Talk:2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

How do we separate the Angus Reid poll for CPC voters

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)

Does the CPC's website count as a good source in this case?

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

Should endorsements be listed under their most recent office, or under all offices?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Former candidate endorsements

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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)

Endorsement box formatting

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) Not separated by a space. TrailBlzr (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"Declined" could stand to be reigned in

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Lists of people who might run, but are not declared

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)

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)

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)

Should we mention the coronavirus?

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)

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

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

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)

Liberal bias

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What some conservative voters believe is irrelevant. Our job is not to write an encyclopedia that caters to what those voters wish was true. Same-sex marriage and abortion rights are things whether they like it or not and MacKay's positions are his positions whether they like it or not. If you are suggesting we not include that you are advancing a WP:POV which is not something we are to do.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

There is some truth in what you say, but you are being simplistic. I could just as well say that sexual perversion (the offensive behaviour you attempt to dignify through "same-sex marriage") and murder of pre-born children (the evil you refer to as "abortion rights") are evils whether you glorify them or not. God is a higher authority than you whether you believe in Him or not. I realize that Wikipedia, at least this part of it, has an atheist bias. In this article's context, that's a Liberal bias that's difficult for me to do anything about. Life is religion, and a neutral point of view is impossible. Contributor10000000 (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you proposing we refer to Mackay's positions as "pro-sexual perversion" and "pro-murder of pre-born children"? If so, I think we are done here. If not, you have still not proposed anything, and I think we are done here. I am not here to have a philosophical debabte. As editors our job is to try to build a better encyclopedia, not to debate the meaning of life or difficult (or not so difficult) moral issues.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

I am asking, first of all, for honesty and courtesy. Before you respond in outrage--remember that simply disagreeing is not enough--explain why "pro-choice" is more neutral than "pro-marriage". How much choice is given to the pre-born child? And if you reply that such a little child can't choose, then I will retort that two men (or, if you like, two women) can't marry. To use your own language, "same-sex marriage" is patently ridiculous. Contributor10000000 (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, what proposal specifically are you making for the article? What wording are you proposing? You have been focusing on what other editors beliefs are. That is ad hominem behaviour, and completely irrelevant to how we improve the article. It is also not assuming good faith of the other editors here, and frankly disruptive. If you want to discuss specific wording and have an actual proposal, I am happy to discuss otherwise I do not plan to respond further.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

How about you read what I write and respond honestly? You yourself are guilty of the same behaviour of which you accuse me. I can take your previous comment and direct it at you instead. After all, you completed ignored my small proposal in my comment which preceded yours.Contributor10000000 (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Contributor10000000 edits, ANI

This appears to have gotten out of hand. I was going to revert the latest edit by Contributor, but did not want to be offside of WP:3RR. I believe this needs to be addressed now before it gets further out of hand. As such, I have raised this at ANI here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion now moved here. - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to complete this thread, User:Contributor10000000 has been indef blocked, along with six socks. - Ahunt (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Archives broken

Renaming the article seems to have broken the link to the archives. In fairness, I am not sure the article needed to change while the date is TBA, we do not have any reason yet to think it will not be reset in 2020, do we?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, I fixed the archives. I think.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, this should not have been unilaterally moved without a discussion and a consensus achieved, as this was obviously going to be contentious. Even though the date is now not fixed there is almost zero chance that it will not occur at some point in 2020, even if the party has to do a mail-in convention. Rather than fix the archives, I think it should be moved back to the previous title and a discussion started. - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request - MacKay endorsements update

Member of Parliament Michael Cooper endorse Peter MacKay but is not listed( https://twitter.com/Cooper4SAE/status/1235236031483375616 ) A source for Chris d'Entremont's endorsement is: https://twitter.com/CdEntremontMP/status/1237796516456169475 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnackTimeRules (talk • contribs)

Thanks for noting that,  Done - Ahunt (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is it called "Next" ? Why not just 2020? In USA they have "2020 Democratic Primary", "2016 Republican Primary" etc. This looks so strange !!

Dr. Universe (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Because unlike in the US, Canadian leadership elections do not happen on fixed intervals but at the party's discretion. While the leadership race was scheduled for 2020, it has since been indefinitely delayed and there's no guarantee it will still take place in 2020— nothing would stop it taking place in 2021. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Ahunt and I questioned whether that move was required at the time. In all likelihood it will be rescheduled in 2020, but yes, you are correct that there is no requirement that it is (unless there is something in the Conservative Party of Canada constitution that I am unaware of.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree it was an entirely unnecessary move (it is very unlikely it will not occur in 2020), but it is technically correct here so I think we may as well leave it for the time being, rather than go back and forth over the name. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. We will have to change it once more when a new date is set. I am happy to leave it with this title until, that is announced.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, It's the best thing to do honestly. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Since we now have a date for this election we can now move it back to the previous title. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Dereksloan2110.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Dereksloan2110 (cropped).jpg
• Dereksloan2110.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

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

• Dereksloan2110 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

COI edits

We have recently had a large number of edits by a new editor with a very obvious conflict of interest, promoting MacKay and denigrating the other candidates. I have gone through all their edits and refactored them where required, but it would be helpful if other editors would double-check my work to make sure it has all been properly addressed as per WP:POV. I have also warned the editor in question on their talk page about COI. - Ahunt (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Even after being warned twice this editor is plowing ahead with WP:COI WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK additions to promote his candidate. I have asked an admin to assess the situation, since this is taking up too much time to fix. - Ahunt (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I understand that my edits may have been seen as biased and I misinterpreted/misunderstood some of the things said on the citations. I apologize for doing that. I did not intend to mislead readers or cause any harm at all. Moving forward I will read the Wikipedia Editing Rules more careful and I will thoroughly check my edits with the rules before publishing. I do not work for any campaign office of any of the candidates in the 2020 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election. Again, I apologize for my edits and previous mistakes. Editorinchief1999 (talk) 06:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Note that the editor in question has been blocked by an admin for six months for disruptive editing. - Ahunt (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Note to User:Editorinchief1999 - you can still suggest changes that you think should be made to the article here on the talk page and they will be assessed by neutral editors as to whether they should be incorporated or not. - Ahunt (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

New MacKay Photo to be deleted

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

• Screen Shot.jpg.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Photo nominated for deletion
  Photo nominated for deletion
• 
  The old photo from 2012

I have restored this to the old photo of MacKay (on the right), as this "screen shot" image on the left is likely to be erased. The old photo is from 2012, so if there is a newer photo of MacKay in the Commons that would be ideal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a new photo and that is the one on the left. Peter MacKay used it on his Facebook profile page. It was taken in 2020, it is the latest photo of him. I don't think the photo on the left should be removed since it is the most up to date photo of him. Coolaid1965 (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but if it's from his facebook page someone likely owns the copyright to it. Perhaps, he does, a campaign worker, the photographer. On the WikiCommons someone nominated the photo on the left for deletion. Unless that is challenged, and the photo is shown to be in the Commons, it is going to be deleted. So we need a photo someone has taken themselves or is already in the commons for some reason. As noted above, unfortunately taking photos from the government of Canada (eg House of Commons website) doesn't work either because we have Crown copyright in Canada.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Derek Sloan image.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The picture of Derek Sloan was screen shotted from the House of Commons page. The link is here: https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/derek-sloan(105178). Coolaid1965 (talk) 00:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't help talking to bots like that, but yes, that is a clear copyright violation, which is why I nominated it for deletion. It is under Crown copyright and you tried to release it under a free licence - no can do. See the image page for the links and details. - Ahunt (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

"Tight" election rules

Is it neutral for us to be suggesting that the rules were too "tight" (ie strict, excessive) here and here? I tend to think we should steer clear of suggesting any opinion on the rules in our voice, even if saying the rules are "tight" is a more concise headline. Wouldn't just be better to note the specific rules the candidates pointed to in their statements (ie entrance fee, signatures needed, etc). Readers are then better informed and free to make up their own mind. FYI - a similar discussion is happening at the GPC leadership page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I have taken a stab at improving this. Not sure if including Aron Seal's allegation that the process was "designed to keep outsider candidates out" is WP:UNDUE or not. Happy for input on that point.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is undue, since it is attributed to him and in quotation marks. - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Many candidates and political commentators have offered their opinion that the huge entry fee was purposely put in place to prevent certain candidates, most likely social conservatives, from running and 'embarrassing' the party or to just give MacKay an easy win. This should be mentioned as long as it is clearly identified as an opinion since we don't know for sure what the LEOC's rationale was.74.127.203.142 (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)TS

Jim Karahalios disqualified again

See https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/a-day-after-court-setback-conservative-party-again-disqualifies-jim-karahalios-from-leadership-race and https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/karahalios-out-for-second-time-leadership-1.5579498 - Ahunt (talk) 01:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, then he should be removed from the infobox, and placed under a disqualified candidates sub-heading again.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

His disqualification should be explained in greater detail, and the court ruling reinstating him is available on Google Drive and his website (and it was sent out in a campaign email) which clearly explains the judge's decision without having to infer what might have happened from the media or communications from the party or Jim himself.74.127.203.142 (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)TS

Put number of endorsements in parentheses

I recommend putting the total number of endorsements for each category (MP, Senator, etc.) in parentheses in order to provide a quick comparison. For example, MacKay has 39 MP endorsements compared to O'Toole's 32. This is very valuable information that should be faster to obtain without having to manually count every single endorsement. The two frontrunner candidates have too many endorsements to keep track of, so counts like these would be very helpful to the reader and for people like me who are checking in every few days to see if there have been any changes. 74.127.203.142 (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)TS

Agreed. This was done on the previous leadership race's page. It will make the information more clear.( Humberland (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC) )

I think it is fine to do it for each category like it is done here, but I wouldn't do an overall total (only for each category). Endorsements are more about quality and prominence of the individual making the endorsement than quantity of them anyway.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, we don't want to count individuals twice - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

For each category is what I had in mind. But this is particularly important for MPs because caucus support is crucial in a leadership contest, and often (but not always) caucus support is an indication of which candidate will eventually win. The fact that MacKay and O'Toole are essentially tied right now demonstrates that they are clearly the two frontrunners and that this is a very close race. Similarly, the fact that Sloan has zero caucus endorsements suggests that he is in fourth place right now and that there would be serious internal issues within caucus if he were to somehow win.74.127.203.142 (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)TS

Infobox Colours

Aren't O'Toole's and Sloan's colours too close together? I get that we want to emulate their logos but we also want to be able to clearly tell things apart on a map. Giving everyone but MacKay a shade of blue isn't great.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

This edit seem to make my comment irrelevant. But I would recommend folks discuss the colours, so we can settle on ones that are distinct from eachother, easy to identify on a map, and where possible emulate the campaigns logos. I also tend to think it is best not to give anyone blue (as that is the party's colour).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Darryl Kerrigan, I think it's best to have colors that are not darker shades of another (eg. light blue and dark blue or gray and black), since we will need different shades of each infobox color for the map.

So, something like red, orange, green and blue could work. MikkelJSmith (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. I think the "old" scheme we had (which used green, purple, red and yellow) is much superior to the current one. Humberland's objection is that Colours of candidates should approximately match the colors of their campaign logos and branding. Should not be random., but the precedent is exactly the opposite: peek at the 2017 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election and you'll see Scheer in green and Bernier in purple, despite neither campaigning with those colours; the 2004 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election also has green, navy blue and cyan for Harper, Stronach and Clement (respectively), and while I am not sure what their campaign logos were like I doubt they're accurate reflections. American primaries often (but not always) use campaign logos as a basis, but American politics also have the benefit of a much wider range of colours; if we apply the same rule here, then everyone is a shade of blue and it becomes virtually impossible to distinguish between them— yeah, the three blues in the infobox are fine, but what about when they get put on a map, in darker or lighter shades to chart higher or lower percentages? Like MikkelJSmith says above, it is in the interestp of readability to give the candidates distinct colours, even if it results in something arbitrary. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually, Bernier used purple earlier in his campaign, which is why purple was selected. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Touché; I did some quick googling but couldn't find anything suggesting a colour one way or the other, but clearly I didn't look hard enough. Still, I assume Bernier was the only one using that colour, so it neatly aligned for our purposes; in this race, though, all four candidates are using blue, and three of them (Lewis excepted) augment it with red, so we really do have to be arbitrary here. (Not that I think you're suggesting otherwise; just putting it out there). — Kawnhr (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

The second objection I have is that, because blue is the colour of conservatism, the different shades can be taken to suggest a candidate is more or less conservative— or not conservative at all, if some candidates don't have blue. By avoiding the colour blue altogether we can avoid making any accidental commentary. (This is also why I changed Merner from GPC Green to a generic red over on 2020 Green Party of Canada leadership election, so as not to suggest he's the "true green" in the race and the others are outsiders). — Kawnhr (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree Kawnhr and MikkelJSmith2 distinct colours are the way to go. I am not a fan of the current all shades of blue scheme. I agree we should try to avoid blue, we should also be careful of using Liberal Red, if possible, although that one is less of a problem because it is also the colour of the flag. Green, Yellow, Purple, Orange, Pink, Teal are all good options.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 05:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Going through Shades of color templates, here's some shades that I consider fairly neutral:               Not the end-all-be-all but maybe a starting point. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Kawnhr, I think red, yellow, green and blue are good options. They are distinct enough to work.

P.S. I honestly should be more active on Wikipedia. It helps calm my stress. I just have ended being a lurker, since most changes I want to do are usually already done.

I probably need to go check if the new PSG senate numbers are accurate across each page (they're almost a caucus now). I don't know if you remember that debate Kawnhr, but we did well to keep them listed when they weren't a caucus back in February. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

MikkelJSmith2 Yeah, RGBY is probably the way to go. The only other concern I have is that MacKay and O'Toole's colours should be as distinct as possible (ie: if one uses blue, the other shouldn't be green; or if one uses red, the other shouldn't be yellow), since, as the frontrunners, they're going to be the ones filling up the map and we want that to be readable at a glance. (And yeah— very good thing we kept the PSG listed!) — Kawnhr (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It's been a week and, while there hasn't been much discussion, those who have commented are in agreement that we should use a scheme of arbitrary colouration instead of varying shades of blue. So I went ahead and restored the old scheme (albeit with the shades I suggested above, because I didn't want to dig for the old hex codes). Any further discussion or concerns can be raised here. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Good choice of colours as they are distinct from the colours associated with major Canadian political parties. ( Humberland (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC) )

Although I'm sure there was no political intention with the selection of colours, perhaps O'Toole's colour should be changed to something other than red given that he has been accused of being a "red Tory" in disguise. Perhaps red should just be avoided altogether for each of the candidates. There are lots of colours to choose from. 74.127.203.142 (talk) 12:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)TS

I did try to avoid a shade of red that could be easily construed as Liberal, socialist or "Canadian" (ie: national colours), but I concede that it may still not be enough. Do you think it would be sufficient to simply swap O'Toole's colour with Sloan? Or should it be replaced with something more brown, like russet  ? — Kawnhr (talk) 18:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I would vote for brown over red. 74.127.203.142 (talk) 12:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)TS

Add a "controversies" section?

There has been so much controversy by this point that it's hard to keep track of. It might be useful add an entire section explaining some of the controversies. These might include: CPC members are concerned that the LEOC and its unelected members should not be in charge of organizing this contest; allegations that strict rules were put in place to coronate Peter MacKay (and some say O'Toole as well); Richard Decarrie's comments about how being gay is a choice and subsequent disqualification (which apparently had nothing to do with the gay comments); controversy over the timeline of the contest and whether it should be expediated or delayed due to covid-19; Derek Sloan's comments about Dr. Tam and the rumours that many Ontario CPC caucus members tried to expel him from caucus; the Karahalios disqualification, reinstatement, and second disqualification. There are probably others that I am forgetting. 74.127.203.142 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)TS

Need refs to make this case. I am not sure all are documented anywhere. - Ahunt (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Generally, we are supposed to avoid controversy sections. When possible it is better to incorporate these sorts of things into another part of the article (ie timeline, or prose etc).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a dedicated "Controversies" section would be undue (and likely attract the wrong sort of attention), but enough has happened in this race that I think it could support a dedicated, prose "History" section. It could cover the background, the impact of COVID-19, everything with Decarrie and Karahalios, and so on. — Kawnhr (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Kawnhr, I think a history section would work. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Endorsements map

MP endorsements of candidates

An editor has made up the map seen here and added it to the article. It was obviously a lot of work to make up, but I am not convinced that it adds anything to the article of value and in fact, due to the huge variance in the geographical size of the ridings, it may be more confusing than useful. Furthermore the map is inaccurate. For instance it shows a sitting MP endorsing Sloan, when none have. What are readers supposed to learn from this? - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe that's Sloan's riding. It would be weird if he didn't endorse himself! ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, I think it's useful to see if there are any regional trends for endorsements. E.g., it's interesting to see that three rural Saskatchewan MPs have endorsed Lewis.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually the three in SK are about the only trend seen there. The rest of the map shows really almost no trends at all. Is it worth having a map to show that? - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

It is an interesting map, and I don't want to denigrate the hard work of an editor, but I don't see it offering much value. Canadian leadership elections don't work like UK or Australian ones where caucus support is a key component of the procedure, in Canada it's the same as any other endorsement; mapping these is thus showing only a subset of all total endorsements (the most common and arguably the most important, but still something of no explicit value) and is potentially skewing how much support a candidate has or does not have. I would leave it out. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree, it is misleading for several reasons, including that MP support is not necessary a determining metric, but also because riding size makes it look like some candidates have the support of half of a province, when it is just one large riding with low population density. I think it should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Me too I think the map should be removed too. Editorinchief1999 (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

If the caucus endorsements map is used, it has to be updated consistently because each candidate could receive a new endorsement from the caucus on any day within the leadership race. What about an endorsement map for Senators who endorses one of the leadership race candidates? If a Senate endorsement map is created, that will also have to be updated consistently if a Senator endorses a leadership race candidate. Youhunt (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)