Talk:People's Party of Canada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Canada / Politicians (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-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 Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Political parties task force (marked as Low-importance).
 

Suggestion regarding ideology[edit]

I think we should be careful to only assign to the party ideologies that can either be reliably sourced back to the party itself or to Bernier. We're seeing a lot of rapid changes to the infobox (some of them mine) and I just want to make sure none of us (myself included) jump the gun on anything. Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree I suggest we use this article https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bernier-peoples-party-canada-1.4823647 to determine the ideology of the party. Ottawa11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, September 14, 2018

The source is certainly reliable, but it doesn't say much about the ideology of the party. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I am basing on the comments that Bernier has said like "respecting the consitution" Ottawa11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:03, September 14, 2018

To use that statement as a basis for calling Bernier an Autonomist is WP:SYNTH. Simonm223 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough but what should we call it. Ottawa11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:09, September 14, 2018‎

What Bernier says has no relevance whatsoever with this discussion, we only rely on secondary sources. Bernier's words are a primary source. Dassilverberg (talk) 17:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Strangely the most obvious ideology: Conservatism, has been completely ignored Dassilverberg (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's not actually what WP:PRIMARY says; but the truth is that unless Bernier says, "I am an anarcho-communist" we're not calling him an anarcho-communist. Plenty of sources call him a conservative, a libertarian, etc. But let's try and make our article reflect what reliable sources actually say, rather than making up patently false things. Simonm223 (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Conservativism was in the infobox until about five minutes ago perhaps Ottawa11 can speak to the removal of it. Simonm223 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I just need a source with his own words Ottawa11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:19, September 14, 2018
Please read WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY - we don't need to use Bernier's own words if a reliable source, like the CBC, says "Bernier is a conservative," likewise, if he says "I am a conservative," we can report, "Bernier says he is a conservative," and this is fine with WP:PRIMARY - but we run into problems when you try to take out reliable statements (Bernier is a conservative) when RSes describe him that way. Likewise we can't say, "Bernier subscribes to a European tendency of Anarcho-Communism" on the basis of inference from his comments on constitutional primacy. This is WP:SYNTH - taking statements from a source or sources and inferring additional information into them. Simonm223 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh and one last thing about WP:SYNTH that will matter the second the party has more than one member in it, we can't infer that Bernier's political views automatically map to those of his party unless a reliable source says so. Simonm223 (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Bernier recently stated his views represent "real conservative ideas": https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/maxime-bernier-says-his-opinions-represent-real-conservative-ideas/Nitrous295 (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
What Bernier says does not matter, we rely on secondary sources on Wikipedia. Dassilverberg (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Again, please read WP:PRIMARY we can't make inferences or interpretation from a primary source, but we can use them. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Well if we cannot conclude the party is a conservative party, then perhaps it is to premature to classify it as Populism, Anti-establishment, Canadian nationalism, Right-libertarianism, and Economic liberalism as others have already decided.Nitrous295 (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest that calling the party populist and conservative would be the easiest to support with extant RSes. Calling it right-libertarian or anti-establishment is do-able from extant sources but depends a bit on sources about Bernier himself, which makes them problematic in the long run. Economic liberalism... the party passes the duck test but it's a bit WP:SYNTH - I'm inclined to let it slide for now. Ultimately everything here is going to be changing rapidly as the party comes to assert its identity as more than the Mad Max bloc of Conservatives Against Dairy Regulation. But by then we should have a fair number of RSes that don't conflate the party with Bernier and will be able to pries out the party ideology from Bernier's personal views. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding political position[edit]

Should we call it right wing or its too early to determine Ottawa11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:29, September 14, 2018

A reliable source calls the party right wing. Therefore we do. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
Thats not the issue I have, I belive calling the party right-wing maybe vauge and need more than one source to prove it.Ottawa11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:36, September 14, 2018
If you can find any reliable sources that don't think the party is right wing we can have a WP:DUE discussion about weighting the sources. But if we have a source or sources that call him right wing which is reliable, and none that contradict, we can easily call this thing that quacks a duck. Simonm223 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
'Centre-right' is a more valid term. 'Right-wing' suggests the party and its platform are further right than they actually are. 2607:FEA8:4DE0:2A6:F:846A:C1C1:A27C (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
No one has yet come up with a source for the assertion that this party is "centre-right". Bradv 02:09, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Based on this quote "We are a party that is still a coalition - a coalition of people who are disenchanted with traditional politicians who say one thing one day and the other the next". <<http://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/politique-canadienne/201809/14/01-5196564-maxime-bernier-lance-le-parti-populaire-du-canada.php>> It sounds more like centerism Ottawa11 (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
It would be original research to use that to justify any particular label. Bradv 02:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
True, but what would you call it. It does not sound right wing. Also " The People’s Party of Canada as his entry on the right of the Canadian political spectrum." original research Ottawa11 (talk) 02:36, 15 September 2018 UTC
Personally, I would call that "populist", and judging by the comments later on the article, "libertarian", which are both right-wing ideologies. The existing source does identify the party as "on the right", but this source could also be used to justify the label "right-wing". I still can't find anything that labels the party as "centre-right", although it's obviously still early. Bradv 02:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
I am talking about spectrum not ideologies. Two different things Thanks.(talk) 02:54, 15 September 2018 UTC
Agreed, and populism and libertarianism, at least in North American usage, are both on the right of the political spectrum. Bradv 02:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Even though I think have moved passed labeling it Far-Right. Just in case it is questioned again by anyone in the future. Heres a recent article just to give further credence that the party does not want to, at least currently, have further discussions with a party in the far-right political spectrum. (http://nationalpost.com/wcm/63774bfe-ae6a-4abb-a65a-e613eca89c6a) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LastBeginning (talkcontribs) 15:59, September 15, 2018 (UTC)


Should we call it a split[edit]

Just asking? Ottawa11 (talk) 03:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Do reliable sources call it a split? Usually a split involves a whole group of MPs changing their party affiliation at the same time, not just one. Bradv 03:37, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Thats what I am thinking but we need more than one source Ottawa11 (talk) 3:50, 17 September 2018 UTC (UTC)
It is still not entirely clear whether this is Bernier's own disagreement or whether there is further division within the Conservative party. Some sources have stated up to 3-4 other MP's may have interest in joining Bernier's party but at this point none have publicly stated anything to suggest they would join the PPC.Nitrous295 (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
While more sources are obviously better, there's no Wikipedia policy prohibiting Wikipedia from making statements from a single source if it's reliable, not contradicted by other sources and notable. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, especially given Bernier's history as a cabinet minister, his public profile, and very close leadership election result. Clubintermiamifan (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Ideology and WP:DUE[edit]

It might be time for us to start considering scaling back ideology as some of the elements are beginning to contradict each other - classical liberalism vs neoliberalism for instance. I suggest a source review might be worthwhile. Simonm223 (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that may be easy, do not use the leadership platform that Bernier as an indication of ideologies or platforms ran for the Conservative party as a source and avoid Tertiary source I need to mention that the website says that "The People's Party of Canada's platform is still being finalized" Ottawa11 (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
As per my previous suggestion, I've been doing a source review. A single Don Pitts opinion piece is not WP:DUE for us making a claim in Wikipedia's voice. Simonm223 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Simonm223 How is Don Pitts piece an opinion peirce, it states that it is analysis and have multiple academic sources . Ottawa11 (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2018 UTC (UTC)
He's making an argument, his opinion that Bernier is classically liberal. It's the very model of an opinion piece. Simonm223 (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Also Pitts is a business columnist so not only is this an opinion piece, it's an opinion piece written by a writer off his beat. So it's a very weak source to use for a Wikipedia-voiced claim. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Simonm223 However, Pitts got it from Barbara Arneil head of the political science department at the University of British Columbia. Ottawa11 (talk) 17:44, 20 September 2018 UTC (UTC)
I don't consider this source to be WP:DUE to speak in Wikipedia's voice can you please address that assertion. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Simonm223 This is her website https://politics.ubc.ca/persons/barbara-arneil/ and here is what she said to told to Pitts "When I read Bernier's quote to her over the phone, she responded, "Yes, that's classical liberalism." Ottawa11 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
That does not answer that you're making an opinion into Wikipedia's own voice which was my actual complaint all along. That he's reporting somebody else's opinion is irrelevant. It's still grossly undue. And the newly added Colby Cosh source is even worse. He speculates Bernier might be a good leader for a classically liberal party. Neither of these are appropriate references for stating that his party is "classically liberal" Simonm223 (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Simonm223 I did not post the Colby Cosh article it was 2607:FEA8:4DE0:2A6:151E:16D2:A9AA:5DE3 Ottawa11 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2018 UTC, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion spokeperson[edit]

Cna we specifc that a spokeperson is not an elected leader but someone that respond to question that is asked by the media. For example, Brock Harrison is Andrew Scheer spokeperson but do you see his name on the Conservative Party of Canada https://globalnews.ca/news/4399075/andrew-scheer-india-trip-justin-trudeau/ Ottawa11 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2018 UTC

Party Spokesperson[edit]

Closing disruption by blocked sock.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The Party Spokesperson is Martin Masse, the proof is in these articles. https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4827241 https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4828043 I ask every user to please read this article and place your vote of who you believe is right. So let’s do a democratic solution and place a straw-poll. The Smart Mind (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2018 UTC


Do you believe that Martin Masse is the spokesperson of the party, yes or no?

Yes: You Agree with User:The Smart Mind

No: You Agree with User:Ottawa11


First here is the definiation of a spokesperson, my concern is that The Smart Mind is trying to pass him as the leader of the party because under wikipedia guidelines their is not category for spokesperson but leaders.Ottawa11 19:38, 19 September 2018 UTC

Here are other parties, do you see the words spokeperson such as the Liberal Party of Canada or Conservative Party of Canada

My concern is that he didn’t see other parties like Quebec solidaire, and saying that I am saying, that I’m trying to put him as a leader well that is completely inaccurate, he is just assuming another leadership position but he is not the leader of the party I never said that. It’s very concerning that Ottawa11 makes stuff up. The Smart Mind 19:56, 19 September 2018 UTC

Do not compared the People Party to the Quebec solidare because another articles states that he is Bernier main organizer https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/bernier-says-he-has-raised-over-90-000-since-quitting-the-conservatives-1.4081142 and the party has not developed a structure which the Québec solidaire has. Also you need to be nominated to be considered a spokerson whithin the solidare, do you have proof that Masse has interest in being nominated Ottawa11 Then please don’t compare the party to others if, you fail to understand that everybody is different, that they can have whatever they want in their own party and you cannot compare the parties to others. The Smart Mind - 20:12, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

En Marche! it was founded by Emmunal Macron who left the the french socialist party after disagreement of issues. Also, I am not the one who listed the party comparisons. There are other users that did.For example, I was not the one that that put the reform party as an example.Ottawa11 Actually you made comparisons about The Liberal and Conservative Parties. The Smart Mind - 20:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

[[User:The Smart Mind|The Smart Mind] no, I used their wikibox to show that spokeperson are not in their wikibox. You used a democratic socialist party to compare to the People Party.Ottawa11 22:39, 19 September 2018 UTC

Edit warring[edit]

There have been far more edits to the article today than to this talk page, and that's a problem. If the active editors can agree to discuss things here rather than revert each other on the article, then there is no need for this page to be protected. Please see WP:BRD. Bradv 20:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

For you to be aware, User talk:Ottawa11 just made an edit now changing ideologies that I have put, and putting his own preferred way, which violates the WP:3RR and the message you left the user on the talk page The Smart Mind. —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@The Smart Mind: I am aware. You violated WP:3RR as well, and I have also left you a message on your talk page. Bradv 20:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
@Bradv: I am aware as well. I reported the problem and now I see that you are accusing me of being a sockpuppet which I am very concerned about this. I find it concerning that you didnt make any claims about Ottawa11. The Smart Mind 20:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Smart Mind you need to make adressed the concerns that User:Simonm223 made with Ideology and UN:due weight and explain why his platform should be used to determine ideology when I have argued against. Ottawa11 —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, September 19, 2018

Note: The Smart Mind has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Bradv 00:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding platforms[edit]

Should we put headers underneath platforms, it comes off to promtional to me. Ottawa11 19:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)