Talk:Andrew Scheer/Archive 1

Archive 1

weblog issue

Here is a reference to the story of Scheer's weblog being hacked. [1]

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to put this in the article or not. Some future editor can make that decision, if the link is still live at that time.Hiddekel 08:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Due to the blanking without explaination I'm adding this source to the article to remove any doubt as to the legitimacy of this fact. Hiddekel 03:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Entries on other politicians do not include trivial stories about campaign incidents. Of all the facts and information about Mr. Scheer, why would a minor story about a campaign website be included? Maybe we should find out how many of his lawn signs had to be replaced or if he ever got stuck in the snow.

Because while your subjective opinion may be that it's "too trivial" to be noteworthy, the news media did not, hence the major media outlet newslink on the subject--unlike most of the other positive issues posted in the article, I should add. So unless you (or someone else) can come up with a better argument than "it's too minor to mention" (and I'll give you some time to figure one out), I'm going to put it back in. And might I add that this is Wikipedia, not Andrew Scheer's campaign site. Both the positive and the embarassing issues of his political career belong here, as long as they are presented in NPOV. Hiddekel 17:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Toronto Star Correction to "Abhorrent" comment (which was originally taken out of context)

"Correction – June 1, 2017: This column mistakenly states that Andrew Scheer referred to same-sex marriage bill as “abhorrent.” In fact, Scheer’s statement referred to the treatment of Roman Catholic Bishop Fred Henry being called before a Human Rights Tribunal for speaking out about the Catholic Church’s position on same-sex marriage. In his speech, Scheer said: “To think that a Catholic bishop must answer to a civil authority over matters of faith is abominable. It is abhorrent to me, to other Catholics and to every member of every faith community. It is abhorrent because the very essence of being a religious official is to teach the faith and instruct the faithful. There is an inherent right for religious officials to do so.” The headline on this article has been changed to reflect this correction." https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/05/30/some-have-no-choice-but-to-be-vigilant-in-wake-of-scheers-election-teitel.html 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:5D51:2E50:451:744C (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Profile Picture should be changed

Usually party leaders have photos of them smiling and looking at the camera. This photo is unnecessarily gloomy, and features a random person in the background photo-bombing.

There's a decent photo here: https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/781184150917165056/sQtNj06U.jpg&imgrefurl=https://twitter.com/andrewscheer&h=400&w=400&tbnid=x8UjlynwQCeMhM:&tbnh=186&tbnw=186&usg=__AVZ2pStkChQkjMMBGDFfhLYiJSs=&vet=10ahUKEwji-9PqxafUAhUHxmMKHcAlAFQQ_B0IlAEwEQ..i&docid=pB8Ilbq5kuKF0M&itg=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwji-9PqxafUAhUHxmMKHcAlAFQQ_B0IlAEwEQ&ei=Pb81WaLpEYeMjwPAy4CgBQ Does anyone know how to add images? 2607:F2C0:943A:B100:5D51:2E50:451:744C (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This picture is creepy. He is not a creepy looking guy; it's just a really bad picture. Please put up a better picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewPicture84 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew Scheer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150815061116/http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand%2Fcanlim&document=index&lang=e to http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand%2Fcanlim&document=index&lang=e

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits by IPs beginning with 2620:22:4000:110

In the last two months there have been about 25 edits re Mr Scheer by IPs with similar-looking addresses. I'm pinging them all: 2620:22:4000:110:1ffc:bcea:27f7:db00, 2620:22:4000:110:1ffc:c1d0:4a4:945a, 2620:22:4000:110:1ffd:3468:bcf1:660a, 2620:22:4000:110:1ffc:541c:ec79:5450, 2620:22:4000:110:1ffc:bbd9:687e:132f, 2620:22:4000:110:1ffe:7fa6:7864:4214, 2620:22:4000:110:1ffe:d581:f819:3651. My concern is that the edits seem to be unimportant dog-bites-man stories affected by WP:RECENTISM. Twice I reverted their edits and said take it to the talk page, twice I got re-reverted without any talk page input (which I believe is requested by WP:BRD and required by WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE). To the IPs that I've pinged: please all respond on this talk page, if you are different people. To other editors watching this talk page: please respond if you agree or disagree that there is a valid concern here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This same editor has put a lot of nonsense into the article with atrocious grammar and spelling. I consider this to be highly disruptive editing. The wording violated NPOV for BLP.2607:F2C0:95F1:E900:591C:18B4:3FB2:2F26 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I've left a message on the talk page of 2620:22:4000:110:1FFD:3468:BCF1:660A‎ but I realize pings and user-talk-page messages are unlikely to be read by editors who don't have to log in. I'll take it to WP:ANI if there's no other way. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes made by this editor. Many sources have been removed without explanation, and the wording of many sentences have been changes so as to not reflect at all what the sources actually say. PatrickPiper (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor put some of the material back in. I have taken this matter to WP:ANI. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Update: one-week block of 2620:22:4000:110:0:0:0:0/64. But PatrickPiper is also blocked. I believe it's proper to revert all the editor's contributions affecting Andrew Scheer but am currently more concerned about other affected BLPs. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I did a large edit today, removing this editor's edits done between October 13 and November 7. I do not oppose editors who see a legitimate reason for re-inserting some of them -- but please, unlike this IP, respect WP:BLP and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and have the courtesy to discuss on the talk page. I see that another editor has discarded some of the IP's more recent edits. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

... And within two hours NotSeenHere (talk) reverted me so all those changes are back again. NotSeenHere: did you notice this talk page discussion and all the times that discussion on the talk page was requested? Are you aware of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE? Are you willing to discuss your reasons for supporting each individual insertion the IP made? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

ToPeter Gulutzan, I have explained my reasoning check the history. However, when you removed the information you did not give an in-depth explanation of why all edits October 13 and November 7 needed to be removed. That's why I had to undo your edit in order to revert to edits made by User:Newimpartial which no one had an issue with. If you have an issue the user edits, please remove them individually and explain legitimate why and how they needed to be removed in the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotSeenHere (talk • contribs) 17:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE says it's re-inserting (as done by NotSeenHere) that requires consensus, not reverting (as done by me) of insertions which never got consensus and which the original inserter wouldn't discuss. If others have concerns re the edits by the IP and NotSeenHere, please share. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, all future changes will be explained in the edit summary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:22:4000:110:1FFC:B672:C41A:605D (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: The IP has been blocked a second time, this time for a longer period. NotSeenHere, who restored all the IP's edits in November, has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. HamishScheer, who did some edits a few weeks ago and threatened to report me and another editor to the "moderators", has also been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet. I feel vindicated, but haven't got a plan yet for doing something about all their edits. If somebody else has a plan ... great. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing edits by the IP and the sock puppets

From the previous thread ("Edits by IPs beginning with 2620:22:4000:110"), it will be clear that my intent was to do something about cleaning up after the edits of the IP and the sock puppets, including NotSeenHere, but I didn't have a plan. Eventually I decided to try some removing. It didn't take long, Newimpartial reverted in order to re-insert, along with an edit summary "Removal of sourced material. Overzealous DENY." (Actually I didn't cite WP:DENY which is just an essay.) I of course regard NewImpartial's action is a violation of WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, but it's more serious than that: if any editor can re-insert sock-puppet trivia without seeking consensus, then cleaning up will not be feasible. Accordingly I ask for support against such actions by NewImpartial and whoever else wants to imitate them. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The edits that Newimpartial restored had been removed solely because they were contributed by sockpuppets, not because of BLP violations. WP:BANREVERT is pretty clear that a user may restore such content in good faith, but that they take responsibility for ensuring that it does not violate any other content policies. Do you think the content is problematic? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 01:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Just so that we are crystal clear: BLPREQUESTRESTORE only applies to material disputed over alleged BLP violations; it does not in any way apply to material removed for BANREVERT reasons or a DENY mentality. Newimpartial (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

What the WP:BANREVERT policy is actually clear about is: "... the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.", it says nothing about the okayness of restoring. So WP:BANREVERT supports reverting the sock puppet but I did not point to it and I did not base my revert on WP:DENY, although Newimpartial has twice claimed that I did.
My edit summary was "Trivia from a sock puppet", and trivia is mentioned under WP:NOTNEWS policy e.g. "For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary." and e.g. WP:BLP policy e.g. "... it is not Wikipedia's job ... to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" and "Ask yourself whether ... it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" and "BLPs should not have trivia sections" (NotSeenHere added multiple trivia sections although of course the labels don't say so) and "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." The "incident" in this case was that a politician dubiously claimed to have saved taxpayers money by staying with this parents in 2010, written for Huffington Post, I don't know of other RSs.
So I had multiple reasons to revert, all policy-based, and I pointed to the BLP policy that says "If it [i.e. material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." WP:BLP also says "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

All I'm saying is this isn't a black-and-white one-of-you-is-definitely-wrong situation, and the two of you should probably talk about your edits rather than accusing each other of breaking various policies. From my perspective you both have valid points. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Peter, your summaries did not cite BANREVERT or DENY, but the logic of your argument that the material should be deleted and only restored with consensus - that the onus should be to delete - rests on an erroneous reading of BANREVERT (that there is an onus not to restore sourced material simply because it was added by a sock; TL; DR there isn't).

We can discuss whether the particular sourced contributions in question are UNDUE or NOTNEWS cases, and I am fine to do so, but they are not BLP violations to which BLPREQUESTRESTORE would apply. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE doesn't say "BLP violations" it says "good-faith BLP objections", and I quoted four WP:BLP statements (among others) to justify reverting the sock puppet's trivia, and the onus is on you not because of WP:BANREVERT or WP:DENY but because WP:BLP says so twice, as if WP:ONUS wasn't enough. Stop mis-stating both what the Wikipedia policy is and what I said. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Right. The key phrase is "[W]hen material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections", which means objections rooted in WP:BLP. What part of this key WP policy do you alleged to have been violated? Newimpartial (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, shouting policies at each other is not doing much to work through these issues. Do you want to discuss the content? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I am fine to discuss content, but only after Peter accepts that the material in question is reliably cited and therefore BLP-compliant, so the question is what is DUE in this specific article. Newimpartial (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course I don't accept that or other Newimpartial prerequisites. The dispute is important but not urgent, so I'll wait at least a few days before asking what dispute-resolution mechanism would be most acceptable -- unless of course there is more input from other parties first. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Before "dispute-resolution", Peter, you might want to review the actual stipulations of BLP. All the onus-placing passages you have cited in that policy concern the removal and restoration of content that is not reliably cited, and therefore do not apply to the passages we have been discussing.Newimpartial (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge three errors. (1) My edit summary was wrong, the original addition about staying with parents was by the blocked IP. (2) My list of reasons that trivia sections are unacceptable omitted WP:PROPORTION. (3 My quote of a passage that mentions "burden of evidence" is not relevant to onus, WP:ONUS is. Sorry about that, but it doesn't affect the dispute significantly. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You seem to have an exaggerated sense of your own importance, Peter. The objections of one (1) editor are not sufficient to turn the stable version of an article into "disputed content" in the sense of ONUS. That way lies craziness. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

"Stable" means "the IP and the sock puppets had their way with this page before being blocked" but now they're blocked and Newimpartial (as far as I can tell) is as alone as I am. So WP:3O is a possible dispute-resolution method, but showing consensus is a big part of this, so I think WP:RFC is better. For either, I think this wording is neutral: "Peter Gulutzan deleted sentences about Mr Scheer's saying that taxpayer money was saved when he stayed with his parents and Huffington Post's saying that wasn't true. Newimpartial re-inserted the sentences. (1) Was the deletion proper (yes/no)? (2) Was the re-insertion proper (yes/no)?"Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Knock yourself out, but any consideration would have to reflect the fact that the paragraph about those expenses was in the stable version of the article for six months, as edited by dozens of contributors, and it was only removed as a result of your rollback of IP contributions. Just because I was the one who happened to revert your overzealous DENY does not in any way mean that I was the only editor who supported that contribution, which many, many editors must have seen and found unobjectionable over the last six months. Newimpartial (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC about Removing edits by the IP and the sock puppets

Peter Gulutzan deleted sentences about Mr Scheer's saying that taxpayer money was saved when he stayed with his parents and Huffington Post's saying that wasn't true. Newimpartial re-inserted the sentences.
(1) Was the deletion proper (yes/no)?
(2) Was the re-insertion proper (yes/no)?Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes and No: the deletion was proper, the re-insertion was not proper.

The deletion was proper because the subject is trivial, which is wrong according to WP:NOTNEWS "For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary." and WP:PROPORTION "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject ...", and WP:BLP "... it is not Wikipedia's job ... to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" and WP:BLP "Ask yourself whether ... it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" and WP:BLP "BLPs should not have trivia sections" (NotSeenHere added multiple trivia sections although of course the labels don't say so) and WP:BLP "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." (there's only one source for this allegation or incident).

The re-insertion was not proper because WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE says "any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it [i.e. deleted material] must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies" (all of the above quotes are from content policies). and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE says "If it [i.e. material about living persons that has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections] is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." (I read this as "objections affecting a BLP" not "objections affecting WP:BLP", but four of the above quotes are from WP:BLP policy.) and WP:ONUS says "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Nobody tried to get consensus for re-inserting, as is clear from the above thread Removing edits by the IP and the sock puppets.

Note 1: The original insertion was actually by the IP here, the sock puppet moved it here and re-inserted it here so my edit summary would more correctly have been "Trivia added by a blocked IP and re-inserted by a sock puppet".

Note 2: I didn't bring up WP:BANREVERT or WP:DENY, my main consideration is not that the edits are by the blocked IP and the sock puppets, but that the edits by the blocked IP and the sock puppets are in violation of Wikipedia policies, when they are trivia.

Note 3: This is only one of many additions done by the IP and the sock puppets on this page, including re-insertions of contested additions, as can be seen by looking at article history and at the earlier thread Edits by IPs beginning with 2620:22:4000:110. If I get approval here, I will act on others that are additions of trivia. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Commemt anyone brought here by the RfC, please refer to the immediately preceding section for context. Unlike Peter, I have no intention of reiterating the relevant arguments here. Newimpartial (talk) 21:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Update: the RfC expired and a request for formal closure was rejected. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Another update: See following section = "Saved the taxpayers money", where finally it was agreed that deletion would be proper based on WP:WELLKNOWN (which I had quoted in the argument above). The second issue, whether the re-insertion was proper, was not addressed there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Saved the taxpayers money

This paragraph violates WP:WELLKNOWN and must be removed:

"Scheer stated that he stayed with his parents when in Ottawa, explaining that it "saves the taxpayers money." This claim was challenged in the Huffington Post..."

Currently this is sourced to only one source: Huff Post. However, WELLKNOWN requires multiple sources. This is a BLPVIO. – Lionel^(talk) 10:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I and Newimpartial discussed this (among other things) in the RfC above, without reaching consensus. Of course I agree it should be removed. Wish you'd popped in earlier. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

After reviewing the matter briefly, I don't see any other sources. If nobody else does, I'm fine with deletion, per WELLKNOWN. Newimpartial (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the passage (again). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

honorific-prefix

While Andrew Scheer was the Speaker of the House, entitling him to the use of "The Honourable" while in that office, in Canada it doesn't persist afterwards. Is there any current association that grants him that? AndroidCat (talk) 03:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I believe the fact that he is a member of Queen's Privy Council for Canada Shemtovca (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2019

Contrary to headlines in October, Scheer made it clear that he would not re-criminalized cannabis. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/scheer-clarifies-that-no-a-conservative-government-would-not-re-criminalize-cannabis 2607:FEA8:2D40:795:3987:FA54:7602:1703 (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. Leventio (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2019

within "Early Life and Career" section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Scheer#Early_life_and_career

change this sentence fragment: "In Regina, Scheer worked as an insurance broker..."

to this: "In Regina, Scheer worked for a short time in an insurance brokerage office doing clerical work..."

reason and citation source:

"The Globe and Mail found no record he ever received the licence required by law to work as an insurance agent or broker in Saskatchewan. Asked to clarify, Mr. Scheer’s spokesman, Daniel Schow, said earlier this week that Mr. Scheer took broker courses, but left the industry before receiving a licence. The job functions Mr. Schow listed were clerical, such as issuing licence plates and collecting payments.

At any rate, Mr. Scheer’s insurance career was brief. He was hired at Shenher Insurance by Mike Shenher, a Saskatchewan Party candidate in the 2003 provincial campaign, on whose campaign Mr. Scheer worked. (After Mr. Scheer was elected in 2004, he hired Mr. Shenher as his assistant, according to Mr. Shenher’s LinkedIn profile.)"

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-andrew-scheer-a-work-in-progress-where-the-conservative-leader-comes/

Thank you 2607:FEA8:E29F:FCB4:940F:7AB1:61F2:DDF7 (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Already done Sceptre (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

education

It is an undisputable fact that Mr. Scheer indeed attended university in Ottawa and again in Regina, however, nowhere on the world wide web was I able to find acronyms for academic degrees listed behind his name. I realize that the policy on biographies of living persons restricts poorly cited or libelous amendments. But I challenge my fellow Wikipedians to debunk this fact. Otherwise, I sincerely hope that my edit does not offend or anger Mr. Scheer. If you, brother and sister Wikipedians, find this fact to be unsettling, I desire for you to gather the necessary materials and write this dashing parliamentarian to encourage him to successfully complete his sojourn in academia. I, too, hope that my statements have been forthcoming in a manner congruent with the NPOV. 15 October 2006. GoodNinja

I'm going to have to agree with a recent anonymous editor's decision to remove the statement that Scheer never graduated. While I'm sure that he didn't given the available evidence, WP:BLP is unambiguous in stating that we have to have positive proof in the form of a reliable source before making contentious and possibly damaging claims about public figures. Otherwise it amounts to original research. Can't do it. Counter-intuitive though it may be, we'll just have to leave it as it is, as far as I can see, if we don't want to violate policy. --Hiddekel 15:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Scheer's Linkedin profile says he holds a B.A. in history and politics from the University of Regina. What's odd is that there are no dates for when he attended or graduated fro U. Regina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.113.137 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

If Andrew Scheer does not provide proof of a receiving a BA from the University of Regina then the information posted here is misleading. Wouldn't it be better to be safe than sorry and remove the BA designation until proof is provided?Nickthecentrist (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

The sentence saying as of September the regulator says they're looking into the matter of Scheer's insurance accreditation is out of date. In October they stated he had taken only one course.

Harper's Boy quote

I have twice replaced a citation and content in the section Andrew Scheer § Comparisons to Stephen Harper. The editor removing the content has posted on my talk page and I have quoted their objection and my reply below:

You have claimed that there are 4 sources which include the phrase "Harper's boy" on the Andrew Scheer WP. However, if you actually read these sources, they don't mention this term at all! They do, however, use the term "Harper 2.0", and "Harper with a Smile". Even a Google search has zero results for "Harper's Boy" (other than an older version of Wikipedia). It seems rather odd to give undue weight to a nickname that does not appear in any sources anywhere on the internet. I don't think a single deadlink from a minor online blog counts here. Can you find any national newspaper (like the Globe and Mail, or the National Post) that uses this term? It's better to just leave this one out, and keep the other two nicknames that actually do have reliable sources.

Please discuss about the article on the articles talk page in the future. This way other editors can also provide their opinions. I don't think that this is giving undue weight, as it is a single sentence. Your edit suggests that people are comparing Scheer to Harper in a flattering way. However these comparisons are not used by his political opponents in that way. Also the source that you are removing is not a minor blog, it is a major print and online media outlet (from its wikipedia page it is "the largest independently owned newspaper company in Canada"). The "Harper's Boy" phrase also comes from a direct quote from an mp, and is in the same spirit as the other names. Elec junto (talk) 19:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I would welcome another editors opinon on the matter.

The only source for "Harper's boy" is a deadlink from a tabloid. Besides, this is certainly a case of undue weight. The other nicknames (Harper 2.0, and Harper with a Smile) appear in several national newspapers. A quick google search for "Harper's boy" provides literally ZERO results! This is quite telling, this phrase is certainly not used often enough to warrant its inclusion in a wikipedia article. Likely, it was only said once by one person, if it was ever said at all (and is therefore not a nickname), which would also explain why no major newspaper ever covered the story. I also disagree with your assertion that "Harper with a smile" is meant as a compliment. It is more of an insult towards both Harper and Scheer than anything else. This is also kind of a "wolf in sheep's clothing" attack ad against Scheer. Nevertheless, the "Harper with a smile" nickname appears in several major newspapers, and has been said numerous times by many people. "Harper 2.0" is also listed in many major newspapers. It is likewise more of a "wolf in sheep's clothing" comment. I don't think it makes any sense to give equal weight to commonly used nicknames mentioned several times in several major newspapers, as to one comment allegedly said by one person one time that we can't even verify because the only source is a deadlink from a tabloid.45.72.244.142 (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The Chronicle Herald is a reputable newspaper and definitely not a tabloid. And I agree that these comparisons to Harper are not meant to be flattering. So it is strange that your edits emphasize that journalists and Scheer himself have used them, but not that his political opponents are also using these names. So why not use a direct quote from an mp using one of the names/comparisons?

Also I really don't understand your undue weight argument. A single sentence on a particular comparison to Stephen Harper made by an mp, in a section called comparisons to Stephen Harper appears to me as justified. And the section itself also seems justified, given the large speculation by many media outlets that the Liberal Party may use that comparison as an attack in the election. If you aren't getting results on the google search you may want to try adding Scheer's name to the search. Elec junto (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I did add Scheer's name to the google search.

https://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+scheer+harper%27s+boy&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_hL6EiM3dAhWSrVkKHUaNBfkQ_AUIDygC&biw=1760&bih=886

Zero results!!! A single deadlink certainly does not count as a reliable source. Please provide at least one reliable source, such as an active link to a major Canadian news outlet (like the CBC, or The Globe and Mail). This is absolutely a case of undue weight. Let me explain it to you. The term "Harper 2.0" has been used countless times by journalists, politicians, members of academia, etc. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b&biw=1760&bih=886&tbm=nws&ei=vGalW6yzIq_n5gKRypvwAQ&q=andrew+scheer+harper+2.0&oq=andrew+scheer+harper+2.0&gs_l=psy-ab.3...5764.5764.0.5965.1.1.0.0.0.0.86.86.1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.poJWOcyYgfs As a result, it is all over the place in virtually every news outlet. There is no evidence that the term "Harper's Boy" has ever been used by anyone ever. Even if your link was not a deadlink (which it is), and even if it was used in a major news outlet (which it is not) it still would only have been used by one single news story one time. So, why on earth would we include it as a list of well known and commonly used nicknames? This is ludicrous.45.72.244.142 (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Just because a newspapers archive does not go back forever doesn't mean it can't be used. There's even a wikipedia bot that goes around rescuing deadlinks. I also suggest you read the policy on undue weight as a single reference is enough for a mention depending on circumstance (it wouldn't be enough to make it the focus of the entire article though). Although it has certainly been used in many political blogs (which come up in a google search) I don't care deeply enough to put this back in. I will however put back the sentence about the terms being used by his political opponents. By the way this isn't just a list of names, and I will be adding to it as time goes on. There are also substantial comparisons between Harper's least popular policies and Scheer's platform. Those would also belong under this heading.

References

Misrepresenting French language sources

So, someone is claiming that a source which states in French that Scheer said the CPC is commmited to opposing Bill 45 (legalization of marijuana) somehow means that he ordered the senate to oppose it. Nowhere in this source does it state that this was an order. Perhaps don't use a French source to support your views unless you actually know how to speak the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.85 (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Definition of Henry Morgentaler

Up until recently Henry Morgentaler was defined in this article as abortionist. Recently Users: Jon Kolbert & Newimpartial have changed it to be merely pro-choice advocate, which is true but doesn;t summarize the whole essence of Dr. Morgentaler who didn't merely advocate, he actively performed abortions during time when they were banned. The term abortionist is also not a WP:OR, here is an example of this term being used to describe Henry Morgentaler. So i believe the term abortionist should be reinstated. Shemtovca (talk) 22:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Certainly he performed abortions and both the sources cited at the end of the sentence say so, and neither says exactly that he was a pro-choice advocate (though one cited source quotes somebody saying his work helped the pro-choice side). Nor is it clear that Scheer was objecting because Morgentaler was an advocate, rather than a practitioner. So the new phrase "pro-choice advocate" is poorly sourced and undue, I agree that it should not have been inserted. But I'm not agreeing that "abortionist" must be re-instated. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer that something more neutral be used, like "a practitioner heavily involved in the pro-choice movement" or something of that nature. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I think a practitioner is too vague. The Globe article calls him Abortion rights crusader, so how about Abortion rights crusader who personally performed illegal abortions Shemtovca (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

He also performed legal abortions. How about "who performed abortions both before and after legalization" or perhaps something that makes it clear that his legal defenses actually led to legalization. Newimpartial (talk) 02:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that would be an apt description of Morgentaler in this context. Jon Kolbert (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Fine if one of the above proposals, or any new one, gets consensus. Meanwhile since there's no consensus for the new insertion of "pro-choice advocate", I removed it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Section: Firearms policy

Suggested edit: replace the red link with "long gun registry". 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:B9A4:54A6:51E1:92B4 (talk) 06:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)