Talk:Libertarian Party of New Brunswick

Restoration

Restored the deleted quotes from candidates which were labelled "Puffery", they were entirely quotes that appeared in mainstream media articles about the candidates explaining their positions - each was short and succinct - a single sentence, none were drawn from self-published or Libertarian outlets. There were six sentences about six candidates, out of eighteen, that had attracted media attention for their statements. PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 15:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@PonceDeLeonTheLesser Please see WP:COATRACK. This article should be about the party, not about what several non-notable candidates believe in. I recommend reading through Wikipedia's content/MoS guidelines before making further changes. B3251_(talk) 20:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea which candidates you believe are "notable" vs "not notable", I'm using the unbiased metric of quoting the ones that CBC News, CTV and others quote. Do you have a differing standard for which candidates' are "notable" in the party? I recommend not coming to a political party's page literally on the election day to remove vast swaths when you've shown zero interest in it previously. Then revert-warring when corrected and shown that there are zero quotes attributed to self-published or Libertarian outlets, and there is in fact neutrality throughout the article. Throwing warnings on it is just retributive, and I've already clarified I am not a member of the party I just take a keen interest in it.

Reviewing Wellington's edits, it is clear that he is adding his own editorial comments such as contrasting it against the PANB results unfavourable, when the sources he gives offer no such comparison and are simply data. Simmilarly WP:RS gives no reason not to accept a quotation from the UNB Newspaper, since it is not supporting anything contentious or disputed or about itself so I've restored that.

I've agreed with his edits to remove words like "fledgling", though I believe the TJ article does say the party formed following the presence of the federal counterpart in the province - it may be an issue of the editor not having a subscription or using a paywall-remover. Nevertheless I left it removed as it's not a major issue.

Since no reason is given for removing the sentence referencing Kristen Mitchell apparently dismissing her as a "non-notable" candidate, I've restored that as well as it again passes WP:RS since none of the claims are in contention or controversial.

None of the other political parties have "placement in riding" fields in their list of candidates and it again appears to be a partisan attempt to sell a narrative by an editor, not supported in any media source. If it's referenced by the media, we can insert it - until then I think it should be removed but haven't done so myself.

As there is no dispute over the validity of the statements in the article, and I've made it consistently clear I am legitimately not a member of the party nor qualified to vote for them or anything and simply taking a keen interest in them there's no cause to be disrupting the article with the other warning tags as well.

I'm confused by the justification "not needed" and deleting the sources from reputable media sources confirming which candidates are running in which ridings; without them it would be easy in five years for someone to go insert a false name in there and nobody would ever go back and check actual primary data sources to confirm/deny it. Citations seem advisable.

I've left the edits adding the sortable feature and data results. PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@PonceDeLeonTheLesser Notability is defined in WP:Notability (people). Personal beliefs of several candidates for a minor political party is not relevant for the article about the political party, that is called coatracking. The individuals are not notable because they are not part of the legislature, and thus do not fit notability standards to have standalone articles on Wikipedia. B3251_(talk) 03:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

None of them appear to be "personal beliefs", if one of the candidates believed their cousin was having an affair, or believed they'd been abducted by aliens thirty years ago, or believed the moon landing was fake that would likely be coatracking a weird personal belief where it's not relevant. Where the statements are from answers given in political debates that are reported on, including their comments making headlines, by the media - then it seems notable. PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

If you look at other articles on political parties none of them, to my knowledge, give a breakdown of the views of multiple individual candidates. What individual candidates say would be relevant in articles about the candidate's themselves but shoehorning multiple quotes from candidates into an article about a political party is just promotional filler. Wellington Bay (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You have reincluded the following: "The Baron's election guide listed the Libertarian Party as "radically different...as they believe in a form of government that holds limited power, especially over one’s wallet, body, and mind, meaning the government should hold the most power on a local level. To them, taxation is akin to armed robbery as money is procured from citizens with the threat of state violence. They believe that the question of abortion should be dictated by communities rather than the state, that self-defense is a right and that the definitions surrounding reasonable force should be expanded"."

The Baron appears to be a student newspaper, and an unofficial one at that, and does not qualify as a reliable source under WP:RS. Wellington Bay (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe it's the University Press newspaper isn't it? Either way, WP:RS does not give any reason it cannot be used as a source for a non-contentious quote about a subject that is not in dispute and does not name any living person; the same policies are found on the Libertarian Party website but in this case can be attributed to a third-party publication newspaper who summarised them in their own words instead of relying on a primary source which seems preferable. Are you suggesting some part of the statement is in dispute or false? PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Student newspapers are certainly not considered high quality sources. It's one thing to cite them when one is writing about campus events but another to use them to justify a lengthy quote in an article about a political party. Wellington Bay (talk)

WP:RS doesn't suggest it needs to be a certain quality of "high quality" for a newspaper, for the nature of what it's stating, which is just a summary of the party's positions. There's no dispute about the factuality or neutrality, so there's no reason it can't stand as the fastest summary of the party's position on those matters...if there's a different Election Guide with a different write-up, we can mash the two together but until that appears this is what exists. PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 03:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

How do you justify a quotation of that length from an insignificant source? This is not a promotional article. Wellington Bay (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Wellington Bay I really don't know what to do with this editor. I brought up a similar point two months ago which led to a discussion which I never received a response from, and given that this user almost entirely makes edits seemingly promoting the NB Libertarian party, this has major COI/Fan POV issues that, when I try to address, just get reverted. B3251_(talk) 03:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@User:B3251 You can raise his behaviour at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Wellington Bay (talk) 04:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That's obviously a bad-faith characterization since I'm more than transparent and cooperative on the talk page and edit summaries with other editors, you don't just get reverted, some changes are accepted, some are not - you seem to be hurt by that. PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 04:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

PonceDeLeonTheLesser, I made attempts to explain to you that the unnecessary inclusion of quotes, beliefs, or other irrelevant information about non-notable candidates of this party to the article about the party itself is not relevant to the party article and falls under WP:COATRACK. See the first sentence: A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects. B3251_(talk) 04:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

...And you've added it back again. For the I don't know how many times I've told you now, this is objectively WP:COATRACKING. I once again urge you to consider reading Wikipedia:Coatrack articles because anybody who has would easily consider this to be a case of coatracking. B3251_(talk) 04:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I've read the article, again it says tangential subjects shouldn't distract from the main subject; it does not reference personal lives of the candidates or secondary characteristics - it gives mainstream media quotations of the subjects on the Libertarian Party's platform on which they are running. Most political party articles have this much, or more, under subheadings "Views on LGBT", "Views on Climate Change", "Platform on School Choice", "Platform on the RCMP", etc...this is a much shorter version just listing those ones which drew attention from the media as relevant to their campaigns/elections. PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

You reinstated the quotations claiming "no consensus to remove". In fact, there is a 2:1 consensus to remove. Wellington Bay (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There were eight parties in the election, the Libertarian Party finished 6th - reverted the edit to change "sixth" to "last place". Election-day shenanighans seemingly abound. PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Added additional clarification that they placed last in every single riding which they had candidates and were unsuccessful in winning even a single seat! Ps5715 (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Has a Libertarian ever won a single seat in Canada in any election in history? Not of which I'm aware - anyways, the cited sources do not include this editorialism so I've reverted it (again), and it's already clear in the infobox that there are zero seats (as one would presume will always be the case?) PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Stating that a party placed last in every riding they contested is not "editorialism", it is factual and supported by the cited source. If you think it significant to note that they ran more candidates than the People's Party, it is also significant to note that they won fewer votes, overall than the People's Party. Making the point you made without the added information about the overall result would be a lack of balance and an example of cherry picking in order to put the party in the best light, rather than give a balanced and neutral assessment. This is not a promotional article despite the fact that it appears to have been originally written as one. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

If the comparison is not made in the media, then it is editorialism to add it yourself simply because you feel the media "should" have made the disparaging comment. The statement about Libertarians running more candidates than PANB *IS* is the media story cited, whereas the info you want to add is "your own". ie, editorialism. PonceDeLeonTheLesser (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest Policy[1] could you please disclose whether or not you are affiliated with the Libertarian Party? Wellington Bay (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The original wording misleads readers to believe that the NB libertarian party had any success or was ahead of any other party. This is not the case. I have reverted it back for clarity. It is also clear in the info box that they won 0.5% of the vote. The 6th place ranking is a subjective figure and stating last place in each riding is more informative. Ps5715 (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)