This is an archive of past discussions about Pierre Poilievre. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A quick perusal of the history on this article suggests that vandalism contributed by 192.197.82.xxx is a recurring issue. A discussion related to reporting this ip (which might inadvertently include all open terminals on the Canadian House of Commons PARL-C1 network) to Wikipedia:Abuse_reports should take place. burdenko19:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Broken Links
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The two external links tested OK, though his own site has a weird welcome page that briefly gives the impression of being a squatter's page. Newswestwood (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The three "Tar baby" references in the PMO memo
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The three references cited by the PMO are:
“Marois’s effort to shake off the referendum tar baby is good news…” (Editorial, “Cynical PQ bid to rebrand party,” The Toronto Star, Friday, March 7, 2008).
“Same-sex marriage has generally been treated like a political tar baby over the past few years, with most parties reluctant to whip up highly sensitive arguments touching on religion and deeply rooted social values.” (Susan Delacourt, “Martin could exploit gay-marriage gift,” The Hamilton Spectator, Friday, December 10, 2004).
“Nobody is saying you toss over your U.S. relations. Of course you don’t. But it doesn’t mean to say you have to become slavishly connected like some kind of tar baby with them.” (Lloyd Axworthy, “Canada’s new leader to improve U.S. ties,” Detroit Free Press, Thursday, December 11, 2003).
was there a Fourth Example in that particular memo?
Atomic Sunrise's edit in the main page referring to the fourth example is partly supportable from Canwest National Affairs Correspondent David Atkin's own private blog[1] that indicates the fourth example was provided by the PMO, but the blog does not indicate that it was definitely part of the same email (maybe a follow up?) GardenMulch (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I think it is time that some sections be reviewed for sentence length. A recently added and modified sentence is (by my count) over 100 words in length. As my edits keep getting re-edited by another into longer constructs I will leave this issue of quality to someone else. GardenMulch (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Is Pierre Poilievre native?
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Page was updated to include new Parliamentary Secretary post for 2011, but predecessors have not yet been identified. Initially, he has been given two parliamentary secretary titles, and have not been able to identify previous secretaries***, and unsure how to format this with the two predecessors even if I did.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsonovic (talk • contribs) 22:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the information you removed from the infobox has nothing at all to do with a cabinet role. The predecessor you removed was for his riding, as was the term start date you changed. No matter what role he plays or will play in the future doesn't change the fact that he assumed office as MP in 2004, and that his predecessor in that position was David Pratt. Cmr08 (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Flanagan & the Wildrose Party -- Relevance?
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The first paragraph in the section on "Value for Money" points out that Tom Flanagan later joined the Wildrose Party. I am not sure how this is relevant to an article on Pierre Poilievre or the particular section in question.
On the same day of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's public apology on behalf of the Canadian government for the residential schools, Poilievre made a radio appearance to comment on native affairs. Because of his close association with Tom Flanagan, author of the Conservative Party of Canada policies and co-chair of the 2004 campaign, Poilievre was well briefed on the matter. Flanagan later joined the Wildrose Party.
Removed the sentence that said Poilievre claimed CEO Marc Mayrand was "wearing a team jersey" (i.e. being partisan and partial). At no time did Poilievre say this. What he did say was that future CEOs should not be partisan, which is linked to the provisions in the act that a CEO must disclose his/her former partisan background. JOttawa16 (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Removed section on Minister's permit
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Prior to my removal, there was a section on Poilievre issuing a "rarely-granted minister's permit", see here. This was rather bizarre. Minister's permits are actually known as Temporary Resident Permits and are not uncommon in the slightest. Between 2010 and 2014, well over ten thousand a year were issued, including hundreds on health grounds. It would be far more notable if this was the only TRP that Poilievre was involved with, though obviously there's no such claim (and I'm sure that wouldn't be true). Of course, if we can find a reliable source that indicates this particular permit was substantially notable, we can discuss reintroducing the content. --Yamla (talk) 13:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Trucker Protest
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The CBC article says "Pierre Poilievre says he supports peaceful protest by legitimate truckers and denounces those promoting extremism." It is very important to include the fact that Poilievre denounces those promoting extremism. Otherwise, it make it seem as if he is supporting the extremist views (like that one guy walking around with a confederate flag) held by radical extremists.208.98.222.116 (talk) 02:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I think Pierre Poilievre has Fransaskois ancestry not Franco-Albertan
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In an interview, he was asked about his 'French surname'. He replies by saying that his father is a French Canadian from Saskatchewan. This obviously needs to be corrected. I don't know much about editing wiki pages, so asking someone who knows to do so to do the needful.
The source is[1]
Thank you for making this change. I believe Franco-Saskatchewanais is a far more commonly used term, and is something that the average reader is more likely to understand without clicking the link to the other article.208.98.222.116 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
References
^Johns, Andrew. "Pierre Poilievre". YouTube. Retrieved 28 January 2022. {{cite web}}: Text "Conservative MP for Carleton" ignored (help)
Add possible permanent protections
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Pierre Pollievre is considered the front runner he most likely will be come leader of the party barring any unforeseen circumstances. If he doesn’t become leader let’s remove the protections but we should at least keep them until the leadership election to protect against vandalism. Black roses124 (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Carbon tax subsection
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I have a few issues with this section. Firstly, it's not about the carbon tax! It's all about his use of the word tar baby. Another is that it's out of date. His views on the carbon tax should probably be in the economy subsection of Political positions. As for his use of tar baby, it's not notable in that it's no more a racial slur than niggly or niggardly–it just looks like it could be one! It made the news way back when but just because it made the news doesn't mean it gets into an encyclopedia. I mean, if he actually used a racial slur, then, yes, include it. I'm going to remove that section on the grounds of: 1. using tar baby is not a slur nor is it notable enough especially since there was no political fall out from it. 2. The carbon tax the section briefly mentions never came to pass and is not relevant. Masterhatch (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Masterhatch see my edits and edit summaries. Poilievre wasn't aware of the racial background of the word but it's important we include it in the article so it can be acknowledged and doesn't happen again. Ak-eater06 (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Wow. I can't believe you actually said that. We're here to make sure it never happens again? Really? So its up to us on wikipedia to teach an important lesson? On Wikipedia that statement is wrong on so many levels. As explained, tar baby is not a racist term. Just because someone is offended doesn't actually make it offensive. Look at this moronic list from the CBC. So, someone says its offensive makes it offensive? When dealing with words, intent is also so important. For example, if I use the word fag in England to mean cigarette does it mean I just said a slur? Of course not! Poilievre used tar baby to mean a sticky situation. There was no other meaning. Most importantly, there was no political fall out from him using the word and it wasn't a story beyond the time. It's not being repeated over and over in the media. Justin Trudeau only a few days ago said to Melissa Lantsman, a Jewish lesbian, the conservatives (and her by association) stand with the swastika and then refused to appologise. That's way worse than using tar baby and its not mentioned in his article. So, by saying "include it in the article so it can be acknowledged and doesn't happen again." are you trying to bring your own pov to this article? I'm taking that subsection out again as his use of tar baby is a non issue. Masterhatch (talk) 15:44, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
CBC removal
Latest comment: 2 years ago23 comments5 people in discussion
I think I was clear with my summary as to why I removed CBC. It had nothing to do with whether I like the idea of defunding CBC or not as I do my best to keep my pov out of my edits. It was about this article being about Pierre and not a list of everything he stood for for or against. If people keep adding more and more, the list will start looking like an election platform or a hit list and not an encyclopedia article. I was just exercising being bold with my removal of it. I felt, and still feel, only significant far reaching issues should be listed. Economy, social issues, and COVID are significant and far reaching. CBC is not. I've seen far too many articles around Wikipedia that get bloated with more and more crap and become massive, unreadable behemoths because everyone wants to add everything, notable or not. Shall I say I was nipping it at the bud? Anyways, this is not an important issue for me and I won't be trying to remove it again. For the record, though, I am strongly in favour of defunding the CBC but that shouldn't, and didn't, influence my edit. Masterhatch (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Ak-eater06, shouldn't the burden be on you to come to the talk page and say what your reasoning is? Your original insert didn't explain why you made the addition, and your re-insertion -- reverting Masterhatch with edit summary "you can't remove what you personally dislike, seek a consensus" -- didn't either. I'm going by the fact that Masterhatch stated a case, and there's been no attempt to refute. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:26, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not saying his defund CBC comment doesn't deserve mention somewhere in the article but I am saying it definately doesn't deserve its own subsection alongside with social issues, COVID, and the economy. I had a look at Harper's article. He shut down the wheat board in 2015, which I'd argue is far more significant that reducing CBC's funding, and that didn't get a subsection. So, a single tweet agreeing with O'Toole gets its own one sentence subsection? I think not. I agree with Pete Gulutzan, I think the onus is on you to show that sentence should stay as is. Masterhatch (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
No one has come to defend leaving the CBC subsection in. Even Ak-eater06, who originally added it and reverted my deletion of it, didn't even hint at a reason to keep it in. He simply made a remark about me "not liking it" and go to the talk page. So, I'm going to re-delete it based on my previously mentioned reasons and if anyone wants it back in, come to the talk page. While I don't have an issue with making mention of defunding the CBC somewhere in the article, I have issues of it (one sentence based on a tweet) getting its own subsection alongside much more significant matters. Masterhatch (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Given the lack of any criticism beyond one editor's personal view of the significance and said editor's statement that they don't object to the information itself, merely the unnecessary subsection, I restored the info and placed it in an already relevant section. XeCyranium (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
If you don't agree with it being in the currently existing subsections then it will require it's own subsection. I'll place it under the other subsection and encourage you to avoid once again deleting the content ahead of consensus when you've said you'd be fine moving it. XeCyranium (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I still see no defence of the insertions and re-insertions, and Masterhatch has said more than enough to show this isn't "personal" unless someone wants to assume bad faith. But I'll supplement ... The words "supports defunding" lack context, it should be obvious that it's not big news when an MP agrees with his party's leader. The word "defunding" lacks context, for example, CTV underneath the headline "He wants to defund the CBC" explained that "O’Toole also campaigned on defunding portions of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, rolling back funding within his first mandate should be become prime minister." Another contextual matter might be that "CBC journalist falsely attacks Pierre Poilievre's wife Anaida over nepotism in dodgy smear" came a few months before Mr Poilievre tweeted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Peter I'd remind you to avoid spurious accusations and to remember that your own research and speculation is unsuitable for making decisions related to articles. More than that I'd encourage you to avoid basing your ideas off of low-quality aggregator sites. XeCyranium (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I am interested neither in your accusations about accusations nor your telling me what ideas to have. I would be interested in defence of the insertions and re-insertions, but still there is none. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Now it's been removed and re-inserted a few more times, most recently yet another re-insertion by Ak-eater06. I intend to take it to WP:BLPN: "There is a sentence saying Poilievre supports defunding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). Two editors have supported its insertion. Two editors have supported its removal. Further input welcome here or on the talk page." (Then anyone can give reasons in separate posts.) Is that a fair enough statement? Would others prefer a formal close of this discussion, or even an RfC? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
What gets me is that the 2 editors who want it in have not provided a single argument for its inclusion. Not one. When (or if) Pierre actually puts out a platform, I'm sure there'll be a section here on that. If his official platform says nothing about defunding the CBC, I see that as a great place to reinsert his tweet to possibly show what he said before and what he says now. Masterhatch (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
User:Ak-eater06, you reverted my removal of defund CBC with "there was no consensus, only one other editor, I've made my point on the talk". Well, two (2) editors gave numerous reasons for exclusion. Two (2) editors gave ZERO reasons for inclusion. You made your point on the talk page? I re-read this entire thread and I see no "point" you made. Can you repeat your "point" here so we can be clear as to your reason you believe it should be in the article? Peter Gulutzan and I have both been asking for an argument from the "include" side, so please give us one. Ak,eater06, I'm wondering, though, are you here to build an encyclopedia or do you have another purpose? Your refusal to provide a "point" in this debate and "experimental" blanking of other articles, such as Hawke government, makes me really wonder. That "experimental" blanking is actually Wikipedia:Vandalism as defined by "On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose..." Your continued reinsertion of defund CBC is starting to become disruptive. So, I implore you, state an argument here on the talk page for defund CBC's inclusion. Masterhatch (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Remember, Ak, since you originally inserted that tweet, the burdon is on you to demonstrate the notability of said tweet for inclusion. So, please demonstrate that. Masterhatch (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I want to clarify my position and make it clear why I removed the tweet in the first place. It was given its own subsection amongst more significant and far reaching social issues that were based on more than just a tweet. While I don't object to the mention of defunding the CBC somewhere in the article, it definately didn't deserve its own subsection and it doesn't hold its weight alongside economy, COVID, and social issues. Simply removing the subsection header didn't change anything. I think the only way that tweet would fit in the article is when (or if) he comes out with an election platform for leader of the Conservatives and he says he won't defund the CBC, which is contrary to that tweet. That single tweet as is doesn't provide any context to what defund means and there doesn't appear to be other sources to add context. Does defund mean CBC loses all public funding or only reduced public funding? Big difference. Masterhatch (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
The question regarding whether Poilievre actually graduated from the University of Calgary has been removed several times by 192.197.82.xxx (whois: Canadian House of Commons PARL-C1), yet no clarity has ever been provided on this issue. Poilievre's official biographies are very ambiguous in this regard, and so are the statements that remain after a 192.197.82.xxx (whois: Canadian House of Commons PARL-C1) edit. Unless those who actually know (presumably 192.197.82.xxx) are willing to provide a clear statement as to whether he entered the convocation of the University of Calgary or not, I suggest that any removal of the question in this regard be treated as vandalism of this article. --burdenko23:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Within the University of Calgary digital collections online is its Convocation program from June 2008, which lists Poilievre as an International Relations graduate in that semester: [1] (page 32 of the PDF). As Poilievre had already been in Parliament for a number of years by then, it seems that he had dropped out of university some time before first running for Parliament, and completed his degree while he was a sitting MP. UGRKWG (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Garth Turner who in 2006 was for most of one year sitting alongside Poilieve in the Conservative caucus squarely concluded that Poilieve did not graduate (though how Garth came to know is not explicitly stated). "Poilievre came to Ottawa via Alberta where he studied at, but did not graduate from, university. No need, of course. His political acumen, missionary zeal, level tones and acerbic wit gave him a gravitas and impact which belied both his years and angelic face. He became a Stephen Harper disciple, Reform Party organizer, Alliance convert, then Conservative MP – the youngest in the House." The commentary was written in 2008 after Garth left the Conservatives and after Poilieve apologized in the house for his likely-racist anti-native vindictive on Ottawa radio. The commentary is mostly but not wholly negative on Poilieve; "Seldom does a person of his talent show up on Parliament Hill, able to grasp issues, master House procedure, speak for an entire government and rustle such emotion in others. But seldom, also, does the Hill see such idolatry, raw partisanship or the blind ideology of which it is born.
Whatever made this young man buy into a racist and intolerant bonfire of beliefs not only burns us all, but now consumes him."[2]Newswestwood (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
A quote from the source: "Pierre Poilievre says he supports peaceful protest by legitimate truckers and denounces those promoting extremism." So, he supports the protests that are peaceful. He's not saying he believes the protests are peaceful, he's says he supports the peaceful protests. And protests are still happening across Canada. They're just not making headlines cuz something bigger is happening in Ukraine. If you have issue with that sentence, bring it here. Masterhatch (talk) 04:21, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Dear User:Unfinite: once again you refuse to use the talk page. You reverted my edit saying "This is also not the place to discuss whether the protests were peaceful or not, leave that to the Freedom Convoy 2022 page" yet you added a source that does just that! Not only that, but Pierre's name isn't mention once in that "source". I think you misunderstand, Pierre is supporting protests that are peaceful, he isn't saying the Freedom Convoy 'is' peaceful, just that he supports peaceful protests. Please bring your concerns here. Masterhatch (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Even after other federal Conservatives distanced themselves from the Freedom Convoy, and Polievre acknowledged that people were being inconvenienced and were suffering, He continued his support of the truckers, blaming the suffering inflicted by the truckers on Trudeau. (source is first link again)
To simply state that he supports "the peaceful protesters" is not factual if he also supports them more broadly despite them not being peaceful. Unfinite (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
So, the article currently states: "Poilievre announced his support of those in the Freedom Convoy 2022 who were protesting peacefully, while denouncing the individuals who were promoting extremism."
Looking at that, the CBC source used states "Pierre Poilievre says he supports peaceful protest by legitimate truckers and denounces those promoting extremism."
That's what it says. You want to add that the protests weren't peaceful while negating the CBC source about what he actually said? This article isn't a debate whether the protests are peaceful or not. You can add more about what he said, like that he's proud of the truckers. But the fact of the matter is, he supports the peaceful aspect of the protest, and not the individuals promoting extremism. I don't see anywhere where it says Pierre says the protests are peaceful, only that he supports peaceful, legitimate protests. The fact you insist on removing that is baffling. As for whether the protests were peaceful or not is a good debate for the Freedom Convoy article. For Pierre Poilievre's article, let's just stick to what he said.
You said "To simply state that he supports "the peaceful protesters" is not factual if he also supports them more broadly despite them not being peaceful." But it is factual because that's what he said. We can't "suppose" here and "assume" because he is proud of the truckers he supports non-peaceful protests. That's the link you're trying to draw and that borders on original research and goes against what he said in the source. I think Pierre was quite clear about what he supported and didn't support. If you can find a source where he says he supports non-peaceful protests, then great! Add it! Masterhatch (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago20 comments9 people in discussion
@WildComet: This guy was added to Skippy (nickname), which is how I got involved. The nickname is confirmed by several sources, not just Maclean's; I just didn't bother to add them:
But per BADNICK, Tricky Dick is appropriately mentioned in Richard Nixon, so since multiple news sources uses Skippy, it should be mentioned, "somewhere" in the article, just not necessarily in the lede. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Tricky Dicky is a well-known nickname for him. I can't say Skippy is a well-known nickname for Pierre. Besides that, Skippy definately doesn't go in the lead. As for the rest of the article, if there's a place for it that makes sense, then it makes sense. Simply putting it in for the sake of putting it in isn't right either. Masterhatch (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
This is nonsense that this is even being discussed and extremely biased. Putting "Skippy" as a nickname for Poilievre, would be just as dumb as putting "Blackface" as a nickname for Trudeau. It's not a legitimate nickname, it's just something that people on Twitter have said and evidently some journalists have embraced it. Skylerbuck (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Nobody calls Trudeau "Blackface" anywhere. "Some journalists"? The Toronto Star, National Post and MacLean's (in another article: "'Skippy' to fans and foes alike, after he was assigned the nickname as a very young MP") have national reputations. Okay, maybe it shouldn't go in the lead, but it should be mentioned somewhere. Per MOS:BADNICK, "Nicknames and other aliases included must be frequently used by reliable sources in reference to the subject." More major media sources feel it necessary to cite his nickname:
The Globe and Mail[2] (needs free registration to view, but the snippet shows enough w/o it)
I don't recall saying I flat out reject "Skippy" in the article. I reject it in the lead and if it goes into the body, it has to be relevant and in the right spot. It can't be put in just for the sake of being in, especially since "Skippy" is not a well-known name in the general populace (like Peter Gulutzan, I didn't know about it until I read it here). Masterhatch (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
I stand corrected. I too never heard of the nickname, but then again, I try to ignore my country's politicians as much as possible. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
User:Clarityfiend well you adding "Skippy" to his name in the lead was very immature...I am a bit shocked you added it like that considering your 16-year-long editing career (100K edits as well).
Does anyone object to this addition? It's not in the lead and clearly there's enough sources (per Clarityfiend) to establish "Skippy" as a common nickname. I don't think it's pejorative either (his own party members coined it) and I haven't seen a source that says it is pejorative. – Anne drew19:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Support (obviously). His nickname even appears in a couple of major newspapers' headlines, so it's clear the general public doesn't object. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment Not supporting or opposing but (1) if it gets added to the "Political career" section, include the political context. Otherwise, if it is a personal nickname then the "Personal life" section would be appropriate. (2) From the edit suggestion above, watch for MOS:WEASEL wording with the vague attribution of "is known by". maclean (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I agree with Ak-eater06 in which photo to use for the info box. It's a much better photo. As for the other photo, maybe there's a different spot for it in the article. Masterhatch (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Me, too. The long standing photo is better in my opinion. The newer proposal File:Pierre-Poilievre.png is better for vibrant colours, whereas the other looks more washed-out. But the newer proposal distracts focus with some shadows on the subject, and a busy background of books, whereas the status quo photo frames the subject nicely and concisely. My two cents. I don't know if there's a different spot in the article for the other; they illustrate the same thing, one just more concisely than the other. signed, Willondon (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm indifferent. I will disagree with the revision comment saying that in order for a photo to ever be changed, there must be a discussion on the talk page. I think it's fine for an editor to boldly change the photo. If other editors disagree, that's when discussions can happen. Doesn't have to be done initially though. Just my 2 cents. RoyalObserver (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Wages for PSW'S in Ontario
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Pierre Poilievre has argued repeatedly that deficits, printing money, low interest rates, the carbon tax, and over regulation cause inflation. He never said that only large deficits cause inflation. He says the same thing over and over again. I added multiple sources.Peerreviewededitor (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
New follower of this page but I think Ak-eater06's elimination of the content in this section doesn't hold water and should be reverted.
However, to avoid an edit war is there a concensus and what's the rationale? Natty10000 | Natter 12:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
But it's this particular MP's Wiki page and certainly with the recent SCOTUS leak, a germaine aspect about him. It isn't as if that's being used to reference anyone else Natty10000 | Natter 16:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The current page states: "In terms of abortion, Poilievre is pro-choice. He stated that if elected, his government would not seek to reopen the abortion debate."
"On its web site, the Campaign Life Coalition gave approving green check marks to Poilievre for voting for bills that would make it an offence to “kill or injure a pre-born child” — and to “protect women from coercion to abort.” For most of his political career, Poilievre has opposed abortion, full stop.
Only very recently — as the prospect of seizing the Conservative leadership grew larger — did Poilievre abandon his previous positions on abortion and gay marriage, thereby angering the Campaign Life Coalition. But, under his leadership, he still admits he would permit MPs to bring forward laws to criminalize abortion."
The article should probably be modified to reflect that he is sympathetic to the pro-life view, or at least that "he would permit MPs to bring forward laws to criminalize abortion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.168.135.23 (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Toronto Sun is an okay source but we have a cited source saying "pro-choix". Saying MPs could bring forth bills doesn't contradict that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Regarding plagiarism
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is no plagiarism as I wrote the sentences and cited the sources myself. The sentences are not "copy/paste" from the sources, they are evidently structured differently from the sources.
Is the wording too similar? We can discuss each specific sentence you take issue with, then constructively work together to make the wording and sentence structure more different. I'm more than happy to adjust the wording.LemonberryPie (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Name pronunciation confusion
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Two months ago, Poilievre was the focus of a cover story in Macleans, which clarified that he pronounces [his name] “paul-ee-EV”[7]. But today, a story in the National Post said it’s POI-lee-EV-vrah, for those wondering[8]. Which one is correct? Is there recent video of Poilievre saying his name?
PS: Back in 2012, it was reported he pronounced his name "paw-li-ver" [9], which was previously used on this page. This is obviously not the case now, especially per the Post article above (which mentions Lewis incorrectly referring to him as "Mr. Poliver"). Is it worth noting this change? — Kawnhr (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Certain articles of French-Canadian individuals include the French pronunciation of their names. The Justin Trudeau, Pierre Trudeau, and Jean Charest articles, for example, have the French pronunciations with no citations. In other languages it is also common to have no citations for name pronunciations, for example Vladimir Putin. Poilievre's name, under Canadian French phonology, can be transcribed as [pjɛ(ː)ʁ pwa.ljɛ(ː)vʁ]. Video interviews with the subject, such as in the Randy Blythe article, have been used as sources when the pronunciation is non-intuitive for English speakers. So why is a Radio-Canadainterview considered an uncitable "primary source" according to this reversion? And the name is said by journalist Patrice Roy at 0:06, 2:53, and 13:02. 184.144.51.13 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The French pronunciation can be nothing but [pjɛʁ pwaljɛvʁ]. Per MOS:PRON#Other languages, a transcription must follow the conventions laid out at Help:IPA/French as long as {{IPA-fr}} is used, and it doesn't transcribe allophonic length. The contrast between /ɛ/ and /ɛː/ still exists in Quebec unlike in Paris, but neither Pierre nor Poilièvre have the latter so the length mark shouldn't be used. Nardog (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Neutrality
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Local consensus cannot override project-wide consensus that WP:NPOV requires us to avoid using political spin terms such as that. Our neutral terms include "supporter of abortion rights" and similar. Elizium23 (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2022
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Pierre Poilievre has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
According to Magna International Inc., @Stoke "As Prime Minister" report, 1999, p. 57, Pierre Poilievre did not win the competition. It doesn't mention the $10,000 prize either. The only website that says he did win is here on wikipedia. If there is proof the results are different, can it be added as a source? Although it seems unlikely to be true since the people giving the prize released the book with the information.
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This edit request to Pierre Poilievre has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change `implicitly` to `explicitly` in regards to article subject's declaration of running for leadership. Implicit = implied, but not stated, explicit = clearly stated. The latter is correct because he announced in as many words that he was running. Djw857 (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Not done: The point being made is that Poilievre declared his leadership ambitions with "I'm running for Prime Minister"; to "run for Prime Minister" first requires him to run for the party leadership, but he left that part unstated and implicit in his announcement. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Causes of Inflation
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Poilievre repeatedly states in all of his videos that the causes of inflation are:
1) Deficits
2) Printing money
3) Anti-energy policies
4) Too much red tape
5) The carbon tax
6) Supply problems
Right now, the WP article only says Poilievre blames large deficits. Can someone please fix this?73.143.18.195 (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Sentence
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"Poilievre was born in Calgary, Alberta to a biological mother who was 16 years old and of Irish descent.[3] Poilievre's biological maternal grandfather, whom he first met as an adult, was Irish Canadian." Is there a point to writing, "was Irish Canadian"? This is stated in the previous sentence. The first time I took it out it was reverted. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Photo
Latest comment: 2 years ago17 comments5 people in discussion
I updated Pierre Poilievre's photo to a more modern photo of him, let me know if you have any issues with it but I feel this should be a good photo as it shows all of him in the frame, is modern, and decent quality. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
There's also these from his latest press conference, just not sure what the copyright is on these. I'll put the proper copyright source but these are images from his latest press conference that I screenshotted myself.
I disagree with this assertion. The current one is fine. His appearance has not changed much since 2014. He has already shown to be a media-averse politician so it's not a surprise that so few images exist. Also, this assertion is funny when you have uploaded a photo that appeared on a Buzzfead article in 2015, only one year later. [10]. Highly unlikely to be a free image. -"GhostofDan Gurney"17:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Image proposal
Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments10 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
As the current image is almost a decade outdated, a more up to date image has been proposed. File:Pierre Poilievre HOC.png
It meets copyright permissions. It is up to date. It has the individual facing forward. It has the individual looking forward rather than to the side. It is set in the House of Commons which is an appropriate setting for the individual's job. LemonberryPie (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Let's keep the current image and not change it for the sake of changing it. Every time someone has proposed a new image, it has either been blurry, looks awkward, has copyright issues or all three. —WildComettalk18:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, I'd say that it being outdated is a fair reason to change it. This image does not have copyright issues, is the same size as the previous, and "looks awkward" is subjective. I'd argue it's less awkward with the individual looking forward here, rather than glancing to the side in the current image. LemonberryPie (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Speedy oppose per WP:AINT. No evidence of a real problem; subject's appearance has not changed much despite 8 years having passed since the main photo was taken. Even if it has, it would not sway me. We're building an encyclopedia, not a social media profile or campaign page. -"GhostofDan Gurney"23:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose According to its description page, the source of the image is ParlVU. The link goes to a video of Canadian parliamentary proceedings; presumably the image is taken from a frame in that video. The home page of that website states please refer to the Speaker’s Permission for terms of use. This in turn states This permission does not extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial purpose of financial gain. Now, for copyright purposes, Wikipedia is considered to be a commercial website, and therefore, the suggested image does not meet copyright permissions. The description page also claims fair use for the article Pierre Poilievre under non-free content criterion 7, so turning now to the other criteria, criterion 1 is violated because Pierre Poilievre is still alive; therefore, a free-use image may be obtained at some point. Since all ten criteria must be met in full, there is thus no point in considering the other criteria save to mention that criterion 9 required that this edit be made. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
"defund the CBC" in the lead
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Ak-eater06 - I believe my rationale in the edit summary still stands; neither Andrew Scheer nor Erin O'Toole make any current mention of their CBC positions in the lead and is more or less a WP:WHATABOUT argument. In addition to concerns of WP:PROMO regarding the wording, I also have WP:WEIGHT concerns both in part due to a lack of specifics and sources on what exactly "defund" means. The two Postmedia sources used in prose also don't exactly make this position front and centre, adding to WEIGHT issues. If he elaborates on his plans and begins to make the CBC a focal point in his leadership, this can maybe be added in the future, but as for now, there is no reason to keep this in the lead. -"GhostofDan Gurney"05:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
User:GhostOfDanGurney the reason I included it in the lead is because it's a unique position that no Conservative leader has ever advocated for; that's why it's not on the leads of Scheer or O'Toole. As for your questioning of what "defund" means, I believe he means defunding the corporation as a whole because he mentioned the billion dollars, and Canadian Broadcasting Corporation#Financing says they received ~$1 billion from the government. Let's not remove it from the lead yet and see what other editors think. Ak-eater06 (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
I should clarify; I wasn't asking any specific editor what they think "defund" means. I'm pointing out that there is a lack of citations as to what it means. There is no info from what I can find as to whether he'll sell it off to a private company, cut off all money supply entirely and letting it go off air, or simply give them a restricted budget, or whatever other option he can think of. If we need to rely on what we "believe" to fill in these holes, then we are using WP:SYNTHESIS. Until we get to a point where we do not need any original research (including SYNTH of existing sources) to explain what "defund" means, there is simply not enough WIEGHT to include this in the lead. -"GhostofDan Gurney"05:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Important wording edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The section under "immigration" states that Pierre Poilievre wants to "increase" waiting times for immigration. It it clear from both the cited source and the context that the intended meaning is "decrease". This is an urgent edit as people are looking at this page more often, consistent with his new position as leader of the opposition 50.93.167.71 (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Scheer and O'Toole had their policies in their leads too, so why can't we do the same for Pierre? I'm fine with removing the CBC part. Ak-eater06 (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Oppose - My concerns addressed above and in my initial edit summary have not been addressed in the slightest. There is even worse sourcing elaborating on the "pay-as-you-go" policy than there is on the "defund" the CBC position. These both seem to me to be nothing more than catchphrases at the moment. Until elaboration comes out in reliable sources this proposal doesn't meet WP:WEIGHT or WP:PROMO. Any mention of Scheer or O'Toole in this discussion is purely WP:OTHERSTUFF; also note the key word "had". -"GhostofDan Gurney"15:34, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay. Wonderful. You still have not addressed how this proposal adds anything more than minor aspects of this subject to the highly visible lead section of the article. Please keep in mind that WP:WEIGHT says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject.-"GhostofDan Gurney"15:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
User:GhostOfDanGurney pay-as-you-go seemed to be one of the core promises of his platform; this is so far his only proposal to eliminate the deficit, which is why I feel it is notable.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In the text, it says "In 2012, Poilievre advocated for a bill that would making paying union dues optional". I believe making should be changed to make. 207.253.144.40 (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Broken link
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I don't disagree with any of this. Without the full context (and honestly, I can see arguments being made even with full context), there is zero point in including this content about James Topp; it would be best suited in an article on Mr. Topp. I'm not entirely convinced that it adds anything substantial to the article. There are plenty of sources describing this subject's opposition to mandates, without being a potential WP:COATRACK to promote Topp. -"GhostofDan Gurney"02:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd favour removing references to Mr Topp since I expect Mr Poilievre has met and even walked with dozens of people in his life. This would mean removing "Poilievre demonstrated his support for army reservist James Topp's anti-mandate protest walk from Vancouver to their planned Canada Day freedom protest on Parliament Hill, by joining Topp, Paul Alexander, Tom Marazzo, a self-declared spokesperson for the convoy protests and an ex-military officer,[162] on June 30, 2022, in the final stage of Topp's march in the west end of Ottawa.[163][164]". As for Global News, if they really did smear then retract, it's unfortunate but not appropriate for this article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion
Multiple outlets are reporting on Global's report of PP tagging his YouTube videos to appeal to the MGTOW community including CTV, CBC, and even an opinion piece on the (increasingly right-wing biased) National Post. I feel this is important enough to include in the article, however I would like to seek other opinions before I BOLDly add it in. Namely, would this be best in the section on his leadership, or somewhere else? -"GhostofDan Gurney"13:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I also haven't seen what PG hasn't seen. Still GoDG's right, I think, that a brief mention of the controversy is warranted. It's important that we be clear using language like "Videos posted by Poilievre's official YouTube account were tagged with ..." or something similar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
If it is to be included, it should be in the "Opposition leader (2022–present)" section, as the political positions section is only for policy or policy-related positions. LemonberryPie (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I see that LemonberryPie added and Ak-eater06 reverted. The added sentences used the word "claimed" (but see WP:CLAIM) and contained labeled "MGTOW" (but I worry that's a misquote since I read that the tag was actually "#mgtow") and were not brief (I define brief as 0 to 1 sentence though would go along with other definitions). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
We cannot limit it to 1 sentence brief, we would need to include the full context in a BLP. That includes the Poilievre team's explanation and the response from Poilievre himself. The wording of "claim" and inclusion of the "#" can be fixed as you suggest. But we either include the full context of the controversy, or leave the whole thing out altogether. LemonberryPie (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I feel your version puts too much WP:WEIGHT on the Poilievre team's response; while including that he supposedly didn't know about it and condemned them is warranted and required per WP:NPOV, a full quote is not, especially since it's only a condemnation of the community and not an actual apology for the existence of the tags, as sources are saying has been called upon. -"GhostofDan Gurney"19:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
LemonberryPie: I didn't mean that adding "#" would fix, it was also upper case and in a link -- see MOS:SIC and MOS:LINKQUOTE. And I favour "leave the whole thing out" if it can't be what I call brief, but as I said I will go along with others. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure one sentence is realistic, but here's a shorter two-sentence proposal:
Between 2018 and 2022, Poilievre's team-managed YouTube channel posted hundreds videos with a hidden tag labeled "MGTOW", referencing the misogynistic online community.[1] Poilievre condemned MGTOW and said he was unaware of the tags.[1]
The removal by Sportsfan 1234 had the summary "Not needed and WP:BLP violation". Re: "Not needed", there is consensus directly above that the content should be included, so a discussion is needed to change that consensus (see also WP:BRD). Re: BLP - the content is well-sourced, meeting WP:BLPRS. Disagreeing with both points, I reverted the removal. I encourage Sportsfan 1234 and the IP to join the discussion here in order to gain consensus for their edits. -M.nelson (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
I seem to have broken the campaign/family thumbnail.
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It is found in this section. I was cropping the photo for the Anaida Poilievre article and I accidentally overrode the original photo. I undid this, but the thumbnail now shows a photo of only her. Also it is distorted. If anyone knows how to fix this please do. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Photo Again
Latest comment: 2 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion
New photo (2022)Existing photo (2014)
Is there a reason we are not using this photo? The one we are using here and site wide is extremely old. Surely, it is time to move on to something more recent. I note there have been a number of photos rejected, or removed due to copyright issues. A quick review of this one seems to show it is clean. It appears to have been taken at a rally. I did a reverse image search and do not see any uses that pre-date it being uploaded to the commons. Admittedly, he is squinting a bit in it, but isn't that better than using the current baby-face photo?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Support - The recency, colour balance, and angle of this photo are significant improvements over to the existing one (added for reference). -M.nelson (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Oppose all uses until we are certain that this is indeed an original photo taken by the uploader, including the places where it has been BOLDly added already. "It's old" is poor as a sole rationale for these repeated attempts to change from the old one, which remains fine in light of the history of copyvios recently. - "Ghost of Dan Gurney"(c/t)00:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree that we need to be careful about the copyright angle but as noted, Wikipageedittor099 posted it as their own work. I have also done some of my own due diligence. As far as I can tell it wasn't posted online prior to being posted to the commons. I encourage others to check for themselves if they have concerns. I hope Wikipageedittor099 can confirm that for us, but I don't think we should be interrogating them about when and where they took the photo. Editors are entitled to a bit of anonymity, though I note their user page indicates the province where they are based. I don't think it follows that because some other photos suggested were removed for copyright issues that we should stop trying to find a better photo. Anyway, I take your point about "new" not necessarily being "better". While I tend to think this is a better photo overall, I would disagree that age of the photo is an unimportant consideration. For the articles focused on 2022 topics (or those in the future) using an eight year old photo is more problematic. Those articles are about a period in time, and thus there is more value in the photos being contemporary to the period the article is about (or as close as possible).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Understood. The existing photo (2014) is in the commons. The question was raised about the new photo (2022) though, so I don't think this resolves anything for us.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
University of Calgary - 3 conservative political clubs
Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was with Pierre at the University of Calgary and a member of both the Reform / Canadian Alliance club and the PC Alliance (provincial Progressive Conservative club). There was also a Progressive Conservative Party of Canada club which I presume is what Brown led. This article sourced does not say they were one club but the line "Poilievre was president of the Young Tories at the University of Calgary, a club composed of both Progressive Conservative and Reform members" seems to imply only one club. I corrected this, but I wish I had a great external source. (Note: I edit this non-anonymously and could hopefully publish this in reliable source later.) >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 00:25, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
non notable family members given name removed
Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I've never been a fan of non-notable family names used unless it is relevant to specific context in the article. I've never looked it up, but does the MoS say anything specific about this? I'd hate to see a bunch of reverting if the MoS is clear about it. Masterhatch (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for removing this. Omitting the name of minor children appears to be supported by WP:BLPNAME and the footnote there that says This is generally interpreted by the community to include the removal of names of non-notable minors from articles about their notable family members.. I note we include the first names of Stephen Harper's children, but I believe they are both adults now. I think we included them before they were adults though. For Justin Trudeau's children we have included their first/preferred names only (despite them being minors). If we are going to include the name of Poilievre's child(ren), I think using only the first name is appropriate. Using their full legal name(s) seems unnecessary, undue and inappropriate. What their first/preferred name is should be determined by coverage in WP:RS.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
is better in my opinion. The newer proposal File:Pierre-Poilievre.png is better for vibrant colours, whereas the other looks more washed-out. But the newer proposal distracts focus with some shadows on the subject, and a busy background of books, whereas the status quo photo frames the subject nicely and concisely. My two cents. I don't know if there's a different spot in the article for the other; they illustrate the same thing, one just more concisely than the other. signed, Willondon (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.Fbifriday (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Not done: The point being made is that Poilievre declared his leadership ambitions with "I'm running for Prime Minister"; to "run for Prime Minister" first requires him to run for the party leadership, but he left that part unstated and implicit in his announcement. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
Done - Photo was updated in the article following this discussion -M.nelson (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
06:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
