This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regarding the references, my original contribution was to reformat the source links — I did not originally review them for content. Seeing CJCurrie's comments about them, however, I've reviewed the references now, and have the following comments now that this is beginning to turn into a revert war:
Bottom line, if we're going to make these claims, I think that at minimum we need stronger sources than an opinion column. I'm inclined to agree with CJCurrie that they should be removed, but I wanted to discuss this here first rather than simply reverting without discussion. Bearcat 17:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to revert the edits, pending a more thorough discussion on this page. CJCurrie 01:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd be quite happy to see the matter resolved.
Perhaps if GoldDragon would try to build consensus on the talk page rather than reposting the same rejected edits over and over, some of the silliness and repetition could be avoided.
See also Judi Longfield, Howard Moscoe, David Miller, Rob Davis (Ontario politician). CJCurrie 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
A member of the Progressive Conservatives, she was elected in the Whitby—Ajax electoral district over Judi Longfield who was running as the provincial Liberal candidate. History showed that opposition parties in Canada tend to gain seats in by-elections. However, Longfield entered the race with strong name recognition from her past federal experience. [1] An early scheduled budget announcement was also expected to increase the chances of the Liberal goverment picking up seats, according to opposition parties, although others pointed out that it could have hurt their prospects [2]. During the by-election, Elliott and PC leader John Tory campaigned together, while Longfield's ads made no mention of Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty. Elliott won the seat by a narrow margin as predicted.
Flaherty reportedly did not campaign heavily for his wife, deciding instead to focus upon his federal department. Although Flaherty had previously run against John Tory for the provincial PC leadership in 2004, Tory campaigned for Flaherty and Elliott during their campaigns.
(i) This is far more background information than is required for a by-election result.
(ii) It doesn't read particularly well. The line about opposition parties gaining seats comes out of nowhere, and disrupts the flow of the article.
(ii) The wording is more than a bit leading. "History showed that opposition parties in Canada tend to gain seats in by-elections. However, Longfield entered the race with strong name recognition from her past federal experience." This implies that Longfield was expected to win the by-election, which is not accurate (per Urquhart's article). It also ignores the fact that Elliott came into the race with high name recognition, as the wife of a federal cabinet minister.
(iii) "An early scheduled budget announcement was also expected to increase the chances of the Liberal goverment picking up seats, according to opposition parties, although others pointed out that it could have hurt their prospects."
I see that you've included a tangential reference to the information I provided on Talk:Judi Longfield. The main thrust of your sentence, however, remains unchanged: that the budget was directed toward the by-elections. I've already indicated that this is somewhat inaccurate; it's also POV to highlight it so.
(iv) Is it really significant that Elliott campaigned with her party's leader?
(v) Considering that Longfield was re-using her federal ads, is it really surprising there was no mention of McGuinty? I think you're extrapolating a bit too much here.
(vi) The only cited sources, as before, are opinion columns.
An analyst here states that it was a good-new budget [3] [4] GoldDragon 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Conclusion: GoldDragon has made some subtle modifications to his original wording, but his basic premise remains the same as before. Assuming that Bearcat's previous "vote of opposition" is still in effect, the count is currently 2-1 against inclusion. Perhaps GD would be advised to seek consensus on the talk page before reverting again. CJCurrie 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe some of your commentary and especially the conclusion is condescending. I already find it insulting that my attempts to compromise have been rebuffed with blanking. I would rather you find a way to make the language more neutral instead of footnoting it. GoldDragon 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, GD, you could suggest a revised wording here, on the talk page, rather than continuing with our dispute on the article page. Your attempts at compromise so far have amounted to adding a few tangential phrases while keeping the main points intact -- the problem is that its the main points I object to. CJCurrie 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
My comments are in between your points. Finally, I don't believe that revisions have to be prohibited to the talk page first before "making the cut", that would essentially give the other side an upper hand. 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The current wording claims that this is the first time that a husband and wife has represented the same electoral district. However, Whitby-Ajax and Whitby-Oshawa are by no means the same electoral distict, and the current wording that the borders are "not completely identical" significantly misrepresents the distinction. One includes half of Ajax, the other much of Oshawa. We're not talking about the border jogging a street or two further, here.
Perhaps the wording should instead refer to Elliott's announced intention to run in Whitby-Oshawa in the 2007 general election, after redistribution, and state that if she wins, they will be the first husband/wife to represent the same district. Daveharr 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, in a much more general sense, is there any real precedent in Canadian history for a husband and wife to be simultaneously serving as elected representatives in two different legislatures regardless of whether their riding boundaries are the same or not? (Note: I'm talking about provincial/federal; a city council isn't a legislature, so Jack Layton and Olivia Chow don't count.) Bearcat 17:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Regarding the references, my original contribution was to reformat the source links — I did not originally review them for content. Seeing CJCurrie's comments about them, however, I've reviewed the references now, and have the following comments now that this is beginning to turn into a revert war:
Bottom line, if we're going to make these claims, I think that at minimum we need stronger sources than an opinion column. I'm inclined to agree with CJCurrie that they should be removed, but I wanted to discuss this here first rather than simply reverting without discussion. Bearcat 17:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to revert the edits, pending a more thorough discussion on this page. CJCurrie 01:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd be quite happy to see the matter resolved.
Perhaps if GoldDragon would try to build consensus on the talk page rather than reposting the same rejected edits over and over, some of the silliness and repetition could be avoided.
See also Judi Longfield, Howard Moscoe, David Miller, Rob Davis (Ontario politician). CJCurrie 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
A member of the Progressive Conservatives, she was elected in the Whitby—Ajax electoral district over Judi Longfield who was running as the provincial Liberal candidate. History showed that opposition parties in Canada tend to gain seats in by-elections. However, Longfield entered the race with strong name recognition from her past federal experience. [1] An early scheduled budget announcement was also expected to increase the chances of the Liberal goverment picking up seats, according to opposition parties, although others pointed out that it could have hurt their prospects [2]. During the by-election, Elliott and PC leader John Tory campaigned together, while Longfield's ads made no mention of Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty. Elliott won the seat by a narrow margin as predicted.
Flaherty reportedly did not campaign heavily for his wife, deciding instead to focus upon his federal department. Although Flaherty had previously run against John Tory for the provincial PC leadership in 2004, Tory campaigned for Flaherty and Elliott during their campaigns.
(i) This is far more background information than is required for a by-election result.
(ii) It doesn't read particularly well. The line about opposition parties gaining seats comes out of nowhere, and disrupts the flow of the article.
(ii) The wording is more than a bit leading. "History showed that opposition parties in Canada tend to gain seats in by-elections. However, Longfield entered the race with strong name recognition from her past federal experience." This implies that Longfield was expected to win the by-election, which is not accurate (per Urquhart's article). It also ignores the fact that Elliott came into the race with high name recognition, as the wife of a federal cabinet minister.
(iii) "An early scheduled budget announcement was also expected to increase the chances of the Liberal goverment picking up seats, according to opposition parties, although others pointed out that it could have hurt their prospects."
I see that you've included a tangential reference to the information I provided on Talk:Judi Longfield. The main thrust of your sentence, however, remains unchanged: that the budget was directed toward the by-elections. I've already indicated that this is somewhat inaccurate; it's also POV to highlight it so.
(iv) Is it really significant that Elliott campaigned with her party's leader?
(v) Considering that Longfield was re-using her federal ads, is it really surprising there was no mention of McGuinty? I think you're extrapolating a bit too much here.
(vi) The only cited sources, as before, are opinion columns.
An analyst here states that it was a good-new budget [3] [4] GoldDragon 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Conclusion: GoldDragon has made some subtle modifications to his original wording, but his basic premise remains the same as before. Assuming that Bearcat's previous "vote of opposition" is still in effect, the count is currently 2-1 against inclusion. Perhaps GD would be advised to seek consensus on the talk page before reverting again. CJCurrie 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe some of your commentary and especially the conclusion is condescending. I already find it insulting that my attempts to compromise have been rebuffed with blanking. I would rather you find a way to make the language more neutral instead of footnoting it. GoldDragon 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, GD, you could suggest a revised wording here, on the talk page, rather than continuing with our dispute on the article page. Your attempts at compromise so far have amounted to adding a few tangential phrases while keeping the main points intact -- the problem is that its the main points I object to. CJCurrie 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
My comments are in between your points. Finally, I don't believe that revisions have to be prohibited to the talk page first before "making the cut", that would essentially give the other side an upper hand. 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
The current wording claims that this is the first time that a husband and wife has represented the same electoral district. However, Whitby-Ajax and Whitby-Oshawa are by no means the same electoral distict, and the current wording that the borders are "not completely identical" significantly misrepresents the distinction. One includes half of Ajax, the other much of Oshawa. We're not talking about the border jogging a street or two further, here.
Perhaps the wording should instead refer to Elliott's announced intention to run in Whitby-Oshawa in the 2007 general election, after redistribution, and state that if she wins, they will be the first husband/wife to represent the same district. Daveharr 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, in a much more general sense, is there any real precedent in Canadian history for a husband and wife to be simultaneously serving as elected representatives in two different legislatures regardless of whether their riding boundaries are the same or not? (Note: I'm talking about provincial/federal; a city council isn't a legislature, so Jack Layton and Olivia Chow don't count.) Bearcat 17:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)