Talk:People's Party of Canada/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

PPC EDAs

Currently "The deregistered EDAs will not be able to accept contributions or issue tax receipts, unless they remedy their status" appears in After the 2019 federal election. Would that be better without the comma? Anyway it should be edited to indicate if there'd been any developments by the time the 2021 election took place. Mcljlm (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

An update on that item would be useful, if a ref can be found. - Ahunt (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine hesitancy in infobox

It is pretty clear based off of the recent election that the PPC campaigned primarily based off of vaccine hesitancy, therefore it should be included in the infobox under the ideology section. The following sources support this:

• [1] ("Bernier talked about how vaccine passports should not exist and how other political parties do not support Canadians' freedoms.")
• [2] ("[Bernier] said it now includes: Canadians frustrated with what they perceive as the curtailment of civil liberties during the pandemic; fundamentalist Christian Conservatives who believe O’Toole abandoned them after becoming a more socially progressive leader; those opposed to a carbon tax; and now, those disappointed with O’Toole’s reversal regarding the Liberal firearm ban.")
• [3] ("We don’t doubt O’Toole is sincere when he calls on those who haven’t got a shot to get with the program. He’s no anti-vaxxer, unlike Maxime Bernier of the People’s Party who is openly courting the hardline vaccine skeptics."),

and etc. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. - Ahunt (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the party campaigned against vaccine passports/mandates, not vaccines (Bernier stated a number of times that the party was not against vaccines). Secondly, there are other parties (such as the Republican Party in the US) who have echoed these sentiments, but have not had 'vaccine hesitancy' added to their ideology section. Lastly, I don't believe that 'vaccine hesitancy' can really be properly classified as a political ideology. For these reasons, it should be removed from the infobox. 99.245.40.162 (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Good points,  Fixed - Ahunt (talk) 23:50, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

What you describe is very much vaccine hesitancy. While the GOP may have expressed similar sentiments, they have, as of yet, not made it a central policy of theirs (assuming you mean the federal GOP; I'm not bothering to look at every different state GOP), while Bernier and PPC members have actively campaigned at anti-vaccination rallies. You also have the Free Party Canada which does include "vaccine hesitancy" under it's ideology. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

If the official party stance against passports/mandates was rooted in skepticism of the vaccine, obviously that could be categorized as 'vaccine hesitancy', but it seems more rooted in the issue of civil liberties and government overreach (as is their stance on lockdowns, masks, etc.) And again, can 'vaccine hesitancy' be properly categorized as a political ideology? Opposition to passports, mandates, and other Covid-19 restrictions is a component of larger political ideologies (such as 'right-libertarianism', which is listed), but not really an established school of thought unto itself. 99.245.40.162 (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree. "Vaccine hesitancy" is not an ideology or even a policy position, which is why I changed the infobox to Opposing vaccine passports and vaccine mandates. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Which is why should not be listed; we should really only list proper ideologies, not any policy (Euroscepticism, climate change denial, etc.), which I can see and understand why should be in the infobox, and can and should be discussed in the body and in the lead, but only if, and unless, we actually add another Policies parameter, as I suggested here, specifically to list such policies that do not fit the Ideology parameter. Davide King (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is another example. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERCONTENT. Davide King (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I like how I'm shown this, yet the IP who initially made the argument about the GOP isn't. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 02:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Because the IP's main point was they do not believe that "'vaccine hesitancy' can really be properly classified as a political ideology", which is correct. Either way, it is already in the lead, and I have added vaccine hesitancy in the body. Unless a Policies parameter is added to the infobox, which is for key uncontroversial facts, so that non-ideology but nonetheless important for context policies, such as pro-Europeanism, Euroscepticism, climate change denial, and the like, can be put on there, we should not add non-ideologies to the Ideology parameter, which should be very short and not bloated. Davide King (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

National Observer

Ahunt, in regards to this, it does not says Jagmeet Singh accused Maxime Bernier of inciting hatred Monday evening as Canada's first racialized federal party leader but Jagmeet Singh accused Maxime Bernier of inciting hatred Monday evening, as Canada's first racialized federal party leader repeatedly squared off against the boss of the country's newest far-right party at the English-language election debate, which I interpret to be the National Observer's view. In short, it is one thing if Sing called Bernier "Canada's first racialized federal party leader", it is another if the National Observer did; in the latter case, it should be re-added. Davide King (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the quote in the ref. It says Jagmeet Singh accused Maxime Bernier of inciting hatred Monday evening, as Canada’s first racialized federal party leader repeatedly squared off against the boss of the country’s newest far-right party at the English-language election debate. It is not written as clearly as it could be, but Singh is the "first racialized federal party leader" and Bernier is the "the boss of the country’s newest far-right party", not the other way around. In recent years the use of the term "racialized" has been adopted in the media to mean "non-white", which means Singh, not Bernier. - Ahunt (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Far Right label

I don't believe that the People party of Canada, a party that has condemned white supremacy and racism should be labelled as "far right". I propose changing it from "far right" to "right wing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:1C7E:AA00:B452:3197:C52A:5A37 (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

There is more to being a far right party than overt racism. The use of the term "far right" is sourced in the article text to multiple, independent and reliable third party sources. There have been numerous attempts by supporters of the party to remove that text as part of a sanitization of the article. At this point, to remove that, you will need multiple, independent and reliable third party sources that say that the party is "not far right" and that will only allow us to indicate that there is disagreement on the subject among sources. - Ahunt (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Lost seats or loss from previous election

The table shows lost seats, not losses from the previous election. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The comparison is from one election to the other. If Bernier had been joined by two others, and would have been the only one elected under the PPC name, The party wouldn't have gained two seats less than in 2015, it would have gained a net seat compared to it, as it didn't exist back then.--Aréat (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Please read above. It's not what you claim. You are wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps @Ahunt: could be brought into the discussion as the editor thanked me for my initial revert. Or @GoodDay:, @CentreLeftRight:, both of whom I recognize from editing Canadian political articles and have edited here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

We're placing in the table the changes from last election, in which PPC won zero seats. If we were placing change from dissolution in such table, then Liberal Party of Canada would show 2019 with -20, as it had 177 before dissolution and won 157. It is not, it show -27 because the party won 184 seats in 2015.
In a similar way, Conservative Party of Canada would be showing +26, as it had 95 seats before dissolution, and won 121. Again, it is not, it show +22, because it gained 99 seats in 2015.
The difference we place in such table does show the seats gained or lost from the previous election, not from some situation that happened in between.--Aréat (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me. The party had one seat going into the election and none afterwards, so that is a loss of one seat. There is nothing in the article section that indicates this is "compared to the results of the last election". - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

The PPC did have a seat in the House of Commons, during the latter half of the 42nd Parliament, right up to dissolution. Therefore, Walter's edit is accurate. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

What we need to decide on these political parties and the federal/provincial/territorial elections is this. Do we - A) use the previous election results, or B) use the dissolution count. When doing up the +/- of seats. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This is the only case where the table was taking a floor crossing into account into the table, you don't see that with LPC, CPC, NDPC, BQ, or GPC. I have changed the table to reflect steady much like the GPC shows in 2008 when the floor crosser failed to win their seat. If we want to look at disolusion numbers then we would need to change all the tables for every party just so that we can show PPC lose one seat that they never "won" in the first place.142.161.249.114 (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022

The peoples party of Canada is not a "far-right" party and the term "far-right" should be removed for clarity Skater44 (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This prose is well sourced. You would have to provide better sources proving otherwise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple sources that support "far-right", and more can be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

As noted, we have many sources labelling the party as "far right" and over time, in the past year, it has became much more "far right". To remove this label at this point in time you would need multiple mainstream and reliable sources that specifically say the party is not "far right". - Ahunt (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the label being used on Wikipedia, is that when you follow the "far-right" link, the first paragraph describes the term as "particularly in terms of being authoritarian, ultranationalist, and having nativist ideologies and tendencies." This is in contradiction to the ideology listed of "right libertarianism" (the opposite of authoritarian), and anyone who is familiar with the party's policies would also agree that they are not "ultranationalist". There are also no sources cited next to the political position labels to prove the position. I find that The term far-right is also often used by the "mainstream", "reliable", and "independent" media to slander people and parties they disagree with.

Therefore I think we should be very selective and careful when using the term "far-right", and reserve that label for parties who are "authoritarian, ultranationalist, and having nativist ideologies", as using it here cheapens the label and by calling this party far-right, you would have to come up with another more extreme label for actual extreme parties.

In conclusion, I think removal of the label "far-right" is warranted, due to contradictions, over-use of the term, and to prevent confusion of those who are unfamiliar with the party. WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, but we are required to reflect what reliable sources say and many of them clearly label the party far right. As noted above, its position have become even more so over the last two years. - Ahunt (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, a "far-right" party need not promote ethnic nationalism; there are other types of nationalism. Some WP:RS say the PPC is "far-right". We aren't even going that far. We say they are "right-wing to far-right", or somewhere in that range. That seems to be correct, based on their views on nationalism, gun-rights, climate change, etc.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand that some "reliable" sources have called them "far-right", that's not my point. Language is usually fungible, especially with the one dimensional left right spectrum. However Wikipedia's definition explicitly states "particularly in terms of being authoritarian, ultranationalist, and having nativist ideologies and tendencies." This is perhaps not the definition the "reliable" sources had in mind, but that is the definition according to Wikipedia, thus making it incorrect. WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Also on a side note

I find it kind of funny and depressing that classical liberalism can be considered "far-right" in modern times. WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The other two editors who replied have been overly generous by entertaining your comments up to this point. Your argument is irrelevant; Wikipedia only allows the inclusion of content that is reliably sourced and it does not matter if you disagree with what the preponderance of reliable sources say. Talk pages are for suggestions and grievances based on the website's policies, not political debates or personal analysis. You are wasting your time here. CentreLeftRight ✉ 03:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the far right Wikipedia article is in-congruent with Canadian reliable sources doesn't prove that the reliable sources are wrong, what it means is the Wikipedia article on far-right needs some expansion to account for use of the term in a Canadian context. - Ahunt (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency with the lead's definition of far-right politics and the context surrounding the PPC. The party is described as far-right chiefly because of their nativist stances and support for extreme nationalist ideas, figures, and organisations. Everyone is wasting their time with this discussion because every few weeks a new account or anonymous editor will ask that the far-right label be removed and not give a policy-based reason why, because they do not have one. CentreLeftRight ✉ 03:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You are correct that personal analysis should not be included, and I'm not trying to have a political debate, perhaps I was too subjective in my previous comments. Let me boil down my point to this;

The label "far-right" by "Wikipedia's" definition, simply contradicts the definitions of the other listed ideologies, and policies of the party.

This is a purely objective and factual observation. Perhaps some of these definitions are wrong, fine. But it is easier to solve this by removing the label causing the contradiction in the first place, then it is to edit the other definitions, as there are many other articles where they would match.

For example: you said "The party is described as far-right chiefly because of their nativist stances and support for extreme nationalist ideas, figures, and organisations." However, the definition clearly states "particularly in terms of being authoritarian..." The definition fails to apply on the first point in the definition, thus does not apply. (per the definition of "particularly")

Perhaps I'm being too pragmatic, however it is small things like this that can tarnish the idea that Wikipedia is consistent, independent, and reliable. Discussions like this should not be dismissed, and are part of how Wikipedia works. WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary definition. Read the whole article, not the first sentence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It is clear that the sources are correct, the party is far right. It is also clear that a regular parade of party supporters shows up here trying to get that removed for political reasons. The reliable sources are straightforward, the wording is justified. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Just because I noticed a discrepancy, doesn't mean I'm a supporter, and you shouldn't use that as a strawman either.

I didn't know that Wikipedia's definition should be ignored, and yes I read the whole "far-right" article. But just the fact that it's linked to, before a link to a reliable source, implies otherwise.

I honestly don't understand why you guy's can't see the problem here, the problem keep's getting dismissed, perhaps I'm not the one with political bias.

The only way to properly win an argument, is to first sum up what the others are saying to make sure you fully understand the argument, which is that reliable sources have labeled the People's Party far-right, thus making it's use justified. The only two people who addressed the link to the far-right article were Ahunt, who suggested that Canadian context could be required in the article, thus agreeing with me that the context doesn't match. And Walter Görlitz, who suggested that the first paragraph is not a definition, and if I read the whole far-right article I would find where they match, I did not, and once again, the fact that the far-right article is linked to, suggests that it is the definition and context required to understand.

If I misrepresented your points, let me know. Now if someone could try and understand my point before dismissing it, that would make this talk a bit more civil, and potentially allow us to reach a consensus on what to do. (Perhaps the use of an asterisk with a side note? idk) WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not a "strawman", it is a valid observation. Check the article history - there has a been a long parade of party supporters here trying to sanitize the article to make the party look more mainstream and palatable to readers and presumably voters.

Canadian reliable sources are not required to align with Wikipedia articles. So as far as that goes, the obvious solution is to remove the link to Far-right politics. It probably makes more sense to create a new article something like History of far-right politics in Canada or similar to give better background from a Canadian context. - Ahunt (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Now we're getting somewhere. I have done some research on the Far-left politics Wikipedia article, their intro paragraphs are much more broad, describing it as "There are different definitions of the far-left. Some scholars define it as representing the left of social democracy, while others limit it to the left of communist parties." It goes on to describe a variety of positions that are considered far-left by news media. Notably the wording is more general, for example: It says "far-left has been associated with some forms of authoritarianism,..." instead of "particularly in terms of being authoritarian," on the far-right article.

I think it would perhaps be easier to change the far-right article to better reflect it's more broad use in modern times, then creating a new specified article.

Thoughts? Should I create an edit request on the far-right politics page? Or is it better to create a new and more specific page? WatchfulRelic91 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

You are welcome to make or propose edits to other articles. You should ensure you are familiar with our policies WP:POV and WP:RS before you do. It is important that we include proper sourcing, and strive to be neutral in our articles. If someone disagrees with any part of your edits or proposals, they will likely tell you there. This is not the best space to discuss changes to other articles though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Far-right" and sourcing

The far-right label is an exceptional claim that requires exceptional sources.

According to our own definition on wikipedia, the far-right is authoritarian. In addition, it is characterized by organicism, anti-democracy, and hierarchical economics that reject capitalism. How is it that we can come to label a party centered around liberty, individualism, democracy, egalitarianism, and capitalism as far-right? It would seem that the only qualification here for that label is nationalism, which is not inherently far-right. The party does not fit the definition of ultranationalism either, nor even right wing populism in its fullest expression, as such would implicate economic nationalism and protectionism. For example, the party stands strongly against protectionism on dairy, which (assuming the right is protectionist as it is in the United States currently) puts it to the left of every other notable Canadian party's stance on the issue. The matter of how criticisms of immigration are justified is another matter. The party condemns racism and justifies immigration restriction on economic grounds, "rhetoric" aside.

All but one of the sources that purport to justify the far-right label in this article are commonly known to have a left-wing bias and/or are not Canadian. They either simply misunderstand its motivations or have an active interest in mischaracterizing movements on the right. Maybe both. In addition, the cited articles from The Conversation and Huffington Post, do not, in fact, label the party as far-right, but rather claims that it is right-wing and courts the support of the far-right.

As for the lack of support justifying the fringe labeling, it is well known that Canada is a distinctly left-leaning country (relative to the rest of the world) on a deep cultural level. It comes as no surprise that they wanted no part in the party's libertarianism and nationalism as it comes off as too American. Within Canada's context, where the centre is somewhere between social liberalism and social democracy, the party is far-right, but in the context of actual positioning, it makes very little sense at all to label it as such.

That being said, if someone can find sources that cannot be criticized for neutrality nor ignorance reasons that describe the party as far right, that will be acceptable. Until then, the citations from The Conversation and Huffington Post will be moved to the sources for the right-wing label and the statement regarding the far-right label will be qualified, flagged for the requirement of editor consensus before editing, and removed from the infobox.

I repeat: do not edit the far-right label until you have unbiased, Canadian sources that label the party itself as far-right—not a group of its perceived supporters, not a donor, and not a candidate's personal views. MysteryDoctorCA (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2020 UTC

I don't agree at all with your view of limiting the Far-right to authoritarian forces. Left communism or anarchism is not authoritarianism, but is classified as Far-left. And marking the political position of the People's Party as "far-right" is an issue that has already been decided through Talk. It is obviously a new edit to delete 'far-right' from infobox, so 'far-right' in infobox must be maintained until the Talk topic you have opened is over.--삭은사과 (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be removed. On Wikipedia we go with what WP:RS say, not the opinions of some editors to ignore some WP:RS that they don't agree with. This party may not be as far right as some in the world, but by Canadian standards it is far right. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The references to “far right” do not support the claim. This characterization seems to be biased. Two references are just cat calls from Singh, one reference refers to “right”, not far right, one is from the US. This should be reevaluated. Many of the party platforms are, in fact, libertarian. The summary does not reflect the bulk of the text of the article.Dr.bdlink (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Re-read the sources cited. There are six in the lede that support "right right" specifically, with quotes. The sources are very reliable as as well, with The Guardian, the National Observer, Toronto Star, New York Times, Huffington Post. If anything, since those refs were written the party has moved even further right with its anti-vaxx positions. - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Do the sources need to be from a neutral, unbiased source for political position in articles? I can see that on the sources listed on the article under "far-right", The Guardian has a political alignment as "centre-left" on its page, The National Observer is "progressive", and The TStar has " social liberalism" on its page. Cable10291 (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

See WP:RS. - Ahunt (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Pro medical choice has nothing to do with anti-vaxx or political spectrum, you are out of line. 23.233.60.111 (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Populist Party of Ontario?

Are the Populist Party Ontario and the PPC related at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.82.30 (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

No, but there is overlap. TFD (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Addition of a footnote to the "far-right" label to avoid/deter confusion with other (actual) far-right parties

Could we perhaps add a footnote to the political position in the info-box to avoid confusion with the far-right label. Such as what is on the National Rally info-box stating: "The RN is considered part of the radical right, a subset of the far-right that does not oppose democracy."

And/or:

"The PPC is far-right within the Canadian political sphere. It could be viewed as more moderate in global politics". Somewhat similar to what the Justice Party in South Korea has with its "left-wing" label (when the party is heavily liberal and somewhat fiscally conservative). Therefore the page includes the statement of "However In South Korea's conservative political structure, it is also called left-wing." Perhaps something could be written with regards to the PPC and its far-right label. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The citations next to "right-wing" and "far-right" seem sufficient. — Toast for Teddy (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

For such a change you'll need a reliable source(s) which describes the PPC in a similar manner to what you're advocating. It's worth noting that your example with the Justice Party was pushed by a sock of Storm598, who was initially topic banned for forcing this exact kind of wording. The problem with claiming a label means a certain thing for one audience and a different thing for another is everyone has a different idea of what certain labels mean. The only thing that matters is if reliable sources back up the interpretation you're proposing. Wikipedia isn't a local free speech square; only notable POVs matter. Yue🌙 22:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Budd

I noticed 216.41.137.156 removing, and Yue re-inserting, However, political scientist Brian Budd describes Bernier's rhetoric and the party's platform as "[reflective of] the ideological tenets of a populist radical right, defined by a commitment to xenophobia". Budd argues that the party is "aimed at Canada's far right groups and supporters", who "may [view] Bernier and the People's Party of Canada as a viable pathway to mainstreaming their xenophobic and nationalistic beliefs in Canada". The sentence was an addition by Davide King on 24 September 2021. The cited article says the author is a "Ph.D Candidate, University of Guelph", I assume he got a PhD later but the time of writing should be what matters, so calling him a "political scientist" looks to me like credential inflation. But even if he was, why do his opinions matter? I'm calling this undue. Do others, enough for a consensus, think it is good? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: You should also note that 216.41.137.156 has been restoring unexplained content removals by 208.98.222.92 across several other articles, again without proper explanations. I do not support or oppose the content being removed. Sourced content being removed without explanation warrants a helpful note for new and anonymous editors so they remember to explain why. However, the same removal being done on a different account or IP without explanation again at best indicates the editor does not care about the notice(s) and is editing at different locations, and at worst warrants a suspicion of socking. Yue🌙 20:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

And I wonder what their modus operandi could be ... Yue🌙 20:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I take back what I said about not supporting or opposing the removal. I do not think the reason you offered for its removal is sufficient, i.e. it does not constitute WP:UNDUE. Budd's statement is not being stated as fact nor being cited in isolation. It is an opinion that is properly attributed and is clearly meant to supplement the paragraph describing the PPC as right-wing to far-right. His wording is unique to him but his opinion is not. And yes, he did complete his PhD in Political Science, so the label "political scientist" is fine. It took one quick search; we do not have to speculate his credentials here. Yue🌙 20:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

As I explained, I assume he got a PhD later but the time of writing should be what matters. Caring what credentials he got later is like saying "When he was five, US President Joe Biden said something clever." Get it? Calling him president before he was president is (a) sometimes called prolepsis, (b) wrong. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

So your argument then is that his inclusion is undue because at the time he was merely a PhD candidate? Because my reply to your original response is, sure, then let's change "political scientist" to "then PhD candidate" if we want to be really specific about his credentials instead of calling him a political scientist, scholar or columnist. Heck, let's remove labels altogether since we can't verify it verbatim and we're "inflating" his credentials (MOS:PUFF). That still doesn't mean his opinion is given undue weight because it isn't fringe or unique to him, placed in isolation just to attack the PPC. His opinion is being used to supplement a paragraph sourced throughout that describes the party as right-wing to far-right. You can't take the sentence out of its context in the article.

But also, are you suggesting that "political scientist" is a label limited to scholars with PhDs in political science? This isn't prolepsis unless you set that parameter.

If we really wanted to balance out perspectives, we could add opposing or differing opinions cited by a reliable source. Maybe it'd be a good idea to expand on the sentence: "A number of political scientists have also described Bernier's rhetoric as reminiscent of classical liberalism." Yet, it's not like this article doesn't give the PPC voice when it comes to describing itself; the majority of the "Principles and policies" section is a collection of statements taken from the PPC and Bernier. Yue🌙 00:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

My argument is that Wikipedia needn't publish non-notable students' opinions. So far I and the IP want Budd out, Yue wants Budd in. Anybody else have an opinion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2022

Change "Right-wing to far-right political party in Canada" Please make some research before labeling a classical conservative, libertarian political party with a pejorative authoritarian etiquette and pick choosing hostiles tabloids is not research! Wikipedia, you won't see a cent from me ever. 23.233.60.111 (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I would expect an expert source for the categorization. Journalists are experts in what happened today, but are not political scientists. TFD (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The sources cited for "to far-right" in the lead sentence are The Guardian, National Observer, Toronto Star, Green Left Weekly. I'd say that they are giving a non-universal point of view and at best should be, in accordance with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, mentioned with attribution deeper in the article, without linking. However, I have looked at the earlier threads about far-right on this talk page, and it seems to me keeping it is supported by one or more editors. So let's wait and see how much clear support exists for deleting or moving. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It is well-sourced to WP:RS. I don't see any refs that say this is not the case. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Describing the PPC as "far-right" isn't so much as issue as what the Wikipedia page for "far-right" describes (Far-right politics). While the label fits, the connotation given by the article (Nazi & Confederate flags, facism, a variety of other hate-filled ideologies, etc.) does not.

The party's about us page describes themselves with "common sense, populism, classical conservatism, and libertarianism." (https://www.peoplespartyofcanada.ca/about) They are further right than most of the Canadian political spectrum, however not anywhere near the ideologies described on the far-right politics page.

For me, because of what is described on the far-right page, I don't think the label fits here. "Right-wing" alone should be fine. Averagebilly (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect information

The PPC has neither seats in the House of Commons nor the Senate, and is not His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. That would be the Conservative Party of Canada, commonly abbreviated as CPC, which is where the confusion arises I believe. 2806:101E:4:B6DB:A544:9E0D:EA93:C7B9 (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, and? What confusion are you talking about? What specific information is incorrect? Nothing in this article claims that the PPC is His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Yue🌙 05:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)