Template talk:Canadian far-right

This template was considered for deletion on 2020 May 4. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

"Proponents of Hate" Section

On September 5th, I removed the "proponents of hate" section as it presents an obvious WP:BLP violation. On November 9th, Verne Equinox (talk · contribs) reverted this paragraph and wanted some discussion on it. I removed it again because, as BLP requires, unsourced contentious material about living persons should be removed without the need for discussion. This material should stay removed unless there is consensus that it is not a BLP violation. Then again, I can't possibly see how branding a list of people as "proponents of hate" in a template, without sourcing, could be anything other than a serious BLP violation. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For me, one of the best parts of Wikipedia is the templates at the bottom of the page. When well thought out, they allow the user to get a quick, at-a-glance perspective of a broad topic. Indeed, sometimes these templates are so well done, it almost seems as if one might get a very good education if they studied all the links on a particular topic. And so, to eliminate a very important part of the Hate in Canada template would, I believe, do a disservice to the reader. I accept your BLP violation assessment. However, I do feel the names belong somewhere in the template. Therefore, would you support a section simply called "People," which would include the group you removed as well as the two that remain? Verne Equinox (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Verne Equinox: - I'm not sure. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but a category called "people" in a template about "hate in Canada" implies that these people are involving in spreading hate. Granted, it's not nearly as clear as a category called "proponents of hate" but it's still troublesome. I'm not sure how these names could be included in the template without casting aspersions on the individuals. May His Shadow Fall Upon You 📧 19:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You:. I was encouraged to see that @Molandfreak: reverted your last edit but I was disappointed that you reversed it again. I understand your concern about WP:BLP violations, however, in this case, the names included in the deletion are fully documented as being associated with the topic. Since we clearly cannot seem to come to agreement, I will be request, without objection (in current parlance), to request arbitration WP:AP in this case. Please acknowledge. Verne Equinox (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Verne Equinox: - I'm surprised to hear you say that you were encouraged to see that Molandfreak reverted my last edit, when you previously said that you "accept [my] BLP violation assessment." If you accept that this is a BLP violation, you should not be happy that Molandfreak is trying to restore it. Unless you have changed your position since then, I think the only thing that you and I can't agree on is whether the section should be named "People" instead of "Proponents of Hate." And that's not a discussion we've spent much time on, because you have not responded to the substance of my November 12, 2019 comment. I'd like to actually discuss this with you. That being said, you don't need my approval to request arbitration but arbitration is inappropriate for this situation as per WP:AP. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@May His Shadow Fall Upon You:. You're absolutely right. I did accept your argument about BLP. But quite frankly, when I read your statement, "I'm not sure", it did not seem like an invitation to discuss anything. It seemed like you were thinking about it and I was waiting for your conclusion. I'm not too good at debates, I'm afraid. That being said, I quote @Molandfreak: in his or her edit summary: "there's plenty of sources verifying this." The names are all linked to articles which clearly identify what side of the proverbial fence they sit on. Some are (or were) nationally famous for their stances. So to list them in the table under a collective header is appropriate and necessary for completeness, IMHO. As I said earlier, Wikipedia is about education, so an 80% template is an 80% education. Verne Equinox (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Verne Equinox: - Well, in case any of my previous comments were unclear, I am inviting you to discuss the situation further. Although I'm now unclear as to what your position is. Do you now think that listing people under the heading "Proponents of Hate" complies with WP:BLP? May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 11:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 April 2020

Template:Hate in Canada → Template:Far-right politics in Canada – The current template title makes its scope somewhat subjective. I am proposing "Far-right politics" because that is the title of the overall parent article (Far-right politics; there is no Far-right politics in Canada). I would also not object to "Right-wing extremism in Canada". gnu 57 13:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. "Hate" seems like a bad general concept article to include in the template and "Hate in Canada" is a very vague and subjective concept. I understand the logic as the topic also includes concepts like "hate crime", but "hate" alone isn't a term of art that applies solely to far-right extremists, it's a general emotion that all people experience at some point, regardless of political beliefs. The template definitely needs a better focus or something like far-right politics or extremism. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. "Hate" is too subjective a concept. b uidhe 17:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This is a dumpster-fire of a template conflating multiple distinct topics in a POV and WP:OR manner -- this radical move request is evidence of that. Remove the "far-right" topics from this and devote it strictly to hate crimes, and it might actually have some valid reason for existing. -- Netoholic @ 21:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Permaps Wikipedia:Templates for discussion would be a better forum for a broader discussion on restructuring the template. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This rename proposal implicitly comes with it a discussion on what content is appropriate for it. -- Netoholic @ 01:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that "hate" is identically equal to "right-wing"; I was going by the current contents of the template. Would it be alright with you if I withdrew the move request and took the template to TfD instead? Cheers, gnu 57 16:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Verne Equinox (talk) 22:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]