![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Should the confidence motion/firing take place on the 8th of December how should this be handled in this article. Ericl ( talk) 14:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)@Bearcat: fair enough. @GD: I figured the original questioner was talking about the situation where we aren't sure whether there will be an election or not because the GG has taken the situation under advisement. Obviously, the timing of the next election bears on this article. I have since become aware that some Canadians think the number of the Parliament changes when the government changes hands. I don't really get that, and it never occurred to me that anyone would think such a thing. In the end, I guess we should take Bearcat's suggestion and ignore the whole thing until there is some substantial change affecting the election date. As it stands, the most likely possibilities are no change or a coalition. At most this article will need to say for a few hours that the GG might call elections but is consulting with other parties to see if a different PM could command the confidence of the House. - Rrius ( talk) 08:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know the final fifteenth target seats for the Liberals? There clearly is one, has anyone got it figured out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siege40 ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
IMO, it's presumptive of us to assume Harper, Layton, May & Duceppe will be the party leaders in the next Fed election. We shouldn't have any of them in the Infobox. GoodDay ( talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The leaders' pictures should remain where they are until they're no longer the leaders. It seems that there's going to be an election in the fall...right on the date originally stated in the act Ericl ( talk) 13:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The Date of Polling is supposed to be the last date on which the polling was done; the date the poll results were released is immaterial. I've corrected several incorrectly dated poll results in the table--and I'll keep doing it--but it would be great if those recording new polling results could record them correctly. Or at least try to understand the table they're editing. -- Llewdor ( talk) 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Harris-Decima is a fairly high-profile polling company, but their recent polls haven't been released in a way that allows us to record them. They're not being posted to the official Decima website, so all we see are incomplete results contained within a Canadian Press article. If anyone happens to find out where to get detailed poll results from Decima, please either mention it here or add the poll data to the Opinion Poll table. -- Llewdor ( talk) 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
There is currently displayed in the article a table meant to record the election results. The information we actually need to know now is arguably already handled in the infobox (or could be), but in any event, could be handled in something like this:
Party | Party leader | Candidates | Seats | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2008 | Current | ||||
Conservative | Stephen Harper | 143 | 143 | ||
Liberal | Michael Ignatieff | 77 | 77 | ||
Bloc Québécois | Gilles Duceppe | 49 | 48 | ||
New Democrats | Jack Layton | 37 | 36 | ||
Independents and no affiliation | 2 | 1 | |||
Green | Elizabeth May | - | - |
Instead, we have a table that is, by my eyeball estimate, about eight times as large. Even if it is important to know the number of candidates each minor party is planning to field, the table is still around twice as large as necessary. I suggest using a smaller party-standing table until the election. - Rrius ( talk) 12:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
We're not 100% certain, that those are the party leaders for the 41st general election. Having their images on this article is 'pre-mature'. GoodDay ( talk) 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
As I was looking at the most recent polls on the page today, I realized that we have a lot of past polls on the page! Do you think that we should move some of the earlier polls to a separate page, possibly entitled Opinion polling in the 41st Canadian federal election? I still think that we should have opinion polls on the parent article, perhaps the 6-10 most recent polls?
Any thoughts? Bkissin ( talk) 16:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I was already thinking it is time to split off the polls. For most articles, this has meant leaving nothing behind but a {{ main}} link to the subarticle. I don't agree with keeping some set number of polls, but do think there is merit in emulating the 2008 New Zealand election article and include a graph of the poll results both in the subarticle and in this one. - Rrius ( talk) 22:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done it, but I would welcome someone with the know-how to make a graph that could appear on both pages. - Rrius ( talk) 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Should Minister Guergis' resignation from Cabinet and the Conservative Caucus amid scandal be added to the election timeline? It was my intention to add it, but I wanted to make sure I had consensus before adding it. Bkissin ( talk) 00:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion of by-elections in the timeline is, in my estimation, unimpeachable. However, I do not see the value of noting each vacancy. "X resigned to do Y." It is a noteworthy occurrence in the life of the MP and in the life of the Parliament, but it is not clearly an important milestone in the story of the next election. Does anyone object to my removing those five items from the timeline? - Rrius ( talk) 01:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Number of members per party by date [1] |
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Oct 14 | Apr 13 | Apr 30 | May 21 | Sep 16 | Nov 9 | Apr 9 | ||
Conservative | 143 | 145 | 144 | |||||
Liberal | 77 | |||||||
Bloc Québécois | 49 | 48 | 47 | 48 | ||||
NDP | 37 | 36 | 37 | |||||
Independent | 2 | 1 | ||||||
Independent Conservative | 0 | 1 | ||||||
Total members | 308 | 307 | 306 | 305 | 304 | 308 | ||
Vacant | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | ||
Government Majority | -22 | -21 | -20 | -19 | -18 | -20 |
I am wondering if there is any reason to have opinion polls in the infobox. During the election there will be numerous polls over a short period of time, is it practical to include polls in the infobox? Mr. No Funny Nickname ( talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I would actually propose deleting that article if an election is called this week, and just briefly mention here that they were cancelled because of it. -- Natural RX 16:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
What about merging all the atricles since the last election into
By-elections of the 40th Parliament? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.171.231.80 (
talk)
11:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to note, with the sudden surge of views and edits here, that this article should not be moved or edited to reflect the election is happening until the Governor General issues a writ of election; in other words, it will not happen as soon as a vote of no confidence passes. The Prime Minister must ask David Johnston to dissolve parliament and call an election first.
Just wanted to state that here, just because I'm kind of predicting an edit conflict or two happening over this. -- Natural RX 23:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Four moves in nine minutes is unhelpful. I've put move protection on this article for 24 hours; this protection may be extended/renewed if necessary. Please get consensus on the talk page first rather than repeatedly moving the article back and forth. Thank you. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The election is officially happening May 2, 2011.
Jarbess ( talk) 01:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Not done: The election doesn't become official until the Governor General announces it.
117Avenue (
talk)
01:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but he's scheduled to visit the GG around ten this morning. Unless he asks him to Prorogue it again, The election's on for May. The exact date is still uncertain, but the year is NOT. Ericl ( talk) 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
If so (and please provide a link source), I'll lift the protection and move the article. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that this section notes the ridings are likely to be targeted, but the labels on the box imply that the parties are consciously targeting these ridings and we have no source to show that. I would like to change to "swing ridings". -- Padraic 20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the "most recent" photo added for Harper, I am forced to wonder if people are purposefully looking for the goofiest expressions they can find? I realize that they should have to be non-copyrighted photos, however there must be better options out there! My $0.02
HalifaxRage (
talk)
21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
There are many more ridings to watch that are left out. Why are there only certain ridings put in ? Canadaolympic989 Talk:Canadaolympic 14:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thought I should explain why I re-introduced Targeted By column and removed sections after changes to table by Mindmatrix:
Although the original format for Contentious Ridings / Targeted Seats section - listing out the targets of each party - was used for 2008 election, I found it made it harder to understand and compare information in different ways. In doing the following:
the goal was to allow for a single reference of all ridings of interest already listed in the article.
Sorting also allows for more visibility and different kinds of comparisons that the grouped/sectioned table does not, such as:
As a riding could also be close and/or have a retiring incumbent or previous close race involving a cabinet minister, categories aren't mutually exclusive and therefore a section-based layout doesn't work well. When a sectioned table is sorted, the ability to make different kinds of comparisons also fall apart.
In re-introducing the column, I still did re-sort the initial table view so it's in alphabetical order. This essentially preserves the listing from the section-based layout, but still allows multiple ways of looking at the information.
Murdocke ( talk) 20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the article for the next election, doesn't get created until the current one is finished. 117Avenue ( talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} | York_Centre || ON || style="background:#6495ed;" | Con || style="background:#f08080;" | Lib || 5.6% || - || - |-
Seskenasi ( talk) 04:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Are all the list of candidates articles to be moved from "41st" to "2011"? 117Avenue ( talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, now I might be wrong, but isn't there a law now that requires the elections be held no later than the 3rd monday in the fourth calendar year following the previous election? If so, then this page is wrong by stating it is not scheduled though must be held no later than 2013. However, if I am right, then technically it must be held no later than October 17, 2011. Grizzwald ( talk) 06:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
(2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.
This whole discussion is irrelevant to the article at hand. This election was triggered by the fall of the government due to a motion of non-confidence being passed by parliment, not due to the expiration of the government's term of office. It doesn't matter if a fixed election date was set: That would only apply if the government ran their term of office to it's natural conclusion, which it did not. Because the government was brought down by parliament, the fixed election date legislation does not apply here. Allthenamesarealreadytaken ( talk) 00:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Was the finding unprecedented in Westminster parliamentary history? Peter Geatings ( talk) 07:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It would be helpful to explain a little bit in the article as to why dissolution was the solution, and why the Liberal leader wasn't summoned by the Governor-General to organise a Liberal or Liberal-led coalition government. Peter Geatings ( talk) 19:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced of that, TBH. But again, Johnston didn't do it, so it's a moot point. GoodDay ( talk) 05:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll let others respond, as we're going in circles. PS: I still think it's a non-issue, since Johnston didn't dimiss Harper & appoint Ignatieff. GoodDay ( talk) 20:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Is a resident monarch, governor-general or governor obliged to follow the advice of an outgoing prime minister or premier not to approach the opposition (or somebody else from within the ruling party/coalition)? This isn't a question only for Canada, but also for Canadian provinces and all other Westminster countries and provinces (or states). It happened in 1975 in Australia, and in 1963 in the UK, not to mention the King-Byng Affairs. Peter Geatings ( talk) 12:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thinking that this should include a column for popular vote, as this would be a good way to illustrate the quirks of first-past-the-post, i.e. the final electoral results in terms of seats don't directly correlate to the %age of the vote earned (not to mention the distortive effect of the Bloc being a regional party). Thoughts? -- Jake fuersturm ( talk) 03:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Should this be included in the issues section? Health care is within provincial jurisdiction, and the only federal involvement is to ensure coverage respects the Canada Health Act and to provide transfer payments to the provinces. Mind matrix 13:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Green party shut out of 2011 debate. Is there a way to add this current event in the news to this article "Leader's debate" section in a neutral point of view? It should probably be added to the Elizabeth May article as well. Perhaps a nod to the section on the Green Party of Canada article would be wonderful in the leader's debate section.
For an example, a very short list of references are:
Burgmann, Tamsyn (2011-03-30),
"Green's Elizabeth May will fight broadcasters' decision to ditch her from debate", The Canadian Pres, retrieved 2011-03-30{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
"Debate over May diverts campaign Harper pushes lower corporate taxes, Layton would raise them, Ignatieff would add to CPP", CBC News, 2011-03-30, retrieved 2011-03-30{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
Pynn, Larry; Minsky, Amy (2011-03-30),
"Greens' Elizabeth May, determined to enter debate, prepares legal action", Vancouver Sun and Postmedia News, retrieved 2011-03-30{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
The 2011 Vote of non-confidence was added to the Stephen Harper article, so likewise, I believe the debate issue for the Green Party of Canada and Elizabeth May should be added to the section entitled Leaders debate, a part of this article (IMHO)
Kind regards SriMesh | talk 20:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
SriMesh: it's already in the Leader's Debates section, although the additional refs you provide would be useful. -- Jake Fuersturm ( talk) 21:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for all the feedback. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 22:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at WT:CANADA#New Democrat vs. New Democrats vs. New Democratic, to decide what the New Democrats should be called in the infobox and summary table. 117Avenue ( talk) 22:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted my changes to Layton's picture, Wikimedia seems to be glitching. A question I would like answered when File:Jack Layton Surrey BC 2011 election.png does become available on Wikipedia, is do we prefer the most current portrait for the infobox, or a coloured picture? 117Avenue ( talk) 02:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it be fair to add Simcoe-Grey to the Swing Ridings table? It doesn't really fit in with the criteria at the top, but (depending who you talk to) it is likely to change hands Ind->Cons, or it'll be a race between Ind/Cons (or some people even think there is a vote splitting possibility)? I'll try some good sources, but I thought I'd bring it up in here first... Priester ( talk) 00:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be more efficient to display all the information possible regarding the MPs, with their party affiliation as the background, and footnotes and/or small font to denote cabinet status/retirement. See below for example: -- Natural RX 16:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Riding | Province | Possible Swing Seat For (MP [Party] Targeting the Seat) |
Winning MP in 2008 Election | Margin Won (Over Party Targeting Seat) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean | QC | Claude Pilote [BQ] |
Denis Lebel [Con] Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) |
3.89% |
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca | BC | Troy Desouza [Con] | Keith Martin* [2] [Lib] | 0.12% |
Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia | QC | Nancy Charest [Lib] | Jean-Yves Roy** [BQ] | 1.93% |
* Denotes MP not running for re-election ** Denotes MP that resigned seat before election writs were issued |
HI EVERYONE! Sorry to be obnoxious, but could I please get some feedback on this please? -- Natural RX 03:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed a couple of edits today involving these terms. I'm pretty sure WP:MOS has something to say about using colloqualisms like Tory and Grit, especially if they may not be well known outside of a narrow audience (e.g. unless you're a Canuck, you probably won't know what a "Grit" is, and even then ....). So are we going to allow it? If we are, then at least we should define it somewhere on the page. Thoughts? -- Jake Fuersturm ( talk) 04:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Why are we using [Month Date, Year] format like a bunch of Americans? -- Jake Fuersturm ( talk) 22:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to include a predictions section, like that found at United States House of Representatives elections, 2010. Possible prediction sources can include electionprediction.org, democraticspace and the threehundredeight blog. Others would be good too. Anyone opposed to this? -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
District | Winner | Incumbent | E.P. | D.S. | 308* |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Edmonton Centre (AB) | Hawn (Cons.) | Cons. | Safe Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Edmonton—Strathcona (AB) | L. Duncan (NDP) | TCTC | Leans NDP | Leans NDP | |
Burnaby—Douglas (BC) | Siksay (NDP) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca (BC) | K. Martin (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Strong Lib. | |
Fleetwood—Port Kells (BC) | Grewal (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Nanaimo—Cowichan (BC) | Crowder (NDP) | NDP | Leans NDP | Strong NDP | |
New Westminster—Coquitlam (BC) | Donnelly (NDP) | NDP | Leans Cons. | Safe NDP | |
North Vancouver (BC) | Saxton (Cons.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Strong Lib. | |
Richmond (BC) | Wong (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Surrey North (BC) | Cadman (Cons.) | Cons. | Leans Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Vancouver Kingsway (BC) | D. Davies (NDP) | TCTC | Leans NDP | Leans Lib. | |
Vancouver South (BC) | Dosanjh (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Lib. | Safe Lib. | |
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country (BC) | J. Weston (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Elmwood—Transcona (MB) | Maloway (NDP) | NDP | TCTC | Lean NDP | |
Saint Boniface (MB) | Glover (Cons.) | TCTC | Strong Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Winnipeg North (MB) | Lamoureux (Lib.) | TCTC | Lean NDP | Safe NDP | |
Winnipeg South (MB) | Bruinooge (Cons.) | TCTC | Strong Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Miramichi (NB) | O'Neill-Gordon (Cons.) | TCTC | Strong Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe (NB) | B. Murphy (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Lib. | |
Saint John (NB) | R. Weston (Cons.) | TCTC | Strong Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Avalon (NL) | Andrews (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Lib. | Safe Cons. | |
Random—Burin—St. George's (NL) | Foote (Lib.) | Lib. | Safe Lib. | Strong Cons. | |
St. John's South—Mount Pearl (NL) | Coady (Lib.) | TCTC | Strong Lib. | Leans Lib. | |
Western Arctic (NT) | Bevington (NDP) | NDP | Leans NDP | Leans NDP | |
South Shore—St. Margaret's (NS) | Keddy (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
West Nova (NS) | Kerr (Cons.) | TCTC | Strong Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Ajax—Pickering (ON) | Holland (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Lib. | Leans Cons. | |
Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing (ON) | Hughes (NDP) | TCTC | Safe NDP | Safe NDP | |
Bramalea—Gore—Malton (ON) | Malhi (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Lib. | Strong Lib. | |
Brampton—Springdale (ON) | Dhalla (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Brampton West (ON) | Kania (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Brant (ON) | McColeman (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Don Valley West (ON) | Oliphant (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Lib. | Leans Lib. | |
Eglinton—Lawrence (ON) | Volpe (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Lib. | Leans Lib. | |
Essex (ON) | Watson (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell (ON) | Lemieux (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Guelph (ON) | Valeriote (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Lib. | |
Hamilton East—Stoney Creek (ON) | Marston (NDP) | TCTC | Safe NDP | Safe NDP | |
Hamilton Mountain (ON) | Charlton (NDP) | TCTC | Strong NDP | Strong NDP | |
Kenora (ON) | Rickford (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Kingston and the Islands (ON) | Milliken (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Lib. | Leans Lib. | |
Kitchener Centre (ON) | Woodworth (Cons.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Kitchener—Waterloo (ON) | Braid (Cons.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
London—Fanshawe (ON) | Mathyssen (NDP) | TCTC | Strong NDP | Strong NDP | |
London North Centre (ON) | Pearson (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Lib. | Leans Lib. | |
London West (ON) | Holder (Cons.) | TCTC | Strong Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Mississauga—Erindale (ON) | Dechert (Cons.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Mississauga South (ON) | Szabo (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Cons. | Leans Lib. | |
Mississauga—Streetsville (ON) | Crombie (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Lib. | Strong Lib. | |
Oak Ridges—Markham (ON) | Calandra (Cons.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Oakville (ON) | Young (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Ottawa West—Nepean (ON) | Baird (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Sault Ste. Marie (ON) | T. Martin (NDP) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Simcoe—Grey (ON) | Guergis (Ind. Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Sudbury (ON) | Thibeault (NDP) | TCTC | Leans NDP | Leans NDP | |
Thornhill (ON) | Kent (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Thunder Bay—Rainy River (ON) | Rafferty (NDP) | TCTC | Strong NDP | Strong NDP | |
Thunder Bay—Superior North (ON) | Hyer (NDP) | TCTC | Leans NDP | Strong NDP | |
Trinity—Spadina (ON) | Chow (NDP) | TCTC | Leans NDP | Strong NDP | |
Vaughan (ON) | Fantino (Cons.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Welland (ON) | Ma. Allen (NDP) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
York Centre (ON) | Dryden (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Lib. | Leans Lib. |
-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I strongly oppose adding any predictions what so ever on Wikipedia. --
33rogers (
talk)
23:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed Elizabeth May and the Green Party from the Info Box, this is because the Green Party has not won any seats in the house of commons and has a very low percentage of the Canadian popular vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.71.174 ( talk) 20:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
In response to a third opinion request, I would recommend including the Green Party in the infobox in line with the equal focus on the 5 main parties throughout the rest of the article, such as in statistic tables. Welshleprechaun ( talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The Greens should not be included because there party has no representation in the House of Commons. If you include them in the infobox you should include all the other parties and their leaders not represented or elected in the House of Commons. 22:46, 10 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaqwewew ( talk • contribs)
Yes the argument was presented and read, but that is my opinion. Welshleprechaun ( talk) 08:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
If the Green Party is included I see no reason not to include other parties, so I might go ahead and add the Newfoundland and Labrador First Party-- Jordo72 ( talk) 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
If their were polls taken for Newfoundland and Labrador they might show that the NLFP would win seats to and she won't be apart of a leaders debate.-- Jordo72 ( talk) 02:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The Green Party has had an MP in the House of Commons - Blair Wilson (switched, previously independent). He was preempted from formally sitting as a Green by the 2008 election. So the Greens have had representation in the House of Commons, unlike the other smaller parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.161 ( talk) 17:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I know it was discussed in the past, but I think we should discuss whether or not to remove the Green party from the infobox. The party has never won a seat and is very unlikely to do so in this election. I would welcome other opinions on the issue. Eiad77 ( talk) 23:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Greens got a million votes last election. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 00:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems strange to have "108 seats needed for a majority" under the Bloc Quebecois, given that they aren't even running outside of Quebec. Perhaps it should be replaced by a N/A with an asterisk. ( Smallvillefanatic ( talk) 02:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
I think it should be removed. It's out of context and fairly unimportant. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 01:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
For those are still interested, a discussion has begun at Template talk:Infobox election#For those bad in math: Seats needed to win after the election, to provide a parameter to display the seats needed for a majority. 117Avenue ( talk) 19:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It's misleading, it implies the possibility that it could actually happen. You could argue that it's not going to happen for the Greens either (I'm working from the assumption that the Greens will be running a full slate), but here's the important difference: for the Greens, it's highly improbable, but still mathematically possible, whereas for the Bloc, it is a mathematical impossibility, and that is a fact. And while this situation isn't strictly speaking an application of WP:Crystal it's close enough. -- Jake Fuersturm ( talk) 06:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Just out of idle curiosity, why is Commonwealth of Nations piped to Commonwealth of fifty-four states? It's not a name I've ever heard anyone use. - Dhodges ( talk) 02:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, it's been rescheduled for April 13th, as an NHL playoff game between the Canadiens & Bruins will be broadcasted on April 14th. GoodDay ( talk) 22:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The current article states: Due to outcry from Quebec over the pledge to provide loan guarantees for the Lower Churchill project, the Conservatives promise Quebec a $2.2 billion transfer to ease the QST to HST transition. However, the referenced article does not at any point claim this as the reason. Therefore, I object to the statement.
The article states:
It’s a major election goodie for Quebeckers, some of whom are smarting over the Tories’ Thursday promise to co-sign a multibillion-dollar loan for a Newfoundland and Labrador hydroelectric project – a pledge roundly condemned Friday by Quebec Premier Jean Charest as a threat to the province's electricity market.
This might imply a cause and effect, but it stops short of claiming it. The hydroelectric project is consistently portrayed only as the background for the announcement not as the cause. Since the source article avoids making that strong of a claim, we should as well. WinstonEwert ( talk) 03:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
That quote defines a time connection between the complaints and the HST. It does not mean causation. Certainly, there is no statement from the Conservatives that this was the reason behind the move. The word from the Conservatives in the article was that talks about HST had been ongoing with Quebec before the election and had been stopped by the election. i.e. This suggests that the Conservatives would claim that this move was already in progress before the Quebeckers complained. It seems to me that attributing a motivation behind the actions is POV unless we have at least a Conservative statement that it was the motivation. Additionally, it appears to be the only point in the entire article which attributes motivation to something. It just seems out of place. WinstonEwert ( talk) 04:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some political lean on the "Issues" section of this article. I appreciate a defined list of the issues defining this election, but it seems POV to include only the NDP's plans to resolve the issues. Shouldn't that be moved to party platforms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.37.244.10 ( talk) 20:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
-- 33rogers ( talk) 03:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
According to Elections Canada, there are zero official candidates until after April 11. So you either need to put in an estimate of the expected number of candidates each party will run (and modify it later after the official list is published on April 13) or remove the column altogether until such time as the slate of candidates is official. Otherwise it is not NPOV. Garth of the Forest ( talk) 22:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the value in providing an incomplete count of the number candidates? This is just misleading, even with the disclaimer that the deadline is April 13. It's also misleading to have a section called “Summary of results”. There are no results yet! I am going to comment out that section including the table. When Elections Canada releases the complete list of candidates, it would be good to have a list of the number of candidates each party is running. But not until there is a complete list. And there should be no "results" section of this article until May 2. — Mathew5000 ( talk) 04:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this the first time mail-in ballots have been offered to the general population, or has there been a relaxing in the requirements to get a mail-in ballot? If not, then the mail-in ballots barely need mentioned in the article, much less in the introduction.
If there has been a major change in the rules, what reliable sources are there about the change? Surely a major media outlet would have written a story about it by this point. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
-- 33rogers ( talk) 04:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Can Canadians currently vote without going to a polling station?
Canadians can vote at their returning office before election day or by mail with a special ballot.
In order to do so, you must register with Elections Canada by April 26.
--
33rogers (
talk)
09:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I Removed Unreferenced section: Contentious ridings. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Furthermore because they have resigned they are Contentious ridings is Original research Wikipedia:No original research. Also Notability Wikipedia:Notability has not been established. However this edit was reverted. And I was told to seek consensus on talk page here. -- Obsolete.fax ( talk) 02:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Neither of the cited sources used the word "criminal". Skookum1, please provide a reliable source or allow me to remove the word "criminal". -- Padraic 13:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
As it's User:33rogers who's been adding more and more detail to the lead, the onus is, per WP:BRD, on him to find a consensus in favour of his edits. Perhaps he could explain here why he feels subjects like contempt of parliament and Commonwealth history are so directly related to the topic of this article as to warrant a place in the lead. We can deal with the repeated insertion of grammatical errors later. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
After the election has occured, the article lead will likely be trimmed. GoodDay ( talk) 19:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
In response to your question, from WP:MOSINTRO: Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article., and then at news style: News writing attempts to answer all the basic questions about any particular event - who, what, when, where and why (the Five Ws) and also often how - at the opening of the article. -- 33rogers ( talk) 11:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:MOSINTRO it says Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.)
By keeping this in the lead:
The Contempt conviction is unique in Canadian history. In a wider context, no government in the British Commonwealth has fallen on a Contempt of Parliament conviction and it is without precedent in countries governed by a Westminster-styled parliament.
It establishes the International significance. And thus generates interest (even internationally) plus establishes the significance of the election. Especially considering it will be featured on the Main Page after the election.
I am thus moving this back into the Lead.
-- 33rogers ( talk) 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Also if you see an article which was featured recently on the Main page:
Hurricane Isabel, (per the featured article criteria), you will see that they have not kept the lead very short as attempted on this article. --
33rogers (
talk)
19:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
As a riff off the question I just raised at the talk page for Elizabeth May, I'm going to raise this question over here too: Why are Harper, Ignatieff, and Duceppe shown in formal poses with suit and tie, whereas Layton and May are presented in casual photos on this page? Perhaps the latter were chosen by editors who just thought they were nice photos, and they are; but in the context of the fast-approaching Canadian election, what is the visual message here, I wonder?
I'm an American with no dog in this fight, but has it occurred to anyone else that the not-so-subtle visual suggestion is that Layton and May are not as serious about their roles as are the more traditional male politicians? Is there some (possibly subconscious) political or anti-female bias at work here? I'm just askin' . . . . Textorus ( talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Due to the nature of the article and the near impossibility that while the election is active this page will be heavily visited/edited by those with views...there really should be a general NPOV tag until the heavy editing calms. For example, at the moment, it has some questionable sections such as the controversies which is a list of 13 anti harper/cons and 4 anti-all-others-combined which is a little slanted. Surveying enough news sources could undoubtedly produce dozens of "controversies" for any given party.
207.216.253.134 ( talk) 04:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I was looking at the page for the 2006 election and I saw a section on both newspaper endorsements and general endorsements of parties. Do we have any information on this for this most recent election? Bkissin ( talk) 14:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Please Stop you disruptive edits. On top of removing stuff from the lead you removed well referenced sentence "Elections Canada laid charges against the Conservative party for breaking the Canada Elections Act." -- 33rogers ( talk) 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
You may have a beef with my moving detail out of the lead, but there is no reason at all for you to revert my other non-controversial, mostly clean up edits. Be more careful and considerate in future. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see your talk page for response. -- 33rogers ( talk) 19:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a point to the above? -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Going through the changes you made again, on top of removing the well sourced sentence: Elections Canada laid charges against the Conservative party for breaking the Canada Elections Act., which by the way is one of the reasons for the election we are having now, you also removed the sentence: The government stated that it was in order to avoid being in session during the Olympics, but the opposition argued that the government did not want to have to face Parliament on the Canadian Afghan detainee issue (see 2010 Canada anti-prorogation protests). -- 33rogers ( talk) 10:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Mathew5000 is right. The committee reports its findings to the House. The house then decides whether to agree or not with the findings from the committee. This was done via the no-confidence motion. -- 33rogers ( talk) 15:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
We should not be giving prominence to one poll (Angus Reid poll 16 April) over all others, more so as it is plainly an outlier and runs counter to the polling around it (See Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2011).
I'm reinstating my summary of the 14-18 April polling. If you disagree with it please edit the numbers not just undo. Rsloch ( talk) 20:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Rsloch ( talk) 14:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Manual of Style policy states to Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.
Earlier, there was spacing in the Issues section so it was more readable.
However this was later reverted.
I asked for 7 days reprieve so that it can be more readable until the end of the Election.
However this was later reverted, and pointed to the above policy.
I have restored the version as it was for a long time before this sudden changes.
-- 33rogers ( talk) 23:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Your preferred formatting is less readable, which is why MOS says it should be the other way. The fact that in both of the sections you have started on this talk page you have chosen to put each new sentence on a separate line shows that you have strange ideas about formatting that don't comport with MOS or what normal people expect and prefer to read. - Rrius ( talk) 00:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Please, people: it's not my country, but even from far away I can smell pedantry and myopia. Does this article really, truly need the lengthy and soon-to-be utterly non-notable Issues and Controversies sections drawn out to such length as they presently are? Does every vague campaign promise and every stray soundbite really belong here? A few glaring cases in point:
Oh, but of course! Someone or several someones will answer; in which case, may I suggest hiding all this minor minor minor stuff in a drop-down list? So that readers who just want to know the inning and the score don't have to wade through the Great Dismal Wikipedia Swamp to find out? Just sayin' . . . . Textorus ( talk) 10:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Rsloch ( talk) 14:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have split the content of Controversies to the new article: Controversies in Canadian federal election, 2011.
I do not consider the Issues section to be minor stuff though. As they are important pieces of information for people to make an informed decision. -- 33rogers ( talk) 19:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
See below section for "Prose vs. List format for Issues." FYI: I am going to be nominate this article for Featured Article status after the election results are in. -- 33rogers ( talk) 00:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
the current revision (mine) most accurately represents the NDPs platform. The mention of a "conservative" tax policy lowering taxes for large business is false. It is currently part of existing legislation and required support from more than just the cons to be passed. 207.216.253.134 ( talk) 23:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: Page became unprotected at 13:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that pending changes protection for this article until after May 2-3rd sometime, would be good to protect the page from what will only escalate, the closer we get to voting day. Comments from other editors before I request an administrator to arrive?
Outback the koala (
talk)
08:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert inappropriate edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not in itself constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly.
And then you go to my talk page leaving a message saying I will be banned? Even though I have edited per policy? -- 33rogers ( talk) 01:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Further to above, copied from talk page of User:Thehelpfulone:
As you protected the article, I am asking if you would reconsider the semi-protection at this point. I've looked over several edits by anons, and mostly I think they are good faith attempts to improve the article. Certainly there is disagreement over the inclusion/exclusion of various statements, but that battle is extending far beyond just unregistered editors. I think they are trying to improve the article, and as such I feel that silencing their efforts to do so is not beneficial. That being said, I would say the article is actually bordering on the need for full protection if the overall edit warring does not stop. Cheers, Reso lute 01:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
-- 33rogers ( talk) 08:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe Embedded lists better presented as prose paragraphs, for the Issues listed.
Therefore I object to changing the Issues section into prose format.
See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)
-- 33rogers ( talk) 23:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
33rogers: please explain what you dont like about the adding of sections to the issues list? It makes them easier to read/understand and overall improves the article.
You broke the BRD. I mentioned clearly on my first edit about WP:BRD. Instead of seeking consensus, you decided to remove the content and proceed with your changes anyway. -- 33rogers ( talk) 01:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Why do you keep editing using an IPs 207.216.253.134 and 208.38.59.163 here, and using account Macutty over there? WP:DUCK & WP:SOCK -- 33rogers ( talk) 02:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me be clear: I log in from 3 Dynamic IP's (work/vpn/home) and under user name macutty. I dont always log in (and sometimes can't due to security policies at work and over VPN) I am not multiple editors, I am a single editor. No sock puppets here. Macutty ( talk) 02:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Now on to the actual discussion, I wouldlike to review the following entry in the Issues list:
"Political honesty[49] – government fell on motion of non-confidence after being found in contempt of Parliament. This was the first time in the British Commonwealth that a government was found in contempt. The New Democratic Party (NDP) stated that both the Conservatives and the Liberals cannot be trusted. The NDP accused the Conservatives for creating "Liberal-style scandals" [50] and accused the Liberals for flip-flopping on issues such as corporate tax cuts, and the Afghanistan mission.[51][52][53]"
This "issue" was born from a single narrowly phrased research poll. Further, the initial source that "defined" this as an issue, took place prior to the vote of non-confidence and the conetempt finding. Listing "This was the first time in the British Commonwealth that a government was found in contempt." it right after seems redundant when already mentioned several times in other areas of the article and appears as if it's trying to connect dots for the reader. And to follow that immediately with The NDP's response (and only the NDPs response, the lib and cons views are absent) appears to be very POV. I am not against the issue being included (the importancy of honesty to the voters) but we should not just cherry pick one source, from one poll, that was conducted prior to the fall of the gov. Instead lest find more details on where the issue stands and has stood. Macutty ( talk) 03:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Should the confidence motion/firing take place on the 8th of December how should this be handled in this article. Ericl ( talk) 14:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
(unindent)@Bearcat: fair enough. @GD: I figured the original questioner was talking about the situation where we aren't sure whether there will be an election or not because the GG has taken the situation under advisement. Obviously, the timing of the next election bears on this article. I have since become aware that some Canadians think the number of the Parliament changes when the government changes hands. I don't really get that, and it never occurred to me that anyone would think such a thing. In the end, I guess we should take Bearcat's suggestion and ignore the whole thing until there is some substantial change affecting the election date. As it stands, the most likely possibilities are no change or a coalition. At most this article will need to say for a few hours that the GG might call elections but is consulting with other parties to see if a different PM could command the confidence of the House. - Rrius ( talk) 08:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know the final fifteenth target seats for the Liberals? There clearly is one, has anyone got it figured out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siege40 ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
IMO, it's presumptive of us to assume Harper, Layton, May & Duceppe will be the party leaders in the next Fed election. We shouldn't have any of them in the Infobox. GoodDay ( talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The leaders' pictures should remain where they are until they're no longer the leaders. It seems that there's going to be an election in the fall...right on the date originally stated in the act Ericl ( talk) 13:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The Date of Polling is supposed to be the last date on which the polling was done; the date the poll results were released is immaterial. I've corrected several incorrectly dated poll results in the table--and I'll keep doing it--but it would be great if those recording new polling results could record them correctly. Or at least try to understand the table they're editing. -- Llewdor ( talk) 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Harris-Decima is a fairly high-profile polling company, but their recent polls haven't been released in a way that allows us to record them. They're not being posted to the official Decima website, so all we see are incomplete results contained within a Canadian Press article. If anyone happens to find out where to get detailed poll results from Decima, please either mention it here or add the poll data to the Opinion Poll table. -- Llewdor ( talk) 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
There is currently displayed in the article a table meant to record the election results. The information we actually need to know now is arguably already handled in the infobox (or could be), but in any event, could be handled in something like this:
Party | Party leader | Candidates | Seats | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2008 | Current | ||||
Conservative | Stephen Harper | 143 | 143 | ||
Liberal | Michael Ignatieff | 77 | 77 | ||
Bloc Québécois | Gilles Duceppe | 49 | 48 | ||
New Democrats | Jack Layton | 37 | 36 | ||
Independents and no affiliation | 2 | 1 | |||
Green | Elizabeth May | - | - |
Instead, we have a table that is, by my eyeball estimate, about eight times as large. Even if it is important to know the number of candidates each minor party is planning to field, the table is still around twice as large as necessary. I suggest using a smaller party-standing table until the election. - Rrius ( talk) 12:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
We're not 100% certain, that those are the party leaders for the 41st general election. Having their images on this article is 'pre-mature'. GoodDay ( talk) 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
As I was looking at the most recent polls on the page today, I realized that we have a lot of past polls on the page! Do you think that we should move some of the earlier polls to a separate page, possibly entitled Opinion polling in the 41st Canadian federal election? I still think that we should have opinion polls on the parent article, perhaps the 6-10 most recent polls?
Any thoughts? Bkissin ( talk) 16:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I was already thinking it is time to split off the polls. For most articles, this has meant leaving nothing behind but a {{ main}} link to the subarticle. I don't agree with keeping some set number of polls, but do think there is merit in emulating the 2008 New Zealand election article and include a graph of the poll results both in the subarticle and in this one. - Rrius ( talk) 22:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done it, but I would welcome someone with the know-how to make a graph that could appear on both pages. - Rrius ( talk) 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Should Minister Guergis' resignation from Cabinet and the Conservative Caucus amid scandal be added to the election timeline? It was my intention to add it, but I wanted to make sure I had consensus before adding it. Bkissin ( talk) 00:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The inclusion of by-elections in the timeline is, in my estimation, unimpeachable. However, I do not see the value of noting each vacancy. "X resigned to do Y." It is a noteworthy occurrence in the life of the MP and in the life of the Parliament, but it is not clearly an important milestone in the story of the next election. Does anyone object to my removing those five items from the timeline? - Rrius ( talk) 01:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Number of members per party by date [1] |
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Oct 14 | Apr 13 | Apr 30 | May 21 | Sep 16 | Nov 9 | Apr 9 | ||
Conservative | 143 | 145 | 144 | |||||
Liberal | 77 | |||||||
Bloc Québécois | 49 | 48 | 47 | 48 | ||||
NDP | 37 | 36 | 37 | |||||
Independent | 2 | 1 | ||||||
Independent Conservative | 0 | 1 | ||||||
Total members | 308 | 307 | 306 | 305 | 304 | 308 | ||
Vacant | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | ||
Government Majority | -22 | -21 | -20 | -19 | -18 | -20 |
I am wondering if there is any reason to have opinion polls in the infobox. During the election there will be numerous polls over a short period of time, is it practical to include polls in the infobox? Mr. No Funny Nickname ( talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I would actually propose deleting that article if an election is called this week, and just briefly mention here that they were cancelled because of it. -- Natural RX 16:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
What about merging all the atricles since the last election into
By-elections of the 40th Parliament? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.171.231.80 (
talk)
11:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to note, with the sudden surge of views and edits here, that this article should not be moved or edited to reflect the election is happening until the Governor General issues a writ of election; in other words, it will not happen as soon as a vote of no confidence passes. The Prime Minister must ask David Johnston to dissolve parliament and call an election first.
Just wanted to state that here, just because I'm kind of predicting an edit conflict or two happening over this. -- Natural RX 23:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Four moves in nine minutes is unhelpful. I've put move protection on this article for 24 hours; this protection may be extended/renewed if necessary. Please get consensus on the talk page first rather than repeatedly moving the article back and forth. Thank you. Timrollpickering ( talk) 18:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The election is officially happening May 2, 2011.
Jarbess ( talk) 01:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Not done: The election doesn't become official until the Governor General announces it.
117Avenue (
talk)
01:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but he's scheduled to visit the GG around ten this morning. Unless he asks him to Prorogue it again, The election's on for May. The exact date is still uncertain, but the year is NOT. Ericl ( talk) 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
If so (and please provide a link source), I'll lift the protection and move the article. Timrollpickering ( talk) 17:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate that this section notes the ridings are likely to be targeted, but the labels on the box imply that the parties are consciously targeting these ridings and we have no source to show that. I would like to change to "swing ridings". -- Padraic 20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Looking at the "most recent" photo added for Harper, I am forced to wonder if people are purposefully looking for the goofiest expressions they can find? I realize that they should have to be non-copyrighted photos, however there must be better options out there! My $0.02
HalifaxRage (
talk)
21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
There are many more ridings to watch that are left out. Why are there only certain ridings put in ? Canadaolympic989 Talk:Canadaolympic 14:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Thought I should explain why I re-introduced Targeted By column and removed sections after changes to table by Mindmatrix:
Although the original format for Contentious Ridings / Targeted Seats section - listing out the targets of each party - was used for 2008 election, I found it made it harder to understand and compare information in different ways. In doing the following:
the goal was to allow for a single reference of all ridings of interest already listed in the article.
Sorting also allows for more visibility and different kinds of comparisons that the grouped/sectioned table does not, such as:
As a riding could also be close and/or have a retiring incumbent or previous close race involving a cabinet minister, categories aren't mutually exclusive and therefore a section-based layout doesn't work well. When a sectioned table is sorted, the ability to make different kinds of comparisons also fall apart.
In re-introducing the column, I still did re-sort the initial table view so it's in alphabetical order. This essentially preserves the listing from the section-based layout, but still allows multiple ways of looking at the information.
Murdocke ( talk) 20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the article for the next election, doesn't get created until the current one is finished. 117Avenue ( talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} | York_Centre || ON || style="background:#6495ed;" | Con || style="background:#f08080;" | Lib || 5.6% || - || - |-
Seskenasi ( talk) 04:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Are all the list of candidates articles to be moved from "41st" to "2011"? 117Avenue ( talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, now I might be wrong, but isn't there a law now that requires the elections be held no later than the 3rd monday in the fourth calendar year following the previous election? If so, then this page is wrong by stating it is not scheduled though must be held no later than 2013. However, if I am right, then technically it must be held no later than October 17, 2011. Grizzwald ( talk) 06:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
(2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.
This whole discussion is irrelevant to the article at hand. This election was triggered by the fall of the government due to a motion of non-confidence being passed by parliment, not due to the expiration of the government's term of office. It doesn't matter if a fixed election date was set: That would only apply if the government ran their term of office to it's natural conclusion, which it did not. Because the government was brought down by parliament, the fixed election date legislation does not apply here. Allthenamesarealreadytaken ( talk) 00:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Was the finding unprecedented in Westminster parliamentary history? Peter Geatings ( talk) 07:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
It would be helpful to explain a little bit in the article as to why dissolution was the solution, and why the Liberal leader wasn't summoned by the Governor-General to organise a Liberal or Liberal-led coalition government. Peter Geatings ( talk) 19:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced of that, TBH. But again, Johnston didn't do it, so it's a moot point. GoodDay ( talk) 05:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll let others respond, as we're going in circles. PS: I still think it's a non-issue, since Johnston didn't dimiss Harper & appoint Ignatieff. GoodDay ( talk) 20:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Is a resident monarch, governor-general or governor obliged to follow the advice of an outgoing prime minister or premier not to approach the opposition (or somebody else from within the ruling party/coalition)? This isn't a question only for Canada, but also for Canadian provinces and all other Westminster countries and provinces (or states). It happened in 1975 in Australia, and in 1963 in the UK, not to mention the King-Byng Affairs. Peter Geatings ( talk) 12:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Thinking that this should include a column for popular vote, as this would be a good way to illustrate the quirks of first-past-the-post, i.e. the final electoral results in terms of seats don't directly correlate to the %age of the vote earned (not to mention the distortive effect of the Bloc being a regional party). Thoughts? -- Jake fuersturm ( talk) 03:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Should this be included in the issues section? Health care is within provincial jurisdiction, and the only federal involvement is to ensure coverage respects the Canada Health Act and to provide transfer payments to the provinces. Mind matrix 13:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Green party shut out of 2011 debate. Is there a way to add this current event in the news to this article "Leader's debate" section in a neutral point of view? It should probably be added to the Elizabeth May article as well. Perhaps a nod to the section on the Green Party of Canada article would be wonderful in the leader's debate section.
For an example, a very short list of references are:
Burgmann, Tamsyn (2011-03-30),
"Green's Elizabeth May will fight broadcasters' decision to ditch her from debate", The Canadian Pres, retrieved 2011-03-30{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
"Debate over May diverts campaign Harper pushes lower corporate taxes, Layton would raise them, Ignatieff would add to CPP", CBC News, 2011-03-30, retrieved 2011-03-30{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
Pynn, Larry; Minsky, Amy (2011-03-30),
"Greens' Elizabeth May, determined to enter debate, prepares legal action", Vancouver Sun and Postmedia News, retrieved 2011-03-30{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (
link)
The 2011 Vote of non-confidence was added to the Stephen Harper article, so likewise, I believe the debate issue for the Green Party of Canada and Elizabeth May should be added to the section entitled Leaders debate, a part of this article (IMHO)
Kind regards SriMesh | talk 20:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
SriMesh: it's already in the Leader's Debates section, although the additional refs you provide would be useful. -- Jake Fuersturm ( talk) 21:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for all the feedback. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 22:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at WT:CANADA#New Democrat vs. New Democrats vs. New Democratic, to decide what the New Democrats should be called in the infobox and summary table. 117Avenue ( talk) 22:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted my changes to Layton's picture, Wikimedia seems to be glitching. A question I would like answered when File:Jack Layton Surrey BC 2011 election.png does become available on Wikipedia, is do we prefer the most current portrait for the infobox, or a coloured picture? 117Avenue ( talk) 02:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Would it be fair to add Simcoe-Grey to the Swing Ridings table? It doesn't really fit in with the criteria at the top, but (depending who you talk to) it is likely to change hands Ind->Cons, or it'll be a race between Ind/Cons (or some people even think there is a vote splitting possibility)? I'll try some good sources, but I thought I'd bring it up in here first... Priester ( talk) 00:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be more efficient to display all the information possible regarding the MPs, with their party affiliation as the background, and footnotes and/or small font to denote cabinet status/retirement. See below for example: -- Natural RX 16:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Riding | Province | Possible Swing Seat For (MP [Party] Targeting the Seat) |
Winning MP in 2008 Election | Margin Won (Over Party Targeting Seat) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean | QC | Claude Pilote [BQ] |
Denis Lebel [Con] Minister of State (Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec) |
3.89% |
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca | BC | Troy Desouza [Con] | Keith Martin* [2] [Lib] | 0.12% |
Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia | QC | Nancy Charest [Lib] | Jean-Yves Roy** [BQ] | 1.93% |
* Denotes MP not running for re-election ** Denotes MP that resigned seat before election writs were issued |
HI EVERYONE! Sorry to be obnoxious, but could I please get some feedback on this please? -- Natural RX 03:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed a couple of edits today involving these terms. I'm pretty sure WP:MOS has something to say about using colloqualisms like Tory and Grit, especially if they may not be well known outside of a narrow audience (e.g. unless you're a Canuck, you probably won't know what a "Grit" is, and even then ....). So are we going to allow it? If we are, then at least we should define it somewhere on the page. Thoughts? -- Jake Fuersturm ( talk) 04:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Why are we using [Month Date, Year] format like a bunch of Americans? -- Jake Fuersturm ( talk) 22:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I would like to include a predictions section, like that found at United States House of Representatives elections, 2010. Possible prediction sources can include electionprediction.org, democraticspace and the threehundredeight blog. Others would be good too. Anyone opposed to this? -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
District | Winner | Incumbent | E.P. | D.S. | 308* |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Edmonton Centre (AB) | Hawn (Cons.) | Cons. | Safe Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Edmonton—Strathcona (AB) | L. Duncan (NDP) | TCTC | Leans NDP | Leans NDP | |
Burnaby—Douglas (BC) | Siksay (NDP) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca (BC) | K. Martin (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Strong Lib. | |
Fleetwood—Port Kells (BC) | Grewal (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Nanaimo—Cowichan (BC) | Crowder (NDP) | NDP | Leans NDP | Strong NDP | |
New Westminster—Coquitlam (BC) | Donnelly (NDP) | NDP | Leans Cons. | Safe NDP | |
North Vancouver (BC) | Saxton (Cons.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Strong Lib. | |
Richmond (BC) | Wong (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Surrey North (BC) | Cadman (Cons.) | Cons. | Leans Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Vancouver Kingsway (BC) | D. Davies (NDP) | TCTC | Leans NDP | Leans Lib. | |
Vancouver South (BC) | Dosanjh (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Lib. | Safe Lib. | |
West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country (BC) | J. Weston (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Elmwood—Transcona (MB) | Maloway (NDP) | NDP | TCTC | Lean NDP | |
Saint Boniface (MB) | Glover (Cons.) | TCTC | Strong Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Winnipeg North (MB) | Lamoureux (Lib.) | TCTC | Lean NDP | Safe NDP | |
Winnipeg South (MB) | Bruinooge (Cons.) | TCTC | Strong Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Miramichi (NB) | O'Neill-Gordon (Cons.) | TCTC | Strong Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe (NB) | B. Murphy (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Lib. | |
Saint John (NB) | R. Weston (Cons.) | TCTC | Strong Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Avalon (NL) | Andrews (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Lib. | Safe Cons. | |
Random—Burin—St. George's (NL) | Foote (Lib.) | Lib. | Safe Lib. | Strong Cons. | |
St. John's South—Mount Pearl (NL) | Coady (Lib.) | TCTC | Strong Lib. | Leans Lib. | |
Western Arctic (NT) | Bevington (NDP) | NDP | Leans NDP | Leans NDP | |
South Shore—St. Margaret's (NS) | Keddy (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
West Nova (NS) | Kerr (Cons.) | TCTC | Strong Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Ajax—Pickering (ON) | Holland (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Lib. | Leans Cons. | |
Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing (ON) | Hughes (NDP) | TCTC | Safe NDP | Safe NDP | |
Bramalea—Gore—Malton (ON) | Malhi (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Lib. | Strong Lib. | |
Brampton—Springdale (ON) | Dhalla (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Brampton West (ON) | Kania (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Brant (ON) | McColeman (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Don Valley West (ON) | Oliphant (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Lib. | Leans Lib. | |
Eglinton—Lawrence (ON) | Volpe (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Lib. | Leans Lib. | |
Essex (ON) | Watson (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Glengarry—Prescott—Russell (ON) | Lemieux (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Guelph (ON) | Valeriote (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Lib. | |
Hamilton East—Stoney Creek (ON) | Marston (NDP) | TCTC | Safe NDP | Safe NDP | |
Hamilton Mountain (ON) | Charlton (NDP) | TCTC | Strong NDP | Strong NDP | |
Kenora (ON) | Rickford (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Kingston and the Islands (ON) | Milliken (Lib.) | TCTC | Leans Lib. | Leans Lib. | |
Kitchener Centre (ON) | Woodworth (Cons.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Kitchener—Waterloo (ON) | Braid (Cons.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
London—Fanshawe (ON) | Mathyssen (NDP) | TCTC | Strong NDP | Strong NDP | |
London North Centre (ON) | Pearson (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Lib. | Leans Lib. | |
London West (ON) | Holder (Cons.) | TCTC | Strong Cons. | Strong Cons. | |
Mississauga—Erindale (ON) | Dechert (Cons.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Mississauga South (ON) | Szabo (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Cons. | Leans Lib. | |
Mississauga—Streetsville (ON) | Crombie (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Lib. | Strong Lib. | |
Oak Ridges—Markham (ON) | Calandra (Cons.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Oakville (ON) | Young (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Ottawa West—Nepean (ON) | Baird (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Sault Ste. Marie (ON) | T. Martin (NDP) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Simcoe—Grey (ON) | Guergis (Ind. Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Sudbury (ON) | Thibeault (NDP) | TCTC | Leans NDP | Leans NDP | |
Thornhill (ON) | Kent (Cons.) | TCTC | Safe Cons. | Safe Cons. | |
Thunder Bay—Rainy River (ON) | Rafferty (NDP) | TCTC | Strong NDP | Strong NDP | |
Thunder Bay—Superior North (ON) | Hyer (NDP) | TCTC | Leans NDP | Strong NDP | |
Trinity—Spadina (ON) | Chow (NDP) | TCTC | Leans NDP | Strong NDP | |
Vaughan (ON) | Fantino (Cons.) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
Welland (ON) | Ma. Allen (NDP) | TCTC | Leans Cons. | Leans Cons. | |
York Centre (ON) | Dryden (Lib.) | Lib. | Leans Lib. | Leans Lib. |
-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I strongly oppose adding any predictions what so ever on Wikipedia. --
33rogers (
talk)
23:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed Elizabeth May and the Green Party from the Info Box, this is because the Green Party has not won any seats in the house of commons and has a very low percentage of the Canadian popular vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.71.174 ( talk) 20:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
In response to a third opinion request, I would recommend including the Green Party in the infobox in line with the equal focus on the 5 main parties throughout the rest of the article, such as in statistic tables. Welshleprechaun ( talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The Greens should not be included because there party has no representation in the House of Commons. If you include them in the infobox you should include all the other parties and their leaders not represented or elected in the House of Commons. 22:46, 10 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaqwewew ( talk • contribs)
Yes the argument was presented and read, but that is my opinion. Welshleprechaun ( talk) 08:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
If the Green Party is included I see no reason not to include other parties, so I might go ahead and add the Newfoundland and Labrador First Party-- Jordo72 ( talk) 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
If their were polls taken for Newfoundland and Labrador they might show that the NLFP would win seats to and she won't be apart of a leaders debate.-- Jordo72 ( talk) 02:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The Green Party has had an MP in the House of Commons - Blair Wilson (switched, previously independent). He was preempted from formally sitting as a Green by the 2008 election. So the Greens have had representation in the House of Commons, unlike the other smaller parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.161 ( talk) 17:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I know it was discussed in the past, but I think we should discuss whether or not to remove the Green party from the infobox. The party has never won a seat and is very unlikely to do so in this election. I would welcome other opinions on the issue. Eiad77 ( talk) 23:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Greens got a million votes last election. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 00:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems strange to have "108 seats needed for a majority" under the Bloc Quebecois, given that they aren't even running outside of Quebec. Perhaps it should be replaced by a N/A with an asterisk. ( Smallvillefanatic ( talk) 02:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
I think it should be removed. It's out of context and fairly unimportant. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 01:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
For those are still interested, a discussion has begun at Template talk:Infobox election#For those bad in math: Seats needed to win after the election, to provide a parameter to display the seats needed for a majority. 117Avenue ( talk) 19:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It's misleading, it implies the possibility that it could actually happen. You could argue that it's not going to happen for the Greens either (I'm working from the assumption that the Greens will be running a full slate), but here's the important difference: for the Greens, it's highly improbable, but still mathematically possible, whereas for the Bloc, it is a mathematical impossibility, and that is a fact. And while this situation isn't strictly speaking an application of WP:Crystal it's close enough. -- Jake Fuersturm ( talk) 06:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Just out of idle curiosity, why is Commonwealth of Nations piped to Commonwealth of fifty-four states? It's not a name I've ever heard anyone use. - Dhodges ( talk) 02:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Apparently, it's been rescheduled for April 13th, as an NHL playoff game between the Canadiens & Bruins will be broadcasted on April 14th. GoodDay ( talk) 22:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
The current article states: Due to outcry from Quebec over the pledge to provide loan guarantees for the Lower Churchill project, the Conservatives promise Quebec a $2.2 billion transfer to ease the QST to HST transition. However, the referenced article does not at any point claim this as the reason. Therefore, I object to the statement.
The article states:
It’s a major election goodie for Quebeckers, some of whom are smarting over the Tories’ Thursday promise to co-sign a multibillion-dollar loan for a Newfoundland and Labrador hydroelectric project – a pledge roundly condemned Friday by Quebec Premier Jean Charest as a threat to the province's electricity market.
This might imply a cause and effect, but it stops short of claiming it. The hydroelectric project is consistently portrayed only as the background for the announcement not as the cause. Since the source article avoids making that strong of a claim, we should as well. WinstonEwert ( talk) 03:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
That quote defines a time connection between the complaints and the HST. It does not mean causation. Certainly, there is no statement from the Conservatives that this was the reason behind the move. The word from the Conservatives in the article was that talks about HST had been ongoing with Quebec before the election and had been stopped by the election. i.e. This suggests that the Conservatives would claim that this move was already in progress before the Quebeckers complained. It seems to me that attributing a motivation behind the actions is POV unless we have at least a Conservative statement that it was the motivation. Additionally, it appears to be the only point in the entire article which attributes motivation to something. It just seems out of place. WinstonEwert ( talk) 04:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some political lean on the "Issues" section of this article. I appreciate a defined list of the issues defining this election, but it seems POV to include only the NDP's plans to resolve the issues. Shouldn't that be moved to party platforms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.37.244.10 ( talk) 20:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
-- 33rogers ( talk) 03:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
According to Elections Canada, there are zero official candidates until after April 11. So you either need to put in an estimate of the expected number of candidates each party will run (and modify it later after the official list is published on April 13) or remove the column altogether until such time as the slate of candidates is official. Otherwise it is not NPOV. Garth of the Forest ( talk) 22:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the value in providing an incomplete count of the number candidates? This is just misleading, even with the disclaimer that the deadline is April 13. It's also misleading to have a section called “Summary of results”. There are no results yet! I am going to comment out that section including the table. When Elections Canada releases the complete list of candidates, it would be good to have a list of the number of candidates each party is running. But not until there is a complete list. And there should be no "results" section of this article until May 2. — Mathew5000 ( talk) 04:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Is this the first time mail-in ballots have been offered to the general population, or has there been a relaxing in the requirements to get a mail-in ballot? If not, then the mail-in ballots barely need mentioned in the article, much less in the introduction.
If there has been a major change in the rules, what reliable sources are there about the change? Surely a major media outlet would have written a story about it by this point. — C.Fred ( talk) 00:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
-- 33rogers ( talk) 04:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Can Canadians currently vote without going to a polling station?
Canadians can vote at their returning office before election day or by mail with a special ballot.
In order to do so, you must register with Elections Canada by April 26.
--
33rogers (
talk)
09:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I Removed Unreferenced section: Contentious ridings. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Furthermore because they have resigned they are Contentious ridings is Original research Wikipedia:No original research. Also Notability Wikipedia:Notability has not been established. However this edit was reverted. And I was told to seek consensus on talk page here. -- Obsolete.fax ( talk) 02:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Neither of the cited sources used the word "criminal". Skookum1, please provide a reliable source or allow me to remove the word "criminal". -- Padraic 13:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
As it's User:33rogers who's been adding more and more detail to the lead, the onus is, per WP:BRD, on him to find a consensus in favour of his edits. Perhaps he could explain here why he feels subjects like contempt of parliament and Commonwealth history are so directly related to the topic of this article as to warrant a place in the lead. We can deal with the repeated insertion of grammatical errors later. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
After the election has occured, the article lead will likely be trimmed. GoodDay ( talk) 19:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
In response to your question, from WP:MOSINTRO: Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article., and then at news style: News writing attempts to answer all the basic questions about any particular event - who, what, when, where and why (the Five Ws) and also often how - at the opening of the article. -- 33rogers ( talk) 11:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:MOSINTRO it says Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.)
By keeping this in the lead:
The Contempt conviction is unique in Canadian history. In a wider context, no government in the British Commonwealth has fallen on a Contempt of Parliament conviction and it is without precedent in countries governed by a Westminster-styled parliament.
It establishes the International significance. And thus generates interest (even internationally) plus establishes the significance of the election. Especially considering it will be featured on the Main Page after the election.
I am thus moving this back into the Lead.
-- 33rogers ( talk) 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Also if you see an article which was featured recently on the Main page:
Hurricane Isabel, (per the featured article criteria), you will see that they have not kept the lead very short as attempted on this article. --
33rogers (
talk)
19:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
As a riff off the question I just raised at the talk page for Elizabeth May, I'm going to raise this question over here too: Why are Harper, Ignatieff, and Duceppe shown in formal poses with suit and tie, whereas Layton and May are presented in casual photos on this page? Perhaps the latter were chosen by editors who just thought they were nice photos, and they are; but in the context of the fast-approaching Canadian election, what is the visual message here, I wonder?
I'm an American with no dog in this fight, but has it occurred to anyone else that the not-so-subtle visual suggestion is that Layton and May are not as serious about their roles as are the more traditional male politicians? Is there some (possibly subconscious) political or anti-female bias at work here? I'm just askin' . . . . Textorus ( talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Due to the nature of the article and the near impossibility that while the election is active this page will be heavily visited/edited by those with views...there really should be a general NPOV tag until the heavy editing calms. For example, at the moment, it has some questionable sections such as the controversies which is a list of 13 anti harper/cons and 4 anti-all-others-combined which is a little slanted. Surveying enough news sources could undoubtedly produce dozens of "controversies" for any given party.
207.216.253.134 ( talk) 04:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, I was looking at the page for the 2006 election and I saw a section on both newspaper endorsements and general endorsements of parties. Do we have any information on this for this most recent election? Bkissin ( talk) 14:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Please Stop you disruptive edits. On top of removing stuff from the lead you removed well referenced sentence "Elections Canada laid charges against the Conservative party for breaking the Canada Elections Act." -- 33rogers ( talk) 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
You may have a beef with my moving detail out of the lead, but there is no reason at all for you to revert my other non-controversial, mostly clean up edits. Be more careful and considerate in future. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see your talk page for response. -- 33rogers ( talk) 19:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Is there a point to the above? -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
Going through the changes you made again, on top of removing the well sourced sentence: Elections Canada laid charges against the Conservative party for breaking the Canada Elections Act., which by the way is one of the reasons for the election we are having now, you also removed the sentence: The government stated that it was in order to avoid being in session during the Olympics, but the opposition argued that the government did not want to have to face Parliament on the Canadian Afghan detainee issue (see 2010 Canada anti-prorogation protests). -- 33rogers ( talk) 10:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Mathew5000 is right. The committee reports its findings to the House. The house then decides whether to agree or not with the findings from the committee. This was done via the no-confidence motion. -- 33rogers ( talk) 15:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
We should not be giving prominence to one poll (Angus Reid poll 16 April) over all others, more so as it is plainly an outlier and runs counter to the polling around it (See Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2011).
I'm reinstating my summary of the 14-18 April polling. If you disagree with it please edit the numbers not just undo. Rsloch ( talk) 20:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Rsloch ( talk) 14:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Manual of Style policy states to Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.
Earlier, there was spacing in the Issues section so it was more readable.
However this was later reverted.
I asked for 7 days reprieve so that it can be more readable until the end of the Election.
However this was later reverted, and pointed to the above policy.
I have restored the version as it was for a long time before this sudden changes.
-- 33rogers ( talk) 23:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Your preferred formatting is less readable, which is why MOS says it should be the other way. The fact that in both of the sections you have started on this talk page you have chosen to put each new sentence on a separate line shows that you have strange ideas about formatting that don't comport with MOS or what normal people expect and prefer to read. - Rrius ( talk) 00:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Please, people: it's not my country, but even from far away I can smell pedantry and myopia. Does this article really, truly need the lengthy and soon-to-be utterly non-notable Issues and Controversies sections drawn out to such length as they presently are? Does every vague campaign promise and every stray soundbite really belong here? A few glaring cases in point:
Oh, but of course! Someone or several someones will answer; in which case, may I suggest hiding all this minor minor minor stuff in a drop-down list? So that readers who just want to know the inning and the score don't have to wade through the Great Dismal Wikipedia Swamp to find out? Just sayin' . . . . Textorus ( talk) 10:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Rsloch ( talk) 14:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have split the content of Controversies to the new article: Controversies in Canadian federal election, 2011.
I do not consider the Issues section to be minor stuff though. As they are important pieces of information for people to make an informed decision. -- 33rogers ( talk) 19:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
See below section for "Prose vs. List format for Issues." FYI: I am going to be nominate this article for Featured Article status after the election results are in. -- 33rogers ( talk) 00:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
the current revision (mine) most accurately represents the NDPs platform. The mention of a "conservative" tax policy lowering taxes for large business is false. It is currently part of existing legislation and required support from more than just the cons to be passed. 207.216.253.134 ( talk) 23:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Note: Page became unprotected at 13:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that pending changes protection for this article until after May 2-3rd sometime, would be good to protect the page from what will only escalate, the closer we get to voting day. Comments from other editors before I request an administrator to arrive?
Outback the koala (
talk)
08:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert inappropriate edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not in itself constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly.
And then you go to my talk page leaving a message saying I will be banned? Even though I have edited per policy? -- 33rogers ( talk) 01:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Further to above, copied from talk page of User:Thehelpfulone:
As you protected the article, I am asking if you would reconsider the semi-protection at this point. I've looked over several edits by anons, and mostly I think they are good faith attempts to improve the article. Certainly there is disagreement over the inclusion/exclusion of various statements, but that battle is extending far beyond just unregistered editors. I think they are trying to improve the article, and as such I feel that silencing their efforts to do so is not beneficial. That being said, I would say the article is actually bordering on the need for full protection if the overall edit warring does not stop. Cheers, Reso lute 01:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
-- 33rogers ( talk) 08:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe Embedded lists better presented as prose paragraphs, for the Issues listed.
Therefore I object to changing the Issues section into prose format.
See: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists)
-- 33rogers ( talk) 23:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
33rogers: please explain what you dont like about the adding of sections to the issues list? It makes them easier to read/understand and overall improves the article.
You broke the BRD. I mentioned clearly on my first edit about WP:BRD. Instead of seeking consensus, you decided to remove the content and proceed with your changes anyway. -- 33rogers ( talk) 01:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Why do you keep editing using an IPs 207.216.253.134 and 208.38.59.163 here, and using account Macutty over there? WP:DUCK & WP:SOCK -- 33rogers ( talk) 02:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me be clear: I log in from 3 Dynamic IP's (work/vpn/home) and under user name macutty. I dont always log in (and sometimes can't due to security policies at work and over VPN) I am not multiple editors, I am a single editor. No sock puppets here. Macutty ( talk) 02:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Now on to the actual discussion, I wouldlike to review the following entry in the Issues list:
"Political honesty[49] – government fell on motion of non-confidence after being found in contempt of Parliament. This was the first time in the British Commonwealth that a government was found in contempt. The New Democratic Party (NDP) stated that both the Conservatives and the Liberals cannot be trusted. The NDP accused the Conservatives for creating "Liberal-style scandals" [50] and accused the Liberals for flip-flopping on issues such as corporate tax cuts, and the Afghanistan mission.[51][52][53]"
This "issue" was born from a single narrowly phrased research poll. Further, the initial source that "defined" this as an issue, took place prior to the vote of non-confidence and the conetempt finding. Listing "This was the first time in the British Commonwealth that a government was found in contempt." it right after seems redundant when already mentioned several times in other areas of the article and appears as if it's trying to connect dots for the reader. And to follow that immediately with The NDP's response (and only the NDPs response, the lib and cons views are absent) appears to be very POV. I am not against the issue being included (the importancy of honesty to the voters) but we should not just cherry pick one source, from one poll, that was conducted prior to the fall of the gov. Instead lest find more details on where the issue stands and has stood. Macutty ( talk) 03:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)