Talk:Christine Elliott

message: Regarding the references, my original contribution was to reformat the source links — I did not originally review them for content. Seeing CJCurrie's comments about them, however, I've reviewed the references now, and have the following comments now that this is beginning to turn into a revert war:
# The first article, "Conservative no shoo-in in byelection", at no time claims that Judi Longfield enjoyed greater name recognition in the byelection than Elliott did. Nor does it actually provide quantifiable evidence that the headline claim is true beyond the fact that a byelection is always a significantly different dynamic than a general election. In fact, it's an opinion column by Ian Urquhart, not an objective news article, and other than a few passing references to Elliott's opponents it's little more than a puff profile of Elliott which offers nothing of any real substance.
# The second article, "Budget coming March 23", again a column by Ian Urquhart rather than a news article, states that opposition leaders alleged that the budget was a "buy-election" scheme; it's not a verifiable, NPOV fact that can be stated as objective truth in the articles on individual byelection candidates. The article makes no reference to Elliott or the potential impact of the budget on her campaign whatsoever, and the end of March isn't a remotely unusual timeframe for a provincial budget to be delivered anyway.
Bottom line, if we're going to make these claims, I think that at minimum we need stronger sources than an opinion column. I'm inclined to agree with CJCurrie that they should be removed, but I wanted to discuss this here first rather than simply reverting without discussion. Bearcat 17:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we cut this revert war out, please? Bearcat 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you the arbitrator for these articles? I resent having to reject your edits over and over again... GoldDragon 04:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I'm beginning to resent your acting as if you have some kind of special right to "reject" other people's edits. Discuss your concerns on the articles' talk pages, please; you don't own the articles any more than CJCurrie does. And CJCurrie does have a very good point; your edits do very often betray a POV problem that goes against Wikipedia rules, and you have a bit of an unfortunate tendency to cite opinion columns as sources. And then one has to ask why you keep reverting correct footnoting format. Bearcat 23:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference sources

message: A member of the Progressive Conservatives, she was elected in the Whitby—Ajax electoral district over Judi Longfield who was running as the provincial Liberal candidate. History showed that opposition parties in Canada tend to gain seats in by-elections. However, Longfield entered the race with strong name recognition from her past federal experience.  An early scheduled budget announcement was also expected to increase the chances of the Liberal goverment picking up seats, according to opposition parties, although others pointed out that it could have hurt their prospects. During the by-election, Elliott and PC leader John Tory campaigned together, while Longfield's ads made no mention of Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty. Elliott won the seat by a narrow margin as predicted.
Flaherty reportedly did not campaign heavily for his wife, deciding instead to focus upon his federal department. Although Flaherty had previously run against John Tory for the provincial PC leadership in 2004, Tory campaigned for Flaherty and Elliott during their campaigns.
(i)  This is far more background information than is required for a by-election result.
(ii)  It doesn't read particularly well.  The line about opposition parties gaining seats comes out of nowhere, and disrupts the flow of the article.
(ii)  The wording is more than a bit leading.  "History showed that opposition parties in Canada tend to gain seats in by-elections. However, Longfield entered the race with strong name recognition from her past federal experience."   This implies that Longfield was expected to win the by-election, which is not accurate (per Urquhart's article).  It also ignores the fact that Elliott came into the race with high name recognition, as the wife of a federal cabinet minister.
:I am sort of open to footnoting some of this information, although I do prefer some mention in the body.GoldDragon 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, we cannot ignore the fact that the budget was scheduled earlier than normal. Plus, it is fact that opposition parties criticized it as a by-election budget, so its not completely inaccurate. Blanking this would be mis-information. GoldDragon 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, just over a year ago, Flaherty and Tory were competing for the leadership, with most of Flaherty's attacks going against Elliott rather than Frank Klees. So in that context, yeah.  It is also not controversial. GoldDragon 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see this point as controversial at all, but it is noteworthy to mention the contrast between Elliott and Longfield. GoldDragon 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just found a couple sources. Plus, reporting that the opposition criticized the early scheduled budget as a by-election booster is not opinion.
An analyst here states that it was a good-new budget
 GoldDragon 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with GoldDragon's preferred wording

message: The current wording claims that this is the first time that a husband and wife has represented the same electoral district.  However, Whitby-Ajax and Whitby-Oshawa are by no means the same electoral distict, and the current wording that the borders are "not completely identical" significantly misrepresents the distinction.  One includes half of Ajax, the other much of Oshawa.  We're not talking about the border jogging a street or two further, here.
Perhaps the wording should instead refer to Elliott's announced intention to run in Whitby-Oshawa in the 2007 general election, after redistribution, and state that if she wins, they will be the first husband/wife to represent the same district. Daveharr 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made this change. Daveharr 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Husband/Wife and electoral district 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion