Talk:2007 Ontario general election

Opinion polls

Should there be consistent standards for the opinion polls? Two SES polls currently show undecided voters, although the links also show stats with just committed voters. All other polls simply show committed voters. I think the SES polls and all future polls should just show committed votes as a consistent criterion. Readers can still check links and footnotes for varying details in each poll. The same logic applies to election results: spoiled ballots and non-voters usually aren't counted in percentage totals. G(A)IA, 2007.09.01 @ 01.53 UTC.

I agree, and have changed the numbers. Undecideds are overwhelmingly people who simply won't end up voting and keeping track of them doesn't say much about how the province will vote. - SimonP 14:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree. The undecided voters are often put into the polls. As with the SES one that says the Liberals at 30% and PC's at 30%, if you read that same PDF, it has them both at 35%, and the NDP at 19%...but on the wiki page it says NDP 16 because of the whole undecided thing. Get rid of it I agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.46.136 (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree because the undecided voters do turn into voters, and they affect the accuracy of the poll. The aggregate poll, at least in SES's case, is point five percent more accurate. Furthermore, over time, the undecided goes down, as people make up there mind.--Abebenjoe 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that when "undecided voters do turn into voters...they affect the accuracy of the poll." In fact, the most accurate poll to predict the last federal election was an SES poll that excluded undecided voters. Evidence such as this suggests that undecided voters who do end up voting seem to cast their votes in proportion with decided voters. Beyond this reason is the matter of having consistent criteria between polls in order to make intelligible comparisons between them. There might be merit in creating a separate chart with polls that show undecided voters in order to address this phenomenon (a point that could be debated further). In the meantime, the polls in the current chart should only show committed voters for comparison purposes and consistency. G(A)IA, 2007.09.13 @ 02.34 UTC.

Again, I disagree with your point that undecided voters are insignificant. However, I've changed the entire poll section to reflect committed voters, with aggregate (all voters surveyed) results in the footnotes.--Abebenjoe 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I never said "undecided voters are insignificant," just that that whatever is significant about that group is inconsistent with the current chart. I agree that, when the information is available, polls that show undecided voters should have these statistics shown somewhere (just not in a chart of polls based on criteria that excludes undecided voters). I think showing them in footnotes is a good idea. I also wouldn't want to discourage anyone from creating a separate chart or even another section in the article that deals with undecided/uncommitted voters and the issues that pertain to this group. G(A)IA, 2007.09.13 @ 20.45 UTC.

I think too it should be separately noted somewhere. It looks like that was written in the edit summary box but it's not reflected in the content page at all... it's still as it was with the undecided factored in which makes things very confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kflack (talk • contribs) 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What was bad faith about my edit?

Can somebody explain to me why my contribution was reverted as being of "bad faith" by Nat?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ontario_general_election%2C_2007&diff=155127801&oldid=155116595

Maybe I'm just new to this whole wikipedia thing, but I read over the page on "good faith" edits and Nat's decision puzzled me (especially considering that the 'good faith' page even had specific sections on dealing with new wikipedians, which I am).

Is adding a site with polling trends and a meta-analysis of seat projections for the Ontario election bad faith? Can somebody please explain to me what exactly is 'bad faith' about what I did?

The contribution was not causing "deliberate disruption just to prove a point." The contribution was not "playing games with policies." And the contribution -- adding the only site with a meta-analysis of the Ontario general election that I'm aware of -- is most certainly not intended as vandalism.

Nat seems to think that including the information in the analysis does more harm than good to the article than having it does.

Can I get some feedback from people as to what they think and/or how to go about reverting this change?

Ottawastudent 04:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing that indicated your edits were done in bad faith. The only problem with your edit was the addition of a website that basically gave the same information as one or two of those site already listed. That is why I had your edits reverted. It is my personal opinion that we already have too many external links on this page. Please see WP:NOT#LINK. Regards, nat^tang 04:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? Please point me to which of the other external links that have a meta-analysis of seat projections or please point me to the other external links which have 6 month polling trend graphs with rolling averages.Ottawastudent 04:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's just a blog (assumably yours) with a few numbers in it. Whoop-dee-doo. If your blog was as comprehensive as say, Democraticspace, it would be valuable. However, yours is more blog (and very opinionated at that). I'm dont think calling the NDP "cowards" is NPOV at all.-- Earl Andrew - talk 05:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay so first the agurment was that the edit was in bad faith -- something I'm still waiting to hear an apology on. Then it was that Nat, the Tory, felt that 8 is too many external links which is ridiculous since other comparable articles, such as the one on the 40th Canadian federal election has 21 external links and that election date isn't even set yet. Now I'm being told that the external link was not NPOV. What wasn't neutral about what I linked to? What was baissed about it? It includes every poll (including one that nodice forgot), it treats all parties equally. It is not written from a partisan perspective. Did I link to a post that called the NDP "cowards"? If Earl Andrew is opposed to linking to this resource just because somewhere else on that site (somewhere not linked to), in the completely different political opinions section of that site, there is criticism going on which is critical of the NDP, then, I have to ask, who's really being of bad faith here? I don't see what's different between Paulitics and Greg Morrow's Democraticspace.com. Greg's Democraticspace has a section which is unbaissed -- it's the section which was linked to on this article. But Greg also has very progressive opinions on a variety of issues and he discusses them regularly. So Earl, what's REALLY your gripe with the external link? The link's purpose is not to rival Democraticspace, that would be silly. The link was inserted because it was the only meta-analysis on the internet of the seat projections for this election and that, I believe, is significant and worth including. So, and let's be fair here Earl, either including the only meta-analysis of the entire election helps the article, or it's harmful to provide that information. It was not in bad faith. It was not compromising the article by making too many links, and the page linked to was just as NPOV as the portion of Greg's Democraticspace which was linked to. Ottawastudent 15:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Distinguish stats from analysis; foreground POV of analysis to retain NPOV. Stats should not be removed because they’re not “as comprehensive as say, Democraticspace.” This is strange reasoning for two reasons: Firstly, the stats provided by the source in question are objective, even if the analysis of them isn’t (that’s the nature of analysis — some people just foreground their ideology while others don’t). Secondly, democraticSPACE, while very comprehensive, is far from objective or even democratic for that matter. Case in point: There have been four recent threads on democraticSPACE about funding religious schools in Ontario with over 70 comments between them. The position of democraticSPACE has been to support the Liberal status quo on the issue while dismissing the U.N. Commissions that have found Ontario’s education system in violation of human rights. democraticSPACE is favouring statistics from The Fraser Institute (one of the most neo-conservative think-tanks out there) instead of the U.N. findings. No one should have a problem with democraticSPACE taking this position and using stats from The Fraser Institute, but since the majority of responses have been critical the website has been censoring and pulling down some of the most critical comments that cite different positions and different stats. As of the time of this posting, two of these threads have been shut off to further comments. I write this as a cautionary note to those who dismiss stats from alternative sources in the name of “objectivity” or “democracy.” Censorship in the name of whatever bogus reason — whether on Wikipedia, democraticSPACE, or elsewhere — should not be tolerated. The stats in question here should not be removed for the reasons given thus far. Providing analysis, too, is also fine so long as it is made clear that it is coming from a particular perspective. NPOV is *not* about negating POV (an impossible task), it is about fairly weighing significant POVs. G(A)IA 20:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Since it looks as though nobody has any further objections or constructive criticism to having this information included, I'm going to re-introduce the external link into the article.Ottawastudent 01:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I object. I don't really care what the other articles have or don't have. The point is, there are way to many "forcaster"/blog sites already listed. And also, the site that you added is basically a regurgitation of the information already posted on the other websites. The way we do things here is by consensus, and there is clearly no consensus to add the external link. Therefore, I am removing the external link as there is no consensus to add Ottawastudent's external link and per policy. nat^tang 00:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Nat, the way we do things is that you have to give a logical reason for why something should or shouldn't be included, you can't just state it without backing that up merely because you happen to have decided on your own that you don't like the site. Now, you first claimed that the edit was in bad faith. When challenged with this contention, you then changed your tune and said that there are too many links -- which I demonstrated to be demonstrably false since the Canadian 40th General Election page has 300% more external links than this page does and that election isn't even under way yet. Moreover, your claim that the article has too many links is also laughable because there was a new 'forecaster/blog' site linked to earlier today and you hypocritically had no objections at all to that one. You just decided that you didn't like the site that I included. So, how can we take your actions seriously when it's clear that you don't actually believe what you yourself argued previously. So if you're going to hold the opinion that this article has too many links, then you're going to have to explain why this article should be different from all others, since objectively, this article DOESN'T have too many links. You can't merely assert it as if you're the god of what gets on Wikipedia. You then write that there is no useful information on the linked site. I have already asked you to back up this contention, and you ignored me and merely reverted my edit without responding in good faith to my request. When you actually answer my questions in good faith and explain why including this site harms the article, then I would say it's reasonable to remove it. Until that time, you're merely engaging in an immature pissing contest which I have no interest in participating in.Ottawastudent 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:External links, which states that one should never add a link to one's own page, and also that links to blogs are to generally be avoided. - SimonP 15:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

SimonP - Well, clearly we don't have a serious problem with linking to blogs since the article links to Greg Morrow's blog. However, that said, I was not aware that it was considered bad form to link to one's own site. So, given that realization -- and as it is a valid argument against me re-introducing the link (as opposed to Nat's arguments above) -- I will not attempt to re-introduce the external link due to possible conflicts of interest on my part. As an aside, however, I do believe that the only meta-analysis and the only universal swing projection are useful tools, so I do believe some other wikipedia user ought to consider its inclusion on its merits, but I will not personally attempt to re-introduce it.Ottawastudent 19:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am adding an external link to Paulitics Projection Page. I agree that their blog is not referencable material, but Paul's calculations using the UBC Antweiler Election Forecaster is the only current application. Similarly, the Swing Model is based on sound methodology. Neither of these projections is available on a consistent basis on the web, yet they are most valuable and insightful to those seeking such studies. Paul's two models were added last week to our 6-model avg at TrendLines based on their merits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredhutter (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

the editor of the "paulitics" blog seems to think that a certain editor (nat) is only saying his site should not be included, because he is a tory. first of all, that makes me sick, and that comment made me lose all respect for the editor, as I myself am a tory. secondly, despite what I think about the editor, the blog does offer information that is not avilable on other sites, that being an analysis of predictions. This is something that is valuable as it's important to keep in mind the differing methodoligies. What's needed is not to target a single link, but to come up with a rule for all future elections about these kind of prediction/projection sites. so in summary. site = good, editor = bad, having no set rules to deal with these situations = worse 74.14.16.208 05:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as a B Class, given its detail and organization, although it really needs some more cleanup and prose. I have assessed this as low importance, as it is a highly specialized topic within Canada. Cheers, CP 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedom and COR parties

Whos adding the candidate numbers for those parties? they haven't nominated anyone yet according to there websites and if they have tell me where to get the info because nobody is putting the parties candidates in the list by region. 70.54.2.165 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Freedom Party is currently running 2 candidates. I doubt that the CoR will run any candiadates, seeing as their candidate numbers have been dwindling since 1990. Morgan695 02:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

both FP candidates announced on the forum Free Dominion Nickjbor 05:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes we'll see if the Cor party has become defunct and if the Freedom party runs less candidates then the libertarians!

74.14.147.223 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

LEEDS-GRENVILLE GREENS

I know who the damn Green candidate for leeds-grenville is, the GPO just hasn't updated the page yet. Jeanie Warnock will even be at my house tomorrow where we'll start collecting signatures for the returning officer.

74.14.146.93 00:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Then put that in your edit summary, don't just randomly add uncited information (as you've done often in the past). Morgan695 00:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been involved with the GPO/GPC since I was 12 years old, I'm sure thats more then you can say. Heres the news article from the Recorder and Times. That would be the Brockville newspaper. Where I live in the riding: http://newsfeed.recorder.ca/cgi-bin/LiveIQue.acgi$rec=23697 Lets now assume that when I add a Green candidate to the list, i know what the hell i'm talking about alrighty.

Political junky 01:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL - one should always take a polite tone in Wikipedia discussions. Knowing "what the hell you're talking about" is not enough to post information on Wikipedia (especially if such information has only been posted in a local newspaper, and not the GPO official website), you must cite a link in an edit summary. Thank you. Morgan695 01:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the article, You need to read it to understand that yes, she is the candidate in the riding. shes also in the PROCESS of creating her own campaign site, I personally have a couple of signs up on my lot, and i'm sure if you contacted the GPO they can confirm Jeanie is actually the candidate as I was just on the phone with her a few minutes ago. You really shouldn't concern yourself with something I know all about and you've shown to me you know very little about.

Political junky 01:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Support or experience with a party does not give you superiority over all articles and topics related to it. WP:CITE states that one must cite "material challenged or likely to be challenged", such a candidate who has only been referenced in a local newspaper with a limited audience. Morgan695 02:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That may be true, however not only am i involved with the party, not only involved with the CA, not only involved with the campaign to elect Jeanie Warnock, but also live in the riding with a sign supporting the candidate. So no, I don't expect superiority over every issue, but when it comes to my party, my riding, my candidate, and i'm being challenged by some one who knows absolutly nothing about her, the riding, or the campaign in leeds-grenville I question whos writting many of the articles on Wikipedia. Political junky 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not once 'challenged' the validity of your edit. I removed the candidate's name because there was no citation on the GPO offical website, which tends to have preference over local newspapers. Furthermore, the fact that I do not live in your riding does not make your edits superior to mine. You are free to edit the article on my riding as you see fit - Wikipedia is 'the free encyclopedia', after all. Morgan695 02:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, if a candidate has not yet collected the 25 signature needed to officially run as a candidate in Ontario, then he/she is still not officially on the ballot and therefore cannot be placed on this list. Until Elections Ontario has officially recognize the candidate or his/her name is on his/her party's website, he/she should remain off this list until that happens. nat^tang 07:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP is an enclycopedia and not a blog roll. Entries should have sources and are very strict when it come to Biographies of living persons. The candidate may have even told you they are going to be a candidate, but until it official and verified, then you can't put it on the page for Ontario general election, 2007. You may want to place the information on the candidate's page, but only if it is a major incident. Just summarizing the candidate's plan for a year before the election would be Undue Weight --Statsone 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, We placed candidates on this page even before an election was called. Jeanie is verified as the candidate with the Green Party of Ontario and will be submitting her information to elections ontario later today. Again, we've been adding candidates even before the election was called so you and I both know that its a load of dung saying they have to be registered in order to be on wikipedia. http://www.vote-green.ca/jeanie.warnock

I'd also like to note, you all thought Mark Raby was the Green candidate until a few days ago. I know Mark personally and he only expressed light interest in running, never once committing to run. Please contact the GPO if you don't trust me with the issue.

Political junky 17:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Now you have a source. I still think it would be better to wait until she has actually files her application as it would be official at that time. --Statsone 17:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussions on this page

Would everyone please read the top of this page. Where it links to: What Wikipedia is not - a FORUM

Quoting from the page:

Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. Also, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate. Wikipedians who wish to hold casual discussions with fellow Wikipedians can use the IRC channels, such as #wikipedia. Note that this is an IRC channel, not a message board.

This means, this page is for discussion on how to improve the article. Debate as to who wins the elections should be taken elsewhere. Please keep in mind NPOV and SOAP --Statsone 04:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

where are these non-page-related comments? I dont see any. were they deleted from the history? I do come here to improve the article, but in order to do that it requires discussion, like for example, why this was posted. Nickjbor 07:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh?

Without taking sides or making one side or user more important than other, how about ( Some have been archived):

• It's looking to me like the next election will give
• Ontario legislature was in a minority position...kinda like the recent Québec elections
• Do you support the green party

Talk on who is winning or losing or the actual campaign do not belong on this page. It may even be best to track some incidents and place a summary on the candidate's page, or riding's page, or party's page at the end of the campaign. --Statsone 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Good resoruce for info on candidates

http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/CandidatesAndParties/Candidates/CandidateContactInfo.htm Nickjbor 07:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits and format

When placing an entry please sign them by placing 4 ~ at the end of your entry. Your user name and a time and time stamp will be added automaticcaly.

Also, when responding to another entry, use as many : (colon's) as needed to indent. This make it easier to read comments. --Statsone 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawals?

How should withdrawals be indicated? [1] -- Zanimum 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If the candidate is no longer a candidate, his/her name should be removed from our list. nat^tang 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Independents

I'm adding all the ind's listed here http://www.elections.on.ca/en-CA/CandidatesAndParties/Candidates/CandidateContactInfo.htm 74.13.125.185 07:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) that was me BTW. Nickjbor 07:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Need some help with the colours for the smaller parties running candidates

self explained Political junky 19:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I added the colours for the CoR and Reform, and judging by the Republican Party's website, I'd guess lavender grey (#BDBBD7). Special Needs has no website, so it'll be hard to find it's colour. Morgan695 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made one for the Republicans. Morgan695 20:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Another question about one of the new parties, On the Party chart special needs is listed as having two candidates however in the list of candidates there is only one, anybody know of the second candidate if any? I'd choose a darker grey for the party now to avoid having the same colour as the independents.

74.14.147.119 00:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Split article, move candidates to own page

Now that we have a completed list from Elections Ontario, we should split the article and make the Candidates List its own article. My suggestion is to link to the page from this article. The Ontario general election, 2007 is now 85KB, so it is rather big by Wiki standards. Comments? --Abebenjoe 08:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think like the 2003, General election everything should stay on one page.

74.14.147.119 11:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

whos the second special needs party candidate

As far as I know theres only Danish (there leader) running, so why does it say 2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.147.119 (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

John Rubino in Trinity-Spadina is the second. Morgan695 18:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)