Talk:2022 Green Party of Canada leadership election

No Reliable Sources for Declared Candidates

Are we getting way ahead of ourselves here? I don't see any reliable sources for any of the supposed "declared candidates". None of them are notable people with their own articles, so in theory we should be even more careful given WP:BLP type concerns. I tend to be an editor that takes a more inclusive view with leadership campaigns, but these candidates don't even have websites as far as I can tell. In the case of Dalila Elhak, she seems to have declared back in October 2021 (before Annamie Paul had formally resigned, and before Amita Kuttner became interim leader). Does that announcement still stand? Does it still mean that she is going to run in this leadership contest that began about a month ago? We don't seem to have sources on that. This article seems to set out who the potential candidates are, but does not say any of them have already declared. Closest it comes is saying that some are "reserving the right" to run, or have said they "want to run". I tend to think we should switch all candidates to potential, until there are some solid sources to say who is in the race. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Chiming in to say I support this change. Lilactree201 (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The article used to indicate many of the Potential candidates did not say any had officially declared their candidacy, just that they were considering a run. Dalila and Shodja both have social media correspondence declaring their intent to run and Jonathan indicated his intent in the cited article. And while Tyrrell had made a social media announcement, he only said he was "seriously considering" running, not that he intended to. That's why the article was structured the way it was.

I think the confusion is coming largely from the fact that the leadership contest rules themselves have been extremely confusing for everyone involved. Many weren't even sure if they were allowed to declare their candidacy given how restrictive campaigning rules were (i.e. they didn't know if announcing their candidacy would be considered illegal campaigning). There are definitely people actively collecting signatures and money, though. That said, if we are limited by what can actually be announced by candidates then we may have to go with Darryl's suggestion. MPen92 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not opposed to including a declared section if we have RS saying that a person has declared. I also tend to be a bit more liberal that that, I am usually satisfied with a launched campaign website, official social media post that is public and available or similar. Frankly, I just thought this section needed to be blown up, so it could be rebuilt with firm sources that say who has declared. When I looked at Dalila and Shodja, I only saw a link to a private Green discussion group. Not sure that is enough. If I am missing something, please add it back with only the citations we need. Concerning Jonathan, I read the article through Google translate and as best I could tell he was saying that he was "considering running". There is always a bit of nuance with these things. It might be harder this time, as you say, because of the rules, and how they have been rolled out. Anyway, at some point we will need to add back in a declared candidates section. Hopefully blowing it up, helps us move that along.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The officially approved candidates will be announced at the end of August according to the rules. -- MPen92 (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, declared or not, I feel like we should include any instances where someone has run as a candidate. I noticed the ones for Dalila and Shodja have been removed. Any objections if they are put back in? MPen92 (talk) 14:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I removed the Jenn Kang mention from the timeline because they declared and withdrew before the contest even began. They are mentioned in the withdrew section, not sure they even belong there. Is a candidate that declares and withdraws before the campaign even begins notable enough to include? Is doing so irrelevant? Undue? Anyway, you can add Dalila and Shodja if appropriate. I remove them because I thought the only sources we had for them were links to posts in private Green Facebook groups. I don't think that is enough, but perhaps others disagree. If we have a campaign website for them, public social media post from a legitimate looking account, and/or a news article (that says they are running as opposed to are considering running, then I think that could be enough. I just think we need to be careful about going down a WP:OR line of thinking, with private and/or unreliable sources. The previous formulation seemed like we were working too hard to cobble together a series of poor sourcing to get across the line.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

About past instances where Dalila and Shodja ran as candidates in federal elections, yes I think that info can be added back to their entries in the "Potential candidates" section, as has been included for other candidates. Personally, I would not include Kang on this page, as there were no signs of steps taken towards a candidacy beyond going back and forth on running in FB posts, and no media coverage. Seems like undue coverage. Lilactree201 (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I've compiled as many sources I could find and was able to draft this article for Jonathan. Can I get some eyes on it so we can Hyperlink?

06:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC) Mrnqoe (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I found this French-language one. Is that what you're referring to? https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pedneault MPen92 (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Endorsements

Endorsement tables are the worst. This makes the article increasingly unreadable. Like with 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, we should create a separate page to list these endorsements. The candidates section should be a short summary of the candidates including their bio, policy positions and the like. It doesn't need to be an extended list of endorsements. It shouldn't be. We should follow the rationale discussed there. We must also keep in mind WP:ENDORSE. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support - good idea! - Ahunt (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a separate endorsement page. About notability, the question is whether we want to use a different standard than was used in the 2020 Green leadership. The Greens have so few people with their own wiki pages, not many would meet the notability threshold used for the Conservative party. Lilactree201 (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment - User:Lilactree201 said: The Greens have so few people with their own wiki pages, not many would meet the notability threshold. I think that makes a notability statement right there! - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Concerning notability of a endorsing person or organization, WP:ENDORSE states Whether or not it is necessary for the person to also have a Wikipedia article can be determined at the article level. Endorsements for the 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election only included those with articles. Generally, I think that is a wise. There are always exceptions, but I could foresee it being relevant to include an endorsement from a person/organization without an article, where there was significant coverage in WP:RS. WP:ENDORSE seems to focus on three considerations: notability of the endorser, coverage of the endorsement, and strength of the endorsement itself (ie. endorser actually says they are "endorsing" the person, as opposed to supports some of their policies, likes a tweet etc). All of that said, I generally think endorsements are inside baseball. Only significant ones that have received significant coverage in RS are encyclopedic content to be included. As an encyclopedia we do not need to include every detail that WP:EXISTs, only what is significant for an encyclopedic article.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Joint Tickets?

Should we list May-Pedneault and Keenan-Walcott joint tickets as "joint tickets" or as each of the individuals that make up the ticket (as we are doing now)? Of course it is the individual names, not tickets that will appear on the ballots. But also, of course, the individuals on a joint ticket are cooperating with each other and listing them as individual candidates can make that more confusing to casual readers. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I think listing them as joint tickets makes sense. Just have to explain the situation clearly. Lilactree201 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Elizabeth May and Jonathan Pedneault 2022 (cropped).jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)