Talk:John Rustad

Archives (Index)

2024/October

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Request for comment on the inclusion of content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of John Rustad

Should the following content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of John Rustad, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the article, either in the lead of the article or in the body of the article with a summary in the lead of the article? PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Rustad has been variously described as a racist, anti-Indigenous, anti-LGBTQ rights, anti-human rights, and the leader of a "conspiracy party", with Rustad espousing various conspiracy theories, including claiming that children are being forced to eat bugs and alleging that vaccine mandates were about "shaping opinion and control on the population", and comparing education about the LGBT community to residential schools and asserting that the efforts of the provincial government of British Columbia to recognize Indigenous land claims in Canada are "a direct assault on private property".^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

1. Dirk Meissner (August 27, 2024). "'Loopy', 'whacky' or a 'big blue tent'? Growing pains for Rustad's B.C. Conservatives". CityNews. Retrieved September 27, 2024.
2. Rumneek Johal (September 24, 2024). "BC Conservative Leader John Rustad Warned Convoy Event That Kids Will Be Forced to 'Eat Bugs'". PressProgress. Retrieved September 27, 2024.
3. Moira Wyton (October 1, 2023). "B.C. Tory leader defends post that appeared to liken teaching of sexuality and gender to residential schools". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved September 27, 2024.
4. Simon Little (September 24, 2024). "Party leaders need to 'quickly depoliticize' vaccines, B.C. doctor says". Global News. Retrieved September 27, 2024.
5. First Nations Leadership Council (September 5, 2024). "John Rustad's Interview with Jordan Peterson Another Example of BC Conservatives Taking Aim at Indigenous Rights and Reconciliation". Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs. Retrieved September 27, 2024.

PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Include in the lead of the article - per precedent in other articles on politicians that espouse various conspiracies and are mired in various controversies and the abundance of reliable sources listed in support of the content regarding the conspiracies and controversies of John Rustad. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment This RFC is too broad and it's definitely not brief. I recommend withdrawing or rewording. Use the discussion above to come to a consensus about how this information could be put in the body. If there's enough meat on the bones in the body it can be in the lead, but the rush to jam this into the lead reeks of POV pushing. For a biography of a living person patience is wise. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Nemov: WP:RFCBRIEF applies only to the RfC statement, which it defines as the part that is located between the {{rfc}} tag (exclusive) and the first valid timestamp (inclusive), and which is copied by bot to various pages - in this case, it's 50 words including signature, plus a timestamp, which comes to 417 bytes. I've seen briefer, but this is by no means un-brief. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ah, I think I confused the long comment afterward as part of the statement. It's still too broad to be useful though. Nemov (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

  RfC should probably be worded more neutrally, and the source list should probably be in your voting comment, not the RfC text. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Do not include - This paragraph comes off as opinionated editorializing.

Your own sources also do not go as far as to call Rustad racist or anti-human rights. That is not contained anywhere in your sources. That is something you synthesized. Deathying (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

You are wrong. The fifth source clearly contains both descriptions. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 03:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposed. Yes, Rustad espouses more conspiratorial views than most Canadian politicians and that correspondingly has a high level of sources that cover him in that regard. However, he is also the leader of a major Canadian political party and despite the party only recently releasing a platform, has also achieved a lot of coverage on his views on normal political issues that should be included (e.g. crime policies, harm reduction, etc.). Focusing entirely on the conspiracy aspect without any coverage of his normal policies would be a violation of WP:BALASP. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The proposal does not in any way propose to not cover the other aspects of his politics, but rather merely proposes that the conspiracies and controversies of John Rustad, as supported by the multiple reliable sources listed, be included in the article. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 23:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This RFC is explicitly asking if this paragraph should be included either in the lead or body. Neither currently has a summary overview of Rustad's politics. That is not ideal, but it would be preferable to have no summary than to have a summary that falsely pretends that Rustad only has bigoted and cospiratorial views. He obviously has a lot of weird beliefs and that's reflected in the sources, but we can't ignore that sources have also covered his relatively more normal political beliefs (often negatively!) in a similar amount of depth.

Further, the content of the paragraph is also not great. The sources do not say that he is a racist or is this cartoonishly evil person who is "anti-" a whole range of marginalized groups and it is inappropriate to say that in WP:WIKIVOICE. For example, while his policies have been criticized by Indigenous and non-Indigenous groups (and the ideal summary would say that), his stated belief on UNDRIP is that free, prior, and informed consent doesn't work in BC's context and he wants "economic reconciliation" so "First Nations communities [can] rise up from impoverished conditions and truly begin to thrive".[1] I think he's wrong about UNDRIP and his Indigenous policy is bad, but it's hardly fair to label him as "anti-Indigenous". UBCIC is not a neutral source and anything to them should be attributed at the very least so we don't say it in wikivoice unless there are independent RSes who also use that phrasing. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is particularly relevant here as it pertains to fringe conspiracies and related controversies. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Saying that Rustad, the leader of a major Canadian provincial political party, has many non-conspiratorial political positions is not a minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The point here is that WP:FALSEBALANCE requires meaningful coverage of the fringe conspiracies and related controversies of John Rustad. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The fifth source does, in fact, say that John Rustad is a racist. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 03:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Do not include, it's not what he's primarily known for. If you want to add a small section for it later in the article, I'm not opposed.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The fringe conspiracies and related controversies of John Rustad are, in fact, among what he is primarily known for in British Columbia, which is quite evident from practically any news article about him from practically any reputable news publication in British Columbia that is a reliable source. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 03:06, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Include in the lead of the article. I am probably the only one here that lives in BC. I voted against this radical because he is very radical in BC politics for the reasons above. Btw our mainstream media is non-partisan and neutral in BC. He only got votes because there was no other right wing party running and most right voters in BC have wasp blinders.Music Air BB (talk) 01:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC) Sockstrike. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)