Talk:2019 Canadian federal election/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 16 January 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/c 20:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


43rd Canadian federal election → Next Canadian federal election – WP:COMMONNAME - most sources will refer to the "next election" rather than the 43rd. 43rd is unnecessarily confusing and unrecognisable for average readers. It is not precise nor concise. It is also uncommon, certainly not a "convention" See for example Next Spanish general election, Next United Kingdom general election, Next Danish general election or Next New Zealand general election AusLondonder (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Survey

  • Oppose "next" is a highly fluid concept. I find no reason to constantly flip-flop names around. Just retarget the "next" to the next numerical election the day after an election is held, instead of moving articles around willy-nilly. The redirect exists, so readers will end up at the right article. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 11:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support We have a naming guideline for election articles (WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums) and that specifically states that "next" should be used. Number 57 12:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The naming guideline for election articles (WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums) has not been and is not the preferred guideline followed for Canadian elections. In the past we have described future Canadian (federal and provincial) elections by their number until such a point comes when we can describe them by their year. Currently 8 of the 9 future provincial elections are described by their number. There has been much discussion in the past about this subject and, I think correctly, that a consensus has been maintained around following the guideline of the number description. Outside of Wikipedia, the practice of describing an election by a number is far more common in Canada than for instance in the UK. I think that the English language Wikipedia should have the flexibility to accept differences between English speaking countries rather than trying to straight-jacket them all into one inflexible guideline. Graemp (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Graemp - could you clarify why WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums should not apply here? AusLondonder (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - we have been using the official numbering scheme for Canadian elections for many years with no issues and it is the most precise title until a date is confirmed. Next Canadian federal election redirects to this article so there is no issue with readers finding it via that means. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Ahunt - could you clarify why WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums should not apply here? AusLondonder (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Because WP:COMMONNAME is a policy and policies override a guideline like WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums. 43rd Canadian Federal Election is the common name used in this country, both in the media and official sources. - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's fine as it is right now and it has been a long-standing practice for such articles. A redirection has been set, so any confused reader will find the information needed quickly. Bouchecl (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Bouchecl - could you clarify why WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums should not apply here? AusLondonder (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral - As long as Next Canadian federal election redirects here, I'm fine with 43rd Canadian federal election if this elections count has a significance for Canadians. Wykx 18:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Actually, "43rd" is very precise. It means one more than 42 and one less than 44. Also, it takes exactly as many characters as "next", so it is not less concise. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
User:Ribbet32 - could you clarify why WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums should not apply here? AusLondonder (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Plenty of reason has been given why that dumb suggestion shouldn't apply here. (Or anywhere). Ribbet32 (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment It takes a remarkable degree of political nerd arrogance to insist most people would know the number of each Canadian election. AusLondonder (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't, because a redirect exists. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
      • and as a result, Wikipedia would educate the reader about that number rather than adopting the dumbing-down 'next' approach. Graemp (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed - not 42nd Canadian federal election. AusLondonder (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Grasping at straws now. It's not titled something moronic like Last Canadian federal election. Ribbet32 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose - 43rd Canadian federal election is more precise. Moreover it's a placeholder until an election is called and the article is renamed for the year the election is called and subsequently the next federal election will be the 44th then 45th. If the placeholder is simply "next federal election" and an editor forgets to update the link in an article the link will point to the wrong article wheras if someone forgets to change a link from 43rd federal election to Canadian federal election, 2018 (of whatever year) it won't matter because the redirect will point to the renamed target. McArthur Parkette (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose; "next" is a shifting target that's going to refer to an entirely new topic every four years. Either title is only a temporary placeholder until we can confirm that the election will actually take place in 2019, as opposed to an early date for some reason — so we have to think about what happens to the placeholder title after the final move takes place. "43rd" will always still only ever refer to the same election; even when the page gets moved to its final permanent title "43rd" will still, always and forever, only ever mean and redirect to that same article — whereas the very day that the 43rd election happens, "next" is going to flounce off to a new article about #44. And if we're not judicious about ensuring that every incoming link that used "next" instead of 43rd or the date gets corrected to point to #43 — a level of judiciousness that we can't guarantee, because we can't even adequately ensure that people always link to the correct place for a disambiguated topic or correct all the inbound links after a page move now — then some links will end up pointing at the wrong topic. So it's best to use a title that will always mean the same thing, so that even an uncorrected old link to the old title will still get you to the correct place, instead of one that constantly shifts meaning to a completely new thing every few years. In the meantime, a person who doesn't already know that it's #43 can still get to it by using the redirect from "next" — but which one's the page title and which one's the redirect to that should quite rightly be based on the level of permanence involved. Bearcat (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Congratulations to all the above for showcasing the worst of Wikipedia - arrogance and nationalism. To vote, en masse against a policy-based name change giving spurious and unbelievably ludicrous reasons is very disappointing. Advocate a policy change if you won't accept a policy. AusLondonder (talk) 03:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Comment the 43rd Canadian federal election will elect the 43rd Canadian parliament - what's arrogant or nationalistic about that? Trying to enforce a cookie cutter approach, even when it doesn't make as much sense as the status quo, for purely bureaucratic reasons actually represents the worst of Wikipedia in my book. (And if our approach is "nationalistic" does that make your approach "imperialistic"? For all your dismissiveness, you haven't actually addressed or refuted a single one of Bearcat's points. Frankly, reading the exchange, if I were to say one of you was behaving arrogantly it wouldn't be Bearcat. Alexander's Hood (talk) 06:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Comment Should this discussion conclude that policy and common sense does trump guideline, someone ought to take a look at Next Nova Scotia general election, which is the only example of a future Canadian election using the guideline 'next'. Graemp (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 'Comment Re WP:COMMONNAME red herring. 8,500,000 results are produced for "Next Canadian federal election" compared with 13,200 for "43rd Canadian federal election". What was that about common name again? I am behaving in accordance with long-standing Wikipedia practice and policy. AusLondonder (talk) 07:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
A lot of those are going to be various past elections in historical articles, it creates lots of ambiguity. - Ahunt (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
And did you run a filter on that search to determine how many of those 8.5 million "next" hits were current sources using "next" to mean #43/2019 specficially, as opposed to hits in which "next" was referring to one of the 42 preceding elections which were once the "next" election in their specific historical context but aren't the "next" election today? Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

To those who are suggesting my proposal is extreme or out-there - take a look at this:

Who is ignoring precedent, common-sense and usual practice now? How do all these other editors cope? AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I can find practically no examples using a similar style to this article, excluding those with a fixed date. AusLondonder (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
"Next" is a horrible idea, since as stated, it changes all the time. To necessarily make every article flipflop names is a bad idea. Instead these should all be redirects if some other name is available, because the "next" will change all the time, while incoming links should always refer to the proper election in question, instead of mislink to the wrong election all the time whenever an election occurs, and someone fails to update incoming links. Your arguments about imperialism fails to take into account any of that. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. WP:NCGAL is not clear, it says "use a form similar to". However WP:COMMONNAME is clear, and I feel that the next provincial and federal elections are more often referred to as "Next", than by their number. I also think that we can't ignore the great number of other country's next election articles, a naming convention has been made. I think that all the province and territory election articles should be part of this discussion as well, they should be brought into line as well. Changing the incoming links shouldn't be an issue. When an election is called, the article is moved to a name with the year, the article for the election after that is not created immediately. There is plenty of time to fix links. 117Avenue (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with you that all Canadian provincial elections should be a part of this discussion. I disagree with you on WP:COMMONNAME. As regards making Canada conform with those countries that use next, I also disagree. There are many subtle differences in language and presentation between countries. This has grown from different approaches taken by different politics/elections projects working collaboratively. Wikipedia has accepted these differences and hopefully will continue to do so. Two contributors to this discussion have gone into some detail to explain how using 'next' can really stuff up lots of other articles who choose to link to a particular election article titled 'Next'. I am a participant in the UK project which uses 'Next' and editors there have to deal with this irritating fall out each election. I'd suggest they switch to a numbering system like Canada but in the UK, very few use a numbering system to describe elections, so it would be hard to win support for the change. The Canadian numbering system works better and we should allow better methods to prosper. Graemp (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 9 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedy close as too soon to the previous, identical request closed two weeks ago. As before, there is no agreement that the proposed title is preferable. As noted by some participants above and below, "next" is fluid, and even if it's more common as a phrase than a present title, it's not certain that all sources for "next Canadian federal election" are referring to the election that currently happens to be "next". It appears that more !voters than not are satisfied that the present title better suits the spirit of WP:NC-GAL and the practice at related articles (ie, previous Canadian elections). I'll also note that Next Canadian federal election can still redirect to this more precise title (and then be redirected to the next next election), which should dissolve concerns that readers may get lost.
There's no hard-and-fast rule about when a new RM can be started, but in general it's best to wait a fair period of time, or until some new development occurs. Clearly, the various commenters below feel this request is too soon and unproductive. The nominator is advised against starting another discussion here for at least several months; in the meantime I'm available for further discussion and move review is an option. Cúchullain t/c 02:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


43rd Canadian federal election → Next Canadian federal election – Per WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums which specifically and unambiguously states: "For future elections of uncertain date, use a form similar to Next Irish general election". Also, WP:COMMONNAME demonstrates Next should be used, as search volumes and results are significantly greater for next as opposed to 43rd. Naming conventions are clear. Next is easier for regular readers to find, as few would know the exact number of federal elections Canada has held. All other election articles I could find follow the naming conventions AusLondonder (talk) 04:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Close. Too soon after the previous requested was closed. I would ask to Cúchullain to better summarise the discussion, as at least "no consensus" or "opposed". I presume to read the above as "no consensus", and recommend that you take no less than two months before composing a more persuasive RM nomination, one that summarizes the result of the previous. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC).
Could you let me know what policy states the required time between a closed RM and opening a new one? AusLondonder (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy close. You've got to be kidding me. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Grounds for a speedy close? AusLondonder (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:POINT Ribbet32 (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That would suggest I am trying to prove a point in opposition to a guideline or policy. You do realise I'm tryingto apply naming conventions and policies, right? AusLondonder (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
You're showing extreme contempt for consensus. You keep saying you're following policy, but that's a guideline, not policy, and anyway, Wikipedia does not follow firm rules. I recommend a block for nom if he continues to disrupt Wikipedia. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • COMMENT - I don't think WP:COMMONNAME applies in this RM. Both the current title, and the proposed one are descriptive titles (and not names). I have no opinion on which is the better choice (each is supported by different guidelines... so, policy wise, both are acceptable). Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 Comment: Isn't it good to be consistent? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the same reasons as last time. Nominator has not raised any new issues that weren't taken into consideration the first time — he's just trying to speedy-relitigate the same discussion because he didn't get his way the first time, and has failed to even take into account the possibility that the naming convention is the problem. (NCs, for the record, are guidelines and not policies, which means there can be valid reasons to diverge from them.) And he's also failed to take into account, even though it was pointed out the first time, that the majority of the "next" references in that Google Trends chart are occuring before the 2015 election — and thus were using "next" to refer to election #42, not #43, which is exactly the problem: "next" shifts meaning to a completely new topic every four years. And readers are not going to fail to find the article, either, because "next" still exists as a redirect — if you don't know the number, you can still type next and still get to the right place, so this title is not causing the problem the nominator claims it's causing. There is a point at which this kind of behaviour crosses the line into pointless disruption. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not how it works, with respect User:Bearcat. You can't just say WP:IDONTLIKEIT about a policy and naming convention. AusLondonder (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, that's not what I did. Firstly, NCs are not policies — they are guidelines. Guidelines explicitly state that there can and will be exceptions to them for legitimate reasons, and guidelines can be changed if need be. If it helps, think of it this way: policy = rule, guideline = suggestion. And secondly, an "IDONTLIKEIT" argument is one that boils down to "I don't have to have a reason for not following the rule, I just don't want to" — but I gave real, substantive reasons why the guideline (which, again, is not a policy) is a bad one that should be changed. You don't have to agree with me, that's why we debate these things — but you don't get to just dismiss my argument as "IDONTLIKEIT", because there are real, legitimate reasons underlying what I said.
And furthermore, you have yet to provide even the slightest indication that you're even listening to anything anybody is saying to you about this. You've never offered one word of response to anybody's legitimate and serious concerns about the existing NC. You've never even adjusted your research statistics to account for the fact that you've been told, more than once, that your "next" stats were including many historical references to elections that aren't the 43rd election, and thus your "common name" stats were distorted. You've never offered the slightest indication that you're willing to listen to anything except "my way or the highway" — every time somebody gives you a reason for being opposed to the NC, you just respond by pointing to the NC again. There's no opportunity to have a productive discussion if one of the parties to the discussion isn't willing to discuss. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Bearcat nailed this every way. A "Next..." name for an event or the like should always be used as a redirect, since it will be a moving target. (It can even be directed to a section on the end of an event if it is discontinued, so people trying to find out when the next one is will learn there'll never be one. I also agree with Blueboar that this is not a COMMONNAME matter; this is a[n attempt at] a WP:DESCRIPTDIS.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Haven't you read WP:NC-GAL#Elections and referendums? AusLondonder (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedy procedural close and TROUT the nominator; renomination by same nominator as last time, and only 1+1/2 weeks later! Excessive renomination speed; and doesn't seem to have been a move review either -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
No grounds for a speedy procedural close. AusLondonder (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
"Immediate renomination for no significantly new reason other than the nominator didn't get his way the first time" is pretty good grounds for a speedy close, actually. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NDP change

Tom Mulcair has failed his leadership review and will step down when a new leader is elected as such it would be appropriate for the NDP leader to have interm. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/04/10/ndp-leader-thomas-mulcair-urges-delegates-to-keep-him-on-voting-day.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.219.40 (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No, he's still the NDP leader, even though he's now a lame-duck. No different then a retiring party leader. GoodDay (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
When a new leader is selected, this article will be updated accordingly. As of right now, however, he still is the incumbent leader despite the leadership review vote on Sunday. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Leaders

The next general election could take place before either NDP or Conservative leadership contest concludes. If this happens any interim leader leads their party at that election. Graemp (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 43rd Canadian federal election. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

BQ Required seats

This section no longer exists due to the fact that the election occurred. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should there be a section on the infobox showing how many seats the BQ need to win? They can't win 160 in the next election because they only run candidates in Quebec. Should we keep that there or remove it.

It's standard procedure. Also, the same could be said for the Green Party. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 01:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I'd leave it; there's nothing stopping the Bloc from running candidates outside of Quebec if they decide a majority is their goal. When the campaign period begins, maybe we could just add footnotes to the "seats needed" reading something like "The Bloc Québécois is only running x candidates." Madg2011 (talk) 01:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
It's rather misleading to have list the seats needed for the BQ, since there is no way that they could ever reach a majority. It's not exactly standard procedure to do so, either. In the place of such a calculation for the regional parties for the next UK election, there is an informative footnote. Such a footnote would be more helpful and less misleading to the reader than leaving it the way it is.schetm (talk) 22:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Also, Callmemirela, I believe that the Greens ran in every riding in 2015. As such, they could have conceivably achieved a majority. schetm (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The GPC ran in 336 ridings, all except Kelowna—Lake Country and Labrador. Madg2011 (talk) 23:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
It's always been there. It is standard procedure to include it for every party. Also, Madg2011 makes a good point, which I only read now. There is no reason to remove it. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 23:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Reiterating my thoughts here: the BQ is legally able to run a candidate in every riding in Canada, should they so choose. Thus, two years away from the election and long before nominations have started, much less closed, it's WP:SPECULATION to say that the BQ cannot win a majority government. Schetm, UK regional parties are different, as the UK Electoral Commission has separate regional party registration. For example, if you look at the registration for the SNP, you'll see that it's only registered to field candidates in Scotland. This is not the case in Canada; any party registered with Elections Canada can run in any ridings it wishes. UK regional parties can't conceivably win majorities, Canadian ones can. Madg2011 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it is misleading to say that it is possible that the BQ wins a majority, because they only ever run candidfates in Quebec. Stating otherwise isn't WP:SPECULATION, it's common sense. Emass100 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree...the purely theoretical concept of the BQ winning a majority is irrelevant given that the Bloc declines to make it possible.The self-righteous note notwithstanding.12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name consistency?

The name of the page was settled a while ago.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Why is the name 43rd Canadian federal election instead of Canadian federal election, 2017? Every previous election had the latter format. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 00:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Because it won't happen in 2017. It will likely happen in 2019, but could happen in 2018. Letupwasp (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Exaclty Letupwasp said. Canadian elections (whether it be federal, provincial or munipical) do not have exact confirmed election days like the US. An election can be called as early as 2018. Or, in most cases, only in the year four years after the previous one. For example, Pauline Marois called for a provincial election 2 years in office and ultimately lost. Theresa May called for an earlier election this year. No elections are truly confirmed until the Governor General calls an election. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 02:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

How about changing it to Next Canadian federal election? GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That's been discussed ad nauseam; Canadian election articles have consistently avoided the inelegant and unintelligent "Next" format for years, as a highly fluid and unprecise concept. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Leader images

Not sure what precedent is for this, but, based on some recent edits, we should have a consensus on which images of the leaders are used here. 17:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Apparently that is needed. - Ahunt (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Recent is better IMO. Changing to a 2015 image for a 2019 election is odd. // sikander { talk } 03:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

CCF

Hate to be a wet blanket here; it's kind of cool to have an MP claiming to be CCF (though the circumstances in this particular case are strange) so I like having this in the standings, but I removed it from the new Parties section. [1] As CBC notes, an independent can self-style himself CCF, but the party "no longer exists". Also, in response to this, [2] that source, while respectable, is dated 1971. That tells you nothing about what the CCF stands for in 2018- it would in fact be impossible to say what the CCF stands for in 2018, because the party does not exist. Ribbet32 (talk) 17:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Martine Ouellet

This matter was settled a long time ago. Furthermore, Ouellet is no longer the BQ leader.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Ouellet announced her resignation today effective June 11. Until the 11th, she's still the leader and should remain in the infobox. Madg2011 (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

She won't be the leader at the next election which is what this article is about. Landbroke99 (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

We don't know for sure that any of the current leaders will be leading their parties next October. Infoboxes on future election pages show the current party leaders, not who we think might be in charge later. Madg2011 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
We do know for sure that she won't be. Landbroke99 (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

name change

The name of the page was settled a while ago. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:37, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


With it now physically impossible to have the election this year, isn't it time to change the name of the article to Canadian federal election, 2019?Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

No, not until it is called. Under the law it is quite legal for the election to be held in 2020 instead. The current name is still perfectly accurate and in the past we have always waited until the election call to change the name. No reason to change it now based on pure speculation. - Ahunt (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, it should be moved to 2019 Canadian federal election, with less then 3 weeks in 2018. GoodDay (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
No it shouldn't per the Constitution of Canada. The fixed election law is an inferior statute and has been disregarded before and can be again. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
We do this for the provincial elections, however. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
As I noted earlier above, it is perfectly legal for the election to be held as late as 2020. There is no advantage to be gained by renaming it to "2019" at this point in time. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I just reverted a change of the lede details. Please don't change this without consensus here. You can also note from above that indicating that the election will 100% be in 2019 is not accurate. While it is likely to be held in 2019, but can legally be held in 2020, too. Indicating that it will be in 2019 is WP:OR until it is called. - Ahunt (talk) 16:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Exactly how can it legally be held in 2020? GoodDay (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The Canada Election Act requires that the election be held by the fifth anniversary of the last election. Since the last election was in October 2015, the latest the election can legally be held is in October 2020. The fixed election law is an inferior law that does not amend the election act, which is how our previous PM was able to call elections out of sequence with the fixed election dates. - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
You're declaring a Parliamentary Act to be ineffectual? This isn't about Trudeau calling a snap election, like Harper did in 2008. This is about waiting out the clock until October 2019. Suggest you go to WP:CANADA, with this observation of yours. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The law that establishes the maximum time between election dates is the Constitution Act, which says: "50. Every House of Commons shall continue for Five Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer." You will note that the Constitution takes precedence over all other acts. The Canada Elections Act requires the PM to call an election every four years, but as our last PM showed, there are no penalties specified for doing otherwise. If the current PM does not ask the GG to dissolve parliament for an election in October 2019 and, in fact takes no action at all to call an election, then the Constitution Act will force an election in October 2020, the last time that the 43rd election can be held. The relevant part of the Canada Elections Act is 56.1, which despite fixing dates says "Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion."
You can also note that in the Westminster parliamentary system elections have also been delayed due to national emergencies, wars, etc. All of this to say that while the 43rd election will mostly likely be held in 2019, there is no guarantee that it will be held then. There is no compelling argument to change the name of this article yet, as the current name is correct and changing to indicate 2019 is WP:OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL. - Ahunt (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Once we get into the new year, I'll see to opening an RM on this matter. No doubt, somebody else will, by then. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
We seem to do this on Wikipedia every time we get down the year or two in a mandate, but sure, if you want to do yet another debate on this then, you can see if you can get a consensus to move it. I am just not sure why you would bother before the election is called, since, as I noted, the current title is perfectly correct and there is no guarantee that the election will be held in 2019, prior to its call. - Ahunt (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The fixed election law does not prevent a prime minister from going to the governor-general to call an election earlier than the fixed election date, if there's a reason (e.g. the defeat of a minority government on a confidence motion) to do so — but the fixed election law most certainly does make it impossible for the prime minister to simply blow past the fixed election date, and go into Year 5 of a mandate, without deigning to call an election. Yes, it's theoretically possible that 2019 could see a national emergency so serious that the House of Commons votes to suspend the fixed elections law and go into Year 5 — but it's also theoretically possible that 2019 could see Canada militarily annexed by the United States, so that no 43rd election ever happens at all because we're all Americans by October. That is, it's not our responsibility to prove that there won't be such an emergency before the article can be moved to 2019 — the possibility is remote enough that it has to carry the burden of WP:CRYSTAL proof, such that it would have to be proven that there will be such an emergency before there's a legitimate reason to not move the article to 2019. The fixed election law does not prevent an election from happening earlier, no — but it does tie Justin Trudeau's hands about going to the polls later than October 2019. The slim possibility that it could still go into 2020 is so remote as to be effectively non-existent — it's not our job to prove that there won't be an election-delaying national emergency before the article can be moved, it's your job to prove that there will be an election-delaying national emergency before there's a compelling reason for the article to not be moved. It doesn't matter whether you go with the principle that "the burden of proof is on the affirmative claim, not the negative one" or "the burden of proof is on the extraordinary claim rather than the common one" — the argument against moving the article falls on the "carrying the burden of proof" side of both of those principles. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. The current name is completely accurate no matter when the election ends up being held and so there needs to be a very good reason to change it before the actual election call is made. This discussion was started to find a consensus to move the article. The onus is on those wishing to move the article to present a convincing argument why the article needs to be moved at this point in time, rather than waiting for the election call. Not seeing that so far. - Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
An RM should be opened on this. PS: If anybody knows how to do that? go for it. GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Timeline

Is my memory completely wrong or did MP resignations formerly appear in this section? I noticed their disappearance when looking to add Grewal's resignation. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Article name

This matter was settled a while ago.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Shouldn't it be renamed to 2019 Canadian federal election Since its 2019 and the election must be called this year via Canadian constitution. We don't know the date of the election but we know it's simply this year, Other country election's like 2019 australia federal election was renamed, So shouldn't this be renamed as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1AEF:DF00:F16E:A276:302D:9B48 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

We just had this exact same discussion right above, see #name change. - Ahunt (talk) 01:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed it should. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, it's not the constitution that mandates the election to be in 2019, it's the Canada Elections Act. Constitutionally, the election doesn't have to happen until 2020 — the fixed election dates are by statute, not constitutional requirement. Just to be clear, that doesn't mean there's any chance at all that the upcoming election will actually be deferred to 2020 — JT would still have to repeal or amend the Canada Elections Act to wipe out the fixed date before he would actually have the option of delaying the election even one day past the current fixed date — it's just necessary to understand the distinction between "legally" and "constitutionally". Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

For goodness sake, no more by-elections can be called due to the fact that we've less then 9 months before the next federal election. CBC & CTV news have been pointing out that the next federal election will be in October 2019. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The next federal election is "expected" in October 2019, it still hasn't been called. - Ahunt (talk) 13:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Why are you being so stubborn about this? jeez. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I was going to ask you just that same question. Since the existing title was perfectly correct, why the big rush to change the name, but since you just completed an end-run around WP:CONSENSUS, you made it a moot point. - Ahunt (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I was going to open an RM, but don't know how to. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
If I understand it correctly, it's still possible to call a byelection in Nanaimo—Ladysmith because the cutoff is that the seat becomes vacant within nine months of the scheduled election; again, no hard date. The news media's reporting about minor details is only as good as the reporter's understanding of the subject and the editors' willingness to ignore the KISS principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by G. Timothy Walton (talk • contribs)
A by-election can still be called for Nanaimo–Ladysmith. The other two currently vacant seats, won't be having by-elections. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
It's possible that there could still be a by-election in Nanaimo-Ladysmith, yes, but it's not guaranteed. In 2015, there were three by-elections that fell right into the most awkward possible timing spot: they were far enough from election day that by-elections legally had to be called, but still too close to election day to actually justify the by-elections actually happening — so Stephen Harper just buried them by "calling" by-elections that were scheduled for the general election date, making the announcement a formality that got wiped out by the general election writ. The same could happen in Nanaimo-Ladysmith this year — we won't know one way or the other until it happens. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue with 'Issues' section

This section no longer exists.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Not sure why the section titled 'Issues' needs to be here. It's incomplete, arguably quite slanted (due in large part to the incompleteness), inconsistently sourced, and there's no equivalent in any of the other pages for Canadian elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.61.207.148 (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, the fact that it is not complete means it looks quite biased. This is far too close to WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS to be included. - Ahunt (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is now more than a week old. Unless there is any further input we seem to have a consensus here to remove this. I'll leave this open a day or two more in case any further editors wish to comment. - Ahunt (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Okay lacking any further comments and anyone who thinks this should be retained, as per WP:CONSENSUS, I will remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Rather than deleting the entire section, I believe we should work to complete it an improve it. - Humberland (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
You could work on it in user space and then come back here for a new consensus once you feel it has been improved. Just copy it from the history. - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think we should put this section back when the election is on.KingTintin (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

As per recent edit dispute about mentioning the SNC-Lavalin affair in the background... I think we should be discussing issues in some form (in a manner than is consistent with WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE). An article about an election should describe the background to and context around that election, and the issues that come up in the election campaign. We're meant to be an encyclopaedia, not merely a directory of election results. Other election articles on Wikipedia do this, and this article should too. I think, for example, this, 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom, is a good example of an election article. Or here's, 2017 United Kingdom general election, the last UK general election article. Note both discuss background, context and campaign issues.
The 2015 Canadian election article includes a campaign section, so we do have equivalents in other Canadian election articles. Bondegezou (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
That makes sense to me, but we can't just add one item that is a criticism of one party. All parties have recently been criticized for issues, like The CPC and racism allegations. WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE are requirements. - Ahunt (talk) 15:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
As per WP:NOTDONE, we should get going with adding material and we can review balance along the way. I suggest that the most significant event pertinent to this election (as per coverage by WP:RS and thus satisfying WP:BALANCE) is the SNC-Lavalin affair, so I was happy to see that added. (It is the nature of elections that the actions of the party in government come under more scrutiny.) If you want to add information about the CPC and racism, go for it. Bondegezou (talk) 16:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Ahunt, or anyone else, if you want some balancing content, what about suggesting some text so we can move forward here? Bondegezou (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
As per the consensus above, I suggest we not try to list what we think might be the issues and instead find what a reliable source thinks are the issues. If we can't find any than there will be once the election campaign starts. - Ahunt (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, of course, we work from WP:RS. There are plenty. Can we move to some suggestions on text now? It seems to me very obvious that we need to make a reference to the SNC-Lavalin affair (as extensively covered by RS, e.g. [3], [4]), but you keep reverting that text saying we need to cover other issues as well. So what do you want in, Ahunt?
Here are some useful RS summarising key issues: [5], [6], [7], [8] Bondegezou (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that based on its prevalence in pre-election coverage there should likely be mention of the SNC-Lavalin affair. I am not sure what other issues should be covered. Perhaps pharmacare plans, climate change (this could be a chance to balance weight as Scheer's plan was criticized in the media), the carbon tax, pipeline politics, electoral reform (Trudeau's broken campaign promise). Some ideas anyway to get the ball rolling.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
Further to AHunt's suggestion that we start with what a RS says are the issues. This might not be a bad place to start [9]. There may be other similar sources which are more up to date.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
Bump We still haven't addressed having an issues section and it's an obvious limitation in the current article. Suggestions for how to actually move on this? Bondegezou (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I like the idea of a "Campaign" section as in the UK election articles. Perhaps there could be an "Issues" subsection, outlining various key issues, and where the parties each stand on these issues. (There are some good ideas discussed in the articles Bondegezou listed above. The 2019-06-14 CTV article: protecting the environment, investing in communities, immigration. The 2019-06-16 Globe and Mail article: ethics in government, economy, carbon tax, free trade with the United States and Mexico. The 2019-06-30 CBC article: cost of living, climate change, health care.) Perhaps also a "Party campaigns" subsection, outlining the pre-campaign/campaign messaging strategy/focus of each party.
Canada isidewith might be a helpful resource for more ideas. -- Ununseti (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Campaign Slogan?

The slogans were included - MikkelJSmith (talk) 01:17, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should we add it or should we not? Just asking for an WP:CONSENSUS 65Karlson (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

it’s been included in the past, why not? Outback the koala (talk) 03:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
True but the question should not be "if" but when should it be added? 65Karlson (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you want a blank section? Until the parties come out with something? Outback the koala (talk) 03:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Probably, the only party that has a slogan is the PPC 65Karlson (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unexplained reversion

Having been reverted by GoodDay without explanation, I am wondering why. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Your addition to the article, are irrelevant. But, we can wait & see what others have to say, here. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
How do you reconcile your position with MOS:NUM, GoodDay? And what's with the reversions with even the default edit summary removed (never mind a custom one)? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Instead of delegated convention, try leadership review. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: If you have a particular preference for that language, which is no more or less accurate than the language I used, why not just put it in rather than revert? I was just trying to format the number in accordance with the MOS while also removing the awkward-sounding construction "of the delegate vote". 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Made appropriate changes. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Why was the per cent sign removed and then restored again despite MOS:NUM? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The write up is better. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not the write-up itself with which I am taking issue, GoodDay. I am asking why the per cent sign was removed and then restored again despite MOS:NUM. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Write up looks better with the percentage sign. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Fix needed for map

Please see here. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:9DD3:F09C:3284:9607 (talk) 09:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

This was resolved and the image was deleted.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Date Format

This matter was settled.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


We should be using DMY format because, well, this is a Canadian election, not an American one. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It was just recently changed and should be changed back. - Ahunt (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Sombody more technically adept will have to go about changing it to DMY and perhaps getting the user in question, one Walter Görlitz, blocked from the pages. He removes anything I put on his talk page. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The date format was not changed, it was only consistently applied per MOS:DATETIES. The earliest date format used (as of 2015-11-04T05:19:31) lists "October 21, not 21 October and so it should stay at mdy per WP:DATERET. All references at that point used that date format as well.
Suggesting that I should be blocked is childish. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
It seemed appropriate to your actions. I'll stand by that statement.
Now, anyone know how we could go about forcing this page to display a proper modern Canadian date format? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
You need to change it and then change the date formatting template added at the top. - Ahunt (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
First, let me remind you that there is no single, proper, modern Canadian date format. What does DATETIES say Mr. Watson?
Second, no, the date format template at the top makes no change to the article itself, and doing so is wrong per DATERET. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:DATERET applies "unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic". Clearly there are "strong national ties to the topic" here! Ergo, DATERET does not apply. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Bearcat: to join the discussion. Clearly you're wrong because Canada uses both as DATETIES clearly states. This problem was resolved more than a decade ago. Ergo, DATERET does apply. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Quoting from DATETIES:
  • Articles related to Canada or Israel may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article. (see Retaining existing format)
So suggesting that DMY is more Canadian than MDY is simply a lie. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
No, it's a sign of actually being a Canadian who was raised with metric dating. The simple fact is that among Canadians who actually care, DMY looks more formal; there's also a nationalist tendency to use it to distinguish us from Americans. If you have to force a consistent format down people's throats then you should use the less offensive one, which is DMY. Your citation does not support your argument the way you think it does. Judging by your profile page, it's not the first time you've used specious arguments.
Besides, what could be more Canadian than using two different systems at the same time? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
No. This was settled long ago. Either format is correct. Period. If you want to argue it again, take that somewhere else. Thanks for your work on the other article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Canada does not have right or wrong date formats. What we have, rather, is government sources that have partial but not universal tendencies to preference "British" DMY coexistng with media sources that consistently preference "American" MDY (unless they're written in French, where MDY is literally impossible and DMY is the only format that even exists, but this is the English Wikipedia and follows English rules rather than French ones) — so Canadians can very easily argue for either way, depending on their own preferences, and find authoritative support for it. So the Canadian WikiProject's consensus, literally for well over a decade, has always been that as long as any given article is internally consistent within itself, we don't have any official preference one way or the other. Walter Gorlitz is entirely correct, as well, that in terms of deciding which one to preference as the "internal consistency" choice in any given article, the rule is to stick with whichever date format, be it DMY or MDY, was used by the first editor to add a full date to the article. And once that first date has been added, the next rule is "don't get into unproductive arguments about it, just suck it up and obey whoever got here first, and go do you in whatever other articles you get to first".
The notion that DMY is somehow less "offensive" than MDY is patently absurd: DMY vs. MDY has literally jack shit to do with "metric" at all, and it's not our job to privilege the "Canadian nationalist" perspective over anybody else's, either: our job is to write Canadian English as she is spoke on the ground by Canadian people, not to select "Britishisms" over "Americanisms" as a matter of principle. Date formatting is completely unrelated to the metric system, and Canada has no "official" rules either way — DMY is not "metric" and MDY is not "imperial", because those are systems of physical measurement, not calendar dating. There may certainly be regional variations in different parts of Canada on the DMY vs. MDY issue, but there's no official "Canadian way" when it comes to date formatting: there are just two date formats that both coexist in Canada depending on personal preferences, so our rules were designed to put a lid on conflict or editwarring over it. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Just FYI, "The Government of Canada recommends that all-numeric dates in both English and French use the YYYY-MM-DD format codified in ISO 8601. The Standards Council of Canada also specifies this as the country's date format." See Date_and_time_notation_in_Canada (Topher67 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC))

Yet, they do not use it in prose. Wikipedia has its own date format rules. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Debates and the new commission

At some point, we should likely create a section about leaders debates. Obviously, much is not yet known. But we do know there will be debates organized by the new Canadian Leaders' Debates Commission[10]. There has been a far bit of coverage about it, the appointment of David Johnston as the commissioner,[11] the appointment of the advisory board,[12] etc.[13][14] It seems there is no article yet on the commission either. That is also a protect someone could undertake.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Pre-election predictions

This issue was resolved.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I wanted to include pre-elections by 338canada.com - information on the source: The 338Canada project is a statistical model of electoral projections based on opinion polls, electoral history of Canadian provinces and demographic data. This web site is the creation of P.J. Fournier, astronomy and physics professor at Cégep de Saint-Laurent in Montréal.

User Ahunt seems to undo all my work, so basically he wants me to ask everyone here what they think.

GabeMasi (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

You added a huge empty table that had one bit of unsourced information on it, which wasn't even encyclopedic, just someone's uncited opinion. Perhaps you can start by explaining what you are trying to accomplish by adding this. - Ahunt (talk) 13:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I was just starting to enter the data. Clearly you are not aware of how political wikipedia pages work. Pre-election predictions are often featured on these pages - just look at any US politics page. This is important information and it is not an opinion. It is statistical analysis, so next time before deleting information, do more research.

GabeMasi (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Rather than insults you need to start by reading WP:AGF and WP:NPA. If you check the past Canadian federal elections: 2015 Canadian federal election, 2011 Canadian federal election, 2006 Canadian federal election, you won't see this sort of table there, so a good case needs to be made to include something like this here. Entering a large, empty and unsourced table doesn't help readers, it serves no purpose. If you want to include this it needs to be complete and properly sourced and not just reflect one person's opinion. A professor of astronomy and physics is not a political subject matter expert, so please consider whether the source is WP:SPS. I would suggest you complete the table here on the talk page, rather than leave a very incomplete table where the readers can see it and then see if you can gain a consensus here to include or not. - Ahunt (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
GabeMasi, thanks for your edits here. I would suggest you follow Ahunt's suggestion. Not that it really matters, but I have seen him editing Canadian politics topics for sometime, and tend to consider him an experience editor in the area. I expect he has some valuable guidance to offer here. I have not seen much by the way of polling aggregates and seat projections being included in elections topics. I do tend to think the CBC News poll tracker by Éric Grenier is notable enough, although I am surprised there doesn't seem to be an article on him. 338 Canada one is also pretty notable in my opinion, but I expect some may disagree. I didn't recall if Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight predictions have been included in US elections articles before. It seems like there is some mention here. I am not sure about the best way to include these if we decide it is appropriate to do so. As you know, 338 and the CBC poll tracker are usually updated at least once a week. Do we only include the most recent prediction? Do we include them all? Should we include predictions as an aggregate seat range for each party, or include riding by riding predictions. I think 338 provides those but CBC poll tracker does not (as far as I know). Anyway, food for thought and discussion here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Grenier is not a "predictor", he's a poll aggregator, and a charlatan at that (that latter bit is subjective personal opinion). I don't think his poll aggregations are worthy of inclusion here. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
He is a bit of both isn't he? He aggregates polls, but he also uses a formula and some guess-work to come up with seat projections. Those projections are predictions of the result.[15].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
He has seat projections, which are based on a mathematical model... which is how most "predictors" do it. Do we really want to include that? Anyone can put together a model and throw poll numbers in it and have it spit out seat numbers. I have seen some international election articles include pollster's predicted seat totals, so that may warrant inclusion? I know Forum Research does this (and, so do we on occasion; yes, full disclosure: I'm a pollster!). Anyway, if we want to compare to the US election articles, I'm not aware of any organization in Canada that does individual race ratings for each district, which I believe are based on more than just throwing a bunch of poll numbers into a model. There are some qualitative measures going into them as well, I would imagine. Anyway, knowing how the sausage is made me a bit worried about these kinds of things. In the past Grenier has spat out numbers for individual ridings that were often way off, and I felt misled the public (people believed his riding numbers were actual poll numbers, and I'm sure some people used them to vote strategically), and this has left a sour taste in my mouth ever since. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Earl Andrew brings up a very good point here, which is why I have deep misgivings about including these sorts of seats projections, too. Wikipedia gets widely read and what we include here can have an impact on elections if we aren't careful. These sorts of seat projections have too many variables and too many assumptions built in to be "encyclopedic", they are models and approximations, which is why we haven't been including them in the past. I continue to believe that they don't belong in an encyclopedia article, even if they are quoted in WP:RS. They are essentially "opinions". - Ahunt (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have misgivings about it also. More so about the riding-by-riding results. I could see potentially a short not about the total seat projections, with an explanation about it, but only if it is notable enough that it would seem odd if we didn't include it. Perhaps Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight has reached that level but 338 Canada and Éric Grenier's CBC poll tracker have not. I also wonder if we were going to include it, how would we even deal with the updates? Do we only include the most recent projection, that seems a bit newsy and we are WP:NOTNEWS. We are also not supposed to be a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Also it would seem weird to either be including old projections (which are arguably no longer valid, if they ever were), or updating to the current projections weekly (or more).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I think you summed up my concerns very well there. WP:CRYSTALBALL is really the key and it is a Wikipedia policy, not just a guideline. Even if these are WP:RS-quoted, I don't think we should be including them for that reason alone. - Ahunt (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Election date overlap with Shemini Atzeret, date could be moved

Apparently, the October 21 election date overlaps with a Orthodox Jewish holiday.[16] As such, the Federal Court has ordered the Chief Electoral Officer to reconsider a request to move the date. This doesn't seem to mean that the date is going to move, only that it could. Does this conflict and/or the possibility of a change deserve mentioning? I am not sure where we would do so if it was. The only places we seem to be talking about the date is in the lede and the infobox. Neither of those spots seem appropriate for this commentary.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest only mentioning this if the election date actually gets moved, otherwise it is a really a non-story. - Ahunt (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Ahunt. Possibilities are limitless, but unless something actually happens, it's not a recorded historical fact. If they move the date, it would be worthwhile to include "why", which would result in this particular reference. NorthOnt001 (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I expect it could be relevant even if the date doesn't change. The Conservative candidate is suggesting that this will affect turnout if the date isn't changed. It seems if this is true it is only going to effect a few ridings. Probably something for us to watch, and consider again if it changes or if it doesn't and there is more WP:RS coverage about turnout concerns. Agreed, that it doesn't deserve mention at this time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
CBC news included it in their stories. Agree that a new date is still speculative, but we should mention the legal proceedings as they have happened. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Well we seem to have the answer to that.[17] Elections Canada is recommending we stick with the October 21 date. So the question remains does this Federal Court decision and Elections Canada announcement warrant mention despite the fact that the date does not seem to be changing? Is it notable/significant enough to deserve mention anyway?--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
It's a non-story, so unless anything changes I would say it should not be included. The Wikipedia policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER applies here. - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Disagree. The story is that a judge stated that the date be reviewed but that Elections Canada decided not to change it. One sentence with two references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I say the fact that the date was challenged on sound grounds and yet is not being changed is certainly notable. --76.69.116.4 (talk) 05:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Error in the party leaders section

This was settled, we can't really do anything about it.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


In the box at the top with pictures of the leaders, vote count, seats won etc. there is a line showing when each party leader became leader, "Leader Since" and when you hover over the date of the person becoming leader a picture of the person pops up. In the NDP section when you hover over the date that Jagmeet Singh became leader of the NDP, October 1, 2017, it shows the picture of someone else, Not sure who.

As I am not sure how to edit this, I am posting this to point this error out.

The source is in the page itself as it correctly shows his picture else where, under leader of party for example.

Thank You

96.23.239.166 (talk) 11:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like Singh. GoodDay (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
That is an recently-added and automatic feature of Wikipedia that when you are not signed in and hover over any link it shows a snippet and lede image from the linked article. The picture you are seeing is Charlie Angus and the article is the one it links to: 2017 New Democratic Party leadership election. Not much we can do about that on this page. - Ahunt (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I asked on the Wikimedia Discord about this, and it looks like being unable to manually change the PageImage is a known problem: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 147#Software issue is causing biased promotion of political candidates. It's being worked on here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T91683 I think there are some workarounds, but they are hacky. -- Ununseti (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Elections Canada climate change warning

This section seems appropriate given the coverage to date. Thanks to those who contributed to it. I think it could use some condensing and summarizing though. I am not sure the 2016 quote is necessary or appropriate (WP:QUOTEFARM).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

As we continue to edit this section, we may (or may not) wish to mention JT's comments about this [18].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Candidate images

@Walter Görlitz: I'm changing Trudeau's image to the previous one where he is not looking at Andrew Scheer. Recently a user went through Trudeau pages and changed the 2018 image with a 2019 one, but on this particular page the 2018 image is a better fit. // sikander { talk } 🦖 19:09, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Image direction is important for conveying information. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Gotta stay neutral. Trudeau looking at Scheer can be suggestive to certain people. // sikander { talk } 🦖 20:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree, it was not a good fit on this particular page, given the placement. - Ahunt (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Guillaumets (Campaign slogans)

As the section for slogans have been added, there has been a bit of back and forth as to whether or not « » should be used. I am of the position that as the quotes are in French, they should, as is done in the 2015 election page. Stampman11 (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

MOS:STRAIGHT is clear:
  • Do not use accent marks, backticks (`text´), low-high („ “) or guillemet (« ») marks as quotation marks. The symbols ′ and ″ seen in edit window dropdowns are prime and double-prime; these are used to indicate subdivisions of the degree, but not as apostrophes or quote marks.
  • Quotation marks and apostrophes in imported material should be changed if necessary.
So whether French uses guillemets, English does not and it should not be imported on the English project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
2015 page changed to correctly reflect the guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Controversies section?

There is usually a controversies section for every Canadian federal election, which often includes candidates who step down or are replaced.

Seeing that a Liberal candidate has already been removed, should the controversy section be started now, or be added when the campaign officially begins?

Deathying (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, add it. No doubt, the 'scandal' will eventually be included, depending on its possible effects being reported in the mainstream media. GoodDay (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree, these probably should be added as they occur. - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Should it also included incidents where the party did not remove a candidate. Just Asking? Weelandlka (talk) 22:09:29 1, September 2019 (UTC)
Good question. I think some judgement is needed there. If it is just a minor incident or something unsubstantiated that another party alleges then "no", but a more major incident might be worth adding. In an election where the leading parties are essentially tied in the polls I think we will expect some parties will try to "smear" some candidates and we don't need to report those here. - Ahunt (talk) 13:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Good point, but can we please go into more details. What would be considered as a "smear" and what would we not?. Would Andre Parizau ties to the Communist Party Count? Weelandlka (talk) 16:20:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
By "smear" I mean accusing other candidates of something for which there is no evidence or scant evidence. - Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but would candidates such as Cody Payet, Ken Pereira, who made controversial statements but they both dispute that it was taken over context; be included. Should comments maybe by Alain Rayes comments about abortion, Ralph Goodale comments about Same-sex marriage or Paul Manly "links" to 9/11 truthers be counted.Weelandlka (talk) 22:38:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
I think each one has to be considered individually. I would suggest the safe route would be to start a discussion here, citing refs and make a case for each one you think is worth including and then see what the consensus is . - Ahunt (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Haven't been around this article for awhile. What happened to the controversies sub-section, which was just under the Leabers' debates sub-section, with both under an Election campaign section? GoodDay (talk) 02:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Coverage of prominent Third Party Advertisers

I am wondering if we should cover the role that third-party groups such as Ontario Proud and North 99 have been playing in this election? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NateSocfiled (talk • contribs) 22:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, if properly sourced and balanced. There are many registered third parties participating in election advertising. It is fine for us to discuss them. Here are some third party advertisers that we should consider mentioning:[19][20][21].--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
The Bernier one is already mentioned. The other two needs more then one source. I was think more int the line of robocalls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NateSocfiled (talk • contribs)

How many NDP seats? How many vacancies?

The CBC news & apparently the House of Commons website, has the NDP with 39 seats & 5 seats being vacant. We've got it as NDP having 40 seats & there's 4 vacancies. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

We go with what RSes state, right? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Just curious with which are the correct sources. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem solved. NDP member Murray Rankin resigned on September 1, 2019, bringing the # down to 39 MPs. GoodDay (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

First Debate Summary

I have put a really brief summary in the debates table about the first debate. If anyone has time to add an encyclopedic summary based on the WP:RS available, that would be great. All I have really noted is who moderated, who was there and who was not there. That may or may not be enough for our purposes. Note that much of this content is reproduced on the Canadian leaders' debates, and where appropriate we should ensure both are updates unless there is a reason not to do so. Thx--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll try to add some summary of the articles that came out after the debate later today. Essentially, it will be what pundits thought about it + some fact controversy & fact checking that occurred after certain comments. JonathanScotty (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

House of Commons cuts links to MPs' websites

Does this deserve mention? The HOC has removed the websites of all MPs from the HOC website because some were forwarding hits to their campaign, not constituency, websites.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

What do I do if an event lasts more than one day?

I want to add some elements to the controversy section of the page, since it's lacking. But, some events last more than one day, so what do I do in that case? JonathanScotty (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Put in a date range? - Ahunt (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
I need more coffee lol. JonathanScotty (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Ahunt (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Adding the GPC's Abortion controversy, Controversy section & Journalist's tweets

I want to add the GPC's abortion controversy that you can see in this version of the page. Is that alright? [1] I was also wondering if we can cite journalists' tweets? Also, does one really need to ask every time they want to add something to the controversy section? I wanted to add some stuff since it seems lacking (Alain Rayes & CPC Abortion, NB NDP & GPC controversy, etc.), but it would take too much time if I had to ask every time for every one of them. JonathanScotty (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

As per WP:BOLD just go ahead and add items (with proper refs) and see then see if anyone objects. As per WP:BRD if anyone removes an addition then bring it here for discussion. - Ahunt (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Quick question, do Journalists' tweets count as references. Sometimes, they tell details that aren't in the actual articles weirdly enough. JonathanScotty (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
As long as they are actually from published journalists then they can be used as per WP:SPS. - Ahunt (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Canadian_federal_election&oldid=915660330

Scheer's debate controversy + should I include this

While I agree that it's not really that bad and minor, which was why it was removed. I wanted to know what others thought about the debate controversy that I mentioned here : "September 12-13, 2019 : During the Maclean's/CityTV debate, Andrew Scheer caused controversy when he said that "We cannot create a system in this country where one group of individuals, one Indigenous community, can hold hostage large projects that employ so many Indigenous Canadians". Elizabeth May & Jagmeet Singh criticized him for these comments. A day later, Mr. Scheer doubled down on his argument." There were references by the way that are in that version : "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Canadian_federal_election&oldid=915712671#Controversies".

Also, should I add this? There was controversy after flyers were handed it saying ""Because you can only hear the same left-wing talking points from your professors so many times." & Scheer today said it was supposed to be a joke. References :

JonathanScotty (talk) 01:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I would avoid the word "controversy" because it can be used as a Unsupported attributions. However, on the proessor thing, I am starting to think that we need to create seperate sections for how the party operate their campaign like in 1993 Canadian federal election, 1997 Canadian federal election and 2000 Canadian federal election. User:Weelandlka (talk) 02:33:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I too would stop using the word controversy. At best it was a media talking point. What you add will be edited by others, so make your best effort. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Two Maxime Berniers

I wanted to make the case that the text indicating that the Rhino party is running a candidate named Maxime Bernier in the same riding as Maxime Bernier is running for the PPC, should be retained. I note this was put in, removed and now has been put back in. While this seems like a typical humourous jest by the Rhinos, the recent riding polling shows the race in that riding is fairly tight and even a few votes going to the Rhino candidate instead of the PPC candidate could cost Bernier the election. Furthermore if Bernier fails to win his own seat in this election it is likely that his party will elect no other candidates and may well not survive to the next election, so this Rhino move may prove significant. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, how if you can other sources proving your claim, Otherwise you might be violating WP:Fourm. Its the samething, why I avoided making a counterargument. I suggest, we keep it off before we have any addition sources. - Weelandlka (talk) 17:49:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
There are many sources
JonathanScotty (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
As noted above by User:JonathanScotty, it has been well-covered by media sources, who see it as significant, so it should stay. - Ahunt (talk) 18:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The arguement is that should it be significant in the timeline. None of yoursource said this particularly say it would be a factor. No Rhino party leader does not count as a political theorist; which I would a factor to be a reliable source. For example, the Rhino party did the samething with John Turner in the 1988 Canadian federal election and he won his riding. It might be notable in Bernier page. - Weelandlka (talk) 18:47:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not saying any of those possible outcomes should be mentioned, just that it is significant enough to be included as it is now, as a single line in the article. The source cited and the sources above are plenty to show it is notable for inclusion at that level. I am just proposing it should stay in the article as it is, and not be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Except Journalist from RS can focus on trival matters. I am arguing that its should be dropped because WP:CONTEXT in the timeline section. Also, none of your sources mention your agurement for starting the dicussion. Weelandlka (talk) 19:33:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The argument for starting the discussion is that there are two people named Maxime Bernier running in Beauce and that it has been widely covered in the national media. Given the existing editing consensus and the support for retaining it in this discussion, you would need a new consensus to remove it at this point. Unless you are going to propose it be removed and pursue a new consensus for that I think we can just leave this discussion as a record to indicate why this was included. - Ahunt (talk) 19:48, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Not Quite, your agurement for starting this dicussion is "while this seems like a typical humourous jest by the Rhinos, the recent riding polling shows the race in that riding is fairly tight and even a few votes going to the Rhino candidate instead of the PPC candidate could cost Bernier the election.Furthermore if Bernier fails to win his own seat in this election it is likely that his party will elect no other candidates and may well not survive to the next election, so this Rhino move may prove significant." I asked if their is reliable source proving your claim so that we might not be violating Recentism. National Media have a habit over covering information that would violate Notable such "Routine kinds of news events". This is proven with the sources that User:JonathanScotty, which I have read, brought up only talks about the Rhio leader, explaining their strategy, proving your claim. Only problem is that the Rhio leader,who is not National Media as an expert in his field, whilecouple of sources mention that he is from Montreal and not apporved as a candidate from Election Canada. The National Media should have never reported until his candinacy was aproved by Election Canada. Otherwise it creates the impression, you can just name "people and run". Personally, I am arguing that it might be better suited for Bernier page should be kept of federal election page unless anyone can find a source from an a backing your claim. - Weelandlka (talk) 23:18:44, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not "making a claim", I was just providing background on the subject for context. As I have written several times already I am just advocating retaining the current text in the article ("September 10, 2019: The Rhinoceros Party nominated a candidate named Maxime Bernier in Beauce, the riding of People's Party leader Maxime Bernier.") as it is and not removing it again, nothing more. That text is well-supported by an existing ref, and as noted above, many more refs are available to show it is notable. - Ahunt (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
If a party has announced a candidate as having running in a riding, said candidate should be listed. That's really the only argument that matters until the official candidate list is posted by Elections Canada. Not listing a candidate because of perceived unimportance/unlikelihood of being on the ballot smacks of partisanship. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I was just asking a question. The debate is about including it into the timeline. I don't have a consensus to remove it. Weelandlka (talk) 17:34:01, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Premiers endorsing parties/not endorsing parties

So, my edits mentioning Premiers endorsing/not endorsing parties have been removed from the timeline. I wanted to know what the consensus was here. I personally find it to be good information, since it highlights some regional divisions in the campaign. Here is what it looked like before being removed : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2019_Canadian_federal_election&oldid=915859765#2019 JonathanScotty (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this should be included, as it is significant. - Ahunt (talk) 18:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The question is not that it should be included by where should it- part of the timeline or its own section like in 2015 Canadian federal election - Weelandlka (talk) 18:55:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Just for organizational purposes it is probably enough for its own section. - Ahunt (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
So, I'll go add a section for endorsements then. JonathanScotty (talk) 19:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Yep.Weelandlka (talk) 19:17:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It's going to be entirely along party lines and tell us nothing. Are we going to add mayors of major cities? There are mayors in Canada who are responsible for and were elected by more people than PMs of the small provinces. Trivia in my opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Except there have already been some unexpected endorsements or lack of them, like Moe in Saskatchewan and Legault in Quebec, which makes this notable. - Ahunt (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Should this study be mentioned in the background section?

I was wondering if this study should be mentioned in the background section, since it relates to the promises kept during the last Parliament : https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/new-book-assesses-trudeau-governments-record-of-living-up-to-pledges

JonathanScotty (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

There are many different sources of analysis on the subject of promises kept or not kept, but that relates to the 2015 election and the last parliament, not this one. - Ahunt (talk) 19:51, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

overuse of "criticized"

It seems like everyone is being criticized, at least when it's being spelled correctly. Could we please avoid extreme language? When a journalist comments on something, that's what it is: a comment. When a politician makes a statement to deflect attention, call it that. Not everything is a criticism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
You said what I was thinking. maclean (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Controversy section

The Controversy section is getting long; it already has 27 items listed. Several are not even a controversy, (the dictionary defines the term as A debate or discussion of opposing opinions). Under that definitions, Elections Canada stating charities may lose their charitable status if they promote information about climate change during the election is a controversy (though it isn't one of the 27 listed). A party nominee withdrawing (before they even register with Elections Canada to be a candidate) due to an allegation of domestic abuse is not a debate or discussion. —maclean (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The candidates who have been forced out are significant in numbers and also "why", there may also be more coming in the days after ballot nominations close, so perhaps these should be split out into a new list? - Ahunt (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Why would we make a new list? I don't see why we would separate it to be honest. If it's getting long, it means there was some problems with the vetting.JonathanScotty (talk) 02:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
True, but should we split into two section. One for pre-writ. The other for post-writ. Sidenote: should we include John Hirst,Shinder Purewal, and Trudeau& Goldy. I thought about adding them; however, I felt that Hirst and Purewal might be irrelevant after Scheer's statement. While, Trudeau& Goldy has not been verrified and has the potential to be guilt by assocaition. Weelandlka (talk) 12:55:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Trudeau and Goldy has already been fact-checked, so I don't think we should add it. It's based on a lie from April by Warren Kinsella & a lie by Goldy. That's the reason why a lot of journalists called the statement dumb after Scheer (and the CPC) said it. It also didn't generate any extensive coverage for that reason, so it isn't something we should add I think. 198.168.48.210 (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
As for Shinder Purewal, I think it warrants an inclusion (it's worse than some of the stuff we have) & the same reasoning applies to John Hirst as well. 198.168.48.210 (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, but it happened after Scheer put his statement out. If their is anything new they might be a consideration. My concern is they might be Good faith Weelandlka (talk) 19:09:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Not, really the story was posted by the CPC twitter account. I don't think Goldy warrants inclusion here, since this is a lie. Furthermore, I don't think it's good faith Goldy & Kinsella have lied and spread rumors more than once. Goldy has also endorsed Mad Max & Scheer depending on the issue. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I would agree in the case of this "rumor" (lie if we're being honest), it's already been debunked and I woudn't assume Good faith, this is a story that Ezra Levant & Goldy have propagated. Levant has already been sued for his lies. And like the other user said pretty much every journalist laughed or didn't take this seriously since they knew it was a lie. JonathanScotty (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Goldy is a troll and griffter, do not take anything from her seriously.However, [[22]] "The National Post was unable to independently verify this account. One former senior Liberal who Goldy said was present in the lounge at the time declined to comment. Efforts to reach her friends were unsuccessful." If anything new develop, lets consider the story. Weelandlka (talk) 20:45:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I really don't think it warrants inclusion. As someone who's not affiliated with any party (IND), it seems to me that the CPC manufactured this in order to hide from some of their recent controversies. The only source that is confirming this is thepostmillenial, which is known for spreading false stories. And like I said there is nothing that shows this to be true. Goldy is a grifter like you said & she deleted the tweet. It was than propagated by Ezra Levant and some CPC staffer on Twitter. Since two of those are known for their lies I think it doesn't warrant inclusion. I have no clue what Scheer was thinking when he repeated the lie. JonathanScotty (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
"Post Millenial",I was talking about the National Media. I want to know if the National Media has tried to figure out. I may have found the Liberals Response [[23]] - just need to a comfirmation that its the Liberal Press team.Weelandlka (talk 00:21, 18 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weelandlka (talk • contribs)
  • So, can we agree this is actually a list of scandals (wikt:scandal: An incident or event that disgraces or damages the reputation of the persons or organization involved.), not controversies? maclean (talk) 03:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree it's probably a better name for it. JonathanScotty (talk) 05:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Most of these are barely news. Three decades ago—before 24-hour news programming—most of these stories would have been ignored nationally and likely locally. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

We should re-add the detail of the Goldy pic from 2017

It's an important part of the story & contradicts the candidate's words, we can just that a journalist fact-checked & tweeted a photo of them from 2017 instead of saying Goldy posted a photo. https://election.ctvnews.ca/andrew-scheer-on-defensive-as-liberals-raise-questions-about-justina-mccaffrey-1.4593441 198.168.48.210 (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TooSoon Lets wait to see if how the Party & McCaffry reacts to that. Before inserting it in. Weelandlka (talk) 20:58:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
In this case, I would agree with the unnamed user (IP address) that it warrants inclusion. It's in the article that covered this story as well as others, the journalist just posted a screenshot from Goldy's facebook. Here's another story that has the detail https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/conservative-candidates-questions-1.5284151 There's also this article that shows not one but multiple pictures of the two of them from 2017. https://www.straight.com/news/1302446/andrew-scheer-inept-frank-magazine-highlighted-faith-goldy-justina-mccaffrey-friendship Therefore, I think the 2017 detail warrants inclusion. JonathanScotty (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The issue is that The Georgia Straight article refers to Frank (magazine) which is seen as a gossip site by Canadian Media. Weelandlka (talk) 00:38:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
We can ignore that it's already mentioned in two articles CTV & CBC. And we have that journalist's tweet. There's no reason to remove it JonathanScotty (talk) 01:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I should have framed it better the way. The paraagraph is written makes to make it sound like she apologized over "of the Goldy pic from 2017". None of the sources you addressed that point. If you cand find sources stating that she address it. Then add it in.Weelandlka (talk) 14:14:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Rick Mercer controversy

Should we mention this? https://twitter.com/rickmercer/status/1174021712767324162 & https://twitter.com/rickmercer/status/1174019842216775681 I would wait for now, but there will probably be an article about it. 198.168.48.210 (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

How is this a controversy? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Same thing, at least get sources, before having the debate.Weelandlka (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
We don't know who posted these images. Was it a supporter of another party? Was it a "foreign" source trying to sow confusion or mistrust? Was it a well-meaning Mercer fan who knows nothing about Mercer's politics attempting to spread their own interest? Until we know something we shouldn't call it a controversy or even address it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok we have a couple of sources [[24]] [[25]] but the party said that person who did it was not part of the campaign. Is this even notable? (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't know to be honest. There also is an article by Burnaby Now by the way.JonathanScotty (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Someone not associated with the campaign. Sure WP:NOTNEWS. Not everything that happens during the election is worthy of being listed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused. I'm agreeing with you? I said I'm not sure it warrants inclusion. JonathanScotty (talk) 21:09, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was adding to the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Also, this isn't me advocating to add it to the page, but according to HuffPo (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/rick-mercer-conservative-meme_ca_5d804426e4b077dcbd6333ef) it's not the first time this riding association or the candidate has been criticized, they add some details like "Earlier this month, Leung also announced controversial writer and advocate Lindsay Shepherd as a member of her campaign team.", "Leung has also been heavily criticized in the past for pro-life and anti-LGBTQ beliefs." But, I'm still not really sure we should add it to the page like I said earlier. JonathanScotty (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

CPC SNC "investigation" lie

Also, should we add this : https://twitter.com/BrockWHarrison/status/1174009919579836427

A spokesperson for the CPC lied and said the LPC was under investigation for SNC, which had already been fact-checked (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/scheer-trudeau-snc-lavalin-investigation_ca_5d79848be4b06028fd36db51) and here is another fact-check from Don Martin (CTV pundit) and a CTV journalist + a columnist https://twitter.com/DonMartinCTV/status/1174013733758296067 https://twitter.com/atRachelGilmore/status/1174022989068873730 https://twitter.com/ChantalHbert/status/1174022458216767488 198.168.48.210 (talk) 18:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep organizer out unless they are notable. However, you need to have atleast two article from a WP:RS for to gain a consensus for inclusion itno the article. Weelandlka (talk) 18:47:45, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted to give you the heads up that it seems that there is another article about this : https://globalnews.ca/news/5915114/reality-check-rcmp-did-not-confirm-snc-lavalin-scandal-investigation/?utm_expid=.kz0UD5JkQOCo6yMqxGqECg.0&utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fglobalnews.ca%2Fpolitics%2F. And I thought journalist's tweets counted as a source? Ahunt said they were fine. So some of OP's tweets can be used since they're from a journalist fact checking (even if it's on Twitter). I mean we already included tweets in other areas where we needed them & if they're from a journalist, it's fine cus it's reliable. JonathanScotty (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not against including tweets. I just pefer articles with the tweets inside of the article for verification. Not every journalist count? Weelandlka (talk) 0:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
So, we have two articles then. HuffPo & Global. Although, HuffPo is when the CPC first tried to do it (they did it twice). Do I add the controversy with a timeline then? JonathanScotty (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Just as I say that the CBC uploads a story on this new one. I'll add it to the controversy page then https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tories-delete-rcmp-tweet-1.5287471?cmp=rss JonathanScotty (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Should there be a section for policies that are announced during the campaign?

The question is in the title 198.168.48.210 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Including the word "mentalty unstable"

I think we need to remove the word "mentalty unstable" from wikipeida because I feel like its violated Wikipedia:OM. Its too vulgar for Wikipedia standards. Alos if anyone wants to know how I based my input check this cbc article (+[26]) Weelandlka (talk) 15:59:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, he did use those words. Therefore they should be used in the article. We shouldn't be deciding over what words can't be used in an article. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
True, but its more for Wikipeida formating than Bernier. Greta Thunburg has Asperger syndrome; thats what make it vulgar. Weelandlka (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, but we (us editors) must be careful about being 'too' political correct, with the articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
True, but (us editors) must be careful about being 'too' political incorrect, with the articles. If Bernier refer to called her 'Mentaly unstable' because of activism. It would have been fine but he did admit it was an adhomiem attack. Weelandlka (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It is a quote, it needs to be included. Censoring what Bernier said means Wikipedia is essentially defending Bernier and we don't do that. Report quotes and attribute them. - Ahunt (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It is a quote that he (thankfully) backtracked on. If we're going to quote him, and not the CBC headline, we should be stating that he wrote that Thuberg "is clearly mentally unstable. Not only autistic, but obsessive-compulsive, eating disorder, depression and lethargy, and she lives in a constant state of fear." Why just stop with one insult. I would sooner see it reworded "Maxime Bernier used derogatory and demeaning language toward Greta Thunberg on Twitter". The reference tracks the exact language for anyone who wants the titillating details. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Thats the point, I am getting at. Though I would rather say "Bernier drew attention by refering to Greta Thunberg's personal condition on Twitter". Using derogatory and demeaning language might be violate WP:LABEL. Also asking are sould we include the part where Global where he "doubled down after attempting to discredit an internationally recognized teenage climate change activist by calling her “mentally unstable.” or where the spokeperson initially defended him in the global article. (+[27]) Aslo, I would reword the second setence " A few days later on Twitter, he clarified his comments stating his intention was to criticized her activisim and regrets refering to her personal condition". Weelandlka (talk) 20:47:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The use of "drew attention" is not appropriate language in the context in English. - Ahunt (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Is their "another phrasing"? I was trying to find a way to state why it got reported. -Weelandlka (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
It's all toned down weasel words. It looks like we are sanitizing Bernier. We should directly quote him and let his own words speak for him. See WP:NOTCENSORED. - Ahunt (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Neither derogatory nor demeaning are listed at LABEL and Bernier did not actually address her personal condition in any way, shape, or form. She has not been diagnosed with autism, OCD, and editing disorder, mental disorder or energy deficiency. He as being a childish, schoolyard bully and used terms to try to "put her down" because he disagrees with her. He's not willing to debate her on the facts so he used name-calling instead. My wording was acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
We should not reproduce Bernier's childish and ignorant (at worst) or misinformed (at best) rant. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Are you suggestioning, we remove it?Weelandlka (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
If this is about removing the words, because it might offend readers or hurt someone's feelings? then I'm not impressed. GoodDay (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
We should sanitize it by not quoting it verbatim. No censorship, but seriously Bernier is thinking things through about as well as the leader of the nation to the south of us, and I can only assume at his rationale. Decorum was lacking and we should not compound the ignorance by repeating it as CBC had reproduced it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Bernier is running for Prime Minister of Canada. We should not be appearing to make his comments anything other than what they are, otherwise we do a great disservice to our readers. If he says ignorant and uncouth things then they should be quoted, not sugar-coated. As I noted above WP:NOTCENSORED refers. It says (and I quote): "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." - Ahunt (talk) 23:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
If he had refused to retract his insulting tweet, I would agree with you, but since he hasn't and it's insulting, but the source contains the original tweet, we can simply call it an insulting, or a demeaning, or denigrating, or {insert adjective of choice} tweet, because anyone who wants to read it can find it on the CBC site. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
So please propose some wording here, then and lets' see what you have in mind. - Ahunt (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Few things, I don't disagree with Walter Görlitz but we can't call it insulting unless source of pundits. Then included it. Thats mine concern techically he only admited he should have not refer Greta Thunberg to her mental state. Which makes me wonder if we are going to ignore his response, which CBC's article is linking to [[28]] because thats were he explained his rational. 00:26:23 18, September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weelandlka (talk • contribs)
How many sources do we have for this? Only two, both from Global (and we should probably drop one of them.
From https://globalnews.ca/news/5846043/maxime-bernier-greta-thunberg-mentally-unstable/ : attempting to discredit
remarks
She is open about having Asperger’s syndrome
raising of Thunberg’s “mental condition” is “perfectly justifiable.”
From https://globalnews.ca/news/5857679/maxime-bernier-greta-thunberg-mentally-unstable-brave/
didn’t mean to “denigrate”
mental health problems
"brave young woman who has been able to overcome her problems and deserves our admiration for that"
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/bernier-climate-greta-thuberg-1.5270902
"My goal was absolutely not to denigrate her or whoever deals with these conditions,"
CBC is usually better than this, but
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-berniers-vitriol-toward-greta-thunberg-showcases-a-wider-trend-of/
string of tweets attacking Greta Thunberg
The piece is well written, so I suggest that we use that wording and add it as a source and quote Bernier directly when he states that hist goal was not to denigrate Thunberg, even though that's what everyone read into his tweets. What was missing was that she had just stated that she had Asperger's and Bernier was tying into that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Usually, I ask for two pundits source before saying people found it degrading. If you can find a second well know pudnits then we might be able to add your word. Also reread your source. It wasn't Beriner, it was his spokeperson that defended it.Weelandlka talk) 11:45:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

Can we please stop using the word controversy when describe every incident. It is such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Contentious labels because it give off feelsings of senesationslism. Weelandlka talk) 12:00:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Can we re-name the entire section something other than "Controversies". Can we also stop using bullet points and switch to prose, as the manual of style expects? Bondegezou (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Could we rename it "scandals"? Also, if we use prose, she would add some details that were removed for succinctness? JonathanScotty (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Why not just call it "notable events" and that way both positive and negative content can be placed in the section. It would be good to see when a party actually adds a plank to their platform rather than simply publicize all of the missteps. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I would be in favor of that since like a previous user said I think we need a section for policy announcements. Let's wait to see what other people are saying before making the change though.JonathanScotty (talk) 01:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Other election articles have a section just called "Campaign". Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I think notable events sounds better since it allows us to keep the current elements and add policy announcements (or even fact-checking of a leader's words if we come to a consensus). JonathanScotty (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Fact Check Section

Should we add a section for the media making fact checks? It seems important to me. JonathanScotty (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting idea. What would sort of events would it include? - Ahunt (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Did you mean to respond to this or the post on notable events? JonathanScotty (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
For notable events, I would keep the controversies and add policy announcements (e.g. gun control for the Libs, dental care NDP, tax cut CPC, etc.). For the fact checking, it's mostly tied to the notable events, since the leaders are fact-checked on their claims after policy announcements. Although, some of their other claims get fact-checked too. Some of the fact-checking also has to do with the rumors on social media. JonathanScotty (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
No, I meant on the fact-checking. So would this just be a list of things that had been fact checked as incorrect then? Why not just add that in the section where the person made the claim, rather than a sepatrate section? - Ahunt (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
In some cases, there is no section where to add it (e.g. policy announcements + claims after a media event) The only ones we have right now are regarding some claims Scheer made during the debate (one of them was also a policy announcement, which was repeated during the debate) which is why it's included. JonathanScotty (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay well I would say "go ahead" and we'll see how it evolves and whether it needs moving or incorporating elsewhere over time. - Ahunt (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
I see no need for a "fact check" section. As Ahunt earlier suggested, fact checks can be added in to the relevant section. JonathanScotty responded that, "In some cases, there is no section where to add it". If that is the case, then text can be added for whatever the issue is... and if the issue isn't important enough to have any text, then it isn't important enough for us to comment on how it's been fact-checked.
Could it be added in the timeline section? That could work. And if it's not important it should be removed or discussed here on the talk page.JonathanScotty (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
As per WP:BALANCE and WP:RS, we need to be driven by what reliable sources are saying. We should cover issues that reliable sources consider important. We should note fact-checking when reliable sources have given the fact-checking sufficient coverage. And, as per WP:PROSE, we should be seeking to write prose, a narrative telling of the campaign, not have bitty subsections. Bondegezou (talk) 18:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Could it be added in the timeline section? That could work. And if it's not important it should be removed or discussed here on the talk page.JonathanScotty (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
No, that would appear to be a poor idea to me. The timeline section violates WP:PROSE. We need to be writing paragraphs of text that describe the campaign, not bullet point lists, not tables. In that prose, we can cite fact checks where appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead, I see that you started changing it to notable events, which was agreed upon earlier. So, continue doing what you're doing and if there's events needed to be added, they'll be added in prose. Although, don't touch the timeline, since there's no consensus on that. JonathanScotty (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The new fact-checking section seems to be more about "fake news" or "false online stories" or something. Which is not what I thought you meant and is a nice idea, but possibly could be re-titled? Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This section needs to be cleaned up or else removed. It addresses four relatively minor false claims made during the election that had very little impact on the campaign. Further, there are dozens, if not hundreds, of comparable claims that could also be included; it is difficult to see why these four were chosen and what value their inclusion really adds to understanding the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeLover1245 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the information in this section needs to be retained as each paragraph deals with election falsehoods propogated and then debunked, plus each one is well-referenced. They may be a better place to put each item than a sort of "miscellaneous catch all" section though. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
It's true that the content is well-referenced and that these claims were debunked during the campaign, but that does not address why they merit being included in the first place. These claims were insignificant in the broader course of the campaign; if they warrant being included in a summary of the 2019 election, there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of comparable claims that do as well. The purpose of a page like this is to summarize and explain the context and events of the election, not to list every minute controversy or false claim that arose. CoffeeLover1245 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Should Zuberi stay?

Quick question to the other people here, should Zuberi remain since there is only one source (I'm not counting the Post Millenial since like the CBC said they've posted false stories (e.g. some stuff by Ezra Levant) and act more like an advocacy group)? I added his reaction to the story, since we do that for every candidate but I wanted to know what you think. JonathanScotty (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind I found another source. JonathanScotty (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Results table

I want to add a table for results as was used in 2015 Canadian federal election#Results, one which would list candidate numbers until after the official candidate list is released October 2. It's easy enough to adapt what's there. I think a three-column Candidates section with Registered, Party page, and Total would be appropriate.

What would be the proper place to add this? I presume it would belong in a new Results section.G. Timothy Walton (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

If it's going to be used in multiple articles, a template would be appropriate. You could create it at {{2019 Canadian federal election results}} or in a similar location. It might be contested or deleted if it's not used in multiple articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I now admit this is beyond my ability to code in a timely manner. If somebody would be so kind as to adapt the 2015 table and have three columns for candidates (Registered, Candidate page, Total), I can easily put in the numbers. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Third Party

Should it be part of its own sections or incorperated into the Election Campaign? My concern has to due with formating purposes? Just asking. Also I think the Trudeau 's blackface paragrapgh needs to be unwritten since it gives to much attention to the incidents but not about the reactions.Weelandlka talk) 14:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't minor party be more accurate, seeing as Canada has more then two major parties? GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Policies

I am wondering if we should create a section that talk about the parties polices. The section I would use is [[29]] for framming the important issuse + addition sources if they come out. Weelandlka talk) 16:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Good Idea, I suggested it as well earlier, but here's a better source for each party's policy https://pollenize.org/en/elections/canada-2019. It's properly sourced. JonathanScotty (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Second this, I'll add the section myself CanadianWatcher (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
CanadianWatcher, I suggest that you not add this as you're a bit new. You've made two capitalization errors and I'm concerned about your motivation here as this was your first landing place after starting to edit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we can add the section now, based on your earlier edit if I recall, it was removed due to not having anything in it. So, it should be fine now if we add a table. MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Moved to 2019 Canadian federal election/Policies sandbox until there is sufficient content to move back into the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I do think it's a good idea but not when it's incomplete and sourced incorrectly. Each policy (or cell) should have a reference; the heading should not have all of the references. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
It has been moved twice since. It is currently at User:MikkelJSmith/2019 Canadian federal election/Policies sandbox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

PPC attracting white nationalists and far-right extremists

I see Weelandlka (talk · contribs) removed the sourced "PPC attracted attention for its members" paragraph and asked for a talk page discussion to determine notability and how we frame it. Yes, it's notable. Restore it and make copy edits. What's wrong with it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

See I thought about the removing National Guard because they are described an "alleged hate group" which remimd me of this incident [[30]] since neither article speficify if he was a memeber or supported the party. It can come of has feeling off as Association fallacy. While the Neo-Nazis leader was turfed and including it based on their response might come of as a Good faith. [[31]] Weelandlka (talk) 19:53:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
They're mentioned as a hate-group in the other article. As for the Neo-Nazi, I'll add that he was removedJonathanScotty (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
You have not address my concerns? Just addressed them. Weelandlka (talk) 20:16:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I've addressed them? I said he was removed from the party and the other article says the northern guard is a hate-group. It also has Bernier's reaction to the photo who says the same thing that he's not associated with them, but the experts disagreed. That addresses the northern guard thing. JonathanScotty (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The other concerns like finding out if they supporter or were part of party and the response to the Neo-Nazis “A month ago, we cut ties with a PPC member who was involved, years ago, with an extremist organization while living in the US, which is the reason why our vetting process had found nothing about him. For most Canadians, our actions clearly showed that we will not stand for bigotry. Global News wants to advance a fiction.” Also you have one expert. Ralph Goodale office does not count Weelandlka (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Here is the PPC response to the Neo- Nazis. Does anyone think it gets into good faith territory:"In a statement Monday afternoon, the PPC said the party accepts any members or candidates “regardless of race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation.”“This is why our party is ethically and religiously diverse. However, the diversity of our candidates and members is never mentioned by Global News and seldom reported on by any other mainstream media,” the PPC said. “A month ago, we cut ties with a PPC member who was involved, years ago, with an extremist organization while living in the US, which is the reason why our vetting process had found nothing about him. For most Canadians, our actions clearly showed that we will not stand for bigotry. Global News wants to advance a fiction.”“Global News has mentioned two other members of our party who were original signatory members. Neither of those members have espoused racist views. Their only “offence” is that they would like to see Canada’s immigration rate lowered and have said so publicly. While that opinion is considered unacceptable by Global News and other mainstream media, it is what a majority of Canadians desire. Only the People’s Party of Canada has a policy that reflects this desire of most of Canadians.” Weelandlka (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
You have not address my concerns. If there's something that is incorrect or inaccurate, remove it. If it's just one part of the paragraph, it's easy to do. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok. I am trying to have the "northern guard member" removed undeath Wikipedia:NOTNEWS since it does speficy if he supports them or not.Fromm should have drawn more attention but why didn't other outlets cover it? Former Neo-Nazis not against but its the party response I have issuse over the party response which seems like they are using to boast their own record talking racism. Weelandlka (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
First, I have articles in French who mentioned that there are no mistakes and who address your concerns. Second, there are two experts in the CBC article... One of them mentions that the Northern Guard supports Bernier in another article... There's also a national security expert in the article you dismissed (about Ralph Goodale's office) Second, in terms of the Neo-Nazi working for the party. He supported the PPC as mentioned in the French Journal de Montreal article. Furthermore, they didn't cut ties with him a month later. They cut ties with him two days before the Canadaland article (based on the French Radio-Canada article). Finally, as for the Northern Guard members and other Neo-Nazis, their support is mentioned in the PressProgress article. I checked the source and while it is left-leaning it hasn't failed a fact-check. In it, Faith Goldy praised Bernier's immigration platform. There is a reason I was generally speaking when mentioning the pictures. It didn't only happen once. That's also why the experts were criticizing Bernier, because it didn't happen once. There's also Bernier taking a picture with Alex Brisson, a white nationalist who had Blood & Honor's shirt (a terrorist org in Canada), who proclaimed his support for Bernier and took a picture with him. There's also Bernier with Paul Fromm, a white nationalist. There's a reason I sourced multiple articles. All of them address your concerns one by one. They also address Walter's concerns. Nothing is incorrect. Ahunt also checked my edit after I publish it and he thought it was fine. So, even if you have an issue with the Northern Guard or one of my sources, the statements still holds based on the other hate-groups and nationalists that took pictures with Bernier (and proclaimed their support) as well as my other sources.. JonathanScotty (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 (UTC)

Avoid PressProgress because of this source [[32]] Weelandlka Again my concern is wikipedia not Bernier. Also not a big fan of Association fallacy. (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
It is properly sourced and accurate, put it back in. - Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok. How should we frame it? (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
As it was framed? I was neutral and gave Bernier's response as well as the experts response. I even added the the Nazi was removed from the party like you wanted. Also, I wanted to add that the media did cover the Paul Fromm incident, it was in HuffPo and in the Hamilton spec https://www.thespec.com/news-story/9530933-people-s-party-leader-maxime-bernier-pictured-with-hamilton-white-nationalist-paul-fromm/ JonathanScotty (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes the last text removed was fine as it was. Just reinstate it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
You can start by organzing based on date.Also due not considered Press Progress a reliable source.So remove it. I would aslo remove the Canadaland article since it was written by a freelancer. Also post it in the talk page in order to avoid an edit war.Weelandlka (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
There is no issue with freelance writers on news sites with editorial oversight. - Ahunt (talk) 21:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Fair engough Ahunt but the [[33]] Just talks about that he was a member of the Ontario PC party and may tweet that come of ass controversial. The author does not give any prove that he was neo-nazi. Weelandlka (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Same thing with PressProgress, they've been cited by WaPo, Global & other news sources. While they are left-leaning, this wasn't an opinion piece, so it's fine. They've never failed a fact-check as well, unlike the Post Millenial, which posted a false story from Ezra Levant & Faith Goldy. JonathanScotty (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Its not the fact that they fact check; its their ability to critized. Read Canadaland.[[34]] If you want it casslifed as a reliable source.Take it to the noticeboard.Weelandlka (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm lost here. It seems that there was a consensus, Ahunt & Jonathan Scotty both said it was fine? I would agree with them too MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Weedlanka is pretty much vandalizing the page

So, it seems this user is being a hypocrite and changing the page after consensus was reached. What can we do about it? Ahunt seems to agree with me, since he thanked my revert.MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Whats the issuse I am just trying to fix the page. My issuse it should be organized based on date first. The Fromm thing needs to be seperate setence Weelandlka ([[User talk::Weelandlka|talk]]) 21:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Your edits show something else. You did some of the stuff you were arguing with JonathanScotty about. Dude I mean come on consensus has already been reached on this. Also, I'm sorry for calling you a hypocrite that wasn't warranted. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Neither is being unconstructive—you're just trying to ensure a specific point of view—but you're both past WP:3RR. May I suggest taking a wikibreak? Step back for an hour or more. Compose your thoughts and let some other editors interact with the article and come back to the discussion above to see if it has progressed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:02, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I will come back in a couple of hours. However I has issuse with the presenation of paragrapgh. Should it be date first. Its the samething with Singh and the Turban.Weelandlka (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

This was the framming that Mikkel removed:Leading up to and during the campaign, the PPC attracted attention for its members. Maxime Bernier was also criticized after taking pictures with members of a far-right group.[100][101] Bernier told the media that everyone is welcome at his events, that he is not aware of their views and that racists were not welcome in his party, but experts were skeptical of Bernier and thought that he was well aware of who was attending.[101] News sites revealed that among its founding members were a former American Neo-Nazi leader, who was removed on August 29, 2019 after his past was uncovered. [102]They found couple other members who had associated with far-right groups, which they denied espousing racist views. The Party stated that did not have the resources to vetted party members when the party was formed [103][104]. They told Global News that they could not find Neo-Nazi since he lived in the United States; a long time ago which they could not find in their vetting system.

I did a copy edit, and try to fix the framming Is their any issuses.Weelandlka (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I did a mix of both of your edits and added some stuff. What do you think? Should I post it?
Leading up to and during the campaign, the PPC attracted attention for their associations. Maxime Bernier was criticized for trying to "legitimize white supremacy" after taking pictures with members of a hate group and far-right extremists such as Paul Fromm.[105][106][107] Bernier told the media that everyone is welcome at his events, that he is ignorant of their views and that racists were not welcome in his party, but experts were skeptical of Bernier and thought that he was well aware of who was attending.[106] Later, news sites revealed that among the PPC’s founding members were white nationalists and far-right extremists.[100][101][102] One of those founding members — an American Neo-Nazi — was working for the party.[103] He was removed from the organisation on August 29, 2019 after his past came to light. The PPC's spokesperson said that it didn't come up during the vetting process since he came from the US.[104] They also criticized Global News for mentioning that the other two founding members were racists. However, an expert from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network argued that “it’s become impossible to separate the PPC from white-supremacist ideology”. JonathanScotty (talk) 23:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I essentially mentioned both of what you guys mentioned but summarized it a bit more JonathanScotty (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I would be fine with this. Although, you forgot a "the" in the last sentence. Also, I think you should add "they claimed that wasn't the case" after "They also criticized Global News for mentioning that the other two founding members were racists" MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Few things: It come off that you are camapinging against the PPC which is discourage on Wikipedia. Second thing, copy edit they only found three of them. Third, you need more than one pundit to make that claim. Also Wikipedia:LABEL. Speficy what makes three of them.Weelandlka (talk) 0:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm confused about the "three of them part" and how am I campaigning against the PPC? I'm quoting the articles. As for the pundit are you sure? It seems important in this case. JonathanScotty (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I said you were not. I just say it was written as if you were campaign against the PPC. Also I am not a pundit; however someone them will check your sources and point out the fallacy in your edits. Do you know why pundits stop caring about justina mccaffrey and Faith Goldy because they check their sources. Also check the Global source. I also care about [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|WP:NPOV] and you need more than anti-hate to make your claim.Weelandlka (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
So, if I remove the last sentence it's alright? I mentioned Global, that's where I got the last sentence from. Leading up to and during the campaign, the PPC attracted attention for their associations. Maxime Bernier was criticized for trying to "legitimize white supremacy" after taking pictures with members of a hate group and far-right extremists such as Paul Fromm.[105][106][107] Bernier told the media that everyone is welcome at his events, that he is ignorant of their views and that racists were not welcome in his party, but experts were skeptical of Bernier and thought that he was well aware of who was attending.[106] Later, news sites revealed that among the PPC’s founding members were white nationalists and far-right extremists.[100][101][102] One of those founding members — an American Neo-Nazi — was working for the party.[103] He was removed from the organisation on August 29, 2019 after his past came to light. The PPC's spokesperson said that it didn't come up during the vetting process since he came from the US.[104] They also criticized Global News for mentioning that the other two founding members were racists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanScotty (talk • contribs) 00:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Its progressing but can you please remove "legitimize white supremacy" is attribute to Ralph Goodale. I usually avoid partinsiship as a form of legimitate criticsm. Also the Global found three memebers: "The PPC submitted 489 membership declarations when it applied to register as a party. Elections Canada accepted 485 of them as “valid.” Of those, 314 members later signed confirmation forms, exceeding the 250 required for registration." Only three of them Global uncovered. Weelandlka (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
You're right about Goodale, that does introduce partisanship. I'll also replace the CTV article with this source: https://www.thestar.com/edmonton/2019/07/09/maxime-bernier-criticized-for-posing-with-members-of-northern-guard-at-calgary-stampede.html So, this should be fine then? Leading up to and during the campaign, the PPC attracted attention for their associations. Maxime Bernier was criticized for taking pictures with members of a hate group and far-right extremists such as Paul Fromm.[105][106][107] Bernier told the media that everyone is welcome at his events, that he is ignorant of their views and that racists were not welcome in his party, but experts were skeptical of Bernier and thought that he was well aware of who was attending.[106] Later, news sites revealed that three of the PPC’s founding members were white nationalists and far-right extremists.[100][101][102] One of those founding members — an American Neo-Nazi — was working for the party.[103] He was removed from the organisation on August 29, 2019 after his past came to light. The PPC's spokesperson said that it didn't come up during the vetting process since he came from the US.[104] They also criticized Global News for mentioning that the other two founding members were racists. JonathanScotty (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Closer, You need to seperate Fromm which happen after the the northen guard. and reorganze the members of the group. Weelandlka (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll let you do the rest. I'll post it in a few minutes and you edit it? I think Mikkel would be fine with that. He seems to have thought you were removing some sources, which isn't the case as we've established in the last few changes. And I don't get the reorganizing for the members? Could you explain that? Anyway, I'll make some small changes after you reformatted it, just wait for me to post the thing on the page again though, since I think I have to do stuff with the sources (remove the Goodale one and replace it with the Star)JonathanScotty (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Fine, but can you please remove the Canadaland source. It does not spefific how Bernier should have know. Also the pressprogress source does not specify if Goldy endorse him. 01:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC) — Precedingunsigned comment added by Weelandlka (talk • contribs)
Sorry, I'm keeping Canadaland & PressProgress due to previous consensus by three users. As for Goldy, the article mentions her endorsing Bernier : "he was commended soon after by failed white nationalist Toronto mayoral candidate". It also links to the specific video, but at this point in time, it's been deleted. Thank you for reminding me, I think I need to add the Faith Goldy part since it's relevant. I'll separate Paul Fromm and use the Hamilton Spectator source for him. JonathanScotty (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Avoid using Goldy video because no other source haven acknolwege it. Also just using the Huffington Post for Fromm. (talk • contribs) 01:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Very well, I won't use Goldy. So, it should be fine if I do all of that correct? This is how it looks like : Leading up to and during the campaign, the PPC attracted attention for its associations. Maxime Bernier was also criticized for taking pictures with members of a hate group. He was also later criticized for taking a picture with far-right extremists such as Paul Fromm. Bernier told the media that everyone is welcome at his events, that he is ignorant of their views and that racists were not welcome in his party, but experts were skeptical of Bernier and thought that he was well aware of who was attending. Later, news sites revealed that three of the PPC's founding members were white nationalists and far-right extremists. One of those founding members — an American Neo-Nazi — was working for the party. He was removed from the organisation on August 29, 2019 after his past came to light. The PPC's spokesperson said that it didn't come up during the vetting process since he came from the US. They also criticized Global News for mentioning that the other two founding members were racists. JonathanScotty (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry who critized him for post his Paul Fromm? Also replace criticized with generated an reaction. While, change the last sentence to "Global News revealed that the other two members had ties to far-right groups". (talk • contribs) 01:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Multiple people, professors, a former OPC MPP and others. It's in the article by the Hamilton Spectator and sure for the last sentence. JonathanScotty (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
just change the word critized to something more neutral. I was going to the samething for the Hassan Guillet. (talk • contribs) 02:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll be honest. I fail to see how JonathanScotty isn't neutral here. He is advocating for nothing. This should be fine. What does anyone else think?

MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Endorsement

So notable individual count? I mean if they are not a politican. Weelandlka (talk) 13:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I would say we can add more to 2019 Canadian federal election#Endorsements if they are noted in third party sources (ie the media reports it and not just someone's Tweets or blog). - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
As it's done at the 2015 Canadian federal election article, the content should be linked articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
It can be done in separate linked articles, but these are essentially articles spit from the main article. So far the 2019 election has not seen the level of endorsements that the 2015 election did. For now we can collect them in this article and then, when the list gets long enough, split it off to a new stand-alone article. - Ahunt (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm assuming the same thing could apply to Fact-Checking & Policy Proposals or are those going to only stay here? CanadianWatcher (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Is it really fair to be including each PostMedia paper's (e.g. Ottawa Sun, Toronto Sun) endorsement of the Conservative party, when each one has been dictated by a single corporate conglomerate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephsanf (talk • contribs) 14:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Why is the single author endorsement in Le Devoir considered an editorial endorsement, but the one from The Guardian is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.107.168 (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Should I add the Doug Ford Effect, since it's important?

I was wondering if I should add the Doug Ford Effect to the Tories' election campaign section? Since it seems to have an impact on polling per pretty much every news source. I mean at this point it has given us many news articles. And since it impacts the Tories' campaign I find it noteworthy, especially since we've already mentioned Singh's turban which also impacts the campaign. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The Liberals are trying to associate the national Conservative campaign to him while the national Conservatives are avoiding him. Who's writing about it and what are they saying? Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't be partisan when explain it. This is a really rough draft of what I would write : Ontario Premier Doug Ford has had an effect on the campaign. Polling has shown that he is unpopular. (https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/09/19/provincial-leaders-poll-september-2019/) https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-votes-newsletter-issue20-ford-factor-battleground-ontario-election-1.5258303. Polling has also shown that because of this Ontario voters are swayed not to vote for the Federal Conservatives (https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/06/08/federal-conservatives-worries-about-doug-fords-unpopularity-intensify.html) (https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/2019/07/14/more-voters-say-fords-policies-will-deter-them-for-voting-for-scheer.html)(https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/election-2019/exclusive-poll-reveals-doug-ford-factor-a-big-problem-for-scheers-conservatives-in-ontario) . This has worried CPC insiders and has prompted the OPC to take a break in order to help the Tories. (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-votes-newsletter-issue20-ford-factor-battleground-ontario-election-1.5258303) Because of this, leading up to the campaign Andrew Scheer has distanced himself from Ford and campaigned without him. (https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/08/02/andrew-scheer-doug-ford/)(https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/andrew-scheer-doug-ford-ontario-1.5285199) (https://www.thespec.com/news-story/9502703-andrew-scheer-struggles-to-emerge-from-obscurity/) Meanwhile, during the campaign, Trudeau tried to capitalize on Ford's unpopularity by trying to link Scheer to the Premier multiple times. (https://globalnews.ca/news/5706948/justin-trudeau-links-doug-ford-andrew-scheer/) (https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/09/23/justin-trudeau-slams-doug-ford-as-he-lays-out-down-payment-for-pharmacare-and-better-health-services.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikkelJSmith (talk • contribs) 21:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
This seems good to me JonathanScotty (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Should there be a separate article about the Blackface/Brownface scandal?

As many others, I have been watching this blackface/brownface scandal/controversies play out here and on the Justin Trudeau article. There are mentions of it here under the Election Campaign section, under the subsections Liberals and also under Conservatives. On the JT article there is mention under the section about Personal Life in a subsection identified as "Other". I am not jumping at the opportunity to start a "Justin Trudeau blackface scandal" article, but it may be helpful to have a brief discussion of whether a separate article is warranted. If a separate article existed, that might reduce the need for any more than passing mention here, or otherwise affect how we include it here. Or maybe it wouldn't. I will note this discussion on the JT Talk page too.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It's made it to the international media (BBC, Reuters and others) and been fodder for late light hosts, so it would be appropriate, yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Alright, well I created a stub here. I expect discussion will continue on the talk page there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Should we trim details that describe the incidents. It is getting too long. --Weelandlka (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it's fine. Some incidents got more coverage than others, so they're longer. Blackface was in the news for a week. JonathanScotty (talk) 13:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Well it seems the decision, has been made to fold the separate article back into this article and Justin Trudeau. It appears some of the details surrounding this event have already been lost in that process. There is no mention of the video in either place. I remain unconvinced that the topic can be sufficiently covered in these articles. Editors are keen to ensure this topic is not given too much weight in this article or the JT one, as a result information and details have been cut. That is the right call, we need to ensure proper weight in these articles. I expect over time, even less information will be maintained as Justin Trudeau continues to be in the public eye, and as other things happen in the election and the aftermath. That is a good reason to ensure information about the event exists in its own article. This was certainly a notable and qualifies for its own article if it is not going to be properly addressed elsewhere.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This conversation has been noted on Talk:Justin Trudeau.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Target seats section

This section cites no sources to indicate that any party is actually targeting these or, indeed any seats. The whole section seems to be very speculative WP:OR and in light of the overall subject I can't see that it adds anything of value to the article. What will it look like after the election? I propose it be removed as "original research". - Ahunt (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

That is true, the only real target seats we've heard in the media have been the NDP seats in QC. But, that's due to their collapse there. So, I guess it qualifies as original research and should be removed. JonathanScotty (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it shouldn't be called "target seats", but the section isn't OR, because it's reporting on actual election results.-- Earl Andrew - talk 13:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I didn't think of that. But, I don't think there's any other name we can use though. JonathanScotty (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
It is OR, because some editor has decided which seats to put on this list and which ones to exclude, even though no reliable source calls them target seats. - Ahunt (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
We have to make these arbitrary cut offs all the time on this site, like who gets to be in the infobox for example. If you don't like the cutoff, be my guest and add more ridings to the list. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
My point is that there is no ref cited that shows this is even "a thing", that "target seats" even exist at any level or percentage of cut-off. Unless someone can show a reliable source that this way of classifying seats exists, then it is OR and has to be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
There's actually been articles on the target seats we have actually. Although, each media company chose different seats. Here are some links : https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/federal/2019/battlegrounds/ https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/09/23/10-gta-ridings-to-watch-federal-election/ https://nationalpost.com/news/election-2019-here-are-nine-ridings-to-watch-for-clues-to-vote-trends https://globalnews.ca/news/5901911/battleground-bc-ridings-to-watch/ https://vancouversun.com/news/politics/10-b-c-ridings-to-watch-in-the-federal-election https://www.macleans.ca/politics/battleground-ontario-the-30-ridings-that-could-win-or-lose-this-election/ https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/election-2019/battleground-edmonton-city-ridings-to-watch-in-federal-election https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/federal-election-2019-ridings-to-watch_ca_5d77ec25e4b0fde50c2e532b https://calgaryherald.com/news/politics/election-2019-four-ridings-to-watch-in-southern-alberta https://thestarphoenix.com/news/local-news/ridings-to-watch-benson-fights-for-second-term-in-saskatoon-west-battleground https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/09/16/this-just-in-25-ridings-to-watch-in-election-2019/214526 I even found other articles. But, I guess this is enough for proof. Although, the terminology used varies from site to site. CanadianWatcher (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for finding all those. Perhaps we need to cite them and also add some wording to the section intro para that better explains this, plus the range of terminology used. - Ahunt (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
At the very least I think we need to reduce the cutoff for what was considered a "close" race in 2015. 15% is absolutely huge and includes over one third of all ridings in Canada. Last week I boldly trimmed this down to 10% but it has since been reverted back so let's discuss. If we are going to keep this section as is, should we shorten it to 10 percent? BLAIXX 20:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I do think the cut-off should be 10%. 15 is too high. JonathanScotty (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Given that Canadian election results have had rather wild swings in the past, 15% appears to be an acceptable margin, as that translates to a 7.5% swing. Nanaimo—Ladysmith is just a recent example from this year of such a result. However, I am aware that there appears to be no agreed definition of that in Canadian politics, as most discussion on the topic seems to be adjusted to fit the argument (which is more polemic than analysis), whether it comes from journalistic or academic sources. If anyone can find a somewhat disinterested discussion on the topic, so we can construct an article such as found for the UK in List of target seats in the 2017 United Kingdom general election, it would be greatly appreciated.Raellerby (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, reduce down to 10% to make it less worse. Then delete the entire section. It is giving way too much space to analyzing the results of the 2015 election. This page on the 2019 election should probably focus on communicating the results of this 2019 election. maclean (talk) 03:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I tend to agree. Even the refs disagree as to whether this is "a thing" or not and then if they do, how to define it. I don't think it improves the article having it here. You always have to ask: "how does this help the readers" and I am not seeing that. I also wonder what we are going to do with it after the results are compiled? What do we do, show how many ridings changed hands? That would be a whole different thing. - Ahunt (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
What? Of course it helps! I've consulted the list a couple of times myself. It helps the reader identify which ridings are likely to fall if they apply a uniform swing. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
The point is "according to whom?" and "to which standard?" - Ahunt (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Should Target Seats be moved to be right after the background section?

My question is essentially the title. It should be above the campaign & the results section I think. JonathanScotty (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It should be moved to a separate article, as was done in the previous election (see List of marginal seats in the 2015 Canadian federal election).Raellerby (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding the Face to Face from the CBC.

Each leader will participate in a face to face with undecided voters. I think we should at least mention that. Maybe in the debate section or create a new one? Since it seems to somewhat function like a debate. The voters are asking questions for a period of time and the leaders will answer them and debate with them. Here's the first one with Justin Trudeau : https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-met-voters-face-to-face-1.5303043?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar JonathanScotty (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think they should only be mentioned if anything notable happens, otherwise it is just WP:NOTNEWS. - Ahunt (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this. I personally would have added them if something happened, but it seems that the leaders mostly repeated stuff they've already said.MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Exactly, it was all just "talking points". - Ahunt (talk) 00:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Should we be adding these incidents

Some of the inicdents I am talking about are rubin protest [[35]], David Menizes removal [[36]] and Lawton removal [[37]]. Its basically incidents over the use of free speech and public access. -- Weelandlka (talk) 23:39:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I would say those are pretty minor to bother including in this article, WP:NOTNEWS applies. - Ahunt (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Except the Rubin thing has a ton of coverage here [[38]], [[39]], [[40]] and [[41]]. If you check the video count. It has over 6 million views. Thats not minor. While, I taught that the Menizes seem minor but I notice that it could be included as part of the rebel-scheer relationship.- Weelandlka (talk) 0:01, 02 October 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit article

I've started to copy edit the article as well as check for accuracy in terms of sources. I'll continue over the next day or two. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Electoral Reform section

Littleolive oil what you are doing here, here, here, and generally in this section is completely inappropriate. The sources you have removed (many twice now) do stand for the proposition they are there for which was that the Liberals had supported reform (it was in their platform, and Justin Trudeau said they would do it thousands of times). They said they were going to change the system. It is completely appropriate for us to mention that "it was seen as possible" as was the wording prior to your edits. The government said it was going to do it, of course it was seen as a possibility. The other parties positions at that time were in the other WP:RS you removed. I am not going to edit-war with you on this, but I find the approach you are taking here deeply concerning. I suggest you reconsider it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I have added a reference to the 2015 Throne Speech which makes clear the Government said it would "take action to ensure that 2015 will be the last federal election conducted under the first-past-the-post voting system". The other sources which were removed should be added back in.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
The content must be sourced. The references and sources do not match up. If you want to add content just source it, explicitly, as I said in my edit summary. In none of the sources did I find information that said all parties where supportive of the reform. That must be sourced, not as an inference but explicitly, otherwise what we have is original research, that is, we infer from the sources. The content was not removed. Just source it to sources that explicitly, with out plagiarizing, references the content. I don't know how else to say this. If I've missed the explicit reference please show it to me. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

This especially bold (mine): 

As the Liberals, New Democrats, Bloc Québécois, and Green Party were all in favour of reform, a different voting system could have been in place by the next federal election.

is not sourced in the source you added. If I've missed let me know. Littleolive oil (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Twitter

A paywall doesn't prevent us from using a source, actually, and using Twitter is something I'd never support but again I won't argue further if there's consensus. Best to all. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Assessment of Justin Trudeau’s Government

Personally, I think this section should be deleted. The 2020 United States presidential election doesn't have an assessment of donald trump's government section. This section seems weird to me, for a number of reasons: (A) It felt like an election advertisement for Justin Trudeau. (B) It's meant to be about an assessment of Trudeau's government, but the section doesn't do that. This section only comments on the promises he kept, this is only one aspect of assessing a government, but there's many other aspects to running an effective government than merely keeping promises. (C) The entire section is based off of one source. (D) Does there even need to be an "assessment of Justin Trudeau's Government" section? Is it really needed to have that "assessment" on an article about the 2019 election? (E) If there does need to be this section, shouldn't it mention some negatives things too? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The section summarizes a highly reliable and impartial source; the research was carried about by academics with no apparent bias. I would be agreeable to titling the content-subheading-with the name of the book. As for Trump, there are multiple sources which carry assessments of his presidency. Even so we are never obligated to add content in one article based on another. There are multiple places on Wikipedia which carry assessments of Trudeau. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be retained. As noted, it is on-topic, neutral and well-sourced to an independent, third party ref. As far as other political articles go WP:WAX. - Ahunt (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
The section is supposed to be about an "assessment of Justin Trudeau's Government" yet all it talks about it is how one book says that he kept his promises. That's not an assessment of his government whatsoever...governments are judged by a lot more than whether they break slightly more or slightly less promises than past governments. You also say it's a reliable source, sure, but the section isn't neutral if it weights one source so heavily. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 07:15, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
The section is about a book written/edited by 24 academics based on research into the Trudeau government. Harper's government is also discussed and was subject to the same kind of unbiased unopinionated assessment. I've changed to section title to indicate the section is about this book. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Im sure it's a great book. But no one has responded to my point that the section is meant to be about "an assessment of Justin Trudeau's government" and yet the section does not do that whatsoever. All the section mentions is that he kept more promises than past governments, it's fine to point this out. But are you all honestly suggesting that this is the only thing that governments are assessed on in the real world? That's absurd. Are you honestly suggesting that no mainstream sources have praised or criticised Trudeau on anything other than a statistical fact about whether he kept his promises? That's absurd. What about the handling of the economy, social policy, social messaging, immigration, legislative achievements, legislative failures etc....The source may be 'unbiased' but the section is biased if it is meant to be about an assessment of the government, but all it is highlighting is one very narrow aspect of what governments are assessed on. The issue isn't with the source, the issue is with the section. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The point is not that it's a great book. The point is that the book is a published assessment from 24 academics and is with out bias or opinion. That we have a section devoted to this book does not exclude assessments in the rest of the article and I'm sure anyone reading the multiple articles on Trudeau and government will read assessments many times over. This kind of book, and I am not convinced it is a primary source since the research has been collected and published in book form, must have a prominent place in an analysis of government. As well, assessment is not narrow since it includes a historical perspective that includes Harper and was/is meant to provide Canadians who tend to have a biased view of government with accurate knowledge and information. We cannot confuse the fact that Turdeau's government was quite good at keeping promises (as was Harper's) with non-neutrality. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Once again, I don't disagree...but you still haven't answered the point im making. The name of the section is not "has Justin Trudeau kept his promises?", the name of the section is "assessment of Justin Trudeau's government". As i said in my previous comment "are you all honestly suggesting that [promises kept] is the only thing that governments are assessed on in the real world? That's absurd. Are you honestly suggesting that no mainstream sources have praised or criticised Trudeau on anything other than a statistical fact about whether he kept his promises? That's absurd." The material from the book seems fine and has a place in that section. However, the section, as it currently stands, is not fine. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Aaron Wherry (20 August 2019). Promise and Peril: Justin Trudeau in Power. HarperCollins Publishers. ISBN 978-1-4434-5828-3..--Moxy 🍁 16:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Article Feels Strongly Against Conservatives?

Is it just me, or should the Premier section revolving around Doug Ford and Andrew Scheer be changed, at least in wording? It seems unnecessarily against Scheer and Ford, in wording and tone. I'm not saying it as a "I'm Conservative and I Don't Like It", I'm saying it as "I really don't care for any candidate, but this seems biased on an article that shouldn't be biased". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.49.110 (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

How would you suggest changing the article to remove your supposed anti-conservative bias? You mean like removing the section on the " Assessment of Justin Trudeau's Government", which is quite negative to the Liberals. Or perhaps it's not discussing the The Parliamentry Ethics Commissioner's finding that Trudeau improperly influenced Jody Wilson-Raybould? Or the various Liberal, NDP, Bloc, Green and PPC mis-steps? Yes, all very much against the Conservative party.
No, it seems like we have neutral representation of all of the reporting, and it's categorized by party. I suspect that you read only the section on the Conservatives, which is why it feels that way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Party platforms?

There's a lot of play by play here of what happened in the campaigns and various gaffes and scandals but absolutely nothing about the contents of each party's platform. Can a section be added on platforms? 69.165.159.57 (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Most parties don't have a single-source listing the platforms and so it would take some work to compile them all. There is the danger of excluding a plank in the platform, but I think it would be worthwhile. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually each party has released a single document that details their complete platform. - Ahunt (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

CBC has a comprehensive page comparing the party platforms as does the Globe and Mail and Macleans. 69.165.159.57 (talk) 01:22, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

We already have a draft for the policy section that's hidden through a comment. I'm planning on finishing it today hopefully. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind, it seems some of the websites haven't updated for a while. So, I probably won't be able to do it today. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think there should be a policy section, since the sources that are on the talk page, on other websites or hidden on the election page don't have the same categories nor the same parties listed. It would honestly take too much time to sort through all of it, since they kind of all say something different. I don't know how they managed it on the provincial election pages. JonathanScotty (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
It's quite the indictment of our election article if we give exhaustive detail on everything but what policies the parties are actually running on which many would argue is far more important than a play by play of the horse race and various scandals. Doing a summary of major policy planks is not a difficult task. 199.119.233.174 (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Is the table better than what we had before for the endorsements?

I wanted to know what you currently think about the endorsement section. Is it better now or was it better before when it wasn't a table and we had sentences? MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it is a good way to present the information, concise at least. - Ahunt (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I dislike it tbh, but you guys outnumber me (there's you two and another editor (the one that made the table)). JonathanScotty (talk)

Results section - Detailed analysis

I finished a template for the Detailed analysis table in the Results section (Template:Canadian federal election, 2019). Some of the fringe-party colours still need work if anyone knows where to find the proper abbreviations.

Unfortunately there seems to be an edit war going on about where and whether a Results section belongs on this page and what should be in it.

Could somebody with more skill/patience please link to the Template. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't remove it. I just moved it to where it was earlier, since that's where it's usually located. (I did a mistake when explaining my edit) MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't casting any blame. What's there now is the preliminary table I was testing, not the Template. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, forced my sleep-deprived brain to learn how to link to a template. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
One square is missing on the current page. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Short form: editing using multiple Word documents and forgot to put everything below the Vacant line back on the template code. Fixed it and things look fine on my computer. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind, it's fine now. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, this is unrelated, I misremembered. JonathanScorry Ahunt and Weelandlka wrote the blackface paragraph and not me. Sorry for taking credit for you work guys (if I now remember correctly). MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
It's fine. JonathanScotty (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Can someone protect the page again?

Due to the constant vandalism I was wondering if someone could protect the page again? MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Disagree, most of the vandalism is by one particular IP address and is always reverted promptly. 2A00:23C7:8592:D500:B81D:ED3B:5929:3ADB (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The whole point of Wikipedia is that it is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". There are lots of eyes on this page and reverts are quick to make. Unless tehn vandals are clearly winning, which they aren't right now, then it is better for the project to leave the page open for everyone to edit. - Ahunt (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, it's fine. There's many of us looking at the edits anyways, so we know when something fishy is up JonathanScotty (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone has gone and protected the page anyway. #Fail #Facepalm 86.161.54.228 (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed it should be (and has been) protected. GoodDay (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Should we add seat projections?

Essentially, I was wondering what you thought about projections JonathanScotty (talk) 13:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

They're & certainly will be (after Oct 21) meaningless. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. JonathanScotty (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree, right now they do not mean much and on Monday won't mean anything. If some media outlet does an assessment of the polling vs the final result, including seat counts that might be worth including after the election is done. - Ahunt (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The CBC does so, but I think they're the only one to do so. JonathanScotty (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Fundraising from third parties

I've seen third parties' fundraising show up on the news. Is that relevant to this page? JonathanScotty (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Probably. - Ahunt (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Where does it go though? JonathanScotty (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
At 2019 Canadian federal election#Registered third parties, I would say. - Ahunt (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I would need to find the articles I read though. JonathanScotty (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Why was Trudeau's image changed?

I was just wondering why the image changed? There was no problem with the G7 one, there isn't a difference in clarity on my screen, actually it looks clearer I think lol, it didn't imply bias or anything and it's more recent than the current one. MikkelJSmith (talk) 13:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

Should the People's Party come out of the infobox? They won no seats and were substantially behind all the parties that did. Many (but not quite all) election article infoboxes just include the parties that won seats. I realise they were part of the story, but the infobox is meant to be a brief summary, not cover anything, so I'd be happier with just including seat winners. Bondegezou (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the 1937 Ontario general election and the 2008 Canadian federal election, there seems to be some precedent of making note in the infobox of parties that held seats before the election but lost them all. I think the PPC should stay in the infobox for posterity, but I wouldn't be too upset. AceSevenFive (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Seat changes in infobox

There seems to be some edit-warring going on regarding the seat changes for the different parties (in the infobox). Should the seat changes be compared to the number of seats held by each party before parliament dissolution (i.e. just before this election), or compared to the number of seats won by the party at the previous election? Let's decide this once and for all please. 2A00:23C7:8592:D500:5553:C40E:9AF0:3698 (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I would probably marginally prefer the former option myself, as it is less confusing at first sight. 2A00:23C7:8592:D500:5553:C40E:9AF0:3698 (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
At the previous election 198.168.48.210 (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Please do two things:
  1. Stop editing as an anonymous editor using IPV6. You've made too many edits in this range and if you were registered, you would be warned for the behaviour.
  2. Do not assume that your own opinion should be inserted as a hidden comment. No consensus has been reached. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I haven't edited at all? Just gave my opinion. Oh, nevermind you weren't talking to me.198.168.48.210 (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Are you serious? I am not able to control whether my IP is the new type or the old type -- I much preferred the old type! And with my hidden comment, I only meant to say that the issue is currently being discussed. How else are we supposed to stop the continuous back-and-forth editing, which I have not taken part in? I am actually almost completely neutral on this topic. 2A00:23C7:8592:D500:5553:C40E:9AF0:3698 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I am serious. I understand you cannot control your IP address or whether it is V4 or V6, but you can control whether you use an account and how much you edit when not using a registered account. You can stop the back-and-forth editing by 1) not engaging in it, 2) discussing the changes you'd like and 3) requesting page protection until consensus is reached. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's my problem with "at the last election": Bernier and the PPC. How many seats did that party have at the last election? Why are we recording it as one? It's clearly at dissolution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

And again an anon is fighting for the "as of election" principle without discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia should follow what secondary sources do. How have Canadian newspapers presented seat changes? Do that. Bondegezou (talk) 18:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I believe in most news reports I've seen, they give seat changes compared to the number of seats won at the previous election. However, the layout of the infobox on Wikipedia makes this unintuitive, as you have "seats before", "seats after" and then a seemingly unrelated or miscalculated "seat change" after that.2A00:23C7:8592:D500:855F:B2F0:113A:FBD2 (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

We should keep with doing the math from # of seats, right before election. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ran in

Now that he's been elected, should Yves-François Blanchet's seat still be listed as "Ran in Beloeil—Chambly"? Current precedent (i.e. Layton in 2004, Clark in 2000, May in 2011, Manning in 1993, etc.) says otherwise, and I would agree with that, although there seems to be some disagreement. Tholden28 (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's fair to remove it. We need to wait for other opinions tho. MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Just wanted to know if we could get some other opinions here Ahunt, Walter Görlitz ? MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Using PM-designate in infobox, for incumbent PMs.

For years, on the Canadian federal election articles (not to mention other election articles) we've had incumbent prime ministers (at the bottom of the infobox) also listed as prime minister-designate when their gov't was reelected (majority or minority). Why are a 'few' editors suddenly going against this convention 'now' & only at this article? Why the recentism? GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I haven't followed today's edits, but precedent should win no? MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Wow so am I reading your argument correctly? "We've been doing it wrong for years so let's keep doing it wrong." I've corrected the infobox again. Trudeau has not resigned so he is not PM-designate. If you can find RSes that claim he is, by all means, I'll self-revert to avoid an edit war. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Just checking. Google links most "prime minister-designate" to the 2015 victory (like [42]), but CTV is the outlier: [43][44] CBC, Globe & Mail, National Post, Global, etc. call him Prime Minister. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Very well, the news backs you. So, keep him as Prime Minister. MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Either we change all the other Canadian federal election articles (including provincial & territorial general election articles) on this matter concerning incumbents or we leave this to match the others. No need to change the rules based on recentism. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with User:Walter Görlitz, here, Trudeau is not the Prime Minister Designate, he is the Prime Minister. He was sworn in as the Prime Minister by the Governor General after the 2015 election and has not resigned, so he remains the Prime Minister. - Ahunt (talk) 22:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I had a brain-fart earlier. This is actually also the reason why constitutionally an incumbent always gets to form government first in a minority scenario (e.g. provincially when Christy Clark tried to do so but failed) MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Well then, we'll have to make subsequent changes to all the Canadian federal elections articles (including the provincial & territorial general election articles) where required. Again note that British related articles use Appointed Prime Minister for all there elections articles & American related articles use Elected President for all their prez election articles, irregardless of incumbents. GoodDay (talk) 22:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
We should do so then. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Very well. Though it will take some time, I'll commence making required changes at all the Canadian federal, provincial & territorial election article's infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah that is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If the other articles are wrong then we can easily fix them! - Ahunt (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Was just going to say, comparing a parliamentary system to a republican one doesn't work either, but if Trump were to win again next year, I do not believe that he would be the president-elect. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually he would have Elected President above Donald Trump, in the infobox of the 2020 United States presidential election, if he won reelection. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, I seem to be a late-comer here, but the placement of the words makes me think "Prime Minister-designate" would be more appropriate. That more clearly implies "The Prime Minister that was decided by this election (as opposed to the pre-existing Prime Minister)", instead of just the words "Prime Minister" which are a bit random, as if to say the person listed is the prime minister for all time or something (how will the page look in five years from now?). I feel a bit bad breaking an established consensus, so count me as neutral if you prefer. Speed74 (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps "Prime Minister after the election" (or some other compromise) would be a feasible alternative wording. Speed74 (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
"Prime Minster (retained role)" would be most accurate, but really the infobox is supposed to summarize the article and if you don't know that Trudeau was PM going into the election, that should be discussed in the article, not explained in the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
FWIW, the British use Appointed Prime Minister in all of the UK general election articles infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
You'll all have to make up your minds on the before election matter, as over the next few days, I'll be implementing incumbency changes across the provincial & territorial election article infoboxes, too. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)::
My advice for changing other articles would be to hold your horses and wait for this article to calm down, and see what consensus emerges over the next two-three weeks. Discrepancies with other, not particularly popular articles for a short period of time is not the end of the world. Speed74 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
No problem. The changes I've made to the Canadian federal elections articles (with my edit summaries pointing to this article), will suffice for now, until this matter is settled over all. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Appears the article has been locked, and I don't care what the British, Americans, Latvians or any other nationality state or how they format their articles: what do reliable Canadian sources state? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll pass on your sediments to the British, Americans, Latvians etc if you wish ;) GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
By all means. We should encourage the use of local reliable sources on to all projects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Will wait & see how things turn out, here. GoodDay (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Her Majesty The Queen, Canada's Head of State, instructs the Governor General of Canada to administer the Oath of Office and select a Prime Minister-designate when a "new ministry" is formed. This only occurs when the current Prime Minister is defeated or resigns. The Oath of Office and the selection of a Prime Minister-designate does not take place when the current Prime Minister retains the role and mandate to continue to form the government. This is outlined in Canada's Constitutional Duties of the Governor General. No media sources or other articles on the English Wikipedia should override the Canadian legislation and Constitution as they are the authoritative sources on the matter. Choosing the present the information any other way would be factually incorrect and in direct opposition of our core governing policies, namely WP:V and WP:RS. Mkdw talk 19:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
This explains why people don't like the word "designate" being used. However, in my view we still need a solution to the fact that "Prime minister" is not an adequate counterpart to "Prime minister before election" in the bottom corners of the infobox. I think I am going to insert "Prime minister after election" and see what people think of that - I don't think it's been tried yet. Speed74 (talk) 17:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The official quote above is very clear, he was PM before, during and after the election, there is no change, no time when he wasn't PM. To be accurate we need to reflect that, too. - Ahunt (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I really don't get what point you're trying to make here. Why is "Prime Minister before election / Prime Minister" better than "Prime Minister before election / Prime Minister after election"? Speed74 (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Essentially, Ahunt's point is that the PM didn't change so we keep it as PM. This is also why the PM can remain Pm if he obtains less seats, since it's by virtue of being the incumbent that they have the right to test the confidence of the House first. MikkelJSmith (talk) 01:41, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
We now have "Prime Minister before election" in the bottom left hand corner of the infobox, and "Prime Minister" in the bottom right hand corner. To me this looks weird as the two expressions don't fit well together. I'll admit that this isn't a particularly serious issue, but I don't understand the reasons people are giving for keeping "Prime Minister" on the right with "Prime Minister before election" on the left. Speed74 (talk) 13:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I've adopted the version Prime Minister after election for all the Canadian federal election articles, being it's an undisputed & neutral phrase. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Update: I've adopted the version Premier after election for all the provincial & territorial election articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Reversions without explanation, requesting discussion on lede

GhostOfDanGurney reversed my lede revisions without explanation. Rather than get into an edit war, I give my proposed version below. (Please fix any coding necessary.) As I originally said in my explanation of the changes made, I think this version of the lede better represents the sea-change in the federal results, rather than focusing solely on the Liberals or the Conservatives. I also paraphrase my previous explanation, in that I also don't think a minor party losing its only (non-elected) seat belongs in the lede. (The People's Party leader was never elected as a People's Party candidate.) ... My longer-term goal (tonight) is to tighten and focus this article, since it is somewhat embarrassing that it has not already met ITN standards. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The 2019 Canadian federal election (formally the 43rd Canadian general election) was held on October 21, 2019, to elect members of the House of Commons to the 43rd Canadian Parliament. The writs of election for the 2019 election were issued by Governor General Julie Payette on September 11, 2019.

The Liberal Party, led by incumbent Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, won 157 seats to form a minority government. However, the Conservatives won a plurality of the popular vote.[1] This is the time in Canadian history that no single party received more than 35% of the popular vote, including the governing party.[2][3]

The Conservative Party, led by Andrew Scheer, won 121 seats and remained the Official Opposition. The Bloc Québécois, under Yves-François Blanchet, won 32 seats and became the third party for the first time since 2008. The New Democratic Party, led by Jagmeet Singh, won 24 seats, its worst result since 2004. The Green Party, led by Elizabeth May, saw its best result with 3 seats. Independent MP Jody Wilson-Raybould won her seat and was the first independent to win a seat in over a decade.

References

  1. ^ Peter Zimonjic (October 22, 2019). "Liberals take losses but win enough in Quebec and Ontario to form minority government". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved October 21, 2019.
  2. ^ "All-time low share of popular vote is enough for Liberals to win power". National Post. October 22, 2019. Retrieved October 22, 2019.
  3. ^ https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html
These were your changes Could it be that it's because removed some key information? Deleting the line about Maxime and the PPC would have been a deal-breaker for me.
@GhostOfDanGurney: perhaps an explanation is in order though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Actually I had two sets of changes back to back, not just one. The above paragraphs combine the two. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I agreed with the reversion and thanked User:GhostOfDanGurney for making it. The original version was far better. Additionally you can't remove the PPC defeat, it was a key outcome. - Ahunt (talk) 17:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
(conflict) Yes, they should not have removed the line about Bernier. Like it or not, his campaign received adequate media attention, and his loss in his own riding was declared an "upset" by CTV. I do have a bad habit of not leaving summaries, however. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
The CBC too commented about Bernier's loss. What about the other changes? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm not against them. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I had two separate explanations, for two separate edits. The first of those edits removed the PPC line -- which I am willing to restore, but not as a whole sentence in the lede. (See bolded sentence three paragraphs down.) My reasoning follows that of previous WP Canadian election pages, where the leaders of splinter parties with 1-2 seats which have lost all their seats in their first electoral challenge are not given any lede space; but are explained in the text as well as in the associated parliamentary pages).

For example, entering the 2015 Canadian federal election, two sitting MPs had previously left the BQ and NDP parties to give the Strength in Democracy party two seats. Both were defeated. At the time, the CBC had several articles about SiD between its formation and its eventual loss, comparable to current PPC coverage by the CBC. (Easy enough to find online, if you are interested; also the related WP articles link some of them.) The WP lede for that election states simply that "Strength in Democracy lost all its seats" in the same sentence with the BQ and Green, with no specific mention of party leader. (They got fewer overall votes, but they also ran fewer candidates. Proportionally, they actually did better than the PPC.) You can also see the same lede pattern in other WP election articles.

Note that this "splinter party" pattern would not apply either to BQ or Green. Although both of those parties originally included MPs who changed parties after election, both have since been able to get members elected for their parties directly. It also does not apply to the Reform Party, which was genuinely grassroots and was able to get members elected for that party directly from 1989 onward.

Thus, to be proportional to actual historical weight and also be consistent with other WP federal election articles, one of the sentences in the current proposed lede should read "The Green Party, led by Elizabeth May, saw its best result with 3 seats, while the People's Party of Canada lost its only seat." I am willing to concede that change to the above paragraphs, as long as it does not get a sentence to itself and makes no mention of the leader in the lede.

As to the rest of the proposed lede, the popular vote changes in this election were not limited to the Liberals, but represent a wider pattern. The real sea change is that for the first time ever in Canada, neither of the two founding parties of Canada received 35% of the vote. This indicates the growing importance of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th parties in Canadian politics (which may possibly indicate an increasing emphasis on regional issues or a single primary issue). I stated it more neutrally than that, by saying that it was the first time in Canadian history that no party had gotten 35% of the popular vote. I did give a reference which specifically covers the wider view. To focus solely on the Liberal record without mentioning other party results in this context, especially in the lede, is not NPOV.

Based on the comments above, it does sound as though we do have consensus on the changed lede provided the PPC gets a mention. If I add in the bolded sentence in that form, will that suffice? I suspect most of you are now off work and offline, so I won't touch any other article edits until consensus is confirmed.

In passing, I will add one other record I think should be in the lede. Proposed sentence: The 98 women elected to federal seats also set a new record, both by number and by percentage. Say, maybe at the end of the second sentence? Georgia Straight specifically covered that one. (The lack of broader media coverage is a bit ironic, considering the media weight given to the U.S. electoral equivalent.) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 23:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to discuss your two sections separately, feel free to. It appears that they were intertwined though. The second edit made changes to the same paragraph that the first edit changed meaning either both had to be reverted or none did. I side with reverting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above, before this current posting, had already moved beyond that. There is a current conflation under discussion here. Could you please state your opinion on that version? GhostOfDanGurney has stated here that they have no problem with the other changes, the deal-breaker was that the PPC had to have a mention. I have addressed that. My only goal in trying to make some changes, first here, then in the article point by point, is that we should have had this article ready for ITN three days ago, and frankly it is embarrassing that it is not up to the standards for posting consensus there. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Election maps in Canada

PURSUED
Template 1 was marginally more popular than template 3.

Some advocates of template 3 argued for its retention on the grounds of keeping Canadian federal election maps consistent across Wikipedia, however, this discussion was about which template should be used in all Canadian federal election pages.

Most advocates of template 3 accepted that template 1 should at least be included in the results section of Canadian federal election Wikipedia pages.

Template 1 should be used in the infobox of all Canadian federal election pages. Template 3 should be used in the "Results" section of Canadian federal election pages.

Brythones (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Canadian federal elections use the First Past the Post method of voting. Each riding elects one Member of Parliament (MP) based on the candidate who receives the highest number of votes in that area.

What is the most appropriate way of presenting Canadian election results in map form on Wikipedia?

Below are the three present templates:

Brythones (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

My preference in order is Template 1 > Template 3 > Template 2, as template 1 shows the necessary detail found in other First Past the Post election maps, is readily interpretable for people who are colourblind and lacks all of the clutter present on Template 2 (similar to election maps for the UK and Australia). Brythones (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I also prefer template 1. I would honestly prefer if we had a mix of template 2 and template 1 though, since that would be better in my opinion. Think of something like this : http://election-atlas.ca/fed/, since it would have no clutter as well, but since I'm not sure how it would work for people who are colorblind, I think we should stick with template 1. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • While I find all three of them fascinating and informative, I prefer template 1 with template 3 as my second choice. Template 1 is simply the most recognizable and provides the most relevant information "at a glance" without much explanation required. Mkdw talk 15:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • We should use Template 3, as that's the type we're using in the other Canadian federal election articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Template 2, show the country geographically out of proportion. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Template 1, would be my secondary choice. I wouldn't object if it was adopted, as these election results do depend on seats won & not strictly the popular vote. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I prefer Template 1: what matters most is who won the seat, it's clear and shows those results. I strongly dislike template 2: it's visually complicated and quite baffling. Template 3 is doing something a bit different to template 1 and could have some place too. Bondegezou (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Template two gets my vote, but I'd prefer we didn't use the Mercator projection. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Template One Template Two is overly complicated and Template Three is not detailed enough and has legends that are unreadable at small scale. Number 57 10:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think Template Three is the best, at least underneath the infobox. Templates One and Two have their places in the results section, but Template Three is consistent with every other Canadian election going back to the election of 1872. Spaceshuttlediscovery (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Template three is consistent with every other Canadian federal election; I see no reason why 2019 should be any different. Tholden28 (talk) 17:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we should stay consistent with the previous Canadian election templates. Hence I think we should use Template 3. Drake955 (talk) 02:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Template three is the best. It is consistent with all the other federal election templates and doesn't have poor quality unless clicked on. I highly recommend Template three. ELUnderwood (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Template 3 in infobox, which does not preclude using the others elsewhere throughout the article. This has been the way that it has been done for all Canadian election articles for years, actually, since template 3 provides a good summary of seats by province as well as provincial winner's strength. Template 1 does not convey such an easy-to-read presentation of results (specially considering most casual readers won't even know the name or location of most constituencies), and template 2 is simply too detailed and complicated for serving as a summary. Since infoboxes are meant to be summaries, there is no reason to break the current consistency to replace a good summary map with a different one which can always be shown in the specific Results section of the article anyway. Impru20talk 15:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Template 3 - The text and legend will not be readable in an article. Mkdw talk 17:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I am OK with Template 3 in the infobox for consistency with past elections. However, I think Template 1 should be used in the result section, as it appears at the moment. JoeSchlabotnik (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I strongly prefer Template One as it gives the most information and is generally consistent with other commonwealth countries. Colouring the provinces implies a different meaning. I would be in favour of migrating all historical maps to that style. SportingFlyer T·C 06:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Strong preference for template 1 as it is the detail of how the election result actually goes by. In fact, I'd argue that all Canadian elections be retroactively changed to this style. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would support Template 3 in the infobox, and Template 1 in the results section, as has been proposed by others. Template 2 can also go in the results section, but I personally think it is too cluttered. Jacoby531 (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Template 3 for the infobox and Template 1 for the results section. Template 2 has too much Mercator distortion.Raellerby (talk) 16:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think people realize the text and legend on template 3 will be illegible in an infobox. Mkdw talk 17:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
One need only to click onto the image, to enlarge it. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, Templates 1/2 also have text that will be illegible in an infobox... unless you click onto the image, which would allow you to visualize it at full size. Unless your proposal is to ditch the infobox image altogether, I can't see this as an argument for either of the choices. Impru20talk 17:33, 29 October 2019 (UT*
  • template 1 clearly shows the breakdown of the riding results, shading the entire province gives misleading results.Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Template One, but could accept Template Two; indifferent to Template Three First, wow, I have to hip my hat to Brythones. Original and derived graphical often goes unnoticed on Wikipedia, yet it's critical for understanding, easily and concisely, article content. I prefer the first template due to its simplicity and overall look & feel, but could accept the second template—it's just a bit complicated. What about linking to the second template from within the enlarged caption of the first template? Template three is kind of 'meh' and doesn't seem consistent with past elections. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anybody have the time, patients & know how, to change the maps on all the Canadian federal election articles? GoodDay (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, I've been trying to update the image here to include JWR's seat but for some reason it gives me an error when I try to upload the new version of the file. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Article being held up at In the News pending improvements

This is being held up at In the News pending improvements to this article, namely because some have said that there should be prose in the Results section of the article and some sections are too long for the purposes of the article. Can we try to make some of these updates so that the election can get featured on the In the News section on the front page? Let's try to clean it up a bit and model it after the 2015 Canadian federal election article. 99.244.174.197 (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Election Aftermath section

Should we add this section for consistency with past articles? There has been reactions from world leaders and other news outlets MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes: part of the lead already seems to fall under this, and the lead section is supposed to be a summary of stuff also present in the main body of the article. Speed74 (talk) 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Can we get other opinions? I want to know what the consensus is. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I would say only if there is anything significant. Notices of congratulations from various world leaders are WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. - Ahunt (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Very well, I will not put the notices of congratulation, but I guess we can still have the analysis/conclusion of news outlets in the section? Some of it was notable and important. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
For example, the section can include some Premiers that changed their opinions due to this result and a paragraph on Western alienation (since we've had notable articles on the subject). MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
@Ahunt: Firstly, I apologize for temporarily deleting your comment. I didn't mean to. Secondly, I have to admit I disagree with what you are saying. Many were surprised by Trump's comment and it was not entirely predictable that he would endorse Trudeau post-election. Basically anything Trump does is notable. Although the Indian and Australian comments were less individually notable, they complete the sentence nicely and give a good brief overview of international reaction (specifically from Conservatives). Of course, if we were to start listing a great litany of bland congratulatory messages from abroad, that would be excessive. Thirdly and lastly, the part of the lead/lede that I specifically think needs repeating within the main article is the part about Trudeau's plans concerning any possible coalition. I definitely think we need a part about the post-election government formation. Speed74 (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
So, I guess we need another opinion on notices of congratulation then, because I don't really have on opinion on them MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
If there is no dissent, I usually assume consensus is positive (or at least neutral). Give them some time though - it's only been a couple of hours! As a side note, why not be WP:BOLD and make your edits without waiting for consensus? You are only required to seek consensus if your edit has been reverted. Speed74 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

New Timeline article

No consensus for a new article - MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


See the new article, Timeline of the 2019 Canadian federal election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:20C0:10C9:80C9:E3C5:6DE0:AA2B (talk) 22:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the point of that page honestly. It copies a section from here and has dead references. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I think it would be a good candidate for speedy deletion, but I am not sure how to initiate that process. 2A00:23C7:8592:D500:855F:B2F0:113A:FBD2 (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how to initiate it either. MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, please see the new article, Timeline of the 2019 Canadian federal election. This would be more organized for moving the content to the new created article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:20C0:10C9:80C9:E3C5:6DE0:AA2B (talk) 3:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Please discuss this with other editors here on the talk page to achieve consensus, other editors get a say as well and everyone wants to have the best articles possible. RA0808 talkcontribs 23:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, please see the new article, Timeline of the 2019 Canadian federal election. This would be more organized for moving the content to the new created article.2607:FEA8:20C0:10C9:80C9:E3C5:6DE0:AA2B (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

So, you're not even going to try to discuss it? MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
At least anon from Toronto has started signing their comments. One step at a time I suppose. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Percent

Canadian English, as is common, allows for both "percent" and "per cent" as the former is from American usage while the latter is British and both influences are present. We were using "%" before I changed it based on MOS:PERCENT. Not sure why WP:LANGVAR and retaining the first version is not honoured. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm with percent to be honest. We were using it and like you said Canadian English uses both MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz:, although you claim that per cent is the "established format" (which is sorta a ridiculous claim to make considering the lack of a discussion in this talk page about this issue), the article edit history shows that is incorrect (assuming your going off WP:RETAIN, which makes the case that when there is a lack of consensus for ENGVAR issues, we shall retain the first version used), as the article history clearly showcases that per cent was the first variant of the word used (see here, dated November 4, 2015, so literally the 8th edit after the article was established).
And just to further this point, the supposition that its an "established format" can be easily proven wrong when you contrast the first entry of per cent, with the first entry of percent in the article. While the former has been in the article since inception (well, eighth edits after inception), the latter was only introduced on 23 May 2019 (so literally only added a few months ago, as can be seen here). And in saying that, that edit didn't even fix up the per cent that already existed in that article to make it consistent, which further detracts from your whole notion of it being the "established format".
So I'll reiterate this again (which honestly was originally brought up by you, or at least I assume you were bringing it up in your original edit), but considering the lack of any discussion on this (until today), the lack of any "established" consensus beforehand (despite what you may claim), and what is stated in WP:RETAIN (in the event of no consensus, use the first version introduced), I'd say its pretty clear that per cent is the version to use until further notice/discussion. I'm the one retaining the original, you are the one changing it from the "original established format". If anything YOU should be the one presenting a case as to why we should change the original established format to the one you are suggesting. Leventio (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll state it one more time, it was "%" before I changed it and you did not seem to want to change it to "per cent" at that time, and I changed it to "percent". It seems the new consensus is the latter though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean, could you refer to the edit in question and clarify why your bringing this up a bit, cause I honestly have no idea what your changing of the % to percent has anything to do with the question of what was the first version used in the article (the edit diffs I provided, are not yours... they are the diffs for when the first instance of the two versions were introduced). I mean if its a question of why I didn't change it shortly after your edit, its should be obvious that I didn't notice the change made (like I only made the correction back to the original format when making the edits to the assessment portion). And in either case, until yesterday when I made the initial change to all percents to per cent to maintain WP:CONSISTENCY, both versions had existed in the article since percent was introduced May 2019 (see edit diff of edit before I made the change here). As stated earlier, since the addition of percent last May, no one bothered to correct either to maintain consistency (so again, no idea where this notion of consensus is coming from).
But in saying that, I'd also disagree that any consensus has been reached, especially when you consider the only thing in this conversation so far is the question of which was the first instance (which would be per cent) in relation to WP:RETAIN. You can't just randomly end a discussion so prematurely (considering the lack of things that were discussed), just because you think a consensus is reached. Consensus was never reached by editing (both versions existed in the article til I made the edit for consistency yesterday... so you can't really claim its been established by editing), nor was consensus reached by any discussion (this is first discussion on the matter, of which its only hours old). And while you can argue numerical consensus (based off one other participant), I'd remind you that consensus on Wiki (WP:CON) is about the issues actually brought up in the discussion.
But back to the actual thing, could you tell me why you want to deviate from the first instance (as per WP:RETAIN), or alternatively clarify your statement from before (I sorta assume I got the pragmatics of your statement wrong, and misunderstood what your saying there). Like I'm not really going to continue reverting you (not really wanting to get in an edit war here), but can you at the very least let this discussion either run its course as opposed to just declaring a consensus was established (without y'know... at least getting the other party to agree... I mean it doesn't always happen but its sort of the spirit of the word). Leventio (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: hello? Leventio (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Again it went "per cent" (probably mixed, but then I have not checked for nor found your version) to "%", which was clearly incorrect to "percent". Since you left "%" I assume you were OK with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I mean, honestly I'm still sorta confused with what your saying (I mean, I sorta asked for the edit diff in question to help clarify some of the confusion) but if I left a "%" in one of my edits, it should be obvious I just missed it (I mean... considering were talking about the use of the written word right now...), and the same goes for your edit of "% -> percent" (its an election article during an election cycle, I'm not really going to be paying attention to each history diffs at that point in time).
But in saying that, I don't see how that gives us ground to deviate from what is stated in WP:RETAIN. Per cent remains the first instance of the word (existing in the article from November 2015 to few days ago), and no consensus has been reached either from discussion (this being the first discussion), or from editing (when "percent" was introduced in may 2019, no one bothered to edit the other "percent/per cents" to maintain consistency til I did a few days ago). Which is why I'm asking, whats your rationale for deviating from wp:retain? Leventio (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Votes

Is there no data for the number of blank and invalid votes, as well as the total of registered voters? It's lacking from the table, and it's impossible to calculate the actual turnout without those.--Aréat (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I will look, but that part may not have been finalized. For whatever it is worth, I did notice that in local polls, the number of invalid votes was extremely small compared to previous elections, at around 1% or less. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking it up. ;) --Aréat (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not the only thing that isn't final -- even the turnout numbers aren't complete since they don't take into account same day registration yet. Hopefully, we get the info soon, we've been stuck on 99.7% on the election Canada site for days now. -- MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Cartogram?

I prepared a cartogram to be added to this page in the Results section, because I felt the standard maps don't visually convey information about the equal weight of each riding. However, another editor else felt it didn't belong and removed it. The file is File:Canadian Federal Election Cartogram 2019.svg. I would like to achieve a consensus on whether or not it is useful in this section. Should it be included or excluded?

By way of comparison, the 2015 article did include a riding-result map in the result section. JoeSchlabotnik (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I support it's inclusion. Some new outlets provide their own visualization of equal-sized ridings so I don't see any problem with this Wikipedia article showing this version. BLAIXX 13:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I'll be honest I have no clue how to read it. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
It look really good to me, but admittedly I have seen a lot of election maps and diagrams. Maybe JoeSchlabotnik could simply add a full description explaining what it represent? --Aréat (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I will take that advice and post a new copy which hopefully will be an improvement. There is quite a bit of feedback on what is good about it and what could be improved in various forums like https://www.reddit.com/r/vancouver/comments/dlkzen/a_slightly_better_visualization_of_canadas/ and https://www.maproomblog.com/2019/10/a-cartogram-of-canadas-election-results/ JoeSchlabotnik (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I have made the suggested full description attempting to better explain what it represents. The resulting file is at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Canadian_Federal_Election_Cartogram_2019.svg. Please let me know if these revisions are sufficient. JoeSchlabotnik (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
It's great, the only thing I would recommend is to change the colour for Jody Wilson Raybould to something grey so that it reflects the legend we use here. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Good point, I will get on that. JoeSchlabotnik (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Seats Won/Lost by party

The full numbers were included - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Should this table report the net number of changes, or actual changes? For example, the Liberals lost 21 seats to the Tories, but won 2 seats from the Tories ... should it be "(19)" or "(21), 2"? Mw843 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Total change I guess, since it shows where they lost and where they made gains MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:23, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I vote for the full numbers, not the net. It gives a more nuanced view of seat changes. Liberals gaining two from the Conservatives yet losing 21 others is more informative than the net loss as it shows that it wasn't completely one-sided. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Results prose

Prose was added to the results - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


To address the one major outstanding thing for inclusion in WP's ITN, I wrote up a few paragraphs summarizing the results section in prose. For this reason, please edit what I wrote according to what you feel is appropriate, rather than outright reverting it! I did not touch the tables at all. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I was actually going to do something similar since I feel like we needed it too. MikkelJSmith (talk) 13:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
If the sentence already says that every party leader was re-elected except Bernier, do we need to specifically mention Blanchet? (and thanks for catching the spelling mistake ... I knew that!) - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I think it's important because Blanchet wasn't re-elected. He decided to run in his seat a bit before the campaign. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. And the new prose nicely clarifies that. Thanks for cleaning up the references -- the required WP format has always been my weak point. I did undo the "statistical significance" link, since that kind of thing really applies to the whole article. I leave to you and others whether the PPC-specific vote-splitting comment is really accurate -- even the quoted sources disagree on this. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I think I may add the fact that the Tory strategist disagreed with the assessment? That would make it more reflective of the source. I also added the aftermath for the NDP in QC. Although, I forgot to explain it in the edit summary. MikkelJSmith (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Although, I'm not sure though, since we have three sources saying that they cost them seats. I will reread them later. I'm also adding some prose (details) for the parties regarding some of the seats they won or lost. MikkelJSmith (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mercator

This was resolved. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Does anyone know how to make this image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Canadian_Federal_Election_2019_-_Results_by_Riding.png) not use a Mercator projection? Based on previous talk here, that's the thing the editors don't like on here. MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the Mercator projection has gotta go. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Best bet may be to contact the author DrRandomFactor? He or she has a lot of experience with maps. Regarding alternatives, Statistics Canada has a page on recommended projections https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/92-195-x/2011001/other-autre/mapproj-projcarte/m-c-eng.htm. I support the move if it can be done. That said, I would recommend a second improvement to this map if it were possible, which is to alleviate the difficulty of distinguishing the colors in the legend with the lowest luminosity (used for "winning vote strength), which all look close to black. Maybe the same effect of intensity of support could be achieved by using a range colours whose maximum luminosity is, say, 50%? JoeSchlabotnik (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Full result tables deletion

This was resolved. Consensus : keep some stuff on here and some on the results page. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Why have the full results been deleted from the page? Every single page of the dozens of elections which took place in 2019 had full results tables of the results. It should be placed back.--Aréat (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

[replacing my previous comment]
I see what you mean. There's no justification for having removed that table in the first place. Whoever did it apparently hasn't looked at the pages for previous elections. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I didn't remove it. I moved it to the results page... MikkelJSmith (talk) 17:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
It belongs on both pages. Refer to 2015 Canadian federal election, 2011 Canadian federal election, 2008 Canadian federal election, and so on for examples of what's considered to belong on the main page, on the Results page, and on both pages. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
We generally avoid duplicating information on two or more articles. Why would we want to have it duplicated? As far as other pages doing that see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Ahunt (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
That's why I removed it. It makes more sense to have the basic stuff here and the more detailed stuff there. An editor over there also said we had too many tables on this page, which is why I moved it. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I also based it on some other elections that didn't duplicate like the UK 2017 general election where they separated the results tables and the written analysis. The detailed tables being on the results page (Except the basic stuff of course) and the written prose being on the election page, which is why I'm going to have to move the strategic voting section from the results section, since it fits better here. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I'd argue that a table listing the vote totals for all parties is pretty basic information.
The only pages that pertain to whether to include a particular item are for Canadian elections, not those of other countries. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
To argue that we should only rely only on previous iterations of Canadian election results for our editing smacks of functional fixation, if not downright navel gazing. We should always be open to what is being done better elsewhere, and UK 2017 general election is a great article to emulate.Raellerby (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I've checked the cited UK 2017 general election and it includes the very table that is being argued against including on this page. I cannot understand why a table listing the vote totals for all participating parties is not considered general information. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Part of the argument I'm making using that election page as an example is the lack of duplication. Right now, that table is in the results page. If we put it back here, we would need to remove it from that page. Furthermore, to me, it feels like detailed info, since it has parties that only people interested in details want to look at (e.g. Marijuana party or the Animal Alliance) whereas the small table contains the basic info about the parties that got elected. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, the full results belong on this page. Apart from the precedents cited which support this (and with which I agree), in an article about an election I would expect to see, at a minimum, a table of the full results. If the argument is against duplication, I would propose that the remedy for that might be to include on the results page only further analyses of the results, while referencing the table in the main article for the full, basic table. JoeSchlabotnik (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
So, you want to remove the full table from the results page? I can see that point in that, I just find some of the stuff too detailed for this page, which is why I lean towards putting in the results page. I obviously have no beef with G. Timothy Walton by the way, we just have a disagreement. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm the kind who considers the vote totals and percentages for all parties to be basic information.
The equal-area cartogram is one I think could be moved to the results article - I find it duplicates the information of the traditional map but takes much more mental effort to understand. That could be due to a deficit in spatial reasoning, so YMMV. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Very well, I think we can do that. That works as a compromise. I'll move the cartogram there and keep the full results table here. MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
What do the others think? Raellerby, Ahunt & Aréat ? -- MikkelJSmith (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay. - Ahunt (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
All, I thought this was previously resolved by consensus on the Talk page under the section "Cartogram?". I would argue that it does not duplicate the information in the traditional map (at least no more than the numerical tables also duplicate the traditional map) because, unlike the traditional map, it properly represents the equal weight of representation of each riding while also properly depicting what areas of the country supported what party. In fact, it is the traditional map that does a poor job of showing where each party's support comes from by vastly overweighting the influence of rural ridings - and, especially, in this case, by making the area of Montreal only a tiny smudge in the South Quebec call-out when it is the second biggest metro population in the country. The aphorism is "land doesn't vote". Please see https://www.maproomblog.com/2019/10/a-cartogram-of-canadas-election-results/ for a nice summary of this. I'm not going to engage in an edit war, here, so I'm leaving it out for now, but I recommend we settle this question in the talk page in the section already started, above. JoeSchlabotnik (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I like the current separation between the articles.Raellerby (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm also fine with the current separation. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proportional analysis

This was OR - MikkelJSmith (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I would like to see something like this included in the article:

A Proportional Analysis of the 2019 Federal Election

The Liberals and Conservatives took many more seats than they were due at the expense of the NDP, the Greens and the People's Party. -- more on this below.

The election also saw no party take a majority of the seats although a working majority is required to pass laws.

The Liberals took more seats than the Conservatives despite receiving less votes (being less popular in first preferences). If it had come to a run-off ballot between Liberals and Conservatives it seems the Liberals would have won a majority -- more on that below.

More voters voted for the Conservatives than voted for the Liberals, but 29 percent of the Conservative voters were in Alberta and Saskatchewan, a small part of Canada. (AB/Sask holds only 14 percent of the seats in Canada.) Voters in AB/Sask voted Conservative at a rate of two to one to the frequency of Conservative vote outside those two provinces. This regional base gave the Conservatives almost all the seats in AB/Sask where actually about a quarter of the seats in AB/Sask should have gone to other parties (the Liberals and the NDP). The Conservatives are over-represented in AB/Sask, holding 98 percent of the seats in those two provinces with less than 68 percent of the vote there. While the Conservative party was over-represented in those two provinces, it was under-represented outside the two provinces, where the Liberal party, the leading party, benefitted from First Past The Post . The Conservatives' strong showing in Alberta and Saskatchewan (69 percent of the vote in the two provinces) left only a bit more than 70 percent of the country-wide Conservative vote spread over the remaining 86 percent of seats in Canada. Outside of Alberta and Saskatchewan Conservatives took only 74 seats. Under the First Past The Post system many votes are wasted. It took 59,000 Conservatives outside Alberta /Sask to win a seat, while in AB/Sask it took only 38,000. The Conservatives with about 34 percent of the vote took only 26 percent of the seats outside AB//Sask. Outside AB/Sask, the Liberals received a million more votes than the Conservatives so it could be said they deserve to govern. There were 5.6M Liberal votes and only 4.4M Conservative votes outside of AB/Sask. Outside AB/Sask, the Liberal party reaped the reward that the FPTP system awards the leading party. It reaped more seats than it deserved just as the Conservatives did within AB/Sask. With the Liberal party being more popular than the Conservatives outside AB/Sask, if a Conservative government was installed in the House of Commons, it would be the rest of the country, 86 percent of the country, that would be upset -- although it is doubtful they would be so defensive as to threaten to leave Canada.

Saskatchewan different from Alberta and visa versa, but NDP and Liberals suffer in both Due to their somewhat accidental almost-total Conservative sweep in Alberta and Saskatchewan, the two provinces are being lumped together. But the political complexion in the two provinces is quite different. In Saskatchewan the NDP was the second-most popular party, taking almost twice the votes of the Liberals. Unlike in Saskatchewan, in Alberta the Liberal party was the second most popular party. This is disguised by the NDP winning a seat in Alberta but none in Saskatchewan. The NDP with a micro-regional base of Strathcona took that district with almost a majority of the district vote, while the other NDP-ers - ten percent of the AB votes - went without a seat although due 3. NDP voters in Alberta deserve to be represented by four MPs. The undemocratic FPTP voting system has thrown their votes in the trash. Saskatchewan NDP-ers, casting 20 percent of the vote, got no seats at although they were due three seats. The undemocratic FPTP voting system has thrown their votes in the trash. The Liberals in Alberta with 14 percent of the vote deserved 5 seats but got none. The undemocratic FPTP voting system has thrown their votes in the trash.

NDP mis-fortune Country-wide, the NDP did not have a regional base. Spread out across the country, it suffered under FPTP within AB/Sask and outside that area as well. It was due six seats in AB/Sask and got just one. It deserved 49 seats outside AB Sask seats but won only 23. Proportionally it should have 55 seats but only won 24.

Bloc Quebecois benefitted under FPTP The Bloc Quebecois took 41 percent of that province's seats (32 seats) with less than 35 percent of the province's votes. Its narrow regional base - in fact it ran candidates only in Quebec - gave it concentrated strength and it won 32 seats (about a tenth of the country's seats) with only 8 percent of the vote country-wide, which should have given it only 27 seats. Thus the FPTP system benefitted a narrow provincial party without a national agenda while hurting broad parties with pan-Canadian messages.

The Big Two are over-represented Overall the Liberals and the Conservatives received more seats than they were due, while the NDP and the Greens suffered under-representation. The Liberals should have won only 112 seats but won 157. The Conservatives should have won 116 but won 121 seats. The Greens should have won 22 but won only 3. The NDP should have won 55 but won only 24 seats. The People's Party proportionally should have won six but won none. An Independent - a sitting MP formerly of the Liberal party - won as well. She and the Bloc Quebecois's 32 brings the total number of MPs elected to 338.

General proportionality woes Proportional Representation, measured at the national level, may in fact create more questions than it answers. As stated above, under general proportional representation, the Conservative should have more seats than any other party. This would be displease the majority of voters, it seems. The Conservative lead was only created in two provinces. Proportional representation would also give 6 seats to the People's Party, an extremist party that was reprehensible to a vast majority of Canadians.

FPTP-fostered Regionalism In addition to the Conservatives' over-representation in AB/Sask, regionalism was also seen in other ways. Regionalism is accentuated under FPTP as is evident from the seat counts in this election. The Conservatives won 20 percent of the vote east of Ontario but won only 14 seats, instead of the 20 they were due. The Liberals garnered 20 percent of the vote west of Ontario and won only 15 seats, instead of the 21 they were due.

The Dollar method To show how the seats should be distributed at the provincial level proportionally, we can represent all the votes cast in the election with a dollar*. If all the votes cast in the election were a dollar, Conservatives would have 34 cents, ten of which would be in AB/Sask, with 24 cents spread across the rest of the country. The Liberals would have 33 cents, two cents in AB/Sask. The NDP would have 16 cents, two in AB/Sask. The Greens would have seven cents. The People's Party 2 cents. (*Each cent would equal 3.4 seats and about 179,000 votes.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.194.17 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

What is your reference for including this? - Ahunt (talk) 01:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Ahunt, it seems this is the user's own OR. I can't find any article that has this text and I keep a backlog of important articles for this page through Firefox. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking it read like that. You can note we don't publish WP:OR. - Ahunt (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The issue has been resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Validated results

Could somebody please update the infobox figures? The validated vote totals can be found in Template:Canadian federal election, 2019. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

G. Timothy Walton, did we get the final turnout numbers as well or are they still not mentioned? MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I still can't find any final results page. I got the numbers by taking the validated results in the EventResults.txt file and designing an Excel spreadsheet to crunch the numbers for vote percentages. Unfortunately I didn't add in a column for rejected ballots and have been hoping Elections Canada would save me the effort by updating the Results page from preliminary numbers. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
G. Timothy Walton, they usually give us the final results around mid-November or near the end of it, so we'll see if get them. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Marginal vs Fairly Marginal vs Fairly Safe

No consensus.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


These claims are probably a WP:NOR violation since there is likely no source that claims that just because a seat is within 15%, it is likely to be targeted Benica11 (talk) 03:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Benica11, see above. We've had this discussion before and some of the seats mentioned are in those sources, we technically even have more sources than what was posted there. The election results also prove the target seats section. After all, the 15% threshold was shown to be indicative of likely targets for parties, see Nanaimo—Ladysmith,La Prairie, Lac Saint-Jean, etc. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
No, Benica11 is correct. First, the named parties targeted all 338 seats. Second, there is no source that these named parties attempted to target these particular seats in any special means. Third, this table mearly list an interpretation of the results of the 2015 election on the 2019 Canadian federal election page. Fourth, now that the election is over and there is actual interpretation of which parties did actually concentrate the efforts in particular geographic areas (leader visits, expenditures, etc.) and the table should be replaced with prose style, referenced retelling of what happened, not what should have happened. maclean (talk) 05:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Maclean25, we literally have sources in the last discussion about these seats mentioned on the talk page. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Maclean25, second, the parties didn't target all the seats (see the NDP, GPC & BQ). Finally, it's in the background section, it's meant as background info prior to the election. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Friendly ping to Earl Andrew & Raellerby, since they were involved in the discussion last time. As for JonScotty, it seems he's retired. Do you think we should rename the section to marginal seats? MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
If the hang up is on whether or not the seats were "targets", then let's just re-name the section. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Earl Andrew, sure, that's fine with me. I just wanted to know what other people thought beforehand. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
That's OK with me.Raellerby (talk) 16:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I see what you did there, but a riding-by-riding analysis of the 2015 election still doesn't belong on the 2019 election page. What is the rationale for it being on this page? It looks like a hypothesis (with 86 lines of data) that these particular seats should be competitive because one of four parties had a candidate in 2015 that lost by less than a 15% margin (despite incumbencies, new slates of candidates, or other 2015 election factors). That is original research. I realize the section doesn't directly say these ridings are competitive, just that, hey, these ridings were pretty close in 2015, right? This section could be replaced with reporting on which ridings were expected to be close in this 2019 election referenced to respected analysts, like Éric Grenier, who state why and take into account 2019 factors. That would be material attributable to a reliable, published source which is more in line with content policies. maclean (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I was the editor who went ahead and boldly renamed this "Marginal seats" since "target seats" implies parties specifically "targeted" those seats. I'm a firm "this should be on the page" as it's regularly included elsewhere (2019 Australian federal election#State of electorates, where such a ladder is part and parcel of the electoral system) as it gives people like myself who know little about the election the knowledge of where the election might be won or lost. I don't think we need to group seats into marginal/fairly marginal/etc, but that's a simple header removal on the table, the information is quality. SportingFlyer T·C 23:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
    SportingFlyer, I agree. It also is present on UK election articles and past Canadian articles (although, in some cases it's separated in its own page for Canadian elections). While I don't want to get into a WP:Other Stuff exists argument, I feel like it wouldn't be present on all those pages if it was OR. That means there was notability to the info. After all, it also helps people who are not familiar with an election. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 02:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    So, if the rationale is to give readers 'who know little about the election the knowledge of where the election might be won or lost', then an explanation of what ridings were considered to be competitive in the context of 2019 issues, referenced to published sources, would be appropriate (I linked to one such analysis above). This list of which ridings turned out to be relatively close in 2015 pushes a POV (or speculation) that that the 2015 results are what make 2019 ridings competitive. This looks like WP:SYNTHESIS in that it appears to be combining parts of a source to imply what is competitive (or not safe) without explicitly stating a source that reaches this conclusion. This nearly 100 lines of data and explanation could be reduced to a paragraph or two of reporting that would better achieve that objective. maclean (talk) 05:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Results table by province

It is included on another page. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Where is the results table by province that every other canadian election has? I came here to get the data for research, only it's not here. Nickjbor (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I think what you are looking for is at Results of the 2019 Canadian federal election#Geographic voting distributions and Results of the 2019 Canadian federal election by riding - Ahunt (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Why is this hidden away? It is not hidden away for the 2015 election. or 2011. or 2008, 2006, 2004, 2000, 1997, 1993, 1988, 1984, 19...etc. This needs to be on the main page. I will be adding it there myself if nobody else does within a few days, and putting it back if someone tries to delete it. Nickjbor (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
It is not hidden away, it is properly linked. The reason it is not in this article is because it is too long for one article. See Wikipedia:Article size. This article is already 309 KB, which is more than six times the recommended maximum size for an article and more than 50% over the normal 200 KB length for a mandatory split into smaller articles. This is the overview article, those are detail articles. If anything more detail should be split out, not more added back in. You will need to gain a consensus here if you think all that should be put back into this article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I've decided NOT to add it back; but not because of this ridiculous argument; instead, because I've found a better way to collate the data. If you are determined to make wikipedia useless to researchers, that is your own prerogative. I'm the one who made the original results table, and put it on the 1993 election, thinking that wikipedia is the best way to present this data. It's become clear that this is no longer the case; as such, I withdraw both my request and my demand. good day. Nickjbor (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recounts

The issue has been resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I think a footnote is required explaining the difference between validated results and a recount. I can't seem to write anything concise today so I'll leave teh task to someone else.

It's unclear to me whether the recounts actually began or if the process was terminated before any envelopes were unsealed; Elections Canada press releases remind me of the old joke about statistics and bikinis. The reporters who wrote the articles certainly didn't understand the difference between validating results and recounting ballots. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

G. Timothy Walton, the recounts had started, the sources I added tell us that, so I changed the sentence due to that. MikkelJSmith (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trudeau Image Switch?

Now that we've basically reached a consensus on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2021_Canadian_federal_election#So_let's_talk_about_Trudeau's_photo, I say we switch the image of Trudeau because the current one on this page is also being used on 2021 one. Look at the gallery and let me know what you think we should do.:

-2607:FEA8:E263:A900:92A:26AF:C4C2:9C0E (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I guess the suggested image is fine, but I don't see why this needs to be changed in the first place… I don't think it's an issue for the same image to be used across multiple elections in instances where the person in question looks basically the same. — Kawnhr (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree. No need for a change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, It didn't seem like a good idea anyway. Editor50545 (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
While you may be the same person who added content here, identified as 2607:FEA8:E263:A900:92A:26AF:C4C2:9C0E, it is clearly a different account, and so by Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, specifically, WP:TPO, you should not remove those of another editor. Unless there is a good reason to remove the content, it should remain.
For the record, I have reported your behaviour. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The action came sooner than expected, and Editor50545 retired. That should resolve this issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Anon from Ottawa won't give up. As Editor50545 they made a completely spurious claim that file:Trudeau visit White House for USMCA (cropped).jpg "is banned from being used", but that is not the case. There was an earlier consensus that we did not want the leaders "looking at each other", so no banning; but that range of IPs may be soon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the reverting I did. If you do me a favour and willingly remove your comments then I won't revert anything on this page again. Deal? - 2607:FEA8:E263:A900:E5AC:477A:A56A:5A682607 19:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
If no one objects to early archiving, I will attempt to move it to the archives before 2021-08-21 (UTC). 23:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2019_Canadian_federal_election/Archive_1&oldid=1142388630"