Talk:2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

A Ministry?

I question this wording: "the coalition government would have a ministry with 25 members"

In normal Canadian terminology, the word is "Cabinet", not "ministry". Why does the article say "ministry"?

CBHA (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Essentially synonyms but the word is used in official terms [1]. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Most common usage" should apply; I've never seen it in media, or in academic writing; it may be a legalise/constitutioanl-ese term, but so is "The Governor-General-in-Council" - "cabinet" is easily the more recognizable term; in BC when it's used in a proper-noun sense it's customarily capitalized also...i.e. not "a cabinet" but "When Cabinet convenes on Monday..."....Skookum1 (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Plus the statement is just plain wrong. The cabinet would have had 25 members and the ministry would have had 31 according to the accord. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding Australian example

Hi Nfitz:

Regarding your addition of an Australian example to the article, I reverted it because it seems to me to be going too far afield from an article which is about one particular event.

If the event in Australia is relevant, put in a reference to another article where that event is discussed. Putting the Australian event in sets a precedent for other examples to be added. This opens a can of worms for review. Keeping this article on track in terms of what is happening in Canada is a bit enough task. IMHO.

CBHA (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've done so, simplifying significantly, and adding a couple of good Australian and Canadian references for this week making it clear why the 1975 Australian example is important. I hope this satisifies everyone. Nfitz (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain about this, but isn't there a Jamaican example? Can't remember when , it was a couple of decades ago, I'm not familiar with Caribbean history....we should probably hujnt around the smaller Commonwealth countries looking for similar; I think there's been at least a few, including in Grenada...Skookum1 (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

short protection

I've protected this page for 1 hour as we have excessive reverting. I see at least two outstanding issues in the history of the article and as the edit volume is so high at the moment I'm unable to analyze it fully and hand out the proper warnings individually.

Therefor, all editors to this page are warned that disruptive editing will result in my having to block. Disruptive editing is for our purpose defined as multiple reverts without consensus here on this page. This does not of course apply to BLP violations or vandalism, use your brain please, if in doubt, ask here. Please try to stick to WP:1RR or less if at all possible.

I do see at least one editor that is very close to violating 3RR if they have not done so already (I see 3 exact additions and at least one non-exact addition of the same content), I will not name them, however I expect editors here to follow all relevant editing guidelines. —— nixeagle 20:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose I should list the relevant guidelines for those that are not aware of them. editwarring, one revert rule (guideline/essay), consensus, Bold revert discuss, Three revert rule (policy). If I missed some, feel free to list them here. —— nixeagle 21:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• If that's reference to me, and referencing Australia as discussed above, then I don't think I'm close. I added the exact same text twice - only one being an reversion. I edited a bit a second time (so that would be two reversions). And then I rewrote the entire thing significantly, as discussed above, which I think addresses the concerns, and isn't a reversion given that I ditched most of what I had added earlier. I don't think this is an edit war, and merely part of the editing process. The biggest issue, is people deleting chunks of text without discussing here. Or is there another aspect to this whole thing I'm missing? BTW the one revert rule is no more policy than the absolute zero revert rule! Nfitz (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • You should note that I said 1RR was a guideline/essay, however it is advised that folks follow it. Remember that 3RR is not a right, just an upper limit to the amount of disruption before an automatic block. I've protected the article for the moment as the behavior I see here is not really conductive, yours is not the only edit dispute going on at the moment on this article. Hopefully after this short protection expires everyone will slow down a bit. :) —— nixeagle 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Understood, which is why I stopped at 2RR and did a complete rewrite, rather than trying a 3RR. Nfitz (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • If folks do not agree with your changes, I strongly advise not re-adding it. —— nixeagle 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Doesn't there need to be discussion here? I queried one person who deleted it, and they have not responded at all. Someone above raised a concern, and said if it was re-added it needed a reference relating it - and I added two, and no one else has expressed a concern since - oh hang on, there's a really, really, long one above ... Nfitz (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
        • Reverting back and forth multiple times is just not productive. Instead of reverting mulitple times it is advised that you place what you think is best on this talk page and let others respond to it. You have already made at least 2 reverts, plus your rewrite. Continuously making edits that have the same "effect" without talking about them beforehand is difficult on other editors. I really suggest that you discuss here before making any further changes to the article itself in that section. Rewriting your section is not a license to do two more reverts to keep your rewrite on the page. This is why I suggest that you discuss your rewrite about that section here. —— nixeagle 21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Suspend vs Prorogue

In the lead, "prorogue" is used. In the body, "suspend".

Michaëlle Jean, the Governor General of Canada (the country's de facto head of state), granted the request of Stephen Harper, the Conservative Prime Minister (the head of government), to prorogue Parliament until January 26, 2009

Stephen Harper visited the Governor General at Rideau Hall at about 9:30 am Eastern Standard Time on December 4 for more than 45 minutes to ask that she suspend parliament until January. This request was granted, and Parliament was suspended until January 26, 2009.

Are these words synonyms in this context? Even if they are, using a different term is confusing. CBHA (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, using the word "suspend" is either an attempt to dummy down the technical wording or just to change up and keep phrasing fresh. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I dislike using thesaurus equivalent when technical terms can mean very different things....and in this case I'm pretty sure in constitutional/parliamentary langauge "suspend" means something different from "prorogue". Not sure about that..."suspend" also has connotations of "suspend the constitution". Prorogue's etymology, hopefully, is in that article; the root rog- has some kind of meaning of dialogue/debate - can't remmber if it's Latin or Anglo-Saxon or waht though...I first came across it re a runestone text that goes "on the second Minor Rogation Day, so-and-so and whatisname piled stones and cleared". Still dont' know what a Rogation Day is, or what calendar day that refers to, though....anyway it may be that th etwo terms are identifical in parliamentary langauge; my gut feeling tells me that they're not....but I'm not a lawyerSkookum1 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"Prorogue" has a very specific legal meaning, we should use it unless we actually intend to convey something different at some point. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to use the clear, unequivocal, precise term as well. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A parliament is "dissolved" by the Crown. A session is "prorogued" by the Crown. A sitting is "adjourned" by a legslative assembly (House of Commons, Senate, etc) to another day. In, for example, the U.K. House of Commons, a sitting may, without adjournment, be "suspended" and, for example, in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly, a sitting may be "recessed" until a later time on the same day. Strictly, a "recess" is the period between sessions (or a period of suspension where "recessed" is used in place of "suspended") but is also commonly used to describe a lengthy period of adjournment. The CBC notwithstanding, "prorogue" is not archaic, just not in wide everyday use (at least until now!). It, not "suspend", is the proper term for what the Prime Minister asked for and got from the Governor General i.e. prorogation of the session. A session cannot be suspended; the House of Commons, not the Governor General, can "suspend" a sitting and then only until the hour of adjournnment at the end of the day. Hebbgd (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Australia

Users seem to be under the mistaken impression that this article is titled List of coalition governments. The precedents section should be limited just to Canadian examples because if you add Australia, why not examples from Europe? The page already gives undue weight to precedents anyway. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• Because Australia, along with Canada is one of the only governments using this system of Government. An example from UK should be listed, but I'm not aware of any; but there are no other democracies in Europe using this system of government. The whole process is about precedent - there is no legislation in place to control the details of the process, so precedent is very important. I'm quite sure Canada's Governor General considered the 1975 situation in Australia in the last week - and so should we. Nfitz (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that the 1975 Australia case was very different, bar the two sides taking hardline positions. That case was about whether or not a government had to resign or go to an election when it couldn't get supply through the upper house, so fundamentally was a clash between the convention that governments live and die in the lower house against the convention that governments are supposed to be able to secure supply. (Incidentally as I understand it, it's constitutionally possible the situation could arise in Canada, though it would be politically much harder to pull off because of the appointed nature of the Canadian Senate.)

British precedents are also thin on the ground. It's not really credible to pull any example out from before about 1867 because the general convention was that governments lived and died in the Commons, even if an election radically altered the numbers. After 1867 there were a few cases of government changing mid Parliament, but most of these fall apart. So that people can consider these themselves, here's a quick run down:

1885 - The Liberal government was defeated but by general consensus it was agreed not to have a general election until the register for the new expanded franchise had been completed.

1886 & 1892 - Lord Salisbury tried to maintain the old convention that a government only resigned once defeated in the Commons regardless of the election result (and politically it proved a good tactic for dividing Liberals)

1895 & 1905 - The government was internally divided and temporarily threw in the towel (then a more common practice than now)

1916 - There was huge dissatisfaction with the wartime leadership of Asquith leading to the Conservatives allying with Lloyd George to replace him. George V apparently made it clear he would exercise the Royal Prerogative to refuse a dissolution. Note that special legislation had postponed the election until after the war.

1922 - The bulk of the Conservatives withdrew from Lloyd George's coalition and took office as a single party government, but immediately sought a dissolution.

1924 - The December 1923 election returned a hung parliament with the Conservatives on 258 seats, Labour 191 and Liberals 159. However the incumbent Conservative government had fought the election on a tariff platform so one could argue that whilst it wasn't clear who had won, it was clear what had lost. Baldwin opted to remain in office until the King's Speech when Labour and the Liberals combined to vote him out and a minority Labour government took office. However note that this was at the start of the Parliament.

1924 (again) - The Labour government lasted ten months before the Conservatives and Liberals combined to defeat it. A general election was called which Labour lost and the Conservatives took power.

1931 - The 1929 election returned Labour 288, Conservatives 260 and Liberals 59. The Conservatives immediately resigned office and a minority Labour government struggled for two years. In the summer of 1931 a major currency crisis blew up, though Parliament wasn't sitting. The Labour Cabinet divided over proposed budget cuts. In the end an emergency National Government was created to take the necessary actions to restore confidence. It was intended that the National Government would last a few weeks and then there would be a return to party politics at the general election, but subsequent events saw an appeal as a National Government which lasted until 1940.

1940 - The events of the war led to calls for an all-party government. In May after a damaging Commons debate Neville Chamberlain resigned in favour of Winston Churchill who was better able to get all the parties on board. Note though that Chamberlain still had a majority in the last key Commons vote.

(1945 - After the war ended in Europe the all party coalition broke up and Churchill assembled a "Caretaker" government of Conservatives, other National elements and various non-party experts brought in as ministers, to hold office until the general election.)

The other vaguely relevant one is February 1974. The election returned 301 Labour, 297 Conservatives, 14 Liberals, and 23 assorted others. The incumbent Conservative Prime Minister, Edward Heath, didn't resign for a few days but first explored possibilities with both the Liberals and Ulster Unionists, but couldn't get agreeable terms. He then resigned and a minority Labour government took office under Harold Wilson, determined to govern for long enough to go for another election and get a majority. Heath contemplated trying to bring down the Labour government on the Queen's Speech but discrete contacts with the Palace confirmed that if Labour lost that vote then Wilson would be allowed to request a dissolution rather than Heath (or another Conservative) being given a chance to form another government. This is the main event British constitutional scholars have in mind when discussing PM vs Commons issues, but note that all this took place at the start of the Parliament.

As you can see from all this there just isn't really a British precedent vaguely similar. It's true that in 1916 the King threaten to exercise the Royal Prerogative to deny a dissolution request but it was in wartime circumstances when the existing political consensus was against holding a wartime general election. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't the references from tomorrow's Australian and yesterday Globe and Mail, which I added when I completely re-wrote, that compare the two crisises justify a brief reference? Perhaps there should be a reference noting that it is unprecedented - but despite hearing the talking heads say this many times this morning, I'm having a hard time finding a good reference for that. Nfitz (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I see in the globeandmail article is that Harper has the theoretical nuclear option of dismissing the Governor General, just as Whitlam theoretically had it. There is the issue that the Governor General is being dumped a situation that whatever the outcome there's going to be dissatisfaction but that's true of any umpire.

One I have just remembered is the Irish case in 1982 when the Fine Gael/Labour coalition was defeated on supply and several opposition Fianna Fail leaders sought to pressure the President deny a dissolution request - see Patrick Hillery#Phone calls to the Áras, Charles Haughey#Opposition 1981–1982 and Garret FitzGerald#Taoiseach 1981–1982. Has anyone drawn a connection yet? Timrollpickering (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How about instead we just include a see also section that links to it? That way, people will still be informed of it, but it won't take up unnecessary space in the article. Of course, the problem with that is that then users will start linking to every coalition government, but it is better than people adding sections about every single coalition government. Why don't you just start a List of coalitions in nations that use the Westminster system of government? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How do we feel about reducing what is there further?

Canada is one of many nations that uses the Westminster system of government. This is a democratic parliamentary system modelled after the British government (the Parliament of the United Kingdom).

The most recent major constitutional crisis in a country using the Westminster system of government was in Australia in 1975. The Canadian crisis has similiarities to the constitutional crisis in Australia in 1975 when Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was dismissed by Governor-General Sir John Kerr. It has been described as the greatest political and constitutional crisis in Australia's history.

to

Canada is one of many nations that uses the Westminster system of government. This is a democratic parliamentary system modelled after the British government (the Parliament of the United Kingdom). The most recent major constitutional crisis in a country using the Westminster system of government was the constitutional crisis in Australia in 1975.

DoubleBlue (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's only valid if the sentence/paragraph is somehow qualified to mean federal governments only; April 1-4, 1983 in BC was definitely a constitutional crisis, and we have the Ontario example as well; my allusion to a Jamaican incident - a crisis certainly, not sure how constitutional it was but I recall teh G-G being invovled, was since 1975 I'm relatively certain; I htink it happened during the Carter presidency in the US (not that the US ws involved, at least not directly; I just remember them being part of the same era). Adn waht about in Southern Rhodesia/Zimbabwe adn other African countries that have or had the system? Perhaps also India, come to think of it, though there the GG's job is now the President's....Skookum1 (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's possible you're thinking of the political violence and State of Emergency in 1976 - that sounds like something the Governor General would have had to exercise emergency powers (even if on the advice of the Prime Minister). However our article on Florizel Glasspole is a mere stub and a quick Google doesn't mention him being involved in any controversies - the reverse it seems. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite the two references offered, I too dispute that there is much connection to the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. The Australian dispute was between the two houses (the government controlled the lower house, the opposition the upper house), so there was no precedent on how to resolve it. In this Canadian crisis there is only one house of interest, and the government doesn't control it. But the real test is the WP:Reliable Sources: if only one or two reliable sources are drawing a connection, it's a minority view and doesn't belong in the article. If the connection was strong, probably every Canadian paper would be mentioning it in their analysis columns, and you could cite them. (Maybe they are, I don't know). p.s. For (IMHO) a closer analogy (government being outnumbered by an alliance in the lower house but trying to hold on) I can think of two recent instances in Australian states: Tasmanian state election, 1989 and South Australian state election, 2002. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Things to correct after lockdown is lifted

✓ Lead, 2nd ¶: Stephen Harper, the Conservative Prime Minister --> Stephen Harper, the Conservative prime minister

• I would normally concur with prime minister (as opposed to Prime Minister) in this context, but the notation regarding Governor General (of Canada) is also capitalised. I think governor general of Canada, though perhaps not incorrect, would look awkward. In essence, if one title is rendered in lower case, the other must also. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed, --> governor general of Canada. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Either that or re-construct as titles: Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Governor General Michaëlle Jean. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Possibly. Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Governor General of Canada" is still a proper title, just like "Governor General Michaëlle Jean" ;but as below, even in stand-alone "when the governor general returns home to Rideau Hall" forms, it still looks damned odd. When did it become convention to not capitalize taht title? and From where? Canadian press? The Speaker's Office?Skookum1 (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

✓ Catalyst: November 2008 fiscal update, 2nd and 3rd: moved to #Formation of a coalition and #Government response

✓ Formation of a coalition, 4th: moved to #Government response

✓ Request to prorogue and Governor General's reaction, 3rd: for more than 45 minutes --> for more than two hours

✓ Popular vote and party support, 1st: finally remove?

✓ Leaders' addresses to the nation on December 3, numerous: Quebecois --> Québécois

✓ Leaders' addresses to the nation on December 3, 3rd: was late in arriving to the networks, and of a low video quality, --> was late in arriving to the networks and of low video quality,

✓ Leaders' addresses to the nation on December 3, 4th: premier Jean Charest condemned the "anti-sovereigntist rhetoric" of the Prime Minister --> Premier Jean Charest condemned the "anti-sovereigntist rhetoric" of the prime minister

DoubleBlue (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting changing the titles of Prime Minister of Canada and Governor General of Canada so that "Minister" and "General" are not capitalized? Capitalizing those terms is the convention in Canada. Esn (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I already completed by changing the use to titles. When used as a title or a person, it's capitalised; when used to describing the office, it's not. The Prime Minister went to Rideau Hall today. Harper, the prime minister, received the prorogation he sought. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In an earlie but not-so-long-ago era of usage, itw as customary to always capitalize both of those thos titles, including their cousins "Premier" and "Lieutenant Governor"; this was the case, in BC newspapers and publicatiosn anyway, well into the 1970s and 1980s; I don't know when the styleguides changed; but it always looks odd to me to see them uncapitalized....there never used to be wiki styleguides of course, and traditiona and convention were part of the language, now dismissed as "incorrect' by those writing the styleguides; random capitalizatoin in English used ot be hte norm, of course, as any glacne at an 18th Century docuemnt would show you....even well into the 19th too.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

G-G and L-G, in non-acronymal forms, also look odd without hyphens to me and "others of my generation" (or mabye regional origin, as BC usages may have been different). The old plurals, too, are now in disrespute/disuse but were once the regular norm - Governors-General, Lieutenants-Governor. Now "modernized" by removal of the hyphens and "regular plurals".....Skookum1 (talk) 01:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Canada does have an odd use of Governor General without the hyphen. Governors should have an "s" in both of your examples. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Other Westminster Democracies" section needs to be removed

As I predicted, the existance of this section is basically a welcome mat for anyone to add any other coalition they like, no matter how insignificant. This is not the List of coalition government pages, only ones relating directly to Canada should be listed. Not only is one example unsourced and not linked to the article, but it's undue weight. Let's not forget, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My opinion of this has slowly grown toward your point of view over the last day. I now agree. A link to Coalition government should be all that's needed to illustrate this issue further beyond Canada. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed as well. The 1975 Australia crisis might work as a see-also link if our own mess eventually becomes a constitutional crisis, but we don't need a section on different controversies that involved different things. Resolute 01:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I first added it in a "See also" section that was reverted away. I think links to other Westminster parliamentary crises similar to this should be available, atleast in a see also section. Non-Canadians might want to look at non-Canadian examples. 76.66.194.58 (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

{{tl}Crises and disputes in parliamentary politics in countries with Westminster-system democracies}}, or a "shorter title to be determined" template as a template might e worth considering, if there's enough to populated it with; as noted elsewhere the African and Caribbean and Asian/Oceanic former-colonies/dominions; head-of-state issues in other parliamentary democracies, e.g. Austria, Spain etc are in a different, though not unrelated category; question - are Commonwealth precedents relevant in the Canadian milieu? e.g. Jamaica, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe...not that I'm certain those were viceregal/parliamentary crises but I suspect there's moer than we may be aware of. subsuming them all into a single link doesn't seem quite right ,adn i agere with the IP user previous about non-Canadian examples; the section above about "things that need explaining" is to be taken in teh same light; an "ultra-Canadian" (i.e. beyond/outside Canada) perspective is needed; we shouldn't take our own frame of reference for grarnted; it's a complaint I often make about US =0oriented content (even in US articles, i.e. when they reflect on or mention Canada or other countries). Over the weekendd, I'll try and get up to thet Dal library (around the corner) and use their Globe & Mail archive to soruce the matarial on the L-G reserve powers/emergency warrants in BC in '83...which I mention in the contexxt of assembling, perhaps again in a template, all Canadian precedents or near-precedents or "things that might be precedents but aren't". "Coalition government" is only one aspect of this business. And wasn't there some constititutional/viceregal fracas in the last years/days of the Dominion of Newfoundland? (not sure of its proper name, sorry); there wer certainly gubernatorial issues in colonial BC and/or VI, but of a different kind which don't bear on this kind of issue, gubernatorial power and viceregal power were two different kinds of things...anyway I don't think suppressing all this into one link is the right thing to do, especially bearing in mind non-Canadian readders...Wikipedia is for readers, after all, not for editors alone....Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And this is why you stop these sections before they start. They invite IPs and others to expand them and you get stuff like that added. I figured it was only a matter of time before somebody mentioned Hitler here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that removal, as there are lots of coalition/minority government stories from Norway, Spain, Ireland, Austria and more that could also be mentioned; but re the WEimar Republic's denouement, there is a proviso that this is one of the comparison made by politicians in the media in th course of the controversy (can't remember who it was last night, it was an info-blizzard...); I did make the observation above somewhere, and Godwin's Law was piointed out, but THAT the comparison was made in the political arena is citable. The deleted material was synthesis, even in its tone; but reporting that some politicians somewhere - especially a high-profile politician - falls in the category of reportable aspects of the controversy, i.e. as a demonstration/illustration of how heated the argument got. Finally, there's a big difference between non-Westminster democracies and Westminster democracies, and the latter definitely have a context here, or somewhere that other systems of government do not (be they in Tokyo, Berlin or Ougadougou). And again it's not just coalition or minority governments that are relvant as parallels, it's reserve powers and related constitutional/parliamentary matters which are Westminster-system-specific...Skookum1 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons to other crises are perfectly legitimate - and desirable - so long as they have been mentioned by reputable secondary sources as relevant or comparable in one way or another to this crisis. I think this is a straightforward, objective criterion that prevents people from including things just because they think "Hmmm, this reminds me of this other event," which seems to be what people are worried about. 67.150.254.119 (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I never saw the "Other Westminster democracies" as a discussion of coalition governments at all. Which is why I had placed it above the section about previous coalitions, to discourage the addition on non-relevant sections. However someone has put it back below. Perhaps it should be put back above again. Nfitz (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

terms

now might be a good time to improve the related articles on Parliamentary democracy and process, and wiktionary 76.66.194.58 (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

On article at a time, I assume. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Referencing personal .info page

The web page http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/topics/dismissal is currently linked in Ref #60. I wonder if a .info page (that anyone can put up) meets the Wikipedia standard of a good enough reference?– Kempton "Ideas are the currency of the future." - a quote by Kevin Roberts 07:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty good page (occasionally referenced for Australian politics articles), but there's no need. Just reference the Wikipedia page 1975 Australian constitutional crisis instead. I actually dispute that the current Canadian situation is much like that Australian situation anyway, but that's another story. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can put up a .com or a .ca page, and we allow those as references. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

removed characterization of Byng's actions as "mistake"

A small part of the Reserve powers of the Governor General section made the unsubstantiated claim that Byng "wrote that he alone took responsibility for his mistake". The main article King-Byng Affair has a substantiated quote from Byng writing "I have to await the verdict of history to prove my having adopted a wrong course, and this I do with an easy conscience that, right or wrong, I have acted in the interests of Canada and implicated no one else in my decision." While certainly claiming responsibility for making the decision, it in no way admits to it being a mistake.

The second sentence I removed as unecessary, as it stated: "Governor Generals then took a less powerful role". Immediately following that it is stated: "the Governor General's role as mainly a figurehead", which is the same thing. --76.11.113.118 (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Lord Byng felt he made the right choice in rejecting PM King's request for Parliamentary dissolutionment. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sovereigntist vs Separatist

I've noticed that both these terms are being used, and some of the edits are switching between them. For the benefit of non-Canadians we really need some brief explanation in this article, perhaps in the footnotes, about the usage and difference between these terms, particularly if the different usage is significant in its own right. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no difference between the terms. They invented the term "sovereignist" because it was less pejorative than "separatist" (ie. violent separatist groups). But I agree that only one of the term should be used. Procule (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference. All separatists are sovereigntists. But many sovereigntists are not separatists, as they do not want to separate from Canada. Polls show many Quebecers beleive a sovereign Quebec would remain a full part of Canada, with seats in parliament, an open border, and other rights. We should probably use the term "sovereigntist". The Bloc are in fact separatists, but there isn't a need for us to use the term outside of quotation marks. --Rob (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, there is an article sovereigntist, haven't looked up separatist yet, but reading the first one it seems to need adjustment though the subtleties of the term are much more difficult to comprehen in the anglosphere than they are in the francosphere; the connotations are different, as with "nation" between the two languages. Both words figurred in the story, though, and in English "separatist" was cleraly more widely used/misused ("separatist coalition") and Harper's use of one word in the one official language and the other in the other official language caanot be glossed over. Not that it can be explained, either, as the meaning of that distinction (as used by him() continues to be debated by the pundits (and in Quebec). But again, I'm not certain the sovereigntist article is "good as it is", maybe Procule can tell us if "it works", and the differences in connotation between the two languages and cutlures is a problem, though one there's no room to explain. In English, "sovereigntist is usually meant to mean someone who wants greater autonomy adn a recognition of quebecois sovereignty, while separatist means outright separation; apparently in French the latter has more bf a connotation of violent separatism (see that article). As with suspend/prorogue, I don't think we can either use them interchangeably, or only use one and not hte other; and both words, as noted, were made much of so neither can be left out.Skookum1 (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) BTW, there are two articles, sovereigntist and souverainism, with only the latter having a French interwiki; I added the Canadian English "sovereigntism" to the latter and added Quebec and Canda stubs; it was written from a French-from -France perspective mostly, and also added sovereignty-association links. Both articles would seem to need some work re Canadian context. I also added a brief mention of Harper's varying use of the term in his speech on Wednesday to the sovereigntist article.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If the Bloc are considered separatists, and if most uses of the word are in reference to the Bloc, then the current wording is fine. While "sovereigntists" in Quebec might view things one way, the rest of Canada certainly doesn't. Outside of Quebec, there is no practical difference, and "separatist" is used to define anyone who wishes to break the country apart. Resolute 14:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's what I said. There's no difference. The term was invented by Quebec secessionnists. I don't even think it's in the dictionary. Procule (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But there is in English, i.e. a distinction, though more of a connotation than any thing easily definable (if it were easily definable things in teh national political debate would be a lot different; "soft separtism" vs. "Hard separatism", perhaps, but "sovereigntist" adn "sovereignty" are used in distinct contexts from "separatist" and "separatism". In English, though as Procule observes not in French...see teh defintions atnd talkpages atsovereigntist and souverainism. And maybe somebody can explain why Harper didn't use "separatiste" in the French version of his speech instead of "souveraintiste". I mean, not a political/POV explanation but why the lexical distinction exists, adn waht it would have meant if he used the other term.Skookum1 (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a POV opinion (resolute's), and "outside of Quebec, there is no practical difference" is not quite true; sovereigntist in English can still mean someone who wants sovereignty-association, in which Quebec would remain in Canada, though more self-governing; the meaning, in French, as noted, can be different, which makes this all the more complicated. Just because Albertans and anti-Quebec forces make no distinction does not mean other anglophones do notSkookum1 (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It is no more POV than the opinion within Quebec. The question comes down to common and accepted usage. Your POV is hardly representative of the majority either. Resolute 16:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

MY POV is not even present; all I'm diong, as before, is describing waht's in common usage/context in the national media (if not hte French-langauge media), to whit there is a distinction in usage between "separatist" and "sovereigntist" (otherwise why would Harper have made that distinction?). YOUR POV is that " Outside of Quebec, there is no practical difference, and "separatist" is used to define anyone who wishes to break the country apart." but the truth is that "sovereigntist" is used to mean those who simply want more powers, and formal recognition of nationhood/sovereignty within Canada, while you have provided YOUR opinion without stating it to be a commonly-held opinion by anti-Quebec politicians/media. There IS a difference. Adn MY POV about this I have not stated; I have only described how the terms are used in (some of) the English media (though not by conservative columnists).Skookum1 (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How about we say once in the lead that the Bloc wants Quebec independence, and then avoid adjectives for all the parties, except in quotations. One problem I have, is when multiple parties are named in a sentence, but an adjective is attached to only one of the parties. --Rob (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gonna comment on this topic. No way, Jose. GoodDay (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I vote sovereigntist. Less POV. Basser g (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• There's a huge difference between the perception of the words. Separatist is often seen as an insult, while sovereigntist is much more neutral. And Harper seems to think there is a difference, as he has been using sovereigntist in Quebec, and separatist in TROC. It's not quite, but somwhat simliar to calling someone black, or calling them a n****r. Nfitz (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Constitutional opinions section

There's a host of these, from all kinds of profs, p;undits and politicians; not to suggest an "indiscriminate collection of information" and not wanting to cherrypick either, just noting that there's more than one way to shoe this horse and the horse has more than four legs. Various interpetations of hte prrogation and the G-G's role/powers and such are out there; they cannot be ignored, though how to pick and choose adn present them is an issue. I came across a few in today's NYTimes arrticle but didn't want to cherrypick; the source of teh "sedition and treason" allegation is also in that article. Not sure if it's visible by non-subscribers so here it is compressed to a footnote: I think it's important to note partly because it wasn't written by a Canadian network, public or private, and it wasn't written by a Canadian or for Canadian readers, and some of the quotes in it may be useful. I know neo-cons dislike the Times for being "the voice of the left" but don't know t eh US print equivalent for the conservative side - USA Today perhaps but it won't have been much of an arrticle in that paper. Again, my reason for pointing to it, and quoting/hiding it here, is for reference purposes and because we need to start writing this article for more than just a Canadian readership, as per teh section above "what needs to be explained".Skookum1 (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Version française/French version

Salut, j'ai crée une version française. Est-ce qu'il y a quelques gens ici qui peux m'aider avec ça? Mon français est évidemment pas le meilleur. J'ai volé le texte de l'article Michaëlle Jean pour la créer. Hey, I just created a stub French article, unsourced with some text from the Governor General's French article if anyone wants to help work on it. My French isn't great. Basser g (talk) 18:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC) -- Never mind found the real one. Excellent saves me time. Basser g (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Borden's Unionist government

We should point out, that Borden's Conservative government was already a majority government, when he invited pro-conscription Liberals to join it (which they did). GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dion's departure as Liberal Leader

According to sources at CBC news. Dion (under pressure from his caucus) may be resigning as Liberal Leader sooner then May 2009. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

permanent consultation mechanism?

The Bloc Québécois, which holds the balance of power in the 40th parliament, signed a policy accord with the other opposition parties and agreed to support the proposed coalition government on confidence matters until at least June 30, 2010, in return for a permanent consultation mechanism in the agreement.

How can there be a permanent consultation mechanism in a temporary agreement? Just wondering. CBHA (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Good point. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe the intention was that the mechanism is permanent with respect to the agreement. Once the agreement dissolves, or an election called, etc., the consultation mechanism disappears. It probably warrants better phrasing, though. Mindmatrix 20:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Public response

I disagree with the removal of the Facebook groups and creation of petitions from the public response page. The fact that over 120 000 people have joined an anti-coalition Facebook group, and over 260 000 and 150 000 people have signed anti-coalition petitions is an important aspect of Canadians' response to the coalition.

While it is POV, the appropriate action would be to find the bigger pro-coalition petitions(biggest one I have found is just over 30 000 signatures http://www.rallyforcanada.com/) /Facebook groups(the biggest one I have found is just over 19 000 members http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=27949758238&ref=ts) Moonchacha (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia policy, the question has to be asked if these petitions are "important" enough to be getting reported in reputable newspapers. Some unimportant things get a lot of attention on the internet. CBHA (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It has. A story was publsihed on CTV.ca (a major Candian news corporation). I'm guessing that's where the author initially got the information. http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081203/online_coalition_081203/20081203/Moonchacha (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Salient quotation from that article: "Neither site's signatures, nor numeric claims have been independently verified." Mindmatrix 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

CTV is POV, in no small part because they're privately owned (a comparison of their respective party donations is relevant to prove this, though not o the article); they made a point of not showing hte pro-Coalition numbers...I remember the footage and remarkd on it at teh time; perhaps they were concealing the lower pro-Coalition numbers; but if so why did the camera focus on the anti-coalition numbers?.Skookum1 (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

These facebook sources shouldn't be included. In the end, the MPs will decide what happens to Harper government, when the House vote on the 2009 Budget occurs. GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC

Shall we get rid of the public opinion polls then too?Moonchacha (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Those were conducted with some semblance of statistical rigour, unlike the random popularity contests of these facebook groups et al. Mindmatrix 21:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I::I"m with Mindmatrix on this; subjective "polls" are subjective, not statistical, by definition. 'm always amused/bemused when someone says "Canadians" but means their own side only. What those figures represent is the superior organizational abilities of the anti-coalition aka Conservative Party side, and that's all they represent. It's much like a web poll ona news network site; only their own viewership votes on it, no one else, and usually e questions/issues are loaded/stacked to attract "votes" by people sympathetic to the station/website/newspaper's ownership, who have determined waht questions will be asked/allowed. Those facebook figures would be more meaningful if it could be shown that a significant chunk of them had not voted Tory back in October; or how many of th 250,000 are Albertans, and how many from specfici ridings (or churches or industries/companies assocaited with given MPss...); pro-coalition numbers similarly may be orgaqnized by unions etc. other than that they're only representative of the Tory's ability to "get out the vote", and nothing else. It's also quite likely tha if the figures were stacked in the their direction, you'd be opposed to their inclusion instead...Skookum1 (talk) 23:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Cdn Government's Motives?

There isn't any mention of Barrack Obama in this article. For sake of NPOV we should briefly mention that until he replaces George W. and outlines his fiscal policies in detail, the Canadian government has a hard time predicting the moves of its unwieldly dance partner to the south. I understand this is something canadians don't like to admit but it is relevant to this particular political fiasco. By the way, I boycotted the snap election. ````Chillroy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.31.91 (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Only Harper knows Harper's motives. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Four Possibilities??

The article says:

Michaëlle Jean faced a difficult choice in interpreting her duty in the unwritten role as Governor General of Canada, as there were four possibilities the Prime Minister could have pursued during his meeting with her on December 4:

• 1. He could have asked Jean to dissolve Parliament and call an election, only two months after the previous election,

• 2. He could have asked Jean to prorogue Parliament until January, delaying any possible no-confidence motion by the coalition,

• 3. He could have asked Jean to prorogue Parliament for a longer time, up to a year, or

• 4. He might have resigned as prime minister, which would have prompted Jean to request that Parliament form a new government, permitting the formation of the coalition headed by Dion[24].

I think this should be extensively modified, or deleted, because:

• the reference does not support the assertion of exactly four possibilities.

• it is speculative.

• it is after the fact, i.e., it is now known what Harper asked of the Governor General, and what she agreed to.

I have not deleted the paragraph because I recognize that a lot of editors are working on this article and may have different opinions, and because doing so would leave the following paragraphs with no context. CBHA (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

While we definitely need a ref, I don't think it should be removed if support by references. This is an encyclopaedia not a news site (try wikinews for that) so it's still helpful to the reader even if we now know what Harper did. A lot of people not familiar with the Westminster style of government, or the Canadian version in particular will likely not be aware of what the Governor General could have done. Nil Einne (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the section, reformatting it so that each option has a clear explanation with citations. I've merged the two prorogation possibilities, since the only difference is duration. I didn't make any change to the text, I only re-arranged it and added an intro to each section where necessary. I don't like the section title "Options" though, so someone please update it with a better title. Mindmatrix 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's impossible to know if those 4 choices were difficult for Michelle Jean. Afterall, nobody's has asked her this question (nor has she mentioned any difficulty). GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

True. I didn't write that section - I left it as the original intro into the role of the GG; I'll update it. Mindmatrix 16:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Harper also had a fifth possibility: Do nothing and let business continue as it would. And then we can get into what the Governor General could have done. This section has the potential to become very complicated. Resolute 17:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm this already seems to be addressed in the article although it may need to be re-worded. If Harper had let business continue, then it's likely there would have been a successful no-confidence motion against the government. The article say "Had the government lost a non-confidence vote, which was scheduled for December 8, 2008, then the Governor General could have turned down Prime Minister Harper's request to call an election. She would ask the prime minister to resign and she would invite the opposition to form a government. The prime minister would resign of his own accord if he did not request a dissolution." which sounds right to me (although I'm not an expert on Canadian constitional law). Obviously if the government had passed a no-confidence vote, then the GG would have nothing to do Nil Einne (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The role of the governor general

In the current text it says the governor general had 3 options, but surely another one was possible, which was to allow parliament to continue sitting, and allow the possible vote of no confidence to go ahead. Ajs41 (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Once Harper asked her for the prorogue, that was no longer possible. Tradition and custom says that if the GG goes against the PM's advice, the PM is obligated to offer his resignation on the spot. Once Harper went to Jean, the "do nothing" option was eliminated. Resolute 00:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. This is, in fact, where people are getting excited and uncertain. The Governor General can make a judgement call as to whether or not prorogation is something where she could exercise some vice-regal discretion. It's uncharted territory. Peter Grey (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's not forget (though we don't need to mention it in the article), the Governor General may dismiss the Prime Minister. She then could ask the Conservative government to nominate someone for PM. She could also, dismiss the entire Conservative government & appoint the coalition. GoodDay (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also let's remember that the PM resigning & the government resigning are different things. Again, if PM Harper (only) resigns - the Conservative government may choose (for example) Peter MacKay for PM & present MacKay to GG Jean. Jean could appoint MacKay, Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I thought she should have sent him to the House to make a motion for prorogation, if that's what he truly wanted, since it was far from clear that he spoke for the House any longer. She should only have to take the PM's advice if he speaks for Parliament. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The line about the GG may ...ask the PM to resign... would be polite on her part, but not necessary. Michelle Jean can fire a reluctant Harper. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

New polls: EKOS-CBC

Hi there. I just added a new poll, conducted by EKOS for the CBC on December 2-3, released on the 4th (found here). Regarding the previous discussion of Polls and POV, I do not believe that adding this poll should affect POV; while it does show positive numbers for the Conservatives, CBC is (or at least should be) a reliable non-partisan source. The content of my edit:

An EKOS Research Associates poll of 2,536 people, conducted on behalf of CBC and released on December 4, showed that if an election were held the next day, the Conservatives would receive 44% of the vote, up from 37.6%; the Liberals would receive 24%, down from 26%; the New Democrats would receive 14.5%, down from 18.2%; the Bloc would receive 9%, down from 10.5%; and the Green Party would receive 8%, up from 4.5%. 37% of respondents (including the majority of Conservative voters)expressed support in proroguing parliament, while 28% (including a majority of Liberal and Bloc voters, and a near majority of NDP voters) supported the proposed coalition taking power within the next few weeks, with 19% supporting an election. Additionally, 47% of respondents thought that Harper's Conservative government would better manage the financial crunch, versus 34% in support of the Dion-led coalition. Furthermore, 48% of respondents (including the majority of Liberal, NDP and Green voters but only 41% of Conservative voters) expressed confidence in the Governor General's ability to make decisions regarding the impasse. (ref)

I think I may have put in a little bit too much information; I do believe all those questions are relevant, but if consensus says no, so be it. Additionally, I don't know if the numbers for the parties' election results are needed; they are useful but may have already been mentionned. -M.Nelson (talk) 00:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

There's another from Strategic Counsel - see http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081204.wPOLpoll1205/BNStory/International/ and the full figures at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/v5/content/pdf/poll1205.pdf

These results are general supportive of the Conservatives on the key points but difficult to extract from a sideways PDF - anyone fancy having a go? Timrollpickering (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Angus-Reid Polls

Changed the contect of the poll to reflect the more relevant question of "Should the opposition parties get together and topple the Conservative minority government headed by Stephen Harper?" from the less significant "Do the conservatives deserve to continue to govern". Please stop reverting this edit. It's a legitimate edit and answers a more pertinent question. Thanks 96.48.61.95 (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Well you're changing the link to one that just leads to "File not found; The page you requested does not exist" so it's impossible to verify the alternate figures on the info supplied. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've rephrased this section to quote the exact wording given in the poll. It's clear that there is a difference in this poll between support for the ends and the means and both need to be stated. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI Tyee article

The Tyee's current edition has a piece by Pete McMartin on the 1941 Coalition, the 1952 succession crisis/impasse and what was almost a parliamentary crisis in 1991 concerning Vander Zalm. Here is the article, though I'm surprised McMartin didn't know, or didn't bother with recounting, the story of the Joe Martin government in 1900; but his rundown on how the Pattullo-Hart succession happened, and what it took to create the WAC Bennett minority in 1952, are short but interesting; the constitutional machinations behind Vander Zalm's end are more debatable but still interesting....Skookum1 (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The "crisis" is official

CSMonitor,[2] NYTimes[3], Globe and Mail,[4] AFP,[5], Guardian UK,[6] and a whole buncha other news articles call it a crisis. Granted it might have been not NPOV to call it that before, it's now the opinion of the world press that "crisis" is an appropriate word. How soon can we get the ridiculously vague "dispute" out of the title? hateless 19:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The BBC is now referring to this event as a Constitutional Crisis. [7] I would recommend adding this to the list of constitutional crises and possibly changing the name of this article. It's a shame the Governor General didn't fire Harper outright in order to bring Canada on par Australia in terms of the number full blown constitutional crises (and set herself up to host a Canadian version of The Apprentice). She probably would have also netted herself picture billing on the Current Events page. Politicians really need to take Wikipedia into consideration when making decisions :-D Sturmovik (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

How about "opportunity" rather than "crisis"? Is that NPOV? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that would only apply to Japan. If they ever have a constitutional crisis I'll make sure to redirect "20xx Constitutional Opportunity" there as well. Sturmovik (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe some media outlets are referring to it as a unity crisis. Is there any precedent so a naming convention can be affirmed? 99.240.36.63 (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Despite what some articles may refer to it as, this situation is not a crisis unless the situation escalates with legal or other challenges: no one has apparently subverted or broken laws, people haven't died. An act such as trying to subvert the GG upon deciding any which way would've made it a crisis, for example. It may yet become that and, in essence, the situation may get worse. Therefore, the use of the term 'crisis' is currently premature, and the current article title is appropriate (and dealt with above). Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't have the dictionary on your side. See definition 1a: "An unstable condition, as in political, social, or economic affairs, involving an impending abrupt or decisive change."[8] Don't conflate crisis in a general sense or a mere political crisis with a constitutional crisis, the word "crisis" still is perfectly valid for this case. hateless 21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And the article on the Australian Dismissal is at 1975 Australian constitutional crisis. A situation where the different constitutional rules and conventions clash, producing alternative results, is very much a constitutional crisis (and when the two sides are basically trying to get each other to crack and differently interpreting the "correct" outcome for the GG to take is pretty much what happened both in Australia in 1975 and in Canada now). Timrollpickering (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary is on my side in the definition of this also being 'dispute', any which sense. I contend it's simply premature to note it as a crisis, though don't dispute that others may believe it is, refer to it that way, or that it may truly become one. Let's 'give it room.' Bosonic dressing (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary won't say "dispute" in the title is ridiculously vague, but I will. Consensus will decide the title, but there's no justification for a consensus to refuse to use "crisis" because of NPOV reasons, because there are none. hateless 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Justification has already been provided, and no consensus yet supports your proposal. Besides, the Governor General, justifying her early return to Canada from a state visit to Central Europe, referred to it simply as a "political situation". Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Australian one was a Constitutional crisis because there was a serious debate about the constitutionality of what the GG did. This has not really occurred yet (though I personally feel the GG was wrong here). It might be correct to call it a "challenge" as it was an attempt by the opposition parties to wrestle control of government and it was a difficult choice given to the GG but I think crisis just sells newspapers. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Bosonic dressing (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No it was a crisis because two separate practices/rules clashed (and the Australian constitution didn't really offer a workable solution - by the time a double dissolution election that included supply bills could have been called existing funds would have run out) and the two sides both adopted hardline positions of "we are right" and waiting for each other to crack, with some appeals to the Governor General to back their interpretation of the correct solution. People focus on the GG dismissing Whitlam, but the whole crisis was rooted in the conflict between the two houses that was threatening to freeze the working of government - the GG's action was just a means of forcing a resolution (although the wrong course of action IMHO). Timrollpickering (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also (and probably more so) true. :-) Thanks, DoubleBlue (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's too soon to say. (Less than three days!) Many journalists are uninformed or sensationalizing, or both, and aside from talk/propaganda, it doesn't seem like anything will happen between now and when Parliament convenes. If we start getting parties dissolved like in Thailand, then it's unambiguously a crisis. Peter Grey (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Pacific Scandal precedent?

There's a lot to do with the Pacific Scandal that's glossed over largely in most modern accounts; one intersting account I know of begins on http://www.dikshovel.com/two.html (that page is mostly bkgnd; the scandal coverage proper is on page 2 http://www.dickshovel.com/two2.html). Anyway in a forum I belong to, one of the guys in it is a constitutioanl lawyer and provided this to me "for use here" re the prorogation:

The general consensus is that this is the first time the house has

been prorogued to keep a government from falling....I think that may be wrong.

Have a look at 1873 and the Pacific Scandal...I think MacDonald got the Governor General to prorogue the House in April when the Liberals discovered and disclosed the bribes (10 G from the builder of the railway to MacDonald) and a bunch of his members (he had a majority) moved across the aisle. Don't know how long it lasted - eventually there was an election and Mackenzie won.

That may be the precedent that Jean had to respect.

Anyway, well worth another look I think. I'm not trying to defend her - just making the point that it might be a useful item for your work

at Wiki

Anyone else here familiar with this episode?Skookum1 (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I read up on the Pacific Scandal. The situation was considerably different though in that it was not clear that there was a government in waiting (less than 50% of the MPs signed a petition to the GG to not prorogue) and the government had already conducted some business and adjourned for the summer. The prorogation was done when it had originally been intended to resume at the end of the summer break. It is still a little interesting in relation to the current dispute, however. My Donald Grant Creighton is packed away in a box of books somewhere I don't want to look so no reference either. Of course, in the end Mackenzie and the Liberals did take over government a couple of months later anyway. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had time to distill it fully, but my constitutional-lawyer/historical-law friend in Victoria has provided me this link from ElectricScotland.com, which is a page/chapter from a bio of Sir John A by George R. Parkin from 1908, when memory of the scandal was still fresh; somewhere in it were passages he felt were pertinent to any discussion comparing the G-G's role re teh Pacific Scandal and what just went down, and may yet go down. Others here may find a passage in it more quickly than I, so I provided it here ratehr than keep it all to myself....for another forum, I've also beein invited to write something up about L-G Mcinnes' various misbehaviours so will post a link to that, maybe, once it gets posted....Skookum1 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

Radio-Canada has included a timeline of events so far in one of its stories: [9]

This, or a timeline like it published elsewhere, might serve as an objective indication of what the most important events were. This might help in deciding on the overall structure of the article.

If anybody has located similar timelines in other media sources, perhaps they can add them here. 67.150.252.177 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I timeline would be great. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

What about a sub-page with a time line that contributes to this project? --Clausewitz01 (talk) 02:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Though it may have been hard to discern among hte potted plants and garden furniture, that was the point, partly, of my "Course of speculation" section above - dates/hours of the provenance of given ideas/slogans/buzzwords during the course of events, as there was a definite "unfolding of facts" on the one hand, and an "escalation of invective" on the other; adn you'er right, a separate page is teh way to go, it would be too long, and clutter up this page, far too much.Skookum1 (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And re the request/suggestion in the previous section, that too could maybe be most viable as a separate article, or as part of the timeline which of course it's interconnected with....but I'd say there's definitely a point to [[Media commentary on the Canadian [insert new wording here] of 2008-2008]].....Skookum1 (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate archiving of still-active discussions

User:Resolute has called on 145kb as the reason to archive many discussions which are still active. This is not appropriate given the ongoing and complex debates on this page. This should be re-instated forthwith as it constitutes a form of arbitrary censorship of still-current issues being discussed.Skookum1 (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If I archived a discussion that was still ongoing, please feel free to restore it back to this talk page. I tried to ensure that I didn't catch anything that wasn't redundant to a later discussion (i.e.: a rename thread), but with over 250kb of talk page comments already, it is entirely possible I inadvertently archived something still ongoing. Resolute 04:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And once again assuming bad faith. How typical of you. The discussions are still there. Stop whining about it, and do something about it. Resolute 04:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Turning an objection into an attack - "how typical of you". The reason I didn't do it was so you couldn't complain about me reversing it., and I was hoping for an admin with more experience/sagacity than yourself to do it so there would be no challenge to the reinstatement, which you surely would have objected to had *I* don it. There's no winning with you, is there? You should have had the common sense not to close discussion....but given that's what's happened with Parliament itself, I suppose it's become something of the norm for "acceptable conduct". It's you who should realize either your error and reverse it, or apologize for doing it and re-instate all the active discussions which you "prorogued" (actually more like "put on ice").Skookum1 (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but no. If it is that important to you, you can manage it yourself. As far as reversing my edits goes, you are more than welcome. Your assumptions of bad faith are not supported by reality. If you feel something needs reversing, then reverse it. That's the entire point of a wiki. If you can't be bothered to restore this discussion, then it evidently wasn't important in the first place, was it? Resolute 04:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't put interpretations on my words or actions, which you are in the habit of doing while accusing ME of not accepting good faith; I've given my reasons for why *I* didn't revert your actions; I think you're hiding behind "good faith" as a reason to get away with a lot t hat's clearly POV in motive. You're the one reading bad faith and POV into simple questions and accounts of media reportage as you have done repeatedly, and then refused to read what I replied with. Fine, I'll restore it, then, but don't bitch if I do - and why don't YOU try "WP:Disengage" instead of constantly attacking and trying to provoke me, and then blaming me for my respnoses to your attacks. YOU are the problem here, I don't care if you've earned your adminship or not; you're not behaving appropriately, given the volatility of this page and your own evident hostility to the facts I have only relayed here; much to your disapproval. This is politics, not a hockey game, and high-sticking isn't acceptable; but of course you're blaming me for that, while continuing to do it....Skookum1 (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I treat you as you treat others. Your inability to view the actions of others with good faith has lost you the right to be treated with the same assumption. If it is something that you do not like, then perhaps you should re-assess the methods with which you deal with others. Disengaging sounds like a remarkably good idea, however. I will, then, leave you with your ghosts. There really is no sense in my getting caught up in your paranoia. Resolute 05:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You are equating "others" with yourself alone. Provocation and counter-provocation; followed up by further dire persona insults. You really are a piece of work....Skookum1 (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) In agreement with archiving dormant discussions. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Clark/Schreyer/Trudeau/McEachern

And the way I found out about what just happened re the previous section was by looking for the discussion on Schreyer's role re the end of the Joe Clark minority government. My lawyer friend once again has provided clarification of what went down, plus a link to a CTV news item linking, in some way, Bob Rae re the current fracas (or hullaballo or kerfuffle). here;s my friend's comment and related link:

There's something there which needs correcting.. .the bit about Trudeau and leadership I think it's pretty clear that Trudeau announced his resignation after Clark's victory and was replaced by house leader Allan MacEachan before the Clark defeat on the budget...here's a link to a CTV piece that makes the interesting connection to Rae - especially apropos now: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060512/rae_maceach\en_060512

Hopefully this won't be archived too hastily as well....Skookum1 (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Re-archiving/shutting down discussion

Archiving this page "archive/set up automatic archiving after discussion is inactive after 3 days" is highly questoinable; THREE DAYS? That may be an eternity to people with short attention spans, or used to thinking in terms of hockey periods, but it's awfully brief for a current-event article discussion, and all too similar to shutting down Parliament after only six weeks. Silencing debate rather than answering to it is not appropriate. And accusing me of "paranoia" for it is just insulting;. Pretending it's a procedural norm is also all too familiar....Skookum1 (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

And I just checked; despite teh claim that archives inacive for three days are what's being archived, there are many items on that page that are date4d from the 5th and the 6th (today's the 7th); I didnt' check about the 4th, but given that's the day the prorogation happened on it's clear that there's even more posts that are on teh three-day threshhold. If there's a bot/switch responsible for selecting which discussions to archive, it's not working very welel; to me it looks liek a blanket-archive backed up by an edit comment "archive/set up automatic archiving after discussion is inactive after 3 days" that isn't backed up by a properly working bot/switch (or is just a false statement). Aside from the fact that three days is incredibly brief for an archiving switch (again, especially for a current even), and the point that both of hte individuals doing the archiving are also people who've demanded I be silenced, it doesnt' seem that the auto-archiving is working properly, as lots of things with less than three days inactivity have been shoved into "please do not edit this page". "Assume good faith" doesn't work when there is no evidence of good faith to be had....adn teh parallels to the shutting-down of Parliament are too clear.Skookum1 (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The sections with entries dated the 4th, 5th and 6th should be reinstated =and don't suggest I'm the one who should have to do it; I'm not the one trying to shove things into the filing cabinet with auto-archiving that clearly isn't working (or justified).Skookum1 (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

While I didn't do the archiving this time, I will suggest this: Archiving of this type in this case is not "unjustified", and is, in fact, closer to the norm. It is a technical matter rather than any attempt to "shut down discussion". This talk page was over 250kb, and growing rapidly. This creates two problems: first, the large size greatly slows down the page for people with slower connections. Second, discussions become lost in the shuffle, and become fractured. i.e.: There were three separate threads on moving this article to a new name. It becomes easy for two separate groups to be discussing the same issue on different parts of the page. The block archiving that I initially did, and was later redone, was designed to prune out the oldest discussions, after which the auto-archiving after three days of inactivity would take over. Once this talk page slows down, that time frame would be extended to a longer period.

If there are discussions that you feel are still ongoing (regardless of the time stamp of the last comment), then politely point them out, and I will be happy to remove them from the archive and restore them to this talk page. However, because of the technical aspects I mention above, it is ideal to begin moving dead discussions to archives. Resolute 16:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Three days is acceptable in a high-traffic talk page like this, since the page becomes very large, very fast. A 250kB page is absurdly large, especially for those using dialup (and yes, there are plenty of users still on dialup). The first archival was done by a human, removing what were deemed to be inactive discussions. All future archival will be done by a bot according to the rules noted above (specifically, when the talk page goes over 125kB, discussions inactive for three days will be moved to the archive). This has nothing to do with suppressing discussion. By the way, you may question the choice of three days, but keep in mind that older discussions will already be in the archive, and something will need to be pruned, so three days is a good compromise. As activity here decreases, the time limit will be increased. Mindmatrix 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the auto-archiving is malfunctioning then; go to teh archive and use "find on this page" for "5 December", "6 December", "4 December"..... it should be the responsibility of those who installed the archiving to check and correct this; at the very least, also, links to archived discussions relevant to current discussions (e.g. renaming, precedents etc.) should be put in the relevant sections - or some other "index by topic" table-of-contents device (that would remain visible) so that newly archived materials are not hidden away- not my job as the archiving wasn't my idea....and I don't understand all the wiki-devices that are out there that might make such a thing do-able.Skookum1 (talk) 16:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The bot hasn't run yet, so no, it isn't malfunctioning. As I said, if there are live discussions you feel need restoring, please politely point them out. Resolute 16:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you read my comment correctly. The first archival was done by a human. All future archival will be done by the bot, but it hasn't had a chance to do so yet, as Resolute says. Yes, some recent discussions were included too, but that was just to reduce the page weight to an acceptable level. Mindmatrix 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In agreement, 3-days is appropiate. It'll certainly come in handy on January 27, 2009, if the coalition is still intact & defeats the Conservative government. GoodDay (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Skookum, relax, we're not out to get you or do whatever nefarious thing you suspect me, Res, and other of plotting to do against you. It's becoming tedious. Maxim_(talk) 16:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The ousting of a government etc

I removed this paragraph and ref from the article.

The ousting of a government by a motion of non-confidence would be a first in Canadian parliamentary history.

The reference is to the effect that the replacement of a government by a motion of non-confidence without an election would be unprecedented. Not the same thing at all, IMO. The statement as it was in the article lead was wrong.

So why didn't I just fix the article? Because I am not sure the revised point belongs in the lead. Maybe it does. Input from someone else please. CBHA (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It'll need inspection. But could you ensure that when you remove a reference, there are no other parts of the text that use it. Removal of that ref broke ref #34. Mindmatrix 20:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the sentence as I wrote was horrendously wrong, as Martin was defeated by a motion of non-confidence, which led to the 2004 election. Mindmatrix 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Meighen & Clark. PS- ya mean Martin's confidence defeat, lead to the 2006 election.GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I indeed meant 2006. Mindmatrix 20:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Meighen & Clark were defeated on bills with confidence attached to them. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

PM selection

Can a GG fire the PM but ask the Conservatives to select someone else? (or force Harper to resign and select an interim PM from his own party...) ... this would be useful if something can be added to the article about it. 76.66.194.58 (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The GG can't fire the PM at all. She could refuse his advise, which would create problems for him within his own party which may cause him to resign or be forced out. But the GG is not the PM's "boss" per ce and the GG doesn't have the authority to dismiss the PM. Obviously, this is moot now, but thought the question should be answered. freshacconci talktalk 04:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

According to several Canadian newspapers, the GG can fire the PM... According to the Wikipedia article on the matter, reserve powers, the GG can fire the PM. 76.66.194.58 (talk) 12:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The GG certainly has the formal power to fire the PM and appoint whoever she likes, but she'd need a very good constitutional reason for doing so otherwise it would be a very arbitrary use of the powers. The main Commonwealth precedent is Australia in 1975 when Sir John Kerr dismissed Gough Whitlam, but Kerr had as his basis that Whitlam was unable to secure supply as it the bills were blocked in the Senate. It was still a controversial move (because it's based on the upper not the lower house) but one that at least had some formal basis. In the current Canadian case the GG has nothing formal to work on that would encourage a dismissal. There is no actual parliamentary vote that has shown a lack of Commons confidence in the current government (what the opposition leaders say their MPs will do when they get to vote is not quite the same thing constitutionally) and there's no real indication beyond political rhetoric that another Conservative could form a government where Harper can't. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, Michelle Jean can indeed fire Harper as Prime Minister. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The Constitution does not mention the role of Prime Minister, and in theory she could name anyone she wanted to the position, but precedent tells her that she has to appoint either the person that the existing PM tells her to or the person who is most likely to have the confidence of the House. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Highly inappropriate refname

I was a bit shocked to find <ref name="traitor"> as the ref name for "Tories call Dion a traitor". This is unacceptable, and a sign of covert defamation hidden within the code, which is even nastier than the many POV edits being made more visibly. Will someone change this - I always break refs, or miss them, because of my "bad eyes and big fingers". Responsible wikipedia editors, even if they are Tory supporters, should not stoop to such questionable practices. Disgusting. And to think Canadians like to have that smug sense of superiority over American political practices; welcome to the new Canada, world of gutter politics and downright sneakiness.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And don't anybody plunk their finger in their cheek and go "who, me?" or say "I don't see anything wrong with that". If you don't see anything wrong with that, you need an education in the civility others accuse me of lacking....Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

To compare, say if there was an article "Harper compared to Hitler by xxx" and the refname was <ref name="hitler">....Skookum1 (talk) 04:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have had a problem with either ref name (traitor or hitler), but I can understand how people can read into this sort of thing. I looked to change it and somone had changed it from "traitor" to "New low". So in the spirit of NPOV ref names I changed it to "breaking point", since that is actually in the title of the reference.--kelapstick (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks....the deteriorating state of public discourse in this country is really a disappointment, and highly disturbing; it does not bode well for our future either as a nation or as a community if such attitudes and practices continue to proliferate, whether in Wikipedia or in the regular public arena. As I noted somewhere else above, we are a very different country than we were two weeks ago; it's been heading this way more and more for a while, but this affair has stepped things up a notch....part of my point is taht because people such as you don't findit disturbing, it open the door for such abuses which do offend those of us who are still sensitive to matters of decency; I'm not saying you are indecent; but you have been desensitized...this is not a good thing when even reasonable people become oblivious to clearly offensive and targeted slanders....not a good thing at all.Skookum1 (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I didn't actually put the "traitor" reference in the first place, just fixed it (after it had been changed to "New low"). Watching the (attack) campaign ads down here in Nevada makes me realize that Canadian political ads are pretty tame, and something like that looks like a drop in the bucket to me, but I can understand how some could see it as a "hidden attack".--kelapstick (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I got that; knew it wasn't your work, that is. It's uglier than you know up here; small potatoes by American standards, maybe, but this is not the civil country it used to be, that much is certain; there's been a lot of cyber-undermining in the last week, moreso than usual, much of it quite hateful and in the same league as the various nastinesses levelled at Obama during the recent US campaign....Skookum1 (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any issue changing the ref name is some think it is POV ... but I wouldn't read too much into it. I often pick a single unique word or two from the title, and given the others were Torys Call and Dion, none else really stick out. But agree ... change it. But I would'nt call it highly inappropriate, merely unfortunate. Nfitz (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Unfortunate" implies an innocent mistake; this was clearly deliberate, given the anti-Coalition rhetoric's inflammatory denunciations, particularly of Dion, and posters/websites of his image with "traitor" branded on them that have been circulating. There's a big difference between "unfortunate" and "deilberate", I think you'll a;gree, given the current context.Skookum1 (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

And to note "unconsciously deliberate" is still "deliberate", i.e. if someone used it thinking/not-thinking that "it's the main theme of the ref" or "well, he is one without meaning to be mean, i.e. just being insensitive or blasé/blithe about it because it's "OK" for them. By such incremental molehills are big mountains built...whether venal/malign or simply callous, this was a piece of nastiness that should be watched for in future; it won't be the last we see of such .... propaganda techniques, i.e. seeding derogation "innocently" ....Skookum1 (talk) 06:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, while I have no issue with the ref name being changed, a "ref name" is never actually seen by the reader unless they try to edit the article — all it actually is, is a hidden internal anchor whose main purpose is so that if another statement elsewhere in the article is referenced to the same link, the ref tag in that case can be typed as just <ref name="name" /> instead of having to retype the whole reference. While from an editorial perspective the most useful choice is to pick a word that summarizes the gist of the headline, from a strictly technical perspective the ref name can be absolutely anything unique — we could even call it "cookiemonster" or "karenkain" or "millivanilli", or name them "A", "B", "C", etc., if we wanted to — as long as the next ref tag that's sourced back to the same reference uses the same name as that reference's original ref name, and no other ref tag in the article uses the same name as that one. But just so we're all clear on what the name actually does, the reader never sees it — its only actual purpose is as a convenient shortcut to help us cross-reference statements to the right ref link. It's not really a bias issue — it's simply a unique identifier for the reference chosen by picking out a memorable word from the link title. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I was the one that used that term to denote the reference. I chose the term because it's a short word and it described the point of the reference. As one who has no political affiliation, I can assure you that it was not "clearly deliberate" or covert defamation. Because I tend to hold no biases in such things, I tend not to see bias in word choice (especially those not visible to the reader, or for those which are specifically used in the text) - I choose words for their specificity to the task, nothing more. (That is, I have a purely scientific approach to my editing, not an emotional or political approach.) Anyway, instead of this extended discussion, you could have simply changed the word to something you find more palatable. I'll note for future editing to avoid the use of such labels in citations, since it clearly bothers some people. Mindmatrix 15:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, Skookum. Did it ever actually occur to you to just assume good faith and change the reference name? Resolute 15:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I see you're in attack mode again, Resolute, this time prefaced by a profanity. I already answered that in preface - "bad eyes, big fingers and I always screw up refs". what could be one edit winds up being half-a-dozen, that's why I asked someone else to do it. Why don't you stop attacking me and answering the questions I responded to your challenges with, but you were too uppity to deign to read? Just as you were too arrogant to bother reading why I didn't want to do the ref change myself. Sheesh, by Odin's beard.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The attacks and bullying for daring to ask questions, or providing answers demanded of me, that some don't like continue, on the one hand by someone whose prior editing focus has been hockey bios and on the other by someone whose prior editing focus has been cartoon episodes/bios, both engaging in a kind of accusatory bullying and silence-demanding that's all too familiar to me from elementary school hallways. Now, if it weren't for the fact that it hasn't been Coalition supporters who have engaged in propaganda techniques, I wouldn't be pointing out only instances of such techniques used by "evil Tories"; it's not my fault the Coalition side has been "playing nice" while the other hasn't, but I'm being accused of trying to "whip things up" etc. I would gladly point out instances of distortions and vicious invective/hate-mongering by Coalition supporters if I could find any or if they appeared in the media (and I'll I've been doing is reporting what I see/hear in the media). What I do is call a spade a spade and don't mince words with fools and foolishness; yes, take this "nonsense" off the talkpage, but don't dump it on my talkpage either - the nonsense isn't mine. The nonsense is demanding I answer to questions that you then refuse to listen to the answers of. And then denounce me for not shutting up when you tell me too. Well, wiki-history has shown that the one sure-fire way to not get Skookum1 to shut up is to tell him to do so. As for my contributions to this discussion and article I have avoided imposing my prolix verbal/factual style on the article except rarely, and instead have focussed on sources/issues and things like the name-debate on this page. I don't respond well to bullying of any kind, especially bullying wrapped in self-righteousness and fake politesse. As for what appears to be my focus on suspect Tory-flavoured edits, my answer is simple - "if you don't want people saying bad things about you, don't do bad things". "Bad things" by Coalition supporters are far outnumbered by "bad things" by Tory supporters and, again, that's not my fault; all I'm doing is bearing tidings, but "shooting the messenger" is an old game. User:Mindmatrix has explained that his use of "traitor" in the refname was innocent in origin, which is fine and I accept his explanation; what's important to remember is taht this is politics, like it or not, and in politics certain sensitivities should be paid more heed, even if the casusl-insensitivity is invisible to the ordinary reader; the context here being the propagation of the term "traitor" in association with Dion, which is indeed the piont of that article, and the spreading and mis-use of terms like "sedition" (which has a very clear legal meaning not embraced by the actions or words/positions of the Coalition despite flowing freely from the tongues of Tory MPs and cabinet members, who should know better). Sicne NPOV is a prime wikipedia directive, it should be consciously observed even in such casual matters as the naming of refs; if images and mentions of Dion weren't being spread around Canda and around netspace blazoned with "traitor" then it wouldn't be an issue; but then that article wouldn't have been written either; all *I'm* doing is asking for more sensitivity to such matters; instead I'm being painted as the big bad guy, simply for asking for a return to civility and respect, in Wikipedia at least, even though it seems to have evaporated from the national political culture. Again, that's not my doing; I'm only reporting it, and expressing a desire that conscientious and truly non-partisan editors (not just those claiming to be) make a point of avoiding potentially-contentious usages, including usages of even hidden code. Now that it's been fixed that's fine and great and jim-dandy; but denoucning me for pointing it out as if I were wanting discord is just asinine, and I don't need to hear about it on my talkpage; I'm not the one doing the attacks, I'm the one being forced to defend himself by people who, perhaps, are trying to provoke me into being blocked, which would suit them fine as it's clear I raise issues and news and historical items they don't want others to hear about. Fine, and jim dandy. I'll continue to take part in the other discussions on this talkpage in spite of the censure by hockey, cartoon, and pro wrestling fans who want/need/demand that I go away. Wikipedia is not a hockey rink, adn while there's a penalty box, I'm not the one who deserves to be put in it.Skookum1 (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, I occasionally visit encyclopedia dramatica, and at first I figured that their article on wikipedia was a fat load of flame-bait as it usually is, but having participated in this "discussion" and read other parts of it, I'm beginning to come to the same conclusions. I think that "Wikipedia is a massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) in which participants play editors of a hypothetical online encyclopedia. The goal is to try to insert misinformation that is randomly assigned at signup, while preventing any contrary information from being entered by others. Players with similar misinformation will generally form "guilds" in order to aid one another." summarizes it quite nicely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.225.77 (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Media reaction

Would a section on the reaction from the media (editorials, radio commentators, TV analysts) be approprieate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.21.219.202 (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comedy and the 2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute has occurred to me as a possible article...although this Rick Mercer article isn't actually comedy....and com/watch? v=tzoCtoGtd64 neither is this. I believe there's an equivalent article in US politics, i.e. comedians' coverage of the presidential/primary race down there; the prorogue/perogy/pogroms "joke" that's ben circulating too, is citable from Royal Canadian Air Farce.Skookum1 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think a section on media reaction would be useful, (I previously proposed it too; see Talk:2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute/Archive 1#Scope of article.) It's a matter of finding someone to start it and flesh it out. Mindmatrix 15:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that the Coalition is becoming, or has been, a somewhat separate subject, 2008 Liberal-NDP Coalition seems called for; just noticed the news this morning about a caucus selection of Ignatieff and Rae's objections; tha'ts not really about this "dispute" (i.e. referring to the constitutional arguments this article focuses on) and is, though related, a separate line of content; as with the media commentary article alluded to above, i.e .though inter-related shoudl be a separate article sooner than later. Time and energy? I dunno, got my hands full with survival right now, and the media article (and its comedy counterpart/subsection) are OR territory in some ways; i.e. if not simply a listing of coverage, any attempt to coalesce them into story form verges on synthesis....historia in Greek, by the way, means "inquiry"....and whenever you write a history, you are doing what wikipedia calls synthesis...a fine line between "facts and arguments", to coin the Globe's phrase...Skookum1 (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Premiership of Stephen Harper

I try to keep away, but wiki being what it is, all roads lead back to the barbeque - I was checking up on why 2010 Winter Olympics was linked to the Ukrainian Orthodox catehdral article (link since removed as irrelevant) and in the "what links here" was Premiership of Stephen Harper, which is only in Category:Stephen Harper and reads like a promotional resume for his government/person; I suspect that 28th Canadian Ministry may also sound much the same, and there's {{Harper Government}} at the bottom of the page. I added a short "starter section" and tried to be as NPOV as possible; figured it best if I noted it here so others can amend it; I tried to add a resume=yes switch to the article issues tempalte, but apparently that's not the right switch. Also "Premiership" is an odd term; do we have Premiership of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Premiership of Brian Mulroney etc.? And why does it have to be a separate article from 28th Canadian Ministry (likewise an odd title)? I mean, how many wiki articles does one Prime Minister need....????Skookum1 (talk) 22:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Just looked at the template and added a link to this article; but noted these other articles which would seem to need content related to the current event:

• Domestic policy of the Harper government
• Economic policy of the Harper government
• National unity policy of the Harper government
• Social policy of the Harper government

Note: these are onlyl some of the articles linked in that template, just ones that are related to the policies which precipitated the events of this article. Surely there's some kind of policy for "article overkill" for one subject/person? are there this many articles for Trudeau, Mulroney, Chretien, MacDonald, King, Pearson, Diefenbaker etc???? of course, dead PMs dont' have taxpayer-paid staff to write up their bumpf, but I'm a bit shocked by how much there is (and how flatulent a lot of it sounds....).Skookum1 (talk) 22:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I just looked in the category - there's Stephen Harper Leadership Team (capitalized that way....). Since it's obvioiusly relevant, I'll add this article to taht category as well, however....Skookum1 (talk) 22:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

That premiership.. article should be merged into 28th Canadian Ministry article. GoodDay (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh goodness. There probably needs to be some merging and re-arranging of all that content. Let's bring it up at the Canadian notice board for broader input - it's more relevant there than it is here. Mindmatrix 03:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion there. Please see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#Premiership of Stephen Harper. Mindmatrix 03:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Undone copyediting

Perhaps User:GoldDragon could offer an explanation here as to why he persists on undoing some copyediting to the Prorogation of parliament and Resignation of the prime minister sections. The difference, for other contributors here, lies between GoldDragon's version:

However, this would be unprecedented in Canadian history, as no governor general has ever refused a prime minister's request for prorogation or put conditions on it. It would also be unprecedented for a prime minister to ask for prorogation when facing an imminent confidence vote. "There is no precedent whatsoever in Canada and probably in the Commonwealth", he stated.

and mine:

However, either choice made would have been unprecedented in Canadian history: no governor general had ever refused a prime minister's request for prorogation or put conditions on it, and no prime minister had ever asked for a prorogation when facing an imminent confidence vote; "there is no precedent whatsoever in Canada and probably in the Commonwealth," stated Franks.

Too long a sentence, so make two sentences out of it. GoldDragon (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the sentence is "too long"; both sentences deal with lack of precedent, so there's little reason they shouldn't be merged into one. Keeping them split reads as though we're writing for grade school students. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As well as GoldDragon's verison:

Asking the existing prime minister to resign would have prompted Jean to request that parliament form a new government, permitting the formation of the coalition headed by Dion. If no new government were to form, parliament would be dissolved, resulting in a dropping of the writ for a general election. On December 4, 2008, however, asking Harper to resign as prime minister was not considered a likely option by the media or scholars.

Had the government lost a non-confidence vote, which was scheduled for December 8, 2008, then the Governor General could have turned down Prime Minister Harper's request to call an election. She would ask the prime minister to resign and she would invite the opposition to form a government.

amd mine:

Asking the existing prime minister to resign would have prompted Jean to request someone else to form a new government, likely permitting the formation of the coalition headed by Dion. If Dion, however, could not maintain the confidence of the house, parliament would be dissolved, resulting in a dropping of the writ for a general election. Had the government lost a non-confidence vote, which was scheduled for December 8, 2008, the governor general could then have turned down Prime Minister Harper's request to call an election, instead asking the prime minister to resign and inviting the opposition to form a government.

I'm sure GoldDragon has been eager to enlighten us here on the talk page as to why his version is superior, given that he has left nothing in his edit summaries to offer explanation. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, we don't have to speculate on Dion maintaining the confidence of the house, as it deals with Harper at the moment. GoldDragon (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, no; the sentences clearly deal with Dion and his ability to form a government, which necessitates his keeping the confidence of the house. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC) (PS- you can find citation templates here, GoldDragon. --Miesianiacal (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

Could somebody point out, that the Governor General does not have to ask the PM to resign? She can simply revoke his commision, in otherwords fire him. GoodDay (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, in firing Harper, she could ask the Conservative government to nominate a new PM. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you should add this as a further alternative.GoldDragon (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that there is a slight bit of edit conflict, as I realize that 99.232.5.142 and myself have alternated edits, so that means that we may inadvertedly undo each others work.

I leave in the paragraph breaks, if it is about different topics (i.e. the opposition parties negotiate a coalition, versus the composition of the coalition government). GoldDragon (talk) 23:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to merge the two sentences on precedent in a better way: However, a prime minister asking for prorogation when facing an imminent confidence vote, as well a governor general refusing or implementing conditions on such a request, would both be unprecedented in Canadian history. It shortens the overall text while, I think, keeping the essential content. --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

GoldDragon, you're doing it again. Could you please offer some explanations as to why you're removing cited material and undoing copyedits such as wording order? --Miesianiacal (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the phrase by user Miesianiacal, stating "prompted Jean to request someone else to form a new government", versus the alternate "prompted Jean to request that parliament form a new government": the GG does not ask any specific individual in parliament to form a new government, she requests of parliament for an individual to step up and form government. There's a subtle but relevant distinction. Mindmatrix 03:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Parliament, however, does not form governments. The Governor General does so by asking an individual if they can hold the confidence of the House of Commons; that person doesn't even have to have a seat in the house, such as John Turner, or those who were senators. On review, though, my wording doesn't seem to be much better. I'll give it some thought. --Miesianiacal (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed you're right; we need something to the effect of "prompted Jean to request the formation of a new government from the same Parliament", except more fluid and with better elaboration. Mindmatrix 03:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add my concerns about removal of cited information by GoldDragon. Twice I've added a paragraph about Jean Charest's reaction, and twice he's removed it, replacing it with an edulcorated version. The fact that federalists in Quebec have been harshly critical of Harper's attitude towards the Bloc is extremely relevant. 67.150.255.37 (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)