Talk:2015 Alberta general election

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

Nominated Candidates[edit]

Would now be an appropriate time to add the Nominated Candidates section? With the PCs in full nomination mode and the other parties having nominated many candidates already it only makes sense to add this section. MarkFizz (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Go ahead. Graemp (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does it make sense to copy the legend used on the federal candidates page? Results by riding of the Canadian federal election, 2015 MarkFizz (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What legend? The list of minor parties? Those aren't provincial parties, on Ontario general election, 2014 the short name function of Template:Canadian party colour is used. 117Avenue (talk) 04:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that names in boldface type represent party leaders.
  • Names in italics are candidates for nomination.
  • † represents that the incumbent is not running again.
  • § represents that the incumbent was defeated for nomination.
  • ‡ represents that the incumbent is running in a different district. MarkFizz (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't here in the past. Do you think you could find references for all that? 117Avenue (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone started using it anyway, we should add it to the page. MarkFizz (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the legend being used replicates those used elsewhere for canadian elections. I do agree that if names appear on here, they ought to be referenced or not included, as is done on the current federal page. Graemp (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

It's probably time to start adding a Controversies section. There have been several so far. A bribery allegation (Bhardwaj) and nomination irregularities O'Neill/Choucair), along with "Deletegate". Though I must say, I think that latter probably doesn't raise to the level of notability. --Yamla (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Polling[edit]

I was wondering if the 1Question polls should be posted. It does not seem like the media are covering these polls and they are being done by a company - or a person - who has a clear agenda. I do not see why they are being posted. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting question. If we were trying to do analysis of the polls (like threehundredeight.com does), we'd want to exclude them, just as we would exclude polls done by the parties themselves. But if those internal party polls were published, I see no reason why they wouldn't count as encyclopedic. There's a clear bias behind the 1Question polls. Does that matter? --Llewdor (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well an encyclopedia is also suppose to use academic sources. What do we know about the methodology of the poll or even the source of it? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The polls were done using Google Survey. They said that Google Survey is skewed to the left (possibly due to internet demographic) and that the "actual" data should be in between IVR (skewed to right) and Google Survey.--Zhantongz (talk) 07:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Particularly, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. [snip] Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." I point this out just to show that we don't necessarily need "academic sources". I see no immediate problem with the 1Question polls. Specifically, the bias appears to be well-stated and this appears to balance the other polls. That said, the fact that no newspaper has picked them up so far is slightly concerning. --Yamla (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I find that concerning only because the table's heading says that these polling firms are used by Alberta's media, and there's no evidence that the Google Surveys polls are. Perhaps we should change that title. --Llewdor (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know that CBC has a process for deciding if certain polls should be covered or not. Personally I don't think this "pollster" should be used here if the polls are not being used by the mainstream media. I could simply start a website and say I used Google Surveys and here are my results. Doesn't mean I actually did that. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. That's a really good point. I'm (obviously) not in control of this article, but you've convinced me. My preference would be to simply remove this particular poll. However, Llewdor's suggestion holds merit. --Yamla (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong objection to removing those polls, but I have edited the heading to suit the table we currently have, whch does include the Google Surveys. If those polls are removed, then the original heading (or a better written one) could be restored. --Llewdor (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this myself, and I would agree that they should be removed. There does not seem to be any attempt or method of ensuring the survey is representative of a broad spectrum of the public. It is a self-initiated poll that will have a huge bias to the site's demographic. As such, I would argue this does not qualify as a reliable source. We might as well start including newspaper and web forum polls if we are going to include this. The chart should be left to the professional firms only. Resolute 17:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No response in the last several days, so per my concern about the 1 ABVote polls meeting the burden of WP:RS, I have removed them. Resolute 14:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Resolute. --Yamla (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By that reasoning, we should remove the Pantheon poll, as well. A PDF in a dropbox from a company about which I can learn almost nothing doesn't fill me confidence. --Llewdor (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I can find no evidence this has been used by the media, so I removed it. --Yamla (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not this page's place to judge whether scientific polls are "quality" enough to include in the list of polls, just to present information that is available. As long as the polls are conducted scientifically, which both the 1ABVote and Pantheon Research polls are based on their reports, they should be used. Equating these to simple Internet page polls is complete nonsense. The commissioner of the 1ABVote polls has written detailed reports on his methodology including noting that it is experimental since it is a new methodology based on river sampling in Google Surveys. He has criticized even his own results as part of the scientific experiment process. If you have more questions about his results and methodology, I suggest contacting him on reddit as he is freely answering questions on his methods and results on the /r/CanadaPolitics subreddit under the username zinctank. Another reason to include this poll is that previous results are not out of line outside of a few slightly lower results for WRP, but they have been very good at spotting trends in the NDP and PC votes that have been corroborated by other polls. This is a similar reason to keeping Pantheon since their poll is very similar to the Forum result. Pantheon is not a one off poll as they have done polls in the past such as in February 2015 of individual Calgary ridings which can be found through a simple Google search. I will continue to undo deletions of scientific polls (or addition of nonscientific polls) from the page as users should be presented with all available data. Let them be the judge and let the final result judge the results of these polls. 2602:306:37F9:F4A0:9510:5AD6:FAB6:1A0B (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for finally bringing this talk page. Second, yes, it is our place to judge whether these polls meet Wikipedia's policies. In particular, several of us are concerned that these meet Wikipedia's policies on using reliable sources. Your arguments here make me even less inclined to believe this is an RS. If the person conducting these polls is criticizing his own methodology, that speaks against reliability. Also, Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and should use secondary sources wherever possible. Primary sources aren't strictly forbidden, but we judge reliability based on what secondary sources say. The other firms are published in major news publications that speak to their acceptance in the real world. The 1AB polls do not appear to be, and that also limits their qualifications here. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Resolute 19:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC) U[reply]
No, it is not your average place to judge scientific sources with an open criticisation process. In science, to criticize does not completely have a negative connotation... Your failure to understand that makes me even less inclined to think that you have the ability to judge the Scientific quality of polls. Part of the experimentation process is to have an open discussion on something whether it is through something like Peer Review or a student-professor discussion or an open discussion with the public. This falls under the first and third of those, as he has been discussing his results and answering questions with the public, statisticians, and fellow polling/aggregator organisations. In this context one can criticize both negatively (the Wildrose number may be lower due to a methodology that undersamples their demographic) and positively (the trends in the NDP and PC results have been corroborated by other polling organisations). Whether or not the media discusses them (which some have) is not the final say on polls. The media in 2012 discussed many polls that ended up being horribly wrong, so why do they have sole judgement of quality? This year, the goal is to experiment with methodologies to try to catch a more accurate result than 2012 which is what 1ABVote is doing. These organisations need to do this in preparation for the fall election in order to avoid national embarrassment. Most mainstream polling organisations who are experimenting with their methods are withholding their results from the public so they aren't embarrassed if they are wrong, so we as the public have to go off of what we have in order to make a sound judgement of the status of the race as well as the quality of the polling methodologies which is what the final result will tell us. 166.137.10.30 (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not judging "scientific sources with an open criticisation process". I am judging whether this person's polls meet Wikipedia policy. And in that regard, whether or not secondary sources discuss things like this is of paramount importance to how scientific you believe the polls to be. Wikipedia does not exist to publish someone's experiments. Resolute 19:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and they do meet Wikipedia's policies as they are scientific polls from reliable sources which they are defined as such through their open crticization process as well as their alignment with trends in polling. Just because they don't meet your particular views on what a "reliable poll" is (the media is not the place for that) doesn't mean they shouldn't be judged by everyone else on their reliability. Deletion of these valid scientific polls gives the impression of bias introduction through deletion of valid scientific polls that don't fit your personal political beliefs. Datadefender642 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the media very much is the place for that. As I said, Wikipedia judges what constitutes a reliable source on the basis of publication in secondary sources. Being a "scientific poll" does not make something a RS for Wikipedia's purposes. When major media is taking notice and printing the poll's results and running stories on them, then we have an argument for inclusion. Resolute 20:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not addressing the fact that the media cannot be the place to judge reliability based on the election polling of the 2012 Alberta election. They had it severely wrong then, so what makes their judgement better now? The mainstream media is just going to select polls that they are familiar with, and it has bitten them. Since mainstream polling in Canada has struggled severely, it makes sense to include polls from new organisations attempting to be more accurate by experimenting with methodologies as long as they are scientific. Using the media as sole judge is illogical based on the experience in 2012.Datadefender642 (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not addressing that point because it is irrelevant. I grow tired of repeating myself, but here it is again: Wikipedia bases its content what is published in reliable secondary sources. You may not like what secondary sources have to say (or what they don't say), but that is immaterial to this project's purpose. We don't do original research, as that is likewise against Wikipedia policy. Experimenting with new methodologies is a great thing, and certainly something I encourage you guys to continue doing on Reddit. But until you begin to gain acceptance in reliable secondary media, your work is not suitable for Wikipedia. Resolute 21:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First don't address me as if I'm the poller or affiliated with it, because I'm not. I'm a person that defends the rights of unbiased scientific data to be presented to the public. Presenting the results of polls that have not been judged by the media is not conducting original research on Wikipedia... It is presenting results that were conducted elsewhere. Furthermore my previous point was not irrelevant... You are saying you are basing the reliability of polls on secondary sources that were unreliable three years ago. That is completely illogical. Based on that, since there are no reliable secondary sources for any poll presented on this page, you are unable to judge any polls reliability- You might as well throw out the results of Mainstreet and Forum since they are also experimenting with their methodologies if you're going to use that logic. So based on more sound logic, if you have no reliable secondary sources, you have to present the data you have available as long as it is scientific and sound. Datadefender642 (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if we have no reliable secondary sources, Wikipedia defines that as non-notable and we don't include it at all. And you have every right to present data to the public. But you do not have the right to use Wikipedia to further that aim when that falls afoul of Wikipedia's policies. I should note that even /r/Canada is pointing to 1ABVote as holding a significant bias, so calling it "unbiased scientific data" is rather optimistic. Finally, the fact that the polling data was unreliable in 2012 (or left the field too early to catch the late shift) doesn't make the media unreliable as we define it. Our purpose is to summarize what secondary sources say, not add our own editorial judgment. Resolute 23:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then, based on that, I demand the removal of all opinion polls from this article. You can't have it both ways. Also you have completely misunderstood what /r/Canada has said. While 1ABVote is biased in its aim to unite progressive forces, it's polling methods are unbiased and scientific using Google Surveys. The pollster has thoroughly explained how the method is unbiased in that way. Based on that logic, you shouldn't use polls commissioned by Fox News or MSNBC in the US, for example, because of their bias... But Wikipedia does use them because the polling firm conducting the poll uses an unbiased scientific method. You are not understanding how you are adding your own editorial judgment by removing these polls as "unreliable" because unreliable secondary sources aren't confirming their reliability. If you're going to use unreliable secondary sources as reliability verifies, we might as well use reddit or some trash rag as a secondary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datadefender642 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page semi-protected[edit]

Due to an anonymous editor's promise to continue violating WP:3RR, I have semi-protected the main article for the next 72 hours. If consensus is reached before that time elapses, I see no harm in someone else lifting the protection. --Yamla (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2015[edit]

In the media endorsement section, under Progressive Conservative, you should add Calgary Herald Reference: http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-our-choice-prentice-deserves-another-mandate

72.143.235.244 (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 12:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wildrose and PC seats going in[edit]

CBC earlier reported the PC had 72 seats going in, and in his concession speech, Brian Jean claimed they retained the '3 incumbents' the Wildrose had. Can we get some sort of confirmation as to the discrepancy between those claims and the 70/5 numbers shown here? 162.157.65.13 (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Wildrose figure is easily explained, I believe some of their MLAs didn't run for reelection. Ribbet32 (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map colouring[edit]

Could the editor who created the map please revise the colour scheme? For one, the teal-like (or sea green) colour that is supposed to indicate a weak tilt for the PCs actually look like the party colours of the Alberta Party. Also the lighter 'orange' that for the NDP (such as in Calgary) actually looks more like Liberal red. It makes reading this map very difficult. Colipon+(Talk) 14:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say the light orange looks red, but I would say the "dark orange" looks yellow. It's strange. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; The map will have to revised once the tie is broken. Also, Peace River will likely flip PC after a recount as the advance poll result there is an obvious error. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's your source that there's a recount in Peace River? Ribbet32 (talk) 23:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No source, but there has to be one. Look at poll #61: http://results.elections.ab.ca/74.htm No way that is correct. If the AP vote is actually the PC vote there, as I suspect, than the Tories have won the seat by 27 votes. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While there was an error after all, the NDP still wins the seat: http://www.ylcountry.com/2015/05/09/peace-river-poll-61-numbering-mistake/ -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tie broken, NDP won the last seat. Now let's fix and de-yellow those colours. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alberta general 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:

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) 18:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alberta general 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:

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) 03:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Alberta_general_election&oldid=1196680916"