Talk:2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Colors

Looking at the infobox and polling graph, Aitchison's and Brown's colors and Poilievre's and Barber's colors are almost similar and might pose as a problem for readers that might have a difficulty in distinguishing colors. I see that orange, purple and gold hasn't been taken and perhaps can be a replacement color for either candidate. (Note: I understand that some of the candidate's colors were chosen to correspond with their campaign website/logos, but I'm sure an exception can be made when some colors look a little similar). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

You raise a valid point. The problem may go away though if one/some of them fail to become verified in the next two weeks.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

@Darryl Kerrigan: Oh true. I'll raise this topic again pending the April deadline. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Aitchison is using a vermilion shade on his website that we could use instead. Would that be too close to Lewis' dark red? -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Earl Andrew: It might be too close to Lewis' dark red. I'm suggesting maybe gold, purple or orange since these colors haven't been taken. But we can wait and see which candidates are verified because to my understanding after the April 29th deadline, only verified candidates will appear on the infobox (seeing how they will appear on the ballot). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, my recommendation would be to wait at this point. If someone becomes "Approved" prior to that deadline and their colour is taken, I would recommend we assign them a random colour for now. I anticipate we will have less candidates to worry about in the infobox in 10 days. At that point, if 2 or more people have the same colour we can have a lengthier discussion on colour assignment. RoyalObserver (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: I'm generally against picking arbitrary colours for the candidates; I'd prefer to pick a colour that they're using in their campaign material.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Earl Andrew - Agreed, however that might not be possible for some. For example, if Marc Dalton and Leona Alleslev both become verified, their colour palettes are identical and it wouldn't be easy to distinguish. I disagree with @TDKR Chicago 101 that Baber and Poilievre are too similar. Worst case, we can brighten the grey a bit more in Baber's. Let's see who is verified in 10 days and we can cross this bridge of similar colours if multiple verified candidates are using the same or similar ones. As it stands, it's not a significant issue at this moment for the page. RoyalObserver (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

+1. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we will have to cross this bridge for at least Poilievre and Baber. My recommendation, given how Baber's colours have evolved since he launched the campaign, would be to use the bright blue he has in the "Join now" and "Donate" boxes on his website. I know we initially said we wanted to stick away from blue, but we are pretty limited with his campaign colours. Also, it's a completely different shade from the CPC blue, so I don't really have an issue with it. Just my two cents. RoyalObserver (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually, upon further review of his website, I think the steel blue/greyish colour he uses for "About" "Events" etc. would be better. It follows our "no blue" consensus early on, and it is more distinct from Poilievre's black. I will WP:BOLD edit it for now, and someone can reverse if there is disagreement. In my opinion, it's just a lighter variation of his current darker grey anyways. RoyalObserver (talk) 09:27, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I took the time to review the websites of all of the candidates, and I think I've come up with a solution to the Aitchison / Brown similarities. Charest's website now has an orange colour (ec8a37) as an accent which wasn't initially there when we first chose the colours. If we change his colour to that accent as opposed to his current yellowish accent, we can use Aitchison's yellow accent from the text on his website (dfda57) to distinguish him from Brown while still using colours from their campaign websites. I'm going to go ahead & WP:BOLD edit that now. If any fellow editors disagree, feel free to revert and we can continue this discussion here. RoyalObserver (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Fundraising numbers

We should probably work these fundraising numbers into the article somewhere.[1][2] Probably in a separate section. I don't know if the Q1 numbers of the "failed to qualify/disqualified" candidates are available in a WP:RS somewhere. Those would also be useful to include.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I've created a subsection with a table similar to the main fundraising table from the 2020 article. RoyalObserver (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Including Abacus

Seeing as Abacus is included in the 2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election as well as other election pages, I think it should be included. I invite Humberland, Lilactree2013, and RoyalObserver to chip in as they edited in the Abacus poll previously. LemonberryPie (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

"NPOV"

LemonberryPie I'm not understanding your NPOV concerns. It's not too far from the top of the WP:NPOV policy page where it says As such, the neutral point of view does not mean the exclusion of certain points of view. I don't believe it's a violation of NPOV to state that multiple sources have said that PP and Lewis are indeed espousing conspiracy theories. Also, while on the topic, could you explain this edit, specifically the laguage Poilievre plans to promote freedom of speech online... which was not supported by your introduced source. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi GhostOfDanGurney. In addition to removing a source, there are two WP:NPOV issues with your edit.

1. You said in Wikipedia's voice "Poilievre has espoused conspiracy theories", which does not meet NPOV. Instead, you're supposed to write "Lilley described Poilievre's view as a conspiracy theory" when citing an opinion article, rather than state opinions as facts. Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."

2. The Candidates Policies section is strictly to list the policies of the candidates as stated by themselves, views on those policies stated by journalists is not relevant to that section. Including views and reception in the Policies section gives WP:UNDUE weight.

Feel free to add in "Hoffman described Lewis' view as a conspiracy theory" and "Lilley described Poilievre's view as a conspiracy theory" to other parts of the article. No disagreement there, I encourage you to keep these different view points in the article while written in this appropriate manner. However, the Candidates Policies sections is strictly for their stated policies, other writer's views on those policies are not relevant to that specific section. LemonberryPie (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Your concern, with respect, has no ground to stand on because I was not stating opinions as facts. There is no rule or consensus that says However, the Candidates Policies sections is strictly for their stated policies, other writer's views on those policies are not relevant to that specific section. as this goes against WP:V, and also my sourcing is far better than your use of True North Centre, which I charge as inherently biased and unreliable. In fact, to the contrary, we should not be promoting these WP:FRINGE theories as any form of mainstream idea, and I believe my version of the article accomplishes that far better. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi GhostOfDanGurney, thanks for your reply. Unfortunately the sentence "Poilievre has espoused conspiracy theories" is still stating opinions as facts. You would need to modify it to read like "Lilley described Poilievre's view as a conspiracy theory" or something that attributes the opinion to the journalist/writer. The source is an opinion piece. Would you please explain how the sentence does not have this issue: However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."?

Because a Conservative leadership election falls under an article with political views, a separate Reception section would be a more appropriate place for viewpoints on each candidate, rather than external viewpoints in the subsection of Candidates Policies. For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets. If we are to ignore this and stick to having external viewpoints in the Candidates Policies subsection anyway, we would still need to include both negative and positive viewpoints. Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance.

TNC is one of the few sources that covered the statements of the candidates due to this being a Conservative election. We are citing it for the candidate statements directly, we are not citing TNC's own viewpoint. This is why TNC remains as a used source in other parts of the article. LemonberryPie (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

If you insist on giving attribution alongside the prose as it otherwise is, I can agree to that compromise. But the crux of the issue is that we are dealing with two candidates invoking conspiracy theories in these positions and per WP:FRINGE we must not present them as anything other than as such. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, you can edit the sentence to something along the lines of "Lilley described Poilievre's view as a conspiracy theory" or something with that kind of attribution. Phrasing such sources with the word "described" is often a good and safe way to do so. Additionally, I would again urge you to move the viewpoints on candidates to a Reception section in order to keep the Policies subsection clear as an article with political views, but the most important thing is to reflect opinion piece sources as such. Thank you for compromising and for a productive discussion. LemonberryPie (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Why opinion pieces should be removed but unfortunately are remaining up

An opinion piece does not reflect the positions of a the news agency in this case the globe and mail. So it is not neutral. It is an article written in the opinion of the writer hence opinion piece. There should be a better source. Mechanica!dum (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the source that I am referencing from user:GhostOfDanGurney does not meet the standard of the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:RS&redirect=notitle=Wikipedia:RS&redirect=no and specifically is discussed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion. Mechanica!dum (talk) 22:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

And specifically stated in the WP:RS "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (invited op-eds and letters to the editor from notable figures) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Human interest reporting is generally not as reliable as news reporting, and may not be subject to the same rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy (see junk food news)." Mechanica!dum (talk) 22:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The "better source" you're looking for is when PP himself said the statement in question during the official English debate. I can very easily pull up the video with timestamp and add it to the article, but I feel that The Globe and Mail, despite that particular article being an opinion piece, is sufficient because it is factually repeating something stated by PP. I do find it interesting that your only edits on wikipedia seem to involve scrubbing PP's stance on supply management, and also find it interesting that there are a number of new accounts who have popped up lately who only seem to be interested in editing about him -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 01:14, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Lol fyi I have nothing to do with that, but it is probably because the deadline to vote in the election is upcoming. AerodynamicDive? (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

And I am not a Pierre Poilievre supporter btw I'm just criticizing a source you used for a citation about a post on his statement about the supply chain. No need to get so defensive. I just don't think opinion pieces would ever be considered reliable citations and it seems like the wikipedia reliable sources page tends to agree with me on this unless you can prove otherwise. AerodynamicDive? (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Also a consensus has already been reached on this specific talk page below and states "Hi GhostOfDanGurney, thanks for your reply. Unfortunately the sentence "Poilievre has espoused conspiracy theories" is still stating opinions as facts. You would need to modify it to read like "Lilley described Poilievre's view as a conspiracy theory" or something that attributes the opinion to the journalist/writer. The source is an opinion piece. Would you please explain how the sentence does not have this issue: However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."? Because a Conservative leadership election falls under an article with political views, a separate Reception section would be a more appropriate place for viewpoints on each candidate, rather than external viewpoints in the subsection of Candidates Policies. For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets. If we are to ignore this and stick to having external viewpoints in the Candidates Policies subsection anyway, we would still need to include both negative and positive viewpoints. Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance. TNC is one of the few sources that covered the statements of the candidates due to this being a Conservative election. We are citing it for the candidate statements directly, we are not citing TNC's own viewpoint. This is why TNC remains as a used source in other parts of the article." Mechanica!dum (talk) 23:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a consensus but one editor's opinion which I chose not to respond further too because a third editor removed the disputed content entirely on the premise that the Toronto Sun is biased; there is nothing left in the article with which to establish a consensus in regards to PP's WEF gibberish. I didn't even agree with this opinion at all so to pretend that this is a consensus is laughably dishonest. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 01:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok, full disclaimer I am User:Mechanica!dum and I have lost access to my account for some reason. You did not respond to my criticism of your source not meeting the the criteria for Wikipedia:Reliable sources at all? AerodynamicDive? (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant content

Wabbabat Please point out how your recent edits have anything to do with this election other than just being pointless, irrelevant smears made (coincidentally I hope) by one particular candidate towards the other two? -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your definition of a smear is and I don't understand why you think you can decide what is relevant and what is not. If someone wants to get elected to lead a party people should have info of their most recent political and employment positions. I'm not sure what you mean by "one particular candidate towards the other two" the article I sourced for Patrick Brown is a well known unbiased local news outlet that doesn't mention any other candidate. And one Jean Charest article that is unbiased once again doesn't mention any other candidates and the other refers to a french debate where Charest explains himself and gives context which I thought would be more fair. Debates have been used as citations plenty of times here so it seems ok. I don't understand why you think that just because one candidate attacks another candidate with something its all of a sudden off limits. The Huawei question is a constant question that comes up in media regularly when it comes to Charest even before the Leadership race began. Wabbabat (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

How, precisely, is "Charest had previous employment for Huawei" and "Brown allegedly made false statement and had vague controversies" political positions, though? Neither of them amount to anything either of them said or want to do as Prime Minister or Conservative Party leader. That is how they are irrelevant. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Are we using reliable sources for citation?

Yo GhostOfDanGurney I thought it was already decided that the Toronto Sun was a biased news source for citation considering the conversation in this talk section. The Toronto Sun source will be removed. SiERRa662 (talk) 10:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The same people arguing this are the ones who wanted to add True North Centre to the article, so I disregarded them and no one decided anything. I let the issue go until new sources began popping up. An unabashed Con supporter like Brian Lilley of all people saying mostly the same things as the other articles is very telling and is why the article should stay in this particular case. Also you very conveniently missed when Darryl Kerrigan said something to the extent of "it's a Con party election, so Con sources are okay" and instead choose to focus on the other Single-purpose accounts. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 11:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello GhostOfDanGurney. In your reply you clearly stated that "Brian Lilley" is an unabashed supporter of the conservative party so doesn't that mean that an article written by him should be disqualified from this page because he is partisan? It also seems like this True North Centre is also a Canadian conservative website but you don't seem to like them which is fine, but why are you ok with including one conservative website and author that would help your point but then your against another conservative website? I don't really care about the other sources you provided for your point, but when you say you want to add an author just because he is an "unabashed conservative" and because it would reinforce a narrative against another candidate you don't like, then it doesn't seem like your being neutral here. So if other conservative sources don't seem to be allowed then the Toronto Sun should not be allowed to be used as a source here either. SiERRa662 (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello GhostOfDanGurney if your not going to respond than I'm just going to assume it is ok to remove the citation of Toronto Sun as your source SiERRa662 (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Could you perhaps instead show a sliver of patience; because I work weekends? True North Centre isn't even news but just pure disinformation and propaganda similar to The Rebel. It is not even a comparison to Toronto Sun, which you don't even deny says the same things as the other sources. I can't speculate publically on why I think this is even being discussed anymore. For the record, I can't stand all 6 candidates. Also, you're an expert at twisting words if you think "you say you want to add an author just because he is an "unabashed conservative" and because it would reinforce a narrative against another candidate you don't like". I suggest you strike the accusation. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:17, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello GhostOfDanGurney. First of all I don't have to strike anything I said and I'm not sure why you'd think its a good idea to suggest that. Secondly, I'm not sure why you keep bringing up names of things that are not related to this conversation, I don't know what "Rebel News" is but you clearly have a hatred for True North Centre, which I don't really care about. I can see how someone may see some of their news as disinformation but, I'm not going to say their news is "propaganda" and I don't think anybody else would honestly say that their news is "propaganda" either which is a hilarious accusation. I mean they tell you on every page that they are conservative news media and they don't seem to be hiding anything. Also for the record I am not a supporter of True North Centre and I just found out about them 3 days ago. I do think your reply again shows that you do have bias when writing this article especially when you said "I can't stand all 6 candidates" when instead we would want someone who is being neutral with all 6 candidates when writing in this article. You are literally admitting you're writing with bias. Thirdly I am not twisting any of your words but just repeating the fact that your saying that your adding an article that is written by an obviously biased conservative author like you said and from a conservative website just because it would help more people believe your point against another candidate in a election that is currently going on, I don't understand how you do not see that as a problem ..... that is literally called being biased. Fourthly the article your using has a clickbait title from a conservative tabloid like magazine (Toronto Sun) which misquotes what Poilievre seems to be saying, specifically where he says that his ministers would be banned from participating in the World Economic Forum when he is in government and then the Toronto Sun falsely phrases it as if he is saying that he would not allow anyone that has ever went to the World Economic Forum to join his government and then Brian Lilley goes on to write his interpretation of the conspiracy theory and assumes Poilievre doesn't actually believe the World Economic Forum conspiracy theory and which Brian Lilley doesn't actually know if he does or does not. I do not believe in any of the World Economic Forum conspiracy theories but if your going to say someone is spreading a conspiracy theory then you can at least cite an article that quotes people correctly and that doesn't make assumptions. Finally here are some examples of them promoting astrology (which is fake) which they seem to do every week or month:

https://torontosun.com/life/horoscopes/daily-horoscope-for-sunday-june-12

https://torontosun.com/news/national/astrological-predictions-for-2021-the-year-of-the-ox

https://torontosun.com/advice/?amu=/last-word-in-astrology/

Will you finally agree that the Toronto Sun is not a reliable source for citation? SiERRa662 (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

SiERRa662 I'm not going to respond to any of your personal attacks or continued accusations; which you make simultaneous to denying making any (yes, you are twisting my words). This is also not the venue to argue for deprecation of Toronto Sun from all of Wikipedia. You are looking for WP:RS/N. I have made my case as to why specifically the Lilley opinion piece is okay for this particular article only, and I don't see any counter-argument except for the aforementioned broad appeal for deprecation. Also, I find it funny that you still think I'm more biased after saying I dislike all 6 than any of the other SPAs who keep obviously fluffing up PP and keep smearing Brown and Charest. I would hope you'd want someone actually neutral (ie: same feeling for all) editing instead of those SPAs. Besides, this entire discussion is a waste of time since you're not even arguing to remove the content, only 1 of 3 sources. This is my last response to you. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello GhostOfDanGurney. I am not sure why you keep framing any criticism I have about you as a "personal attack" and it is weird that you keep saying that I am twisting your words when I am just repeating what your saying. You are once again deflecting to things that are not related to this conservation instead of just addressing my points directly, specifically when you said "Also, I find it funny that you still think I'm more biased after saying I dislike all 6 than any of the other SPAs who keep obviously fluffing up PP and keep smearing Brown and Charest.", the second half of your statement seems to be your interpretation of what is happening outside this conversation which I don't really care about and is not related to this conversation. I do think you are too biased to be writing in this article and that is not a personal attack that is just what I am seeing throughout this conversation. Now even if for some reason you still do want to make an exception for Toronto Sun, even though they are spreading disinformation then sure..... I guess, but it is interesting how you are against using other sources for citation that spread disinformation but you are ok with your source, even though you have argued for the deprecation of other sources on this talk page and you have removed sources for spreading disinformation without gaining a consensus at WP:RS/N, it is also interesting how you are just now enforcing this rule. And just to be clear the article you cited has incorrect information because it misleadingly and incorrectly quotes what Poilievre seems to be saying as I noted in my previous reply to you, which is the part you don't even acknowledge. Once again I will say that I do not believe in any of the World Economic Forum conspiracy theories but if your going to accuse someone of spreading conspiracy theories you can at least cite evidence that has correct information and doesn't make assumptions. Also you reverted my removal of your source without reaching a consensus to put it back in going against the WP:BRD and considering that the specific source that you cited literally gives incorrect information, the deprecation of Toronto Sun is not required to remove your specific article that you cited. Although it seems like the editing has been blocked for whatever reason which is a testament to how incoherent wikipedia and wikimedia is, I will eventually remove the Toronto Sun article that you sourced because it gives incorrect information. SiERRa662 (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I reverted your revert because you are a single-purpose account who mas made no effort to edit outside of this narrow, niche topic of Canadian politics. Clearly there is already an implicit consensus amongst other editors to keep it. If you can provide actual evidence that the particular citation has false information, show it, not just your insistence of it via your word and posting a few unrelated links. If anything, keeping this particular cite adds to the neutrality of the article, since it provides a different perspective to the issue. Now please stop pinging me; I have this on my watchlist. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no indication that there is implicit consensus among other editors for your claim and scrolling up and reading other conversations you have previously claimed that another user has already disputed your citation of this specific article before and removed this specific article on the basis that the Toronto Sun is biased and you have now added it back up without reaching a consensus which goes against WP:BRD. I also removed the source initially because I noticed this and you reverted without reaching a consensus again going against the WP:BRD. This has already been disputed because it was already removed before and you keep adding it back up without reaching consensus. I have already given evidence that your citation has incorrect information you are just ignoring it at this point. One of the first lines in the citation is "Stephen Harper wouldn’t be considered good enough for a cabinet position in a government led by Pierre Poilievre." which is a false statement that is without evidence. Second point where the citation incorrectly quotes is when it says "In his latest pitch for votes from the fringe, the Conservative leadership candidate said that he won’t accept ministers attending the annual summit of the World Economic Forum. Of course, Poilievre’s campaign co-chair, John Baird should be fired since he attended and spoke for Canada at the WEF in 2014." which is misleading because no evidence is shown where he says he would ban anyone that had gone to the World Economic forum but they do show his actual quote which is "“And that is why I have made it clear that my ministers in my government will be banned from participating in the World Economic Forum,” Poilievre said to great applause from the crowd." which is different then what Brian Lilley who is the author is claiming he is saying. And finally at the end of the article Brian Lilley makes the assumption without evidence that Poilievre doesn't actually believe in the conspiracy theory when he writes "Poilievre is a smart man; he knows that what he’s saying on this file is nothing but gibberish. He doesn’t need to flirt with and encourage the acceptance of conspiracy theories to win the leadership, but that’s what he’s doing." There is enough misleading statements and incorrect quotes here to remove this citation. SiERRa662 (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

O'Toole was fired. He didn't resign.

O'Toole shouldn't be described as "resigning leader". He didn't resign as party leader, but rather was deposed (i.e. fired) as party leader. GoodDay (talk) 07:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You've raised something like this before and it's in the archive. He submitted his resignation as per the process outlined in the CPC's constitution. In the end, he is still the resigning leader despite being ousted. It would be proper to label it in prose as "After a vote in favour of his removal by the caucus, O'Toole tendered his resignation." The CPC Constitution does not include any reference to the reform act or removal by caucus. Instead, it mentions the death, retirement,, resignation or removal at national convention as triggering a leadership vote. In this context, O'Toole submitted his resignation following caucus' vote to remove him. Therefore, the current terminology is fine RoyalObserver (talk) 12:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

His resignation was moot, as he was already 'no longer' leader of the CPC. GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not true. Read the CPC Constitution. There is no clause in there that removes him as leader of the party based on the caucus vote. He was forced to tender his resignation as per vote conducted by the Reform Act, in accordance with the CPC Constitution. He was voted out, and subsequently tendered his resignation as per the CPC constitution. Therefore, he resigned. RoyalObserver (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The Reform Act doesn't require an ousted party leader's resignation. GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

If a user like GhostOfDanGurney is doing disruptive editing and with obvious bad intentions why are they allowed to edit this page?

Hi user Ahunt, why is GhostOfDanGurney who has a user page that literally says "NEVER VOTE CONSERVATIVE FUCK THE CONVOY Resisting the Christo-fascist takeover of North America" allowed to edit on this wikipedia page? This person is also falsely accusing me of personal attacks with no evidence and seems to have malicious intent for others based on his comments. RsNterra (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I think a better question is why do you think I shouldn't be? Do you think that only card-carrying members of the CPC are allowed to edit here? Wikipedia is meant to encourage all points of view, not just those supporting one or two candidates over another (which I am not accusing you specifically of, but is a general observation I've made over the life of this article). -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 00:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

User:RsNterra I think you need to read WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Please comment on content, not users. - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Never did I say only card-carrying members of the CPC are allowed to edit here. Do you really think that if someone is not telling people to "never vote conservative" or not calling all conservatives "Christo-fascist" that automatically makes them a card carrying CPC member? I don't know what your reference is for your "general observation" because your telling people to "never vote conservative" and your saying that all conservatives are "Christo-fascist" so its difficult for me to be able understand your allegation of bias in a conservative party election. Adding evidence about this person's user page that I'm questioning - diff,diff2. And you claim that the national post article you keep using is a "better source" but the article is literally an opinion piece saying don't vote for this guy and does not have a neutral point of view so I replaced it with financial post article with bloomberg news because it was more neutral and the globe and mail article kept showing a paywall because they only give one free article so I decided to use a cp24 article written by The Canadian Press so people could actually read the article. I was also rewording to show how the actual process works to choose a governor of the bank of canada rather than just using a quote. Also you literally called one of the candidates "PeePee" and here is the evidence of your edit doing that diff3, so how could I trust your accusation of "supporting one or more candidates" when you do that. RsNterra (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

If I'm not allowed to jump to conclusions, you're not, either. At no point have I ever said "all conservatives are "Christo-fascist"". Furthermore, you have failed to introduce any relevant policy I'm in violation of or evidence as to how I'm being "disruptive" to this article other than "he said PeePee". Your other gripes are about a content dispute; an entirely different issue. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@RsNterra can you point to any problematic edits that @GhostOfDanGurney has made to this page? From my point of view, his edits have been valuable and helpful, and have been unbiased in nature. No issues with him continuing to edit based on the content he has provided already. RoyalObserver (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to be posting someone's edits because I don't want to get accused of WP:NPA again. I will still state that based on what the user has already said I would not trust their edits on here as unbiased.RsNterra (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a problem for you to grapple with on your own. You can't point to any proof of bias in his work, therefore there is no issue with them continuing to work on this page. RoyalObserver (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Opinion Polling

Mainstreet's poll with 12000+ respondants doesnt belong in the CPC supporters category. This is a poll of CPC members. These are 2 very different groups being polled.. Is this a change we can agree on? YumGullible (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I see your point, but in my opinion it sort of fits the spirit of the section. Especially that of CPC supporters, only party members have a say in who wins.

Maybe there's value in adding providing greater context for polls? Hdbbfj (talk) 22:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think there is great value in opinion polling but it has to be reliable and well sourced which seems to be the case here which is good. I also think there are some polls that are missing here as well that could be added in too. The different colouring makes it easy to read which is helpful and also the graphs are helpful. There is some sources issues which i'm referring to twitter and youtube links that are being used but yeah. The categories there are a little confusing but the polling is kind of easy to read I guess. However since this is wikipedia I don't hold it up to a that much of a high standard..Denther11 (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)