Jump to content

Talk:Pierre Poilievre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MPSchneiderLC (talk | contribs) at 00:25, 3 January 2023 (→‎University of Calgary - 3 conservative political clubs: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Request for Comment on defunding CBC/"pay-as-you-go" law in the lead

Should the lead section of the article include Poilievre's current positions on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and a "pay-as-you-go" law mentioned during the recent leadership campaign? -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 16:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of James Topp having far-right ties

If we are to include the source from Global News labeling Topp as having ties with the far-right, we would also need to include the full context of how the article initially referred to him with the term "white supremacist" but later retracted the label. Global News: "Editor’s Note: The URL for this story has been revised to omit a reference to ‘white supremacist’ to avoid any misunderstanding that persons named in the URL are associated with that label." We would also need to include the reasoning Global News had written, which was his appearance on a far-right podcaster's stream. LemonberryPie (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with any of this. Without the full context (and honestly, I can see arguments being made even with full context), there is zero point in including this content about James Topp; it would be best suited in an article on Mr. Topp. I'm not entirely convinced that it adds anything substantial to the article. There are plenty of sources describing this subject's opposition to mandates, without being a potential WP:COATRACK to promote Topp. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 02:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd favour removing references to Mr Topp since I expect Mr Poilievre has met and even walked with dozens of people in his life. This would mean removing "Poilievre demonstrated his support for army reservist James Topp's anti-mandate protest walk from Vancouver to their planned Canada Day freedom protest on Parliament Hill, by joining Topp, Paul Alexander, Tom Marazzo, a self-declared spokesperson for the convoy protests and an ex-military officer,[162] on June 30, 2022, in the final stage of Topp's march in the west end of Ottawa.[163][164]". As for Global News, if they really did smear then retract, it's unfortunate but not appropriate for this article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I've removed it for now. If there is a consensus to include it that forms, it can be readded. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 17:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MGTOW controversy

Multiple outlets are reporting on Global's report of PP tagging his YouTube videos to appeal to the MGTOW community including CTV, CBC, and even an opinion piece on the (increasingly right-wing biased) National Post. I feel this is important enough to include in the article, however I would like to seek other opinions before I BOLDly add it in. Namely, would this be best in the section on his leadership, or somewhere else? -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say "PP tagging his YouTube videos"? I didn't see a report that he did. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also haven't seen what PG hasn't seen. Still GoDG's right, I think, that a brief mention of the controversy is warranted. It's important that we be clear using language like "Videos posted by Poilievre's official YouTube account were tagged with ..." or something similar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I'm glad I brought it up here to avoid any potential BLP errors ^_^; -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 14:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it is to be included, it should be in the "Opposition leader (2022–present)" section, as the political positions section is only for policy or policy-related positions. LemonberryPie (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see that LemonberryPie added and Ak-eater06 reverted. The added sentences used the word "claimed" (but see WP:CLAIM) and contained labeled "MGTOW" (but I worry that's a misquote since I read that the tag was actually "#mgtow") and were not brief (I define brief as 0 to 1 sentence though would go along with other definitions). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot limit it to 1 sentence brief, we would need to include the full context in a BLP. That includes the Poilievre team's explanation and the response from Poilievre himself. The wording of "claim" and inclusion of the "#" can be fixed as you suggest. But we either include the full context of the controversy, or leave the whole thing out altogether. LemonberryPie (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel your version puts too much WP:WEIGHT on the Poilievre team's response; while including that he supposedly didn't know about it and condemned them is warranted and required per WP:NPOV, a full quote is not, especially since it's only a condemnation of the community and not an actual apology for the existence of the tags, as sources are saying has been called upon. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 19:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LemonberryPie: I didn't mean that adding "#" would fix, it was also upper case and in a link -- see MOS:SIC and MOS:LINKQUOTE. And I favour "leave the whole thing out" if it can't be what I call brief, but as I said I will go along with others. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure one sentence is realistic, but here's a shorter two-sentence proposal:

Between 2018 and 2022, Poilievre's team-managed YouTube channel posted hundreds videos with a hidden tag labeled "MGTOW", referencing the misogynistic online community.[1] Poilievre condemned MGTOW and said he was unaware of the tags.[1]

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this edit. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 22:48, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234: making sure you're aware of this discussion. What about the content was a BLP violation? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And M.nelson in case you'd like to clarify your view. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The removal by Sportsfan 1234 had the summary "Not needed and WP:BLP violation". Re: "Not needed", there is consensus directly above that the content should be included, so a discussion is needed to change that consensus (see also WP:BRD). Re: BLP - the content is well-sourced, meeting WP:BLPRS. Disagreeing with both points, I reverted the removal. I encourage Sportsfan 1234 and the IP to join the discussion here in order to gain consensus for their edits. -M.nelson (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Boutilier, Alex; Bimman, Abagail (7 October 2022). "Conservatives call off probe into misogynistic tags on Poilievre's YouTube channel". Global News.

Photo Again

New photo (2022)
Existing photo (2014)

Is there a reason we are not using this photo? The one we are using here and site wide is extremely old. Surely, it is time to move on to something more recent. I note there have been a number of photos rejected, or removed due to copyright issues. A quick review of this one seems to show it is clean. It appears to have been taken at a rally. I did a reverse image search and do not see any uses that pre-date it being uploaded to the commons. Admittedly, he is squinting a bit in it, but isn't that better than using the current baby-face photo?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we need to be careful about the copyright angle but as noted, Wikipageedittor099 posted it as their own work. I have also done some of my own due diligence. As far as I can tell it wasn't posted online prior to being posted to the commons. I encourage others to check for themselves if they have concerns. I hope Wikipageedittor099 can confirm that for us, but I don't think we should be interrogating them about when and where they took the photo. Editors are entitled to a bit of anonymity, though I note their user page indicates the province where they are based. I don't think it follows that because some other photos suggested were removed for copyright issues that we should stop trying to find a better photo. Anyway, I take your point about "new" not necessarily being "better". While I tend to think this is a better photo overall, I would disagree that age of the photo is an unimportant consideration. For the articles focused on 2022 topics (or those in the future) using an eight year old photo is more problematic. Those articles are about a period in time, and thus there is more value in the photos being contemporary to the period the article is about (or as close as possible).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have been inactive. I can confirm that the new photo is something I have taken. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm I took the photo, and if you inform me of any ways I can provide proof I'd be happy to do so. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright?

Pls see c:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#‎File:Pierre Poilievre.jpgMoxy- 06:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. The existing photo (2014) is in the commons. The question was raised about the new photo (2022) though, so I don't think this resolves anything for us.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have broken the campaign/family thumbnail.

It is found in this section. I was cropping the photo for the Anaida Poilievre article and I accidentally overrode the original photo. I undid this, but the thumbnail now shows a photo of only her. Also it is distorted. If anyone knows how to fix this please do. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

University of Calgary - 3 conservative political clubs

I was with Pierre at the University of Calgary and a member of both the Reform / Canadian Alliance club and the PC Alliance (provincial Progressive Conservative club). There was also a Progressive Conservative Party of Canada club which I presume is what Brown led. This article sourced does not say they were one club but the line "Poilievre was president of the Young Tories at the University of Calgary, a club composed of both Progressive Conservative and Reform members" seems to imply only one club. I corrected this, but I wish I had a great external source. (Note: I edit this non-anonymously and could hopefully publish this in reliable source later.) >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 00:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pierre_Poilievre&oldid=1131191830"