Talk:2011 Canadian federal election/Archive 1

The possible change of government
Should the confidence motion/firing take place on the 8th of December how should this be handled in this article.Ericl (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all until something actually happens. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The question was what we do if something happens. If the government lose the no confidence vote and there is no immediate resolution, it should be mentioned here that elections might be called soon if the GG decides not to name a Liberal prime minister. -Rrius (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My immediate response here is to Ericl, who's been sowing this idea of a "coup" on various pages, and which is clearly a Tory spin and also more than a bit wacky; elsewhere Ericl has also opined that the G-G will rule as a dictator, as if she could or would, and used phrases like "a bid to depose Stephen Harper" - as if Harper were a king or president, and insinuated that what the G-G will/may do is unconstitutional unless it's what Harper wants. It doesn't work like that.  And to Rrius, if the govt loses the non-confidence vote there is an immediate resolution that will take place; the PM gets in his limo, drives to Rideau Hall, surrenders his resignation, and the G-G decides what to do.  She can "drop the writ" (call an election), consult the House of Commons to see who else may be able to form a government, or thirdly reject his resignation and send him and the House back to work.  That's the "immediate resolution", it's the way the Canadian system works. A genuine constitutional crisis would only take place if the PM refused to resign and tried to hold onto power; but he has no spending authority without the support of teh House, and no government cheques would be valid if that took place.  He'd have to use armed force - stage a coup - in order to force his will on hte G-G (and/or to unseat the House).  Both of you need an education in civics, and also to not listen to propaganda and alarmism....what is about to take place, if it does, is the smooth transition of power the parliamentary constitution is meant to provide for.....Skookum1 (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Rrius, if that's how you interpret the question, then there's no question to be answered. What we do, if something happens that impacts this article, is that we update the article to reflect what happened once it's happened. It's really not that complicated. There's no need for a special discussion about how we handle it — we handle exactly it the same way we handle absolutely anything else: by updating the article, once there's something to update it with, in accordance with WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Skookum, I'm not sure where you think I got the civics wrong. All I said was that should the no confidence vote go against the Tories and the ultimate resolution not be immediately clear, we should mention the alternatives on the page. The outcome could be unclear if the PM meets with the GG, advises her to call elections, but she says she wants to see if another government could command the confidence of the House. During the period of consultation on whether another government could be formed, the outcome would unclear because we would not know whether she would decide call call elections or ask a Liberal to form a government. In other words, there is no guarantee that the GG will make an immediate decision. As to a "genuine constitutional crisis", read up on the King-Byng affair; it is not exactly the situation you describe as being the only possible constitutional crisis.


 * Bearcat, I don't see any real daylight between what you said in your second contribution and what I said other than yours was more general. As to how to read the question, I don't see another way. The questioner asked what we do on the 8th if the motion passes. He or she did not use the words, "motion passes", but clearly intended it to refer to what to do on the 8th. I guess I'm not sure what to make of your response to me. Ultimately, I don't see the problem with batting around suggestions so we're ready when a fast-moving news stories unfolds. If the editor who posed the question was not acting in good faith, then fine, but I had no way of knowing that. -Rrius (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your statement that "The question was what we do if something happens" — all I'm saying is that we do the same thing we do in any other situation. The OP has been posting similar questions on a few other related talk pages, some of which suggest that he has a deep misunderstanding of the way the Canadian constitution works. But it wasn't my intention to suggest that you had said anything wrong — I was just clarifying my original comment. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, if the coaltion is formed (after the Harper government is defeated, of course). It shouldn't effect this article. As the 40th Parliament wouldn't be dissolved & thus the 41st election wouldn't be called. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)@Bearcat: fair enough. @GD: I figured the original questioner was talking about the situation where we aren't sure whether there will be an election or not because the GG has taken the situation under advisement. Obviously, the timing of the next election bears on this article. I have since become aware that some Canadians think the number of the Parliament changes when the government changes hands. I don't really get that, and it never occurred to me that anyone would think such a thing. In the end, I guess we should take Bearcat's suggestion and ignore the whole thing until there is some substantial change affecting the election date. As it stands, the most likely possibilities are no change or a coalition. At most this article will need to say for a few hours that the GG might call elections but is consulting with other parties to see if a different PM could command the confidence of the House. -Rrius (talk) 08:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the 40th Parliament stays in place (unless it's dissolved & an election is called). GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Target Seats
Does anyone know the final fifteenth target seats for the Liberals? There clearly is one, has anyone got it figured out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siege40 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Party Leaders in the 41st Fed election
IMO, it's presumptive of us to assume Harper, Layton, May & Duceppe will be the party leaders in the next Fed election. We shouldn't have any of them in the Infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed the infobox to a more ambiguous one. We can change it back after Layton and Ducceppe have their leadership reviews and the Liberals choose a new leader. nat.utoronto 01:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The leaders' pictures should remain where they are until they're no longer the leaders. It seems that there's going to be an election in the fall...right on the date originally stated in the actEricl (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinion Polls
The Date of Polling is supposed to be the last date on which the polling was done; the date the poll results were released is immaterial. I've corrected several incorrectly dated poll results in the table--and I'll keep doing it--but it would be great if those recording new polling results could record them correctly. Or at least try to understand the table they're editing. --Llewdor (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A thought may also be to replace the links to the various news articles with the links to the PDFs on the specific polling company websites. HalifaxRage (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, not all polling companies make those reports freely available; in some cases, the media reports are all we have. But most of those reports do indicate the proper dates. --Llewdor (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Harris-Decima
Harris-Decima is a fairly high-profile polling company, but their recent polls haven't been released in a way that allows us to record them. They're not being posted to the official Decima website, so all we see are incomplete results contained within a Canadian Press article. If anyone happens to find out where to get detailed poll results from Decima, please either mention it here or add the poll data to the Opinion Poll table. --Llewdor (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Results table
There is currently displayed in the article a table meant to record the election results. The information we actually need to know now is arguably already handled in the infobox (or could be), but in any event, could be handled in something like this:

!rowspan="2" colspan="2" align=left|Party !rowspan="2" align=left|Party leader !rowspan="2"|Candidates !colspan="2" align=center|Seats Instead, we have a table that is, by my eyeball estimate, about eight times as large. Even if it is important to know the number of candidates each minor party is planning to field, the table is still around twice as large as necessary. I suggest using a smaller party-standing table until the election. -Rrius (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * align="center"|2008
 * align="center"|Current
 * bgcolor="cornflowerblue"|
 * align=left|Conservative
 * align=left|Stephen Harper
 * align="right"|
 * align="right"|143
 * align="right"|143
 * bgcolor="lightcoral"|
 * align=left|Liberal
 * align=left|Michael Ignatieff
 * align="right"|
 * align="right"|77
 * align="right"|77
 * bgcolor="lightskyblue"|
 * align=left|Bloc Québécois
 * align=left|Gilles Duceppe
 * align="right"|
 * align="right"|49
 * align="right"|48
 * bgcolor="sandybrown"|
 * align=left|New Democrats
 * align=left|Jack Layton
 * align="right"|
 * align="right"|37
 * align="right"|36
 * bgcolor="gainsboro"|
 * colspan=2 align=left|Independents and no affiliation
 * align="right"|
 * align="right"|2
 * align="right"|1
 * bgcolor="yellowgreen"|
 * align=left|Green
 * align=left|Elizabeth May
 * align="right"|
 * align="right"|-
 * align="right"|-
 * }
 * bgcolor="yellowgreen"|
 * align=left|Green
 * align=left|Elizabeth May
 * align="right"|
 * align="right"|-
 * align="right"|-
 * }
 * }
 * hey, new table looks great. Wondering though if we should add a row for vacant seats?Sethpt (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Its wrong to exclude the other parties and leaders and it flys against every other Canadian election article. --Þadius (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, there is no reason to list the Green Party in that table and then not list every other party without representation. HalifaxRage (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was bold and removed the Greens. I see no point in listing them in a table of current standings when they have no seats.HalifaxRage (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I cleaned this up a bit more. Now I wonder if we need it at all? This is duplicated in 40th Parliament of Canada: HalifaxRage (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC) ::::::I deleted the table HalifaxRage added here for our benefit because it was after his signature, and therefore potentially confusing, and because it unnecessarily broke up the discussion. Here it is for those interested: 40th Canadian Parliament standings. I'm not absolutely opposed, but the Senate information is unnecessary, as is the comparison to the last election. The current table just makes more sense than the one from 40th Canadian Parliament, which serves a different purpose. -Rrius (talk) 01:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't sure whether to add or not so again I was bold haha. At this point I agree with OP saying that maybe this should be in the infobox? Later editors seemed to expand the table to include posisble future data but since the next election could be close to a year away I don;t see much point in adding empty rows and columns.HalifaxRage (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Party Leaders
We're not 100% certain, that those are the party leaders for the 41st general election. Having their images on this article is 'pre-mature'. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the thought with that is that, if the party leaders change, we'll change the pictures and such at that time, but currently, those are the party leaders. Bkissin (talk) 16:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion Polls: Too Long/Too Many?
As I was looking at the most recent polls on the page today, I realized that we have a lot of past polls on the page! Do you think that we should move some of the earlier polls to a separate page, possibly entitled Opinion polling in the 41st Canadian federal election? I still think that we should have opinion polls on the parent article, perhaps the 6-10 most recent polls?

Any thoughts? Bkissin (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like having the full history available for reference; I do agree the list is getting long however I'm not sure if having just the most recent polls does the subject justice. Of course how else could they be divided... only listing selected polls would just fan the flames of favouritism. PS I reformatted your comment but did not change any text. HalifaxRage (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This election isn't even scheduled yet; it's unseemly to make a directory of polls - repeat, directory - long in advance of any actual campaign; the polls as presented represent the shifting factors that may contribute to the calling of an election, but they are not polls associated with that election, which right now is in a rather vague future conditional tense; all should be removed, and only polls associated with the fall of the minority government (if that's the case) or in its last days before the 2013 deadline, and those from the campaign itself, once it happens, should be in this article. Also the concept of the next election being "scheduled" isn't quite right; what happens on the five year mark is that the mandate to spend expires and the constitution requires the dissolution of the house and calling of new elections; it's not "scheduled", it's "mandated".Skookum1 (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, polls are known to influence public opinion and voter behaviour as much as they reflect it; that's not wikipedia's job.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Censoring notable, factual information to avoid influencing voters isn't Wikipedia's job either. If it was, we wouldn't have articles about ongoing political scandals or controversies. If a fact is both verifiable and notable, it should be presented as neutrally as possible to let the readers draw their own conclusions. If the polling section's too big, it can be split off and replaced with a graph like the polling section in the Canadian federal election, 2008 article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Listing polls - a directory of commercial/published polls (as opposed to private/commissioned and institutional academic polls]] are not an ELECTION. The title of this article is about an election', it's not "Polls leading into the 41st Canadian election", and especially because that election hasn't even been called yet.Skookum1 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Such a list of polls, could, however, belong in WikiNews....Skookum1 (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all clear on what you are saying. Most Canadian, UK, Australian, and New Zealand elections include lists of polls beginning shortly after the previous election and ending just before the election. The proposal here is not to dump the ones in this article; rather, it is to move them to a separate article as was done with the 2008 election and with recent elections in all the countries I just listed. -Rrius (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The failures of other articles in including lists of polls instead of coverage of the actualelection campaign, but rather of the poll-history of the entire inter-election period is not my problem; it's yours; those articles are engaging in everything from original research to simply changing the topic. The issue is also that polls are numerical only and do not reflect the actual politics which is the setting of those polls; presenting numbers like a racetrack or bookmakers without political context, and on an entirely different subject than what article is supposed to be about, is not even really original research; it's irrelevant research.  Articles which have such content are not, to me, valid reasons to bulk up this article with the same; only polls from the elction period, or which produced the election-call, are relevant; the full inter-election poll listing belongs on the related government article.Skookum1 (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. I was NOT suggesting that we "censor information". I was merely suggesting that there is a lot of information on the page. On the page for the Next UK general election, the polls were moved to their own separate page, because there are so many of them (polls, that is). Should we do the same to this page, or should we keep the polls where they are? The suggestion of using the last 6-10 polls was my attempt at a compromise, but I realize that it was misconstrued. The consensus seems to be to keep the polls on this page. Bkissin (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I was already thinking it is time to split off the polls. For most articles, this has meant leaving nothing behind but a main link to the subarticle. I don't agree with keeping some set number of polls, but do think there is merit in emulating the 2008 New Zealand election article and include a graph of the poll results both in the subarticle and in this one. -Rrius (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the opinon polls, as they're irrelevant to a general election (more so after the election is over). Remember folks, what Diefenbaker said about polls. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not delete them, but having them on a separate page like in the Canadian federal election, 2008 page (see Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2008) would prevent the polling chart from overwhelming the election page.Juve2000 (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it, but I would welcome someone with the know-how to make a graph that could appear on both pages. -Rrius (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how ya done it, but I'm thankful. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to make graphs but if you put the actual graph on a template write the template name on both pages.......Juve2000 (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Guergis' resignation: Timeline worthy?
Should Minister Guergis' resignation from Cabinet and the Conservative Caucus amid scandal be added to the election timeline? It was my intention to add it, but I wanted to make sure I had consensus before adding it. Bkissin (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Vacancies in the timeline
The inclusion of by-elections in the timeline is, in my estimation, unimpeachable. However, I do not see the value of noting each vacancy. "X resigned to do Y." It is a noteworthy occurrence in the life of the MP and in the life of the Parliament, but it is not clearly an important milestone in the story of the next election. Does anyone object to my removing those five items from the timeline? -Rrius (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure... I can see where you are coming from, but I still feel as if they are important to the timeline. I'm willing to hear what other people think, however. Bkissin (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see it, so let me ask it a different way. I can see why the beginning of the preceding Parliament and the occasions that could have led to an earlier election matter, but how does Dawn Black's resignation in 2009 to seek another political office relate to the election? Is there anything besides the fact that she will likely not be the NDP candidate for New Westminster–Coquitlam? in the next election? I understand the feeling that it is a noteworthy event, I just don't see how it is a key moment in the story of the next election. -Rrius (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it was mostly so that readers know that those people would not be running in the next election. However, I guess you are right. If we really want to mention the resignations, etc. We can put in this table:
 * {| class="wikitable"

!colspan=2 rowspan=2|Number of members per party by date !2008 !colspan=5|2009 !2010 !Oct 14 !Apr 13 !Apr 30 !May 21 !Sep 16 !Nov 9 !Apr 9


 * Conservative
 * colspan=5|143
 * 145
 * 144


 * Liberal
 * colspan=7|77


 * Bloc Québécois
 * colspan=3|49
 * 48
 * 47
 * colspan=2|48


 * NDP
 * 37
 * colspan=4|36
 * colspan=2|37


 * Independent
 * colspan=2|2
 * colspan=5|1


 * Independent Conservative
 * colspan=6|0
 * 1
 * rowspan=3|
 * Total members
 * 308
 * 307
 * 306
 * 305
 * 304
 * colspan=2|308
 * Vacant
 * 0
 * 1
 * 2
 * 3
 * 4
 * colspan=2|0
 * Government Majority
 * -22
 * -21
 * -20
 * -19
 * colspan=2| -18
 * -20
 * }
 * Bkissin (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * -20
 * }
 * Bkissin (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Opinion polls in the infobox
I am wondering if there is any reason to have opinion polls in the infobox. During the election there will be numerous polls over a short period of time, is it practical to include polls in the infobox?Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I find they clutter the box alot as it is now. The information is in its own article a link to that would be more appropriate i think Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The infobox isn't built to allow for such a link, but I could make the necessary changes. 117Avenue (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * How's that? 117Avenue (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Its ok to me, Any other comments? Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Merging Canadian federal by-elections, 2011
I would actually propose deleting that article if an election is called this week, and just briefly mention here that they were cancelled because of it. --Natural R X 16:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CRYSTAL, until it is confirmed they are canceled. 117Avenue (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yea, no worries, that's why I said 'if'. --Natural R X 20:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose this target, as the supposed by-elections (WP:CRYSTAL since they haven't actually been called) would have no relevance to the 41st election, but would actually belong at the article for the 40th. Resolute 00:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Actually, oppose entirely.  Either the government falls and the article should be deleted as something that never happened, or the government survives, and the by-elections happen as predicted.  In neither case is a merge warranted. Resolute 17:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support as these by-elections would be canceled upon the dissolution of Parliament & thus those ridings would be part of the 41st federal election. My support is conditional upon the pending non-confidence motion of March 25, 2011. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The aborted by-elections would be related to the 40th parliament, not the 41st election. Besides, if the government falls tomorrow, there would be nothing to merge, as the entire article would become fictional.  The only note required is that there were 3 vacant seats at dissolution, which the main election table would convey. Resolute 17:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's correct. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as these by-elections are related to the 40th Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

What about merging all the atricles since the last election into By-elections of the 40th Parliament? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.171.231.80 (talk) 11:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * wait lets see the dates of the election (which by now has to be the same and that is canceled). but for some reason, that i cant imagine right now, it is seperate then we can keep that.
 * also, canceled elections have been kept on wiki[pedia with the due note for why its been cancaeled.Lihaas (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving to "2011 Canadian federal election"
I just wanted to note, with the sudden surge of views and edits here, that this article should not be moved or edited to reflect the election is happening until the Governor General issues a writ of election; in other words, it will not happen as soon as a vote of no confidence passes. The Prime Minister must ask David Johnston to dissolve parliament and call an election first.

Just wanted to state that here, just because I'm kind of predicting an edit conflict or two happening over this. --Natural R X 23:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. Ground Zero | t 23:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also in agreement, but to clarify, the name would be "Canadian federal election, 2011". 117Avenue (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly! That makes perfect sense. Bkissin (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is true. I'm glad no one thinks predicting edit conflicts is against WP:CRYSTAL either, haha. --Natural R X 02:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, don't ya mean edit wars? Edit conflicts, is when 2 editors make an edit on the same page simultaneously. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No one said edit war. I too predict a flurry of edits (and edit conflicts) on this page when the Governor General calls the election. 117Avenue (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * apologies for jumping the gun. seems liek consensus is afainst the move. though we have previous precedent elsewhere (in thailand and canada, and even in ireland) to create that page. (it can always be changed with the date (As in thailand)).Lihaas (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Four moves in nine minutes is unhelpful. I've put move protection on this article for 24 hours; this protection may be extended/renewed if necessary. Please get consensus on the talk page first rather than repeatedly moving the article back and forth. Thank you. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * i think it should be extended till we have confirmation of the new election dats (as the consensus seems to point to aobove) as im sure therell be more people like me that go to moves without checking here first. Maybe for a week? Or at leaswt some 72-odd hours./Lihaas (talk) 18:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think 24 hours is satisfactory, we should know by then. 117Avenue (talk) 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jarbess, 26 March 2011
The election is officially happening May 2, 2011.

Jarbess (talk) 01:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Uh, huh. You seem to know something that CBC doesn't know. Have you been speaking with the Governor-General? Ground Zero | t 01:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: The election doesn't become official until the Governor General announces it. 117Avenue (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's scheduled to visit the GG around ten this morning. Unless he asks him to Prorogue it again, The election's on for May. The exact date is still uncertain, but the year is NOT.Ericl (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, the GG could refuse to disolve the Parliament and ask the next largest party if they feel they could form a government. It won't happen, and an election call is a foregone conclusion, but until it actually happens, we can't say it happened. Resolute 16:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Has the election been formally called yet?
If so (and please provide a link source), I'll lift the protection and move the article. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's been called, checked CBC news. GoodDay (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes see the Elections Canada website.Dash77 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Targeted" ridings
I appreciate that this section notes the ridings are likely to be targeted, but the labels on the box imply that the parties are consciously targeting these ridings and we have no source to show that. I would like to change to "swing ridings". --Padraic 20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Leader Photos
Looking at the "most recent" photo added for Harper, I am forced to wonder if people are purposefully looking for the goofiest expressions they can find? I realize that they should have to be non-copyrighted photos, however there must be better options out there! My $0.02 HalifaxRage (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the picture of the Green Party leader should be of the same proportions as the rest of the pictures. Otherwise it gives her undue prominence. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and done. 117Avenue (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ridings to watch
There are many more ridings to watch that are left out. Why are there only certain ridings put in ? Canadaolympic989Talk:Canadaolympic 14:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like that list was based on what the two websites were saying. and I'm not sure off hand if either website actually qualifies as a reliable source.  The list can (and should) be updated once we have sources discussing close ridings, or ridings worth noting for various reasons (i.e.: party leaders running). Resolute 17:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As explained "Up to 15 are shown, with a maximum margin of victory of 15%." 117Avenue (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorted vs sectioned listing
Thought I should explain why I re-introduced Targeted By column and removed sections after changes to table by Mindmatrix:

Although the original format for Contentious Ridings / Targeted Seats section - listing out the targets of each party - was used for 2008 election, I found it made it harder to understand and compare information in different ways. In doing the following: the goal was to allow for a single reference of all ridings of interest already listed in the article.
 * creating a sortable table
 * including the current party and targeting party as separate columns
 * including rows for ridings with retiring incumbents

Sorting also allows for more visibility and different kinds of comparisons that the grouped/sectioned table does not, such as:
 * focusing on who's being targeted by whom (not just who's targeting)
 * comparisons of potentially close races between parties overall (or by province, etc)

As a riding could also be close and/or have a retiring incumbent or previous close race involving a cabinet minister, categories aren't mutually exclusive and therefore a section-based layout doesn't work well. When a sectioned table is sorted, the ability to make different kinds of comparisons also fall apart.

In re-introducing the column, I still did re-sort the initial table view so it's in alphabetical order. This essentially preserves the listing from the section-based layout, but still allows multiple ways of looking at the information.

Murdocke (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

42nd Canadian federal election
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the article for the next election, doesn't get created until the current one is finished. 117Avenue (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be deleted. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Seskenasi, 28 March 2011
done


 * York_Centre || ON || style="background:#6495ed;" | Con || style="background:#f08080;" | Lib || 5.6% || - || -

Seskenasi (talk) 04:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * only the closest 15 for each party are listed. This would be the 16th.  Ravendrop 05:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Candidate pages
Are all the list of candidates articles to be moved from "41st" to "2011"? 117Avenue (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've moved them without discussion. But I did open a discussion to drop the "of Canada" from the New Democratic Party pages. 117Avenue (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Election Dates
Ok, now I might be wrong, but isn't there a law now that requires the elections be held no later than the 3rd monday in the fourth calendar year following the previous election? If so, then this page is wrong by stating it is not scheduled though must be held no later than 2013. However, if I am right, then technically it must be held no later than October 17, 2011. Grizzwald (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is, except that the Canada Elections Act mandates an election on October 19, 2009. Section 56,1, Clause 2 reads (emphasis mine):

(2) Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009.
 * I don't see any ambiguity here. ¿SFGi  Д  nts!  ¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review! 15:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is latent ambiguity because Parliament contemplated that the 2009 election would be for the 40th Parliament. The intent was to have October elections, but the previous election had been in January 2006. Applying the general language to the 2006 election would have resulted in an almost 5-year long parliament, which Harper probably didn't want since he had a minority parliament. Whatever his reasons, the October 19, 2009 date was clearly intended to apply to the 39th Parliament. I have not seen one source stating that Parliament will only last one year. Mentioning the legal ambiguity in the text somewhere is fine, but is silly to believe there will be elections next year by operation of fixed-term provisions. -Rrius (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To be more clear, the language of the Act says "Subject to subsection (1), each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election, with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009." (Emphasis added) First of all, like the rest of the sentence, the bit about the first general election being on October 19, 2009, is subject to subsection (1). That subsection says, "Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion." The provisions did not bind the GG to call that first election on October 19, 2009. Instead, she called it for October 14, 2008.


 * To come at it from a different perspective, the Act says, "with the first general election after this section comes into force being held on Monday, October 19, 2009." If an election were held on October 19, 2009, it would not be the first one since the act came into force; it would be the second. -Rrius (talk) 19:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're correct Rrius. The Fixed Elections Act (which was passed by the 39th Parliament), had planned the 40th federal election for October 2009. Now (due to the 40th election having occured a year earlier, then the orginally planned date) the 41st federal election is planned for October 2012. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It may well turn out that an election will actually take place on that date!!!! Layton just told Harper to stuff it...Ericl (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion is irrelevant to the article at hand. This election was triggered by the fall of the government due to a motion of non-confidence being passed by parliment, not due to the expiration of the government's term of office. It doesn't matter if a fixed election date was set: That would only apply if the government ran their term of office to it's natural conclusion, which it did not. Because the government was brought down by parliament, the fixed election date legislation does not apply here. Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Contempt of parliament
Was the finding unprecedented in Westminster parliamentary history? Peter Geatings (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Contempt of Parliament it's the first for any Commonwealth state although I haven't checked the sources. Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If that is the case this finding should be more prominently highlighted. Peter Geatings (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll second that. Considering the findings were released so close to the election, it will for sure be an election topic. MattFromOntario (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Dissolution vs change of government
It would be helpful to explain a little bit in the article as to why dissolution was the solution, and why the Liberal leader wasn't summoned by the Governor-General to organise a Liberal or Liberal-led coalition government. Peter Geatings (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess "It doesn't work that way in Canada" isn't a great explanation. ;)  In as much as that was a theoretical possibility, there are very, very few times where a Governor General would precipitate a constitutional crisis by overruling the Prime Minister.  Certainly in this case, accepting the dissolution and calling an election was the safest solution.  Especially given that none of the opposition parties were talking coalition.  But, to add that in, we would need reliable sources discussing the alternatives and why they weren't taken. Resolute 19:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the Governor General had other options, then calling a federal election. For example, Johnston could've dimissed Harper & asked Ignatieff to form a government. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, he didn't. As Resolute points out, that would've caused a constitutional crisis. More than two years after the last election, Johnston's only option was to follow his prime minister's advice and drop the writs. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * His firing of Harper, would've been constitutional, though it would've caused quite an uproar. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't've been constitutional at all. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:26, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? GoodDay (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's unconstitutional. How is that unclear? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dismissing the Prime Minister is one of the monarch's reserve powers. As the monarch's representative, the Governor General has those reserve powers at his disposal. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's one of many parts of the Royal Prerogative, yes. But, constitutional convention dictates that the governor general can't exercise any of those powers without ministerial advice, except only in the most specific and rare of circumstances. None of those existed last week. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the conventional stuff. I'm just saying, Johnston could've dimissed Harper, if he wanted to. Oh well, it didn't happen so it's a moot point. PS: Shouldn't you be arguing the Governor General can, with me arguing the GG can't? GoodDay (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He could also have shot Harper in the head; doesn't make it legal just because he's the governor general. And no, I wouldn't argue that the governor general can dismiss the prime minister whenever he wishes; I'm happy with Canada being a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  04:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnston had other options. But, its moot now. GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid not, GoodDay; he had no option but to follow his prime minister's advice. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of that, TBH. But again, Johnston didn't do it, so it's a moot point. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you point out what counter claim it is that causes you to doubt what I say? I mean, if I'm wrong, then there are Wikipedia articles that need correcting. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If Ignatieff, Layton & Duceppe had asked Johnston to appoint a Liberal-led coalition government. Johnston could've dimissed Harper & appointed Ignatieff PM. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The governor general takes advice from the prime minister, not the leader of the opposition. Had there been an election only a couple of weeks prior, then Johnston might've considered turning to Ignatieff to see if he could form a government; but, it's been over two years since Canadians last went to the polls, meaning the Governor General had no reason not to follow his prime minister's direction. Again, if you've some source that states otherwise, I'd be highly intrigued to see it. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  05:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's never been done in Canada (unlike in Australia), so there's no sources to be found. GoodDay (talk) 06:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you not remember the conversation we had about 1926 over at List of Prime Ministers of Canada? 117Avenue (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No. GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * King asked the GG to dissolve parliament, and he gave power to the other side, an election wasn't held for another three months. 117Avenue (talk) 06:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In otherwords, the Governor General did not follow the Prime Minister's advice. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct, but you were wrong about it never been done in Canada. 117Avenue (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A GG has never dismissed a PM in Canada, though. In 1926, King 'resigned' when Byng refused to dissolve parliament & call an election. GoodDay (talk) 06:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand. 117Avenue (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's never happened for a reason. (And the circumstances surrounding the moment when it happened in Australia are nothing like what transpired in parliament over the last week.) If you've no source for your claim, then it's likely incorrect. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The GG could have denied Harper's request and asked Ignatieff, as the leader of the second party, if he could form a government, yes. But it would have definitely created a crisis, as in practical terms, the only thing the Queen has to do with Canada is her face is plastered on our money.  For the GG to take such an action would put England's Queen above Canada's Prime Minister.  Technically valid, but not how the Commonwealth has operated in over eight decades.  The last GG wouldn't go against Harper when he prorogued Parliament to halt a coalition that claimed to be ready to govern.  It was even less likely to happen this time when the opposition parties weren't even talking about it. Resolute 14:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnston could have dimissed Harper & appointed Ignatieff, yes. PS: "England's Queen"? GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Johnston could not have refused Harper's advice, but not for the reasons Resolute gives. The governor general is not a useless figurehead; he exercises the Queen (of Canada)'s Royal Prerogative on an almost daily basis. That is typically done on the advice of the prime minister, but, in certain extreme circumstances, it can be done without or against ministerial direction. Harper's meeting with Governor General Jean in December 2008 took place in highly unusual circumstances: only weeks after an election, the Loyal Opposition had not only announced before doing so that they were going to vote non-confidence in the Cabinet, but also that they were willing to form a coalition the Governor General could consider. In that case, Jean did not necessarily have to follow her prime minister's advice; because she did doesn't mean she had to, and she did so with conditions. Last week, however, there was no extreme circumstance; it was a pretty routine non-confidence vote that came more than two years following an election and after which the prime minister unsurprisingly advised the viceroy to dissolve parliament and drop the writs. Even when one looks to 1926, the situations aren't the same: then, Meighen's Conservatives held more seats than King's Liberals, whereas today Ignatieff's Liberals hold less seats than Harper's Conservatives. Had Johnston called on Ignatieff on Saturday to form a government, he would have ignited a constitutional crisis by refusing his prime minister's advice for no good reason. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Conservative minority government was defeated on a non-confidence vote, on the issue of 'contempt of Parliament'. Thus Johnston could've replaced Harper with Ignatieff. Had the government been defeated over the budget? Johnston would've had no good reason for appointing Ignatieff. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So you keep saying. I'm still waiting, though, for the source on which you're basing this claim. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  17:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've no source for something Johnston didn't do. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hence, I'm not asking for that. Where's the source that supports what you say Johnston could have done? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  18:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have one. Where's the source that supports what you say Johnston couldn't have done? GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly certain that Mies is wrong. If Iggy, Jack, and Gilles had given the GG an indication that they would like to attempt to form a Grit-NDP government with a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Bloc, they would very likely have been given the chance. Instead, all three opposition parties made clear they want an election. I think that is the answer to Peter's question. -Rrius (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eugene Forsey:
 * "If a cabinet is defeated in the House of Commons on a motion of censure or want of confidence, the cabinet must either resign (the Governor General will then ask the leader of the Opposition to form a new cabinet) or ask for a dissolution of Parliament and a fresh election.
 * "In very exceptional circumstances, the Governor General could refuse a request for a fresh election. For instance, if an election gave no party a clear majority and the prime minister asked for a fresh election without even allowing the new Parliament to meet, the Governor General would have to say no.... Also, if a minority government is defeated on a motion of want of confidence very early in the first session of a new Parliament, and there is a reasonable possibility that a government of another party can be formed and get the support of the House of Commons, then the Governor General could refuse the request for a fresh election. The same is true for the lieutenant-governors of the provinces."
 * Harper advised a dissolution and an election and, last week, we were both well away from the early weeks of the first session of parliament and lacked any indication from the opposition that the majority of the House was willing to put its confidence behind Ignatieff. Johnston had no way to justify a refusal of Harper's direction and a call on Ignatieff to form a government, instead.
 * @ Rrius: The governor general must follow the prime minister's advice, not that of the leaders of the opposition, except only for the most unusual of circumstances. I've yet to hear anyone explain how the circumstances on Friday were in any way out of the ordinary. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The government was defeated on a non-confidence vote based on the government's Contempt of Parliament. This was the first time in Canada (indeed the commonwealth realms), that a government was defeated on those grounds. That part was quite 'out of the ordinary'. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is: was that out of the ordinary factor any of the Govenror General's concern? And the answer is: no. Under the rules of responsible government, all that matters in the formation of a ministry is with whom the House puts its confidence; the contempt of parliament finding didn't say anything definitive about confidnce, only the confidence vote did, and a confidnce vote, in and of itself, is nothing unusual. What you're saying Johnston could have done on Saturday goes against long-established constitutional conventions; not since 1834 has a consitutional monarch (or a representative thereof) tried to impose a prime minister on parliament. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll let others respond, as we're going in circles. PS: I still think it's a non-issue, since Johnston didn't dimiss Harper & appoint Ignatieff. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the difference Miesianical is that you are arguing the reality of what did happen while Good Day, and to a lesser extent myself, are arguing a hypothetical. The reality is that there is no unified opposition, so refusing the dissolve Parliament in favour of a Liberal led coalition was not an option, this is true.   However, my understanding is that the Liberal-NDP coalition agreement is still in place until June of this year (read on a message board, so take with grain of salt), so hypothetically, Johnston could have initially refused Harper's advice and gone to Ignatieff to see if he could govern before making the decision.  But, I personally maintain that he would be unlikely to do so at this point for the reasons I articulated above.  Canada is not governed from London, and it is London that the GG represents (and yes, I am aware that is a half-truth). If it was only a few weeks after an election, as in 2008, then Johnston would have had to weigh two deeply controversial options, which would certainly muddy the waters. Resolute 20:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we're all arguing about the same "what if" scenario: Johnston on Saturday refused Harper's advice to call an election and instead asked Ignatieff if he could command the confidence of the House of Commons and form a government. GoodDay and you (to a lesser degree) seem to think it was a plausible option that Johnston could have pursued; I'm saying it was never a choice he could have picked without causing a constitutional crisis. Even if the opposition had put forward Ignatieff as a new prime minister, Johnston is still bound by the tenets of responsible government to follow the advice of his prime minister in matters of government. Only in the most unusual and specific of circumstances can he operate independently of ministerial guidance, and none of those circumstances existed on Friday; there was no issue of too many elections in too short a time and the advice Harper gave was not unconstitutional or irregular. You're right that, had this been a repeat of December 2008, Johnston would’ve had some difficult choices to make. But, as it transpired, it was all quite routine. It would’ve gone against 170 years of convention for the Governor General to have done anything other than what he did.
 * And, though it isn't directly related to what we're talking about, the governor general represents the Queen personally, as Queen of Canada, not the British government, in any way whatsoever, let alone by half. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  22:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with you entirely - except that this scenario was plausable, just so unlikely as to seem impossible. And yes, I agree that the GG going against the PM would cause a constitutional crisis, but precisely because the Queen is considered to be of the United Kingdom, not Canada.  Whatever the traditions of the office, Monarchy and Canadian colonial history, if the GG acts independently of the PM, he is putting London above Ottawa, which would be the surest path to considerable controversy. Resolute 00:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose we do agree, in a way. But, what prevents the hypothetical scenario from ever taking place isn't malformed perceptions about foreign intervention; Canada isn't a Westminster style parliamentary democracy with a head of state rendered so functionless as to almost be completely absent from the system because he or she is too scared by any misconceptions of Canada-UK relations. Canada is a sovereign kingdom in its own right, a constitutional monarchy structured essentially just like any other, wherein the monarch - and her representative - have a key role and real powers they may exercise, though also conventions and laws that bind them to only exercise those powers in a certain way or under certain circumstances. The governor general is thus completely within his rights to say no to the prime minister or say yes with restrictions, if the situation calls for it; Jean, faced with an unprecedented occurence, allowed the prorogation in 2008 on condition that the break be short and a passable budget be presented when parliament reconvened; nobody complained about intervention from London. Johnston, however, could not have refused the Prime Minister's request, at least not without causing a constitutional crisis, purely because establised constitutional conventions said so. If he did otherwise, it would have been illegal, plain and simple. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * What if Johnson requests Ignatieff to form a coalition or a minority government, until it is proven to be unsuccessful and therefore he proceeds to dissolve the parliament? Peter Geatings (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * GG's seem to usually follow precedent and only have discretion, in practice, in situations that are truly unprecedented (and hence increasingly rare). When a long standing minority government falls, it is customary to have an election, not to invite anyone else to form a government.  In the immediate aftermath of an election, there is a bit more discretion to invite someone else to form a government, if it is clear that the largest (minority) party does not enjoy the confidence of the House but someone else does.  Had Johnston acted on his own when all four parties clearly expected an election, it would have created a major constitutional crisis.  After the upcoming election, and assuming there is again a minority parliament, it is always possible a scenario could arise requiring Johnston to exercise some discretion in terms of whom to ask to form the government.Dash77 (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Is a resident monarch, governor-general or governor obliged to follow the advice of an outgoing prime minister or premier not to approach the opposition (or somebody else from within the ruling party/coalition)? This isn't a question only for Canada, but also for Canadian provinces and all other Westminster countries and provinces (or states). It happened in 1975 in Australia, and in 1963 in the UK, not to mention the King-Byng Affairs. Peter Geatings (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The GG is not (from a legal standpoint) absolutely required to follow the advice of the PM, but based on precedent this would be an extremely rare event. Mainly it comes down to whether or not the Opposition would be able to form a viable government.  The GG wouldn't go to the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is he/she didn't have the sufficient support of Parliament to form a viable government, lest the (new) government risk fall on short notice agaain. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Summary table
Thinking that this should include a column for popular vote, as this would be a good way to illustrate the quirks of first-past-the-post, i.e. the final electoral results in terms of seats don't directly correlate to the %age of the vote earned (not to mention the distortive effect of the Bloc being a regional party). Thoughts? -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It will. But with not vote yet, there isn't any point in creating those columns as it just makes things look messy.  Have a look at Template:Canadian federal election, 2008 for what the summary will eventually look like after the vote has been tabulated.  Ravendrop 03:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's cool. I was just mentioning it, seeing as how the 2008 seats column was already in.  No big deal if the final will have it. Thanks. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Issues: Health Care
Should this be included in the issues section? Health care is within provincial jurisdiction, and the only federal involvement is to ensure coverage respects the Canada Health Act and to provide transfer payments to the provinces. Mind matrix  13:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The very fact that it's the Canada Health Act should answer your question. Healthcare will always be an issue, Voters don't tend to care about the subtleties of Federal vs. Provincial distribution of power. And the NDP will make it an issue whether we want them to or not. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Current events - Green Party debate
Green party shut out of 2011 debate. Is there a way to add this current event in the news to this article "Leader's debate" section in a neutral point of view? It should probably be added to the Elizabeth May article as well. Perhaps a nod to the section on the Green Party of Canada article would be wonderful in the leader's debate section.

For an example, a very short list of references are:

The 2011 Vote of non-confidence was added to the Stephen Harper article, so likewise, I believe the debate issue for the Green Party of Canada and Elizabeth May should be added to the section entitled Leaders debate, a part of  this article (IMHO)

Kind regards SriMesh | talk  20:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This belongs at the bottom of the talkpage. PS: Perhaps her participation (or lack thereof) in the leadership debate, can help decide as to whether she belongs in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I cant see adding her as meaningful what actually is the difference between her and the cristian heritage party (or any other party with no seats)? As i see it in the last election the greens had a seat last election participated in the debate were in the infobox, this time- no seats held going in, no debate, they shouldnt be in the infobox. Just my opinion. 94.175.88.108 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

SriMesh: it's already in the Leader's Debates section, although the additional refs you provide would be useful. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks for all the feedback. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk  22:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

New Democrat vs. New Democrats vs. New Democratic
I have opened a discussion at WT:CANADA, to decide what the New Democrats should be called in the infobox and summary table. 117Avenue (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox portraits
I've reverted my changes to Layton's picture, Wikimedia seems to be glitching. A question I would like answered when File:Jack Layton Surrey BC 2011 election.png does become available on Wikipedia, is do we prefer the most current portrait for the infobox, or a coloured picture? 117Avenue (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming 'colored' is preferred. GoodDay (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * B&W vs. colour, I have no preferrence as long as it's a clear representation of whomever we're referring to. Just wondering why you're not using the photo in the main Jack Layton article? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ec. Because I think that the picture taken closest to the election should be used, that one is from 2006. 117Avenue (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern is that Layton's picture is the only one in B&W, so it makes him stand out, one way or the other. —C.Fred (talk) 03:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Swing Ridings?
Would it be fair to add Simcoe-Grey to the Swing Ridings table? It doesn't really fit in with the criteria at the top, but (depending who you talk to) it is likely to change hands Ind->Cons, or it'll be a race between Ind/Cons (or some people even think there is a vote splitting possibility)? I'll try some good sources, but I thought I'd bring it up in here first... Priester (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not infavour of the 'swing ridings' discriptive. In theory, all 308 ridings have the potential of switching. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be more efficient to display all the information possible regarding the MPs, with their party affiliation as the background, and footnotes and/or small font to denote cabinet status/retirement. See below for example: --Natural R <font color="#000000">X 16:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

HI EVERYONE! Sorry to be obnoxious, but could I please get some feedback on this please? --<font color="#000000">Natural <font color="#228b22">R <font color="#000000">X 03:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not a fan. I like the current table.  This one seems to be too messy.  The candidates for these ridings are listed on the riding page, which is wikilinked.  Ravendrop 03:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Conservative vs. Tory, and Liberal vs. Grit
I noticed a couple of edits today involving these terms. I'm pretty sure WP:MOS has something to say about using colloqualisms like Tory and Grit, especially if they may not be well known outside of a narrow audience (e.g. unless you're a Canuck, you probably won't know what a "Grit" is, and even then ....). So are we going to allow it? If we are, then at least we should define it somewhere on the page. Thoughts? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but if these terms are going to be thrown in there, they do need to be explained, for those who don't know. 117Avenue (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So far, outside of the newspaper headlines, I can see three instances of Tory/Tories and two of Grit. Perhaps if just wikify them? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Date Format
Why are we using [Month Date, Year] format like a bunch of Americans? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it's what most Canadians use, what most Canadian Wikipedia articles use, and what previous Canadian federal election articles use. But I feel for you, historically Canadians used DMY, and I think that all articles primarily related to pre-1946 Canada should use DMY. (I use the end of WWII as the earliest date where this line should be drawn, it probably happened some time after.) 117Avenue (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because everyone perpetuates the same mistake, doesn't mean we have to continue perpetuating it. Gotta love Canadians, can't make up their frickin' minds. Date format by country FYI - when I was in the Forces, we always used [Date Month Year], although I believe they now prefer [Year Month Date] format -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For me, the current format is the correct, and moving to a British style would, in fact, be perpetuating a mistake. Resolute 22:39, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * American conventions for spelling (e.g. "er" vs. "re") and conventions like date format here were all post-Revolutionary War inventions deliberately used to distinguish them from the British. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 22:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok? We mix American and British usages in just about everything, especially language.  I'm not going to say something is bad just because its origin is American.  The MDY format is the most common in English Canada, and the one our sources use.  The article should reflect that.  Also, such usage easily predates WWII.  i.e.: Calgary Herald from March 8, 1924. Resolute 22:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. 117Avenue (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It really is. :) This is mostly off topic, but the Montreal Gazette, for instance, used MDY to announce the publication date, but DMY for its notices back in 1827 but was primarily MDY by 1878. The Calgary Herald was MDY back in 1888 (and described the city as being "Calgary, Alta, NWT", which I thought was interesting), and the Ottawa Citizen was MDY back in 1820. Resolute 05:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Calgary has actually been in Alberta since 1882. 05:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Jake, but as to date formats, that's not right. DMY and MDY were both used in America and England going way back. When things began to be more standardised, they went in different directions (though Americans using DMY and Brits using MDY can be found from then to the present day). You are right about "-re" v. "-er" (and "-our" v. "-or"), but even some of the spelling differences go back to when spellings standarised in the 19th century. As for you earlier comment about the Forces, even the US military generally uses DMY (as well as 24-hour time notation and more metric units than civilians use). In any event, I believe MOS says (or at least used to say; I can never keep up) that for Canadian articles we are to use whichever is used first and stick with it. Here that would seem to be MDY. -Rrius (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Depends on how it is written for me. If its in words, Month Date Year is right. If it is in numbers ie 30/03/2011 then it should be Date Month Year. Maybe its just me but we were always taught in school for numbers it should be smallest interval to biggest interval but for words it should be Month Day Year. -DJSasso (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? That seems calculated to create confusion. I love Canada, but that supports Jake's contention about Canadians not making up their minds. -Rrius (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't be out of character, we weigh and measure products by metric. But then we weigh and measure ourselves by feet and inches and pounds. Just like Canadian English is a mix of some things done in American English and some things done in Commonwealth English. We are a country that rides a line. -DJSasso (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but at least it is obvious which unit you are using when you the one thing or the other. (Incidentally, don't Brits use customary for weighing themselves, too?) For slash-dates, anytime the day is less than 13, confusion is possible; it's actually likely for any non-Canadian (or perhaps even Canadian who wasn't taught as you were) who sees the slash-date in the same document as date that was written out. -Rrius (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Predictions
I would like to include a predictions section, like that found at United States House of Representatives elections, 2010. Possible prediction sources can include electionprediction.org, democraticspace and the threehundredeight blog. Others would be good too. Anyone opposed to this? -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kinda is along the lines of WP:SPS, for blog references so might not be appropriate and seems a bit crystalballish. I am not fully opposed though with some mainstream sites that share predictions by credible sources. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they aren't some run of the mill blogs, they are some pretty good sources of information. But anyways, the chart would look something like this:

-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * With all the different ridings though would it not be more prudent to refer at this article to a new one where this table would be placed? Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe. The US House election has it on the main page, and we wouldn't be including all the ridings, just ones that any of the three (or more) sites think will be close (say within 5%) -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, well in that case, probably would compliment the text alot. I think electionprediction has some sort of academic papers backing it up somewhere, might help with some text stating how they determine each riding is close (methodology). Any other opinons out there? Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but it seems like it may be a little too WP:CRYSTAL for the page. Earl Andrew, what was the discussion like about a table like this on the United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 talk page? Bkissin (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears as though it was a sepatate page, but it was put up on AFD and it he result was to merge it into the main page. Those calling for its deletion did bring up WP:Crystal, but in the the content was kept. I know precedent means nothing on Wikipedia, but at least I can use it as my reasoning for wanting this included, whether or not it's a valid reason ;-) -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of this at all. This is suppose to be an encylopedia to recieve unbiased, educated information. I think that a list like this could persuade people to end up voting a certain way because a blogger has made up their own formula to predict ridings. I am a fan of these sites, especially Three Hundred Eight, but that fact is Eric at 308 does not know what is happening in every riding to be able to predict the outcome. He's using polling for all of Atlantic Canada to predict the results of one riding in Newfoundland and Labrador. Knowing a lot about politics in Newfoundland and Labrador and talking to people involved in these riding I know for a fact that several of the predictions at 308 are totally incorrect. I just don't think this is a good idea at all. Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't have to live in Newfoundland to know that his predictions there are way off there, and the predictions of the other two show that. He will probably change those predictions. Or perhaps we can leave 308 out? -- Earl Andrew - talk 12:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Newfoundlander&Labradorian, we probably shouldn't have this whole table in the article. I could, however, support a smaller table with the prediction sites in the far left column and each of their predictions shown. We could include a link to the sites for anyone who wants a riding-by-riding breakdown. I think that guesses from commentators is kind of notable.  —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The blogs could be 'Futher readings'. Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not too certain about having this added to the article before the federal election results. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly oppose adding any predictions what so ever on Wikipedia. --33rogers (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * How widely are these pre-election polls disseminated in the Canadian press? If many news agencies run stories with these sort of projected results, then it's reasonable to include them in the Wikipedia article—so long as it's established polling agencies with established methodologies that are being used for the projections. Also, a better title than "Predictions" would be helpful; "Projections" may work better, since predictions will raise huge red flags to the casual Wikipedia editor. —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Green Party Should not be in the Info box
I have removed Elizabeth May and the Green Party from the Info Box, this is because the Green Party has not won any seats in the house of commons and has a very low percentage of the Canadian popular vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.71.174 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Include: I think the Greens should be included: some polls for this election show their vote exceeding the Bloc Qubecois, they won 6.78% of the popular vote in 2008, which ranks them close tot he BQ's 9.98%, in the last election they were treated as a "major party" by the media, a their leader was included in leaders' debates. Ground Zero | t 10:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove: I do not expect that majority consensus will actually allow the Greens to be removed from their spotlight but the so-called 'major parties' should be restricted to those parties expected to win seats. Yes national polls put them close to the Bloc but considering that the Bloc does not run outside Quebec it is rather skewed. I also strongly disagree with the constant reordering of the "minor parties" section with the Greens being listed on top of an alphabetical list of the others. Either they are listed with the major parties (with which I do not agree), or they are treated as any other minor party with no representation. HalifaxRage (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Include: They're polling reasonably close to the Bloc and NDP, and the media seems to consider them a third party (as opposed to a fringe party). Furthermore, in the 2008 election, their vote total was far closer to the totals of the seat winning parties than those of the other parties which did not win seats, and they got a greater share of the popular vote than the Social Credit Party did in the 1979, 1974 or 1968 elections. If they don't win any seats, we can remove them from the infobox after the election. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove: I think if you put the greens in there, you have to put other parties that are registered fully in canada, which i think it crowds the info box. It would be more concise for parties only with members at this point to be in this box. Seems a lil crystal balling to me (just my thoghts) For now, unless more media attention and hardcore sourcing develops (which i havent seen much substantial at this point) i think its pre mature. But Im not sold on the idea of fully removing. Id just like more media attention to develop prior. You never know what will happen in politics Ottawa4ever (talk) 02:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Include:Nearly a million Canadians voted for them in the last election. This is what legitimizes them as the only other mainstream party whereas the other small parties received significantly less in the voting department. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Krazytea</b> ( talk ) 19:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Include: I'd personally say that a fair cut-off for the infobox would be 5% the popular vote. MattFromOntario (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Include: these guys are sufficiently notable that their exclusion from the Debates is causing some controversy. -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Include: Running in an election requires some consideration of the party involced and applications and payment of fees.  In Canada, we are a democracy, the Green Party requests a voice in the election and have done the request legally and fairly, and they should not be excluded.  Kind Regards SriMesh |  talk  20:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion request
In response to a third opinion request, I would recommend including the Green Party in the infobox in line with the equal focus on the 5 main parties throughout the rest of the article, such as in statistic tables. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Greens should not be included because there party has no representation in the House of Commons. If you include them in the infobox you should include all the other parties and their leaders not represented or elected in the House of Commons. 22:46, 10 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qaqwewew (talk • contribs)

Yes the argument was presented and read, but that is my opinion. Welshleprechaun (talk) 08:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If the Green Party is included I see no reason not to include other parties, so I might go ahead and add the Newfoundland and Labrador First Party--Jordo72 (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The polls show that they could win seats, and May was included in the leader debate last time, its likely she will be in the next one too. 117Avenue (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If their were polls taken for Newfoundland and Labrador they might show that the NLFP would win seats to and she won't be apart of a leaders debate.--Jordo72 (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The Green Party has had an MP in the House of Commons - Blair Wilson (switched, previously independent). He was preempted from formally sitting as a Green by the 2008 election. So the Greens have had representation in the House of Commons, unlike the other smaller parties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.161 (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, they have not, at least not formally. As a supporter of a strong democratic process whereby we have elected Members of Parliament who were elected based on their personal efforts and also based on their affiliation with a party platform, we cannot accept that a floor crosser represents the will of the majority of his constituents. Many people vote on party lines, not just for the individual. I therefore believe that it should become mandatory for parliamentarians who cross the floor to sit as independents until the next election or byelection. And this coming from someone who might vote Green this time - however regardless of what we believe it is very important that we take the high road and do not misconstrue the facts. The Greens have yet to elect an MP. Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. I vote to include. I vote to include all registered parties in the infobox that either have elected MPs, or that have candidates running in three or more provinces or in more than half of the ridings. It is the only fair way to do it. Show Canadians all their choices, not just the ones the big corporations, the media, and the largest unions want to show them.Garth of the Forest (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Remove Green Party from Infobox
I know it was discussed in the past, but I think we should discuss whether or not to remove the Green party from the infobox. The party has never won a seat and is very unlikely to do so in this election. I would welcome other opinions on the issue. Eiad77 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I knew this conversation would come back... See above conversation to bring yourself up to speed.
 * Let's leave them in until the election finishes. When they don't win any seats, we'll get rid of them. Good Compromise?
 * Bkissin (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's good. 117Avenue (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks but I am already "up to speed". My comment clearly indicates that I read the comment above.  Those comments were made two years ago and no consensus was reached. Eiad77 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But why have them at all? It seems to cause a bit of a bias against the other completely irrelevant parties, I think we should only have the parties which have won seats in the infobox, if the Greens win a seat then they can be added to the infobox after the election. Not that I expect my opinion to change anything of course, but I think it is a bit unfair to the other parties without seats taking part in this election. Hawjam (talk) 03:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)hawjam
 * The Greens are included in the opinion polls, which is a tertiary source to establish the notability of the party, and the possibility that they may get a riding. 117Avenue (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't we have a vote? It's the early part of the campaign so I think one week to tally votes would be fair. Eiad77 (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hawjam, in principle, I agree with you that the infobox should only have parties with representation. However, this has been a very divisive issue (and still is, as shown here). Consensus was not reached in this issue, but a third opinion from an impartial observer gave us a basic decision on the issue. My suggestion is that we keep them for now, and then when they do not win any seats on May 2, we remove them from the infobox.
 * If you guys are really interested in creating a policy on this for other Canadian election articles, then we can discuss it further at the Canadian Political Parties WikiProject, where I have started a discussion on the issue.
 * Bkissin (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy, so a vote is irrelevant. In as much as I personally view the Greens as being a fringe party, they do have enough support that they are included in polls, talked about by the media and were included in the debates in 2008.  Even though they won't elect anyone, they certainly have the coverage necessary to be relevant. Resolute 19:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess it all depends on the standard against which we are evaluating relevance. If having won representation or being likely to win representation is the only measure, then they would be excluded. If you look at their popular support, about one in ten Canadians is saying they will vote Green, which is more than the Bloc. This is an indication that Wikipedia readers are likely to be interested in finding information about the Green Party easily. That should be the relevant issue here. Ground Zero | t 20:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * CBC news includes the Green Party in their election coverage. Even their graphics include the Greens. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Greens got a million votes last election. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Further comments

 * I say include them. Having a sitting MP is not the only measure for inclusion. The nearly 7% at the last election seems enough to me. What's more, May and the Greens are receiving sufficient attention in the media that at least for the campaign, they should be included. It is always possible to re-evaluate whether they deserve to be there after the election. -Rrius (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove: This is ridiculous. We really shouldn't include the Greens in the infobox. They've never been in serious contention for a major stake in parliament, and they're not in serious contention now. They have never won a single seat in the history of their party. Heck, they've never even won 10% of the popular vote. They're barely more than a footnote in Canadian election history. I mean, seriously: The Rhinoceros Party has a longer and more interesting history than the Greens do, and nobody's seriously considering that we put the Rhinoceros Party in the infobox, are we!? Stick to the Big Four parties and leave it at that.Allthenamesarealreadytaken (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Include. Their inclusion in the leadership debates during the last election cycle shows that, in the perception of the Canadian media at least, the Greens are a major party. As I see it, there are the four major parties, the Greens, and a lot of little parties. Nobody is disputing that the Tories, Grits, Bloc and NDP should be in the infobox. There's no feasible way to include any of the parties below the Greens in popularity in the infobox, nor should they be. The Greens sit in that bubble position, and evidence from reliable sources should be the indicator of what to do with them. Based on polling results and the aforementioned debate inclusion, I say to list them in the infobox. —C.Fred (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Seats Needed" For Bloc
It seems strange to have "108 seats needed for a majority" under the Bloc Quebecois, given that they aren't even running outside of Quebec. Perhaps it should be replaced by a N/A with an asterisk. (Smallvillefanatic (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC))
 * IMO, that should just be removed from all five parties entirely. There is absolutely no context for people who don't understand what message that line is intending to convey.  But also, nobody has any seats right now, so every party running needs 155 to form a majority.  Resolute 03:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it should be kept, the BQ need 108 seats for a majority, whether or not they run in enough ridings, they would need 108 seats for a majority. 117Avenue (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it can't be amended to explain what it means to a non-Canadian, it should be removed from the box. --Padraic 20:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean non-Canadian? Doesn't everyone know that the purpose of any election anywhere is to win the most? 117Avenue (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm Canadian and am baffled by the statement that the BQ needs 108 seats for a majority. Please explain. There are 308 seats in parliament. Using simple math, the only way to form a majority government is to win 155 or more of them. What am I missing? Also, to comment on your statement about the purpose of any election, it is incorrect to assume that more is better. The purpose of an election is to form a government using the democratic process. One objective I might have as a leader (or member) of a political party might be to have my party win a majority of the seats. But how boring it would be to win all 308 seats! Hardly a worthy goal for any fan of the democratic process, and only a likely outcome in a totalitarian state. Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 155-47=108 With 47 seats, the BQ need an additional 108 seats to form a majority government. 117Avenue (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. It's out of context and fairly unimportant. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unimportant? The Conservatives need 12 seats to make a majority, and a properly functioning parliament. 117Avenue (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Resolute. The Seats needed, should be deleted from all 5 parties. In its place, we can show the following: 155 seats is required for a majority. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why have the reader do the math, when the infobox provides a parameter? 117Avenue (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A little math work never hurt anyone. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For those are still interested, a discussion has begun at Template talk:Infobox election, to provide a parameter to display the seats needed for a majority. 117Avenue (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll check it out. Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It's misleading, it implies the possibility that it could actually happen. You could argue that it's not going to happen for the Greens either (I'm working from the assumption that the Greens will be running a full slate), but here's the important difference: for the Greens, it's highly improbable, but still mathematically possible, whereas for the Bloc, it is a mathematical impossibility, and that is a fact. And while this situation isn't strictly speaking an application of WP:Crystal it's close enough. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that it is slightly misleading to say 155 seats is needed for a majority. 155 seats will guarantee a majority but a majority in the Commons is possible with 154.  One of those 308 MPs will be elected Speaker, so only 307 actually sit in the aisles and the government has more seats than the opposition, a majority, with 154. --JGGardiner (talk) 08:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Although by convention, doesn't the speaker usually come from the governing party (at least when the governing party has a majority)? So that party would actually wind up with 153/307 in the scenario you posit -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 13:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To avoid original research, the number displayed should be the one used in the media, which I believe is 155. 117Avenue (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that WP:OR has an exception for pure math, but fair enough. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it does (WP:CALC), but you weren't arguing a simple calculation, you were arguing the definition of a majority. 117Avenue (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think like most things, WP:OR needs to be applied with a bit of common sense. "Is the sky blue?  I dunno, do we have a reliable source"? -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Apparently the colour of the moonlit sky needs a source. 117Avenue (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Someday, wikipedia is going to implode from the pressure of its anal sphincter - Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And for the record, I do agree 155 is the right number. I also don't think we should be including "seats needed" for the Bloc -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But right now we say that "155 seats are needed for a majority". That's the same as saying 154 seats is insufficient for a majority.  Since that isn't literally true, isn't that an NPOV problem?  I'd be tempted to call it a WEIGHT problem but since it isn't sourced, I can't. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Majority means more than half right? So saying "154 seats is insufficient for a majority" is correct. 117Avenue (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't that original research? ;)
 * "To avoid original research, the number displayed should be the one used in the media, which I believe is 155."(117Avenue) - Do we have a citation for that? :p
 * But yes, 155 is correct - by convention, when the government has a majority of seats in the House, the Speaker comes from that party - so hypothetically, if the winning party does come up with 155 of 308, then once the speaker is subtracted from the mix, they would have 154 of 307, which is unquestionably a majority. Still OR, but I'm a believer in logic trumping rules -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Commonwealth of fifty-four states?
Just out of idle curiosity, why is Commonwealth of Nations piped to Commonwealth of fifty-four states? It's not a name I've ever heard anyone use. -Dhodges (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be removed, because there are more than 54 if all historical ones are to be included. 117Avenue (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds bizarre. Commonwealth is Commonwealth. -- Jake Fuersturm (talk)

French language debate
Apparently, it's been rescheduled for April 13th, as an NHL playoff game between the Canadiens & Bruins will be broadcasted on April 14th. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Quebec and HST
The current article states: Due to outcry from Quebec over the pledge to provide loan guarantees for the Lower Churchill project, the Conservatives promise Quebec a $2.2 billion transfer to ease the QST to HST transition. However, the referenced article does not at any point claim this as the reason. Therefore, I object to the statement.

The article states: It’s a major election goodie for Quebeckers, some of whom are smarting over the Tories’ Thursday promise to co-sign a multibillion-dollar loan for a Newfoundland and Labrador hydroelectric project – a pledge roundly condemned Friday by Quebec Premier Jean Charest as a threat to the province's electricity market. This might imply a cause and effect, but it stops short of claiming it. The hydroelectric project is consistently portrayed only as the background for the announcement not as the cause. Since the source article avoids making that strong of a claim, we should as well. WinstonEwert (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * So, how about: "In a major election goodie for Quebeckers, some of whom are smarting over their promise to co-sign a multibillion-dollar loan for a Newfoundland and Labrador hydroelectric project, the Conservatives promise Quebec a $2.2 billion transfer to ease the QST to HST transition." -- Jake Fuersturm (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That quote defines a time connection between the complaints and the HST. It does not mean causation. Certainly, there is no statement from the Conservatives that this was the reason behind the move. The word from the Conservatives in the article was that talks about HST had been ongoing with Quebec before the election and had been stopped by the election. i.e. This suggests that the Conservatives would claim that this move was already in progress before the Quebeckers complained. It seems to me that attributing a motivation behind the actions is POV unless we have at least a Conservative statement that it was the motivation. Additionally, it appears to be the only point in the entire article which attributes motivation to something. It just seems out of place. WinstonEwert (talk) 04:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's probably a fair point (i.e. about motivation). So, how would you re-write it, keeping in mind that the entire section probably needs a good re-write?


 * Since none of the other bullet points provide context, I think the immediate solution is to just remove the first part of the sentence. Probably, the whole section should be broken down in a series of paragraphs on each issue, (crime/quebec/etc) where the statements by all parties could be stated. Then we could present the context of Quebec HST without stating more then we have justification for. 24.155.28.231 (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Bias in "Issues"?
There seems to be some political lean on the "Issues" section of this article. I appreciate a defined list of the issues defining this election, but it seems POV to include only the NDP's plans to resolve the issues. Shouldn't that be moved to party platforms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.37.244.10 (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I am going to make a new section on the Economy (Deficit, Recession, Balanced Budgets etc.) under the Issues section soon. Hopefully that will make it more NPOV.


 * Also you can see the party's platforms on their respective sites, and add it in your own words with references to third party sources (news organizations). It's good to contribute to Wikipedia.

--33rogers (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Candidates count
According to Elections Canada, there are zero official candidates until after April 11. So you either need to put in an estimate of the expected number of candidates each party will run (and modify it later after the official list is published on April 13) or remove the column altogether until such time as the slate of candidates is official. Otherwise it is not NPOV. Garth of the Forest (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite. Elections Canada updates daily (and this is what the number in the candidates section reflects) the confirmed candidates who have sent in all their forms/money, etc. and have been confirmed.  Once confirmed by elections Canada and listed they are official.  April 11th is merely the deadline to submit applications, and April 13 will be the date when the final list with all confirmed candidates is published.  Ravendrop 23:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I added "Deadline April 11" to the chart so that the reader knows that these numbers are not final. I see nothing NPOV about reporting registered candidates. --Padraic 13:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not a Neutral Point Of View because to a layperson who might be new to the Canadian political process it implies the PCs typically run more candidates than the other parties. The numbers in that column are meaningless until after the official list is published on April 13. I went to the Elections Canada site to find out who my choices are for my riding and as of last night there were zero choices. See http://www.elections.ca/scripts/pss/finded.aspx?L=e, enter your postal code, and then look under Candidates to see what I mean. Garth of the Forest (talk) 03:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you click on the source, and look for your riding? I wonder if they are synced yet. 117Avenue (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. However, checking again now I see that I have one choice: Green Party candidate. Checking my old address, there is also now one choice there too: NDP. Still not official, or meaningful. I stick to my original point, the column is meaningless until April 13. While we are on the topic of NPOV, I also note a pro-PC bias in the order in which the parties are listed in this article: "Results of the Canadian federal election, 2011". Unless there was consensus reached on ranking the parties in order of which ones are most in contempt of parliament. ;-)Garth of the Forest (talk) 04:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Parties have always ordered the same way. Pre-election call it's seats held, then popular vote in the last election. Pre-election it's seats at dissolution, then number of candidates. Post-election it's seats won, then popular vote. 117Avenue (talk) 04:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have moved it to the note, because, after all, it is a note. 117Avenue (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the value in providing an incomplete count of the number candidates? This is just misleading, even with the disclaimer that the deadline is April 13. It's also misleading to have a section called “Summary of results”. There are no results yet! I am going to comment out that section including the table. When Elections Canada releases the complete list of candidates, it would be good to have a list of the number of candidates each party is running. But not until there is a complete list. And there should be no "results" section of this article until May 2. —Mathew5000 (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A change of title, sure. But I don't think that information of the seats in 2008 and dissolution should be removed, the table has been there well before the election call. 117Avenue (talk) 04:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Information about seats in 2008 and at dissolution belongs in the article 40th Canadian Parliament. It's also in the main infobox of the Canadian federal election, 2011 article, underneath the party leader's photos. That's enough; it doesn't need to be in a second table in the article. —Mathew5000 (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time understanding why an incomplete list of candidates is misleading or biased as you suggest. Its simply a list stating these are the numbers that have been confirmed, and this is the deadline.  It clearly states that the numbers may go up, and may change. There is nothing misleading or biased about this.  Additionally, the seats at dissolution is useful as a comparison for when the votes come in.  It is something every major news agency does (comparing the current vote to the past vote) and this is simply how we display that here.  Ravendrop 05:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You raise a few issues to which I will respond separately:
 * (I) I did not claim that listing the incomplete number of candidates is biased.
 * (II) You are wrong in stating that the article "clearly states that the numbers may go up, and may change". The article at present does not mention a "deadline", rather it says "Candidate totals are reflective of candidates registered with Elections Canada as of April 11; the list becomes official April 13, 2011." This is misleading in that it can be reasonably interpreted to mean that this is a complete but unofficial list, i.e. this list will be made official on April 13 subject only to, perhaps, some verification. If you are going to include those numbers, then it should be clearly stated what they are in the top row of the table. Right now it just says "Candidates1" when it ought to say "Number of official candidates as of two days before the registration deadline".
 * (III) Even if the table were clear on that point, I still would argue against the inclusion of an incomplete count of candidates because I don't see the value of it.
 * (IV) I agree with you that the number of seats at dissolution will be useful for comparison beginning the evening of May 2 when we have the results of this election.
 * (V) I don't object to including in this article each party's number of seats in 2008 and at dissolution. What I object to is including that information twice in this article. Those numbers are already at the top of the article under the photos of each leader. Why include it a second time?
 * —Mathew5000 (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that the deadline has passed, it is a complete, yet unofficial tally. 117Avenue (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just by looking at it you can tell that the list in the current version of the article is not complete, because the number for the Liberal Party is significantly less than 308. —Mathew5000 (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It hadn't been updated yet. 117Avenue (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Mail-in ballots - For people who do not wish to go to the Poll Booth
Is this the first time mail-in ballots have been offered to the general population, or has there been a relaxing in the requirements to get a mail-in ballot? If not, then the mail-in ballots barely need mentioned in the article, much less in the introduction.

If there has been a major change in the rules, what reliable sources are there about the change? Surely a major media outlet would have written a story about it by this point. —C.Fred (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well this is the first time that Elections Canada has made a special application for Mail in Ballot.


 * Does anyone object to keeping this one sentence in the lead (at least until April 26, 2011?)


 * Canadian citizens who do not wish to go to the poll booths can also apply to Elections Canada to mail in their ballot.


 * I for one did not know in the last election that you could mail in you ballot.


 * Also it could help with the lower turn out? As most people are too lazy to go outside their house to vote.


 * --33rogers (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing at the Elections Canada says it's a new process or a new application, though. And while EC is an authoritative source, it's not independent; coverage in a newspaper or by the CBC would be independent. —C.Fred (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

--33rogers (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * By Special Application, I meant a Java application.
 * All I am asking for is Ignore All Rules and keep that sentence until April 26th. Understanding_IAR
 * Oppose. There is no need for it to be in the introduction. If you can find an independent source, then I would have no problem with a sentence in the bdoy - but written in encyclopedic style, not like a public service announcement. --Padraic 12:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This CBC article http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/03/30/cv-web-voting.html details:

Can Canadians currently vote without going to a polling station?

Canadians can vote at their returning office before election day or by mail with a special ballot.

In order to do so, you must register with Elections Canada by April 26.

--33rogers (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The mail-in ballot has been available for many years to any elector residing in Canada who wishes to vote by mail; see section 231 of the Canada Elections Act. That much is not new. Not sure whether the Java on the Elections Canada web site is new, but it's totally insignificant. You cannot apply online for a mail-in ballot. All you can do with the Java applet is generate a pdf form which you then print out, sign, and return to Elections Canada by fax, mail, courier, or hand delivery. So this really is not worth mentioning in the article, in my opinion. Hope this clarifies. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Mail in Ballot this time has more significance. See even if you go to the Conservative website, there on the first main page it is saying: "Yes, you can vote today! Voting by Special Ballot is easy!" http://www.webcitation.org/5xrrOPuRP --33rogers (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't in Wikipedia's mandate to tell people how they can vote, so I am not buying IAR as a reason to keep such a statement in the lead. Lacking any real coverage, I would agree with removing it from the lead.  Even as a sentence in the article body, the ability to vote by mail in ballot is hardly notable. Resolute 18:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 33Rogers, you have not provided sufficient evidence in support of your opinion that "the mail in ballot this time has more significance". But even if you could show that the mail-in ballot is slightly more relevant to the 2011 election than it was in the prior election, that would not merit inclusion in the lead of the article. Mathew5000 (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Has U.S.-style 'voter suppression' made it to Canada's election? - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/has-us-style-voter-suppression-made-it-to-canadas-election/article1978944/ where it says: The Conservatives might be calculating that, even if the coalition bogeyman doesn’t win voters over to their side, the prospect might discourage some Liberal supporters from voting at all–a second-best result. and Their problem, however, is that the Conservative base of around one voter in three is far more committed to their party than the rest of the electorate is to any party. 
 * No wonder the Conservatives have put Mail in Ballot on the main page of their website. They are hoping to get all three supporters votes, this time.
 * --33rogers (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume that is a joke? The stuff about voting by mail does not belong in the lead so please stop reinserting it there. The pattern used in the lead of Canadian federal election, 2006 and Canadian federal election, 2008 should be followed in the lead of this article. Also have a look at the French version of this article, fr:Élection fédérale canadienne de 2011, whose lead is pretty good. Mathew5000 (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing Unreferenced section: Contentious ridings
I Removed Unreferenced section: Contentious ridings. See: Verifiability. Furthermore because they have resigned they are Contentious ridings is Original research No original research. Also Notability Notability has not been established. However this edit was reverted. And I was told to seek consensus on talk page here. --Obsolete.fax (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have brought this to the attention of the NOR Noticeboard because I have a feeling there might be a way to save the "contentious ridings" section without violating NOR. Mathew5000 (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Contentious ridings section has become too big, and conveys very little information for the average reader. As a way of compromise, and to preserve the content, I am moving it to a new article: Contentious ridings in the Canadian federal election, 2011. --Obsolete.fax (talk) 13:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

"Criminal" charges
Neither of the cited sources used the word "criminal". Skookum1, please provide a reliable source or allow me to remove the word "criminal". --Padraic 13:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I should also note that Skookum referred to "Criminal Code" offences in his reversion of my edit. The Canada Election Act is not part of the Criminal Code as they are separate statutes. I am therefore removing the word "criminal" - but if we can find a reliable source, of course, it can be returned. --Padraic 18:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Excess detail in lead
As it's User:33rogers who's been adding more and more detail to the lead, the onus is, per WP:BRD, on him to find a consensus in favour of his edits. Perhaps he could explain here why he feels subjects like contempt of parliament and Commonwealth history are so directly related to the topic of this article as to warrant a place in the lead. We can deal with the repeated insertion of grammatical errors later. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  03:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The introduction should summarize the article. I could see including a mention of the charge of contempt of parliament in the introduction, because it is the first time it's happened, but I'd leave the detail about it for the Background section of the article. Specifically, I'd add only the phrase "based on a charge of contempt of parliament" to the end of the last sentence of the intro.—C.Fred (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed the lead. Please let me know if it is okay. Also please see the Lead section in United States House of Representatives elections, 2010. More specifically: high unemployment (which averaged close to 10% for the year) caused by the Financial crisis of 2007–2010, the passage of the controversial Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act I would strongly object to removing contempt of parliament, as that is how we came into this election NOT the budget. The Conservative attack ads / propaganda is trying to portray it that the government fell because of the budget, which is not actually the case. I talked with my Dad, recently, who doesn't follow the news closely, and that's what he told me. He did not even know about the rest. --33rogers (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody should be reverting over such small issues. Contributors should be working together to "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" (WP:LEAD). There is "excess detail" but it is in the first paragraph ('advanced polls' in the section lead when it isn't important enough to mention in the body?). Btw, it wasn't the "charge" but the actual finding of contempt that triggered the election. maclean (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed the advanced polls from the lead. --33rogers (talk) 05:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The motion of non-confidence is the reason why an election was called, not the finding of contempt of parliament; they're separate matters. So far, there's been no real explanation as to why the contempt of parliament finding has to be mentioned, let alone the fact that it was the first in Commonwealth history, or, indeed, why any of it deserves a place in the lead! The lead currently has detail in it that is two and three times removed from the subject of the article. Even more confusing is why, in a lead that is supposed to summarise the article content, there's information that's not just more detailed than any other mention of the same matter farther on, it's the only mention of such minutiae in the article, altogether.
 * The lead should at least be trimmed by moving detail to where it belongs: in the article body. Unrelated information can then be either eliminated or pared down. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  16:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Miesianical, I'm not sure if you realize that the finding of contempt and the non-confidence motion are the same motion. The text of the motion passed by the House of Commons is as follows: “That the House agree with the finding of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the government is in contempt of Parliament, which is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history, and consequently, the House has lost confidence in the government.” Therefore, it is quite reasonable to have that information in the lead of the article as well as elsewhere in the article; it is not minutiae. Mathew5000 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good. However, a motion of non-confidence can be tabled for almost any reason. In this case, it was the finding of contempt of parliament. That may be relevant to other articles, but how closely is it related to this one? And, again: why is it so important as to deserve a place in the lead?
 * I know we don't need to follow what other articles do, but, for a bit of precedent, regard Canadian federal election, 2006, which makes no mention of even the motion of non-confidence that preceded that election, let alone what that motion was based on. Canadian federal election, 1980 is somewhat less sound as a guide, given that it doesn't conform to the Manual of Style, but it does only mention the motion of non-confidence in the first paragraphs, not, again, the catalyst for it. That type of stuff is minutiae in the lead of an article about an election; it's being given undue weight on this page. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  02:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The consensus here is to keep this important facts in the Lead because it is relevant. --33rogers (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, there is no consensus. In fact, we're still awaiting the answer to my questions. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are just repeating the same stuff over and over again. And on top of it you removed well referenced sentence "Elections Canada laid charges against the Conservative party for breaking the Canada Elections Act. --33rogers (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If I'm repeating myself, it's likely because nobody's answering the questions I ask or addressing the points I raise. There's been, so far, no explanation as to why the contempt of parliament charge deserves a place in the lead.
 * The Elections Act sentence is another matter, though it is similarly irrelevant to this article. The accusation of violations doesn't relate to this election. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

After the election has occured, the article lead will likely be trimmed. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlikely, so long as 33rogers has ownership of this page. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh! So much for assume good faith. Can you please make any edits which you think are uncontroversial again. Like grammatical or punctuation. Also see below section, first for response. --33rogers (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

In response to your question, from WP:MOSINTRO: ''Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.) This allows editors to avoid lengthy paragraphs and over-specific descriptions, because the reader will know that greater detail is saved for the body of the article., and then at news style: News writing attempts to answer all the basic questions about any particular event - who, what, when, where and why (the Five Ws) and also often how - at the opening of the article. '' --33rogers (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that doesn't provide an answer as to why it must be said in the lead that the motion of non-confidence was based on a finding of contempt of parliament or that said finding was a first in the Commonwealth. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Consideration should be given (in Lead) to creating interest in reading the whole article.
Per WP:MOSINTRO it says Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article. (See news style and summary style.)

By keeping this in the lead:

''The Contempt conviction is unique in Canadian history. In a wider context, no government in the British Commonwealth has fallen on a Contempt of Parliament conviction and it is without precedent in countries governed by a Westminster-styled parliament.''

It establishes the International significance. And thus generates interest (even internationally) plus establishes the significance of the election. Especially considering it will be featured on the Main Page after the election.

I am thus moving this back into the Lead.

--33rogers (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Also if you see an article which was featured recently on the Main page: Hurricane Isabel, (per the featured article criteria), you will see that they have not kept the lead very short as attempted on this article. --33rogers (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

What's a Picture Worth?
As a riff off the question I just raised at the talk page for Elizabeth May, I'm going to raise this question over here too: Why are Harper, Ignatieff, and Duceppe shown in formal poses with suit and tie, whereas Layton and May are presented in casual photos on this page? Perhaps the latter were chosen by editors who just thought they were nice photos, and they are; but in the context of the fast-approaching Canadian election, what is the visual message here, I wonder?

I'm an American with no dog in this fight, but has it occurred to anyone else that the not-so-subtle visual suggestion is that Layton and May are not as serious about their roles as are the more traditional male politicians? Is there some (possibly subconscious) political or anti-female bias at work here? I'm just askin'. . . .  Textorus (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and say no. In the case of May, we've only got four decent images of her on Commons, all of which are similar.  For Layton, you could use File:Jack Layton-cr bl.jpg, I suppose, but I suspect the images used were used simply because the editors that added them thought they were the best pictures available.  I personally wouldn't read anything more into any of the photos. Resolute 22:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right, Resolute; but I'm wondering about the subliminal effect on the thousands of non-WP-editors who view these pictures when they come here looking for election info. Textorus (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that the pictures used in an election article, should be taken as close to the election as possible. It wouldn't make sense to represent a leader with a picture of him 30 years after the election, but unfortunately for some of the historical election articles, we only have one picture of the person. 117Avenue (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV tag needed
Due to the nature of the article and the near impossibility that while the election is active this page will be heavily visited/edited by those with views...there really should be a general NPOV tag until the heavy editing calms. For example, at the moment, it has some questionable sections such as the controversies which is a list of 13 anti harper/cons and 4 anti-all-others-combined which is a little slanted. Surveying enough news sources could undoubtedly produce dozens of "controversies" for any given party.

207.216.253.134 (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No tag is needed. Otherwise every time during an election, and on all the elections throughout the world, there would be a tag, which by the way, is not there.
 * If you think it is anti harper/cons, please add to the article with proper citations.
 * Also as mentioned on your talk page "It is considered improper to remove sourced material and whole sections without discussion."
 * --33rogers (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * To put into perspective, we are already 3/4ths of the way through the campaign, and all polls have consistently shown Conservatives in first place.
 * The media (majority of them atleast) will always go after the Incumbents for juicy scandals and/or controversies. It is about what sells the news papers after all.
 * --33rogers (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsements?
Hey guys, I was looking at the page for the 2006 election and I saw a section on both newspaper endorsements and general endorsements of parties. Do we have any information on this for this most recent election? Bkissin (talk) 14:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive Edits
Please Stop you disruptive edits. On top of removing stuff from the lead you removed well referenced sentence "Elections Canada laid charges against the Conservative party for breaking the Canada Elections Act." --33rogers (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No I am not being funny. I am serious. Please look up the rules on Wikipedia that you cannot remove messages left on your talk page. --33rogers (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

You may have a beef with my moving detail out of the lead, but there is no reason at all for you to revert my other non-controversial, mostly clean up edits. Be more careful and considerate in future. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And on top of it you removed well referenced sentence "Elections Canada laid charges against the Conservative party for breaking the Canada Elections Act." And then you reverted without seeing on the talk page what was controversial? --33rogers (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not an excuse for reverting all my edits. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * All your edits were controversial. It is called the Conservative government by the media. Just like previously it was called the Liberal government by the media. --33rogers (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you joking when you say copyediting to remove repetition and punctuation and grammatical errors is controversial? If so, it isn't funny. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see your talk page for response. --33rogers (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no response related to the above at my talk. Apart from the lack of explanation for why you insist on keeping irrelevant content in the article and other content in the wrong place, there is no justification for your reverting of my grammatical edits. --  Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh! I respect your edits, but I do not agree with them. Please continue this discussion on the Talk page of Canadian federal election, 2011. Thank you. --33rogers (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Is there a point to the above? -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh! So much for assume good faith (re-ownership). Can you please make any edits which you think are uncontroversial again. Like grammatical or punctuation. --33rogers (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Why must I redo the work you undid? The whole point is there was no reason for you to undo the copyediting and corrections in the first place. However, now you've complicated matters by claiming that my removal of the needless repetition of "Conservative" or "Canadian", which was just for good composition, is controversial. There seems to be no way to improve this page without raising your ire. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  19:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * From 41st Canadian General Election - you changed it to 41st Canadian general election. Previous election articles had capitalization intact. I am willing to discuss it to get consensus, but unfortunately, you keep reverting, rather than bringing up the points.
 * Please lets discuss this as mature adults. I may have made mistakes in the heat of it. But really who gets into power after this election shouldn't blind us and/or make us rude to each other. I apologize for the mistakes I made.
 * --33rogers (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm all for discussing. That wasn't what you were doing, though. It's more than a little difficult to understand what, exactly, your objections are when all you're doing is making blanket reverts and calling everything controversial. You must outline each concern separately, so that they can be addressed one by one, like you've just done. In regards to that: Actually, only some of the articles on previous elections use an alternate and it's "[#] General Election" or "[#] general election". It's not a proper noun and so shouldn't be capitalised, as in Canadian federal election, 1993. "Canadian" need not be used, it's redundant, coming, as it does, right after "Canadian federal election". -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  20:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Going through the changes you made again, on top of removing the well sourced sentence: Elections Canada laid charges against the Conservative party for breaking the Canada Elections Act., which by the way is one of the reasons for the election we are having now, you also removed the sentence: The government stated that it was in order to avoid being in session during the Olympics, but the opposition argued that the government did not want to have to face Parliament on the Canadian Afghan detainee issue (see 2010 Canada anti-prorogation protests). --33rogers (talk) 10:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I take it, then, that you're fine with changing "41st Canadian General Election" to "41st general election".
 * As to the above: The sourcing of a piece of information is irrelevant when the piece of information itself appears to be irrelevant to this article. So, Elections Canada said the Conservative Party violated the Elections Act. So what? Just saying a fact doesn't explain how it relates to the wider article topic. Ditto for the back and forth between the government and opposition over the prorogations; how does it directly bear on the subject of this page? And, if it does, why can it not simply be summarised without going into detail that's already repeated at 2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute and 40th Canadian Parliament? Please see WP:DETAIL: "The parent article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects." The prorogations are not the specific subjects of this page; a summary will suffice. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  13:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On the two prorogations, they legitimately are background to the present elections but Miesianiacal is correct that we don't need any detail about them in this article, just a summary or even a bare mention would suffice. About whether to mention the contempt in the lead, I think it belongs there at least for the time being. To compare this article with that for previous elections is not exactly straightforward, because for any previous election the most important bit of information is the result! That should (almost invariably) dominate the lead. For an election in progress like this one, there are no results so other bits of information about the subject are relatively more important. The fact that the election was triggered by a finding that the government was in contempt is therefore important enough, at least for the time being, to appear in the lead. (But we should revisit this a week or two after the results are in, to see if that particular fact is still lead-worthy.) That being said, the final twelve words in the current version of the lead ("a first for a national government anywhere in the Commonwealth of Nations") do seem disproportionate given that the whole lead is less than 100 words. We should replace those twelve words in the lead with the single word "unprecedentedly". Full details would appear below under background. Mathew5000 (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The government wasn't defeated on the 'contempt of parliament' finding. It was defeated on a non-confidence vote by the combined opposition parties (i.e a partisan motion). GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, you are half-correct. The government was defeated on a single vote that (a) approved the committee finding that the government is in contempt of Parliament and (b) consequently revoked the House's confidence in the government. Mathew5000 (talk) 18:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * But it was the actual passing of the Liberals' non-confidence motion, the defeated the Conservative government. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said before, it was one and the same motion. It is correct to say that the Conservative government was defeated by the no-confidence motion that found the government in contempt of Parliament. Mathew5000 (talk) 01:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mathew5000 is right. The committee reports its findings to the House. The house then decides whether to agree or not with the findings from the committee. This was done via the no-confidence motion. --33rogers (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mid point Polling
We should not be giving prominence to one poll (Angus Reid poll 16 April) over all others, more so as it is plainly an outlier and runs counter to the polling around it (See Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2011).

I'm reinstating my summary of the 14-18 April polling. If you disagree with it please edit the numbers not just undo. Rsloch (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Angus Reid poll was unique, in the fact that support for Liberals and NDP was tied. Unique enough to get an article from Reuters. --33rogers (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * And it being 'unique' doesn't raise concerns?

Rsloch (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The tie was repeated in another poll: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/21/canada-us-politics-poll-idCATRE72T2YY20110421 --33rogers (talk) 23:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Making the Issues section more readable
Manual of Style policy states to Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

Earlier, there was spacing in the Issues section so it was more readable.

However this was later reverted.

I asked for 7 days reprieve so that it can be more readable until the end of the Election.

However this was later reverted, and pointed to the above policy.

I have restored the version as it was for a long time before this sudden changes.

--33rogers (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The date of the election is meaningless to how we treat this article, so your request for a "reprieve" is irrelevant. At present, multiple editors have objected to your preferred formatting, and so far it seems only yourself has come out in support.  As such, it is incumbent on you to justify and gain support for your preferred change, not others.  Personally, I think the extra spacing makes it look worse, and consequently harder to read, but I'm not about to get involved in a WP:LAME edit war over it.  I suggest you avoid the same. Resolute 00:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Your preferred formatting is less readable, which is why MOS says it should be the other way. The fact that in both of the sections you have started on this talk page you have chosen to put each new sentence on a separate line shows that you have strange ideas about formatting that don't comport with MOS or what normal people expect and prefer to read. -Rrius (talk) 00:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what an article is on (an upcoming election, or past election), there is no reason that a well established MOS (WP:BULLETLIST), which was created using consensus, shouldn't be used. 117Avenue (talk) 01:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Rapidly degenerating into trivia
Please, people: it's not my country, but even from far away I can smell pedantry and myopia. Does this article really, truly need the lengthy and soon-to-be utterly non-notable Issues and Controversies sections drawn out to such length as they presently are? Does every vague campaign promise and every stray soundbite really belong here? A few glaring cases in point:


 * Personal taxation - Conservatives have promised income splitting for families with children as a distant policy.
 * Employment - The NDP have promised a $4,500 job creation tax credit to all businesses per new hire.
 * Cheryl Gallant, the Conservative MP for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke compared Michael Ignatieff to Libyan dictator Gaddafi. She later apologized.

Oh, but of course! Someone or several someones will answer; in which case, may I suggest hiding all this minor minor minor stuff in a drop-down list? So that readers who just want to know the inning and the score don't have to wade through the Great Dismal Wikipedia Swamp to find out? Just sayin'. . . .  Textorus (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * No I don't consider it to be minor stuff, which should be hidden away, and tucked under the carpet. People need to make an informed decision. --33rogers (talk) 13:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the article is to give an overview, and thus including all the general name calling and silliness that appears through every campaign would see unnecessary. How about keeping the main items and putting the other material on a subpage? That would allow those interested to delve deeper and those looking for an overview not to get stuck in a mire.

Rsloch (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of election rhetoric. So yes, minor, pedantic stuff does not belong on this page. Care must be taken to avoid placing undue weight various topics. Resolute 18:57, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have split the content of Controversies to the new article: Controversies in Canadian federal election, 2011.

I do not consider the Issues section to be minor stuff though. As they are important pieces of information for people to make an informed decision. --33rogers (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bluntly, anyone looking to Wikipedia to make an "informed decision" at this point is an idiot. The issues section is a pure mess.  It is not a collection of issues, but rather a list of promises.  It is done point form, with no organization and little context.  If you want to write an issues section, do it in paragraphs, and collect the view of all four major parties (at least). Write paragraphs on economy, health care, ethics, etc. Then it might become useful. Resolute 19:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

See below section for "Prose vs. List format for Issues." FYI: I am going to be nominate this article for Featured Article status after the election results are in. --33rogers (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that would be unwise at present. I certainly encourage you to try and take the article to such a standard, but as someone with a fair amount of experience at FAC, I can tell you this article will need a significant overhaul before it would be up to featured level.  Indeed, given the inherent challenges of maintaining NPOV on a political article, especially one as contentious as this, I think you have quite the challenge ahead of you.  Resolute 03:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In what I hope will help you reach your goal, I have found that there are a few FA and GA class articles on elections that you can use for ideas, including: Canadian federal election, 1957. Also: United States Senate election in California, 1950 and United States Senate election in New York, 2000. Resolute 04:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the FA and GA articles mentioned above. I will work on it soon. --33rogers (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

economic and fiscal policy
the current revision (mine) most accurately represents the NDPs platform. The mention of a "conservative" tax policy lowering taxes for large business is false. It is currently part of existing legislation and required support from more than just the cons to be passed. 207.216.253.134 (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, what was that I was hearing on the English debate about Stephen Harper lowering the taxes? --33rogers (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's irrevelant what you heard on the english debate unless a reliable news source reports on it. But to clarify, what Harper was speaking about was tax policy already passed in the law that the conservatives sponsored (recieved opposition support for being a minority). Point being, this is not a 2011 campaign promise. 208.38.59.163 (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have not explained your removal of well sourced sentences. --33rogers (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not appropriate to describe existing tax legislation as a 2011 conservative platform to decrease corporate taxes. your source did not provide that reference either which is why I removed it. 208.38.59.163 (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You removed information about the recession also. It was well sourced in the news citations, if you took the time to read it. --33rogers (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Pending Changes Protection for this article
Note: Page became unprotected at 13:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that pending changes protection for this article until after May 2-3rd sometime, would be good to protect the page from what will only escalate, the closer we get to voting day. Comments from other editors before I request an administrator to arrive? Outback the koala (talk) 08:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree: we can fix the edits. It is the same with all the Featured articles on the main page. They do not semi-protect them. --33rogers (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Infact, it was me who asked for protection first. Because I was patrolling this page 24/7. I couldn't make any progress in my real life. My bones were hurting from lack of sleep. But then after the Semi-Protection G News dropped this article, I had to ask the admin to remove the protection.
 * I assume that it has to do something with G News algorithm, they think that because of their small link Wikipedia: Canadian federal election, 2011 we couldn't handle the traffic and we had to semi-protect it.
 * But we are hardly getting any traffic to this article.
 * Mostly it is me, as I have bookmarked this page, and refreshing it many times a day to see if any changes have been made.
 * Lets face it, people don't care about Wikipedia that much. We may think that the world goes around Wikipedia, but people like TV, Youtube and Facebook.
 * If there are 18 million Canadians, less than 0.02% visited this page. --33rogers (talk) 10:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually its about 0.03% if you do the proper rounding ( a daily figure not cumulative for the month )- but your right traffic doesnt matter with this.....If the article is being disrupted however then a level of protection may be necessary, if its not underdisruption preventative means are not usually necessary. I oppose protection this for now.Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * We've had ~180000 in the last 30 days alone. I understand not wanting to put in place protection now, but later on this week, we might find ourselves wanting to revisit this. Let's put this on hold then unless things pick up. Outback the koala (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Change to support until May 1st (so we can start putting in results on May 2nd). Some users are not reading policies. --33rogers (talk) 01:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pending changes is not a tool for you to lock an article into your preferred format. Also, just because you disagree with another's interpretation of the guidelines, or because you disagree with others on how this article should look does not mean they are failing to "read policies".  Speaking of policies in need of reading, you might want to consider WP:OWN. Resolute 01:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

''Do not confuse stewardship with ownership. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", but not all edits bring improvement. In many cases, a core of editors will have worked to build the article up to its present state, and will revert inappropriate edits in order to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia. Such reversion does not in itself constitute ownership, and will normally be supported by an explanatory edit summary referring to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Where disagreement persists after such a reversion, the editor proposing the change should first take the matter to the talk page, without personal comments or accusations of ownership. In this way, the specifics of any change can be discussed with the editors who are familiar with the article, who are likewise expected to discuss the content civilly. ''

And then you go to my talk page leaving a message saying I will be banned? Even though I have edited per policy? --33rogers (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You have reverted changes made by numerous editors, some that have had prior discussion on this talk page, back to your preferred version. Yes, that is edit warring, and yes, it is bordering on an ownership issue.   And yes, I did warn you that further such edit warring will result in a block. (Which is also different than a ban)  WP:EW is pretty much non-negotiable on Wikipedia.  Unless you are reverting explicit vandalism or WP:BLP violations, neither of which has occurred in my view, you are not permitted to make more than three reverts in a single day, nor are you permitted to continually revert the additions, changes and removals of others back to your preferred version numerous times over a period of time.  You have done both over the course of several days now, and frankly, are lucky you haven't already been blocked.  If you would like another, outside, view of the situation, I encourage you to post a request at WP:30. Resolute 02:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I just got to question your impartiality, especially based on your comments on this talk page. And your refusal to enforce Wikipedia policy WP:BRD, and then threatening to block me because my view is different than yours? --33rogers (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You accuse me of WP:OWN even though, I did not revert and . I accepted the consensus, and moved on with more constructive edits. --33rogers (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In agreement with Outback, this article should be protected 'til after the 2011 election. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Further to above, copied from talk page of User:Thehelpfulone:

As you protected the article, I am asking if you would reconsider the semi-protection at this point. I've looked over several edits by anons, and mostly I think they are good faith attempts to improve the article. Certainly there is disagreement over the inclusion/exclusion of various statements, but that battle is extending far beyond just unregistered editors. I think they are trying to improve the article, and as such I feel that silencing their efforts to do so is not beneficial. That being said, I would say the article is actually bordering on the need for full protection if the overall edit warring does not stop. Cheers, Resolute 01:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I also came to comment on the protection, but to comment on the time of it. 00:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC) is a bad time, it is about the time the results will start coming in. When the page does get protected (and I believe it will have to be at some time), it should be to 11:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC). 117Avenue (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

--33rogers (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the IP contributions and Resolute is right, some of them are constructive. There does seem to be a borderline edit war going on, so can I PLEASE ask you all to discuss on the talk page first, I don't want to have to fully protect the article or give some 3RR blocks. I'm happy to unprotect the article, or to add pending changes back onto the article. I'll wait pending further discussion or a resolution, if I'm not around, I'm happy for Resolute or any other admin to help resolve (couldn't help it! ;) ) the situation. The  Helpful  One  11:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Prose vs. List format for Issues.
I believe Embedded lists better presented as prose paragraphs, for the Issues listed.

Therefore I object to changing the Issues section into prose format.

See: Manual of Style (embedded lists)

--33rogers (talk) 23:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should follow your own link. -Rrius (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I did it states Embedded lists should be used only when appropriate; sometimes the information in a list is better presented as prose paragraphs.
 * I respectfully ask you to please gain consensus before putting the prose template again. Thanks. --33rogers (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As with above, I agree with Rrius. That said, if you insist on maintaining bulleted lists, at least reorganize them into related groups, and I would strongly recommend renaming the section "campaign promises". Resolute 04:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What you are trying to do is not like those lists. You don't have a list of equal, discrete items, each of which only needs the briefest of descriptions. Instead, sometimes you list a topic, such as the NPOV-suspect "Political honesty". Other times you simply state a campaign promise: "Harper has pledged to scrap the long-gun registry." Still other times, you try to do both: "Canada Pension Plan payouts – NDP promises to double." It's a mess. The wording and marshalling of the list also appears to have a left-wing, especially pro-NDP bent. Among other things, there's the "Political honesty" thing being presented without any attempt to reflect position of the Conservatives. Much of list seems to be a list of NDP and Liberal campaign promises. One item is especially egregious. It takes a swipe at the Conservatives, saying the Liberals left a surplus, the Conservatives have left a deficit, and the Libs and NDP both have plans to balance the budget by 2015. That ignores the financial crisis, makes a tacit assumption that the Conservatives have done something wrong by running deficits, makes a similar assumption that the other parties didn't support stimulus spending and wouldn't have done the same thing in office, and fails to mention the Conservatives' deficit plan.


 * In the end, you keep acting as though this is some perfectly crafted paragon of a list that should just be left the way you created it. The fact is that it needs a lot of work, including significant expansion and substantial culling of anything that is merely a campaign promise and does not represent a party's approach to tackling a major issue. An expansion is far more likely if, instead of a sloppy, directionless list, the actuall issues are sussed out and organized into related categories. -Rrius (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Conservatives promised no deficit before the 2008 election.
 * So yes they have done something wrong by getting into the deficit.
 * In fact it even goes against the right wing ideology of less government intervention, by spending so much.
 * Also considering that Harper co-wrote the Alberta firewall letter, the spending did not make sense. He went against the reform principles that he once stood for, i.e. less government.
 * --33rogers (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * He could have easily shut down the Equalization payments in Canada, by changing the amount to $1. But instead he increased it by making Ontario a have-not province. --33rogers (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So there we have it, the issues section is politically motivated. -Rrius (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Issues" list
33rogers: please explain what you dont like about the adding of sections to the issues list? It makes them easier to read/understand and overall improves the article.
 * and BTW you are on revert 6 or 7 today, way past the 3 revert rule so please be mindful of that. Macutty (talk) 01:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You broke the BRD. I mentioned clearly on my first edit about WP:BRD. Instead of seeking consensus, you decided to remove the content and proceed with your changes anyway. --33rogers (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 90% of my changes were to the layout. If you had issues with the couple of items removed (all with explanation, most discussed here on the talk page) you should just re-add them with out reverting all the useful improvements I made. Macutty (talk) 01:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have now reviewed WP:BRD, thanks, I wasnt aware of it as a policy. I also noted from the page though:


 * BRD is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.


 * BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.


 * BRD is not an excuse for reverting any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. Try an edit summary of "Let's talk about this; I'll start the discussion with a list of my objections" rather than "Undo. I thought BRD requires you to start the discussion" (because BRD requires no such thing). The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.


 * As mentioned: I'm happy to discuss edits on content at length before making drastic changes, but in terms of improving the layout, those edits shouldn't require extensive debate prior to being WP:BOLD 207.216.253.134 (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep editing using an IPs 207.216.253.134 and 208.38.59.163 here, and using account Macutty over there? WP:DUCK & WP:SOCK --33rogers (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear: I log in from 3 Dynamic IP's (work/vpn/home) and under user name macutty. I dont always log in (and sometimes can't due to security policies at work and over VPN) I am not multiple editors, I am a single editor. No sock puppets here. Macutty (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Political honesty
Now on to the actual discussion, I wouldlike to review the following entry in the Issues list:

"Political honesty[49] – government fell on motion of non-confidence after being found in contempt of Parliament. This was the first time in the British Commonwealth that a government was found in contempt. The New Democratic Party (NDP) stated that both the Conservatives and the Liberals cannot be trusted. The NDP accused the Conservatives for creating "Liberal-style scandals" [50] and accused the Liberals for flip-flopping on issues such as corporate tax cuts, and the Afghanistan mission.[51][52][53]"

This "issue" was born from a single narrowly phrased research poll. Further, the initial source that "defined" this as an issue, took place prior to the vote of non-confidence and the conetempt finding. Listing "This was the first time in the British Commonwealth that a government was found in contempt." it right after seems redundant when already mentioned several times in other areas of the article and appears as if it's trying to connect dots for the reader. And to follow that immediately with The NDP's response (and only the NDPs response, the lib and cons views are absent) appears to be very POV. I am not against the issue being included (the importancy of honesty to the voters) but we should not just cherry pick one source, from one poll, that was conducted prior to the fall of the gov. Instead lest find more details on where the issue stands and has stood. Macutty (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please have a look at this source: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/decision-canada/Voters+connecting+dots/4668930/story.html It covers the issue much more broadly and reflects the past and current state. Macutty (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Then add the Cons and Libs views.--33rogers (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)