Talk:Pierre Poilievre

Lede libertarian or populist

FWIIW, I think this wording Poilievre has described himself as a libertarian-minded member of his party is preferable to Poilievre has been described as a libertarian and populist. As noted above, it seems there is disagreement about whether he is a populist. He also hasn't described himself as a populist as far as I am aware. I don't see how we can both avoid WP:WEASEL (ie properly identify who has called him a populist) and give due weight to those who dispute that, while keeping it short and appropriate for the lede. It is easier for the libertarian descriptor as PP calls himself this.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06: to update you on the talk which I had hoped you'd participate in, X-Editor from months ago as well as Masterhatch recently, have also supported changing the sentence. You mention consensus as your revision rationale, can you explain why your individual support of original sentence (which had no other support) has a stronger consensus than multiple users supporting the new sentence? LemonberryPie (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Poilievre could describe himself as a sandwich, it doesn't change reality. His dogwhistles about the WEF and such aren't libertarian. In fact, most of the comments he makes as he campaigns to be "Canada's Next Prime Minister" are clearly playing to his base's lowest common denominator (populist not libertarian) and have almost nothing in common with Libertarianism. Harper was a libertarian who often passed laws he knew would be struck down as unconstitutional thus removing any laws on that subject (gay marriage, pot possession - all made effectively legal by his unconstitutional laws that he then never attempted to fix or replace) but he also kept a lid on the populist talk - Pierre feeds it. 38.13.68.31 (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree... the use of the word "libertarian" borders on marketing. By any common defnition of libertarian, he is not libertarian. We should be more specific about what we mean. If you compare to Andrew Scheer's page, there is more specific language about his policy focuses not his self-described ideology. His position on LGBTQ issues, including his support of anti-trans legislation, is not libertarian in the slightest. RedRetrievers (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I oppose these changes and prefer keeping it as it is. I believe including populist is helpful to readers because it gives them an idea of what type of politician he is before diving deep into the "political positions" section. As per the disagreements about whether he is a populist, I believe that the number of sources that say he is a populist outnumber the sources that say he isn't. In addition, pledges to defund the CBC and fire the Bank of Canada governor are widely considered promises that provoke strong reaction/excitement from people. Also, if we're removing populist in this manner, we might as well remove libertarian too; since support for universal/public healthcare and supply management would be considered anti-libertarian by some.

User:Masterhatch and User:GhostOfDanGurney, given your comments on this page a few weeks ago, I would like your input on this major change, as well as whether you support or oppose it. Ak-eater06 (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think populist could potentially be appropriate for the lead if it is specified as his rhetorical style, per how the sources frame it. Something along the lines of "Some journalists describe Poilievre's rhetorical style as populist", in a lead paragraph separated from his policies paragraph. Its inclusion should not be given the same WP:WEIGHT alongside libertarian, which has been significantly covered by self-description, caucus members, and journalists.LemonberryPie (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I oppose the use of "populist" in the lead. I think "libertarian" is sufficient. Further down in the article it can be mentioned that he is described by some as a populist. I just don't think it's lead worthy. Masterhatch (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Further down in the article is "Some journalists have described him as populist.[128]" citing an article marked "opinion" in the Globe and Mail. I think it's incorrect, the first-named author Daniel Drache is a professor emeritus (York). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

What part of his "worldbuilding" attack on Canadian media, claiming they're all part of a Liberal dominated conspiracy to down his image, just because they all subscribe to the same Canadian Press feed and report what CP has provided about him is Libertarian? He and Andrew Scheer are using the Trump playbook, just like any populist.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-pierre-poilievre-and-colleagues-sniff-out-a-scandal-that-doesnt-exist/ 38.13.68.31 (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Scandals?

There isn't a single part of this article that lists all his scandals? It's hard to treat this as a reliable resource when his election fraud and tar baby use in the HoC aren't mentioned. Even Stockwell Day's article references the Rick Mercer sketch on him, yet nothing about Mercer bringing Poilievre to the national forefront for the first time regarding his gold plated MP pension before he hit 30. Is the CPC editing it? 38.13.68.31 (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's break it down:

1. Cite any reliable sources that talks about Poilievre engaging in election fraud.
2. The tar baby comment seems life a gaffe and the Mercer is a comedian who mocking Poilievre views. Those are hardly scandals.
3. The page does seem burnished but if the Conservative Party was editing it, I would think that it would be news.

Hiyournameis (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I’m not a wiki person so I don’t know proper protocol on how to write but this article seems to be full of conservatives leanings. I’ll try to give you some scandals maybe you’ll feel none of them belong in the article.

1. in regards to election fraud a federal judge says that election fraud happened in 2011 Here’s a link https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2013/05/27/government-mp-accentuates-positive-as-judge-concludes-electoral-fraud-in-2011/
2. He has called Justin Trudeau and Pierre Trudeau Marxist’s https://www.chch.com/pierre-poilievre-goes-viral-for-calling-justin-trudeau-and-his-father-marxists/
3. He made a speech criticized for residential school denial https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6713419 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.114.226.46 (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I've added a "controversies" section to Poilievre's page. If anyone has anything more (public statements/actions that were deemed "controversial") by him, feel free to add. You're right, the page lacking a section on his controversies does seem to be an overlook, especially with him being such a prominent figure now and definitely in the next couple years. Aagarrido (talk) 08:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Gay issues

Where does he stand on gay issues. 2605:8D80:623:3D0F:5071:2900:BC37:A22D (talk) 02:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Added back....Poilievre is pro-choice, and pro-immigration, and has progressive views on LGBTQ issues.

References

Moxy- 16:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

So... we have 8 citations (3 of which are from Conservative-biased Postmedia Network). Politico qualifies the statement by saying "... and now calls himself pro-choice.". The Globe and Mail also qualifies it by saying "This year, he said he is pro-choice." and I'm not sure any of them support the wording "progressive views" ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:59, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Can We get a better image

I think Poilievre's image is a bit...lame. I think he deserves better.

Would like to reach consensus in order to change it.

Vote on this:

IMAGE 1 (NEW):

OR IMAGE 2 (CURRENT):

Trajan1 (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I suggest we also consider this photo. I am the owner of this file. It is newer, higher resolution and contains a better contrasting background. Humberland (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I am fine with this third image for the infobox, but I like the current one too. The one with the Ukraine flag is not appropriate though. It's a bit confusing and perhaps not neutral. If we adopt this third image though, it doesn't automatically follow though that we will use that image for him on othet pages.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The third one seems like the best choice, though it would need cropping. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you be able to crop it and post an improved version? Thanks. Humberland (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The Ukrainian flag is a distraction from the purpose of the image. Humberland (talk) 18:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Humberland I edited the existing photo to adjust the background. See File:Pierre Poilievre in 2023 (edited).jpg. Clearer for the infobox now. PascalHD (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

This new third image is nice and portrays his full face, but would it be possible that we maybe get a shot of him from a "suit-and-tie" political event? There are so many more along these lines that frame him as more professional and politician-like. This new one makes him seem more like a well-dressed civilian than the current leader of the CPC. Aagarrido (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Controversies section

Should we have a "controversies" section (as an editor added it a few hours ago)? I think it violates Wikipedia:WEIGHT. Ak-eater06 (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Worth mentioning IMO. The descriptions themselves could be moved to "political positions" under subheadings, but still worth keeping and being distinct from policy choices nonetheless. Aagarrido (talk) 22:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the Marxist comments to his political career. I've removed the Jordan Peterson comments, since it doesn't seem to be covered much. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:40, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. Why remove the Jordan Peterson comments though? Poilievre does have connections to Jordan Peterson, and it's seldom mentioned elsewhere. Global News, Financial Post, Toronto Sun, and CTV all covered it extensively, with Trudeau even mentioning the comments at the Parliamentary Press Gallery Dinner of 2022. Aagarrido (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

His use of "Anglo Saxon" being interpreted as "white supremacy" was not covered extensively which is why its WP:UNDUE. One CTV article reported one interpretation from an activist group. It would be like adding an interpretation of “white supremacy” to Barack Obama’s page because one article had one interpretation of him doing the OK symbol to mean that. For connections to Jordon Peterson, maybe his opposition the College of Psychologists is appropriate to include as that's a more significantly covered claim. LemonberryPie (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Connections to Jordan Peterson can be mentioned if it is due, but there shouldn't be a dedicated Controversies section. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:47, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that an entire section on "controversy" is UNDUE at this time and support the removal of it, and also support the individual paragraphs in that section being added to relevant existing prose sections, so long as they are also of DUE WP:WEIGHT and reliably sourced. This discussion mirrors one I have had recently at Talk:Kurt Busch where I supported an identical position. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The content might be appropriate, but it should be incorporated into other sections and balanced with other content there. We should avoid controversy sections per WP:CSECTION.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Shortsighted on my part - I'm a bit new here. Glad we were able to incorporate the info in a fair and unbiased way in the end. Aagarrido (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Trivia (aka, Jeff)

@Ak-eater06: There is nothing that I can find in MOS:TRIVIA or WP:HTRIVIA that suggests that this reliably sourced information should be removed on those grounds. It is integrated into prose in a relevant section of the article without distracting from it. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

If he intentionally went by another name that might be relevant, but how do we know this wasn't just a typo/mistake by the person who prepared the programme?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Question

GhostOfDanGurney Hi

Question

May I ask why you reverted my edit in this page? Thanks --Taraa Scott (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what edits you are speaking about, or what Dan's logic was. If you are referring to your addition of Poilievre's childrens'names though, you may want to see the archive discussion here and WP:BLPNAME.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, Hi, Thanks for the information, Regards. --Taraa Scott (talk) 17:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Trans rights

Pierre Poilievre wants sports, bathroom ban for trans women

And mainstream media coverage of the Conservative Party of Canada leader’s announcement failed to get it right

https://xtramagazine.com/video/poilievre-trans-women-bathrooms-263294