Talk:2011 Canadian federal election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Issues>Economic and fiscal policy>recession

Reviewing all the refs, it appears this may be a bit of a stretch.... There are 3 refs that are sort of strung together to draw a conclusion: the first is a Paul Martin quote saying the the C.D. Howe Institute and the Fraser Institute is off base in trerms of balancing the budget (not weathering the recession) and its a Martin quote so should be taken with a grain of salt. The second is a 2009 Reuters article about how the canadian banking system has weathered the recession well, but does not attribute this to either Liberals or Conservatives (just the Canadian gov). The last is wide ranging AP article on Stephen Harper and only has two brief paragraphs where Robert Bothwell is quoted as saying Harper takes credit for banking regulation that prevented mergers.

The last article is not clear on weather it summerize the overall intent of the current article content...is it sayign harper takes creidt for the recovery from the recession or from the strength of the banking sector? You really have to integrate all three refs to clearly define whats in the article. Additionally, is Robert Bothwell considered an authority banking and economic subjects? (he may well be, I just dont know much about him other than his wiki page which indicates he specializes in the cold war rather than financial regulation). Macutty (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I Also have an issue with the following entry that appears immediately after the conservative balanced budget date: "Critics and political analysts, however, argue that Paul Martin's Liberal government left a $13 billion budget surplus, before the Conservatives took power.[32][33]"

Neither ref ties the cons budget to the liberal surplas. Its SYNTH to try and connect these two for the reader. Macutty (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"The banks would have been just thrilled to do what Wall Street was doing, but the previous Liberal government wouldn't allow them to do it and Harper takes credit for that," says Robert Bothwell, a professor at the University of Toronto. from the article. --33rogers (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Things have improved greatly since then — Canada survived the global financial meltdown in relatively strong shape and has recovered almost all jobs lost during the recession, while its banking sector remains intact. Harper likes to take the credit, but here too he owes a debt to his Liberal predecessors; it was they who installed the banking regulations that did much to shield Canadians from the recession. also from the article. --33rogers (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If it takes 3 refs and some OR to connect the dots then its Wikipedia:SYNTH As well, that point they are making is over the recession, not the cons balanced budget. It has no place following the cons budget statement. Macutty (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about. The article clearly states global financial meltdown. Why are you removing a well sourced information? Why are you trying to cover up? --33rogers (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the conservatives pledging to balance the budget by 2013? It requires multiple refs and OR to tie your content to the budget, and even then its a stretch. this is the definition of SYNTH Macutty (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And Robert Bothwell has yet to be confirmed as an authority on this topic. He would certianly be an authority on the cold war, but I dont see any credentials showing his expertise in this field. Macutty (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinion polling trend commentary

For those who are unaware, there has been a discussion on Talk:Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2011, to not include any conclusions about the polling data (see sections "Where the NDP are taking votes from" and "A thought"). Any sort of observation of the polling data is original research, and a synthesis of sources. We have to let the data speak for itself. 117Avenue (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

While I agree for the most part, we do need to be a little bit careful. Sections like the NDP Surge I think can be included (pending UNDUE) because they are not OR or analysis, but rather spelling out what the data says in words. Ravendrop 19:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2011 is supposed to be a list of polls. So it would be unwise to keep the NDP surge in that section. I restored it back here, however Rrius reverted it with this edit https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Canadian_federal_election%2C_2011&action=historysubmit&diff=426309274&oldid=426309104 --33rogers (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The section was at Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2011 and was removed on the basis of a consensus that the material was OR and synthesis. I'm not sure I agree, but it does have WP:Crystal Ball problems and has, in the last paragraph at least, problems with informal writing. If the section is to be included here, it clearly belongs in the opinion poll section because it is wholly a creature of the current opinion polls. In fact, if the decision ends up being to keep it, the information should be moved back to the sub-article and summarised here. Also, I have no idea why 33rogers is obsessed with putting the opinion polling at the end of the article, but does not logically fit there, and should remain where it is. -Rrius (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree there's a OR issue, but it is quite ridiculous not to write anything about the NDP surge when regular news have covered it for a week. What we should do is to sum up what reliable new sources (e.g. Reuters) have said and provide links to both the new sources and the polling data.Educatedseacucumber (talk) 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

NDP Surge

First off, this NDP surge was also created here.

Then 117Avenue transcluded it there so that there is no duplicate of the same material.

Lets be clear. That article is a "List" kind of article.

This article here is not. Here we have "Prose" like you like to say.

--33rogers (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The references are sufficient for WP:BURDEN

I have provided reliable references for the material provided.

But you feel that it should be removed.

Just feel nauseous now, with the way you are dealing with this.

--33rogers (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Rrius is pointing to the issue of an argument of where the NDP votes are being taken from.

Here we are discussing removal of the NDP surge section.

This is a totally different topic.

To combine both of them, is just not reasonable.

--33rogers (talk) 07:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think mentioning on April ** the press reported a rise in the ndp in the polls (ref) with a subsequent decrease in polling for the bloc within quebec (ref) is enough, and is the only key thing needed to be said right now - the media is mentioning this surge alot so it needs mentioning here any 10% climb in polls is significant. But even the comment about the bloc isnt truley needed- we need just the facts not interpretations, people are smart to conclude themselves with the raw data. Ottawa4ever (talk) 07:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is what the section looked like before it was expanded by another user:

On the week before the leaders debate, on April 8, NDP support hit a campaign low of 13.2%.[69][70] The reversal of fortune occurred on April 16, when an Angus Reid poll indicated a tie in support for the NDP and the Liberals, both polling at 25%.[71][72][73] Later other polls confirmed this tie.[74][75]

While the NDP support increased, the Liberal and Bloc support slipped. The Conservatives, however, continued to poll in a range from the mid-30's to the low 40 percent range. A week before the election day, the NDP surged past the Liberals to take the second place.[76][77]

--33rogers (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There has been extensive talk at the poll article to not compare poll companies, or give one special attention. There is no way we can correctly comment on any trend. Companies have different tactics in their polling, creating discrepancies, sure a poll put the NDP at 13.2% on April 8, but the other ones disagree. 117Avenue (talk) 10:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

33rogers, you need to actually look at the whole discussion, not just the title. In any event, the NDP surge is a creature of the polling, so it belongs there. What's more, you unilateral choice to move the opinion polls section is without merit. -Rrius (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is meant by "a creature of the polling." Don't you think that polls reflect actual beliefs/behavior? Educatedseacucumber (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Repetative statement

The phrase "A cabinet being found in contempt of parliament is a first in the history of both Canada and the Commonwealth of Nations; it is without precedent in countries that have employed the Westminster parliamentary system" appears 3 times: once in the lead, once in the background, and again in the issues section. I agree that this has been reported by numerous reliable sources, but it should also be noted that this was part of Ignatieffs immediately following the vote of non-confidence and is a liberal talking point. I believe it should be mentioned once, maybe twice, but it does not justify such repetition. Macutty (talk) 00:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd also point out that none of the sources actually mention that it has not happened in non-Commonwealth countries, Bermuda, Ireland, Iraq, Israel, that also use the Westminster system. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization

In light of several recent edits related to the capitalization of the words Parliament, Government, and Opposition (e.g. [1] and [2]), I have posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. The word parliament certainly can be a common noun, but in sentences like "It was done while Parliament was in session", the word is used as a proper noun. In that type of usage, Parliament is capitalized by reputable English-language publishers (e.g. [3][4][5]). Wikipedia articles generally follow this usage. As for Government and Opposition, the rule given by The Canadian Style is: "The word Government is capitalized when it refers to the political apparatus of a party in power. It is lower-cased when it refers in a general way to the offices and agencies that carry out the functions of governing" [6]. Thus we should write, for example, "the Government was found in contempt of Parliament by the Opposition-dominated committee". In this context, the words refer specifically to the Government and the Opposition in the House of Commons; the capitals are important because lower-cased, the words could be interpreted to mean something else. —Mathew5000 (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What you've done is against the Wikipedia MoS as presently written. Making a statement here does not justify the edit. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, WP:MOS as presently written does not cover this situation. It says that "generic words for types of government bodies do not take capitals", but in a phrase like "while Parliament is in session", the word Parliament is not a generic word but rather a short form name for a specific entity. Mathew5000 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a selective reading of the MoS. The part you quote is in full: "...the names of specific cities, towns, countries, and the like are proper nouns and require capitals; but generic words for types of government bodies do not take capitals. Sometimes, the full official name of a body is not needed." The MoS considers "generic words" to be anything that isn't a proper noun. Hence, since "Parliament" is not the full official name of the Parliament of Canada, it is not a proper noun and it is incorrect to capitalise it; the word is decapitalised as "parliament" when used as a specific designator for the full official name of the Parliament of Canada. The illustration given in the MoS supports this: "The City of Smithville has a population of 55,000" and "The city has a population of 55,000" are both correct; clearly the decapitalised "city" in the second sentence is a specific designator for the City of Smithville (as "parliament" is for "Parliament of Canada") and is obviously decapitalised. What you argue is right - "while Parliament is in session" - is the very type of thing the MoS says is wrong - "The City has a population of 55,000". Please also see Proper noun#Specific designators. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ease up, Mies. I think if you pull up any American newspaper or magazine, you will find that Congress is routinely capitalized in all such sentences. We should defer to Canadian and Commonwealth usage on this point, and the MOS should be revised to make allowance for such. Textorus (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That isn't really an argument in favour of deviating from the Manual of Style. If the MoS is changed, we can look at this article again. For the time being, however, the page should conform to the manual as written. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two different issues here. "Parliament" should be capitalised, and nothing in MOS contradicts that. The bit about "types of government bodies" isn't even relevant. That phrase is referring to political subdivisions such as cities and counties. It is not the same thing; the shortened form of "City of Smithville" is "Smithville". Even "City" can be capitalised on its own when it refers to the corporate entity rather than the geographical or social entity as in, "The City was sued for sex discrimination." "Parliament" as used here is a shortened form of "Parliament of Canada", just as "Congress" (short for "United States Congress") and "General Assembly" (short for, e.g., "Illinois General Assembly") are capitalised.

"Government" and "Opposition" are a different case. A rational case could be made either way, but the fact that general usage tends toward capitalising them taken together with the fact that capitalisation helps differentiate the means "party in government" and "parties in opposition" from other meanings of the words "government" and "opposition" may well be enough to ignore MOS on this. -Rrius (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The MoS says your example of "the City was sued..." is wrong; its specific illustration of what not to do is "the City has a population of 55,000." Following that, it's wrong to say "the Parliament" in place of "the Parliament of Canada"; it should be "the parliament". Whether or not the MoS is right is another matter. All I'm pointing out is that this article currently doesn't conform to the manual. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Section headings for the third time

Look, only the first word of a heading is capitalized, unless it is part of a proper noun, like a person's name, or a place, or something like that. And we do not put links in section headings. Put the links in the text of the section if it is needed. There is no need to put the same link in repeatedly - once is generally enough. Please take a look at WP:HEAD. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 21:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation

33rogers has decided that people who disagree with him must in fact be one person, so he has opened an SPI here. I make this notification here since he didn't bother making notifications. -Rrius (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

POV

Near as I can tell, we have people pushing POVs that favour various parties, ideas, ideologies. We have people trying to improve the article being reverted on nebulous POV arguments. And we have people who just want to improve the article getting lost in the middle. Honestly, all of this reverting needs to stop, now. Start talk page discussions, and leave the content alone until the discussions come to a resolution. Resolute 22:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with reservation. I just reverted some edits that removed around 6000 bytes of data (made by someone who apparently really loves the conservatives), and I think if somebody else starts mass-removing content, that needs to be reverted. Otherwise, potentially controversial edits ought to be discussed here. Educatedseacucumber (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to lie. I think some of what was removed was done so because it was designed to make the Conservatives look worse - i.e.: there is no real purpose in noting that the Liberals ran surpluses before the worldwide recession hit. That is designed only to present an argument that the Liberals are better than the Conservatives. I am seeing POVs both ways, myself. Resolute 22:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would have a problem if that was uncited, but there are two sources and in both cases, the speaker related the issue to the current election. Thus it does seem to be a notable issue in this context.Educatedseacucumber (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC).

What about the election debate of 2008?

They were discussing the financial crisis in the start of the debate and all the job losses.

Then Steve Pakin asked about deficits and Harper said ""I believe there is every reason we can stay in surplus"

And now we have the biggest deficit in the history.

--33rogers (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be something we can put in a political blog, not an encyclopedic article. We don't have the responsibility to examine every promise that a politician ever made. Nonetheless I'm happy with the current version as it is, since it contains two sources that confirms the notability of the issue. Educatedseacucumber (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It is cited, but what is presented is not reflecting the citations. For instance, Paul Martin is neither a "critic" nor a "political analyst". He is actively campaigning for the Liberal Party. Likewise, the other cite is to an opinion piece, which needs to be noted as such. The statement, as worded, is deliberately designed to push the argument that the Liberals are better at managing the economy than the Conservatives, full stop. No effort is made to present the Conservative position, and no effort is made to put the arguments in context. It is very much a misleading statement as currently presented.

The following statement (on business tax) notes Conservative and NDP positions, but not Liberal or Bloc. On the Conservative argument about the Liberals potentially forming a coalition - the Liberal counter is absent. Afterall, Ignatieff both flatly denied that he would push a coalition, and later said he would consider working with other parties at forming a government if the Conservatives fell again. Both of which were very much in the news, neither of which are even hinted at here. National defence is missing the Liberal viewpoint. The contempt of Parliament charge is noted twice, with no effort to present the Conservative arguments regarding the issue. I am curious why the warrentless wiretapping part of the crime bill bundle is being specifically pulled out and expanded on. The NDP surge in the polls is obviously prominently mentioned, but why no discussion on the Bloc and Liberals falling? Or the fact that the Conservatives have stagnated?

The entire article has been written by people interested in pushing only their preferred party's viewpoints, promises and arguments. Consequently, it has been reduced to a mess of POV and incomplete topics. Someone needs to go section by section and rewrite it to present the position of all sides, within reason and reliable coverage, of course. Resolute 22:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Your concern overall seems to be a lack of content (selective coverage), which I agree with. From my experience, a lack of content is a lot more damaging than the existence of biased content. Objective readers can often see why a statement is biased, but it is of course not possible for them to gain any information when nothing important is mentioned in the first place. Hence why I'm concerned more with Macutty's mass-removal of content than 33roger's addition of somewhat biased content. Educatedseacucumber (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I view it the other way. Missing content will force a reader to go elsewhere for information. Biased content can provide only misleading information, which is factually dishonest and runs seriously afoul of our mandate to build a neutral encyclopedia. An objective reader cannot begin to see why a statement is biased unless they know the background. In either case, it needs to be fixed. And on my talk page I have emplored both editors to bring their debate to this talk page and warned that I will fully protect the article if the edit wars continue. And I will do so in whatever form I come across it if that step should become necessary. I would rather it didn't, however. Resolute 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If there is only 1 POV until May 2nd, I am sure that other users will add their party's POV.

Like I did here when it was only Conservative POV to the Crime policy: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Canadian_federal_election%2C_2011&action=historysubmit&diff=426617223&oldid=426613373

And by doing that I was able to merge the "Conservatives plan to expand the prison system" into words that were more in context. You don't see they plan to expand the prison system now.

Or like I did when it was only Liberal POV regarding their "Learning Passport", I went and added the NDP POV on Post-secondary education.

This is how we can build this article up. Not by removing the foundations.

--33rogers (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I should add that this is a main reason why I think we need to convert the issues section to prose. A bullet list denies context, and allows undue weight to be placed on topics. Editors need to keep in mind that this article is not being read exclusively by Canadians who already know the political landscape. i.e.: the bullet point on the coalition does not explain why this is an issue in the first place. And for a European, the idea that a coalition is bad would seem rather odd without us presenting the proper background and arguments for why it is such an issue in Canada. Resolute 23:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The article should be protected until after the federal election. By then, the only PoV that'll matter, will be the election results themselves (i.e Canadian votes). GoodDay (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Can we agree on joining these two sentences in one paragraph, like this:

Liberals have promised a "Learning Passport" for high school students seeking post-secondary education.The NDP has planed to reduce the tuition fees by increasing transfer payments to the Provinces.

This was reverted by Macutty, even though I mentioned in edit summary, that we are moving more towards prose. --33rogers (talk) 03:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Are ya sure the NDP hasn't "planned" to do reduce the tuition fees...? GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"plan" ? :) --33rogers (talk) 04:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You said "planed". GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay so it should read like this then: Liberals have promised a "Learning Passport" for high school students seeking post-secondary education.The NDP plan to reduce the tuition fees by increasing transfer payments to the Provinces. --33rogers (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Lets start the discussion (not the reverts): Balanced Budget

I would like to discuss the following entry:

• Balanced budget – the Conservatives promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2013.[30][31] Critics and political analysts, however, argue that Paul Martin's Liberal government left a $13 billion budget surplus, before the Conservatives took power.[32][33]

The first source for this article is an editorial column, not a news story. And it does not even agree with the information that has been posted. If you read the source, it actually makes arguments both for and against the conservatives:

It can be argued that Flaherty and the Conservatives deserve their title of protectors of the Canadian economy. Certainly, Canada survived the ravages of the global meltdown better than most and recovered its lost jobs faster, so that must count as a solid fiscal and economic record.

But it can also be argued it had more to do with tight banking regulations and mortgage rules that were already in place, renewed global appetite for our oil and minerals, and a strong economy inherited from Liberal predecessors.

For example, consider spending. According to The Financial Post, the Conservatives increased spending by nearly 15% in their first three years in office, before the stimulus package was even dreamed of. A $13-billion budget surplus Flaherty inherited has become a $56-billion deficit.

The second source is simply a quote from Paul Martin who is not what we would call a reliable source here seeing as he's a former Liberal Prim Minister, and the one who supposedly left this surplus for the conservatives.

And finally, neither source speaks anything about the conservatives promise to balance the budget! They both have nothing to do with the statement being made. We could troll the online papers and find thousands of quotes from political operatives both for and against virtually all the claims being made by all the parties but that wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopedia, and neither is this. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If Paul Martin is campaigning for the Liberals, then that is their POV. And to remove it would make it Conservative POV, that only the Conservatives care about the deficit. i.e. the Conservatives promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2013. --33rogers (talk) 02:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Martin's campaigning should not be removed, but instead should be expanded to note that it is Martin's words. Written in paragraphs, rather than bullet points, I would suggest a format along these lines: Conservative's argue they have steered the economy through the global crisis, and promise balanced budget by [date]. Then: Former Prime Minister Paul Martin, campaigning for the Liberals, challenged assertions, noting [comments]. If the NDP or Bloc have made a point about this, make a note as well. Note Liberal and NDP promises, then opposing parties' rebuttals spending promises would/could have economic impact. Such a format would present the arguments of all sides. Ensure that comments, opinions and quotes are left in context. Resolute 14:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yet to be addresses is the fact that all these quotes and refs speak nothing about the conservative budget. This entry may hold water under the recession heading, but has nothing to do with the conservatise pledge to balance the budget by 2012208.38.59.161 (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You are all about gnawing when one of my citations is an editorial. But I always have a habit of including more than one citation.

But here you put an editorial statement on its own:

Further, political observes have noted that the NDP platform does nothing to address the existing $28.3 billion deficit and that plans to hire 2500 new police officers at a cost of $480 million won't even cover the cost of training, salaries and equiping these new officers.

Not to mention the typo on equipping.

is cited to "Have a beer with Jack -but don't let him near the economy"

But I wont remove it unlike the removal rampages you go through when you see something you don't like.

--33rogers (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Re-written section

• I have re-written the sections as such, but the continuous changes (and removals) means I had to work with an old revision:

• Conservative's argue they have steered the economy through the 2007-2010 global financial crisis, and promise to eliminate the budget deficit by 2013. Former Prime Minister Paul Martin, campaigning for the Liberals, challenged assertions, noting that his Liberal government left a $13 billion budget surplus, before the Conservatives took power. He also stated that when he was Finance minister working under Jean Chretien, his blocking of proposed bank mergers is what actually sheltered Canada from the worst effects of the recession. The Liberals and the NDP have released platforms promising a balanced budget before the end of 2014.

• --33rogers (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Political Honesty

I would like to know why this entry continues to be removed:

• Throughout the election the various polls have shown the political honesty issue to be low on the list of priorities for voters. Post-media conducted a survey that found health care, the economy, taxes and jobs all more important to Canadians. Further, half of voters identified Harper as the best suited to be Prime Minister followed by Layton with one third support and Ignatieff with less than twenty percent support. On the question of a hidden agenda, Ignatieff is viewed by three times more of those polled to have a hidden agenda than Harper.

It may be accidental through reverts, but has disappeared now 4 times so before re-adding I thought I would open it up for discussion here Macutty (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to review:

• Internet surveillance and Warrant-less Wiretapping – The Conservatives have promised to re-introduce Internet surveillance legislation that they were not able to pass, and bundle it with the rest of their crime bills‎. They said they plan to fast track the legislation within 100 days after taking office.

To begin with, using the term "warrant-less wiretapping" inappropriate as it is overly broad and gives negative twist. It's mostly obvious opponents who are calling it this (Canadian Civil Liberties) and the bill itself is much more complex and cant be summarized that briefly.

On to the references: the first is just quoting, repeating the Michael Geist paper. Geist is a well respected expert in this field, but also has clearly known positions on regulation which doesn't make him very neutral. His comments are encyclopedic, but they should be attributed directly to him to provide appropriate context.

All the other refs are outdated and are referring to the individual bills C-46 and C-47 which dies with the last parliment. There are new bills coming, likely with revisions, so none of these articles can be accepted as sources for the current policies being discussed. Macutty (talk) 00:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Further, half of voters identified Harper as the best suited to be Prime Minister followed by Layton with one third support and Ignatieff with less than twenty percent support." - Isn't this only one poll? I remember reading another poll that show Layton leading for this question. I don't think it is notable enough anyway.

""warrant-less wiretapping" inappropriate as it is overly broad and gives negative twist" - What do you suggest instead?

"Geist is a well respected expert in this field, but also has clearly known positions on regulation which doesn't make him very neutral" - having a position does not make him any less credible in this particular issue. From what I understand, it's actually part of the Conservative platform. All the other sources seem to confirm this. Which particular point do you disagree with? Educatedseacucumber (talk) 01:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, polls are unreliable. Diefenbaker once said polls (a play on the word Pole) were for dogs. Thus my reason for preferring the polls section being deleted from this article. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but most people probably find some value in polls. That is why we attribute the poll results to their respective pollsters and include information about the margin of error. And of course, if every news source starts talking about some polling trend, that becomes a notable narrative by itself.Educatedseacucumber (talk) 01:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying: The Polls section shouldn't be applied until after the election. GoodDay (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why? To prevent the polls from potentially influencing a reader/voter's opinion? That is a solid reason. But I think voters do find value in looking at polls. Some prefer to go with the "winner" (some are also more sympathetic to losers), and polls give them information about who the potential winner is. It is not a good way to gain information about who you should vote, but it is not irrational in the face of limited time constraint. An additional argument for this is that some particular voters prefer to see a majority government, regardless of which party leads it. Having polls potentially gives them this information.

Now you might say that this is not very encyclopaedic material, but I think it is a general consensus that because people rely on Wikipedia so much, we arguably have a need to provide useful but potentially unencyclopaedic information in some current events articles. Educatedseacucumber (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Layton has never topped a "best suited as prime minister poll" although he has had better results in "hidden agenda" and "trustworthy" polls. But I haven't searched for more so we'd need to find sources for those. To be honest (no pun intended) I dont really support this whole issue being included. The news coverage and even the polling hasnt been pursuing this much if at all. It was part of the Liberal strategy early in the campaign, but as my ref describes even the libs have largely abandon the strategy. I would suggest instead of internet surveillance and warrantless wiretapping (obvious negative connotations) we simply use each bills short name. For the specific claims being made we should attribute them directly to geist linking to his wiki page and potentially add "Michael Geist, an outspoken critic of the bill has said...." Macutty (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"internet surveillance and warrantless wiretapping" should be left as is. See headlines: Canadian bill forces personal data from ISPs sans warrant or Canadian conservatives promise "big brother laws" or Harper’s promise: a warrantless online surveillance state- Why ‘lawful access’ legislation is on its way and why that should worry you --33rogers (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization

Whether you think this should be in or out, there is no way that "political honesty" is a proper noun. It is incorrect to capitalize it in the section heading. I fixed this once, and I don't know why the incorrect capitalization was restored. Please see WP:HEAD on capitalization of section headings. Ground Zero | t 02:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully this is one issue we can all agree on. I made the change. --33rogers (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

English Language Debate source being removed out

Macutty has been going on removal rampage again.

To whoever wants to watch the English Language Debate, you can search on cpac.ca to see it.

To any interested (political junkies like me) you can also view past debates there.

--33rogers (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

To help figure things out here, can you post exactly what material you want kept, and your citation for it here? Resolute 19:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Canadian_federal_election,_2011&diff=prev&oldid=426750626 --33rogers (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid that I have to agree with Macutty on this one. Using the debate itself is passable, though it would be a primary source, but unless you have a specific citation for us, the ref as you present really is just "I heard this", which is completely unverifiable. It would be far better to use a transcript of the debate, or preferably, source to a secondary publication covering the debate. Resolute 06:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 14:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I should also note that if you intend to try for FA on this article, a reference format like that is something that would get flagged immediately. Resolute 16:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Issues section issues

There are a couple unbalanced sections here. The most salient is Harper's "assertion" that the other parties will form a coalition. I'd like to request a moderator add "despite repeated claims by the Liberals and NDP to the contrary." Right now the wording comes off more as a National Post article than Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.50.8 (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. --33rogers (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

english language debate as a ref

To be clear: this is macutty (posting from my mobile)

I would like some second and third opinions on using the english language debate as a ref based on what someone saw/heard but without linking to a news source or transcript of any kind. My thoughts are this does not meet verifiability 208.38.59.162 (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I already made a section for this above. Please read the talk page. I am sure you will find that section. --33rogers (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

And the consensus seems to be you cannot use it as you have been. Macutty (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I found the transcript. --33rogers (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Contributors beware

Just to remind everyone that Canadian electoral law forbids the public sharing of advance poll results before all poll stations close, something the Internet and the social media facilitates. Whatever you think of this rule, it is still in place and Election Canada has the duty to investigate violations (but they will most likely be overwhelmed). Just a neutral and well-intended heads up to all contributors to the article : violate the law at your own risks. :) 16:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.203.118 (talk)

Longest minority government?

The Liberal minority government of 1921-1925 lasted longer than the Conservative government of 2006-2008 Papalopolis (talk) 18:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Semantics, probably, but King held a majority at times during that ministry, as MPs crossed or resigned frequently. Resolute 18:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be refering to the 5 years that they have had the minority government? SeanJA (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

When do polls close?

This article has frustratingly little information about how the polling is conducted. Given that unprecedented things happened to bring this election about, it would be nice to have some information on technical details. Maybe an appropriate link to a page that describes the standard procedures and details would do? I was wondering at what time polls opened, and at what time they close. That information is notable and nice to have even after the election, if (for example) someone is curious whether polls were open for very long after standard working hours. I also wanted to know whether there were any unusual rules for how this election would be conducted, due to the contempt vote, or whether everything still followed all the standard operating procedure for Canadian elections.

The contempt vote has no effect whatsoever on how the election is conducted, and it is not clear why you would expect it to be otherwise. The procedural information you are looking for can be found at Elections in Canada or at the Elections Canada website. The polls opened at various times across Canada and close at various times. The last polls close at 7.00 PDT. -Rrius (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

How do they count number of seats according to percentage?

Could someone explain how Bloc Quebecois having 6% of votes (before it was 10%) ``succided`` to get only 4 seats in parliament (before it was 49 seats)? 6% result in Canada is not very bad result it means that in Quebec they supported by roughly 25% of voters.And why their leader desided to resign? They still seam to have strong support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.84.56 (talk) 20:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bloc won 23% of the vote in Québec, but that vote was evenly distributed among most of the seats they used to hold. Under Canada's electoral system (called first-past-the-post), a party that takes a seat must have gotten more votes than any other party in that seat's district. In all but four of Québec's ridings, the NDP got more votes than them. Imagine that party A gets 40% of the vote, while party B gets 35%, and party C gets 25%. If this were the result in each riding, then party A would take all of the seats. Rdr0 (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What Neil Boyd thinks

I am a little confused on why there is information on what Neil Boyd thinks.

Is he running for Prime Minster?

--33rogers (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused why Former Prime Minister Paul Martin's, opinion is inlcuded....is her running for Prime Minister? Macutty (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He is a well known, well respected academic, specializing in this specific field. He is both Notable and Reliable. Please do not remove the content again with out gaining consensus to do so here first. Macutty (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Do we have notable professors' commentary of other policies? 117Avenue (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, we don't, so unless we're going to bring in criticism of the parties on all of these points, we should try to stick to a faithful description of the policy issues, instead of rehashing election debates, because then this page will get out of hand. — VikingViolinist | Talk 22:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

This is beyond asinine. The fact that a group of editors with obvious political biases has decided to set new precedents for wiki article by only including statements and opinions of politicians....those folks who say whatever is necessary regardless of the truth....should be the only ones quoted in an article on an election is just another symbol of the deterioration of wikipedia as a useful, reliable source of information. Macutty (talk) 03:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You're not answering the question, why should this policy receive commentary? 117Avenue (talk) 03:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ALl policies should oinly receive commentary from notable, referenceable sources. politicians shouldonly have mention as primary sources or as cliams attributed directly to them. Check virtuyally all other wikipedia pages. Academics are the prefered source of information when properly referenced. Politicians on the other hand are avoided where ever possible. Macutty (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Ok, So the name under conservative party said "Faggot Harper" Before I changed it. Can we please lock this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.248.212 (talk • contribs)

That vandal was already blocked. I have to say, that particular instance of vandalism was amusingly ironic. Resolute 03:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Candidates by party

Don't most of the parties in this section fall under "Independent and no affiliation"? What is the criteria that we have chosen to include some of the parties here and others in "Independent and no affiliation"? SeanJA (talk) 11:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the difference between "Independent" and "No affliation" would be, but I gather the parties listed are those that are registered with Elections Canada. --yycguy81 (Talk) 15:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ignatieff

Ignatieff said he'll be resigning as Liberal leader sometime in the future. Just so we're clear that he didn't resign on May 3. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Although as it turned out, he did -- just, later. - Tenebris 23:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.135 (talk)

No he didn't. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Announced his resignation. Better? (Not that I touched that section in any case.) - Tenebris 03:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Balanced budget and recession

- All three parties made claims, and there it is only the claims that are verifiable. What the actual deficit/surplus actually is at any given point is independently verifiable as a fact, not a claim; yet the surplus is equally listed and cited as a claim (by Paul Martin). Its relevance as a fact, in this context, is established by the claims themselves. I tried to amend accordingly, with a link from before the election. Other references verifying that fact also exist. - Tenebris 23:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.135 (talk)

If you are going to revert that change again, Macutty, how about explaining your reasoning here? I did. - Tenebris 02:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Election Map

The election usually shows the results by province rather than by riding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.210.100 (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

According to who? 117Avenue (talk) 23:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP is right. If you compare the map on this article to that of any previous election, you will see that this one uses a new format. Resolute 00:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you also compare to previous maps, the darkness of the colour represents how much they won by in each riding. 117Avenue (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone going to make the proper map? since the one used looks more appropriate for the results page rather than the top part, same goes for the change in Toronto map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.210.100 (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, previous elections used province rather than riding. I think that in part that was due to difficulty in getting proper riding maps. I did the 1957 article and had some input into the map that was used there, and finding and programming a map using 1950s ridings boundaries would have been difficult. By riding is better. I'd say leave it.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure who is producing the maps or how to edit them, but is it possible to blow up the GTA map a little more? Very difficult to see the results there. Thanks --70.26.99.158 (talk) 09:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I am hoping that the person who does the maps, will create the correct ones, to continue the series, because right now the maps aren't the best. 117Avenue (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, ask whoever did the 1957 map, which originally had the territories wrong, I went to whoever created it on commons and found them most accomodating.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I would've preferred a map per riding, with one color (or two, one for holds and one for pick ups) per party, with urban ridings zoomed in. The primary maps at other articles, as someone said, is trying to convey too much information -- while this is good on the surface, when there are 5 parties and they have similar colors, it's hard. If it were blues, yellows, greens and reds it wouldn't be as hard. With the NDP and the Liberals sharing the reddish-orangery hues, and the Bloc and the Tories sharing the bluish hues it's quite hard to discern what colors the party represent at the maps at first glance. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

the colors are never an issue, look at the previous maps, so when the results by province is made, turquoise of the bloc would not be used on the map, just it's legend since quebec voted for the ndp's orange. Also the results by province are firstly a tradition in wikipedia, and secondly they are more informative since they show popular vote % and seat count by province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoff a1b23 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What does this map tell you? That the number of seats won (the graphs) is related to the popular vote the party got?

Since Canada uses winner-take-all FPTP, it's probably a good idea to use a riding map with at most 2 colors (hold and pick-up). I had just realized that BQ doesn't run candidates outside Quebec, but many people might not realize that -- the light blue hues for the Conservatives may be mistaken for a BQ hue. Like I said, the other maps are showing too much information for its own good.

Also, the other maps might give the impression that MPs are elected per province (like U.S. senators), or via popular vote via party-list (sorta like the Knesset) but it isn't.

There can be two maps: a per-riding map, and a popular vote map. See German federal election, 2009. Combining the two (ridings and popular vote) will confuse the reader into thinking (looking at the 2008 article), "Hey, why does BQ's seats not correspond to the light turquoise color when they won majority of the seats there? Ah wait it was per riding." –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

thats irrelevant to the issue, there was a precedent set on the previous elections. and it reference to the bloc, it show they dont run candidates in other provinces since their "seat counter" is not there, if they did it would show their count to be 0 (look at liberal results in Alberta as an example of what im talking about), the same template as previous election should be used —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.37.210.100 (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL. Irrelevant? And you're saying we use the other maps because other crap exists? What the? It's like saying "Hey, we put the African-Americans through slavery since we got here, let's continue!" instead of "Hey, the old map was confusing as there are many different shades that show too much info to the point of confusion (NOT irrelevant), while having a graph of seats that appears to say that it is directly linked to the popular vote when it isn't.

As said earlier, probably the reason why the other articles use those maps is because it was difficult to find riding boundaries in the old days -- now that we have them, and that only seat totals and not the popular vote matter in how the seats in parliament are allocated, that means we should ditch the old and confusing maps to the new and straightforward maps. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

"fn"?

I'm not challenging anything, I'm just curious: What's the story behind the use of "fn" for the notes? What does it stand for?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

It's something that's a footnote rather than a reference. This usage also occurs in 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami, for instance. The "lowest Liberal seat total in their history" is verifiable from Wikipedia's own set of previous Canadian federal election articles (and for what it's worth, it was mentioned on-air by election commentators). The "NDP candidates in Quebec" information can likewise be verified by looking at the full set of previous Canadian federal election articles and List of federal by-elections in Canada; it also has a longstanding mention in the Thomas Mulcair article. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I know what a note is (vs. a footnote/reference). What I'm asking is what the moniker "fn" stands for, and where it came from? Why not simply use "note" instead (or something shorter, like just "n")? I'm asking what the significance of "fn" is, specifically.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "fn" is supposed to be evocative of "footnote". That specific string is used in the earthquake article mentioned above, and some others that I can't think of offhand. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) page does not prescribe a specific string to use. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm (extremely) aware of what the MoS says about footnotes. Again, I'm not asking for justification of it's use. All I'm wondering about is what the specific string "fn" stands for and where it's from. I'm curious, is all.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Either you have to make your question clearer, or you are just not getting that "fn" stands for FootNote. 117Avenue (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If it actually stands for "footnote" (which makes sense), then that's exactly what I wanted to know. Was that so hard? sheesh...
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Leader Of Liberal/Leader Of BQ

Both leaders have resigned according to multiple news sources. Should the names be removed on Wikipedia?

Bozonessinc (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Umm, why? Resolute 13:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If you're asking if the articles should be removed, no because notability is not temporary. If you're referring to the infobox, since they were the leaders of the parties at the time of the election, it would seem appropriate to leave them in the election infobox. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 13:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Have they resigned? It's unclear whether they've both stepped down or are stepping down. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Not relevant. They have both resigned. Whether the resignation was effective immediately, or effective on date x, they have resigned. Resolute 17:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

And both resignations were after the completion of the election. Since this article is about the election, it's appropriate to continue to list them in the infobox—especially since it's arguable that both resignations were a direct result of the election. —C.Fred (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, they gotta remain in the infobox, as they were the leaders of their parties at the time of the election. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, this is an article about the election that the two candidates ran in when they were still leaders of the party not an article about the parties themselves where removal might make more sense.--76.66.182.228 (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Judicial recounts

2 ridings are going to go through judicial recounts. --33rogers (talk) 08:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That's nice to know, it would have been better though, if you said which ones. 117Avenue (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Etobicoke Centre and Nipissing—Timiskaming, both Conservative pickups from the Liberals. -Rrius (talk) 18:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Nipissing—Timiskaming is not yet having a recount (although it is likely). Montmagny-L'Islet-Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup is in fact going through the recount process so I've updated the article accordingly. Info available here: http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/985959--judicial-recount-ordered-for-etobicoke-centre-riding Macutty (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Recounts

I'm not certain, but I believe there'll be recounts done in 3 ridings. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the Post-election section. Along with the potential fourth riding. Kingjeff (talk) 21:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Liberal-NDP talk

There has been talk about a possible merger between the Liberals and NDP. Is there anyway that this can be written in a NPOV and with no crystal balling? Kingjeff (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

We'd need a reliable citation for actual talks taking place between the parties, not just pundits commenting about whether it would be a good idea. I don't think we're anywhere close to that, mere days after the election, not least since the Liberals are more or less leaderless at this point. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Popular Vote Deserves a Place in Lead

The 2nd para originally read like this:

The Conservative Party won a majority government with less than 40% of the popular vote.

As we had Minority Govt, in the past few years, it is significant to mention how much popular vote they got in the lead. Especially considering it was just 39.6%.

To note: United States presidential election, 1992, United States presidential election, 1996 and United States presidential election, 2000 all have mentions of popular vote.

To not mention it in the lead would do injustice to the article as a whole.

--33rogers (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I've no objection to this addition, if it's done on the 40 previous Canadian federal election articles. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I will add it to the election articles that resulted in a majority government. --33rogers (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I would only add it if it is notable. i.e.: was this the smallest total to ever earn a majority government? Otherwise, I don't wonder if your purpose is to imply that the Conservatives didn't deserve a majority. Resolute 20:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real question of his purpose. While a later edit summary tried to soberly proclaim that the popular vote is so important it has to be in the lead (despite the fact that very few election articles state the vote share in the lead), but his first edit summary was quite different: "On May 2nd we lost all checks and balances. The PM appoints GG, to Senate, & to Supreme Court. On May 2nd we granted 1 party absolute power. Execuctive, Legislative and Judiciary." It would be wholly inappropriate to state the vote share the way 33rogers does. It clearly takes a side about what share of the vote should be required to secure a majority. Here are the vote shares for the last several Canadian federal majorities:

• 2000: 40.85% for 172 of 301 (Liberal)
• 1997: 38.46% for 155 of 301 (Liberal)
• 1993: 41.24% for 177 of 295 (Liberal)
• 1988: 43.02% for 169 of 295 (Progressive Conservatives)
• 1984: 50.03% for 211 of 282 (Progressive Conservatives)

So the only time in the last 30 years a party won a majority of the popular vote, they took 75% of the seats. There is nothing unusual about the Conservatives' winning a majority with less than a majority of the popular vote. We should ignore 33rogers' bugaboo, and treat this article like any other. -Rrius (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 33rogers' edit was also factually misealding; the Conservative Party didn't win a majority government, it continued in government, though with a newly won majority in the House of Commons. The way 33rogers put it, uninitiated readers were led to believe either that, in the Canadian system, new governments are formed after every election, or that the Conservatives hadn't been in government before this election. We should deliver the facts clearly and accurately. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The United States has a two-party system, so it might be noteworthy there if a winning candidate gets significantly less than 50% of the vote. However Canada has a multi-party first-past-the-post electoral system, and it is entirely unremarkable that the winning party gets less than 50% of the vote in Canada; in fact, as noted above, that's the norm. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think having the popular vote in the infobox is sufficient. It's unfortunate, but not at all remarkable, that ~40% = majority. The proposed wording is also highly suggestive .. if this makes it into the lead, I'd recommend finding a more neutral way of puting it. --yycguy81 (Talk) 21:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Have they not mentioned about popular vote in the UK elections article, also? --33rogers (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead of the most recent UK election only mentions that parties other than the Conservatives and Labour got 35%, the highest since 1918. So, no, it does not. -Rrius (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, per P.T. Aufrette's note, the role of popular vote is different in a United States presidential election than it is in a Canadian federal election, quite apart from the number of parties directly involved. - Tenebris 23:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

We owe it to the International audience, so they understand the difference between their systems and the one which we have.

Also, since it is the second lowest popular vote for a majority, it is significant enough to mention in the lead, like was done at United States presidential election, 2000.

--33rogers (talk) 07:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless a reliable source comes out to say that this is notable it should stay out. It's wp:OR otherwise. Wiki editors dont get to make the subjective call as to what is significant or notable. Macutty (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying Elections Canada is not a reliable source? --33rogers (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Read what was actually said. This issue is not whether the Conservatives actually got around 40%; rather, the issue is whether this is at all notable. The answer is, as has already been pointed out, no. The 1984 election is the only recent election where a party got more than 50%, and the Conservative share this time around is neither low nor high for recent majorities. There is no obligation to an international audience to flag up potential differences between what the Canadian party system produces and what theirs might, especially not in the lead. If the fact that a multi-party, first-past-the-post system leads to majority government on 40% of the vote belongs anywhere, it is at Politics of Canada, not here. I understand that you want to qualify in anyway you can the result for the Conservatives—that much is obvious from the edit summary I linked to above—but this is not the place to advance your POV. -Rrius (talk) 06:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Green Party in infobox

Given that the Green Party was not a recognized party either before or after the election, is it best that there is a place in the infobox for it? After all, it is not unusual for a non-recongized party to win a seat or two in Parliament. Is there precedent for having a party treated this way even though it was not a recognized party either before or after the election?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, in Canada it is extremely unusual, because of the first-past-the-post system. Only the party with the most votes in each riding wins in that riding, and there is no provision for at-large representation. - Tenebris 19:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Every party with seats before and after the election gets listed in the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Having "official party" status within the House affects certain privileges (like asking questions during Question Period). Having any members in the house, though, is still notable enough to be included in the Infobox I think. --yycguy81 (Talk) 14:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Given their performance at nearly a million votes in previous elections, I think the Greens are notable even if they failed to win a single seat. — VikingViolinist | Talk 15:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Good catch.....convenient that the greens picked up a seat though as they were included in the info box when they should not have been prior to the election. And being notable, doesn't necessarily mean the deserve to be in the info box. Macutty (talk) 02:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Before is neither here nor there at this point in time. As to lack of prior seats, see Canadian federal election, 1993. - Tenebris 19:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

They deserve to be there, as they've got a MP. GoodDay (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If being notable (through high seat count, significant proportion of popular vote, historical reasons, or whatever) isn't the justification for inclusion in the infobox then what is? — VikingViolinist | Talk 13:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Every party with seats after or before the election (unless they didn't contest it) gets listed in the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section is a summary of the article. I believe that it should outline the result (Conservative majority), and the background (contempt of parliament/non-confidence). Please discuss before moving or removing. 117Avenue (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

If the lead is meant to summarise the article, why, then, did you move info and associated refs in the article body that the lead summarised back up into the lead so that the lead now has more detail and references about events before and after the election than the article body itself? The lead, as you've returned it to, now doesn't conform to WP:LEAD and its subsection WP:LEADCITE, as it contains both too much minutae and references. There was little wrong with the reorganising of the content that I made; if there were some issues (and there may well have been), they were minor and did not warrant a full revert of all my work. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 02:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't write the lead, I am ensuring that there is discussion before it gets removed. 117Avenue (talk) 02:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You may not have written the lead, but you certainly did revert it back to an inferior composition that is contrary to guidelines. One does not need your approval or even a discussion before making an edit; though one is, of course, entitled to revert an edit that's been made. However, as nothing was removed by my edit (contrary to your claim), you've not yet made it clear why you made the revert. Could you do so, please? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 04:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

When did I claim that you removed it? There has been so many edits, I don't know who did it. 117Avenue (talk) 05:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Your initial contribution in this section says, "Please discuss before moving or removing." The previous sentences imply that he removed the part about the result and the vote of no confidence. When Mies responded, you didn't say, "I didn't mean your edit." That leaves those of us scratching our heads: do you object to Mies's edit (the one you reverted) or not? If so, why? -Rrius (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm lost too. I'll go through the history:

• 14:16, 4 May 2011 contempt of parliament removed by 173.239.136.186, 14:19, 4 May 2011 reverted by Mr. No Funny Nickname
• 14:25, 4 May 2011 contempt of parliament removed by 173.239.136.194, 15:04, 4 May 2011 reverted by Miesianiacal
• 15:13, 4 May 2011 result split, part in lead, part in results section by Miesianiacal, 15:22, 4 May 2011 contempt of parliament trimmed by Miesianiacal
• 19:28, 4 May 2011 contempt of parliament trimmed by P.T. Aufrette
• 20:38, 4 May 2011 lead added back in fill by 117Avenue, 22:51, 4 May 2011 reverted by 99.229.129.8 without explaination, 22:55, 4 May 2011 reverted by 33rogers
• 02:20, 5 May 2011 lead duplication in results section removed by 117Avenue
• 02:58, 5 May 2011 contempt of parliament removed by 174.95.152.249 without explanation, 03:10, 5 May 2011 reverted by Rrius

Okay, now that I know what's going on, we are battling IPs who are removing content without explanation or discussion, and Miesianiacal would like the lead trimmed to the version at 19:28, 4 May 2011.

I think I can support that, I don't see any valuable information removed, my apologies. 117Avenue (talk) 06:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I understand that anons were deleting material; in fact, it was my revert of just such a deletion that tipped me off to the fact that the lead was acting more as a section unto itself than a summary of the article (complete with a number of inline citations), which led me to start to redistribute the content so that it fell more in line with the Manual of Style. But, again, I'm aware my changes might not have been perfect. Were there any specific concerns that I could address when redoing the edit again? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the trimmed version.

First off, the lead is supposed to generate interest in reading the rest of the article.

When, for example, party leader Michael Ignatieff was defeated in his own riding. and including the seat of their leader Gilles Duceppe, is removed, interest is reduced.

I also don't understand why there are attempts to trim the lead when here a Featured article has lots of information in the lead: William Garrow

--33rogers (talk) 09:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead of that article was shorter when it achieved FA status. Further, it has much more prose in its body to be summarised in the lead than this article does. In fact, the way it is now here, there is in the lead as much as or more textual information about events preceeding and following the election than in the body. That's counter to the Manual of Style, notably WP:LEAD. Is there some reason we should ignore the guidelines in this case?

That said, there could be a very brief mention of the campaign itself in the lead, which seems to be presently missing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 12:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The Lead should briefly summarize the article. So, if this were a complete article, it should touch briefly on the important parts. If I were writing it, I would probably write it as follows:

• Para 1: Election was held. Note results as this is the most important part of an election. Conservatives won majority, NDP opposition, Liberals third party.
• Para 2/3: Why the election was held and campaign points. Contempt, unstable minority. Cons campaign on economy; opposition on ethics
• Para 4: Historical nature of results. NDP surge, Bloc and liberal decimation; Duceppe and Ignatieff lose seats and resign. May wins first Green seat. Resolute 17:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the block decimation (4 seats- Gilles out no longer party status), although the liberals performed very badly (ignatieff out still party status but lost half seats)- i would not say they were decimated. Otherwise the above points are fine and pretty much neutral and factual. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Naturally the article would have to be worded more carefully. I was just oversimplifying "lowest total ever, first time below opposition ever" for the Liberals. Resolute 19:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: (Para2/3) For why the election was held & opposition on ethics

I wrote this earlier, a while back (but its gone now):

Elections Canada laid charges against the Conservative party for contravening the Canada Elections Act. This issue, along with the Bloc Quebecois announcing its intention to vote against the budget unless it contained $2 billion in compensation to Quebec for harmonizing PST and GST, ignited the election fever on Parliament Hill. Election speculation was further heightened after Conservative released their attack ads on Ignatieff, while Parliament was still in session.

--33rogers (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Miesianiacal you removed from the lead that both Ignatieff and Duceppe lost their seats? In most elections the Leaders don't lose their own seats. --33rogers (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The lead is out of balance. It should emphasize (or at least mention) what was unprecedented or at least highly unusual about the election results themselves, of which there was plenty: the NDP's Quebec breakthrough, two party leaders losing their own seats, the first Green Party seat. Instead, it omits all but the last, and instead uses precious space to talk about the wholly routine and ceremonial role of the governor general and the routine formal process of issuing writs, and likewise uses a lot of space to emphasize what was unusual about the contempt of parliament process rather than what was unprecedented about the actual election itself and its results. This should be re-trimmed as per the 19:28 4 May version, or similar, to allow room for a renewed emphasis on the election results themselves. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, the fact that there was a minority government before the election and a majority government after the election is less clearly and plainly stated with the current wording than with the prior version. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Outlines

Perhaps we could move to a resolution by having people outline, paragraph by paragraph, what they think should be in the lead. For instance, and this is not actually a proposal—

• Paragraph 1: Election date, what the elections were for, cause of the election
• Paragraph 2: Conservative majority
• Paragraph 3: NDP gains, Liberal and Bloc losses (including leaders), Greens

Again, I'm not proposing that as a potential lead, but merely as an example of what I'm talking about. -Rrius (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Restored the Lead

• WP:LEAD says the lead is supposed to generate interest in reading the rest of the article.
• I did not write the Lead as it was after the election, it was written by many other editors. However the trimmed version, is not appropriate. I can bring up many FA articles that have a bigger Lead than this.
• I have restored the Lead. If there is some sentences that needs to removed, it should be discussed sentence by sentence here, before being removed again.
• --33rogers (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The sizes of other articles' leads are irrelevant; the appropriate size of a lead depends on the size of the article itself and leads of FA articles can be expanded beyond what they should be after FA status was achieved. The basic fact to keep in mind is that the lead is supposed to summarise the article; putting detail in the lead that is already repeated verbatim in the body is not summarising, it is repetition. The lead should read as follows, or something close to it:

The 2011 Canadian federal election (formally the 41st Canadian general election) was held Monday, May 2, 2011, to elect members to the House of Commons of the 41st Canadian Parliament.

The writs of election for the 2011 election were issued by Governor General David Johnston on March 26. Prime Minister Stephen Harper advised the Governor General to dissolve parliament after the House of Commons passed a motion of non-confidence against the government, finding it to be in contempt of parliament.

Following the election, the Conservative Party remained in government, though with a new majority of seats in parliament; the New Democratic Party won the largest number of seats in their history and will form the Official Opposition for the first time; the Liberal Party won the fewest seats in their history and party leader Michael Ignatieff declared he would step down; and the Bloc Québécois lost nearly all its seats and Gilles Duceppe similarly announced his resignation as party leader. The Green Party won their first elected seat, that of party leader Elizabeth May.

Who lost their seats, Commonwealth history, these are incidental details that don't belong in the lead. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:49, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Miesianiacal, a long lead does not mean FA, the length of the lead is related to the length of the article. 117Avenue (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to point out that many FA articles have a long lead. For example: William Garrow, Hurricane Isabel, Hurricane Rick (2009), Shimer College, United States Senate election in California, 1950, 1937 Social Credit backbenchers' revolt....

Yes a long lead does not mean FA. Neither does a very short lead.

If it means the lead needs to be very small or it violates WP:LEAD, I would say the above FA articles would have already gone through FARC process. The FARC process is much easier than the FAC process. But those articles have not.

Furthermore, Miesianiacal placed the contents of the lead in the article, to say now that it is duplicated. This was not the case on Election Night.

--33rogers (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I moved the detail into the article and left the lead as a summary; you know, how the Manual of Style tells us to write an article? Now you've put the detail back in to the lead and left what I moved into the body where it is, so that now there is duplication. You still haven't given any justification for why so much needs to be covered in the lead besides your opinion of it as "interesting". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I slightly rewrote the third paragraph of the lede, retaining all the information except NDP in Québec (those details can be found in the article, and are somewhat implicit by the Bloc addition of the loss of official party status). Liberal, Bloc, and Green leaders are mentioned explicitly, with linked ridings. I also resorted the parties in order of their pre-election status - Conservatives first, then Liberals, Bloc, NDP, and Green. Every party received one sentence except the NDP, which got two, the second dedicated solely to opposition stats. It reads cleaner that way, at least to me. To reduce NDP/lede to one sentence, I would recommend dropping one of the three main points, but all three points seem fairly important. - Tenebris 20:02, 12 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.224 (talk)

• Finally we get to the sentence you want censored from the Lead. The lead being the most read portion of the article.
• You want to remove: This was the first time in Canada or anywhere else in the Commonwealth of Nations that a government was found in contempt of parliament.
• --33rogers (talk) 03:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Citations in lead

WP:LEADCITE logically informs us that "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source." For this page, in particular, what's said in the lead is a summary of the well sourced material that follows in the body; none of what's in the lead is particularly contentious, isn't BLP related, or a direct quote of anyone's words. There's thus no evident rationale for why inline citations, let alone exact duplicates of ones that come later in the article, should be in the lead. Perhaps either Kingjeff or 33rogers, both of whom seem to insist the replicated citations should be in the lead, could here enlighten us as to why? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

So what you are saying is you want to remove the references / citations from the lead? --33rogers (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Read WP:LEADCITE. Any matter that is non-controversial, doesn't raise BLP issues, or isn't a direct quote needn't be cited in the lead if it is cited in the body. Verifiability is satisfied by the cite in the body, so it does not require a duplicate citation in the lead. -Rrius (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Thank you. And I appreciate your edit summary. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

François Lapointe was elected, not Bernard Généreux

In Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, François Lapointe (politician) was elected, not Bernard Généreux, please update this page. Bernard Généreux was declared winner temporarly, and some sites still give that false information. The number of MPs is incorrect. There should be +1 NDP and -1 CPC (the map should be fixed too)

According to Elections Canada, this appears to be correct, but I'll not edit in case we are holding off because of the recount (the difference is five votes). -Rrius (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted a revert placing the count back to 102. I think that because Elections Canada has confirmed the error and announced Genereux as the winner, we should reflect this (even though the "note" in the infobox says we are relying on preliminary results -- I think the returning officer's count is more reliable). I don't see why we can't, seeing how the recounts should be over in less than a week anyway. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 02:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've updated the results template and instances lower in the page of the 167/102 totals, as well as the relevant composition images and the totals at the Parliament and Commons pages. -Rrius (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that they gave the win to Généreux then Lapointe then back to Généreux with the win after the recount going to Lapointe. I've checked the results on Election Canada's website and sources several times since the election and it seems to be this way. Kingjeff (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not correct. The preliminary results showed Genereux the winner by 110, the validated vote showed Lapointe the winner by five, then the recount showed Lapointe the winner by nine. There is no apparent shift back to Genereux. -Rrius (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right. Elections Canada is currently only showing "Preliminary Results" with Bernard Généreux as the winner and the "validated results by a judge". They're not showing the validated results before the judicial recount. Kingjeff (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Lapoine is the winner, here's a link: http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/201105/13/01-4399416-un-conservateur-de-moins-au-quebec.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.226.249 (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it does show all three. If you go to riding results or click "Judicial Recounts" in the left sidebar, then click "view results" for Montmagny, it will show the recount results, but with bullets at the top for the preliminary and validated vote. If you click on either one, the recount results will replace it as the second bullet. -Rrius (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

"strongest opposition"

The article contains the sentence: "This will be the strongest opposition in terms of share of opposition seats since the 1993 election."

I'm not sure what this means, exactly.

In 1993, the winning Liberals had 177/295 = 60.0% of seats, and opposing parties plus one independent had 118 seats or 40.0%, and the Official Opposition (the BQ) had 54. In 2011, the Conservatives won 167/308 = 54.2%, and the opposing parties combined have 141 seats or 45.8%, and the Official Opposition (the NDP) has 102. By any measure, the opposition in 2011 is stronger than it was in 1993, not to mention the fact that the opposition during the various minority governments was (practically by definition) even stronger.

The statement, as written, is incorrect, so I will remove it now. If anyone can clarify what was intended and can rephrase it as a correct statement, please go ahead. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I am guessing the most seats held by the official opposition. 117Avenue (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Except it's phrased "share of seats" (percentage?) rather than "number of seats". And 2011 is actually stronger than 1993, not the "strongest since 1993". So that still doesn't make sense. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Is there a ref for this? If not I would say WP:OR would likely apply Macutty (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The sentence is such a mess that it isn't even clear what it is trying to say. Do we want to say any of the things it could mean? For instance, if we want to say it's the strongest Official Opposition, we would have to change it to 1980 and tweak the wording, but it's doable. I don't think it's actually OR since it's just a superficial comparison of one figure to a set of others, so I think we can leave aside Macutty's concerns. Anyway, I don't care what we do, but I think we should move the conversation towards what if anything it should mean rather than what it does mean. -Rrius (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense to me. The opposition has 142 seats. The NDP has 103 of them. 103/142 = 72.5%. Now I'm not sure if it's correct that this is the strongest/most united since 1993, and I got to head out the door so I can't check. But, if this is the case, I would suggest changing the wording to: "They will form the Official Opposition for the first time ever. This will be the strongest Official Opposition in terms of share of opposition seats since the 1993 election. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.146.4 (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, quick look at the numbers and that doesn't make sense. However, that is how it reads to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.146.4 (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a source, [7] "The extra seat ties the NDP with Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives from 1980 as the largest ever Official Opposition to a majority government." (LAz17 (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)).

So you're saying it should be "This will be the strongest Official Opposition in percentage share of seats since the 1993 election."? That's rather different from what was quoted above. -Rrius (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey hey, I'm not saying anything, nor did I bother to read the discussion above. I just ran into an article that said that stuff, so I quoted it seeing as it may relate to the discussion. The article spoke of 1980, not 1993. (LAz17 (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)).

Gotcha. In any event, as pointed out by an IP editor in an edit summary, it seems not to be true by any measure. The Liberals won 103 of 308 seats in 2006, making the historical significance of an opposition party winning the same number of seats in 2011 fairly small. -Rrius (talk) 02:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Missing polls

I just checked the national preliminary results and It seems that 27 polls haven't reported. Has anybody noticed if any newspaper has caught on to this? Kingjeff (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The preliminary results were released before all the polls came in (late eve. on May 2 or early morn. on May 3). That is why it says -- 71,486/71,513 -- for the polls reporting. I am sure this has already been resolved, but the table for preliminary results was not updated because they were just that, preliminary, and are stuck in Election Day mode. The final results will be reported once all the discrepancies have been resolved.

In the FAQ section for Elections Canada, we can read, "Elections Canada then collects and publishes the final official voting results without delay, as specified by section 533 of the Canada Elections Act. In preparing the official voting results, Elections Canada does not correct or otherwise alter the results that have been reached either by a returning officer during the validation or by a judge on a judicial recount. It merely collects, collates and reports those results in the official voting results." The final results should be available by May 23, 2011. --Skol fir (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The header of the Parliamentary website states that "Election results remain unofficial until the Chief Electoral Officer has confirmed the name of the Member of Parliament elected for each riding by transmitting certificates of election to the Clerk of the House of Commons. The last scheduled day for the return of the writs being Monday, May 23, 2011, the official list of elected Members is expected to be available beginning on Tuesday, May 24, 2011." --Skol fir (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Recount section?

Can we have a section on the recounts? The NDP got another seat, [8] , via recount. Another in Winnipeg, [9], and I dunno what the status is with the two in Ontario. (LAz17 (talk) 06:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)).

We do already; check under Post-election > Overview of results. It is my understanding that one Ontario recount begins Monday, and the other on Wednesday. -Rrius (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Slightly off topic, but do you maybe know why they are not all done on the same day? (LAz17 (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC))

The timing of the recount is at the discretion of the judge doing the recount. -Rrius (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And I believe it must begin within a week after the request. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The automatic recount must start within 4 days of a request and it takes as long as it takes to go through every single ballot. Kingjeff (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Liberals keep their lone seat in Manitoba. [10] I was hoping they wouldn't. lulz. Two more recounts left... (LAz17 (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).

Cons keep one seat in Ontario... so one recount's left. [11] These narrow wins are ugly things, imo. (LAz17 (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)).

Since it's starting Wednesday, I'm guessing Etobicoke Centre will finish Thursday or Friday, so keep a look out. -Rrius (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess nothing happened. So only one change out of four or five. I was hoping that the NDP would gain that other seat in winnipeg. (LAz17 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)).

New Democrat vs New Democratic

There is no grammatical basis to refer to the party as simply "New Democrat" in the Infobox, Tables or Charts in this article. All references should be amended immediately! If the point is to remove the word "Party" from such charts, then it should be "New Democratic" (to match Liberal (Party) and Conservative (Party). If we are using the full official wording, it should be "New Democratic Party". Or a third option, if we are using the most-commonly used colloquial everyday language, it should be NDP.

The only time "New Democrat" by itself is ever used, is as a noun to refer to a PERSON in the party. Therefore, if you are using the terms Conservatives, Liberals, Greens, etc. as a plural noun referring to the caucus itself, then this terminology New Democrats would work. If you are using it as a singular noun for the party itself, then it's not correct. If anyone can give a good grammatical reason why the NDP is continuously referred to as "New Democrat" in the Infobox, Results Charts and other features of this article, please state it or else it should and will be amended. --Mezaco (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

How about because it's the adjective form the party uses in its own publications? "The New Democrat plan,"[12] and "Quebec's first New Democrat MP"[13] are two examples I found at the NDP website. —C.Fred (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Though I do agree with you on the infobox: it would appear that, to be consistent, it should read New Democratic in that location. In the results graphics, I can accept that dropping the -ic saves a little space, which is at a premium in the legend. —C.Fred (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

New Democrat is a noun, and New Democratic is the adjectival form. That the NDP makes a grammatical error is not a reason for Wikipedia to do so. Ground Zero | t 23:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that they are a pretty good RS for what they are called. If they all called themselves 'Steves' then I imagine we would use that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It is true that "democrat" is a noun, and "democratic" an adjective, but we aren't talking about the common noun. The New Democratic Party has the same right as any other group to determine how their name is used. In the UK, it is never "Liberal Democratic"; one speaks of "Liberal Democrat MPs", "Liberal Democrat policies", etc., but one never hears of Liberal Democratic ones. Ultimately, it is not for Wikipedia to impose its grammatical sensibilities on the NDP. -Rrius (talk) 00:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In many cases where it said "New Democrat" it said so under or next to the word PARTY (eg Infobox, Results table). That would imply the party was called New Democrat. Sure, there may be instances on their website where the party uses New Democrat. But I disagree that as Wikipedia editors we would be "imposing our grammatical sensibilities" (as user Rrius suggests) by adding "-ic". We would merely be exercising common grammatical sense. I doubt that media organizations would ever call it the "New Democrat Party" in any situation.

As a bogus example, let's say a party calls itself the "Number One Party for Real Working Canadians" in internal party literature and on its website; does that mean we have to follow suit because they want to call themselves that? The party's legal name is the New Democratic Party of Canada. After that, we are able as editors to make our own judgement.

Again, it is incidences where it said "Party: New Democrat" in tables and infoboxes that is most incorrect because even in colloquial party language it's never New Democrat Party. --Mezaco (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem here. "New Democrat" is a short version of the party name used by the party itself. Using your logic, changing it to "New Democratic" would be just as incorrect, since it would imply that the name of the party is "New Democratic", and not "New Democtratic Party of Canada". --yycguy81 (Talk) 21:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Order of provinces

In most lists of Canadian provinces I have seen on Wikipedia, they are in order from west to east, followed by west-east territories, or alphabetically, and a few times by precedence. Why are the electoral districts in the candidate list pages in order from east to west? I know that is how Elections Canada numbers them, but do we have to follow this convention? 117Avenue (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Why do we normally see west to east instead of east to west? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect because we read from left to right. 117Avenue (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The correct order of provinces is through seniority or precedence; Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Newfoundland and Labrador. Please reference the Canadian Government's protocol site on precedence. http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/prtcl/precedence-eng.cfm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.111.61 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference Needed

I'd like to see this statement substantiated with a reference: "as polls showed that most Canadians did not want another election". It seems to me that at the time most politicians, and newspeople were stating this, but I don't remember any actual polls proving it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.0.32 (talk) 21:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I found two references. 117Avenue (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a June 6, 2009 Ipsos press release, (here:http://www.ipsos-na.com/news-polls/pressrelease.aspx?id=4420) referring to one of their polls in which 68% of Canadians were reported as seeing no need for an election. Athibode (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to readd The Star reference, to put the events of September 2009 in context with the June 2009 reference. 117Avenue (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Electoral map Toronto federal election 2011.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Electoral map Toronto federal election 2011.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Page Title

Why is the page title "Canadian Federal Election" and the first sentence refers to "Canadian Federal Election" (formerly General Election)? According to Elections Canada, "federal elections" are still called "General Elections", so it's not "formerly". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.104.11 (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Robocalls scandal"

Should this be mentioned? Even if it isn't connected to the conservatives I think it is worth mentioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.255.226 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

It should. I am going to update it now and nominate it for ITN on the front page. --Natural R_X 23:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominated. --Natural R_X 00:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is absolutely NO hard evidence that links the Conservative Party to this. Everything purported by the media and the opposition is purely circumstantial. To say "evidence of voter suppression tactics by the Conservative Party to alienate Liberal supporters in close races on the day of the federal election. Voters received phone calls from individuals claiming to represent a local Liberal candidate" is completely misleading. I am not a cheerleader for any political party, but the preceding is hearsay. This should be removed or at the very least reworded. Furthermore, I take issue with the circumstantial quotes made by Bob Rae and used in this section. This too should be removed or Stephen Harper's circumstantial quotes should be added to provide balance to the section. Also important to mention that ALL parties made use of robocalls during the last election campaign. Factcolony (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick update: There is plenty of hard evidence at this point (April 2013): Conservative staffer charged in Pierre Poutine matter; documented investigative and federal court obstruction from Arthur Hamilton, lawyer for in-and-out and the Conservative internal 'investigation'; RMG dragged into Federal Court case to contradict their own employees accusing them of voter suppression (several workers talked to the Toronto Star, and one gave sworn testimony in Federal Court); Racknine being revealed as a Conservative-only vendor; plus the inimitable Dean Del Mastro no longer serving as Parliamentary Secretary to the PMO after failing to explain a $21,000 personal cheque matching an "unpaid" campaign callcenter invoice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.60.43 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The article doesn't say there is hard evidence of Conservative involvement. It attributes that claim to the Ottawa Citizen. Though I'd like to see the original Ottawa Citizen article to verify whether we're accurately describing what it said. For some reson, it's not cited in this article. Reach Out to the Truth 14:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, Factcolony, the controversial robocalls are the ones pretending to be the Liberal Party and Elections Canada. IrregularWikipedian (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

shouldnt it be noted that the cons are being portrayed as having committed the act? it is not like other parties are being accused, although it sounds like it should note that Elections Canada has found nothing concrete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.130.75 (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Bob Rae is not an un-biased source. Quotes should come from Elections Canada, if this section is to be included at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.173.94 (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Whether the Conservatives are guilty or not, the fact is the calls exist and the controversy exists, so something MUST be included on this. To not include the fact that the controversy exists is censorship of the issue. Saultperstar (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

New Photo

I found a modern photo of Harper. It is this: File:Stephenharper.jpg. It is from 2010, and I think we should use it.--Xy1013 (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: First it less matches the character of the other photos on the page, the second is that it is a non-free image and since there are free images available of the same subject will likely be speedily deleted. Even if it isn't deleted right away free images are preferred on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Reply: I understand. Thanks for explaining!--Xy1013 (talk) 14:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Provincial Popular Vote

Wouldn't it be more sensible to have an image showing riding-by-riding popular vote totals rather than by province? The current image is interesting and should probably stay in the article, but I think the infobox should have an image that actually reflects the results of the election that count, if a free one can be found or made. Charlotte Aryanne (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Canadian federal election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110324122405/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/politics/story/2011/03/21/pol-privilege-contempt.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/03/21/pol-privilege-contempt.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110412015840/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/here-for-canada-except-in-quebec.html to http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/inside-politics-blog/2011/04/here-for-canada-except-in-quebec.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)