not address the concerns being raised in the "Ideologies and Political Positions" sections.  Weelandlka (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what you're trying to say. It's impossible for us to communicate. You've used the word "concerns" in every one of our interactions so far, and every time I'm clueless as to what you're referring to. If you want, I can add it to the infobox, but I'm guessing that you don't want it to be in the infobox because you don't want it anywhere in the article, so I'm deeply confused as to what you're actually trying to argue and the more I re-read your replies the less I understand them. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 05:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my concern is based on []. If journalists cannot properly specify and cited their sources.Then their is the possibility of ligation. I just don't want wikipedia drawn in a potential litigation case


 * Support. CremationLily (talk) 00:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, although ideally we shouldn't have 6 citations trailing the claim; it looks amateurish. signed,Rosguill talk 21:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's citation overkill and could be trimmed down to 3 citations or split into multiple sentences so neither of them have too many. Vanilla   Wizard  💙 21:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Question. Generally speaking, shouldn't we prioritize how scholars and journalists employ classifications in a neutral fashion rather than how political opponents do? WP:YESPOV has its place, but this is first and foremost an "academic" question. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Wikipedia describes things as they are, not how our subjects would like them to be described. Agree about citation overkill; see Faith Goldy for how this can be handled with inline notes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 11:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Agree with the above arguments. RockingGeo (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC) Sock strike. – Levivich  19:38, 27 November 2019 (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.

Number of ridings contested 2019
Article states that PPC ran a full slate of candidates in all 338 ridings in 2019. However this is simply not true; for example, not PPC candidate ran in Labrador. It seems like that was the original plan, but was not what ended up actually happening.

According to the following sources, electoral district associations were formed in 326 ridings; and only 315 candidates ran in the 2019 federal election.

This contradicts the unsourced claim currently published.

Even the Template:Canadian federal election, 2019 says the PPC only ran 315 candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:B100:D04:36DC:E4D7:F80F:6468:D771 (talk) 09:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC) 2605:B100:D04:36DC:68CE:EA0E:F896:BD20 (talk) 09:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I will correct the article, as the original claim had no sources. Saxones288 (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion spokeperson
Cna we specifc that a spokeperson is not an elected leader but someone that respond to question that is asked by the media. For example, Brock Harrison is Andrew Scheer spokeperson but do you see his name on the Conservative Party of Canada https://globalnews.ca/news/4399075/andrew-scheer-india-trip-justin-trudeau/ Ottawa11 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2018 UTC

Suggestion regarding the name
In the light of this article: https://globalnews.ca/news/4464574/maxime-bernier-peoples-party-of-canada-name/ should we also include parties name such as the People's Party (Spain), Austrian People's Party, People's Party for Freedom and Democracy. Also, can I include En Marche! as examples. Ottawa11 22:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Founder?
I am wondering if people who buy a party membership before October 31st would fall under the category of founders? Thanks Ottawa11 22:00, 15 October 2018 UTC

Koch Brothers
Was this party funded by the Koch Brothers? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No evidence for that, unless you have a ref? - Ahunt (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)