Talk:2025 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election

Declined candidates

I see Marc Miller and Mark Gerretsen are listed as having "declined" even though they were never listed as potential candidates. Are there any sources (prior to their declarations of non-candidacy) for either of them having been considered potential candidates? If not I think they should be removed and the list in future confined to individuals who were credibly sourced as potential candidates who subsequently declined or failed to run. Wellington Bay (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Miller pretty much declined immediately. NatPo did list him as potential last year, so he's probably fine.[1] Gerretsen is a Liberal MP, part of the House leadership team, a previous Parl Sec, and appears to have been asked about it by a RS. I don't think Frank Baylis, who did not attain those heights as an MP, was seriously touted as a potential successor before he started saying he was considering running. We should remove obvious non-starters like the recent addition of Conservative strategist Fred DeLorey's obvious joke. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, Gerretsen should be removed, he was never touted as a potential candidate, in fact I've never heard of him before this. He wasn't even asked about his candidacy, just about who he endorsed. I also think Gallant should be removed, he also was never touted as a potential candidate. I don't know what his citation included, but I can no longer access the article. LoganP25 (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Gerretsen was the subject of an insulting Twitter campaign to nomination him as what they considered the weakest possible candidate; he eventually responded with this tweet. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

All the more reason not to list him. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess so. Maybe put him in hidden text in case somebody isn't familiar with the situation and tries to add him later? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Non-MPs

Given the winner will become Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister must be an MP, why are people who aren't MPs in the running? Tompw (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Legally speaking, the prime minister doesn't need to be an MP. Convention holds they do, so what this means is that someone from outside the House of Commons can run for the leadership, win, and then run for a seat in a by-election (or the general if it's that close). This is actually fairly common in Canadian leadership races. — Kawnhr (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

John Turner wasn't an MP when he was Prime Minister. By convention one doesn't have to be an MP to be PM or a cabinet minister but one is expected to get a seat in parliament within a reasonable period of time. Wellington Bay (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

A first minister can even lose their seat and stay in the job. That happened to McKenzie King in 1945, and more recently at provincial level to Christy Clark in 2013. Milton Chan (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Opinion polling

Is there no available data on Chandra Arya? 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:C9FD:FE93:EDF1:DFFA (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

He's not a serious candidate. Once they add his name to the polling list I doubt he'll be more than 1 or 2%. Frankly, I doubt he'll be able to pay the registration fee. Wellington Bay (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

As much as I might agree If his is paying $350,000 he deserves fair treatment and a non partisan opinion even if he is the long shot. The problem with candidates like this is they don’t have the power or the corporate backing. At least the internet can be non partisan and give him a fighting chance. It’s is unfair to discredit him simply on our opinion 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:C9FD:FE93:EDF1:DFFA (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

He hasn't paid $350,000 yet. There have been no polls since he declared and there was no reason to include him in polling before he declared as no one had named him as a potential candidate. Wellington Bay (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Would It be beyond the realm of possibility to add him at the end with no information listed until further updates so information can be easily added, as well as matching the poling section to the list of current candidates. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:C9FD:FE93:EDF1:DFFA (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Not unless he polls more than 5% in at least one poll. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

He’s currently polling at 1% af of newly released leger polls https://leger360.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Leger-Trudeaus-Leadership-1.pdf

I don’t believe a arbitrary standard of 5% to be fair. As someone who actually thinks he has the best platform for the liberal party I feel again he should at least get equal representation and asking for him to appear in the polls which takes a experienced editor a few seconds doesn’t seem far fetched. 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:31A9:4686:AABD:935C (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If you look at other polling charts from other Canadian leadership elections you'll see 5% has been our threshold for years. Otherwise the chart becomes too wide for many screens to display comfortably. Wellington Bay (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, frankly, whether someone has their own column in a Wikipedia polling chart or is listed in the "other" column will make no difference to their prospects in the leadership election. If a campaign is worried about whether or not they have a separate column then they've already lost. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Infobox for the Candidates

I am wondering if the formatting for the declared candidates in this race should follow the infobox format used in the 2025 Quebec Liberal Party Leadership Race? Please let me know your thoughts. Hiyournameis (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• I would support this, the previous format used in for federal leaderships races in Canada has always appeared to me hard to read and grasp critical information. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 07:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

• Yes I also think this would be a good idea. Looks much cleaner and more understandable for regular people. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• I would also support this or another similar model as this current one is tough to read and dates back to the OG days of Wikipedia. Words in the Wind(talk) 21:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I support this since, to me, it looks much nicer and cleaner than the format with only text. I think the policies should be moved into their own section separate section, away from the candidates section, since the table could become really long, like in the 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election page, which would make it discomfortable to read the table Punker85 (talk) 00:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Replacing the previous entries with the infobox means all information about candidate policies has been removed rendering the page prettier, but less useful. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd rather we avoid using images 'here', at the 2025 Quebec Liberal leadership page & other such pages. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Not a huge fan of this, I have to admit. While it may look more organized, the "policies" column is somewhat unwieldy, and I much prefer articles cover things in prose rather than tables and timelines. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

@Kawnhr, I think for "policies", we could split it from the infobox and added it as it's own separate section as suggested by @Punker85. Hiyournameis (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed @Hiyournameis on splitting the policies from the candidate tables, especially as more policy differences may become clear. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

IF we have to use images, then adopt the format used at the 2013 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election page & other preceding Liberal Party leadership election pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Endorsements

Wondering when we should start adding (if at all) the MP endorsements for each candidate. Multiple sources have now shared endorsements for both Freeland and Carney G&M link and CBC link. Words in the Wind(talk) 18:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but an endorsement should be a release explicitly endorsing a candidate. A post on social media that doesn’t say “I’m endorsing Candidate X” is not an endorsement. 2605:8D80:665:588A:835:8069:6980:C2CE (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

We need a reliable source. It needn't be a press release by the endorser. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This CBC article [2] states that "According to information obtained by Radio-Canada," Navdeep Bains "is also helping Carney's team mobilize in the Greater Toronto Area." Does this count as an endorsement? LoganP25 (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Endorsements section tables

Do we have to use this format? The tables are very large (already, they take up my entire screen) and they're only going to get larger as more endorsements roll in. It's bad enough to give each person their own line, but it's made worse by listing their credentials. I don't think those are even relevant; that Patrick Weiler is represents West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country specifically surely doesn't lend the endorsement any additional weight. Why don't we do something more compact, like 1990 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election? — Kawnhr (talk) 21:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This current format doesn't look great. The format at 2025 Quebec Liberal Party leadership election or on U.S. election articles is much better IMO. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Also the West, Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic candidate division don't seem to be really pertinent, and aren't fully being followed when Yukon politicians are treated as part of the West block. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed using Template:Endorsements box, if the section gets too long though, we may want to consider creating a stand alone article such as Endorsements in the 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 22:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree with all of the rapid decisions above, but not gonna press the formatting one. Which electrical district a MP represent may mean little to outsider but hugely significant to the keen observers, reporters and participant, as they point to context of alliegences or rivalries. Also mixing an ex-minister from decades ago with current MPs who previous served in cabinet makes little sense, certainly in Canadian context. Current MPs by default has clout because they have staff! Check out most of the other leadership contest pages (including provincial parties that are in power), current caucus pretty much always a distinct group incorporating all members cabinet or none cabinet.Milton Chan (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

While I agree that the regional spread of endorsements can be significant, I think that that's really the purview of the pundits, not editors. If columns are written about how the endorsements show different regional bases, then absolutely we should incorporate that into the article — but just meticulously documenting the spread feels a bit too much like we're leading the reader. To me, anyway. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

In the context of a partisan leadership election, I don't think their current staff is what really gives them clout, and more what their title is or currently is. This is the format that the Quebec Liberal Party page, but worth noting that there aren't any current Cabinet members as they are out of government. Of those "former cabinet members," I believe there's only three who are not longer in HoC commons, and two of those three were former Deputy PMs, a position which arguably has more political clout than being a currently elected backbench MP. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, since we are no longer list the MPs by region, I do believe the province abbreviations should be added back for the ridings to be meaningful. Anticipating folks who say they do not lend the endorsement any additional weight, I will say they know nothing about leadership politics in the Liberal Party of Canada. Demonstrating understanding of the unique character and issues of Quebec is pretty much the only issue that has been consistently among the top few debate topic in all contests in the last 50 years. A contestant's perceived ability to engage in those debate and to command support from the province is a key measure for Liberal members in other provinces in assessing whether the contestant has the royal jelly. Milton Chan (talk) 08:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The way these tables (and subheadings) are set up makes the table of contents more difficult and confusing to navigate. Someone clicking on the candidates names might expect to be directed to a bio about that candidate, but instead they are directed past the candidate section to a table only about their endorsements. This doesn't seem to be ideal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Titles for cabinet minister

For both current and former ministers endorsing, comprehensively listing all of their titles is a distraction because

1. they clogs up a lot of space
2. they take up more time to ensure the listing is accurate (for example, someone keep adding back ministers titles to the former ministers while forgetting to list Allan Rock's job as industry minister)
3. they do not meaningfully add to their significance (and many of them have subsidiary titles that they held different time)(to go back to the Allan Rock example, the industry department back then came with responsibilities (and formal title as listed in press releases) for a bunch of stuff like infrastructure, and 2 of the 5 economic development agencies.)
4. the length of their tenure as a cabinet member has a more direct relations to their influence than how many time they got shuffled/changed portfolio. (Thank god Denis Coderre is running for the QC Lib, or his endorsement will take up 5 or 6 lines!)

A minister is a minister. I suggest listing them all simply as "cabinet minister (yyyy-yy)", with exceptions for a) deputy PM (McClellen, Copps) b) if they have held the same portfolio for their entire cabinet tenure (Fry, Easter). And just a note, chief whip has not been a cabinet post in Liberal administrations in my lifetime (they were in the Harper Ministry). Milton Chan (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Agreed on the Sahota part that the Chief Whip isn't a cabinet post. But disagree on the rational for not listing ministerial portfolios. Not all cabinet positions are created equally (some have more sway than other, i.e. Foreign Affairs (Joly) v. Democratic Institutions (Sahota)). Not listing their positions, would treat each endorsement as equally, and for someone like Joly, make it seems as if she's had the same level of influence since entering cabinet. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Chief Whip isn't a cabinet post, but it is a senior leadership position for the caucus. I would oppose including junior leadership positions like regional caucus chairs, but Chief Whip isn't that. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• I think senior ministers (Foreign, Finance, and Justice - what in the UK are called the Great Offices of State) should be identified by those offices, at least. Wellington Bay (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Definitely no issue when only the one current title is listed. I was more objecting to listing them all, or worse, listing some but not all. (This discussion makes me think of the late Stan Hagen, who was minister to six ministries under Vander Zalm and Johnston, and 10 years later was minister to six other ministries under Campbell.)

While most would agree that finance and foreign affairs are among the most influential few, unlike the US, there are few objective means to state which other positions are more important. Back to my Allan Rock example earlier, many would see his missing industry and infra portfolios held concurrently as as more influential than Justice and Health. Even UK's Great Officers of State are not widely accepted there. (Jack Straw spun his demotion to Justice by saying it is effectively the 5th great office but no one bite. YouGov polled this a number of times over the past two decades, with defence secretary always coming ahead of home and foreign secretaries.) For someone like Joly, her three other titles cluttered the listing so much that it drown out her main and current title.

So how about this alternative proposal:

• for all current minister - First Last, Minister of Wiki (2021-present, member of cabinet yyyy-present), MP for riding (xxxx-present)
• for all former ministers -First Last, member of cabinet (2019-23), MP for riding (xxxx-present)
• exception - deputy MP, ministers who held the same title for their entire cabinet tenure.

Milton Chan (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Carney platform

Carney has given bits of his platform such as being pro carbon tax stating it was in effective at reaching its carbon goals and wanting replace it with something more “efficient” at reducing carbon. https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-carney-stumbles-out-the-gate-on-carbon-taxes

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.6615498 2001:1970:4AE5:A300:9D89:AF4A:6B6F:8A65 (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Failure to qualify

The Liberal Party hasn't published a list of official candidates yet but often one or more declared candidates end up not running because they 1) didn't collect enough signatures 2) failed to raise enough money to pay the initial deposit, 3) failed to pay a subsequent deposit installment 4) failed vetting by the party or 5) qualified but decided to withdraw.

The initial hurdle for candidates is tomorrow (January 23). How should we treat these different causes? Do we lump all or some of them together or list them in separate categories? Wellington Bay (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

We normally split it into two categories: "Withdrew" and "Failed to qualify", with each candidate's blurb being used to explain why that was (if known). Candidates that qualify but then later get disqualified are sometimes given their own section, too — though that depends on how big a story it was. 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election and 2017 New Democratic Party leadership election are some examples. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I would Support this because not every candidate who "withdrew" would "failed to qualify". Hiyournameis (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

While it sometimes makes sense to make a distinction between candidates who "failed to qualify" and those who "withdrew" or were "disqualified", I am not sure that is the case here. Chandra Arya seems to be saying that he submitted enough signatures and the first installment, and suggesting that he was blocked from running for undisclosed "other" reasons.[3] These are self reports from him/his campaign though. Do we even know that he met the signature and fee qualifications? Even if he did is "disqualified" the correct term for someone who was essentially blocked because of a background check or because the party blocked his candidacy for a policy reason or something? Or is that just "failing to qualify", the background check, and committee check that you support "liberal values" (or whatever) being part of the qualifying process? I think the situation is clearly different in cases like Patrick Brown, who was disqualified after being approved. But when a person is "disqualified" before they have even officially "qualified" as seems to be the case with Arya, the distinction seems a bit forced (particularly where we are relying entirely on him/his campaign for information about the circumstances). But perhaps this will work itself out when the Liberal Party/Elections Canada actually announce the candidates who have qualified.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Date entered or candidacy announced?

It seem as if the date which candidates started their campaigns in the table, has been changed to the date which they filed paperwork with the LPC. I feel like this doesn't make a ton of sense, as Carney, Freeland, & Gould all started campaigning a week+ prior. Thoughts on changing it back to the date they announced their candidacy? - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I think both can be listed. List both the date announced and date they filed paperwork. Skylerbuck (talk) 05:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm the one who made the change in question; I did it when we (per the sources) needed to specify that Arya, Carney and Freeland had submitted the paperwork when the others hadn't yet. Now that that is once again irrelevant, I have no real opinion of if it's changed back or if both are used. I do tend to agree with Skylerbuck; not seeing the harm in having both. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 15:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Kasparov "endorsement"

An IPV6 user is claiming that Freeland has an endorsement from chess grandmaster-turned-Putin critic Garry Kasparov. This is cited to Freeland's twitter account, however, the post in question does not mention "endorse", "Liberal Party leader"/"Prime Minister of Canada", etc. and only a vague statement about the free world being leaderless. Furthermore, no mention of Freeland is found on Kasparov's (very active) account that would indicate that such an endorsement has been made, nor have any RSs picked up on this supposed "endorsement". Unless either Kasparov posts an endorsement himself or a Reliable Source states so, this mention of an endorsement from Kasparov should be removed from the article. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 04:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears to be from 2018 or so: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/chrystia-freeland-return-principled-canadian-foreign-policy-marcus-kolga-inside-policy/, so not relevant to be listed as an endorsement here. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Would the endorsement that is claimed from Bill Maher also under Freeland's list count either? Genuine question based on my lack of overarching knowledge of what is typically accepted as proof of endorsement. To me, it's clear that Maher does indeed know her and retweeted her recent article but there's no evidence he's clearly endorsed her? https://x.com/billmaher/status/1883661030418776176 Blueandgold92 (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll further point out that recent endorsement announcements for Freeland have been indicated with an image stating that the endorser "has joined the fight".[4] The Maher mention should likely also be removed. Good catch. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 19:19, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Moving endorsement to a new page

Given that the endorsements section has grown somewhat large, would others be in favour of moving it to a dedicated page, similar to Endorsements in the 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election, with a main article link and table remaining on the main election page? - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, let's do this. The endorsements hinder readability and navigation, and make the table of contents confusing.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 07:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Separate and organize the policy section

A few week ago, there was an agreement under Infobox for the Candidates to split the polices section from it. I am wondering if that is still the case and if so can it be modelled after the policy table that was used for the 2023 Ontario Liberal Party leadership election. Hiyournameis (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Debate?

Freeland called for 4 debates (2 in English and 2 in French). This might be wishful thinking, but I haven't seen any indication that there will be even one debate. Has anyone seen any indication that there will be one or two debates? Atkinson Grey (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The CBC discusses it briefly here, but admittedly it is rather unclear. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Talk page: i don't see anywhere to write a comment so i'll do it here.

Finally i get a place to write! It's taken forever. Anyway, i just wanted to point out that in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Liberal_Party_of_Canada_leadership_election there is a serious error, i.e., Prime Minister Trudeau is referred to as having had a premiership. This is in the 2nd paragraph of the Background section soon after the beginning of the article. A premier is the head of gov't of a province or territory. Trudeau was never a premier. He went from being an MP, i.e., member of parliament - a representative of a riding or electoral district, to participating in a leadership race similar to the one happening now, and winning, and becoming Prime Minister of Canada. To call him premier is almost as bad as Trump calling him governor. A premier is the head of a province or territory. He was never that. He went from MP for a particular electoral district to being Prime Minister of Canada. Birdie~Canuck104 (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

• Premier and prime minister actually mean the same thing, it has just become customary over the past 50 years to refer to a provincial head of government as premier and a federal head as prime minister. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a premiership is "the period when someone is prime minister, or the job of being prime minister"[5]. The OED also states a premiership is "the period or position of being prime minister"[6] Wellington Bay (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

The main thing is that there isn't really another adjectival form; "prime ministership" is non-standard at best (and, I think, just a very ugly and clumsy phrase). Admittedly, referring to a PM's time in office as their "premiership" is not that common, but it does happen, and it seems to be accepted by Wiki editors (there is a Premiership of Justin Trudeau article, for example). I suppose we could instead say "government"… but a Wiki-wide shift that would require a discussion at WP:CANADA. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Infobox Inclusion

For what it is worth, I would include Karina Gould in the infobox. She was covered extensively in RS during the race despite her poor showing. I don't think it is wise for us to frame this as a two person race between Carney and Freeland. In reality it was a blowout, and including Gould shows that. The 5% difference between Freeland and Gould isn't that significant in the circumstances. Including Gould shows that this wasn't a race between two front-runners, it was the party coalescing around the front runner, Mark Carney.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Might as well include Baylis, as well, if only because a four-person infobox looks a bit better than a three-person with whitespace. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

And Baylis didn't finish that far behind Gould. I'm not even sure the 5% threshold should exist for leadership elections. Just getting on the ballot in the first place is pretty significant, considering the hurdles each candidate has to go over.-- Earl Andrew - talk 20:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Raising the money to get on the ballot, collecting the signatures and making it past the party vetting is no small feat. I am not opposed to including Baylis either. I guess if Gould returns to her role of Government House Leader, or is appointed to Mark Carney's cabinet, that might be another factor in favour of including her. Same would be the case if Baylis runs again or is elected to the HOC. Less so if he does not return to politics. We can't factor that in until it happens, or doesn't, though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with all the above points on the Gould and Baylis inclusion. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:31, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Disagree - While I Understand all your points, I do not believe that Raising money to get on ballot or having a high position or even getting on ballot is a reason for inclusion, And if you were to look at the other canada liberal party elections. None of them have all the candidates in the infobox, 5% or higher is the threshold for infobox inclusion. InterDoesWiki (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The 5% rule is a guideline, or a rule of thumb. Consensus needs to be reached on an article by article basis based on the significance reliable sources give to campaigns and participants and how they cover the election generally (per MOS:INFOBOX). Looking at other articles is not overly helpful because we should avoid WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. Furthermore, I question whether the other candidates (or some of them) should be included in prior leadership infoboxes. For example, the article concerning the last leadership race, 2013 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, was not added until 4 April 2018. When it was added it included all six candidates who made it on the ballot were included in the infobox (including three who received less than 5% support - Martin Cauchon, Deborah Coyne, Karen McCrimmon). That status quo existed from 2018 until March 2024 when those three were removed without discussion, based on a strict interpretation of the 5% rule (per edit the comment). For the better part of six years the consensus seems to have been to include all. The "new" status quo at that article is less than a year old, and may not really represent the consensus there. Even if it does, there are reasons to go a different way here. It is worth noting that the fee to enter the 2013 race was only $75,000 vs. $350,000 in 2025, but ultimately the question is one of coverage in RS, who we should attempt to follow.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree as well, including them adds context that is otherwise not present on the infobox for readers who may not view the full page TheFellaVB (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Disagree as per precedent set by the 2013 LPC leadership, we do not include candidates with less than 5% of the PV or points. 99.209.14.138 (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Disagree, we must maintain the 5% rule. Rushtheeditor (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

There has never been project or Canada consensus to apply the WP:5%R to party leadership races. The rule doesn't even strictly apply to parliamentary elections. This statement is super unhelpful. "Maintain" the 5% rule? It doesn't apply here. Happy to reconsider if you or anyone else can point us to a previous discussion or RfC that says it should (none exists at WP:5%R).-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Disagree If this was one of those rare contests where someone who was a second tier candidate such as Dhalla gains momentum emerges as a contender as the ballots/counts progress and ends up winning or coming close then there would be an argument for inclusion. This isn't one of these cases.Wellington Bay (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Dhalla isn't included in the infobox, and no one is arguing she should be.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Turnout %

Originally we had turnout listed at 37%, based on the amount relative to the party membership number reported by the party (~400,000). Now we are doing it based on the self reported Liberal numbers that is based on a much lower number (163,836). Which is correct? To me the 92.7% currently shown seems a bit misleading if 400,000 people signed up as Liberal members. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 05:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Dhalla/ Battiste infoboxes

Per WP:WEIGHT, Ruby Dhalla and Jaime Battiste should not be given infoboxes. They are not mentioned nearly as prominently in reliable sources as the non-withdrawn/DQ'd candidates are. They should be listed similarly to how Arya and the anti-Abortion "human" are. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 16:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. They were covered and campaigned for a while. Patrick Brown in the Conservative leadership race got to have an infobox. It's good information for viewerers. I think it would be better for Arya to get one too since he got a fair amount of coverage and had lots of policy before he was disqualified. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I presume that you meant the candidate tables. If so, I agree. I was thinking of converting those to prose. Frankly, prose is preferred in any event.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Dhalla and Battiste should not be given anything close to the amount of WEIGHT of the four who made the stage, whether it's in prose or a table. I agree that prose is preferred in any case.

The issue I have though is that by giving Dhalla and Battiste tables, we are giving them the same WEIGHT as Carney, which is wholly inappropriate. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 22:38, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Politicsenthusiast06: If you can provide references that show Dhalla has as much WEIGHT in sources as Carney, great please do. Otherwise, please self-revert your restoring of these tables. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 22:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree for Battiste, but disagree for Dhalla who actually ran a fairly long campaign with policy attached to it. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm open to references being provided that show Dhalla with as much WEIGHT as the others. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 22:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I still think Dhalla and Battiste should be included. Their tables are already smaller, reflecting their lesser weight, but both campaigned, released policy, and received notable media coverage. Dhalla’s disqualification was widely reported — CBC, CTV, and Toronto Star all covered it in detail — and Arya’s disqualification made national headlines and shifted the race narrative. These weren’t minor footnotes; they were significant events that impacted the campaign and are well-supported by reliable sources. Not including them just because they weren't “frontrunners” seems unfair — especially since the only real frontrunner/major candidate was Mark Carney. Omitting them or relegating them to prose understates their relevance. Also, there wasn’t consensus to remove the tables, so reverting was fully appropriate. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Baisette was approved by the Party at one point before he withdrew. And he's a sitting MP who got attention as the first First Nation person to seek the Leadership. So him being included is logical. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The only seemingly notable things about Jaime Battiste's campaign were that 1) he was the only indigenous candidate running, 2) he withdrew largely due to his inability to raise the $350,000 entrance fee, and 3) he endorsed Carney. I stand to be corrected with RS to the contrary, but I think those three things were really the only things about his campaign that got much coverage in WP:RS. For Dhalla, it was really just that she was disqualified, the alleged reasons why, and her own response to the disqualification. I don't think we really care about either of their slogans, policies etc. I think it is giving them too much weight to outline slogans and policies. Do any RS do this for them?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:26, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Some mention of the issues with the Identity+ app should be added to the article.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-leadership-voting-problems-1.7471740

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/experts-liberal-leadership-vote-1.7475577

I even made a YouTube video on this topic (which I won't self-promote here, but if you want to see it, you can ask me for it). I'm surprised that this article doesn't mention the issues with the identity verification. Félix An (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It's mentioned under "Campaign" ("There were complaints about some of the party membership having issues with the online voting system") but you can, and perhaps should, expand on it. LoganP25 (talk) 16:41, 16 March 2025 (UTC)