Talk:People's Party of Canada

Suggestion spokeperson

Cna we specifc that a spokeperson is not an elected leader but someone that respond to question that is asked by the media. For example, Brock Harrison is Andrew Scheer spokeperson but do you see his name on the Conservative Party of Canada https://globalnews.ca/news/4399075/andrew-scheer-india-trip-justin-trudeau/ Ottawa11 (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2018 UTC

Suggestion regarding the name

In the light of this article: https://globalnews.ca/news/4464574/maxime-bernier-peoples-party-of-canada-name/ should we also include parties name such as the People's Party (Spain), Austrian People's Party, People's Party for Freedom and Democracy Also, can I include En Marche! as examples

Ottawa11 22:31, 20 September 2018  (UTC)

Founder?

I am wondering if people who buy a party membership before October 31st would fall under the category of founders? Thanks Ottawa11 22:00, 15 October 2018 UTC

Reaffirming guidelines for infobox.

I have decided to remove desruptive recent edits made by Heven5 base on the factors such as using terminology that are not classified as political ideology such as anti feminism or climate change denial, the use of sources that are not precise,contradict or has nothing to due with the party.Thus, should the guidelines for the inform be estsbaised around these concern and previous conversation on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.111.18 (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

They are not "disruptive edits", they are all properly sourced. If you are going to start a discussion then wait for a consensus before removing material, especially sourced material. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I mean disruptive editing in the context of using WP:SYTHN meaning while the sources are reliable they Don't have an exploited reference and valid reasoning why it should meet these term. For example, climate change denial, which I could not find a single classifying as a political ideology ,one of the sources States that Bernier believes in climate change. Isn't this a contradiction? When I mean previous conversation on the talk page. I am refering that the editor did not seek a conseus when making edits. The editors that is Simonm223 who no other editors have challenged or seek to change the coneseus,established that every ideglogy must be source,that they spefifcal refer to the party and not Bernier,and is not an op-ed piece. I suggest we remove the edits until Heven5 give their reasons for the edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.143.111.18 (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Some other political parties, like that the FvD in the Netherlands also have "Climate change denial" as a political ideology. The AfD in Germany has "Anti-Feminism" in theirs. The edits removed by 72.143.111.18 were sourced properly, and with reputable sources. If you read the sources, they prove that the edits are correct. The sources do talk about Bernier, but overall talk about the ideology of the PPC Party, and not Bernier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.124.40.50 (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I suspect that 98.124.40.50,who is blocked and Heven5,who is suspected of being a sockpuppet, are the same user.The reason has to due with the fact that 98.124.40.5 responded when I stated that Heven5 should and they edits history is very similar.In addition, Bradv who reported him call these edits redundent: Here == Soulspinr ==

Soulspinr (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))

For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soulspinr/Archive.. Thus leading to me referring the edits.However, if Heven5 is not a sock puppet, they should use the talk page to make their case.

Inclusion in Leaders' Debates

I added a sub-section about whether the party's leader will be included in the 2019 debates held by the Leaders' Debates Commission. Given that this could or could not happen and may have a significant effect on the parties electoral prospects, I think it may be appropriate to include it. I struggle whether this is too much detail, but am not sure if removing the criteria and just talking about what Gould said is appropriate. Anyway, improve away.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Since you started the debate you should have waited a couple of debates. Personally, I think the Leaders' Debates Commission page would be an appropriate place to talk about it. I mean that the edits violated the guidelines of Wikipedia such WP:due where most of the edits talks about the debate guidelines and not the party.Also using the word possibly falls under the category of gossip/rumors which goes against Wikipedia encyclpida guidelines. Remember Wikipedia is an encylodia not a forum to discus political strategy. However if the party is included or excluded being it back with less weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.85.96 (talk) 18:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Point taken that the debate section I created was broad and talked about the criteria for debates generally. I expected it would need to be widowed down, and invited others to do so. The solution is not to remove any mention of that 90% threshold and how it will apply to the party as mentioned in WP:RS. The strategy the party is taking to confirm candidates in all ridings is likely informed by that criteria. Whether it is or not in a section about registrations, it is perfectly appropriate to mention that the party needs to reach 90% to be included in debates. One sentence about that is certainly WP:Due. The solution is not to hide this information in a footnote.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)