Talk:2011 Canadian federal election

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 booth]]s can also apply to [[Elections Canada]] to mail in their ballot. <ref>http://elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=bkg&document=ec90540&lang=e</ref>

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)

• By Special Application, I meant a Java application.
• All I am asking for is Ignore All Rules and keep that sentence until April 26th. Wikipedia:Understanding_IAR

--33rogers (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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. [1] 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)

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)

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)

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.” [2][3] 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)

Removing Unreferenced section: Contentious ridings

I Removed Unreferenced section: Contentious ridings. See: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence. Furthermore because they have resigned they are Contentious ridings is Original research Wikipedia:No original research. Also Notability Wikipedia: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)

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[4] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)