Talk:People's Party of Canada

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)

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)