Talk:2015 Canadian federal election

Canadian federal election, 2015

Can we now confirm that this election will take place in 2015

f so, when will be appropriate to change the title? GC MathTeacher (talk; talk_zhwp) 05:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No we can't. See Requested move discussion above. Graemp (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I know.. But isn't it 2015 now? All the discussions I see above were from late 2014. GC MathTeacher (talk; talk_zhwp) 20:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it should be moved to Canadian federal election, 2015. But, that's apparently not going to happen until the date is actually set. GoodDay (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. GC MathTeacher (talk; talk_zhwp) 02:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's do it now, okay? The reason that it hasn't already is that there are a few people who believed that Harper is soooooooo evil (I'm not a fan of his myself), that he would somehow have his party vote to delay the election beyond 2015 to say, uh, 2034 or thereabouts. This was not ever going to happen. So, let's try for a new consensus to move this thing to where it belongs....I Vote YESEricl (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's wait for a date to be set and the writ dropped. - Ahunt (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing substantive has changed since Ericl first raised this at the end of 2014, when there was no consensus for change. It seems unlikely that such a consensus will magically appear. There is no need to change the title of an article from something that is already 100% accurate to something that may be less than 100% accurate. I agree with Ahunt, let's wait. Graemp (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wait for what? A meteorite to slam into Ottawa? Harper to declare himself dictator and become Prime Minister for life? There is no evidence that the election will, or CAN be postponed beyond December 31, 2015 and into 2017, '19 or '34. It CANNOT happen without a coup de'tat or violent revolution. Yes, I suppose that the Cascadia tektonic plate could break and produce a magnitude 9.6 earthquake and everyone in western BC will DIE, Russian Zombies from the planet Mars will invade or somesuch with a one in ten to the negative 80th power chance of happening, but the simple fact IS, is that the election will happen no later than October, and if it happens earlier, it will still happen in THIS YEAR, which is 2015. The assumption is the title is that it WON'T, and that far more Crystal than changing it now. Let's have another vote.Ericl (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine waiting until the writ is dropped. What's a few more months? My vote would be to maintain status quo Bkissin (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ericl, that sort of behaviour is not suitable on Wikipedia. Your hysterics won't convince anyone of your point of view. Instead, they show you to be an irrational person who can be ignored. As noted in previous discussions, a legislative amendment to the fixed elections act would be sufficient to delay the election. That is within the power of the sitting Parliament. From now on, please be civil. Ground Zero | t 21:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Look who's talking. The Fixed election act is the law as it stands and while a change for the NEXT election, (2019 or thereabouts), might be a reasonable, getting the current session, that's right, this one, for no reason at all, to literally cancel an election without a massive calamity of biblical proportions, would be unacceptable to pretty much everyone in Canads.

A scheduled election is less than five months off, the commercials are already on the air, The Prime Minister and dozens of Tory operatives would have reassured the Canadian public, OVER AND OVER again there would be an election before October. Some Tory Minister introducing bill delaying the election to 2016 will be the equivelant of shooting one's self in the head. There is less than a month before the summer recess starts. I would be unreasonable to assume that the MPs would give up a paid vacation and the GG would dissolve Parliament then, which is why I'm not saying that we should put that in the article. However, Michael Ignatieff preferred Harper as PM then himself with Layton as Deputy in a coalition. That's why he came in third in the last election, the people who were center-left, or who just didn't like Harper, punished the Grits.

Cancelling an election, which is what changing the law to Delay it, outside an historical calamity of biblical proportions, would be a calamity unto itself, and Harper knows it. Canada is NOT Lebanon or Palestine. They cannot just lose their mandate to govern and go on forever on hot air and bad will. Canada is a democracy. Saying that Canada is a democracy and under the rule of law is not hystrical or irrational. Saying that the election might be held over the summer instead of September and October is not irrational, saying that there's a legitimate possibility that the election might be cancelled most certainly IS. Ericl (talk) 23:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

We have an existing consensus to not rename the article until the writ is dropped. The current title is still accurate and you haven't presented any convincing reason to rename it. - Ahunt (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have to say this is just weird. The convention has long been, for Canadian jurisdictions as elsewhere, that an article moves when only one year is possible under existing election law. Why did this change for this article? I understand not naming the article Canadian federal election, 2015 just because there are fixed terms—only American-style election have ironclad dates—but the link between writ-drop and renaming has only existed for federal election articles because elections have come early since Wikipedia became a thing. -Rrius (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No Canadian federal election has been held yet according to the schedule set out in the fixed election date legislation, so it really isn't a good guide to follow. Ground Zero | t 13:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

A month has passed since the above post and still nothing has happened that would postpone the election until 2016 or later. The Summer recess is in TWO WEEKS. PLEEEEEEEEEESE change the title as it is embarrassing.Ericl (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Leaders' Debate

I added a table on proposed leaders' debates given the change in format this time around. Welcome feedback. -Foreen (talk) 03:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

BQ changes

So, the media is reporting a Gilles Duceppe comeback La Presse, CBC. Should we be changing the BQ leader in the infobox, or wait until it is official? Bkissin (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

He is not the leader right now. As the news articles indicate he is currently an adviser only. There will be a press conference on Wednesday that may clarify the situation, but no changes to the article are currently indicated. - Ahunt (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Federation of Canadian Municipalities call for debate

A listing of a debate to be hosted by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has now been added twice. In carefully reading the references I don't see that the FCM is planning on hosting an actual televised debate. What I read is that they are calling for a general debate during the election campaign on municipal issues, not putting forward a plan to host a debate. I think this entry is misleading and should be removed. - Ahunt (talk) 12:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay with no objections of debate raised, in accordance with WP:SILENCE I will remove this. If some evidence comes up it can be reinstated. - Ahunt (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

more evidence the election will be held in 2015

To quote the Tory Website: "Did you know that there are now less than 20 weeks left until Canadians head to the polls on October 19? It’s true." C'mon. You know why there's a "consensus" among two or three people....let's get it over with.Ericl (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

We have a consensus to wait until the writ is dropped. What reason do you have to reopen this? - Ahunt (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

because the "consensus" is based on false information.Ericl (talk) 14:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There was 'no consensus', regardless of any information it may have been based around. The 'new information' being provided is not new but an example of a political party seeking to ready itself and its supporters for a likely election date. There will probably be many other examples of this sort of thing over the next few weeks and it is probably best if editors didn't get excited about them. Graemp (talk) 15:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The false information was not that the exact date couldn't be brought up a few days or weeks, but that it would be POSTPONED a year or two. There was never any evidence that it would, or even COULD be postponed to 2016, '17 or later. Under the terms of the law that stands now, and there is NO evidence that the law will be changed, or even CAN be changed prior to the mandated dropping of the writ in August. The summer recess is less than two weeks away. If you look at the official Calender you will notice that. I Never said we should change it to "Canadian Election, Oct. 19, 2015", I said change it to "Canadian Election, 2015", as it's going to take place this year come hell or high water. I know that people were ticked off that I said that the only way an postponement could take place was in case of a zombie invasion or world war, and nobody could give me any decent answer aside from mentioning that during the first world war (a world war), there was a slight delay of an election. The question is: CAN the election be postponed without changing the law within the next week or so? Remember, there's the summer recess, so for any legislative business to be done it has to be before then.Ericl (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is simply to wait until the writ is dropped to move the article. The current title is 100% correct. What reason is there for moving the article now? - Ahunt (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ericl: don't be surprised that your aggressive and uncollaborative approach to the issue has been a big part of the problem here. In addition to using reductio ad absurdam arguments, you dismiss any evidence presented to you. Don't expect anyone to agree with you when you ridicule their arguments. The whole zombie angle showed that you were just not willing to discuss this in a respectful way. Here is a scenario that I think is plausible. The scenario: a major terrorist attack along the lines of 9/11 that creates great public concern over security, or creates conditions in which part of the country is disenfranchised because voting is disrupted. Parliament meets hastily, and the parties agree that the country needs to unite to get through a period instead of having a divisive election. They demonstrate national unity by quickly passing a bill to delay the election by 6 or 12 months. I really don't care whether you think it is plausible or not. We've wasted too much time debating it. The article title is 100% accurate now. There is no consensus to change it. We'll change it when the writs are dropped. Ground Zero | t 20:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

So it was purely personal. That scenario is the one you attacked me for mockingly suggesting. A zombie attack/WW3 type thing. That isn't plausable. The title is misleading, showing the assumption that Canadian democracy can easilly be derailed or destroyed and the Grits and NDP would meekly agree to it. We got a week before Summer recess.Ericl (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It not purely personal. I am just pointing out how your aggressive behaviour makes it more difficult for you to convince opther people of your point of view. And the terrorist attack scenario is plausible. Parliament can be recalled during the summer if there is agreement that delaying the elction is necessary to protect democracy. Summer recess is not relevant in this scenario. Ground Zero | t 14:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is quite ridiculous. We have had a third-party arbitrate this issue already and they found that "there is no consensus to move the page at this time. The current title, while lacking in consistency with other titles, is not inaccurate. Of course, redirects are cheap and consensus can change in the future, so this is not a matter in which to become deeply emotionally invested". Unfortunately, as shown in nearly all articles related to Canadian elections, it is not possible for the editors not to become emotionally invested to the point of becoming insufferable. The editors have not reached a consensus on this issue, and it is not the end of the world if we don't redirect the article until the writ is dropped. Nor does it change Canada's standing on the world stage, because this is Wikipedia. A reasoning of "because Ericl wants to" does not seem like enough to sway my vote toward a redirect, though I highly doubt that the election will not take place at its scheduled time. Bkissin (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am emotionally invested in the TRUTH. The only place where the election is NOT referred to as the 2015 Election is HERE at Wikipedia. Everywhere else, and I repeat, everywhere else. A 9/11 magnitude attack, as is the nuking of Ottawa, is possible, but NOT plausable. What I did was reasonable, and was foiled for purely personal reasons. 12:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That it will be the 42nd Canadian federal election is also the truth. Or do you think that an election held in 2015 will be given some other number? Before 9/11, 9/11 was not plausible either. Your claim that this is purely personal shows that you do not accept that views other than your own are legitimate. And that's why you're not going to be very successful in briefing other people around to your point of view. Throughout this discussion you have violated Wikipedia policy on being civil, no personal attacks, and assuming good faith. Do not expect that other people are going to start listening to you now. The way you are behaving is no t Wikipedians treat each other. Ground Zero | t 15:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it will look like every single other article on past national Canadian elections in the series. Another 9/11 still isn't plausable, as for the past 13 years every single western nation has been trying to prevent it. Your charges about bad faith and the like are wrong.Ericl (talk) 16:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

So we're treating a future event differently from past events? Yep. That makes sense. You'll notice that parts of the article are written using the future tense instead of the past tense. That's different too, and there are good reasons for the different treatment.

Your behaviour is well-documented above. Calling people "conspiracy theorists" for pointing out that Parliament has the ability to amend legislation is just one example. Dismissing othe people's arguments and complaining that the objections to the move are "purely personal" is another example. If, as is expected, the writs are dropped in early September, you'll get consensus to move the article, but not before then. Ground Zero | t

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation isn't even convinced that the election will be on 19 October. Their 17 June primer on the election says "...if election day is Oct. 19..." - Ahunt (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, the last time we ran into this issue (i.e. in 2011), the consensus was to leave the article until the writ was dropped. Bkissin (talk) 22:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, none of that is evidence that the election will somehow be postponed until 2016, '17 or after. The first televised debate is in less than two months. The CBC primer says that because the election could be held earlier, not because Harper will recall Parliament in order to procure an emergency repeal of the Fixed Elections Act. It's too darn late for anything to change the date past January 1, 2016 without a World War magnitude event. The 2011 election was different. That was an EARLIER election than was scheduled ending a minority government. That is permissible under the FEA. The election was supposed to have taken place in 2013 or something. BTW, it's a conspiracy theory to say that the Prime Minister would for all intents and purposes stage another coup (I remember the porouging crisis all too well)Ericl (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No-one is saying that it will be postponed, only that it could. No-one has said that the PM will stage a coup. It would not take a world war magnitude event - it could be something that we can't anticipate because we don't have a crystal ball. There is no conspiracy theory here. Stop your personal attacks. They don't make you any friends. They make Wikipedia a crappier place to be. And they violate Wikipedia policy. You are becoming a problem editor. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Your behaviour is not constructive. Ground Zero | t 12:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, YOU said it would take a World-war magnitude event, and I quote from above: "Here is a scenario that I think is plausible. The scenario: a major terrorist attack along the lines of 9/11 that creates great public concern over security, or creates conditions in which part of the country is disenfranchised because voting is disrupted." A terrorist attack on the scope of 9/11 is indeed a world-war magnitude event, and if said attack creates conditions in which part of the country is disenfranchised because voting is disrupted. suggests that a major war has started in Canada. Canada is a member of NATO, and that means that the terrorists who did this, once they were identified, would be bombed by the US, the UK, France....

Thus, short of a World-war event, which within Canada is NOT the least bit plausable, postponement of the election to 2016 or later CANNOT happen. An election can be brought up a few weeks, as the law states that the writ must be dropped by a date in September which is during the summer recess (which formally starts tomorrow, all but a few housekeeping chores have been done and most MPs have already left for home). Your suggesting that I violate the crystal ball provisions is not true. In fact it's quite the opposite. Expected events that are publicly scheduled are all over the place listed with the year they are scheduled. For example, there have been four Olympics (1914,'16, '40 and '44) which have been cancelled. Does this mean that under normal circumstances, that is the current status quo with no world shattering events, the 2016 Olympics could and would be cancelled? No. The article is called the 2016 Olympics, not the Next Olympics or the XXXI Summer Olympic Games. Even when there is more than a slight possibility of Cancellation, such as the 2022 FIFA World Cup has the year in the title. WP:CRYSTAL is about foreseeing ABNORMAL and UNLIKELY events.Ericl (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This conversation is getting surreal. Talk page is for discussing "facts" related to the article. It is not a forum for speculation and rumour. Please review wikipedia policy: WP:NOTFORUM before posting any further. Thank you. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with Mediatech. This has become beyond out of control, and the tone of debate is completely unacceptable and counter-productive. Cheers, Undermedia (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Seconded! This conversation ceased being productive weeks ago, instead descending into what amounts to a slapfight between two editors. Let's try and get back to civility, stop dealing in hypotheticals, and wait patiently for the writ to drop. Bkissin (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Fine: to quote the relevant wikipedia page: "In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. " At this point in time, changing the title to include the year will improve the article immensely. It will make it look like all the other related articles and we could get on to more important subjects, as to when the second debate will be and the like...Parliament ends TOMORROW. That is not crystal, that's just the facts.Ericl (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

For the title of the article to change to what Ericl wants, either the writ needs to be dropped or a consensus needs to emerge as a result of all those editors who disagreed with him changing their minds. As far as I can work out, there is not a single editor who has changed their mind, therefore we are still in a state of 'no consensus'. Graemp (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It certainly hasn't changed mine, the level of "debate" here has only made me dig in my heels on the issue. Bkissin (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to participate in this debate in a constructive manner and following Wikipedia policies. Yes, there has been spirited debate. If I have crossed a line, I would appreciate someone explaining where I did so so that I can reconsider how I engage in this sort of discussion. I believe that Ericl crossed that line repeatedly, and let him know that. Ground Zero | t 12:34, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Forces et Démocratie

In announcing their first candidate outside of Ontario [Q, Forces et Démocratie debuted a new English name, "Strength in Democracy." Since an English name is offered, should this be used instead of the French name? Knoper (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Should that be the first candidate inside of Ontario and outside Quebec? GC MathTeacher (talk; talk_zhwp) 04:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it's pretty obvious that was a typo, yes. Knoper (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with the move, but you should propose the move on the article's talk page instead if here. Ground Zero | t 00:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Done here Talk:Forces_et_Démocratie, thanks for your help. Knoper (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Dissolution Date

I was thinking it would be a good idea to place this into the timeline, where the Dissolution section is (I'm showing the original & my proposed version to compare)...

ORIGINAL: August/September 2015: Parliament to be dissolved and writs of election dropped.

NEW: August/September 2015: Parliament to be dissolved and writs of election dropped. If Parliament dissolves the same amount of days before the election as in 2011 (37), then Parliament will be dissolved on Saturday, September 12, 2015.

This is just a statement to show that if Harper chooses to dissolve Parliament at the same time as last time, then this would be the date of dissolution. Brucejoel99 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This should not be included, aside from being unsourced and containing poor grammar, it has no relevance to what will happen in this election. - Ahunt (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Page move request

I recommend that this page be moved to Canadian federal election, 2015. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This should have happened months ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.92.230.217 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2015‎ (UTC)

• Since Harper dropped the writ this morning,[1] is there any reason not to rename the page? This seems obvious, now that the date is locked in. Even though there was a no-consensus requested move before, that was during 2014 and well before we hit the point of the date being locked in. —C.Fred (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Rename as soon as possible. Nations United (talk) 15:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• I am moving the page. It also resolves an issue with a page-history move, since an IP copy-and-paste moved the article. —C.Fred (talk) 15:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I think this move was premature, and we should open the question up for discussion again. ;-) Ground Zero | t 03:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Drop "Amendment to the Canada Elections Act" Section?

• Now that the election has been called should we drop the section on "Amendment to the Canada Elections Act"? My vote would be yes as reference to the election act is made in the opening statement and it does not seem to add anything to the article.Foreen (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• I'd agree with this, especially now that the writ is dropped, there's not really need for more than a sentence in the "background" section about how the date was chosen, maybe some of the political controversy can be discussed there or in the "spending" section. Huadpe (talk) 16:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

42nd Canadian Election as alternate title in intro paragraph?

I added this this morning, but it was removed, and I wanted to discuss. Other Canadian election articles use this form, such as Canadian federal election, 2011 and Canadian federal election, 2008. I think it's an appropriate way to title the article in the intro paragraph. Huadpe (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and it looks like someone has re-added that in now. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Independent vs. No Affiliation

Can someone explain why there is an additional row called "No affiliation", in the list of candidates? How is No Affiliation different from Independent?? Engineeringisawesome (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Elections Canada requires a candidate to specifically write "Independent" as their "Political Affiliation". If the candidate leaves the "Political Affiliation" section blank on their registration form, Elections Canada lists them as "No Affiliation". maclean (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• No Affiliation is often used by people who either belong to an ineligible political party or a person who retains a party allegiance but is prohibited from that party's nomination. Last I checked, there was one of each listed as No Affiliation.

G. Timothy Walton (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Issues

I note there is a lack of an Issues section. Would there be interest in making one? I think the 2011 election page provides a nice template. --Natural R_X 16:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Copy of the discussion from my talk page concerning to this issue

September 2015

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Opinion polling in the Canadian federal election, 2015, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Shawn in Montreal Either in Portugal or in Canada, what's the point of displaying polls that clearly are repetitive and are done with the same people? If a poll is done, e.g., from 16-20 September and a following one from 21-25 September, I find it justifiable to display both. But what's the point of displaying a poll from 20-24 September and another from 21-25 September, since 80% of the people polled, at least, are exactly the same? It doesn't reflect any national reality, it just reflects the vote intentions of those few people. This is valid for Portugal and for Canada. Urgup-tur (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

"political position" improper

This notion of "political position" should be removed. It is very subjective. What means left to one person does not to another for example. It also has "libertarian" as a position, which is obviously improper. (Lilic (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)).

I agree it should go. It is WP:POV and not supported by any sources. - Ahunt (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Lacking anyone jumping in to object and the rather time-sensitive nature of the subject, I will go ahead and remove this. - Ahunt (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

All federal election sites have this information and all parrties have this information on there official page. This is not a private and subjective information. And we are speaking about a "political position" and "political spectrum" which will be used since hundered of years. Take a look of the seats in the parliament, left, centre and right global view. Even the seats are not like in most parliament the some "political position" and political spectrum are the same. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ragdy (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, if their political positioning is actually stated on the party websites as you claim then it should be easy to provide refs for those claims. I'll just tag the offending parts that need refs cited. - Ahunt (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have formatted the ref you added, but I am still not happy with these claims. While they may not generally be far from wrong over the course of history, in this election the Liberals have been campaigning well to the left of the NDP and the Bloc has been campaigning far to the right of the Conservatives. I don't think these stated "positions" are of any value and in fact serve to confuse understanding. I propose instead just removing the whole table as non-constructive. - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

There is additional discussion here as to why it is totally inappropriate to add those subjective labels. [2] (00:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilic (talk • contribs)

Okay lacking any objections to the removal and with reasons for not leaving it as it is, I will remove it. - Ahunt (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Strength in Democracy?

I have just seen that the Strength in Democracy party has been prompted in several parts of the article and is being shown alongisde the Cons, NDP, Libs, BQ and Green parties, such as in the infobox and the Contestants. What's the reasoning behind it? I know they had 2 seats before dissolution as a result from splits from other parties, but aside from that (which is merely a circumstantial event which in no way reflects party strength or relevance, specially when it is not a major breakup and since those seats were not won by the party through elections) they have no relevance whatsover. They are not invited to debates; are not polling in relevant enough numbers to appear in opinion polls; do only stand 17 candidates across all of Canada (and 12 of them in Quebec); have not stood in any of the by-elections held since its formation in October 2014 and have little to no relevance in media outlets as compared to the other five main parties.

I'm all in for inclusion if, once Election Day comes, they do surprisingly poll in significant numbers, but I think that prompting them before that even happens would be somewhat premature. The infobox is a summary of election results, and I don't find SiD has enough of a relevance to be granted equal status as the Cons, NDP, Libs, BQ and Greens neither there nor on the "Contestants" section (which could potentially be a violation of WP:UNDUE; they are given a weight in the article that, so far, they don't currently enjoy elsewhere). Opinions? Impru20 (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Another day, another argument about who should be in an infobox...! I can see arguments for and against including the party in the infobox. There's an argument for including every party that won seats last time (so no SiD), and there's an argument for including every party who had seats at dissolution (so including SiD). I don't see an easy way to pick between those though!

Another line of argument is that we should follow what reliable sources do. Reliable sources in Canada do not appear to be treating SiD as being in the same league as the other parties, so that would argue for excluding them from the infobox and making sure coverage of them elsewhere in the article is not undue. That feels to me like a safe line of argument that respects basic Wikipedia principles, so I vote for that. Bondegezou (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to say because there's no real precedent that we can point to in past elections, where a small party formed from other parties between elections runs (and possibly loses all their seats). That being said, SiD is clearly more significant than other minor parties, having the same number of seats at dissolution as the Green Party and the Bloc Quebecois. It's also gotten significantly more coverage than from reliable sources than a minor party withouts seats would've gotten, with coverage from both language versions of the CBC ([3], [4]), the National Post [5], The Walrus [6], the Ottawa Citizen [7], and even the UK's Guardian [8]. I would say that they stay (we also seem to conveniently have an open 6th slot in the infobox, which avoids the nasty extra line). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

More sources that give treatment to S&D above that of truly fringe parties, National Observer in context of who gets invited to debates: [9], the BBC [10]. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

SiD has never won a seat, and has never had a sitting member. Each of the candidates joined SiD after the writ was dropped. No seats before, no seats after and less than 5% popular vote; therefore not notable enough for the infobox. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I caution that this is an article about the election, not the parliament. They had two seats going into the election and another one joined them after parliament ended. I side with inclusion into the infobox on the basis of that "seats before" field is not zero. maclean (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my statement nearly a year and a half ago. The only minor relevance SiD could have was by virtue of their (very limited, actually) parliamentary presence before going into the election, and even that was not because of any electoral strength or results but because of defections. The party then went on to win nothing in the election, not even scoring a remarkable electoral result (only 8,274 and 0.05%; seriously, there were three other parties, aside from the five main ones, scoring higher). As you say, this is an article about the election, not the parliament, so whatever presence SiD had in parliament before going into the election is pretty much irrelevant here, since what counts in an election infobox are primarily actual election results. As an election, election infobox rules should be applied, and traditionally parties with 0 seats are excluded from the infobox except for some exceptional cases (i.e. the Greens in 2008, FDP for Germany 2013... in both cases parties with remarkable election results and always ordered by party results). However, I think that for this case results for those parties winning 0 seats were so insignificant that adding them would be probably giving them an undue weight. Yet, should we make an exception here and we choose to add parties with 0 seats, then even with that, Libertarian, Christian Heritage or Marxist–Leninist should be given preference given that they did score higher vote shares than SiD, with the same number of seats (that's it, none). Impru20 (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

While I am more on the side of "less parties in the infobox", let's remember that the Green Party had no seats in 2006, but was added to the infobox for the 2008 election when Blair Wilson crossed the floor. This caused plenty of debate on WP, as each side accused the other of trying to suppress or inflate their political side. FeD was created by floor crossers, and had three-times as many seats at dissolution than the Greens in 2008. Even though the Greens failed to win any seats in the 2008 election, they are still mentioned in the election infobox. I would argue that FeD should stay in the infobox despite not winning any seats. The party is moribund anyway, what is the harm in adding it as a historical footnote? If the Libertarians or the CHP or the CPC-ML had won seats or had people cross the floor during the parliamentary session before the election, I'm sure we'd be having the same conversation. Bkissin (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Back for 2008, the Greens did not win any seats, but its not quite the same case. 1. The Greens did score a relevant election result back then (937,613 votes and 6.78%). 2. They're shown in fifth place in the infobox, which is were they should be using the standard means of party classification used for infoboxes (first seats, then votes; winning 0 seats, then it comes to votes, and SiD is not the highest scoring party with 0 seats) and 3. The Greens were (and still are) indeed a relevant party at the federal level, being regarded as such both before and since the 2008 election despite not winning seats (for example, they were still named by opinion polls, and they did manage to come back to the House in 2011). For the case of SiD/FeD, they didn't meet any of the points, since 1. Their election result was insignificant, 2. Having them in would show them in 6th place despite them scoring in 9th in terms of both votes and seats (this would definitely constitute a breach of WP:UNDUE) and 3. They were not a significant grouping before the 2015 election, much less later on, not even being mentioned in opinion polls. From what I can see in the 2008 election talk page, the "they had MPs going into the election"-reasoning was only one of the many proposed to keep the Greens in the infobox. Most of the reasons given revolved around their relevancy. You're comparing a 900,000-strong party back in 2008 with a 8,000-strong party in 2015 which, in any case, is not even the most-voted party without parliamentary representation (which the Greens were back then). It's definitely giving SiD undue weight, that's the issue. Precisely you point it out when you acknowledge that it's a "moribund" party. So, what's the point of giving so much prominence to such an irrelevant, moribund party? Their place is surely awarded and deserved for the full results table, but not for the infobox. Impru20 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Pictures of incumbents who are not running

Is this not a classic example of cruft? These are people are are not important in this selection. Why do we take up a bunch of space with pictures that already appear in their own Wikipedia articles? Ground Zero | t 21:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, only some pictures were included. Others were not. I've been bold and removed these. Ground Zero | t 13:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

All pictures that had been available on WP had been included. However, I concede the point about notability.Raellerby (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Update

When does Wikipedia update itself to reflect election results? Justin's about to become PM, Harpers probably going away, as many defeated leaders do, and we can only speculate about the final results. This definitive now, we might update this soon. The 2000 presidential election in the US, Wikipedia (if it was operating then) probably didn't update for a while after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.156.139 (talk) 03:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Harper will be PM for another 2 weeks. That's roughly the length of transition time. GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Notional Gains

What are "notional gains"? How do they differ from "defeated incumbents"? 50.72.201.97 (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The incumbent didn't run for the seat anymore, his party's new candidate failed to secure it, and the seat was won by another party. --Voyager (talk) 10:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Could an explanation of this or a Wikilink somehow be worked in somewhere, do you think? It wasn't very clear to me what that meant either. I don't really want to go mucking about with it myself – I don't personally know that side of politics very well.  DiscantX 10:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I made a post about this section below...I guss someone changed the name from Notional to Notable. Your explanation, Voyager, still doesn't make sense; isn't that the section for 'Incumbent MPs not running for re-election'? Reywas92^Talk 03:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

No these are incumbent MPs who ran for reelection, but in a new riding because 30 new seats were added and most riding boundaries were changed, some dramatically. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Now Front Page

FYI, this article is now in the news and on the front page. --Natural R_X 13:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm very glad this article wasn't deleted. I live in the US, I'm a US citizen, and I'm not familiar with Canadian news sources. I have a mild interest in Canadian politics, such that I was aware that an election was going to be held. I now know quite a lot more about the results of the election; in particular, that the Liberals have an absolute majority. The level of detail is more than I need (speaking as a reader), but I recognize that other readers may appreciate such detailed description. Oaklandguy (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You'd do well to google Jon Oliver's commentary on the Canadian election. It's about 15 minutes, and as a Canadian and interested in politics, I thought it was both informative and effing hilarious. Ground Zero | t 17:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Notable gains

What is the Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Notable_gains section for? It offers no suggestion what makes these races notable. While I'm all for pointing out races that were for some reason special out of the 338, I will delete the section if there's not going to be an explanation for it. Reywas92^Talk 03:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It used to be called Notional Gains but someone changed the title. Looks like it's been changed back now. There is also a discussion a couple sections above this regarding it. DiscantX 21:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove 'Strength in Democracy" party from the page (table in the 'slogan" section)

First, they didn't win any seats at the election (nor at the preceeding one, as the party was formed between the 2, with people that left their party). Second, although they had as many seats as the BQ, and even though some might object by saying they received coverage from reliable, important media publications, they weren't featured in any of the TV debates (but the BQ was...). Third, if you really do wish to include this (and other minor parties) in the page, keep them were they should be, that is in the detailed results section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.140.121 (talk) 02:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Long Page Split

Per WP:Article size, I trimmed the result to a different page and linked it here (with no prejudice to future name changes of that page) and it fits in to the less than the 100k readability.Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Analysis section

This section clearly needs a re-write. However I'll leave that to someone more capable. Moonboy54 (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. A little less about everyone's favourite unhappy marriage in the middle-east and that middle power between Belarus and Alaska wouldn't do this article any harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.72.111 (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The section is extended POV about foreign relations with only 2 countries masquerading as a general "Analysis" section. I suggest moving it to Talk for massive reworking to be less embarrassing to Wikipedia. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly I think it should be completely removed in its current form - it is completely a sole POV piece and unduly weighted on foreign affairs. --  R45  ^talk! 14:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree, this section should be removed until. There is clearly an anti-Trudeau bias. The section states that it is a loss for Israel yet proceeds to say that the PM-designate supports that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.249.67 (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

It is very biased, just remove the whole thing. - Ahunt (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Three in favour of removing. Here it is. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, lets wait until there is some academic analysis I think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

There are a multitude of sources tjat are even RS. At any rate, if there is other sources then feel free to ADD them. that doesn't mean because there are only sources from X it should be withdrawn altogether when ti si RS.Lihaas (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Analysis

Trudeau's Liberal's defeat of Harper's Conservatives were read as a defeat for Israel, as well as, separately, a boon for Russia. Canadian Bank of England (BOE) Governor Mark Carney was also mentioned in the outcome.

While a traditionally more neutral Canada had been viewed as Israel-friendly under Harper, a change in government was read by the Israel as portending an alteration in the closeness of relations. As such, the relative isolation of Israel in the preceding years as more countries, particularly Western European ones that recognised Palestine, was viewed as having taken another step backwards in such moves that followed the pressure of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement and the raising of the flag of Palestine at the United Nations' organs. The Times of Israel said before the election that Harper was "undoubtedly the world leader most supportive of Israel" and that Israel "was about to lose one of its best friends on the international stage... the Harper administration one Benjamin Netanyahu's dream team." It followed Harper's government's withdrawal of financial support for pro-Palestinian NGOs and UNRWA. Yet, despite media speculation, Trudeau mentioned in the pre-election debates that there was not much of a difference between both parties over relations with Israel. Trudeau has also spoken of the BDS movement as "an example of the new anti-Semitism in the world," similarly as Harper had mentioned. He told Canadian Jewish News: "I'm all for freedom of speech and expression in Canada, and we need to be sure we're defending that. But when Canadian university students are feeling unsafe on their way to classes because of BDS or Israel Apartheid Week, that just goes against Canadian values."

In regards to relations with Russia following sanctions by Canada and counter-sanctions, the Vzglyad wrote that the election was a failure for Harper. In particular, it mentioned that during his tenure Canada was said to have obtained the status as one of the most "anti-Russian" countries in the world as on of the first states to impose sanctions, as well as visa restrictions. Director of the Canada Department at the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of US and Canadian Studies Vasily Sokolov said that the Conservatives' defeat was a good sign for Russia. "The young leader of the Liberal Party is unlikely to bear any personal grudges against Russia. He is the son of Pierre Trudeau, who did a lot for Canada, particularly for the development of Canadian-USSR relations. With time this will happen. Contacts will become closer. From the Russian point of view, the Liberal Party's victory gives us certain hope."

Bloomberg suggested that the defeat was also a blow to the BOE's Carney, who harboured hopes of running as the Liberal's leader at some point in the future. This was partly due to his attempt to shorten his eight-year tenure to five years. Peter Loewen, of the University of Toronto was quoted as saying: "The thing about Carney is, he's genuinely publicly minded. If Justin Trudeau had flaked out, Carney's chances of being Liberal leader would have been good, but that door has closed." While other suggestions were made he could take a position at the IMF instead, Carney has said: "I'm surprised that it would be suggested that taking one of the most challenging jobs in central banking in another country would viewed as politically advantageous in my home country. If I had political ambitions, I would pursue them in Canada, so I think this is revealed preference that I do not have political ambitions."

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2015

It says Elizabeth May received 2 seats in 2011, but that is incorrect, she received only 1. her seat count is unchanged.

154.20.86.205 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

It says she won 1 in the last election, but had 2 going into this election, which is correct. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

According to the notes, the Greens had two seats at the dissolution of the prior Parliament; an NDP MP joined the Greens after he was denied nomination by his old party. However, that happened after the writ dropped. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- ferret (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 October 2015

The section headed "Reimbursements for political parties and candidates" reports:

Political parties receive a reimbursement for 50 per cent of their election expenses during the writ period. Similarly, electoral district associations receive a reimbursement of 60 per cent of their election expenses during the writ period. Both reimbursements are publicly funded.[74]

But it turns out this is not exactly true because (a) the amounts are maximums and (b) party reimbursements only apply when the candidate polls 10% of the vota total (or more), or if s/he is elected. This is an important constraint on fairness! The Conservative Party (for example) will be able to recoup millions of dollars that it spent Canada wide, because it will have polled more than 10% in nearly all ridings. The Green Party, on the other hand, which spent far less, will get hardly any of its investment returned.

References

SocialNorm2000 12:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2015

bloc quebeqoise had 10 seats 99.245.247.94 (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Not sure where the inconsistency is, could you specify? --Natural R_X 20:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Already done Viewing the article, the infobox shows Bloc Québécois with 10 seats. -- ferret (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Final results

Why does the final vote totals at the top of the page not match those in the results section? Mikemikem (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Because there are multiple places where the vote totals occur and somebody missed updating one of them. I'll take care of it. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Canadian federal election, 2015. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150810102600/http://www.parl.gc.ca:80/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ed3d4160-8a5a-4efc-a0a6-d65deeb994d9&Language=E to http://www.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=ed3d4160-8a5a-4efc-a0a6-d65deeb994d9&Language=E
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150815055751/http://www.elections.ca:80/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=part/pollim&document=index&lang=e to http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=part/pollim&document=index&lang=e
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150815061116/http://www.elections.ca:80/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand/canlim&document=index&lang=e to http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand/canlim&document=index&lang=e
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150815055756/http://www.elections.ca:80/content2.aspx?section=thi&dir=42ge&document=index&lang=e to http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=thi&dir=42ge&document=index&lang=e
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150815060115/http://www.elections.ca:80/content2.aspx?section=thi&dir=thilim&document=index&lang=e to http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=thi&dir=thilim&document=index&lang=e

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 02:39, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

- Ahunt (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Map

I noticed that for most first-past-the-post election result pages, the map in the infobox tends to be the result by constituency. For federal Canadian election results we've been using results by province instead. Is there a specific reason this is being done instead of constituency maps? Should we put the constituency result map there instead? Or both? Canadianpoliticalwatcher (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Due to size limitations, the scale of a constituency map is very limited — a map of all of Canada colour-coded by individual constituency would be a complete failure at displaying the results in large urban centres, where there are multiple small ridings that would disappear off the map scale instead of just one or two large ones. Even at the provincial scale, which isn't as bad, we still regularly have to do inset pullouts for the urban centres — but that's not a feasible alternative at the national scale, because of the sheer number of cities that would have to be pulled out. (Just at Ontario scale alone we have to pull out nine cities.) The problem is demonstrated by United States House of Representatives elections, 2016, for just one example of many — the election resulted in just a 47-seat gap between the Republicans and the Democrats, but the urban areas disappear so thoroughly that the map makes it look like a whopping Republican supermajority with a disastrously small rump of less than 100 Democrats, which it isn't. Same thing on United Kingdom general election, 2017: the map makes it look like the Conservatives won an outright majority, which they didn't. So consensus of WPCanada went to this kind of map for national elections, because a by-constituency map just isn't viable or maintainable. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Who updated this?

Will whoever declared Singh and Scheer leaders of their respective parties in 2015 please correct those (and any other blunders) and refrain from editing Wikipedia until you learn to do so more carefully? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.129.49.7 (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It was in a linked Template: Canadian federal election, 2015,  Fixed. Thanks for bringing it up. - Ahunt (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect popular vote figures

This article at present gives popular vote figures that differ from those on the Elections Canada website ([11][12]).

party	Elections Canada	Wikipedia
Liberal	6,942,937	6,943,276
Conservative	5,613,633	5,613,614
New Democratic	3,469,368	3,470,350
Bloc Québécois (these numbers match)	821,144	821,144
Green	602,933	602,944

These figures have apparently been in the Wikipedia article for almost four years: [13][14][15][16] I just happened to notice. See also Template talk:Canadian federal election, 2015#The vote totals in this template are wrong. Mathew5000 (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Seat Graphic Structure

I've noticed that someone has edited this, and most if not all, other Canadian election pages, to show the parliamentary result as a horseshoe rather than two aisles. There are a few problems with this. First, that's not how our parliament is set up. Our parliament has two sets of seats facing each other, not the horseshoe that is shown. Second, the horseshoe that is being shown doesn't seem to be sorted from most to least seats. If I were to guess, it seems to be sorted from left to right politically. A major problem with that, is that there isn't an exact consensus of where each party sits in regards to one another. For instance, the chart as shown would suggest that the Greens are to the left of the NDP, while the Greens themselves claim to be Center politically. Meanwhile, where do you even place the Bloc Quebecois?

I propose that the graphics be changed back to the Government/Opposition facing each other model that we were using before.

99.192.105.6 (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

REMOVE SID

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

---

Considering that these two sections already seemed to agree with the removal of SID Proposal: Remove 'Strength in Democracy" party from the page (table in the 'slogan" section) Strength in Democracy?

Considering poor performance of SID in the elections

Considering that this is about the 2015 ELECTIONS, NOT the 2011-2015 PARLIAMENT

I believe we should remove SID from the slogans section 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Oh and before you tell me there is consensus to keep it, WHERE??? Which mysterious talk page part can that be if I cannot find it anywhere here oh mr AHUNT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

it is a minor mention in the "Campaign slogans" section, not a prominent presentation in the infobox or similar. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia's main role in these sorts of articles is to record history and the small role of Strength in Democracy in this election is part of that history. I am not sure why there is a concerted campaign to erase their role in this election. Strength in Democracy remains basically a Candian political "footnote" worth the small mention it has. - Ahunt (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That's why they get their small footnote mention in the article, they do not need the slogan to be present too. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, when you say "concerted campaign" I hear "no clear consensus to include", so please stop claiming that you have some sort of existing consensus on this issue when the opposite seems more accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.190.33.254 (talk)

Why is it so important to you to remove them? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is it so important to you to keep them? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You are the one proposing to remove them, you need to justify that position. So far you have not done so. - Ahunt (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I feel no vendetta against them. They were a parliamentary faction with seats going into the election. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Slogans help set the tone for a NATIONAL campaign, SID only ran in a few seats (by comparison, the bloc ran in EVERY QC seat, the Liberals in EVERY SEAT, etc...), and having seats in the previous parliament has nothing to do with having a national campaign. Now since you both appear to think that this is such important information, let's agree to a compromise : let's put it on the SID wiki page. That way, we can keep the little footnote in that article and you have my word I will NEVER go and edit that article, I just don't want it in the main article. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

SID had candidates outside Québec. Move the goalposts all you want.

A compromise implies something where neither side gets all it wants and neither gets all it wants. What you propose is entirely what you want.

I don't think this information is groundshakingly important but I do think its presence on the page is justified. However, the following comments appear to indicate something other than objectivity at work here:

• "Removed useless information"
• "I do not give a flying flamingo about the number of seats that they had before the elections"
• "so find me a source calling them an major party, or bugger off"

And one must wonder about the need for anonymity. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You ignoring other editors here and getting it the way you want is no compromise at all. You still have not given one convincing reason to remove this. Unless you can provide a better argument, then I think we can just close this discussion as "consensus to keep". - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer if the info isnt on wiki at all, so I stand by my statement of this being a compromise (as you are ignoring another editor who wants to remove this) . I called it useless (if I called it useless, why would I want it ANYWHERE?) so I think that proves my point about me being willing to meet at a halfway point. "I do not give a flying flamingo about the number of seats that they had before the elections", I stand by this statement, since that isnt what matters for this section, note that I never complained about them never running candidates outside of Quebec, so stop moving the goalposts too (notice how I used the BQ, which only ran in QC?).

"convincing argument" is purposefully vague and subjective, closing a topic after engaging in a short argument is the definition of "Ignoring another editor"(funny how you accuse me of what you appear to be doing) heres why I oppose putting them in the slogan section.

A slogan sets the tone for how you run a campaign, people forget wikipedia serves to record history, such as major campaigns, not trivia, such as a random slogan (again, you can mention them all you want in the PARLIAMENT PAGE or the party's own page, I never claimed they werent notable enough for that).Strength in Democracy remains basically a Candian political "footnote" worth the small mention it has but not the attention that we would give to a major party, which is why I am ok with adding the slogan on their page. And where do you get the idea that I have a vendetta against them? Also, you are the one proposing that we keep them, you need to justify that position, so far all you have done is attack me by claiming that I am "a vandal", "someone who ignores other editors", "someone with a vendetta against SID", "someone who wont compromise", etc...

Also, you insist there is "consensus to keep" despite there being a "concerted effort" from half a dozen unique accounts over the past 6 years to remove them. You cant just declare that there is consensus when you get sick of something, thats literally against the rules. (And before someone tells me that is "gaming the system" theres 2 of you and 1 of me, not exactly a "clear consensus". CanadianScotNationalist (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You are still not providing a clear reason for removing this, beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The party was notable when it existed and we are recording that history here on Wikipedia. The current coverage is proportional to the influence of and importance of the party, which was "small". You can note, too as per WP:BRD you want it removed so you have to justify that, not the other way around - you need a consensus to remove it. As you can see, so far your arguments are not convincing. I have indicated that we should close this unless you can come up with some more convincing arguments. So far you are just saying the same thing over again and we are near WP:DEADHORSE here. - Ahunt (talk) 18:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

"a 'concerted effort' from half a dozen unique accounts over the past 6 years to remove them."

On this page, a single discussion involving five unique editors, begun before the election took place in 2015, revived in 2017, ended more than five years ago. Not exactly as described. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

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

Strength in democracy

I can see that there has been much controversy on the issue of whether or not to include Strength in democracy in the motto section, bu that no consensus was reached (the above discussion was closed, as per one of the debaters' request, the other editors confirmed that the issue was closed for now but could be reopened in the future, which you can see by looking at the edit history). Now I think a reasonable compromise (which leaves everyone equally happy) can be reached : the motto should be removed from the "slogans" section and moved to the strength in democracy section of the article. That way, the party gets to keep its "small footnote" in this very article, it is merely moved to a more appropriate section, since it did not run a national campaign making it warranted for inclusion in the slogan box, but it was relevant enough for a mention in the other parts of the article. 192.219.75.2 (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd rather leave the issue closed entirely. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It is fine as it is now and this event is now 8 years ago. - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

So you're making an appeal to tradition? Why should we keep it that way?

I'd rather leave the issue closed entirely by making a final edit to it than by beating a dead horse non-stop for 5 years by now 192.219.75.2 (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

If you don't want to be a dead horse then stop trying to induce a galvanic response. It is impossible to assume good faith. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying you'll block me because I dare to >checks notes< disagree with you? You said and I quote If you don't want to be a dead horse then stop, can you explain why we need to keep the article as is? Because it is impossible to assume good faith when just arguing with someone is grounds for you to block them... 192.219.75.2 (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That's a nasty mental typo for me to make. I think I got caught somewhere between two variations on beating a dead horse, which is what this whole anti-SID crusade is. I'm genuinely sorry that it came out so wrong.

BTW, I'm not an admin, so I can't block anyone. G. Timothy Walton (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)