Talk:2006 Canadian federal election

message: http://www.elections.ca/scripts/OVR2006/default.html The table 8 gives ENTIRELY different results from the ones here, especially on minor parties. update accordingly to official results please. --Petrovic-Njegos 21:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  result contradictory. 

message: I understand that this article is entitled "Canadian federal election, 2006" and as such it reports those MPs and their party affiliations as they were elected on January 23rd. However, with David Emerson crossing the floor from the Tories to the Liberals, am I wrong in understanding that the Tories now have 125, not 124 seats, and the Liberals have been reduced from 103 to 102? Perhaps, due to its title, that is "Canadian federal election, 2006" this is not the right article to update this seemingly minor change. In fact though, the change is not minor, especially if you're Jack Layton. One more defection or change due to a recount could give the NDP the balance of power. In what article is the most current composition of the House of Commons?Loomis51 12:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The ''most current'' composition of the House

message: Is it just me, or did someone go out of their way to find the ugliest picture of Stephan Harper possible? I mean, compare that picture to his official biography. ~Slavik81, 21 January 2006
: When it comes to the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, I think the most we can hope for is a less-ugly version of his mug on a photo.  ;)  FiveParadox 06:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leader Pictures 

message: These certainly deserve a look by someone knowledgeable:
* Prime Minister of Canada
* Official Opposition (Canada)
** Leader of the Opposition (Canada)
*** List of Canadian Leaders of the Opposition
** Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Canada)
*** List of Canadian Leaders of the Opposition in the Senate
* Minority governments in Canada
This list is certainly not comprehensive. Check :Category:Government of Canada for more things to check.
-- Taral 05:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixes required? 

message: Someone might like to add a bit to Conservative Party of Canada explaining just a little of what their policies are. I would have thought this a pretty big oversight? - Randwicked Alex B 07:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; input and editing would be appreciated.  Same thing should be probably done for the Liberal Party of Canada, but I don't really feel like doing it now. Ikh (talk) 09:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone might like to 

message: Apologies if this is already there and I am overlooking it, but could somebody who knows about this stuff add some information on the formal procedure for forming the next government? For example, the international media seem to be assuming that the Conservatives, as largest single party, will be involved in the next government. But is there any reason why they must be included when, for example, a
Liberal-BQ-NDP coalition would have a substantial overall majority? Best wishes, Cambyses 11:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: added a very short comment on the matter, linking it to the Minority governments in Canada page, which explains this better.  In general, the coalition governments in Canada are basically non-existent for a variety of reasons; especially unlikely is any coallition of a any party with BQ, as that is considered to be "sleeping with the devil".  Ikh (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is more discussion on this question at Talk:Prime_Minister_of_Canada#Too soon to say Harper will be PM? and Talk:Conservative_Party_of_Canada#Too soon to say Harper will be PM? -- Adz|talk 23:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedure for forming government 

message: :People are missing the point. Why is Election Canada have such ban? It is because it does not want the posting of election result influcing on people of whom to vote in western Canada. reverting those result, IMHO, is not censorship but rather, as not to influence on people whom to vote. We don't want to indrectly endorsing someone. We will not say so, but someone willtake that as a recommendation.SYSS Mouse 14:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see why Elections CA would do this. In the 1980 election, voters in California had not finished voting when President Carter conceeded at 10 PM EST (7 PM PST) to Reagan, There are stories of voters walking out of their polling place and not voting after hearing the news of Carter's concession. There were hearings on this in the early 80's, but I don't believe anything came out of it. For more details, see Appendix I of CNN's report about the 2000 election coverage. - Thanks, Hoshie |  15:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People are missing the point on posting electin result.  

message: Now that the election is over, I suggest that the opinion polls table be deleted since it duplicates what is in the branch article. Anyone interested in opinion polling in the election would follow the link to the branch article. Agreed? Ground Zero | t 18:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I suggest it remain but be pared down to include only intermittent results from previous months (as I did for 2005 entries).  Nothing to lose sleep over, though.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: ...Further to that, only include the most recent SES poll (since that reflects the actual situation almost to a T), and one each for 9 and 16 Jan. (implying a trend consistent with the graph). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree, delete the polls, slowly becoming irrelevant... Barry Zuckerkorn 19:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Since a picture is worth a thousand words, maybe add the graph from the main polls page for the illustrative purposes (esp. to demonstrate the shift in oppinion midway throught the campaign)?  Ikh (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure!  And perhaps with a brief summary/lead paragraph?  Moreover (a separate issue), is there value in extending the graph back to exhibit results from and since the 2004 election?   E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd supported, provided that it's brief - under 10 lines or so.  The article is already a touch too long.  Ikh (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!  I've adapted text from the polling article for use here.  Have at it.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good! -- Barry Zuckerkorn 20:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TY! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinion polls

message: I wonder if we should remove this section, which has caused some confusion in the past, now that the election is over and replace it with those close calls from this election, ministers who lost their seats, etc? - Jord 20:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, but we might want to edit it to reflect what ridings were picked up -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vulnerable ridings section 

message: As mentioned by E Pluribus above, it takes quite a bit of scrolling to read the article.  In order to trim it down I propose, if noone objects, to remove, seriously slim down or move to another article the following parts:
* "Brinksmanship in the spring of 2005" - it is interesting, but not entirely relevant to the election, as it happened some 1/2 year before the election was called
* "Election day" that mentions when the polls close - I'm sure it all can be summarized in a single sentence.  
* "Vulnerable ridings" - an interesting section, but takes up quite a bit of space, and an average reader probably wouldn't be interested in it that much, esp. now that the election is over.  Propose to move it somewhere else, or give it its own article.  
::This would be useful to keep as its own article.  We could then track the ridings to see if they remain vulnerable, with a view to eventually understanding the various factors that make a riding vulnerable.  JTBurman 09:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any connection to those who lost their seats in this election?  If not, then I agree that it should be removed.  If, however, there is a connection (e.g., Olivia Chow), then I think the relevant aspects should be folded into a subsection at the proposed "Vulnerable Ridings" page. JTBurman 09:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: As above, can we not do as was done with the opinion polling: summarise the gender breakdown in a few lines in-text (comparison with prior periods and other countries), while moving cumbersome (though informative) tables to appropriate sub/articles? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally support branching to limit the size of articles. In this case, the branch article will pretty much just be the table. If everyone else wants to do that, then go ahead. Ground Zero | t 20:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great; I'll work on this.  Given issues regarding gender equality in Canadian politics, and comparisons both temporally (with prior elxns) and internationally, I'm sure such an article can be expanded in time (i.e., becoming more than just a table).  Besides: I can think of more dubious branchings/elaborations. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be fantastic to see what the sex breakdown of elected MP's is this time around.  The current candidate graph is kind of misleading because the big parties tend to put old white guys in the safe ridings.--Colle 21:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ... who arguably also need to slim down ... present company included, too! :)  (I also commend the Wikipedian who recently slimmed down and archived this talk page.)  I'll work on it. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slimming down the article 

message: I wouldn't really agree with this. Just because a Government has a smaller amount of seats doesn't mean that it is more prone to collapse than a Government that has a larger amount of seats, that may not be able to find as much support. For example, I would say that if the Bloc is likely to support the Tories, they have a solid majority together, which was not the case with Liberal + NDP in the last Parliament, say. Maybe it could be more unstable - but we can't really know for sure until we see how well the parties work together. -Nichlemn 22:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the wording of that section, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction.--Kalsermar 23:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Weakest" Minority Government? 

message: User:Electionworld and I disagree about how the party names should be presented in Template:Canadian federal election, 2006, which is the table that displays the overall election results. I will accept the decision of other editors, and hope that User:Electionworld would as well. Please add your name below as appropriate. I propose to let this poll run until the end of the day (UTC) on Jan. 31. Ground Zero | t 03:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This poll can be finished. Ground Zero won clearly. The next step to make the table more clear and shorten is to delete the names of the party leaders. Electionworld 12:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than removing a column, how would deleting the names of party leaders be at all productive or make things clearer? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll on full party names or short names

message: Did the Bloc truly have an English slogan in the 2006 election?  As far as I know it was just in French. --Saforrest 20:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes on their website they had an executive summary of their platform with the English title.  - Jord 20:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bloc slogan? 

message: I write to explain my revert of the NDP slogan edit.  Even as the slogans appended are used passim by the NDP, sundry extant campaign sites (e.g., this one, from Michael Shapcott) provide the idea that the principal English-lanuguage NDP slogan for the federal election was "Getting Results for Canadians".  The IP address from which the edits were made appears to have given rise to many good edits, especially apropos of Canadian government and politics, and, so, I imagine that the editor will offer links supporting his/her edit in the case that such links exist. Joe 20:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NDP Slogan 

message: The Bloc's official English translation of its slogan was "Thankfully, here it's the Bloc". See their website: . You can choose to translate their French slogan into English however you want, but let's use the official translation for Wikipedia purposes, please. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 15:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloc slogan again

message: in fact, polls have suggested that the Green Party in Canada draws more of its support from Conservative-identified voters than it does from Liberal or NDP supporters.
I would like to see what polls support this alleged "fact".  Certainly, in the recent London North Centre by-election, the NDP was the most affected by the rise of the Green Party, whereas the right wing parties (Libs and CPC) more or less retained their vote.  So, please include references to these specific polls that you refer to.  Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark alfred (talk • contribs) 17:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parties:  Green support "in fact" 

message: The current graphic at the top of the page colours all of the NDP's seats as Liberals. Esn 20:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect party representation graphic

message: :Image:Can-pol w.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Can-pol w.jpg

message: Are figures available anywhere that gives the turnout to the election, that is the percentage of people who voted, compared to the number who could have voted? I believe that this is a useful indicator of the public's belief in democracy and the current state of politics, and would make a useful addition to these pages. Derek Andrews (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Voter turnout?? where is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.161.16 (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turnout 

message: Did someone change the picture of paul martin? Wikipedia is used to provide information not biased opinions or selective inclusion of material. I suggest changing the picture of Paul martin immediately and whoever posted it should be limited editing rights.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.95.76 (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IS THIS SOME SORT OF JOKE??? 

message: Despite Stephen Harper's claims, the 2006 government was not the longest minority government since Confederation.  In fact, there were two minority governments that lasted longer: King's first ministry and Pearson's second ministry.  It is however, the longest minority government by a party other than the Liberal Party of Canada, I have changed the wording to reflect this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingerbreadmen (talk • contribs) 19:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest Conservative minority, not longest minority 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Canadian federal election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070523170735/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/story/2006/02/10/saskrecount060210.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/02/10/saskrecount060210.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Canadian federal election, 2006. 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/20061110083527/http://www.saplin.com:80/vote2006/ to http://www.saplin.com/vote2006
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070311024650/http://www.trendlines.ca:80/politics.htm to http://trendlines.ca/politics.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060211185631/http://www.mackaycartoons.net:80/election2006.html to http://www.mackaycartoons.net/election2006.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Canadian federal election, 2006. 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/20110825121650/http://gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf to http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825121650/http://gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf to http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825121650/http://gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf to http://www.gazette.gc.ca/archives/p2/2005/2005-12-01-x6/pdf/g2-139x6.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=e&DocID=4657
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.saplin.com/vote2006/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.trendlines.ca/politics.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mackaycartoons.net/election2006.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I believe it would improve the article if the Martin Image from 2004 was replaced with this one from 2006;  and the Duceppe one from 2011 be replaced with this one from 2010:  Geminin667 (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon, nobody has objected. GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image change suggestion 

message: Seeing as the PPC has now been included at the infobox of 2021 Canadian federal election. Should the Green Party (and its leader) be included in the infobox of this article? GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No. They fail the usual rule (at least 1 seat or at least 5% of the vote), and don't appear to have received enough coverage for an exception to be made— they weren't invited to the leader debates, nor did they have any polling surge that would make them a story. The Greens weren't noteworthy in this election, and since an infobox is meant to summarize the key points of an article, they don't belong in it. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a strong feeling about this.  At the time, I think it was clearly the right call to exclude them.  Since then they have become a political force, and perhaps this was the beginning of the rise. 4.48% is a pretty good showing, and as I have said elsewhere, perhaps it is an edge case.  I would lean no unless I saw significant coverage that has arisen since 2006 about this election.  Perhaps, significant coverage of Jim Harris and this period for the greens might tip the scale.  It might not.  But I don't think we should add them now, without good reason to think that "with the benefit of time" (ie looking back), we missed that they were significant to this election, and that conclusion should be based on what WP:RS have said since about them and their role in the 2006 election.  If that were the case, there should also be meaningful mention of them in the article (as this is a well reported on past election).--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good points. I agree, if significant retrospective coverage exists then that would be worth considering. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is agreed that the 5% threshold is after rounding then for consistency we should add them to the infobox. I still disagree with the decisions regarding the 2021 Canadian federal election, but if it is approved for one federal election then it should be equally applied to all federal elections. It was noted that they polled nationally as high as 11% during this election period and was also noted to have polled as high as 19% in BC according to coverage by CTV at the time. If the PPC can qualify in 2019 and 2021 with 0 seats and less than 5% of the vote but other parties can't qualify for the same reasons it starts to show bias and makes wikipedia useless as a resource.142.161.249.114 (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Back in 2019 we were biased for including the Greens in one infobox and not the PPC in another, and now we're biased for including the PPC in one election but not the Greens in another. Just can't win! — Kawnhr (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I found it bias to utilize the 5% rule as justification to exclude parties from other parts of the 2021 article, not the infobox. I have since come to see how much the infobox is used to guide and supplant article content in election articles, rather than the reverse as MOS states should happen. I continue to believe these election articles should follow WP-wide policies and guidelines, rather than local consensuses determined for other articles. The infobox should (always) be peripheral to the body content; the infobox should be pared down to only summarize current content and expanded to include additional participants if the article (which follows WP:WEIGHT...right?) includes them (WP:NOTPAPER...right?). maclean (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

text: The sole criterion for inclusion is what major mainstream media did. While they have their drawbacks, believe me, their judgment is better than a group of Wikipedia editors and Wikipedia policy requires us to follow their lead. The "5% rule" is not a rule but some non-binding decision made in a U.S. presidential election article. There are significant differences between Canadian parliamentary and U.S. presidential elections, beginning with the fact that Canada has more than two parties. If you think major mainstream sources should have included the Greens in 2006, or excluded the PPC in 2021, take it up with them. Then as an encyclopedia based on secondary sources, we can change our articles. TFD (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree with these comments TFD, but I disagree we are stuck with what WP:RS did in 2006.  If there is significant coverage in RS over the last 15 years (ie since 2006), in the context of this 2006 election, that is a relevant factor for consideration.  That said, no one is really pointing to any more recent RS for consideration right now.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the Greens be in the infobox?