Talk:2011 British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election

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

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus 117Avenue (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


British Columbia Liberal Party leadership contest, 2011 → British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election, 2011 — As shown in Category:Leadership elections in Canada, the naming convention is "Province Party leadership election, year", or "Province Party leadership convention, year". 117Avenue (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Well, I see that there's precedent but I don't like the terminology, as these are not really elections, save within the party and not by regular electoral processes; I'd prefer the "Province Party leadership convention" format, then, as it gives a better idea of the nature of the selection process. I'll take it up as a CfD, perhaps, after I look at that categories' contents and see what titles exist so far.Skookum1 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-Comment. I looked at the category contents and in particular at the BC items, and this in particular was the clincher: "British Columbia Liberal Party leadership conventions". I strongly object to the use of the term "election" in ANY of the articles in that category, as = again = it misrepresents the nature of the selection process, and it's invariably in a convention anyway. I support moving this article to British Columbia Liberal Party leadership convention, 2011 but NOT to the leadership election title.Skookum1 (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still strongly think they should all be election (save for the acclamation ones). They are elections, and should be titled as such. 117Avenue (talk) 04:57, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment an election, in most common usage, involves the public, and does not normally refer to convention leadership votes - which are by delegates, often weighted and appointed delegates, and not by voters. Using the term "election" suggests that the person inheriting the first minister's position after the upcoming convention was elected, i.e. by the public, which is anything but the case.Skookum1 (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank-you for further explaining. I shift my support to move to convention. Once this move is done I will ask for your vote to move the 45 others. Congratulations! We just birthed naming convention. 117Avenue (talk) 05:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I created the page I actually named the page "convention" but later moved it to "contest". Convention is an actual physical gathering of delegates to select a leader/nominee. It is the traditional mean for Canadian political parties to select their leaders. However, the BC Liberals will NOT be holding a convention for the purpose of selecting its leader, and thus calling this page "convention" would be factually incorrect. In fact, the trend here is to move away from electing leader via convention. The Federal Liberal Party also adopted a rule change in 2009 to select its leader via votes throughout the country rather than through a convention. I however also agree that the term "election" is inappropriate for this purpose given the private nature of the selection. I think we should stick to the term "contest" or create a new naming convention such as "selection". --Milton Chan (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


For comments on the 1989 NDP leadership race, it says to post here for some reason. I would like to start a section on New Democrats who declined to run in that race, as that is a customary section for leadership races on Wikipedia. I do not have any sources for the names at present, but I'm sure I can find them. I have Audrey McLaughlin's autobiography and she mentions several people who declined to run, for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.140.177 (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to leadership election. Consensus seems to be that "election" is encyclopedic, clear, unambiguous, consistent with other articles. Concern was expressed that "election" might be interpreted as implying something about the franchise of the electorate, but this seems a minority view. Discussion on "common usage" was more evenly split but other factors outweigh this. Further other proposed terms either suffered some serious drawback (a convention is not an election, just something that often goes with one, "contest" and "race" are possibly more nebulous, and would not apply to an uncontested election). Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

British Columbia Liberal Party leadership contest, 2011 → [[]] — With the flux of leadership races Canada has recently seen, it has come to light that there is no naming convention for these contests. I hope that this discussion will determine one. As pointed out above, 'election' is not a correct title, as it is not the general public participating in the vote. Also, 'convention' is not a correct title, since to take place, the voting members do not need to all be under the same roof. I have come up with three remaining possibilities: 'contest', 'campaign', or 'race'. 117Avenue (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSER - This was previously closed as "moved to leadership election". I reverted this closure as it was made by the move requestor who can hardly be said to be independent (per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions). That editor (User:117Avenue) has already moved these articles to the new title. I have not reverted the moves as it will be creating unnecessary work if this is closed the same way by someone uninvolved. Dpmuk (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Affected pages and categories
  • race or contest. I believe that these accurately describe the articles' nature. 117Avenue (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Election or convention as appropriate - Merriam-Webster defines "contest" as "a struggle for superiority or victory, competition... a competition in which each contestant performs without direct contact with or interference from competitors". A race is where athletes or horses run toward a finish line. Neither of these captures the sense of a group of voters considering the platforms and personalities of candidates, and making a (hopefully) informed decision. Merriam Webster defines an "election" as "an act or process of electing". It does not limit "election" to one that is open to the general public. If my curling club elects a new president, only members of the curling club can vote. Political parties elect presidents, treasurers and leaders. If they do so at a convention instead of through a general vote of the membership, then "convention" is appropriate. If they do so through a general vote of the membership, then "election" is appropriate. Ground Zero | t 02:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't care for the terms 'contest', 'campaign', or 'race'. I prefer convention when the election is done by a delegated convention, and election when it is not. Also, I agree with User:Ground Zero that the word 'election' in no way implies that it is the public that votes. MitchellDuce (talk) 03:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was originally my thought, a vote means an election. But as you can see above, I keep flopping all over the place, as I learn more of the facts. 117Avenue (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Narrow interpretations of dictionary definitions mean nothing in the face of most common usage. And the media, and political scientists, use the term "leadership race" quite readily, it's a term that's been around since party politics began, in fact. Direct-membership party-leader votes are anything but normal in Canada, and are in fact rather rare. Most of these are conventions, or held at conventions, nearly all have a delegate structure which prevents the rank-andn-file from having a direct vote, including appointed delegates etc. The use of "election" in a category name or in an article title is highly misleading; in the case of the current BC Liberal one the usage, where I saw it linked in text, suggested that it was an ordinary election, which of course it's not. At present it's a "race" or "contest" but will be a "convention" very soon....likewise the incipient NDP leadership race is a "race" or a "contest", though no candidates have yet declared, and is not a "convention' because that's scheduled yet. But arguing for "election' because some party leadership races are by direct election from the membership (which ones, by the way?? - the NDP's certainly won't be, because of the automatic delegates from the BC Fed of Labour) overlooks the fact that nine.nine times out of ten, these are held at conventions. Most common usage must apply; and I submit that the major newspapers in BC, much as I despise them, use "leadership race" and refer to a "leadership convention"....I don't see any press copy, or anywhere (but Wikipedia) where "leadership election" is used.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It should use standard English, not journalese. "Contest" and "race" are used by media talking heads, but not by the parties themselves, and the words simply do not convey what is going on. I disagree that these are "Narrow interpretations of dictionary definitions". These are what the words actually mean regardless of media usage. Most importantly, I still do not understand why an open vote where party members elect a leader, or a convention where party delegates elect a leader, should not be called an election. The campaign of the BC Liberal leadership leads to the election of the leader by delegates at a convention, so "election" is perfectly suitable. Bn the way, the BC Liberal Party is calling it a "Leadership Vote"[1]. Can you imagine a party ever using the journalese terms "race" or contest"? Ground Zero | t 11:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:Most common use I think is the relevant policy. And uh, yeah, I can imagine a party using the "journalese" terms you mention "race" in particular, and since when is a reliable source, or combination thereof, to be excluded for being "journalese"?? Do you realize how many ways that would impact many articles, other than this series?? And what do political scientists use? "Leadership race" is so established in the national argot it's really weird to see people argue for something that, while it may be most common use in other countries, isn't common usage in Canada. And those British articles - they're not a citation, and may be a similar error in varying for actual common use by Fleet Street and the British public. An d when it's a leadership convention, it's a leadership convention, period.Skookum1 (talk) 22:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, Skookum, the real issue here is your rejection of "election", which is preferred by those who have weighed in so far. You reject it on the basis that "'election' is not a correct title, as it is not the general public participating in the vote." This is fallacious reasoning. Can you provide any reliable source for contending that elections are restricted to those where the general public is allowed to participate? This would mean that an election for a curling club executive, or a board of directors of a condo corporation, or a student council, is an invalid use of the word, and that dictionaries like Merriam-Webster and Oxford are once again publishing the wrong definitions of words. "Election" is a perfectly good word that shows respect for the democratic process, instead of treating it like a spectator sport. Ground Zero | t 23:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you provide any reliable Canadian source which uses "leadership election" when referring to a leadership race/convention?? Can you provide more than one? Can you prove that "leadership election" is a most-common-Canadian-usage?? The reason I object to it is because of phrasings that result from such a title; as I recall I was twigged onto this because of a usage/pipe that made it sound like the next Premier of BC would be "elected", which is not the most common usage and gives a completely false impression of the nature of the succession process.Skookum1 (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • And you're saying that I'm the only one who opposes the use of teh word "election" and that's not right at all; note Milton Chan, for example, at the end of teh previous requested move discussion. And 117 Avenue has seen the logic of my objection too; don't try to isolate me this way, it's a misrepresentation.Skookum1 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • A premier or a prime minister is never elected, and the word should not be used for that purpose. A party leader is elected by the party members or party delegates, so "leadership election" works well. A candidate is not chosen as the result of a race or contest by the plain language definitions provided by dictionaries, but as the result of an election, as defined in dictionaires and in common use. I will look into non-media usage, and ask that you do the same. I htink it is relevant that the BC Liberal party does not use "race" or "contest" and note that you have not provided evidence that any party does. I do not accept that the media tendancy to report on "who's ahead in the polls" should displace correct charecterization of the process. And both Milton Chan and 117 Avenue appear to be on the side of "election" now, but we should resolve this through reasoned argument and citation of referenced facts, rather than by a head count. You're entitled to your opinion whether or not you are the only one who holds it, and I do not mean to imply otherwise. Ground Zero | t 23:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • These are the primary definitions of these words from the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. Which one fits best? I do not accept that dictionary definitions of common words are less common that media usage. Dictionaries reflect common usage. If the media use a word in a way that is not the standard usage as reflected in a dictionary, then we're looking at journalese.
race - a contest of speed between athletes, horses, vehicles, ships
contest - a competition, raffle, draw, etc.
election - selection by vote (of candidates for a position, esp. a political office)
This really does show that there is nothing at all wrong with "election" to describe a vote by party members or delegates. Ground Zero | t 00:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Skookum1, you asked which parties don't use a delegated convention system. Well, at the federal level, none of the four major parties outside of Quebec use that system. The NDP uses an exhaustive one member, one vote system. While they used to guarantee affiliated members (i.e. labour) 25% of the vote, (ref: [2] and 2001 constitution) I don't believe that it is still the case. (ref: 2009 constitution) The Liberals and Conservatives use a system in which all members vote, but the votes from each riding are weighted equally. They use instant-runoff voting. (ref: [3] and [4]) The Green Party of Canada uses OMOV without any weighting of certain votes. (ref: [5]) MitchellDuce (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some reflection, maybe we should not rule out election so easily. All of the articles for party leadership races in UK, which closely resemble what we are dealing with, are named "election".--Milton Chan (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As well as five other countries in Category:Leadership elections. 117Avenue (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the British usages are relevant, theirs is a different set of vocabulary; what we call an overpass they call a flyover, for example. What matters is Canadian language conventions, and those are to be found in our media and academia. Imposing usages from other countries is "not on" - that's "levelling" English into some kind of homogenous goo, and has the effect (because of Wikipedia's influence) of creating/imposing a new usage. Not acceptable.Skookum1 (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why election is unsuitable? Just because only party members vote doesn't mean it's not an election. I cannot vote in the Toronto mayoral election, because I live in St. John's, but that doesn't mean it is not an election.Jordo72 (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BC politics being in the turmoil that it is, as of Carole James' recent resignation, the British Columbia New Democratic Party leadership race, 2011 is now underway, despite no actual as-yet-declared candidates; the Globe and Mail has published a list of possible contenders. But note - there is no scheduled convention yet (will be soon though), there is only a race, albeit as yet without any horses in the starting gates; that should change by the weekend. But because the NDP's selection process includes "dedicated" delegates from unions, and from the NDP senior ranks and various proxies, it's a "selection by vote of delegates" and not direct election by the membership. So why should such an article be titled "leadership election" when there already exists in Canadian English the common usage "leadership race" and/or "'leadership convention? Citing a dictionary definition doesn't wash in respect to that; if Merriam-Webster (a US dictionary) doesn't have in it a Canadian usage, that shouldn't be relevant in a discussion on Canadian English usage.Skookum1 (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Leadership race" also refers to the entire process and the combined campaigns/press coverage; calling something "leadership election" means that it is only about the vote itself and not the campaign; perhaps "leadership campaign" is another alternative, and is certainly a Canadian-common-usage.Skookum1 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, looking at the Category:Leadership elections in Canada contents, there's no standard name-format for "X Party of [y province]" vs. "[y province] X Party"....Skookum1 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe that different parties use naming conventions, so in the past, article titles have used whatever the individual party uses. MitchellDuce (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As you have pointed out, what the parties themselves use is to be paid attention to; and this is a reminder that the imposition Wikipedia naming conventions across the board winds up creating a standard that did not exist, and which is defiance of actual common usage. Wikipedia is not supposed to influence or create reality, it's supposed to reflect it. Standardizing everything, even across countries, is just wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Using the work "election" in the article title doesn't prevent any discussion in the article about the campaigns or the press coverage. We use the word "election" in the title of every article about a federal election and yet these same articles discuss the campaigns and the press coverage (example: Canadian federal election, 2008). I would actually argue the opposite. Using the word "campaign" in the article title might imply that we are only talking about the campaign. As an example, this distinction is made in articles about the last United States presidential election. United States presidential election, 2008 had information on the election and the campaigns, whereas Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 (to use Obama's campaign as an example) only had information about the campaign. MitchellDuce (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the term "race" or "campaign" doesn't always make sense because some leadership elections are only contested by one candidate, there is still a vote however that ratifies that candidate.Jordo72 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, while I'm still of the strong opinion that "convention" is the most common usage, and fits all situations, and that "leadership race" is a very common and accepted usage, despite the isolation of the strict definition of the solo-word "race" (GroundZero, try looking up a dictionary that has the phrase "leadership race" maybe as a variant of "leadership", as it definitely means a campaign despite your citation of the single-word definition of "race"), it seems I'm being out "voted". There's a host of title conventions in Wikipedia I'm not happy with, e.g. Premiership of Stephen Harper, which is a reference to the more ordinary phrase "the Harper government" but apparently cross-defined by reference to UK models; "Premier" in Canada of course refers to provincial first ministers, not Prime Ministers. If the "election" format is chosen, then I must ask editors who've decided on that to keep a close eye on articles to avoid the tendency of people to speak of these people as if they were "elected as Premier" when that "election" is only by the party membership or party apparatchiks/delegates, which is totally misleading....formally, the caucus also "votes" for the one of their number who is to be anointed Premier after they do so; should "Caucus elections" of first ministers also be styled "elections"? e.g. with Dan Miller and any potential interim NDP leader at present, they aren't elected by anyone but caucus (or the party council, which in the case of the current version of the NDP's situation isn't likely to happen as it could further the caucus/membership revolt underway).Skookum1 (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It`s the job of all editors to watch that correct terminology is used. You can ask other editors to do whatever you want, but they are free to ignore your requests. Assigning tasks to other editors just never works very well. I do not dispute that `leadership race` is used. The question is, what is the best term for an encyclopedia to use, and we have debated that question to death. The problem with 'elected as Premier' is something that is quite independent from the discussion about electing leaders. The Premier and other cabinet ministers are appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor, so they should never be described as having been elected to those positions. I am glad that we agree that the interim leader of the NDP could be elected by the caucus, since that it what would happen if they hold a vote to do so. I trust that we would also agree that that person has not been elected as Leader of the opposition, but rather has been recognized by the Legislature as such as a consequence of being elected interim leader of the NDP by its caucus. Ground Zero | t 9 December 2010 (UTC)
the LOO is also appointed, or recognized at least, by the L-G, SFAIK. It's also a bit confusing, on either side of the House, that "House Leader" does not mean "leader of the party", but that's a regular-nomenclature issue, not a Wiki issue so much. As far as not being able to police/cajole other editors to "do what I want", it's all the more imperative that a more neutral, less controversial term than "election" be used, to avoid abuses of that term. Also if you were to look up "leadership race" in a dictionary of use, say Fowler's, I'm sure it would be there with a definition very different than simply "race".Skookum1 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, I do agree with you that "Premiership of Stephen Harper" is a bad title for the article. While it is an elegant term, I am sure that it is never used in Canada. "Harper government is not only the most commonly used term, it is appropriately descriptive. Ground Zero | t 04:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So would it be correct to say "The leadership convention will be held in the spring of 2011 to choose a new leader for the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador (and consequent Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador)"? 117Avenue (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convention or election I think are the best terms. The only problem with convention is that it's possible that a party may not hold a proper convention, unlikely though. Elections are always held for major parties though even if it is just to ratify the only cnadidate who came forward. Jordo72 (talk) 05:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason that they're almost invariably held, conventions that is, is that they are p.r. events, TV coverage, speechifying, party handshaking/affirmations, wound-healing etc. The election itself is just part of the events leading up to the convention, particularly a leadership convention rather than just the regular kind that was going to be held in Penticton until it was cancelled in the wake of Campbell's resignation (or just before, I've forgotten the timeline).Skookum1 (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what word will be used then?
  • This item from teh Globe and Mail this morning about the BC Liberal convention's delegate selection; they use the phrase, note, "leadership race". But ore pointedly, it's clearly not direct election - the delegates are elected (20 to a riding) but it's not yet clear if party insiders/executives get their own votes; the rules are out there somewhere, though it's a new set of rules from last time. I hesitate, again, to describe voting by delegations as an "election"; it's even less of a real election than if by full party membership votes. I think, again, that most common use should outweigh any "correct" dictionary applications, and becaues "election" in so many cases can be abused/misrepresented. If hte public, and the media, don't describe leadership conventions or leadership races as "leadership elections", why should Wikipedia???.Skookum1 (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fer crying out loud, we have been through this argument. To summarize:
      • rejecting dictionaries as not providing good definitions of words is an unusual view - I don't think you should expect other people to share it with you;
        • yet you didn't properly quote a dictionary; you isolated one word out of a noun-phrase and treated it as the core meaning, which it's not. Combination forms in English do not have the same meanings as their component words, it's that simple. You didn't look up "leadership race", you looked up "race"....that's cherry picking.Skookum1 (talk)
      • mass media are not authoritative when it comes to language -- Wikipedia should aim higher than that;
        • Wikipedia should also not advance and popularize terms and misuse of them, especially on the rationale that Wikipedia editors know better than "most common use". Misuse and abuse of terms in Wikipedia are rampant, as are the attempts to be "better tahn that" that just aren't better at all.Skookum1 (talk)
      • whether the party membership elects a leader, or party delegates elect a leader, it is an election -- you have not provided any evidence of your view that an election is only something in which the general public can participate;
        • yet in press copy today one of the candidates (Farnsworth I think) talked about the voting "as if it were a real election", i.e. indicating it's not considered by the party/himself as a "real election". It's voting; the common meaning of "election" in Canadian political discourse is very clear, and if a politician doesn't use it in reference to his party's selection process, comparing it to "a real election" vs. a party vote.Skookum1 (talk)
          • "it's not considered by the party/himself" -- is there a reason you inserted "party" in here? Is candidate Farnsworth speaking for the party? no. he isn't. he's speaking for himself. Please stick to the facts. Ground Zero | t 03:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • other editors' abuse of 'election' by connecting it to 'premier' just isn't a good argument against the perfectly accurate use of it to describe how parties choose their leaders in Canada.
Please let it go. Ground Zero | t 23:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geez - yet how parties choose their leaders in CAnada they call "leadership races" and they call the occasions "conventions". It's only here in Wikipedia that I see anyone insisting that they be called "elections" because another country's articles are titled that way, or because a narrow interpretation of that word allows it to be used for voting that is not NORMALLY called an "election" (especially by those actually IN the process, and those reporting or commenting on it).Skookum1 (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've also been maintaining taht "leadership race" is colloquial or informal and isn't encyclopedic; I can't find the Fowler's Oline and some of the other English Usage dictionaries are pay-for/signup, but at encyclopedia.com a search for "leadership race" got me this:
from: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition ...position in the European Community (now the European Union). After Thatcher's resignation in 1990, he entered the leadership race but was unsuccessful. He remained foreign secretary under Prime Minister John Major and was praised for his handling...
Clearly it's good for The Columbia Encyclopedia article and style content, and I know if we looked around at other searches for teh phrase, we'd find it used in similarly authoritative sources. It's crazy to me that you, as a longtime wikipedian, would be arguing for the exclusion of a very well-known most-common-usage because we can "do better than that". "Leadership election" is NOT "better than that", it's confusing and misleading.Skookum1 (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
525 party members cast their ballots at the 1984 BC Liberal leadership convention, and you find it confusing and misleading to call that an election. Yet 538 people cast their ballots for the President of the United States and everyone in the world seems to accept that that is an election.
It is simply not credible to say that is confusing and misleading to call the selection by vote of candidates for a position, especially a political office, an "election". That is exactly what it is, in plain English.
The BC Liberal Party is not calling this a "leadership race". It is calling this a "leadership vote".
Party Sets Leadership Vote for February 26, 2011
Party Moves to Modernize Leadership Vote, Call Conventions
The BC NDP calls their leadership process a "leadership election" -- see their Constitution (ARTICLE XII — Election of the Provincial Leader)
The federal Conservatives are comfortable with saying they elected Stephen Harper as leader: "The new Conservative Party of Canada elected Stephen Harper as its first leader on March 20th, 2004."
The Ontario PC Party uses "leadership election: Article 25 of their constitution
The Ontario Liberals uses "leadership convention": Article 9 of their constitution
The Ontario NDP uses both terms, as i.e., a leadership election takes place at a leadership convention: see [Article 9.01(4)(a)
The Alberta PCs use leadership election: Article 12 of their constitution
Has any party, in official documentation, called their leadership process a "leadership race"?
Earlier you demanded Canadian sources, now you turn to the Columbia Encyclopedia.
Newspapers love "race" for their headlines because it is only four letters long. "Election" is eight letters long, and yes, they do choose their words that way.
I have never said that "leadership race" isn't used. "Leadership election" is clearer because "election" means "selection by vote (of candidates for a position, esp. a political office)" whereas "race" can mean "a contest of speed between athletes, horses, vehicles, ships", in fact those are its primary meanings. Ground Zero | t 03:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're just repeating your isolated definition of one word which is actually two, i.e. "leadership race" is not what you looked up, and as I'll repeat combination words/idiom in any language don't mean what their component words mean, and the combination doesn't have to make logical sense; this one happens to, and everyone knows what it means. As far as using the Columbia goes, it was just the first search result I had out of encyclopedia.com. Maybe we should mine the G&M online archives, and nosracines.ca and other primary source cites; I don't think it's clear at all, and if anything refers to the actual proceeding within the convention at the end of the race/campaign (as I recall, even when pan-national voptes are held, as I think it was the Tories who've done that - ? - ) they're still focussed around a convention where the microphones and the cameras are. You can't say, also "during the leadership election, so-and-so said this" whereas you can say "during the leadership race [or campaign], so-and-so says this. Conventions also have proceedings on other matters, as well as other votes on policy planks etc. The election is only the summation of the campaign; and for such campaigns, the most common usage is "leadership races". I see no reason at all - nor any wiki-rule anywhere saying WP:Whenever possible, re-invent the wheel. You're right, "race" by itself DOESN'T mean anything like a leadership campaign; but "leadership race" very precisely does. The past tense idiom in my (long) experience tends to be "he became leader at the 1995 leadership convention". I'd be interested to where you'll find formal cites for "leadership election". It is not Wikipedia's job to re-invent the English language, nor to popularize phrases of its own invention/promotion as "better than that".Skookum1 (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By way of synchronicity, I was reading a commentary from Corky Evans and this passage leapt out at me - I include his introduction for context as to who is speaking:
In (about) 1995 or 96 Mike Harcourt resigned. He had been an excellent Premier and he resigned solely to accept responsibility for stuff that had happened decades earlier that tainted the reputation of the NDP. In politics, the things you cannot fix require scapegoats to make them go away. Mike took the rap for the Nanaimo Bingogate Scandal and quit. I thought about what to do over Christmas. Around the New Year Glen Clark phoned and asked me to support him to be Premier. I said “I will, Glen, if you can win the nomination, but I’m going to run against you first.” Then Glen went into a long argument about how Leadership races divide the Party and how there would be an election in the near future and how we couldn’t put it all back together fast enough after a Convention to succeed in the election. I said “I disagree, Glen, I think a Leadership race is the best way to put the Party back together and it is our only chance to say who we are and to capture the public’s imagination again after four years of being the government.”
Note that they're clearly talking about the whole process, as opposed to only the vote itself. Pretty clear to me what politicians call it themselves, though perhaps to you they're as discountable as that of the media and their usage should be ignored. The phrase "leadership race" recurs constantly throughout the article, sometimes with "Leadership" capitalized (as in Leader of the Party, one presumes, rather than Leader of the Opposition, although for the present situation that will amount to the same thing).Skookum1 (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And at the end of the letter/statement, he says:
I have no patience for the strategists who predict doom and gloom and, like Glen and Ujjal in their time, argue that a contest is “divisive.” Life is complicated and getting more so. There is a whole lot to talk about that “the centre” of all parties are always afraid to address. A leadership race gets those folks out of the way for a few days, at least. The rest of us should take this opportunity to engage and talk and demand and listen and participate. Like they say at weddings, “Speak now or forever hold your peace.”
The process, the contest, is what the central issue of the game is about; it's why sports terms are employed, perhaps; as with talking about power plays in in Parliament, but the roots of "contest" lie in any format of combat, including verbal and political; to best another, that's a related expression; if I'm not mistaken contesta means an argument, whether physical or mental or, as in the case of rival bodhisattavs and wizards, spiritual or sorcerous. It's not like that meaning doesn't exist in the English language; I submit that your choice of dictionaries is incomplete and does snot take in the full gamut of usage. I don't particularly like the "contest" title, because it's usually not seen in the idiom "leadership contest"; in that construction the process, the vying for power, the game - what they call a leadership race, and a contest, themselves - is to see how comes out at the head of the pack and gets to be leader for a spell (until they either screw up, get tired, or die); it's very much a struggle between opponents, and race for first place. The idiom is old and entrenched in the language and obvious and clear. And it refers to all the proceedings, from the triggering resignation (or death), the speculation on and declaration of candidates, details of the respective campaigns, who's out front in press cover and polls when along the way, then whatever goes down at the convention, before or during the vote - the election, as you define it, essentially, which is finally held at the summation of the race. To see who won. But perhaps "won" is too sporty and inaccurate a term, and we should look for another more accurate term....I don't mean to drub the point, but only to emphasize the pervasiveness of the most common usage; and I don't like wiki-isms - which are often artificial sounding or somewhat foreign and just aren't standard English, not in this country anyway; English is diverse, but there's no reason to develop trans-national standards for terminology when each country has their own, as we obviously do - so very obviously. A semi-related instance of this was with a CfD on Category:Power stations in Canada, in which a decision was made to change the American hierarhcy to Category:Power plants in the United States (or Category:Powerhouses in the United States, with the justification for not doing Canada accordingly was that in the absence of significant Canadian contribution to the debate (only me), "consensus" was that the old name, the British standard, be used for Canada; look at the titles in the Canadian hierarchy, it's "powerhouse" or "power plant" or "generating station", the latter less so ("power project" to the whole complex, including the dam and reservoir etc. not just the powerhouse as such. I've never filed a further CfD for lack of time; point is that what's used in another country's hierarchies is a reflection of their national idiom, same as their penchant for "-ise", also shared by Australasians; British English was also left in place for global standard, as I recall. But while at the same time we don't copy the Americans for category harmonization, we have no reason to with the British either, if we don't reflect what people in CAnada actually use and insist or promote a new terminology because we, wikipedians, have decided we didn't ilke the old, though far more in-use and recognizable, terms. If we don't reflect what Canadians themselves use, how does that fit with the "Canadian English in Canadian articles" please; that doesn't just apply to spelling IMO. I'd be shocked if more than one reputable, complete usage dictionary or English language lexical scholar/professor didn't konw what "leadership race" means, or when writing historically may more refer to the leadership convention, since it's the summation, the finish line, of the leadership race. Or if you will, the electoral race for the leadership. Doesn't sound quite right does it? Skookum1 (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The election or convention is the end point of the whole process, I agree. But all of our articles about elections and leadership conventions cover the before, the middle, the end and the after. Canadian federal election, 2008 is just one of a long series of articles that does this, even though technically the vote on election day is the election. United States presidential election, 2008 covers about two years of campaigning up to the point where 538 people cast their ballots for president, and then the aftermath. I would be shocked if anyone who reads English functionally doesn't doesn't understand "leadership election", and it is what many of the parties themselves use. They just do not use "leadership race" in official documents.

Look, you and I are not going to convince each other, and we've managed to bore any other mildly interested editors out of the discussion. We've both been spending too much time on this. Let's agree to disagree, and focus on what to call this one article. We agree that "contest" doesn't work. I propose "British Columbia Liberal Party Leadership Vote, 2011" (initial capitals used intentionally because it is a proper noun in this case), because that is what the party itself is using for now. I do not find it to be elegant, but I don't run the BC Liberal Party so I don't get a say in what they use. If the BC Liberal Party changes its nomenclature later, then we move the article again. I think this would be the least contentious move. How about it? Ground Zero | t 17:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the mistake here from the start was trying to establish a naming convention when there doesn't need to be one. And note there's a difference between what is used in a legal/quasi-legla document like a party constitution vs what is used in a press release or in conversation or as used by pundits is most likely not the same thing ("Legalese" is very pointedly and deliberately not plain English). Official documents vs most common usage/popular-press documents, quite the dichotomy.....if there's a need for a naming convention - is there? - I'd say it has to be "most common use" rather than "legalese"/"official usage"....there are also succession situations that just don't fit but there would be no article anyway....er, well, maybe; I'm thinking of 1941 when Duff Pattullo resigned; I think John Hart just stepped into the Preem's jobs as Deputy Premier, with legislative support from the party and from the Tories (this was "the Coalition"), i.e. there was SFAIK no leadership election for the Liberals; the vote if anything was in caucus only...not sure also with the Boss Johnson succession thereafter. And maybe, hm, the articles while the race is in progress could have different titles once it's over? Guess that's not workable, but I think you see what I mean; so long as people don't go starting campaign/pre-campaign information because it's not about the vote itself (as some, hm, may well do) the "more precise" title "election", since it's legal-official, may have to be teh standard; but somewhere in CANMOS there should be a paragraph on how when such votes/selection processes are mentioned, they must have caveats about "the leader was elected by party members [or delegates] on Jan 24" vs. "the leader was elected on Jan 24"...the normal usage would be "he/she won the leadership on Jan 24".....Skookum1 (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW re the discounting of media/popular usage vs official usage, this went in the other direction with "Metro Vancouver" vs "Greater Vancouver Regional District". Though I change it back when I can, the usage of the former as a name for the metropolis is somehwere between an affectation and a rebranding; mainstream media have enthusiastically embraced it as a placename, in the reality it's only the DBA name of teh board of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (which is still the official name). Becauase it also means "metropolitan Vancouver" as place, rather than "Metro" (which is an amorphous "place" spanning a few hundred cities and several continents), its dual meaning as "the government of the GVRD" vs "the physical/cultural space of Greater Vancouver" it's "got issues". It's an unofficial use, heavily p.r. branded, and pushed by the papers and the networks, but other than with young people who grew up under it, the actual usage "Greater VAncouver" for the place and also within thee.g. Greater VAncouver Water Board, Greater Vancouver Regional Parks etc" remains.....yet we have Category:Metro Vancouver apparently exazctly because it's the dominant media/Canwest/CBC format. Not because it's either official, or actually used by (most of) the public.Skookum1 (talk) 18:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skookum1: In my books, you don't have a case anymore, a vote to elect a leader, is a leadership election. And all the leadership election articles discuss the election, like any other article with election in the title; the timeline, the campaign, the contenders, the vote, and the fall out. 117Avenue (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about "in your books", in my books, "leadership election" may be the formal legal usage but it's not common English, nor common usage, period. But I'm bored with this, and getting tired of moving-the-deckchairs discussions about mistitled articles and categories when there's no valuable content being added to the articles in question; in the case of this one and its satellite candidate articles it's pretty thin gruel, though this one and Christy Clarks' actually have some "real issues" on them; This item by Bill Tieleman for example explores the connections of the BC Rail case in connection with certain candidates; the unsealing of the original warrants, which were censored by ACJ Patrick Dohm without good cause, or even a mandate, is sure to cough up issues which candidates in this campaign are either going to have to answer, or find entertaining ways of avoiding. Change the article title to whatever you please; but would people please start actually creating content instead of just fiddling with format, titles, links etc....Skookum1 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blasted, I missed this discussion. GoodDay (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if only somebody would explain to me when exactly Canadians & their media stop calling these events conventions & started calling them elections. It certainly didn't occur while I was awake. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly Wikipedians know better than the media and the public, that's a given ;-|. Just to note the phrase in the media this last bit I'm seeing, re the Liberals, is "extraordinary convention"....even though the vote itself will be by telephone and they're not even sure they can get all the candidates in teh same place for their victory/concession speeches, as they're all planning their own events (one suspects they can't stand each other...).Skookum1 (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These articles should all be RMd back to ...convention. GoodDay (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this has already been discussed to death, and closed, they are not on the convention (a grouping of people), but the election (the process of declaring, the campaigns, and the voting process). 117Avenue (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just don't go over to the American articles Republican National Convention & Democratic National Convention & start calling for those to be RMd to Republican National election & Democratic National election. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should be convention. How does this get re-considered? Me-123567-Me (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To have it re-considered use Wikipedia:Requested moves. --maclean (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: if these articles were only about teh vote and the event itself, whether by physical or tele/digital convention, then "convention" would describe their content. But they're not - they're about teh race - and I totally dismiss the position taht "race" means it's a sporting event only; "leadership race" is a well-established idiom in English for decades and it describes all of the pre-campaign, the campaign, teh voting structure, the vote and the result. "Convention" does not. And "election" I've never liked as a title for these, for all the reasons stated in the RM.Skookum1 (talk) 19:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

However, given Rich's comments in the intro to the RM about uncontested leaderships ("anointments" as the media dubs them, or "coronations" often enough too), I can live with "convention" which is much more the norm than "election", which sounds stilted and artificial, and as if in the idiom of another country.Skookum1 (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-soaping[edit]

At last a different topic huh?....my problem with some of the content is it's rather "thin on the ground" and doesn't tell teh whole story. The lede for example cites Campbell's statement about "holding the convention at the earliest possible date", but he only said that after word got out that he was intended on hanging on to the position for six months or more, and this was seen to re-ignite, or potentially so, the caucus revolt. The political context of the resignation, in relation to the BAsi-Virk verdict and mounting worries that had the trial continued, other Liberals than himself would be dirtied by having to appear on the witness stand, and on the media's saying/focussing on the anti-HST movement as the reason for his resignation and/or for the caucus revolt. Not so - the latter also had to do with their resentment of his unilateral decisions, like the recent caucus shuffle as well as the half-hour of boredom=with-tax-cut, the failure of which to garner any polling support precipitated the caucus revolt, then his resignation. Similarly the timeline section is pretty sanitized, unlike the NDP equivalent which has some of the gory political details.Skookum1 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Position statements[edit]

Now that position statements have started to come out, they should be added to each section, albeit in briefer form than they may appear in teh candidates' bio pages....but IMO such coverage should tend to be more here, than on their bio pages, which should be more general-career in nature and not focussed only on this campaign. Similarly poll results and important op-ed/news items.Skookum1 (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BC Rail warrants and reasons for judgments[edit]

Just to note this document from the Supreme Court of BC, Oral Reasons for Judgement from Justice Elizabeth Bennett, in 2009, concerning which cabinet ministers and MLAs were subject to the BC Rail search warrants; of those named three are candidates - Lekstrom, Clark and Falcon. It also was Falcon the RCMP advised of the taint on the Roberts Bank line sale, which resulted in its cancellation and why it's still a Crown asset and not owned by OmniTRAX by now; Clark's house was actually searched without a warrant, though this application had to do with her Deputy Premier's Office records; in the case of her house, unlike other people searched (such as, most notably, her brother), she was advised beforehand of the police visit rather than have a "knock at the door" (like the one, ahem, that Glen Clark got...). The warrants and related materials that have come out since the lifting of the publication ban require the BC Legislature Raids article to get seriously updated; but there's lots in them concerning the current candidate list here, and I hope it's not only feel-good fluff like "yay we're ahead in the polls" and "we have more social media traffic" stuff but actually politically-relevant facts; NB presenting a cabinet minister's policies without question amounts to advertising and POV, and ministerial statements/announcements should be viewed as inherently biased and not-objective; they should only be included if any disputing opinions/criticisms are also present; that applies as much on bio pages as here; otherwise if it's only feel-good fluff, this page and the bios just become campaign materials, i.e. "poli-spam".Skookum1 (talk) 02:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

candidate positions on HST referendum and BC Rail inquiry needed[edit]

Nearly all have said something, one way or the other, on both of those; the silence on this page about them is defeaning, however.....more needs to be here than just campaign promises.Skookum1 (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, a background section on what led to the leadership election as well as common issues would be useful. maclean (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policies OK, but what about criticisms?[edit]

And also non-MLA backers and who their campaign staff are; very notable in Falcon's case on the former count, extremely notable on the latter case for Christy Clark. But there's criticisms and other op-ed abounding on each one of these; having only their policy announcements by themselves come off like spam/advertising and sort of a "collective brochure". Falcon's intense support for increasing mining and other resource expansion in northern BC, for example, and his background on the controversial and notably corrupt Gateway project; other than Stilwell and Mayne, there's much more material about all of these people than just what they announce as campaign fluff.....and "who their friends are" is also very citable, in most cases....I mean, 'cmon, if former MLAs are listed as supporters ,why not also list their corporate supporters/backers - since they publish them on their websites, or Falcon does anyway....Skookum1 (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

News items about the regional-voting system[edit]

I don't have time to expand any of this today, or anything else; but again, this article needs to be more than just a summary of the policy promises the candidates are making....Skookum1 (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on British Columbia Liberal Party leadership election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_British_Columbia_Liberal_Party_leadership_election&oldid=1196587033"