Talk:Pierre Poilievre/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Lead (March 17 2023)

Please see WP:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus”. One individual user disagreeing with adding policies to the lead months ago when the article was smaller, is also not a consensus against. The article has expanded greatly since then. I welcome you and anyone referencing reliable sources, and significantly covered (WP:SIGCOV) sources from the body of the article, to add or discuss updates to the lead as well. I welcome your contributions @Ak-eater06: LemonberryPie (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ak-eater06: it appears from your silence that you no longer object to the edit you reverted. If that is not the case, please reply to my talk posting within the next three days. LemonberryPie (talk) 19:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I don't think lengthy prose about him being described as a libertarian or populist belongs in the lede. It is not an issue of WP:SIGCOV, but one of style, prioritization and balance. This content almost certainly belongs in the artice, in the section about his policies and politics, but putting too much about this in the lede may be undue. We need to be mindful that the purpose of the lede is to provide a summary/introduction to the article per MOS:LEAD. I could see how a brief mention of populism and libertarianism in the lede could be appropriate, but only if it can be done succinctly without overwhelming the rest of what is in the lede. The problem with populist and libertarians is that they sometimes don't call themselves that. WP:NPOV would require us to balance this, and show who says this about PP. In the article that is more easily done. In the lede, it is hard to do without taking away or overwhelming what is already there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I think a very brief mention of libertarianism would be appropriate in the lede. NPOV balanced as both Poilievre described himself that way, members of his caucus, as well as journalists per sources. Similar brevity to how the lede for former leader Erin O'Toole briefly mentions "O'Toole has been described as a moderate member of his party." I wrote "Poilievre has been described as part of the libertarian-leaning wing of his party.". That description better reflects policies, rather than populist. As for actual policies, are there any suggestions you have in mind which would be appropriate weight? LemonberryPie (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I see he has referred to himself as libertarian. That is easy likely enough. Has he called himself a populist?-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

He has not called himself populist, journalists in sources have described him as populist in the context of his rhetorical style, rather than policy. Any suggestions for which policies to include in the lede's policy intro paragraph? LemonberryPie (talk) 21:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Since he has described himself as a libertarian, it is easy enough to include that saying something like "P has described hiself as a libertarian." With the "populist" it is harder to include that since some have said he is, others have disputed it, and he has remained silent on the issue (as far as I know). I don't think there is a need to include a list of other policies or positions in the lede. Folks know he is a conservative (and perhaps libertarian) from the lede, if they want to go more into depth on his political views or policies that is addressed elsewhere in the article. It doesn't need to be in the lede.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. How is "Poilievre has described himself as a libertarian-minded member of his party."? As for policies, the reason I propose a brief intro in the lede (as Ak-eater06 had also done months ago) is to be in keeping with other party leaders and politicians which briefly introduce their plans for deficits, taxes, and social issues. Do you feel opposed to it? LemonberryPie (talk) 21:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are proposing. It can be hard to write ledes in a way that summarizes what follows, is succinct and doesn't favour one view of the content that follows. Feel free to make what edits you wish. If they are uncontroversial they will be left, if not they might be reverted and you might be asked to come back here and disuss.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I prefer keeping the lead as it is. I don't see the need to add his policies since readers can just dive into the "political positions" section, and also because we don't know how important they are to belong in the lead (see WP:WEIGHT). Any mention of Scheer or O'Toole is WP:OTHERSTUFF. I prefer we keep "Poilievre has been described as a libertarian and populist" because it gives the reader a general idea of what type of politician he is and also because it's backed by several sources. If you want to make major changes to the lead, you definitely need more than three users' input. Ak-eater06 (talk) 23:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, one individual user disagreeing with adding the policies to the lead months ago, is not a consensus against adding policies to the lead. X-Editor supporting lead edits, HangingCurve supporting lead edits, you supporting lead edits, and me supporting lead edits, should not be prohibited on the basis of one single user’s outdated disagreement. The four of us hold a stronger consensus than one individual. The requirement "you definitely need more than three users' input" is not appropriate here nor is it supported by WP:EDITCON or any policy.

That said, I appreciate your input and acknowledge your position has changed from months ago. As for keeping it as is, X-Editor and Darryl Kerrigan have both noted that populist is disputed in sources and does not hold as much weight for the lead as libertarian does. As for the wp:otherstuff essay, there are reasons beyond otherstuff to add policies based on MOS:LEAD, stating "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." The policies are a large part of his notability per sources and make up a sizable weight of this article, but they've yet to be reflected in the "accessable overview". You initially proposed including pay-as-you-go law, removing the carbon tax, and defunding the CBC, may I ask your rationale for why you no longer feel they are appropriate weight? LemonberryPie (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Please remember that WP:DRNC is an essay, not a policy like what WP:WEIGHT/WP:UNDUE is; per that policy, we certainly do not need to have an entire paragraph on his positions. We are not his advocates. Can you please demonstrate how they are a large part of his notability per sources? His notability seems to come from being a Member of Parliament since 2004. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 01:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney: Thanks for your updated input. To address notability for WP:Politician "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" Significant press coverage state his proposed policies in question. Adding polices to the lede also meets the criteria of WP:WEIGHT. "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Significant viewpoints from reliable sources, that have been prominently published, state his proposed policies in question. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." The numerous reliable sources demonstrate it’s widely held that he has proposed the policies in question. "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." The policies in question are prevalent among reliable sources. "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." The lede is currently lacking the proportional treatment that the body has of reliable sources on his proposed policies. Adding policies to the lede would better reflect there reliable published material on the subject. Can you also clarify how brief political positions in the lede fails to meet the criteria of wp:weight and specifically which sentence of wp:weight? LemonberryPie (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I have asked you to "demonstrate" an assertion yet you have replied with more empty assertions. Also, when you said "...should not be prohibited on the basis of one single user’s outdated disagreement. The four of us hold a stronger consensus than one individual." you misrepresented the fact that five other editors opposed adding only two policies to the lead in a RfC in September, which was only 6 months ago, and little has changed since then other than you attempting to add six, including both which the RfC explicitly opposed. Is this what you consider "brief political positions"??? This reads like it came straight off of his campaign desk and is too based in recent promises made during the CPC leadership campaign. My initial concerns about WP:PROMO/WP:NOTADVOCACY also remain; the "that Poilievre plans to enact" wording is especially troublesome to me. Please drop the stick. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 05:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the talk section that I missed from months ago. I mistook your conversation with Ak-eater06 as the only discussion that took place, I did not see the RFC at the bottom of the talk archive where more users weighed in. Though I do wish could it could have been specified it in edit summaries or talk for clarity to avoid confusion of which past consensus they were citing.

How is my response an empty assertion? I have demonstrated how it meets the WP:WEIGHT sentence by sentence, I’m asking you to clarify why it doesn’t. Point out a specific sentence from wp:weight that conflicts with adding policies to the lede. Please, get specific with criteria, it will help me more specifically address your concerns. "Drop the stick" is not at all appropriate when this is a new discussion many months later with more sources and expanded policies, remember WP:Consensus can change. You’ve brought up entirely new concerns in your most recent reply, yet you are suggesting the discussion must be over. Addressing content concerns is the purpose of discussion. If you feel the political positions are not brief enough (in contrast to you previously taking issue with it being too brief "lack of specifics and sources on what exactly defund means"), I would agree that it can be trimmed down. How would you feel about a brief sentence overview for fiscal, social, and foreign policy in the lede? As for wp:recentism, the sources are not strictly from the leadership race but proposals also covered by reliable sources many months after the race had ended. While I don't think "plans to enact" is an issue when it's standard wording for politician policies, it can definitely be changed to "proposes" or simply "supports XYZ". What wording would you suggest? I appreciate you now addressing specific concerns with the content. I ask again, what sentence(s) in wp:weight conflict against briefly adding political positions to the lede? LemonberryPie (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You're treating a discussion from September 2022 with unanimous opposition, including comments such as "None of his promises should be in the lead." by Masterhatch, an editor far more experienced than you and I together, as if it happened 20 years ago to fit your agenda. Please respect the consensus or start a new RfC if the issue is that urgent. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 19:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Instead of WP:Focus on content or making a good faith effort to see your concerns addressed, you continue to divert focus on me. No explanation has been provided on how adding policies to the lede fails to meet WP:WEIGHT. "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." I'm not opposed to an RfC, though the issue is not urgent either, I'll first seek an updated rationale from Masterhatch to be a third opinion and ultimately respect what he has to say as we both agree he's an experienced editor. LemonberryPie (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Masterhatch: In the months since you last participated, the article has since been updated with expanded policy positions and significantly covered by sources, is it now appropriate to add proposed policies to the lede? If not, at what point in time would proposed policies ever be appropriate to add to the lede of WP:Politician? Thanks. LemonberryPie (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

When I mentioned that none of his promises should be in the lead, he wasn't the Tory leader yet. Now that he's the leader, I don't think I'd object to possibly having a short description of the most prominent plans he has if (when?) he becomes PM. I'd worry, though, that editors might start listing more and more of his "promises" and then we'd get a messy, bloated lead and possible squabbling about what gets in the lead and what doesn't. On a side note, I see no reason not to mention that he describes himself as a libertarian in the lead. Masterhatch (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Masterhatch. Just so I understand your wording, when you say "prominent plans he has if he becomes PM", do you mean a short description could be appropriate in the future as a PM? Or a short description of his aspiring-PM plans could be appropriate to include currently as leader? I respect and appreciate your rationale, and also agree with your concern that it could get messy without an agreed upon criteria of what is include-worthy. LemonberryPie (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I didn't have anything in particular in mind but maybe something that he and his party has repeatedly made clear that they'll do (or un-do) that has quite a lot of coverage and a clear plan. Off the top of my head, maybe the promise to repeal the carbon tax? Of course maybe the lead can remain unchange until a Tory election platform has been released. I'm on the fence with this and have no strong conviction either way (that's why I hadn't weighed in earlier). I think if someone brought to this talk page a proposed change to the lead that included his plans, we could all look at it and weigh the merits of the proposed change. Masterhatch (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The Lead (March 17 2023) paragraph brought to talk was "Notable policies that Poilievre plans to enact include, removing the carbon tax, greenlighting more hydro-electric dams and mining for electric car production, approving immigrants' credentials within 60 days, implementing a pay-as-you-go law to address the federal deficit, converting 15% of federal buildings into affordable homes and requiring large cities to increase housing by 15% to continue receiving full federal payment, and removing Bill C-11 as well as other bills that regulate online content." I'm willing to remove/change/add stuff (the only feedback so far is to trim it briefer and change "enact" to something neutral like "proposes", which I agree) but it's hard to get users to weigh in on it. I could do an RfC, but those are usually only good for "Yes" and "No" votes rather than collaboratively improving specific content. LemonberryPie (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's way too much for the lead. And "plans to enact" is presumptive. Clean it up, shorten it, and see what other users say. Masterhatch (talk) 01:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

New version of lead policies proposed: "On fiscal policy, Poilievre proposes removing the carbon tax, implementing a pay-as-you-go law, linking municipality payment to new homes built and converting federal buildings into condominiums. On social issues, he proposes approving immigrants' credentials within 60 days and removing Bill C-11." Any parts that should be removed/changed/added? Constructive input from anyone is welcome. LemonberryPie (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This may be an appropriate summary of the policy section, but it does seem that the section suffers from serious WP:RECENTISM issues. PP has been an MP for ten years, in that time he also ran and won the Conservative leadership. Shouldn't we be summarizing his policies from a long-term view? These all seem to be policies he has announced in the last year since becoming leader.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

^^ This exactly. I would be much more agreeable if the text included long-term positions Poilievre has held over his time as an MP rather than recent campaign promises such as "pay-as-you-go" and issues of the day such as C-11. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney" ^{(work / talk)} 16:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, I mispoke. He has been an MP since 2004 (almost 20 years).-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Political policies to include in Lead

"In government, Poilievre opposed the Rand formula and implemented the Accountability Act, Fair Elections Act and 2015 Child Benefit. In Opposition, he proposed lower taxes and opposed internet regulation. He currently proposes removing the carbon tax and Bill C-11, implementing a pay-as-you-go law, federal condominium conversion with municipality payment linked to new homes built, and approving immigrant credentials within 60 days." Version 2, any changes to make? LemonberryPie (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt here. I utterly fail to understand why you are being so annoyingly persistent with this "pay-as-you-go" crap and C-11. There is clear, longstanding opposition from multiple editors to including these. This is getting to the point of disruption, especially combined with the stunt you pulled last night in WP:REFACTORing this conversation. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  12:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Masterhatch said "something that he and his party has repeatedly made clear that they'll do (or un-do) that has quite a lot of coverage and a clear plan" which I think pay-as-you-go meets, Darryl Kerrigan said "PP has been an MP for ten years, in that time he also ran and won the Conservative leadership. Shouldn't we be summarizing his policies from a long-term view?" which I think C-10/C-11 and the carbon tax both meet, you said "long-term positions Poilievre has held over his time as an MP" which I think opposition to the Rand Formula and the Fair Elections/Accountability Acts meet. Consensus is not unanimity, it's the incorporation of all proposals. I'm still willing to discuss content concerns and you can even propose your own policy paragraph too, I never denied that opportunity.

The only recent opposition to including policies, has been you and one other. This is the second time you have accused me of disruption when it has not been the case, and goes against WP:Focus on content and WP:Assume good faith. Accusing me of a bad faith "stunt" for bringing this active talk section to the front to de-clutter unaware that it was improper form (which I apologize for), goes against WP:Focus on content and WP:Assume good faith. I kindly ask you for the second time to stop the aspersions so constructive discussion can flow unimpeded. LemonberryPie (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You replied both here and on my talk page with mostly the same stuff. I have nothing to add here that I didn't say on my talk other than to reiterate that the content you are wanting me to focus on has been beaten to death already. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  04:50, 15 April 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)

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)

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)