Jump to content

Talk:2012 New Democratic Party leadership election

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

Bilingual

[edit]

Is there really a need for a bilingual section in the list of candidates, especially when it's not known if some are or aren't? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it could take play in this election, with the NDP's serge in popularity in Quebec. 117Avenue (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bilingualism has pretty much been a must for all major parties over the years. Other times the NDP selected a leader though they were basically a fringe party so it wasn't as important. I understand it is important but bilingualism is always brought up for leaders of parties, the Liberals have a small Quebec caucus but bilingualism was an issue when choosing their interim leader. I just think that because we don't know if all the candidates are or aren't it shouldn't have a separate section. Maybe it can be added to the "notes" if it's important. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least some talk that official bilingualism may be a requirement. So I think it should stay until that is sorted out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SKL688 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]
People aren't even sure who is and who isn't bilingual and there are conflicting news reports. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doer

[edit]

The source used to exclude Comartin is now being used to say Doer has declined to run. But the source referred to in that one, this Ottawa Citizen story, quotes "friends" and a longtime former aide as saying there's "no chance" because he enjoys being Ambassador and, "Even if he were to consider it, and I'm pretty sure he's not, that would be the capper," Turnbull said. "I know he's not interested." Stuff like that, from friends who may or may not be familiar with his thinking, isn't enough to support the proposition that he has decided something. -Rrius (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be pretty clear:
"Gary Doer, the former NDP premier of Manitoba, has ruled out changing jobs. Currently Canada's ambassador to the United States, Doer told CBC News he is proud to be doing that job and is saying "no" when asked if he is interested in the NDP leadership."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/08/30/pol-ndp-leadership-candidates.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.117.79 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]
Obviously, but that wasn't the source given. -Rrius (talk) 06:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, you are right, I was making the broader point that Doer should be moved off of the "considering" list to the "declined" list. that's all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.117.79 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Jack Harris & Paul Dewar

[edit]

In Don Martin's article, which is used to cite Jack Harris as a potential candidate, it says neither Harris or Paul Dewar are fluently bilingual. Yet in the list Dewar is checked off as bilingual while Harris is not. Why? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are conflicting reports over whether or not Dewar is bilingual. I think he speaks it, but not well. I'm pretty sure I've seen him speak it before, as I've been to some of his events. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Don Martin's piece Jack Harris also speaks French, just not well. I'm assuming Martin knows seeing he interviews both Dewar and Harris regularly. Megan Leslie is also questionable, she has says she can speak French just not very well. I doubt she would be considered bilingual if she had to do a test. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 15:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this raises another question as to what defines bilingual. Charlie Angus is another one I would put in the maybe category, and Robert Chisholm himself is doing language training. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I wasn't fussy on a bilingual section. Being able to speak French and being bilingual in French and English are not necessarily the same thing. I had an aunt who lived in Montreal and Ottawa for years who could watch French TV and carry on a conversation in French but she said she'd never be able to pass a bilingual test in the federal government. 16:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Endorsements

[edit]

As Vale of Glamorgan said in his edit summary, endorsements are going to pile up. Is it really necessary to include these in the tables? I think they will overwhelm the rest of the information meant to be provided. I therefore suggest that we either set up a new section for endorsements or, better yet, not list them all. Particularly notable people such as Ed Broadbent might be important enough to include in a discussion of the campaign, but I'm not convinced of the necessity of listing the individuals that news sources happen to mention as having endorsed a particular candidate. -Rrius (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think listing MPs and former party leaders is important; MLAs, labour leaders and others - not so much. Maybe to save space we can do without listing the ridings of MPs endorsing candidates. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A table might not be a great idea for actual declared candidates. The format used in Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2006 might be better, particularly as there will be more information such as candidate websites, policy positions etc that might merit inclusion. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's do away with the table! -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an idea, but one that should probably wait until the close of nominations, at which point we will be able to get of both of the potential-candidate tables. In any event, we should certainly have more than one candidate, or even two or three candidates who have declared, before having using that sort of presentation. Otherwise we risk overemphasizing some candidates at the expense of others (violating WP:UNDUE, to put it in WP terms). -Rrius (talk) 04:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea not to include a number figure counting the endorsements we list. These lists are in all probability not going to be exhaustive, and it invites comparisons of "This candidate had 5 MPs endorsing her and this candidate had only 4" when that might not be reality. - Montréalais (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, which is why I'm not sold on including endorsements. -Rrius (talk) 03:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caucus support is fairly definitive, is something everyone looks for when examining leadership candidates, and is something that is announced in the media and on candidate websites so it's fairly easy to keep track of. Same with former party leaders. As for other people we then get into a subjective game about whether this or that person is prominent enough or not. For instance, I can do without listing an endorsement by Adrian Dix's campaign manager and while I think we can list former and current provincial NDP leaders I don't see the need about listing other MPPs or MLAs, as those lists could become quite lengthy without actually meaning very much. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of using the format of Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2006, that allows for more endorsements to be included which removes the subjectivity of deciding which to include/exclude. West Eddy (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should go to the format used for 2006 election now. I initially said it should wait for close of nominations, but it appears nominations don't close for quite a long time, so we should just go ahead and change it. I sounds like no one opposes the change, so I'll go ahead and do it. -Rrius (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is an other section for Mulcair, should these endorsements found here http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/provincialelection/article/1063230--ndp-s-brian-topp-gets-star-endorsement?bn=1 be added to Topp's endorsement list? Dacckon (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minister John Baird has endorsed Paul Dewar, should he be added to his list of endorsements or not? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate websites

[edit]

I tried to list candidate websites under the candidate's name but this was removed.[1]. Should candidate websites be listed somewhere? While these only exist for the duration of the campaign they are something users would be looking for. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be listed. I think it's a good way of explaining candidates' platforms without using Wikipedia for promotion. 117Avenue (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In addition to making sense, inclusion is normal. -Rrius (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is information from these websites being used in citations and in the main article itself, please make sure to use Webcite to archive them, as these sites likely will be gone after next year.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

Anyone have images for the candidates without a photo? Particularly Roméo Saganash should have one.West Eddy (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

[edit]

Is the timeline section relevant?It seems to be a timeline of recent NDP events, more than a leadership-election-specific timeline. West Eddy (talk) 19:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other Prospective Candidates

[edit]

Is this section relevant? At this point, if someone has not given any indication one way or the other, is there any point of listing them? Bob Rae and Kiefer Sutherland, for instance, are not likely to officially decline or enter the race -- and I doubt any of the others in this section are either. I suggest we get rid of the section and only include people who have indicated they may or may not enter, to avoid a highly speculative list. West Eddy (talk) 10:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the section, anyone, like Bob Rae, who has been mentioned by the media could be listed. 117Avenue (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree on general principle, but this is a weird election where every candidate even remotely likely to run has said they are thinking about it. I'm actually surprised no one reverted Bob Rae and Kiefer Sutherland. Anyway, I agree this particular prospective candidate table should go. -Rrius (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the "other prospective" section are those individuals who have not given any indication they are thinking of running but have been named by a media source nevertheless. I think the prospective section had a role initially but I think by now all the candidates who are going to run have at least said they're thinking about it and are in the "Considering Running" section. "Other prospective candidates" is just pure media speculation without any supporting citation to indicate the person in question is actually thinking about running and in some cases (Bob Rae, Kiefer Sutherland) is either mischief on the part of the reporter or fantasy. The only one of the nine I think could possible enter the race is Niki Ashton, the only MP on that list, but frankly if she were considering it I think she would have said something by now. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say "yes but", yet we seem to be in 100% agreement, or very close to it. We both think the circumstances make it exceedingly unlikely that any of the "prospective candidates" will enter the race and that this particular prospective candidates table should be removed. -Rrius (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry, I didn't see your last sentence, I thought you were for retaining it. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Singh and Notability

[edit]

Hey everybody,

So, I thought I would approach a problem before it starts with the question of Martin Singh. If he decides to enter the leadership race (which most sources say he will), would he then be notable enough to have his own page, on the basis that he is running for leadership of a major political party? I'm sure he is a great guy, and a competent pharmacist, but is he notable enough for an article?

A CBC article on the subject

Bkissin (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates Layout

[edit]

I don't think we have enough content for the Candidates section to make sense with sub-headlines. It is currently messy and quite hard to read. I'm thinking a summary table would do better, and then sections explaining more information, and eventually if it gathers enough content, an individual page for each candidacy. Any thoughts? Bert Macklin (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Theremay not be enough information yet but the race hasn't really started, once candidates start releasing policy there will be a fair bit of information to add. It doesn't make much sense to me to make a table for now and then revert back to a similar format in a matter of weeks. The cuurent format is consistent with other articles on leadership races. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a readability problem where the reader has difficulty quickly making out the candidates, and sorting out the subtitles which are of similar size. This is hard to read! What do you propose instead? Bert Macklin (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it difficult myself. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how there could be difficulty. The candidate's names are in headers, their riding is the first thing, then their launching, website, and supporters are listed at the end. 117Avenue (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't see how duplicating the images is helpful. 117Avenue (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither do I. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I find the article to be poorly formatted overall, and much of the content pedantic, but that is IMHO. My suggestion is that most of the information about each individual candidate be limited to relevant information about them, and be in proper paragraphs. The way the candidate section reads, it is a bunch of lists, and that is not proper prose-style writing for an article, as per WP:STYLE. I think the article needs a major rewrite, but I would wait until after the convention is over. In the final(ish) version of this article, drop almost all the endorsers, and mention the most important ones in a sentence or two. Issues, floor debates, etc. should be incorporated, as this is also considered a bi-annual policy convention.--Abebenjoe (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy"

[edit]

I wonder if the "controversy" section is really appropriate and if it isn't a violation of the "Undue Weight" rule? It appears simply to be one analyst's criticism of Brian Topp and neither scandalous nor particularly controversial but merely an opinion. May be more appropriate in the Brian Topp article. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in the absence of any comments in the past five days I'm going to remove it from this article and put it in the Topp article. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USE CITATION TEMPLATES

[edit]

Simple enough message. Bare urls are not sufficient citations. In the Wikipedia editing softare there is a menu button that says "Cite" next to the "help" menu. Click it. You will then notice at the left of the menu bar a "Templates" drop down menu. Click on it and pick the appropriate citation, and fill in the information. It's that simple. I just wasted ten-minutes fixing up one citation because it was poorly formatted and sourced.--Abebenjoe (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declined candidates

[edit]

Now that nominations are closed, can we get rid of the declined candidates? It was helpful as a counterpoint to the prospective candidates, but its future utility is questionable. -Rrius (talk) 04:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forum change

[edit]

According to this article, the setting for the convention has changed from the Allstream Centre to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre. It doesn't appear from their WP articles that the MCC is part of Exhibition Place, but I leave it to editors with more knowledge of Toronto and its convention centres to make the necessary changes. -Rrius (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Chisholm, official-photo-rc3-webpx.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Robert Chisholm, official-photo-rc3-webpx.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Robert Chisholm, official-photo-rc3-webpx.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

It seems that Reflinks is no longer catching the information from links to Topp's website - I'm not sure why this us. These will need to be manually filled in each time. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the voting procedure

[edit]

How exactly does the voe proceed? I think it will be Instant-runoff voting. I checked this article and the NDP web site, but I did not find an explanation. In any case, as I am pretty sure I am right, I put it into the page – if I'm wrong, please correct me.  Andreas  (T) 14:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly it's actually a hybrid system. Votes mailed in in advance are cast by IRV, but votes on the day, either at the convention or online, are for one round only. Candidates may withdraw before being formally eliminated and this could release preferences to lower down candidates who stay in. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

voting

[edit]

I'm getting an edit conflict, so I'll leave this here


Candidate 1st ballot 2nd ballot 3rd ballot 4th ballot 5th ballot
Ashton 3737 (5.7%) eliminated
Cullen 10671 (16.4%)
Dewar 4883 (7.5%)
Mulcair 19728 (30.3%)
Nash 8353 (12.8%)
Singh 3821 (5.9%) dropped out
Topp 13915 (21.4%)

70.49.124.162 (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saganash

[edit]

Even though he withdrew from the race, he was on the first ballot and should be included in the voting tally for the first ballot - can't see an argument against this. Why was his line removed from the chart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.203.171.245 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not seen any numbers for Saganash in the reported counts - I presume votes for him were automatically moved to the next preference before the first ballot was declared. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to bring this up. Pundits Guide showed numbers today that had him included, and I remember hearing at the time he dropped out that it was too late for his name to be excluded from the ballot. So technically there were 8 candidates, not seven and he came in last with 266 votes. [2] Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add note to infobox about Layton's death

[edit]

The infobox is not a main source but a summary. I felt that the not about Jack Layton's death should be in the infobox since the template indicates a 'resigning leader' which is not accurate. A note would clarify the situation. A casual reader who displays this article could be confused. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot the infobox said resigning leader. The infobox could be edited to say something else. 117Avenue (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on New Democratic Party leadership election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on New Democratic Party leadership election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_New_Democratic_Party_leadership_election&oldid=1243242769"