Talk:2013 Liberal Party of Canada leadership election

Title of the page

No date for a leadership convention has been announced, should the title of the article be changed? Perhaps to 11th Liberal Party of Canada leadership election? Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Tenth by my count, Next Liberal Party of Canada leadership election also works. I agree, they may not do it immediately. 117Avenue (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed the title needs to be changed because I'd say there is a 95% chance of it won't happen till 2012, or possibly later. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:27, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I should think we'd get a more definitive statement in the very near future, so perhaps we could just wait until then? -Rrius (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We certainly have the clarification from the National President that a leadership vote hasn't been triggered, but of course that's an interpretation and open to change. According to the Globe and Mail, "The party’s national executive is expected this week to clarify the rules on the timing of the next leadership convention." I think it makes sense to hold off later this week. -Rrius (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that we some sense of when the NBD intends to hold the election, I've made Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2012; Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2012; and Next Liberal Party of Canada leadership election redirects to this article. Given that the current timetable, i.e., the interim leader being appointed May 19, the current provisions of the party constitution will still require a leadership convention this year. Since the method chosen to avoid that is to amend the constitution, I propose we leave the article at 2011 until the amendment passes. When and if that happens, and if the new timetable is still 2012–2013, we should move it to Next or 10th (or whatever number we end up agreeing they're on). -Rrius (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I think Next would be the best option. Unlike provincial and federal elections, I doubt the formal name of leadership elections are numbered, it also conforms to WP:COMMONNAME. 117Avenue (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's not clear that the 1919 was the first election. Did previous leaders take office by conquest? -Rrius (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No clue, Liberal Party of Canada leadership elections is unverifiable. 117Avenue (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Prior to 1919, leaders were chosen by the caucus, not through a convention. I would be fine with 'next' or something to that effect since no date has been set yet. Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Being elected by the caucus is still an election. If the articles were named by convention, rather than by election, numbering might have a point, but they're not. There may have been 10 or whatever conventions, but there have been as many elections as there have been leaders. That's what I was trying to say. -Rrius (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Potential Candidates

Personally I wouldn't consider Scott Brion saying he's more focused on starting a family as a formal announcement that he would not be entering the leadership race. I think his name will still be mentioned and he will still be a potential candidate until the leadership race is officially called and he states then that he will not enter. This is just my feelings on it. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We have no definitive statement that he has declined. -Rrius (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Trudeau and McGuinty

Part of me thinks it would be fine to note that Justin is the son of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and David is the brother of Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. Part of me though thinks it is silly and pointless. Which part is right? -Rrius (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Michael Ignatieff

CBC news has proven to be no help, first they described him as the outgoing leader, then the former leader. Holy smokers, is Iggy still the Liberal party leader or not? GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The media often don't understand or care about formalities. Politically Ignatieff's leadership is clearly over - he's not even doing a Dion. However under the party constitution his leadership has lasted a bit longer because the timing for electing a successor is automatically contingent on when there is a formal vacancy; and possibly also there may be internal procedures that require the post of leader to not actually be vacant. For example the formal standing down of the election campaign team (including the ending of paying salaries) may require a leader to sign them off; ditto an internal disciplinary panel may require the leader to formally convene them and these things may not be able to wait even for the appointment of an interim. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Bob Rae

While of course it may be very unlikely I think maybe we should wait to take Bob Rae's name off the list of possible candidates for the permanent leadership. While Rae has said he has decided to go for the interim leadership over the permanent leadership I don't think he has really shut the door on running permanently if he doesn't become the interim leader. Am I just being to particular on this? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just thinking that, then I saw this thread had been started. I think I got carried way by one of the headlines, so I'll just comment the declined section back out. -Rrius (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

He has said unequivocally that he's not running so he should be put under that category notwithstanding speculation that he might change his mind. Otherwise, we couldn't put anyone in the declined category until the entry deadline has passed since, theoretically, anyone who has declined could change their mind. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Page title, revisited

I know I argued above that we should keep the article here since the current rules say the election will be 2011, but I've changed my mind. I think the current title conveys a degree of certainty that could mislead people who just come to look at the candidates. At this point, I'm inclined to go along with 117Avenue's (I think it was 117Avenue's) of Next Liberal Party of Canada leadership election. -Rrius (talk) 01:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the party's constitution the leadership convention must be held I believe no later then October 2011. Should the title be changed before the constitution is changed, if in fact it gets changed? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

My original thinking was that we wait until after a decision, but I've changed my mind, and I would like to see where the weight of opinion is. I was thinking that because of all the discussion, not just in the media, but publicly and on the record from Liberal Party brass, we should reflect the reality that an October 2011 election is anything bu certain. It would be one thing if this was just a small minority lobbying the leadership, but this is coming from the executive with widespread (but certainly not universal support). -Rrius (talk) 02:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is suppose to be an encyclopedia, speculation is that party members will vote to extend that but the fact is that right now Michael Ignatieff must be replaced permanently by October 19, 2011. Until it's officially changed we shouldn't just assume it will be, leave that to pundits. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 13:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not too bothered about it either way. I just figured that since I'm not so sure anymore, others might want to revisit the decision. I think an argument could be made that saying it will happen in 2011, as opposed to being vague, is speculation, but I'm content with either version of the title. -Rrius (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping that the Liberal Party would have made a decision by now, because as it stands now, either statement is somewhat incomplete. "An election is required in 2011", but "it is possible for it to be in an unknown year." 117Avenue (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I know one thing, the naming of these articles as leadership elections are not on. They should all be moved to leadership conventions. Not to get off track, but can you imagine the reactions if one were to change the American articles like 2012 Republican National Convention to 2012 Republican presidential convention election? GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, we don't know with certainty what mechanism the Liberals will use to select a leader. If they stick with the status quo it will be a traditional convention but if they do what all the other parties have done and switch to some sort of One Member One Vote system then "leadership election" is more accurate (and "leadership election" can also be used to describe a leadership convention). Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI, at the leadership & biennial convention in 2009, the Liberal party adopted a weighted "one member, one vote". Although since it is a convention I'm still fine with calling it leadership convention.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 16:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's just that 'leadership election' reads like the whole population of Canada is voting. For example, I don't recall going to the polls in May 2009 to vote for Ignatieff (or anybody) as Liberal leader & I don't expect to go to the polls for any futue party leadership selection. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. First, the convention is only the thing that happens at the end. The equivalent article for the US would not be the convention article; rather, it is Republican National Committee chairmanship election, 2011. If you really insist on the presidential candidate aspect, the equivalent is Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012, not 2012 Republican National Convention. The convention is an event that lasts for a relatively short period at the end of the election period. The "leadership election" nomenclature allows us to include the events from the resignation of the prior leader all the way to the announcement of who won. "Leadership convention" would unnecessarily draw the focus to one aspect of the election. Even the party itself makes a distinction, calling the gathering at the end a convention and the overall election a "Leadership Vote". -Rrius (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!! 117Avenue (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Then call'em a leadership race, 'cuz they're definitely not elections. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

How so? An election is when a group of people chooses other people for some purpose. If we accept your argument, United States presidential election, 2008 should be moved to United States presidential race, 2008. In fact, since there has been discussion at all of using anything other than the weighted One Man, One Vote system adopted in 2009 rather than an indirect, delegate-based election, the case for moving the presidential election is actually stronger. -Rrius (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Not everybody over the age of 18, gets to vote for who'll be the leader of the liberal party. There's no primaries leading up to the Liberal leadership convention. GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So what? You keep slithering between arguments, but your basic problem is that you are employing a weird definition of "election". What makes you think that using the word "election" in the phrase "Liberal Party of Canada leadership election" will make anyone think it is run by the government and open to all voters? Elections are not just things run by governments to choose representatives of the people. Unions, trade associations, not-for-profit organizations, corporations, etc. all hold elections to choose leaders, officers, and the like. There is simply no basis for saying it is somehow deceptive or confusing to refer to the Liberal Party's leadership election as an election. -Rrius (talk) 00:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with having 'election' as part of these party leadership articles. GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's good to know. -Rrius (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Polling

The Angus Reid poll that has been posted asked whether each of these people would make a good leader for the Liberals, not who is the best out of the following like the other polls listed. Should the poll be put into a different chart or should it be deleted? An Ipsos Reid poll conducted recently also ask people's opinions of a list of candidates. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk)

the new polling tables are horrible, they're way to cluttered. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Potential Candidates 2

Sure, Elizabeth May was mentioned in the article, but the author clearly stated its a theory and unlikely to happen. I mean, the author also mentioned several people who've already declined and Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. They a compeletely unlikely to run, so I don't think we should include May either. 74.198.9.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nenshi and Carney aren't really serious names either. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the list is in good need of a trimming, but I don't know how we go about doing that without bringing about the wrath of the "You are neglecting MY candidate crowd" Bkissin (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I had only been adding potential candidates if there were at least two articles referencing them, then others started adding candidates. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is all speculation at this point. I would suggest judging the credibility of the articles, and their merit as a third party, but the one that lists May looks good, and isn't exactly blog like. 117Avenue (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

OK guys, I'm going to start doing some trimming. I'm taking out Carney, May, Brison, Goodale, Dalton McGuinty and Nenshi as it is even money they will NOT be running/have other jobs/belong to other parties. Bkissin (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Never saw this here earlier but I don't agree with this. All of them are mentioned in the media and just because they are unlikely to run is no reason to take them off before we get definitive answers. Deborah Coyne seemed like an unlikely candidate and she's in the race. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Brison and Dalton gave definitive answers a while ago. I know you are probably going to bring up Justin as an example of "things can change", but I doubt these two will change their minds on the subject. Bkissin (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Get rid of them if you want then. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Coyne

The #Coyne4LPC meme started out as a joke amongst Liberals, but now that at least one major polling firm has included his name in surveys, I think it would be fair to at least add a mention of him.

http://abacusdata.ca/2012/06/26/coynemania-the-numbers-behind-andrew-coynes-favourability/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamNorman (talk • contribs) 18:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

You say he was included in a survey? I agree, can you link to the actual poll, so that it can be added to the article? 117Avenue (talk) 05:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I know which survey he was talking about, but it was more of a popularity survey instead of a "who would you vote for as leader" survey. Anyways, I disagree, I don't feel the need to include him. As it was said, his name started as a joke, and the specific source doesn't imply he's considering a run. It's basically like some of the polls that have had Ken Dryden or Jean Charest on them. They might be included in the polls, but beacuse their name hasen't seriously been floated around or they haven't made any indication that they are considering running, we don't include them as prospective candidates. I think the same should apply to Coyne. Tholden28 (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

On CBC The National 24th Jan 2013 Andrew Coyne said "We'll see how Joyce Murray does because she clearly is the only candidate standing for this in this race." Coyne was referring to her proposal of collaborating with other opposition parties to pick a best candidate to defeat a conservative riding by riding. Vancouver2 (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

May or may not be a game changer. If it is then worth recording she stood alone.Vancouver2 (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess it is also worth recording then that Coyne doesn't agree with Murray's plan for co-operation and that Chantal Hebert thinks that the idea doesn't make sense. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

With Elizabeth May agreeing worth looking at numbers? http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/48586/conservatives-stable-ndp-drops-and-liberals-gain-in-canada/ Vancouver2 (talk) 03:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Vancouver2 (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What numbers? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Run off idea would put Greens + Liberals together enough that would be neck and neck with NDP. "The New Democrats are in second place with 29 per cent (-4), followed by the Liberal Party with 22 per cent (+3), the Green Party with six per cent (=) and the Bloc Québécois also with six per cent (=)." Further down interesting the run off idea is not least popular option with Canadians.Vancouver2 (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of polls have different results. That poll also asks about cooperation and it shows that Murray's proposal is not that popular, so that could be added. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Reorganizing

This page will soon need to be organized better now that there is a long list of potential candidates, as well as declared candidates and those who have declined. I don't know if it makes sense to have those who have declined a bid to be in a chart, but others may not agree with this. Both Mousley and Coyne have websites setup with policies outlined, should the declared candidates section be reorganized now to list their policies ideas and websites? Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Coyne and Mousley are the only two who have declared their intention to run at this point. If we want to organize the "declared Candidate" section the way it was for the NDP Leadership race, I wouldn't be against that. For the time being, let's keep the propective candidates the way they are until they start to drop out or make a move. It shouldn't be long now before something big happens. Bkissin (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I retract part of my statment. Go ahead and delete those who have declined from the prospective column and put them down with the declined candidates. If people change their mind, we'll put them back on the list, but otherwise, let's clean this up. Bkissin (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Candidate proposal

Seeing some people want to get rid of the potential candidates they consider unrealistic I thought I'd propose to remove people who have either not indicated they are interested or have not be mentioned in articles as considering it. They would include; Mark Carney, Andrew Coyne, Ralph Goodale, Jean-Marc Fourier, Elizabeth May and Naheed Nenshi. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Bkissin (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I'd leave Fournier on for the moment, and possibly Goodale. Goodale indicated after the election he was considering whether to run or not, while Fornier, unlike Carney, Coyne, May, and Nenshi, has been frequently mentioned as a potential candidate. I'd leave him on for now, unless he announces he will run in the Quebec provincial election, in which case a run would be extremely unlikely. Tholden28 (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fournier has never commented on the leadership himself, and I've seen few articles that mention him as a possible candidate. The only article I saw that mentioned Goodale was from immediately after the election, if you have an article that says he is thinking about it then go ahead and add his name back in. I don't think that just because these are more conventional names for the Liberal leadership that they should be included over the others if they have commented on it or have been mentioned very little. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fournier, fine, but I still feel Goodale should be included. I mean, look at Scott Brison. The article used as the source (which I believe is the only time he mentioned he was considering a run) was from immeadietly after the election, yet he is included. Tholden28 (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, Tholden28, I've tried to take Brison off the list for just that reason, but someone keeps reverting my edits because "he may change his mind". Everyone may "Change their mind", because humans have free-will, but they usually mean what they say. I think Brison meant what he said when he said he wasn't running. As for Goodale, he could run, but his lack of French skills cripples him and he knows it, making in hard for me to believe that he would run as well. Bkissin (talk) 19:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Brison was left on at the time because it was felt a formal announcement would make more sense, I've seen mention of him and he has commented on the leadership since. However, if people feel he shouldn't be included or that Goodale should then go ahead and make the changes you want. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Newfoundlander&Labradorian, I'm not against your viewpoint. I'd love to see Brison run for leadership (though this talk page should not be used as a discussion forum for the event). What sources have you seen Brison talk about his leadership ambitions since that last article? Bkissin (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. He says he'll always put his family first but is thinking about it according to this article. http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1216283--a-long-long-list-of-liberals-are-dreaming-about-leadership-this-summer Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 22:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hilariously, this kind of puts us in a loop because if we base everything off that article, than we still need to include people like Elizabeth May. Tholden28 (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we just want to use our best judgement and common-sense here? I find it highly unlikely that Carney or May would leave their positions of power in other areas (Carney at the BoC, and May already being the leader of another party) to try and run the LPC. People like Goodale and Brison are another story, as we have seen. What I love about wikipedia is that nothing is set in stone permanently. If they say no now and then change their mind farther down the line (as we may see with Justin Trudeau), then we can re-add them to the list. However, since we haven't heard from many of these candidates (many I'm sure are waiting for Justin's move one way or another) we will need to do some trimming soon.

The National Executive of the Party will (hopefully) be meeting soon to figure out more of the specifics about the race, and hopefully we'll get some definite answers then. Do we want to shelve this discussion until then? Bkissin (talk) 18:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

My proposal was that we get rid of candidates who have not spoken about the leadership. Scott Brison has, Elizabeth May and Mark Carney have not. There's a difference in pundits mentioning a name and someone actually saying they are interested. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 19:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Notability question

Does being a candidate in the leadership race make someone notable? If so, should we add pages for people like Takach and Bertschi? Bkissin (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

if they become candidates of course. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's notable. A recent example would be Martin Singh, and looking a bit farther back we have Martha Hall Findlay, whose page was made before she became an MP, I believe, and David Orchard. Tholden28 (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

To be clear though, would it not be best to wait until the person actually files and pays the entry fee before creating a page? In other words, shouldn't we hold them to the standard of officially joining the race rather than just announcing they will join? -Rrius (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense, though I don't know if it will be reported when they officially give their money. There's also the issues with the race not starting till November 14, yet many candidates will have announced by then most likely. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I just created the page for a recently announced (and confirmed) candidate, Alex Burton. I assumed he would be considered notable on the basis of this discussion, and because he's already received a respectable amount of media coverage, having officially launched his campaign just yesterday. But the page was promptly tagged as not meeting the notability guidelines. Any suggestions would be helpful — should I have waited until he received a bit more coverage? Keihatsu (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the person who tagged it agrees with me. I think we should wait until they are officially in the race because we'd probably just have to delete them if they don't end up actually being official candidates. It feels off to suggest that someone who could end up being considered not notable is notable now. -Rrius (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

You need to find other media coverage of him before he declared his candidacy/unrelated to the leader's personal page. That may help with notability. Bkissin (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Past MPs

For the endorsements section, should Past MPs have their own subcategory? Are they notable enough? Personally, I think they should, as, in my view, while both notable, an endorsement from someone like Siobhan Coady is more important than an endorsement from someone like Gerald Butts. Tholden28 (talk)

I don't see the sense of having a separate category for them, past MPs are considered prominent people. I also don't see the sense of saying who exactly Gerald Butts is when you can just click on his name and it will tell you. If every notable person is going to have a title then the page is going to be a mess. This is just my opinion others can figure it out, when you do Little Mosque on the Prairie star Zaib Shaikh has also endoresed Trudeau. http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/10/04/little-mosque-star-zaib-shaikh-on-why-hes-backing-justin-trudeau/

I would agree with you, Tholden28. If you look at the NDP race, you see that Past MPs had their own section. In my mind, we should keep these types of articles uniform, but that's just my opinion. Bkissin (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Well the last Liberal leadership election page had past MPs listed under high profile individuals, so I don't know if someone will then want to update that page. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 18:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point, Newfoundlander&Labradorian. It depends on which template we want to work from. I'm fine going with Prominent Individuals, but I'd much rather Past MPs be it's own section. What kind of consensus can we build here? Bkissin (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed candidates

Justin Trudeau and Deborah Coyne have both been confirmed as candidates by the party, meaning they've put up their $75,000. I'm proposing separating them into a confirmed candidate section while the others would be in an announced section. That way if some of the ones who have announced don't come up with the money and become official candidates we can add that info in instead of saying they declined. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea, but perhaps we wait until the confirmation deadline passes, and then whoever is left standing will be the 'official candidates' Bkissin (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think after the deadline passes they will be simply "candidates". At least that is what we've done in the past. I do agree though that it is probably more trouble than it is worth to divide the live candidacies into "official" and "declared". -Rrius (talk) 10:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of creating a separate section for confirmed candidates now, especially since it won’t be until January 14, 2013, that the final list becomes known. In the meantime, we have a list of “Declared candidates” that puts someone who is just testing the waters (e.g., Jonathan Mousley) in the same category as Trudeau and Coyne. That seems to distort reality somewhat. By the way, I see that Rene Roy is shown as a “Declared candidate” while even the single source for his interest (a Canadian Press story on November 17, 2012) only says he is “planning a run” and reserves the phrase “already declared” for other candidates such as Burton and Merner. On the evidence, shouldn’t Roy be moved to the “Prospective candidates” section? Radinbc (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't see "already declared" as necessarily having the import you do. It seems to means that those people had declared before this announcement. As for the main question, so what if they are in the same category? Calling some people "official" and others "declared" imbues the former with more power than necessary. It's one thing to note those two have paid the fee, but actually categorizing the others differently because they haven't scraped the cash together yet seems to me to go too far. When people "testing the waters" drop out, we can put them below. When the deadline passes and some haven't secured nomination, we can put them below. There is no obvious reason to rush things in the interim. -Rrius (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Some people, like David Merner, have announced they're running, are campaigning but have said they may drop out if they can't raise X amount of my by a certain date. I'd say several of the people who have announced wont come up with the $75,000 to run. I just think it would be a good idea to secrets tose who have paid so far with those who didn't so we could then say "this person announced their candidacy but didn't com up with money and announced on X they they wouldn't run." It's not a big dek, just a thought. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 23:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it seems too long to wait (circa 8 weeks) to separate the official candidates (currently Coyne and Trudeau) from the other leadership wannabes. Creating a section for official candidates doesn’t “give them more power than necessary” it simply represents the reality on the ground – something that Wikipedia readers/users would expect and appreciate. With respect to Rene Roy, since there doesn’t appear to be a consensus, I propose to delete his entry as a “declared candidate” since he is not a declared candidate as of this date. In doing this, I am attempting to avoid having information on this particular Wikipedia page become part of a self-fulfilling prophecy rather than an encyclopedic entry. For example, last Thursday, Peter Mansbridge (during the CBC TV “At Issue” panel discussion) said there were 9 candidates [and was quickly corrected by two of the panelists who said there were only 2]. Since nowhere else other that Wikipedia did it say that there were 9 candidates as of that date, we ended up “creating facts” that, arguably, didn’t exist otherwise.Radinbc (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

if it were up to me I'd have a category for "official candidates" with a sentence or tow underneath saying something like; these candidates have paid their entrance and are recognized by the party as official candidates. The. N the next section would be "declared candidates" with a sentence or two saying that these people have announced their intentions to seek the leadership but have yet to pay thee entrance fee. I think it would better clarify things, and like I said previously in the end if all the people who have announced don't enter the race we can change the category and wording to say they announced but didn't submit their entrance fee. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Would it not be simpler to add a single line to the entries saying "Officially nominated: [Date or TBD]"? Separating the candidates will, literally and figuratively, put some candidates above others. Until the deadline passes, the distinction is so small that segregating some live candidacies from others is excessive. -Rrius (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they be above the others? 15:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the distinction between an official candidate and a declared candidate isn’t small at all. An official candidate has a presence on the Party website, has the right to collect money for his or her campaign using the Party’s financial mechanisms, contributions to an official candidate’s campaign generate receipts for tax credits via the LPC, and an official candidate has access to the Party’s database, which enables easy access to the Party’s members and supporters. If the Party itself creates a distinction between official candidate and declared candidates, on what basis would we refuse to make the same distinction?Radinbc (talk) 06:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

First deadline passed

Candidates were required to have paid two-thirds of the entrance fee by December 15. Does anyone know whether that affected any of our three "declared" candidates? -Rrius (talk) 03:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

it only affected official candidates. Newfoundlander&Labradorian (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

April 14 vote

The final vote is on April 14 and presumably by April 15 this article will be historical. Accordingly there is not much reason to expand it any further.

As it stands, the single most distinct unique position each candidate has taken is in the "Other information" section. This should probably remain as it is.

Their leadership race positions ought however to be mirrored more completely in their main articles, e.g. Joyce Murray, Justin Trudeau, and additional references and links provided. A leadership race is an important time for candidates to reveal positions that they might not reveal in a national election, so this information should be fed back into the main articles. Especially if they change positions after winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.204.176 (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ages

There is currently a conversation going on here about whether or not candidates' ages should be included. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberal Party of Canada leadership election, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121115090430/http://policyschool.ucalgary.ca/?q=content%2Fsupply-management-problems-politics-and-possibilities to http://policyschool.ucalgary.ca/?q=content%2Fsupply-management-problems-politics-and-possibilities

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) 18:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation 29

LPC Results link broken. Citation needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.200.133 (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• INC 2009 Justin Trudeau2.JPG (discussion)
• JoyceMurray.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Deborah Coyne.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• George-Takach-01-2012.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)