This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Canada: Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada. Elections and Referendums Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Conservatism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Politics Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

These don't belong in an encyclopedia article, see WP:CRYSTAL. The refs are all journalists making wild stabs at who might run or promoting their fav. Our encyclopedia article needs to be limited to people who have stated that they are running, plus those who have said they aren't. There is no place here for wild speculation, even if some journalist thinks it will sell newspapers. - Ahunt (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the practice for leadership elections for years has been to list prospective candidates as long as their names have been named as such in the media. Because it is verifiable through listing sources it is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. To stop this practice would be a major change. If you wish to change this practice, please discuss at Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Leadership election pages listing potential candidates. Thanks. 45.72.244.163 (talk) 11:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As long as they’ve been reported by reputable sources, they should be included, as they are in nearly all other party leadership race pages I’ve seen on Wikipedia. Circumspect (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we just count the core or did we add the next category as well? Which categories do you think we should separate for CPC voters? - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, the date the race starts has been announced on the CPC's website and the article has been referenced by several journalists on Twitter but I was wondering if it qualifies as a good source for this article? Or should we wait for the media to report on it?

Pinging editors involved on this page for answers Ahunt,Earl Andrew,Aaronposner, GoodDay, TheEpTic and Kawnhr - MikkelJSmith (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the date of the convention? GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, sorry I meant the date the race starts (January 13) MikkelJSmith (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nevermind, it seems a reporter has mentioned it on Twitter, so we should be fine. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the campaign only begins, when the nominations are open. GoodDay (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, they've done press release and everything, so it officially starts tomorrow. MikkelJSmith (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, primary sources like that are always authoritative for factual information. Secondary sources, like media, are only going to get their information from the primary source anyway. For instance only Ford knows the horsepower of the 2020 Mustang, only the CPC knows when the race starts. That said, primary sources should never be used for opinions about themselves. Ford should not be quoted about how great a car the 2020 Mustang is, that should come from third party, independent sources. - Ahunt (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt, I see so we can only use primary sources when it comes to non controversial claims and non biased factual information. Thanks for the heads up. MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly! - Ahunt (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt, To add to what Ahunt said, with which I completely agree, primary sources can't be used to meet our notability test for whether articles are kept or deleted, but in this case, the Conservatives' 2020 leadership race is definitely notable. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 00:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the subject of a bit of an editing dispute between Fulserish, TrailBlzr and myself over how Greg Rickford's (Ontario MPP, 2018–present; Canadian MP, 2008–2015) endorsement of Peter MacKay should be listed. He was initially listed solely under the "Provincial politicians" heading (as he is a sitting MLA and present cabinet minister) by an IP editor; TrailBlzr decided he should also be listed under "former MP". Fulserish removed him from former MP, which was reverted; then I too removed him from there while adding a note about his federal service (which I thought was a reasonable compromise), which was also reverted. To prevent this from becoming an edit war I am inviting discussion of it here. So allow me to lay out my reasoning:

• The fundamental issue I see is that it's misleading: listing a person twice makes their support seem larger than it is, especially since each section has a handy running tally beside it. A reader could easily skim the list and just pick out the numbers 3, 3 and 1 and take it to mean MacKay has seven supporters, when— because Rickford is being counted twice— it's actually six. This isn't a big deal now when the endorsements are still in the single digits, but it's one that can only get worse with more endorsements— more people being counted double (or triple, or quadruple, depending on their career) inflating the numbers, and longer lists of names means readers are less likely to scrutinize it to see the duplicates.

• Far form being "arbitrary", there is precedent to only list politicians by their most recent office. For example, in Maxime Bernier's endorsements in the 2017 leadership election, Steven Fletcher is only listed under "provincial politicians"— as he was a sitting MLA— and not additionally under "former MPs". Another instance can be seen in Jagmeet Singh's endorsements in the NDP's 2017 leadership election, where Jenny Kwan is listed only under MP and not "former provincial politicians". While I have not combed through each name to see if they have held other offices, I will note that I certainly don't see anyone's name being listed twice.

• If Patrick Brown were to endorse someone, would we really think it prudent to him under four different categories: municipal politician (Mayor of Brampton 2018–), former provincial politician (MPP 2015–18), former federal politician (MP 2006–2015), and former municipal politician (city councillor 2000–2006)? And if that's excessive and ridiculous, what makes it different from listing Greg Rickford in two categories?

I would appreciate any comments from other editors. Thanks. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kawnhr, I think the most recent office makes sense, the precedent is there and it honestly makes sense in this case. It's weird to list someone multiple times. The endorsement box is there to count endorsements and for one person to be there multiple times is misleading.

I think the best compromise here is to list their offices like we do for the background of candidates — the current or most recent office should be first though. So, for Brown's case for example we would go from most recent to oldest.

So yeah, in essence I pretty much agree. MikkelJSmith (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem here is that if and when another former MP, like Ted Opitz, endorses MacKay, it will list MacKay as having only 1 former MP endorsing him, which is simply false given Rickford also endorsed him and is a former MP. Not listing Rickford as a former MP effects the Former MPs tally. TrailBlzr (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "former MP" is meant in the sense of "retired politician", not "this person was once an MP". That's how other pages use it, by listing a person only by their latest office and not every single one. Sure that affects the "former MP" tally, but 1) I'm not sure the endorsements list is meant to prioritize these categorizations or otherwise treat them as anything other a convenient way to organize individuals, and 2) the alternate is to count people multiple times, which is a much larger problem. Again I bring you to Patrick Brown and his career at three levels of government (with his municipal tenure in two cities)— would we list an endorsement in four areas? How about Fabian Manning, as a senator, former MP, former MHA, and former municipal politician? Or Larry Smith and Jean-Guy Dagenais, both senators and former candidates? Rickford is hardly an exceptional case here, we'll be awash in doubled-up endorsements. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The case of Patrick Brown is extremely out-of-the-ordinary so I don't think we should be crafting policy around it. That said, I have no problem listing individuals only once as long as we remove the overall tally of endorsements for each section. In other places where endorsement boxes are used, tallies aren't given; it is just a list of individuals under different sections. See Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Michael Bloomberg. Listing individuals once and keeping the tally will result in an incorrect tally. TrailBlzr (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just provided three other examples of politicians who have served in multiple offices (and there are surely dozens more), but sure, I don't have any issue with removing the tallies entirely. — Kawnhr (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and removed the individual tallies then. TrailBlzr (talk) 01:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited this page a few times not signed in (apologies for that!), and have done some mild editing on previous political pages. There is precedent on Wikipedia to list them under their most recent/current office, rather than list them all. We don't want to inflate numbers, and anybody reading can see in the brackets that Greg Rickford is also a former MP. If someone like Tony Clement endorses someone, it would make most sense to list him as a former MP, and include in brackets that he was also an Ontario MPP, rather than listing him under both. I'd suggest sticking it to one, rather than inflating endorsement numbers. RoyalObserver (talk) 21:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what others think about this. I see that somebody added a former candidate endorsement section, however it is my understanding that this isn't common (look at the 2017 CPC leadership page, for example). I know we added candidates for the PCPO Leadership following Patrick Brown's resignation, but that was only because it was so close to the election and candidates played a big role in that leadership race. I personally believe we don't need this section for this one. How would we enforce it? How far back for former candidates? What if a candidate from the 2003 election endorses someone? I'd suggest we stick to regular categories. Thoughts? RoyalObserver (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be removed. Aside from what you say about precedent and how cumbersome it could get, I also don't think it's an especially helpful list: a former candidate is someone who failed to be elected, and it's difficult to imagine those people having significant weight within the party or being of interest to the people reading this page. The exception would be if they have a Wikipedia page already and/or are notable for other reasons (eg: Brian Brulotte, who was a brief, unofficial candidate and has received a bit of media coverage to that extent) but they can be safely included under "other prominent individuals". — Kawnhr (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we should list them if, and only if they are notable people (i.e. they already have a bio on Wikipedia). - Ahunt (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then we could list them under the other prominent individuals section.RoyalObserver (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. - Ahunt (talk) 21:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of removing this section for now. RoyalObserver (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RoyalObserver, yeah that makes total sense. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Richard DÉCARIE .jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could stand to adopt a more stringent criteria for who to include here. As it stands, anybody who has said "no" gets included, regardless of their standing in the party, where the speculation was coming from, or seriousness of their musing. For example:

• Garnet Genuis, Brian Jean and Jordan Peterson only have offhand mentions in their sources— they are not the subject of the report, merely an aside. One source saying "maybe this person could join?" and then the person in question saying "nah" doesn't seem particularly noteworthy.
• Rod Phillips was also likely an offhand mention in the source, since it's been updated since and he's no longer mentioned in it. He did get some coverage elsewhere, in the early days of the race, but even this source has him ruling it out.
• The source for Cathy McLeod is actually just her reacting to Scheer's resignation, with a closing remark that she will not be a candidate to succeed him. I haven't gone and looked, but there is probably a lot of coverage like this in local news media in the immediate aftermath of Scheer's resignation— reporter asks their MP what they think, and they say "well it won't be me, I can tell you that."
• The source for Patrick Brown is of dubious value; it says "Brown’s name has been mentioned alongside other Conservative party veterans like Rona Ambrose, Peter MacKay and Pierre Poilievre by some political commentators", but I certainly don't remember him being floated by anyone at all. He's certainly not in the CBC or National Post overviews we have here, for example. Without outside speculation, him declining isn't noteworthy.
• Ted Falk was considering it for all of one day before he had already dropped the idea. This is borderline, because he was reportedly considering it, but a single-day candidacy from a backbencher is of little importance IMO.

Obviously this race is a big deal, and— particularly in the early days, when the race was still taking form— speculation was abound and many a Conservative was either considering their options or quickly taking their name out of contention. But I think that as it's gone on and the picture has cleared, some of those early reactions are no longer notable— particularly as the "Declined" section now includes many major names. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kawnhr, I agree. I've been on a break for a while, but I remember a few names were added here and there. In hindsight they probably shouldn't have been. MikkelJSmith (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, many names on this list are just "someone attempted to recruit" and not people who gave serious consideration to running. I have to ask, is it worth keeping this list of people "not running" at all? In the longer view of history is this worth including? - Ahunt (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it needs a good pruning (Ahunt put it nicely). I do think it's worth having the section of people not running - leadership contests are frequently shaped by heavyweight potential candidates deciding not to run (for local examples, Peter Mackay not running in the previous two, or Rona Ambrose and Pierre Polievre in this one), and it's helpful from a historical sense to know who was potentially in the picture (and discussed as such) but didn't. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Drover's Wife, Ahunt, I think you both raise good points, some examples probably should be cut though, like I doubt Peterson thought about it. He's been in the hospital for a while now I think (I don't really follow him so I don't know the timeline). MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally in agreement that some should be cut, just responding to the suggestion of cutting the section. Any of Kawnhr's suggestions would be good candidates for removal. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like The Drover's Wife says, it can be of historical value to note who didn't run, if they are notable figures whose entrance would have made them instant contenders, whose future had previously been the source of speculation, and/or whose absence is viewed as shaping the race. In this race specifically, Ambrose's long period of wavering likely dashed any chance of Christy Clark entering the race. — Kawnhr (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seems to be a rough consensus against the names I singled out, I went ahead and removed them from the page; already it's looking a bit nicer and less cluttered, IMO, though I think it could still be pruned. Here's some I'm eyeing:

• Lawrence Cannon, Gérard Deltell, Mario Dumont, Alain Rayes: Although all four of these people are notable "names", it's not clear to me that they expressed a serious interest in running (or were the subject of a serious recruitment effort), nor received considerable speculation in the media… but given they're all Quebecers, maybe it all happened in the franco media?
• Doug Ford, Blaine Higgs, Brian Pallister: Seem to have mostly received speculation due to being incumbent premiers and conservative leaders; unlike Jason Kenney, however, I'm not aware of them being talked up as potential future leaders before this, so their demurrals come across as more routine than noteworthy.
• Mark Mulroney: OK, he did receive some significant coverage, but the Mulroneys are always going to be the subject of immediate speculation (in no small part due to Justin Trudeau stoking flights of fancy about dynasties). It was fine in 2017, but if he's not going to make any overtures into politics (unlike his sister), then I don't think we need to indulge that speculation by listing him here.

As you can see, these are all bigger names than before, so I'm putting it up for discussion before acting. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:28, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kawnhr, out of all of those, the only one I think should stay is Deltell. In French media, they took his consideration seriously and he apparently thought about it a while. I would probably have to check the references for Lawrence Cannon (have a blank right now). MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminders to editors adding endorsements to the endorsement boxes:

• Years are separated by an en dash, not a hyphen. Full years should also be given.
  • Correct: (2001–2012)
  • Incorrect: (2001-2012) (2001-12)
• References should be directly attached to the text (like this)^[1] Not separated by a space. TrailBlzr (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we mention that some of the candidates want the dates pushed back due to the coronavirus? - MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest only if any action is taken on it (ie something is changed). - Ahunt (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahunt, yeah, that would make sense. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is relevant to the discussions happening publicly about ending the leadership campaign early, leaving it as is or extending it. As long as someone can find WP:RS on that, I expect it would be appropriate to include it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that this article is biased toward the Liberals. When it's edited to give Peter MacKay the same treatment as Richard DeCarie and Jim Karahalios, the subsequent edit war is decided in favour of the Liberal point-of-view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor10000000 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not supposed to be an endorsement of Peter MacKay, so I've now restored some balance to the article. -Contributor10000000 (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What words constitute an "endorsement of Peter MacKay"? I don't see it.216.154.47.232 (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also DeCarie and Karahalios were both disqualified by their party so it's legitimate to state why. MacKay hasn't been disqualified. 216.154.47.232 (talk) 13:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter--the language agitating for DeCarie's and Karahalios's disqualifications was there before they were disqualified. When they are treated negatively (and there were even false statements about Karahalios) but MacKay positively, then that constitutes an endorsement of MacKay. -Contributor10000000 (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're interpreting things subjectively, according to your own bias (for instance accusing wikipedia of a "Liberal bias" when in fact a Liberal bias would be to try to discredit MacKay as he is the likely winner and thus the likely rival to the Liberals in the next general election). Can you identify any words in the article that constitute an "endorsement" of MacKay or not? 216.154.47.232 (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, other contributors have interpreted subjectively according to their own bias. They have a Liberal bias because they promote Peter MacKay even though on many matters he is indistinguishable from the Liberals. As has been said of the Republicans with respect to Democrats in the US, Conservatives like Peter MacKay are driving to the same cliff as the Liberals but at a slower pace. Contributor10000000 (talk) 16:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have not identified any words in the article that constitute either an endorsement or a bias. Give us an actual quotation from the article, please. 216.154.47.232 (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are trying to add this to the article: "MacKay has been accused of anti-conservative bigotry after saying that questions such as abortion and homosexuality "hung around Andrew Scheer’s neck like a stinking albatross." and you give this National Post article as a source[1] except nowhere in the Post article does anyone accuse MacKay of having an "anti-Conservative bias" - that is your personal interpretation and so it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you want to add an accusation like "anti-Conservative bias" you have to cite a credible source that actually states that, it can't be your personal opinion, spin or interpretation. As it is, the statement you are trying to add is a violation of WP:NPOV. 216.154.47.232 (talk) 17:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice already noted the negative treatment of Richard Decarie and Jim Karahalios but positive treatment of Peter MacKay:

• With regard to Richard DeCarie's opinion on homosexuality, the interviewer who first publicized it, Evan Solomon, was not interested that Richard DeCarie looks at every person as a person and does not look for the person's place in the current societal pecking order. That was part of Richard DeCarie's explanation of what he meant by "real people." The Wikipedia article failed to reflect this, too, and so its perspective on him was distorted. Instead of deleting somebody else's work, I rephrased and expanded it. Whoever reverted my contribution was vandalizing.

• With regard to Jim Karahalios, there was a completely false statement and another statement which was false in that it lacked necessary context. As Jim Karahalios maintains--and there is a history here, too, with Walied Soliman who was at that time one of the Ontario PC officers--Jim Karahalios only narrowly lost because of ballot stuffing by incumbent officers. Did Brian Patterson really win? In fact, Jim Karahalios' history of fighting corruption in the Conservative party, whether at the provincial or federal level, is a significant positive part of his record. Instead of merely deleting the error-ridden few sentences, I corrected them and expanded them. Whoever reverted my contribution was vandalizing.

• With regard to Peter MacKay, I am simply treating him in the same way that other contributors to this article have treated Richard DeCarie and Jim Karahalios. It's obvious that he has an anti-Christian bias (also anti-conservative but not anti-Conservative) because of the statement that he made, deploring Scheer's reluctance to promote prenatal violence and sexual perversion. I think there are several reasons that I can't give a source for the words "anti-Christian bias" or "anti-conservative bias": (1) Wikipedia deprecates the Christian or conservative sources that I would find because Christians and conservatives are a minority, at least in the relevant Wikipedia community of contributors. (2) The atheist mainstream media ranks racism as the highest sin, even if the supposed offense is not racism (such as being anti-Muslim). (3) Christians or conservatives aren't as quick to resort to tribal calls for exclusion. Obviously a Christian is anti-Muslim; otherwise he's a hypocrite. The atheist is also anti-Muslim. That doesn't mean, as Richard DeCarie pointed out, that a Christian is anti-people. In fact, the Christian should be learning to love all people in the same way that his Lord Jesus does, wanting them to be eternally happy. But going back to Peter MacKay, I will reword the first sentence to avoid the reason for your contention.

Contributor10000000 (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked several times to actually specify words in the article that indicate a bias. You have consistently failed to do so. In regards to MacKay, you say "It's obvious that he has an anti-Christian bias" - that is your opinion but we cannot edit an article based on personal opinion. You have cited no source that actually alleges that - the National Post article you cited does not say or state that anyone else has said he has an "anti-Christian" bias. Without a source, the article cannot say that even if that is what you think. You admit: "I can't give a source for the words "anti-Christian bias" or "anti-conservative bias"" - without a source the article cannot include that allegation. Sorry, but them the rules. See WP:NPOV and WP:V. 216.154.47.232 (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read more carefully what I wrote (don't stop before the end of the paragraph), and you'll see that you should no longer have an objection. Contributor10000000 (talk) 24:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"MacKay rejects conservative answers to questions such as abortion and homosexuality that he said "hung around Andrew Scheer’s neck like a stinking albatross." - this is non-neutral language. It may be your opinion that these are conservative positions but not all conservatives are against abortion and homosexuality (eg Barry Goldwater, the longtime leader of the US conservative movement was pro-choice[2] and also late in his life opposed "don't ask don't tell" stating that gays should be free to serve in the military.)[3] You are conflating social conservativism with conservativism. 216.154.47.232 (talk) 23:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I used neutral language. I also gave a footnote to the National Post, and I said what it said. You are conflating Conservatism with conservativism. You are also failing your own criterion, "specifying actual words in the article that indicate a bias." Contributor10000000 (talk) 00:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and/or gents, this doesn't seem to be a very productive conversation. This talk page is to discuss improvements to the article. If there are improvements to discuss, lets get to it. If the issue is the use of this source, I agree that sentence could be worded better. It is probably best just to say he is "pro-choice" and for "equal marriage" or "supports same-sex marriage". It is worth noting that he believes the party's past position on those issues has held the party back. Not sure if the "stinking albatross" quote is require though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Pro-choice" and "for equal marriage" or "supports same-sex marriage" indicate Liberal bias. This is the Conservative party we're discussing. Stop promoting Peter MacKay's candidacy at the expense of the other candidates.Contributor10000000 (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's patently ridiculous. The Mulroney government was pro-choice and was not anti-gay and the Harper government's position was that abortion and same sex rights are "settled issues". If you want to argue Mulroney and Harper are Liberals, you can, but your claim wouldn't be credible. 216.154.47.232 (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and/or gents, this is not a forum. It is not a place to debate what is conservative and what is liberal. It is a place to suggest and discuss improvements to the article. Contributor10000000 seems to have neutrality concerns. If so, state what from the article you believe needs improvement and how you think it could be improved. We are a volunteer organization, it is not enough to just say "it is bias, fix it". No one has to jump when any other editor suggests it. If you have improvements to make, suggest them here or be bold and make them yourself. If someone disagrees with them they can revert and discuss here. That is how we build a better encyclopedia. That is why we are here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you, Darryl Kerrigan, are being simplistic, and you are demonstrating the same kind of bias for which I created this section and for which I provided balance in the article. The Conservatives have never been in the vanguard of social change, and those who are most like the Liberals are obviously more Liberal in perspective. In the present leadership contest, Peter MacKay has the policies that most resemble the Liberals'. Richard DeCarie and Jim Karahalios have been the most influential and outspoken among the most conservative candidates. Presenting Peter MacKay in a positive way and Richard DeCarie and Jim Karahalios in a negative way, even thus putting pressure on the CPC officers to evict them--which they did--is what I call Liberal bias.23.92.130.169 (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe I have thrown out anybody else's work except where I changed the wording because of inaccuracy or distortion.

What are you talking about? We are just stating what his opinions are as he has told reporters. I have made an edit to that sentence based on the sources, was hoping I could help. The WP:RS we have inline indicate that those are his positions. If you would like us to use other terms for it propose them. Supports "abortion rights"? You seem to be suggesting that we don't accurately summarize MacKay's positions at all because you do not agree with them. That is not what we do here. If you think there is a more WP:NPOV way for us to describe them, we are all ears.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I told you already. Small-c conservatives, for whom the Conservative party ostensibly exists, do not believe there is such a thing as "abortion rights" or "same-sex marriage" or any of the other euphemisms you used. There is a whole world-and-life view contained in them, and it is not the one to which most conservatives hold. But I will now try the direction you struck out on, and edit the sections for the other candidates to remove the negativity, i.e. present the view of the candidate under consideration rather than the reaction of others to it. Because if you want the reaction to it, then you should also include the actual offending statement of Peter MacKay.23.92.130.169 (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]