Talk:Conservative Party of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Canada / Politicians (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.
 
WikiProject Politics / Political parties (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Political parties task force (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Conservatism (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

The center-right/right edit warring[edit]

This is to the IP who keeps on flip-flopping the position of the party

I'm just pointing out, that if the Conservatives seemed to have move a bit closer to center (which does not justified to put center-right and underestimates their real intentions if they were a majority government) is due to the public pressure because of the environment issue and also because they are a minority government. Moving a bit less right is definitely not their intention and thus right-wing is their real position. It's often like that in a minority/coalition government. --JForget 19:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose you know how the Conservatives would govern if they were in a majority position? If you look at their policies and platform, this party is not right-wing like the Republican or British Conservatives are like. SFrank85 21:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In an event, while some may consider the party centre-right, it is not the clear overwhelming opinion of observers and thus should not be included as the only description in the intro. I took right-leaning from the Canadian conservatism article's definition a few months ago and it seemed to settle an edit war then. I think the term is specific enough to inform readers but general enough to include nearly all mainstream descriptions of the party. --JGGardiner 09:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I added the sentence after the bold statement that the law and order policy is in response to wrong perceptions. As a Conservative, I know that I believe in those policy points no matter what statistics Canada has to say, so the person who asserted the reason for the policy as being perception is dead wrong. I want to crush criminals for the pure joy of it, perception has nothing to do with it. You are welcome to remove my sentence, but remove the previous one, or rewrite it. If someone shoots me, I really don't care if crime is down, I want the bum locked up and the key thrown far away. -And the party is centre right, cause I am far right, and you can't imagine how much farther I would go. The arguement is true, libs call themselves centrist, but they really just have no solid priciples, and are willing to leave tough decisions to Conservatives, no guts to make the calls that are needed. I guess if having no real principles makes it easy to flip flop all the time, and that leads to people thinking you are moderating policy fine. I would argue that I have to put far more water in my wine to come to the centre than any liberal, what hard policy do they really have? In the debates Gille Duceppe (BQ leader) said the libs run on the left, and govern on the right, but I would say they say anything to get elected, and slime their way into holding on to power, through lies and deception. So who is to say who is governing from the centre, centre left, or centre right. (and that is how centre is spelled in Canada) -Also, since I was last here it seems a whole lot has been hacked up in this article, with lots of stuff I thought was important left out, is that just me, or has a weed wacker been used on this article? Jeremy99 09:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Back again, and you made no effort to rewrite the law and order sentence to not reflect bias. Seems you like having it read that way. That it is wrong seems no bother at all. Once again, prove the policy is just about responding to perception. To prove my point, youth offenders killed a person is Winnipeg and the 13 year old was at home that night. The news report talked about peoples anger at that. What do statistics have to do with throwing the little bastard in jail as an adult for 10-15 years. Nothing. I will now just delete your sentence. Include some reference to why conservatives want tougher law and order agenda implemented, and then talk statistics. You removed what I put in without even responding. Well, it begins. Jeremy99 12:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The labelling of the party as “right-leaning” as opposed to “centre-right” is based purely on amateur speculation toward future policy or the isolated remarks of individual party members. The party should be assigned a label based on actual official policy and legislation that they introduced and/or supported in the House. Speculation on what the Conservatives would do with a majority government based on their much trumpeted “hidden agenda” is not a valid basis for assigning political alignment, since it is not factually verifiable, nor is speculation on the motivation of policy. Equally invalid are the isolated remarks of individual members, since they are not likely representative of the party as a whole. All mainstream federal parties have members who have been out-of-step with official stance. Former Liberal Carolyn Parrish and former New Democrat Bev Desjarlais are obvious examples, since few would label the Liberal Party as an inherently anti-American party, nor the NDP as against same-sex marriage. The recent federal budget, while arguably a product of political compromise, should serve as clear evidence that the Conservatives are a centre-right party. –Anon, 30 March 2007

How can this party be placed as "centre-right to right", when the Republican party are placed as "centre-right"? Conservatives in Canada are not nearly as "right" as most republicans are, health care being the prime (but not the only) example. Just by the fact that the party endorses health care should make them considered "centre to centre-right", shouldn't it...? and shouldn't economic liberalism be added? 99.229.114.180 (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Who cares what the republicans are listed as. That is on an American political scale. This is a Canadian one, that doesn't make them more right, just more right then the centre of their country — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.215.172 (talk) 03:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not make it centre-right to right. That should at least keep everybody somewhat satisfied, and considering how much division there has been over this issue, it is probably as accurate as we can get — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.215.172 (talk) 07:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the two citations linked show that the party is in fact a right wing party on the Canadian scale. The reform party of Canada and the Canadian alliance were both right wing, and it was these parties that ate what was left of the few Progressive conservatives. The CPC's implementation of mandatory minimums for marijuana use [1], a major faction of the party (including the minister for the status of women) voting on a motion that would reopen the abortion debate [2] are both issues that would also support the two citations which characterize this party as right wing. It is difficult to make the distinction, but those are my points justifying that the CPC is "right" and not "centre-right" trhyno 7 dec 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.223.240 (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at stories and applying your own conclusion to them is original reasearch, and therefore is not allowed. We cannot accept your judgement of what the correct position is any more than we could accept mine, or any other editor's. That being said, I am not too enamoured with the sources currently being used for similar reasons. Personally, I think we need better sources. Resolute 03:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Revert warring over ideology and policy[edit]

I concede that centre-right is a messily-defined term and is likely obsolete. Isn't the point of an encyclopedia to present information? Why, CJCurrie, do you insist upon selective omission of generally-accepted fact? The Conservative party IS heavily influenced by political ideologies other than simply conservatism, neoconservatism, and neoliberalism. And the only objectively verifiable information that one can honestly present regarding its positions/ideology/policy is that which is either in the official party platform, or has actually been proposed as legislation in the House. Please try to grow up a little and stop relying on nebulous speculation, heresay, and biased editorial opinion as sources of objectively verifiable facts. 205.193.82.252 - 29 May 2007.

Here is my take on the recent POV-pushing by the anon editor:

1. “the Conservative Party can be defined as big tent, as it includes members with varying positions on different issues.”

I disagree with this statement. It is clear to me that the progressive elements of the old PC Party have been pushed aside.

2. “The Conservative Party generally falls on the centre-right, and favours individual rights, lower taxes, smaller government, decentralization of federal government powers to the provinces, an assertive system of law and order, increased military spending, and the harmonization standards and regulations with trading partners. The party has at times opposed the legalization of cannabis, unrestricted abortion, and same-sex marriage, but has since either stopped advancing these positions, or dropped them from its official policy altogether. The party also seeks to improve relations with Canada's primary trading partner, that had been deteriorating under Liberal Prime Ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin.”

All of these are positions of the right, not of the left, so “generally falls on the centre-right” are weasel words.

3. The Conservative Party strongly advocates democratic reform of the federal government. It supports free votes in Parliament, and has had one such vote on whether the House should reopen the issue of same-sex marriage, which was defeated (though it should be noted that both the NDP and the Bloc Québécois enforced party discipline for this vote).

“though it should be noted that” – this is clear evidence that you are trying to persuade the reader, rather than inform. Furthermore, this article is not about the NDP or BQ positions on same-sex marriage or their conduct in the house. It is about the Conservative Party, and this comment is not relevant to that.

With respect to your comment "Please try to grow up", please be advised that personal attacks violate Wikipedia guidelines. Please review WP:NPA. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 21:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I resent your claim that this is a POV push, as I do not support the CPC, not have any interest in it, but rather prefer to see Wikipedia articles offer facts rather than spin.

"I disagree with this statement. It is clear to me that the progressive elements of the old PC Party have been pushed aside." I though we went over this before. Why does something being clear to you matter? Where is your evidence? Speculation does not equal verifiable information. The 11 Quebec caucus members are certainly not former Alliance supporters. Peter Mackay, Jim Prentice, Rob Nicholson, David Emerson, Greg Thompson, Marjory Lebreton, Jim Flaherty, Peter Van Loan have absolutely no ties to the former CA, most from the PC and a couple of former Liberals. Your attempt to protray the CPC as an Alliance takeover of the PC party belies an agenda, or at the very least a confusion of personal perspective and objective facts.

Also, when you mention that the motion to re-open the same-sex marriage debate, there is an inference that the party's policy was in opposition to same-sex marriage. It was not. While many (arguably the majority) of Conservative members oppose ssm, the point of the motion and party policy was to allow a free vote on a controversial issue, rather than have party discipline imposed by the leadership. It is indeed relevant to mention what other parties have done since it contrasts, isolates and thus clarifies the Conservative intent on the motion.

Also, since when does improving foreign relations fall on the right? Are you inferring that because the United States has a Republican President that improving relations must necessarily be a right-wing policy? If so, that's a very dubious claim. Please clarify.

Also, the claim that they are conservative both fiscally and socially is misleading, as they have a very large and diverse membership and caucus. Harper himself could be labelled as neoliberal, Peter Mackay as libertarian, and Myron Thompson as conservative. Wouldn't you agree that affixing labels is less informing than actually describing what they have done and propose to do?

205.193.82.252 - 30 May 2007.

POV Revert Warring[edit]

Does anyone other than CJCurrie, GroundZero, or The Tom adhere to the biased "consensa" they've been pushing, or that "reality has a liberal bias"? This is beyond silly. [uunsigned comment by User:205.193.82.252

  • I welcome others' thoughts on this, too. It does seem to me that User:205 has one point of view, and three long-time Wikipedia editors (of which I am one) have a different view. What is the consensus here? Ground Zero | t 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
In my time here, I've seen edits that would make it seem like the Canadian political spectrum stetched all the way from centre-left to centre-right.
I suppose that "right wing" is a debatable term which is why I changed it to "right-leaning" at one point. I took that from the Canadian conservatism article. I would prefer right wing myself and it is certainly better than centre-right. It is fine to criticize the old labels I think but without a better alternative they should stay. Centre-right is more debatable and less agreed upon than the other terms.
But I would agree that perhaps "big tent" is an appropriate term. They might not be the biggest tent out there but I'd say they are probably beyond the scope a narrow ideological party. The old progressive elements may not have power but the party does seem to command the support of much of the old PC supporters. I think that the party has a solid lock on the right wing and the far right, the best part of the centre-right and more than a few centrists. --JGGardiner 06:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I think a policy of "just the facts, ma'am" is in order here. Put aside your partisan word-smithing and hair-splitting for a while and focus on getting the facts straight. The left/right spectrum debate is simplistic at best; divisive, confrontational, and leads to bloodshed at worst. See this site to hopefully shake this simplist one-dimensional linear model from your collective heads once and for all. Then get back to "just the facts, ma'am". Focus not on what you want the party to be, focus on what can be verified via methods other than original research regarding what it was and what it is. After all, politics, and specifically real politik is messy, three-dimensional, and happens in technicolour. Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is rather insulting for you to suggest that I've focused on "what I want the party to be" or was "partisan". I think that you ought to stick to "just the facts" rather than accusing other editors of particular bias. I think you should see WP:AGF as well. As for my nine month old post, I wasn't arguing for the merits of the left-right spectrum per se; a particular editor had inserted wording which narrowed the description. But both the new and old versions used the same concept.
If your position is that party articles shouldn't contain political position notes, that is something much wider than this article and this one dispute in particular. "Political position" is even a line in the political party infobox template. But I'm not sure exactly what you were trying to suggest. The post wasn’t really clear. I found the last particularly confusing actually. I’m not sure what you meant about Realpolitik. If you’d like to elaborate, I’d appreciate it. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I do apologize if the way in which I positioned and phrased my comments contributed to you mis-interpreting my comments to be a personal attack on your particular contributions. That was not my intent. My comments were aimed at all contributors and potential future contributors to this article. There seems to be an infinite amount of time available to debate whether to use the term "centre-right" or "right-of-centre" or what-have-you to describe the party, and also for some individuals to engage in the very unwikipedian-like revert warring that is described on this page; meanwhile, the article continues to have many grammatical and factual errors and very very few in-line references. I would like to commend past contributors for their research efforts and obvious passion about the subject matter - however, all of this hard work is at risk if it is not properly referenced. It was me that added the tags citing the lack of references. If I didn't already know better from a fairly robust personal knowledge of the subject matter, it would be relatively easy for one to assume (due to the very few references provided) that much of this article was original research. If we all (collectively) spent more time adding verifiable third party references to this article and, while we are at it, continued to improve the sentence and paragraph structures, then I think we could start to move our collective efforts into a more positive direction other than the apparent bickering that has occurred in the past over what various labels to apply to the party, most of which have lost all relevant meaning over the years anyway. I think what many readers and contributors fail to recognize is that party positions are not static they evolve, devolve, and revolve over time based on changes in leadership and the shifting of the political winds at different points in time and that is what I was meaning with my comments - we need to focus our collective energies on accurately describing the various party positions, highlights, and moments of despair (and be clear on what point in time we are referring to with each paragraph, each sentence) while also highlighting the party's rich heritage in a factual, unbiased, meaningful, and encylopedic manner. Save the political debates for the coffee shops and the blogs. That's what I meant. Garth of the Forest (talk) 08:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your grade school English teachers are spinning in their graves[edit]

My biggest beef right now with this article is that the grammar and run-on-sentence structure is abhorrent, let alone the bigger issues that the facts aren't all straight and most references are slim to missing. The third paragraph of the section on "predecessor parties" is a rambling drive by assault on the English language, not to mention that it confuses the reader - we are never quite sure from sentence to run-on-sentence exactly which time period in history is being referred to, or for that matter, which article we are reading. I understand the attempt to put things in context, but we need to stick to the topic at hand, which is the Conservative Party, not a general discussion of all political parties that ever gained traction with support from the west. I am doing a complete re-write of this section right now; I will do my best (it will be a challenge to keep my tongue out of my cheek) to maintain NPOV and focus just on cleaning up the grammar and sentence structure, and when I have some more time I will blow up the "Back to the Future" time-machine-car the original writers of this section were using and add some relevant references. And no, the type of car (DeLorean) is not relevant to the topic of this article, even if Harper or MacKay or some other high profile Conservative actually owns (or owned) or drives (or ever drove) one. Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please add references[edit]

I've noticed a tendency by some contributors to this (and other) articles about political parties to automatically revert wording changes made by other contributors, with little or no discussion. This is not productive. If someone has made a wording change to a paragraph that in its prior form already cited no references, that wording change in and of itself (unless it introduces a grammatically inferior paragraph when compared to the predecessor paragraph, or skews to a less neutral POV) is no better or worse than the wording contained in the predecessor paragraph. Assuming good grammar, spelling, and sentence structure - each version is unreferenced, and therefore equally inferior to one another. I challenge each and every contributor to this article to, for every edit you plan to make (no matter how minor), to also add at least one verifiable reference (either that supports your wording change, or that supports other wording already existing in the article). Garth of the Forest (talk) 08:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Conservative officials named in bribery allegations[edit]

MP Garth Turner has reported the names of the two Conservative officials who allegedly attempted to bribe Chuck Cadman as Tom Flanagan and Doug Finley (National Director of Political Operations, Conservative Party of Canada).

Should this be included as part of the article? Shame

DSatYVR (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... debatable. Until more information is forthcoming, it is perhaps a topic more suitable for current events (ie. WikiNews) rather than an encyclopedia, even though Mr. Cadman did pass away almost three years ago. If we do include content of this nature in articles such as this one, I'd be inclined to want the section to be headlined something like "Recent Controversies" or "Current Scandals". Virtually every political party has had their share (of scandal and/or controversy), at different points in history. We just don't want to start any additional overly-heated revert warring by introducing overly debatable content that is not well referenced. But if it can be included in a factual, well-referenced and balanced (NPOV) manner, I will support you if you choose to add it. Garth of the Forest (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Cadman allegations[edit]

this sentence: "If the elements of the story are true, the Conservatives' actions may amount to a criminal offence. Under the Criminal Code of Canada, it is illegal to bribe an MP. [2] An audio tape suggests then-opposition leader Stephen Harper was not only aware of a financial offer to Chuck Cadman but gave it his personal approval.[3]" nees to be removed as it is detailing allegations made but that are yet unproven and that the conservatives have denied. This is for the wikinews site, not for an encyclopedia. Macutty (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ideology and Comparative Politics[edit]

I think we should make mention under "Ideology" that, despite what is thought by many Canadian leftists, the Conservative Party of Canada is significantly to the left of the U.S. Democratic Party (including Barack Obama), which supports the death penalty, opposes single payer health care, opposes gay marriage, opposes relations with Cuba, supports massive military spending, supporting the combat in Afghanistan, some supported the war in Iraq (Clinton and Biden), etc. Your thoughts? Sopm (talk) 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Error In Paragraph General Election 2008, sentence "Conservative TV ads started appearing almost 2 weeks before they conservative party announced an election date." needs to be changed to Conservative TV ads started appearing almost 2 weeks before the Conservative party announced an election date.

The Liberals and Conservatives both support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and close military alliances with the USA, although the Liberals, and apparently the Conservatives today, did not want to join the Coalition of the Willing, which the Canadian government considered to be in violation of international law. The Conservatives have no position on same sex marriage and capital punishment, although most members oppose one and support the other. As for health care and Cuba, they are only seen as left-right positions in the US, and the US stands alone in their positions. The new Conservative Party, unlike the old Socred/Reform/Alliance parties avoids wedge issues, which play poorly outside Western Canada. --The Four Deuces (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party[edit]

Does anybody know if the party still has a deputy leader? I know it was Peter MacKay before the 2006 election; but who is now? Lawrence Cannon maybe? GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Senate appointments[edit]

This is going to be a relatively minor matter in the history of this party, as far as I am concerned. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a blow-by-blow account of events. If this belongs anywhere, it belongs in an article on the Harper government, not the Conservative Party, because it was Harper as Prime Minister who nominated the new people for appointment, not Harper as leader of the Conservative Party. Comments? Ground Zero | t 22:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the Harper government sections should be expanded and split off into another article. We currently have nearly half nearly half a dozen articles on British premierships and nearly a dozen articles on American presidencies. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Death penalty section[edit]

There is no reference to the Conservative Party's position on the issue in this section,only to Stephen Harper's. Is there any evidence that the party has taken a position? I am not aware that this issue has been debated in Parliament since 2003, or the the Harper government has introduced any legislation or motion on the issue. This section only presented a Harper quotation, and then the main argument against capital punishment. I think this should be removed. Ground Zero | t 11:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

And I'm inclined to agree. The Conservative Party has not taken any position on capital punishment; the most that can be said is that some have raised concerns about a hidden agenda on this and similar issues. CJCurrie (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Principles and policies section issues[edit]

I think this section would be more appropriately renamed - "Criticisms of the Conservative Party", as that seems to be the main point of this section. I understand how a number of people disagree with their policies, but that is not the purpose of this article (or at least should be put in their own section called 'criticisms'). This section puts an undue emphasis on certain controversial social issues, and dissenting opinions of the party, rather than what the party actually stands for. Most importantly, after reading through this section as it currently stands, it doesn't clearly state what their principles and policies really are. I think there is a lot of room for improvement here, such as simplifying the section into a couple sentences on their basic beliefs and a point form list of their current policies and goals. I think it should be rewritten in a similar style to competing parties such as the liberals or the NDP. Does anyone else think this is reasonable?Edmoil (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Monarchism[edit]

Most of us would agree that the Conservative Party (at least in its current incarnation) is monarchist. However, I have not found any mention of this in the article. I would even go as far as to say that it is one of the core ideologies of the party. What do you think?--MTLskyline (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it an official policy, and can you cite a reliable source? Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It is listed as one of the party's founding principles (fifth and eighth point). Would their own website be a reliable source? --MTLskyline (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Their website is definitely a reliable source for information on their policies, so yes, I think it should be mentioned (in a neutral fashion, obviously). — CharlieEchoTango — 05:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

File:PrestonManning.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:PrestonManning.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage[edit]

The article implies that the recent issue regarding gay divorce has anything to do at all with the conservative stance on same-sex marriage. This is incorrect as the recent issue didn't actually have anything to do with same-sex marriage, but with "tourism marriage" in general. If a particular type of marriage is illegal in a couple's country of residence, then even if they are allowed to marry in Canada that marriage will not be upheld by the Canadian courts. This is not particular to same-sex marriage. For example the U.S. does not allow first-cousin marriage, while Canada does. If a heterosexual first-cousins couple who lived in the U.S. was married in Canada, then that marriage wold be considered void in Canada as the marriage was not legal in the couple's country of residence. (See here for source]) I therefore think that mentioning the issue under a section dealing with the conservative's view on same-sex marriage creates the misimpression that the issue was an ideologically driven one.NereusAJ (T | C) 06:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see much of an issue with how it's currently worded in the article. The Conservative Party didn't have anything to do with the story, but it was indeed in the news thanks to a complete fabrication by The Globe and Mail, and therefore Harper's response is definitely relevant to the article in my opinion. The paragraph is accurate and is an opportunity to reflect Harper's position that he will not reopen the debate, which is important from an encyclopedic point of view (reflecting the Party's position). Though I acknowledge this could be done without mentioning the fabricated story. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
That's what I meant to suggest. The paragraph states that a Justice Department official was of the opinion that the marriage was void. This does create the impression that this decision was motivated ideologically, while it was actually motivated by the legal principle of comity. I think it would be better to simply say something like "After accusations that the conservative party was reversing its policy on same-sex marriage, Harper responded so and so." Furthermore, when the article states that Harper corrected the record it sounds as if Harper contradicted the Justice Department official's claim that the marriage is void. This is wrong. Harper actually stated that he was unfamiliar with the case. He corrected the records only in as far as he refuted claims that the conservative party was reversing its policy. It also implies that the Justice Department official was wrong, which isn't the case. Legally, the official's argument was sound. NereusAJ (T | C) 08:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Electoral Fraud in the lead[edit]

I've removed the 'alleged electoral fraud' from the lead. Please gain consensus if it is to be re-posted. There is sufficient coverage in the section below on this subject. Karl 334 TALK to ME 22:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

History section[edit]

The sections from "2006 general election" through "Third Harper Government" are far too detailed. This is an article about the party, so going into that much detail is hard to justify. There are certainly parts that should be here, but they should only be broad strokes, and details that have to do with the party itself. Aside from pushing this article beyond what it is supposed to be, the extra detail invites additions for ever scandal or press announcement that catches some editor's attention. Can anyone justify keeping the level of detail that is currently there? -Rrius (talk) 00:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Woodworth's abortion private members bill[edit]

An IP editor is trying to add the following:

On March 13, 2012 a committee of Conservative MPs agreed to give Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth a one hour hearing "sometime in April", and a second hour of debate "in late spring or early fall" for his proposal to create a special committee to examine the legal definition of when a fetus becomes a human being.

This inaccurate and inconsequential. The fact is that the Subcommittee Private Members' Business of the Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs are both cross-party committees. It is also the fact that nothing odd happened here. Every time the list of private members' bills and motions to be debated by the Commons is replenished, i.e., when all the old ones have been debated, the subcommittee determines whether any of the bills are nonvotable.[3] This particular bill happened to be in the latest tranche of 15 bills and motions determined to be votable.[4]

There is no reason why the fact that this private member's bill has been introduced or is expected to be debated in April should be in the article. This is article is for information about the party, not a depository for every factlet that pertains to a member of the party. -Rrius (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

This bill is directly related to abortion, and is a proposal to open up debate on the issue. As noted directly above this in the article, Prime Minister Harper has previously promised not to open debate on the issue. The fact that the bill was brought forwards by a Conservative MP makes it relevant.
Also, please note that the fact that I am editing from my IP address is irrelevant to the discussion.
First, so what if it is related to abortion? It is a private memebers bill, not a government bill. There is no evidence it is Conservative Party policy; it is Stephen Woodworth policy. This is an article about the party, not the MP. It is absurd to suggest that every bill sponsored by every private member that wins the lucky dip to be debated should be added at its party's article. The fact of this article's debate is relevant at Stephen Woodworth; not here. If Stephen Harper decides to support the bill, or there is a substantial vote by the party to support it at second reading, it should be mentioned. For now, all that has happened is that a private member introduced a bill and it won the lottery for to make it on the Order Paper. That is hardly important for this article. Finally, I never said your IP status was relevant here. If an editor who bothered to register had been involved, I would have used his or her user name. Since you don't have one, I used "IP" as I and many other do regularly. I have no desire to remember or copy and paste your particular IP address, and someone who professes, as you did on my talk page, to have been actively editing here since 2005 should have picked up on that by now. -Rrius (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
ADDITIONAL: If you feel the sentence added to the article misrepresents the reliable and properly cited source, please feel free to contribute to the wording of the sentence.
Done. Since it wasn't a "committee of Conservative MPs", or even a committee with a Conservative majority, that part was wrong, and when edited down to the truth was distracting fluff. It is therefore removed. The only remotely relevant bit is that a Conservative MP will have a bill debated that seeks to create a committee regarding the definition of human life. -Rrius (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the edit to the wording in the sentence. This constructive action on your part has improved the information in the article.
No, it has improved the inaccurate passage you added. It is still not relevant to the article. The point of the section is to discuss the "policies and positions" of the Conservative Party; not the particular positions of individual members. -Rrius (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
ADDITIONAL: Please try and remain civil in your discussion about the article. Your language here is bordering on the offensive, and is at the least condescending.
I feel I am being civil. I haven't called you names or accused you of any of the things I would really like to. As for giving you offense, I don't care. I can't help if your level of sensitivity, which, if you are offended, is rather low. As for condescending, given your deficiencies in even managing to read your source without your own biases flat out changing what it says before it reaches your conscious mind, and given your extraordinary behaviour at my talk page, you may need to be condescended to. -Rrius (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Request For Comment: (Re: Conservative Party Of Canada: Abortion) Does disputed text meet criteria for notability, citation, and relevance. 00:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Dont see how this is notable for this overview party page - not a party bill - its a private member's bill ...not by the party so need to mention it here..we dont mention every bill especially those that have not passed. Moxy (talk) 00:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
As previously noted, equating this bill (which is specifically on the topic of abortion) with "every bill" (which may be relevant to a specific subsection or not) is a fallacy of equivocation. The discussion is not about "all bills" or "every other bill", it is about whether or not this bill is notable, properly citated, and relevant. 24.87.37.146 (talk) 00:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry i was not clear - this bill here is not notable in the least bit for this article.Moxy (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The article is about a Conservative MP's bill advocating abortion debate, and appears in the section on the Conservative Party's stance and actions on Abortion. Please explain how this is not notable. 24.87.37.146 (talk) 00:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Just because an individual Conservative MP introduces a bill does not mean that the bill reflects Conservative Party policy. The section you refer to is not about what various individual Conservatives believe about abortion. It is about the party's "policy and position" on abortion. Just because a bill is written by a Conservative, it does not mean that the bill is a Conservative Party bill. Mr. Woodworth's bill tells us not a damned thing about Conservative policy; it only tells us what he thinks. Why is this concept so hard for you? -Rrius (talk) 04:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Is not a party bill - this page is about the overall Conservative parties position - not what some lone member is doing. Also this is more of a developing news story then something encyclopedic yet - see WP:NOTNEWSPAPERMoxy (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Blatant case of trying to give undue weight to a topic. This article is about the political party. Also, WP:POV argument that the opinion of a single MP reflects party policy. Should we put on Liberal Party of Canada that Quebec independence is their policy because of Justin Trudeau's comments?
This private members bill deserves no more coverage in this article (or hell, even those about the current government and parliament) than any other private member's bill. It might warrant a mention at Abortion in Canada, but even then, nothing more than a sentence, which inevitably will read: "Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth initiated a debate on when a fetus becomes a person, which was then quickly forgotten about." Resolute 13:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • NO to the addition ofthe proposed text. It is way to specfic for this article. Given it is an IP address and also seems to pretty clearly have some POV it is a definite no in my view. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Clearly should not be in article - whatever I may think of the Conservative Reform Alliance Party, this is clearly a WP:UNDUE violation, and inappropriate. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
  • No to addition of proposed text. Per comments of Resolute & others, violation of WP:UNDUE.--JayJasper (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • No. Resolute's analysis looks quite right. Lord Roem (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Internal factions - ideology[edit]

Would anyone support an internal factions subheading in the ideology part of the infobox, like the articles Conservative Party (UK), Republican Party (United States), Democratic Party (United States) and Liberal Democrats? There are obviously some people with differing ideas within this party. --Jay942942 (talk) 13:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It would always depend on sourcing, but given the long-known existence of terms like "Red Tories", I would say such would be appropriate. The biggest issue would, of course, be finding neutral sources. Resolute 14:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Regressive Conservative Party of Canada[edit]

When I typed in Regressive Conservative Party of Canada it redirects to this article.

Apart from the statement of its redirection, there is no use of the word regressive in this article.

Does this mean that it is the view of the Wikipedia community that this party is a regressive one?220.239.167.151 (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

No, it means someone thought they were being funny. Cmr08 (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter to me one way or another but obviously someone needs to do something about that redirection in order to remove any hints of political bias against this party. 220.239.167.151 (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The redirect has existed since 2006, so I am not willing to speedy delete it. Also, lack of neutrality is not necessarily a reason to delete a redirect, though this one is obviously used in a POV context. Redirects for discussion would be the ideal venue if someone wishes to take it there. Resolute 14:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
There's WP:RNEUTRAL, which suggests a non-nuterual title should be backed up with sources. But the user who created it is still very active, I'm interested in seeing what he has to say, before nominating it for deletion. 117Avenue (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
The redirect does look too biased without some kind of reference on this page. My guess is that when I made it seven years ago there was some meme in the media that used the name "Regressive Conservative" in reference to this party often enough to make the redirect useful for people who didn't understand the joke. However, that's not an issue anymore, so I'll speedy delete as an unsourced attack page. If someone comes here with a good reason why it should exist, I'll re-create it. —Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 05:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is this party listed as centre-right?[edit]

They may want us to believe they are centre-right, but that is not the case. Can we get a non partisan definition based on policy as a guide to the correct terminology?

Actually, review, we don't need a separate analysis, the history of the party including its policies and most of its leadership comes from the Reform party, which is clearly Right-wing and stated their page. Its pretty clear that there has been some partisan adjustments to the CPC page here, including the request that it be reviewed as a talking point, where someone can prevent the change from being seen. The Progressive Conservatives there were centre-right are still around, but the CPC was too far right for them. Read the history.

I dont have tie for a lot right now, but I encourage anyone else to provide sources as well. Here is one that puts the CPC tot he right of centre-right: http://www.thecanadaguide.com/political-parties

brill (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Center-right party[edit]

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/27/world/leadership-struggle-inside-canada-s-governing-party-intensifies.html

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/25/opposition-parties-topple-canadian-government/

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE4910JE20081002

Numerous sources above. Why is this even being debated? Funny how the SOCIALIST New Democratic Party is listed as Center-left, and not Left-wing. No bias here!

Thismightbezach (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

All of the sources you've given date from before the last election. Since then the party has made dramatic changes in their policy owing to their majority status. A better argument could be made with more recent references. A more clear picture can be deduced after the CPC policy convention has passed and the upcoming throne speech is tabled.

As for the NDP it would seem to be a good time to revisit their position as listed on their page as they are currently going through a policy convention. I do think that centre-left is not very accurate, but I'm sure all can be sorted out once more clear policies are made public. It's tough to have living articles be correct all of the time!

 Zippanova 19:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that it is correct to describe the party as right wing. Its policies are decidedly centre-right.101.98.175.68 (talk) 05:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This conversation seems to be leaning towards centre-right consensus. I tried to make a bold edit here but was reverted asking to take it to talk (but as we can see above, taking it to talk didnt go very far). I provided a number of sources (mostly books by experts) and proposed a compromise solution of "centre-right to right-wing". Is anyone against a compromise solution? Relying only on post-election sources as Zippanova suggested may fall under WP:RECENT. It seems clear to me that at the very least, reliable mainstream sources as well as authors consider them centre-right, and while anecdotal they were always called centre-right by professors in my experience. --Львівське (говорити) 06:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

"Formerly the Reform Party of Canada"[edit]

I've updated the phrase, "formerly the Reform Party of Canada" to wording which is more historically accurate. The Reform Party was the driving force behind the United Alternative initiative, which was intended to unite like-minded Canadians into a political force capable of forming a government by eliminating vote-splitting.

While Preston Manning and the Reform Party leadership was driving the process, the resulting Canadian Alliance was a brand new political party in its own right. The Reform Party, effectively, merged with the Canadian Alliance in much the same was as the Canadian Alliance ended up merging with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

Source? Me. I was there, and I was actively involved in the process. From the official launch of the United Alternative process in London, 1998 through to the eventual announcement of the Reform Party membership's voting to merge with the Canadian Alliance on March 27, 2000. I was in the room at the announcement myself, so my source material is my own personal experience of being there. Scbritton (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Scbritton: I agree with your edit, but you should be clear that you and your personal experiences do not qualify as a reliable source for encyclopedia articles. (See WP:Reliable sources.) Wikipedia policy says in part: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." For future edits, please provides references to such sources. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 09:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't think the change I made is significant enough to warrant providing a source, since all it does is add a bit of clarity towards what actually happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scbritton (talkcontribs) 13:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)