Talk:2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election

Dates for rounds chart

Would it be possible to add to the table the dates at which each round's counting occurred? 70.51.193.44 (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Candidate Ages

I noticed that the ages of the candidates listed in the article are their age today. I see this as confusing. For example, Obhrai's age is listed as 70, despite the fact he died when he was 69. Wouldn't it make more sense to use their ages at the time of the election instead Benica11 (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should be using the age they were at the time of the leadership election, not how old they are now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Results table

The table of results showing the popular vote is unsourced and the results page, which is now a dead link, was poorly archived. Due to this, it appears impossible to source the current results with the info I have unless a news article can be found with the full results, though I did see one with precentages. Username⁶⁸⁹² 19:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Should Erin O'Toole be in the infobox?

Now with the benefit of historical knowledge, I think maybe we should include Erin O'Toole in the infobox. Of course, after finishing third in this contest, he went on to win the leadership a few years later in 2020. Including him does a better job of showing this wasn't wholly a two way race (though it was largely that) and also more easily lets readers of the various articles about the different leadership elections and the party see the evolution of the party. I recently made an edit at 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election for similar reasons.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I have acted boldly and added him to the infobox, please WP:BRD as needed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Darryl Kerrigan I have reverted your good faith edits. See my reasoning in the edit summary. Thank you for your contributions to Wiki :) Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Ak-eater06 thanks for your comments in the edit summary. I will quote them because I expect it is useful for them to be discussed here: First, there was no consensus. Second, the map at the bottom of the infobox only shows the two candidates. Third, and most importantly, Andy and Max were the two finalists, and Erin placed a distant third, it is clear that the competition was mainly between Andy and Max. To further the WP:BRD cycle, I would respond with the following:

1) As far as I can tell there is no consensus at all for who should be included in the infobox (or that it should just be two candidates). There was a discussion before the election that resulted in no consensus at all. There was a RfC also before the election, that decided not to include the infobox at all because it could not accommodate all 13 candidates. Obviously, these discussions have no bearing on the post-election format of the infobox. Finally, there was this discussion which does not discuss only having two candidates in the infobox, and doesn't seem to arrive at a consensus as far as I can tell. In that discussion some editors call for including "all candidates" but that runs up against the reality that not all candidate can be included due to the 9 candidate limit of the template. Even if a consensus was reached here, which does not appear to be the case. O'Toole winning the leadership a few years later is information the editors did not have at the time, and under which we can reconsider it.

2) The map issue is a not issue. The infobox includes a map of the first round and of the final round. Here we have defaulted to the final round map, and readers need to hit the option box to view the first round map. We don't need to do it that way. In the infobox for the 2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election the map defaults to the one for the first round. Perhaps it should here too.

3) While I agree this was largely a two way race, there were 11 other candidates on the ballot. Reducing it to a binary two-way race improperly obscures that. In many election articles we use 5% as a cut-off, or general rule for inclusion. Here O'Toole received 10.68% of the vote on the first ballot. Not an inconsequential vote share compared to Scheer's 21.85% or Bernier's 29.06%.

Finally, including only two candidates in the infobox here is a significant deviation from what we have done in every other election infobox for a federal leadership race in the last 20+ years. Every federal leadership election includes more than 2 candidates:

• Liberals: 1990, 2006, 2013
• Conservatives: 1998 (PC), 2003 (PC), 2004, 2020
• NDP: 1995, 2003, 2012, 2017
• Bloc: 1997, 2011
• Green: 2006, 2020

The only exceptions (which appear to prove the rule) are elections where only one or two candidates appeared on the ballot: 2003 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election (only Paul Martin and Sheila Copps), 2009 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election (only Michael Ignatieff), 2014 Bloc Québécois leadership election (only Mario Beaulieu and André Bellavance), 2017 Bloc Québécois leadership election (only Martine Ouellet), 2019 Bloc Québécois leadership election (only Yves-François Blanchet). In my view, if we are going to cut the infobox down to two candidates here (where many more than two candidates ran) we need a good reason to do so. While this page can certainly go a different direction than the other Canadian leadership elections, we should have a good reason for doing so. I don't think we do. I should say I am not opposed to including others, perhaps Brad Trost to make it four, or Michael Chong and Kellie Leitch to make it six. All received over five percent, I don't see any reason we can't include them. Excluding O'Toole is more problematic though because he received 10.68% on the first ballot, came in third, and a few years later became conservative leader. Sorry, my comments are not succinct, but I wanted to properly address all of these considerations. Cheers--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Darryl Kerrigan I'll look at your comment carefully and thoroughly when I have time. For now, O'Toole can stay in the infobox. Cheers. Ak-eater06 (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Darryl Kerrigan I have read over your response. The infobox has been like this for years and I believe that speaks as consensus to me. Ak-eater06 (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is a consensus here anymore. There seems to have been a consensus to include all candidates that had won a riding (Scheer, Bernier, O'Toole, Trost, Chong, Leitch, Lemieux, and Raitt). That seems to have been the result of this discussion in June 2017, shortly after the election took place. That status quo seems to have been in place for about a year after the election. Then in May 2018, sockpuppet account IDW5605 seems to have collapsed all other candidates without discussion. It seems about a year after that the collapsed candidates were removed all together, again without discussion. It does not seem to have been considered or discussed since then, unless I am missing something. None of the editors seem to have grappled with why they were going against the 2017 consensus, nor with the issue of whether O'Toole running in or winning the 2020 race changed anything. I don't see any reason we can't or shouldn't discuss that, nor do I think we owe any deference to the sockpuppet who made the original edit without discussion.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Darryl Kerrigan I do think we need better arguments than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

I have decided to bring this up on WP:Canadian Wikipedians Noticeboard. Ak-eater06 (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Sure, happy to discuss there. Don't just ignore all the other points though. It is hardly an "other stuff exists argument". Keeping the infobox at two ignores the apparent initial consensus to include all candidates that won a riding. It ignores a rule of thumb that we usually include candidates that win more than 5%. It ignores that O'Toole winning the subsequent contest, may change how we should look at this one. You are welcome to disagree with me, but please don't dismiss all of this as an other stuff exists rationale. It is clearly not that.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

You should give the 2022 article's editors a heads-up; it looks like any decision here would bear on that article. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)