Talk:2011 Canadian federal election

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[1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [2] and [3]. 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: Wikipedia: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)

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)

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)

"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)

Issues>Economic and fiscal policy>recession

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion polling trend commentary

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

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

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

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

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

NDP Surge

First off, this NDP surge was also created here.

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

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

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

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

The references are sufficient for WP:BURDEN

I have provided reliable references for the material provided.

But you feel that it should be removed.

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

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

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

Here we are discussing removal of the NDP surge section.

This is a totally different topic.

To combine both of them, is just not reasonable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repetative statement

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

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

Capitalization

In light of several recent edits related to the capitalization of the words Parliament, Government, and Opposition (e.g. [4] and [5]), I have posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. The word parliament certainly can be a common noun, but in sentences like "It was done while Parliament was in session", the word is used as a proper noun. In that type of usage, Parliament is capitalized by reputable English-language publishers (e.g. [6][7][8]). Wikipedia articles generally follow this usage. As for Government and Opposition, the rule given by The Canadian Style is: "The word Government is capitalized when it refers to the political apparatus of a party in power. It is lower-cased when it refers in a general way to the offices and agencies that carry out the functions of governing" [9]. Thus we should write, for example, "the Government was found in contempt of Parliament by the Opposition-dominated committee". In this context, the words refer specifically to the Government and the Opposition in the House of Commons; the capitals are important because lower-cased, the words could be interpreted to mean something else. —Mathew5000 (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV

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

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

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

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

What about the election debate of 2008?

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

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

And now we have the biggest deficit in the history.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to discuss the following entry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Political Honesty

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

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

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

Also, I'd like to review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capitalization

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

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