Talk:2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election/Archive 1

Conservative leadership election, 2017
Turnout	54.57%
	Round 1 results by Canadian electoral district
Leader before election; Rona Ambrose (Interim);	Elected Leader ; Andrew Scheer;

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

What is this article about?

If this article is about choosing the next leader of the party? then we should have little to nothing about the interim leadership race. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

12 candidates but infobox can only display 9. What to do? 192.235.252.195 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Candidate ages

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to remove. As this isn't a WP:BLP issue (the age information already exists on Wikipedia in the candidates' articles, merely a click away), the default is the status quo, so, no consensus to remove. Note: I spent a fair amount of time looking for any style guide or MOS concerning ages of people on lists, but none appear to exist. If interested you all might consider collborating on an MOS for Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. - jc37 02:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Should the candidate ages be removed from the bios in this article? 142.204.244.61 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Keep - age of the registered and declared candidates has been listed for some time. Age is mentioned in most news articles about the candidates and certainly is a factor in leadership elections (particularly if a candidate is considered "too old" or "too young" so I think it's a relevant biographical detail to include here unlike, say, birthplace or alma mater which would be more trivial. 142.204.244.61 (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Remove - This has not been shown to be relevant. Just because the general media tries to make an issue of it doesn't mean we have to copy them here on Wikipedia. Of note, discrimination on the basis of age is a prohibited ground under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which means a very strong case is needed to discriminate on this basis in Canada. We don't list other prohibited grounds, such as sex, sexual orientation, skin colour or religion, so why would we discriminate on this ground? - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The Charter argument is irrelevent. People vote how they vote and it would be impossible to sue individuals because they considered age when deciding who to vote for. The Charter also doesn't prevent us from listing age as Wikipedia is not an institution of the federal government and the Charter only applies to government. If the Charter was relevant than various newspapers in Canada, as well a the CBC, could be prosecuted for habitually listing the age of peopele who are subjects of news articles. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Keep - It would certainly be of encyclopedic interest if, say, the CPC elected its youngest or oldest leader ever - so I would suggest that listing ages is, in general, encyclopedic. Heterodidact (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Remove This is an interesting conundrum, which I hadn't previously come across. I'm not a fan of the article structure as it stands, which reads far too much like what a newspaper article might write: I'd much prefer a prose paragraph for each candidate. That said, unless attention has been drawn to their age in reliable sources, I don't see any persuasive argument to keep it. Vanamonde (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Note: other articles related to this matter (including non-Canadian ones) list the ages of candidates so it might be a good idea to go to those talk pages and inform users that there is an RfC going on here. I did this on some talk pages but might have missed some. I honestly don't see any encyclopedic value to having the candidates' ages listed so I think we should remove it. This information is more pertinent to articles of the candidates themselves rather than to this article. (summoned by bot). Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep We should take our lead from reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 10:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox

I'm fine with removing the infobox for now, as long as we put it back after the election, with the top candidates. I would though like to suggest we use the candidate's campaign colours in the infobox, since having blue for all of them (and labelling each candidate as "Conservative") is redundant. The colours would be useful in case we want to make a map of the results. Right now they're mostly using blue, with an occasional splash of red, but we can debate this more when the time comes. Here is an example of what I am thinking (just using the top 6 candidates based on polling) -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. The blue/Conservative thing is pointless for an article covering an intra-party election.--Jay942942 (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

My Edit

I ultimately hit enter before being able to enter by Full Edit quote. Mr Scheer is not supported by the CLC as stated on his CLC profile at https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/index.php?p=Federal_Voting_Records&id=259

216.36.164.144 (talk) 11:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Endorsement Citation

I added former MP Leon Benoit as an endorsement for Trost. I don't know how to cite it however - I haven't found any info for it online, but the campaign sent out an e-mail on November 22 2016 from Leon. I am reproducing it here in case some other, experienced editor can ensure it is cited accurately.

"My name is Leon Benoit, former Member of Parliament for the Alberta Riding of Vegreville — Wainwright.

To win in 2019 our party needs a leader who understands, respects and can represent all members of our conservative family – fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, cultural conservatives, democratic conservatives, and national security conservatives.

Brad Trost is that kind of leader.

Brad is a genuine, principled conservative who believes that conservatives want – and Canadians deserve – a leader who is not afraid to challenge the self-serving ideas of the statist-left and its cheerleaders in the mainstream media. Brad holds degrees in economics and geophysics from University of Saskatchewan and he was an exploration geophysicist – a prospector – prior to running for office. He and his wife, Gerelt – a proud new Canadian from Mongolia – are committed Christians. Brad and Gerelt have one daughter, Isabel.

First elected in 2004 in the Saskatchewan riding of Saskatoon-Humboldt, Brad continued as that riding’s Member of Parliament until his re-election in the newly formed riding of Saskatoon-University, last October.

Brad’s parliamentary and legislative experience is extensive, particularly on issues relating to international trade and natural resources. He introduced legislation to open Canada’s uranium sector to foreign investment. He founded the Conservative Party’s Energy Caucus and served as a member of House of Commons Standing Committee on Natural Resources for ten years. As chair of that committee I always found Brad to be a voice of reason who worked well with members of all parties to ensure we all did good work.

Brad also served on both the Standing Committee on International Trade and the Standing Committee on Industry. He is currently vice-chair of the Canada-U.S. Parliamentary Association, his second time serving in that capacity

Brad knows the best way to grow Canada’s economy and create jobs is to get government out of the way by carrying forward Stephen Harper’s legacy of lowering taxes and reducing job-killing red tape.

Brad is a strong defender of private property and the rights of property owners. As a gun owner, Brad opposes all aspects of C-68 and is committed to repealing it altogether.

Brad is an active member of the Parliamentary Pro-Life Caucus. Brad is an ardent defender of traditional marriage, the rights of parents and the place of the natural family as the cornerstone of our culture and the basic building block of our society.

If you believe – as I do – that to win in 2019 our party must be united behind a Leader who . . . Is a 100% Conservative who represents all elements of Canada’s conservative family; Exhibits exceptional integrity and who will demonstrate and expect the highest standard of behavior from his team; Shows the courage and ability to stand up to the liberal-left and its cheerleaders in the mainstream media; I urge you to join me in supporting Brad Trost in this leadership race.

To vote for Brad in the upcoming Leadership Election your party membership must be valid through March 28, 2017. To ensure that this is so, you can renew or extend your membership, now, by clicking on the button below.

You can also help Brad by making a tax-deductible financial contribution to his campaign. To donate online click on the button below or, if you prefer would like to donate by mail, click here to download a donation form and follow the instructions

Yours truly,

Leon Benoit" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clockback5 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

CTV Power Play Debates

CTV Power Play is hosting 4 debates of either 3 or 4 candidates, from April 3-6. Should we include these in the debates section? Mikemikem (talk) 18:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It's no different than any other debate I guess. Maybe list it as CTV debate with the date range and tick off all that attend, even if it's technically one debate per day. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Firearms advocacy grading

Do we really need all those 'grades' from the gun lobbyist group? Are they important?--Yellow Diamond's Pearl (talk) 22:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Gun laws are important to many people, whether anti-gun or pro-gun. It is valid information.77Mike77 (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

In the US, perhaps, but the gun lobby is of minor importance here in Canada. I think including these is well into WP:UNDUE and bordering on WP:SPAM and they should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I find it a bit odd to include as well. Why give this group more importance over other who have graded the candidates on certain policies? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

That was my thought. It is giving this organization much too much influence and by giving them this much coverage on Wikipedia is spammy. It should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

It's also not explained very well in the article. I know we don't need to provide overly detailed information and that people can go to the citation, but it's not even clear when reading it as to why they received such a mark. We don't even know if a good grade is given because the candidate wants less restrictions or more restrictions on guns. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 11:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I just looked, the citation used doesn't even link to the actual grading. When I did find the grading and what he based his decisions on, it's based mostly on opinions and not on actual policies. Chong didn't get a good rating because he's more interested in economic and environmental policies. Raitt's rating was a bit better because despite not having any policies on guns she said she'll appoint someone as a guns representative. Obrhai got an F for not responding to him. The ratings should be deleted. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm deleting these endorsements. Seems to be no reason for them, they're not cited and mainly just opinions without a criteria used. Ahunt also made good points. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The gun lobby will be happy that you decided keep this information from the general public. It is mainly pro-gun people who care about the gradings, so I assume that it is thought to be a good thing for the anti-gun people be kept in the dark about the candidates' positions. Generally, the candidates' positions on many issues are undefined. For example, very few of them have, to my knowledge, mentioned enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. I assume that this article is a general info piece about who is running, and that there are dedicated articles in each candidate, where people can find more info. (Still, "less is more" is a peculiar guideline for information in an encycopedia article!)77Mike77 (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Folks, these are my edits! Like it or not, firearms policy is an important issue among a recognizable proportion of the Conservative Party membership. O'Leary's trip to the range (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/oleary-gun-range-shooting-thursday-1.3963724) got 7700 shares. How a candidate's platform aligns with their views is not a trivial matter. Would Wiki be censoring, say foreign policy or carbon policies? Probably not. If the links are vague, that is a function of my editing not a lack of rigour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maple leaf eh (talk • contribs) 13:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

If they ratings were actually based on something they may be valuable, but they were simply some guy's opinions. As I noted above, Chong was given a bad rating because he seemed more interested in economic and environmental policy than gun policy. Instead of not giving Obrhai a rating because he didn't respond, he was given an F. If you can find gradings for their firearm policies that are based on evidence then I have no problem with it being included. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Was thinking this over (walking the dog). There are at least three firearms groups which have now endorsed candidates - the National Firearms Association (NFA), the Canadian Sport Shooting Association (CSSA) and the Canadian Coalition for Firearms Rights (CCFR). I just hadn't gotten around to compiling all three sets of comments. For the record, it looks like the ratings are based on interviews, responses to standard questions and public statements. Maybe not statistically sound, but a methodology nonetheless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maple leaf eh (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I have removed it again. To include all this firearms stuff you need to gain a new consensus here, since we have an existing consenus not to include it. First party refs just add undue weight to the issue and, as I noted above, just serve to promote the lobby groups promoting this as an issue. To show that this is notable it needs to have gained attention in third party sources, preferably the general news media, not just special interests. - Ahunt (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue of Conservative interest in firearms policy goes back to the Reform Party and how that party appealed to a disenfranchised base. PM Harper did well because of opposition to the Long Gun Registry. Current leadership candidates were part of that movement, and naturally are trying to capitalize on that interest. Secondly, the CBC, the Hill Times and Ottawa Citizen (http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/somerset-whats-with-the-tory-love-affair-with-guns) have all had stories highlighting candidates' views on firearms. This is a narrow interest to some outsiders, but a significant interest to many in the party. Leadership races are about earning grassroots votes and donations, one voter at a time.

As a point of interest, how can I follow the consensus conversation when I only stumbled into the changes weeks after the fact? Is there an alert function I am missing? Should there be a vote called? (I'm trying to add to the page in between other things, but some people seem to have more time for this than I do.) Signed Maple leaf eh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maple leaf eh (talk • contribs) 17:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well you can always read the talk pages before getting into a long series of edits to see if the topic has been previously discussed and a consensus found. There is nothing wrong with makeing bold edits, but if you do go against a consensus in doing so then it will get reverted and you will be asked to join the discussion to find a new consensus or try to change the existing one, as has occurred in this case. It's all past of the process of creating an article collaboratively. - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the importance of firearms policies in this particular race, my issue was with the source used. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm disputing the importance of firearms policy in this race! When the only refs are the firearms associations themselves trying to get some attention for their pet cause and neither the media nor the candidates are discussing it publicly, then it is not that notable. - Ahunt (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree with you on the importance of firearms policy in this race - we are talking about the Conservative party - firearms policy is important to a very large segment of that party's membership - IIRC firearms was basically the first policy that upper tier candidate Erin O'Toole released. It's importance is pretty clear to most of the candidates in the race. Here is an article on the subject from Global News, firearms may not be as big an issue in the Tory party as they are in the Republican party - but that doesn't mean they aren't a major factor. http://globalnews.ca/news/3319368/gun-policy-a-stand-in-for-other-issues-in-crowded-conservative-leadership-race/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyndane5 (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to use that third party source as a ref for adding the positions of those people mentioned in the article I wouldn't oppose that. I just don't think we should be using primary refs for this. Having been in the industry I can tell you that half the special interest associations in the country send candidates questionnaires on their pet subject to fill out. Most candidates ignore most of them, but if the Beer Drinker's Association rated each candidate on their support for beer would we include that? If the Cat Fancier's Association rated each candidate on how much they love cats would we include that? Of course not, unless if was notable enough to make third party reliable sources. - Ahunt (talk) 13:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The other parties never promoted a cat registry nor a beer registry. In Ontario, the issue of selling beer in grocery stores was an issue. Federally, firearm laws are an issue, and should be mentioned. I know some people are triggered when they see the word "gun" (no pun intended), but that is not a valid reason to censor the article. I agree that a more objective source is needed.77Mike77 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not about censorship, it is about notability. Just because some association is pushing their pet issue doesn't mean it is notable here. That requires reliable thirds parties to have noticed it, regardless of the issue in question. - Ahunt (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Adrienne Snow

Adrienne Snow is listed as a withdrawn candidate and her name is added to the chart on the debates. However, she only announced she planned to run. She never did raise any of the money required to at least enter the race. Seems like she should just be considered with those who declined. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 11:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

If she never announced her run, she should be removed.--Jay942942 (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Candidates

I was wondering if the article should distinguish between those who are official candidates and those who have announced they are running? Right now - as per the party's website - only Bernier, Leitch, Chong and Clement are official candidates. The others - to my knowledge - have yet to file all the appropriate paper work and pay the entry fee, it's quite possible that some could drop out before ever being official candidates. To me these candidates are almost no different than those who have publicly expressed interest. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

←== Age ==

Age of the registered and declared candidates has been listed for some time (so I would say it's an established fact of the article). The other day I added the ages to the list of possible candidates. This was removed and then the ages were also removed from the registered/declared sections. I have restored that for the sake of consistency and because having the ages there has been the status quo for some time and thus their removal should be discussed. Age is mentioned in most news articles about the candidates and certainly is a factor in leadership elections (particularly if a candidate is considered "too old" or "too young" so I think it's a relevant biographical detail to include here unlike, say, birthplace or alma mater which would be more trivial. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

How is this relevant? We don't list the candidate's sex, race, ethic group or other irrelevant things, how is age important? - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Why does the press invariably mention a candidate's age without mentioning the other categories you list? Whether age should be an issue is a separate question but invariably there are candidates who electors may consider "too young" or "too old". 130.63.218.201 (talk) 13:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Here on Wikipedia we are not bound to do what the media does. Perhaps the media is trying to create age discrimination and influence the outcome, which by the way is a prohibited ground under Section 15 of the charter, but we don't have to do that here. If the media listed each candidate's sex there would be uneasy comments and if they listed race there would be howls of indignation. Why is promoting age discrimination okay? The charter deals with each prohibited grounds as equally unacceptable. - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Since more than a week has passed with no cogent arguments for listing ages, I will remove them as per this WP:CONSENSUS. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The only person I see here supporting a change is User:Ahunt. One person for and one person against is NOT consensus for a change. 142.204.244.61 (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

A consensus consists of all editors who are interested in discussing the matter. Everyone was given the chance to participate and most other editors watching the page declined to do so. No logical arguments were made for including this, so the consensus carries. - Ahunt (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

And it's one for and one against the change so there's no consensus for your proposal. 142.204.244.61 (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, since you're an involved party, you cannot be the one who closes. Has to be an uninvolved editor. 142.204.244.61 (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I've opened an RFC in order to (hopefully) engage more than two people in the discussion and resolve the issue. See below. 142.204.244.61 (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not involved, and since encyclopedia articles are supposed to provide relevant information, it seems obvious to me that the ages of the candidates should be included. I find it bizarre that someone would prefer that their ages be kept secret.77Mike77 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I support including ages. In all elections there are minimum ages to run and when you are choosing a possible Prime Minister, yes age/life experience is a factor to consider. We show photos that indicate race, and no one is hiding gender, so those are red herrings. Legacypac (talk) 07:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Election infobox

Since the election is about a month away, it is going to be time to bring back the election infobox. The preliminary formula I have come up with is including the candidates polling above 6% on each of the last 4 opinions polls. This leaves us with 5 candidates at the moment. Candidates will be added or removed based on the weekly iPolitics poll. I have ranked them in alphabetical order at the moment.Charles lindberg (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I have assigned them different colors, so a results map by riding can be produced.--Jay942942 (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Why is there a need for this? Why not just wait till the race is actually over considering not all candidates can fit? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 20:28, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Was operating on the assumption that the infobox would exist. I have no problem with waiting around until after the results are in, but once they are in, it would be best to have different colors rather than using the same party color for each candidate.--Jay942942 (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I came to talk to figure out what the colors mean. Political parties have very specific colors in Canada Blue Conservative, Red Liberal, Orange NDP, Light Blue Bloc, Green for Reform or now Green. These colors could suggest party affiliation to someone not paying attention. Legacypac (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree the colours are confusing, it makes O'Leary look like a Liberal. These look like sort of subliminal editorial comments. They really need to be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Can someone explain what the sense of having this is prior to the vote, especially considering it had been deleted months ago? What does it add to the article? The leading contenders are being picked based on numbers from one pollster. Why pick 6% as a threshold? Why not 5% or 10% or 20%? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 13:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

6% works because of the amount of candidates it provides, usually 4 or 5, if it was 20 there would only be 1 person. Charles lindberg (talk) 22:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of colours (look at my prototype above) based on the colours their campaign is using (whatever is secondary after blue). This will be helpful when we do map the results. If you look the recent US Presidential Primaries, different colours were used for each of the candidates, so I don't see why we should exclude them here. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I would support the inclusion of colours, however they should not be secondary or primary campaign colours as they are essentially meaningless and almost all the same. They should be based on what would be most aesthetically pleasing keeping in mind a results map will have to be created. Charles lindberg (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, what is the need for this prior to May 27? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I suggested using campaign colours, because using anything else is arbitrary and is borderline original research. Of course, some liberties would have to be taken into consideration, but we can discuss those. -- Earl Andrew - talk 11:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Then again, they're all using some variation of blue and red so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ -- Earl Andrew - talk 11:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It would be ideal to use campaign colours, problem is they are almost all exactly the same. A good example of the use of randomly selected colours in an election infobox would be Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Note: these colours we're used throughout the campaign well before the convention. Charles lindberg (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, for Trump, Rubio and Carson, they used their campaign colours. The rest were pulled out of nowhere it seems. Personally, I think Bernier should be purple as he was using that colour earlier in the campaign. I'd also like to see blue used for the most establishment candidate. I guess we can measure that by endorsements? Red would be for a more moderate candidate. Would O'Leary count? -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

"I'd also like to see blue used for the most establishment candidate...Red would be for a more moderate candidate." That use of colours would be editorializing. It is not up to us to decide that sort of thing here. - Ahunt (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Newfoundlander&Labradorian, might be best to place the infobox after the results come in. Further, I'm not sure if we should be ordering the current infobox in order of who's polling the best, as leadership polls have proven to be inaccurate in the past (although I'll admit Mainstreet has been one of the more accurate). If we do decide to keep the infobox as is with the 6% threshold, Lisa Raitt has also consistently been polling above 6% and should be included in the infobox. Canadianpoliticalwatcher (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Results of a Mainstreet polling were circulating on twitter last night, it might be public today, showing a shift in results. Will someone be responsible for removing or adding people each time a poll is released if someone meets or no longer meets the criteria made up by Charles lindberg? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 09:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not our job to decide who the frontrunners are and given that polling is less reliable than it's ever been I'm not comfortable using polls to make that determination. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Given that the infobox was added in without consensus, and that there clearly is not consensus at present, I've removed it for now pending the outcome of the RFC below. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 22:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Opinion Polling

I don't have time to do this at the moment but in the opinion polling charts, Clement, MacKay, and Kenney should be removed and moved into the other category. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Not sure when it all happened but someone has the opinion polling complexly screwed up. Looks like Chris Alexander might have been added to the charts incorrectly so now all the rows and columns are wrong. I can't tell if there's an easy fix to it or whether it's a bit of a process to fix. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's been fixed now. McArthur Parkette (talk) 20:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Still off. Earlier polls show Blaney when it should be Bernier, I think. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It should be made quite clear that the "latest" poll is of SECOND choices with Oleary eliminated. Maybe even create a separate subsection for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.115.236.102 (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Full results

I'm unable to find a source with full results (details about each ballot). Has anyone found one? Shabidoo | Talk 01:32, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Likewise...the mainstream media has given very little detail. This is the only place where the top-placing candidates are listed in order, but it would be interesting to see the full results, including the first seven ballots.77Mike77 (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Great speedy work everyone. Really well rendered results!! Shabidoo | Talk 05:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we get the number of ballots for each candidate in each round and not merely the percentages? I was trying to hear it on the posted video but the network anchors were talking over the tellers.Bellczar (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Do we need to show the result for round 8-12 in the info box?

I think just the thirteenth round and first round would be more relevant, especially since the results map is built on the first round. People can scroll down the page if they want more detailed information.--Jay942942 (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, attached is the preferred version. Charles lindberg (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I am proposing a simplified version of the infobox as seen here. This version would only include the final four candidates and would only show the first and last ballot, like the election map. I also propose moving the results section closer to the top. Charles lindberg (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose. 8 candidates won ridings on the first ballot (and are thus included on the map), so they should all be in the inobox. Four is an arbitrary number; either have 8 or just two in my opinion. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree that more candidates should be included in the infobox. Also Charles, if you are proposing a simplified version with only 4 candidates you shouldn't implement the change until and unless it's agreed to. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Lack of pronouns

May I ask why this article lacks in pronoun use when describing candidates? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"He" occurs 50 times in the article, "she" occurs 12 times. How is this a lack of pronouns? Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not talking about the article itself. I am referring to the candidates section. For example, Deepak Obhrai's political views are described as the following: "Advocates a more inclusive party. Had promised to withdraw in favour of Peter MacKay if he were to run. He wants to increase the number of privately sponsored refugees and cut the number of government-sponsored refugees." Notice that the first sentence has no pronoun to describe Mr. Obhrai. This is the same for the second sentence. This occurs for all candidates of the CPoC. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:34, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Dropping pronouns is common in lists. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on inclusion of election infobox

There is a unanimous consensus against including the longform election infobox. Cunard (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The longform election infobox does not have room for inclusion of all 13 candidates for the leadership and has therefore not been included in this article until a few days ago when an editor added it with the top 4 candidates according to polling. I have removed it since this was done without consensus. Is there consensus to re-include the infobox? Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 22:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose Given the small sample size and the unreliability of polls in recent years I think it would be arbitrary for us to decide who are the frontrunners based on polling and setting 6% as the threshold is an arbitrary number. Why not 5% or 10%? There's no need for that infobox until after the vote is concluded and we know the actual ranking of candidates. Hungarian Phrasebook (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose Current infobox limitations mean we can't fit all the candidates in the infobox. Unless enough candidates drop out to allow that to be possible, I think we shouldn't have the infobox until after the results come in. Leadership election polling has been extremely inaccurate in past races and I don't think it should determine who gets to have a full infobox profile (photo, riding, etc.) and who's just listed as a name. Canadianpoliticalwatcher (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose, IMHO these election-infoboxes should be removed from all Canadian political party leadership election articles. They're best used in the Federal, Provincial, Territorial, Municipal election articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose We'll have a winner in just over one month and then we can include the infobox. Creating an infobox with certain candidates that is based solely on polling numbers from one pollster does not make sense. Even if we did, how do you decide on a threshold? 6% is a very odd number to use. Plus polling fluctuates, a candidate could meet the threshold in one poll and not the next poll. Are we going to be adding and removing candidates depending on the poll? A case could probably be made for an inbox that includes Bernier, Chong, Leitch, O'Toole, Raitt and Scheer. Those candidates have performed better in polls than the others, all have a significant number of endorsements, performed better in fundraising and are recognized by the media as the leading candidates. I still don't think it's necessary though. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose the 6% is a very strange arbitrary number. The point system is not very closely related to the percentage opinion polls. O'Leary appears to have been doing points math today, which is why you see the opinion poll front runner drop out. Not enough support in Quebec ridings + not enough 2nd choices = can't win regardless of his topping the traditional polls. Legacypac (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose (summoned by bot) as to include a partial list could easily get us into trouble with claims of political bias. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - It is not up to Wikipedia editors to pick the winners. - Ahunt (talk) 10:43, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose for now because it's unfair and unnecessary, but I support adding it back as soon as the results are in, along with a results map.--Jay942942 (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - within a few weeks mainstream publications will have selected probably three candidates as the "frontrunners", and all coverage of the others will reduce to a trickle. Whoever those probably three are will eventually be the candidates who make it into the infobox, based on the media's bias, not ours. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - The top candidates going into the election should be in the infobox. Otherwise, it appears as if Wikipedia is making the choices. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.