Talk:2008–2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Move/rename, but to what?

The title is not correct and should be changed. To what I'm not sure, but as noted by Resolute on the WPCan talkpage, it's not a dispute, any more than it's not a crisis or an impasse. Suggestions?

I might consider it a confidence crisis. First in the Tories, and later, almost certainly in the coalition. Though the second half of that is merely my opinion. Perhaps 2008 Canadian leadership crisis or 2008 Canadian leadership affair? Until the media gels around some snappy tag line for this, I would imagine we're going to see a few name changes. Resolute 20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "political dispute", while NPOV, is a bit vague. Every bill in the House has been a "political dispute". I think either "power struggle" or "leadership (something)" would be best. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as the term "crisis" was POV and out of proportion, I re-named it to "dispute" to alleviate those immediate problems, although I think it wouldn't stick, and I think the media will find a catch phrase for this brouhaha.--Maxim_(talk) 21:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maxim, although I think 2008 Canadian political brouhaha would be a good name. :D--kelapstick (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Support --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, is this a serious comment? ;-) --Maxim_(talk) 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think so, but after looking into it, the word "brouhaha" is not classified as informal nor as a colloquialism in the Oxford dictionary and in Merriam-Webster. I'm sure the MOS would accept it as professional Canadian English :). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

As a Canadian living in the United States during this election, I have a new appreciation for political brouhahas.--kelapstick (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We could all use a political chautauqua.....Skookum1 (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a new word for me. Thanks Skookum1. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a brilliant idea. The Canadian Wikipedia contingent should organize one! Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like both of you read Chautauqua (disambiguation), too...once upon a time there was a world without radio, TV or recorded music....chautauquas were a big part of North American life...I think however, there was a different term in Canada (being Canadian we like to do the same things as the yanks, just call them different things....even if lately it's as simply as American Idol -> Canadian Idol. Chautaquas are the kind of things that Arts Councils and the like should be doing; "non-political town hall meetings", sort of, with performances, readings, lectures, etc. (town hall meetings being another American institution which we could use on this side of the border - I've been an advocate for Riding Assemblies, where the MLA/MP would be called to accountby constituents, even directed how to vote...) Anwyay, most people want their X-Box these days...Wikipedia seems to be my version of vide-game entertainment though...(with Space Channel running the same reruns over and over n the background....).Skookum1 (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you guys known about MidniteWiki (Midnight Wiki??) don't you?Skookum1 (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my brain, how about 2008 Canadian parliament coalition debate? It denotes all the major aspects of the discussion, indicates that there's a debate, and avoids POV terms. I'm open to better suggestions though. Mindmatrix 02:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it, although I think that "parliamentary coalition" might be better.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic.gnome (talk • contribs)

Yeah, I was 50/50 between the two choices. That's certainly fine by me. Mindmatrix 02:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Parliamentary" is the correct of the two usages, i.e. adjectival form in that construction, otherwise it's three nouns in succession. And I do like "debate" rather than "dispute". "Dispute" is too much liek "crisis", and will really only refer to a dispute over hte G-G's actions (which, depending on what she does, would cause a crisis proper; right now the only crisis is for the Tories....).Skookum1 (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

parliamentary coalition debate is a good choice. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ohhhh, yeah. With the proposed substitution of parliamentary instead of parliament, that's perfect. Support. Bearcat (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

One last thought, to use "controversy" instead of "debate", as the latter is associated with House debates....Skookum1 (talk) 03:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you prefer controversy. It seems to imply something wrong. I prefer debate; the word debate is separated from parliamentary by the word coalition and there are, of course, public debates as well. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I like "dispute", it's like "debate", but without the in-session meaning. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, but who disputes the coalition? May be slight but it seems to give a hint that it's one-sided and that one side is wrong. Debate seems to be more even: Two sides have a defensible position and we decide who has better argument. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This is probably all academic anyway and as events unfold, a clear name will evolve. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

[undent]boy is it hard to keep up with edit conflicts here, would help if I weren't so long-winded:

"Debate" just seems so orderly, and what's going on is anything but orderly; and "dispute" is more like something clearcut, or relatively clearcut; granted I'm used to seeing Alaska boundary dispute and the like, e.g. "Softwood lumber dispute" whre there are clearly delineated issues LOL Thing is in this case it's become controversial as well as being a debate or dispute or whatever other term; "parliamentary coalition debate" would seem to me to scan as "the debate in the House about forming a coalition"; the dispute is between the parties, but the controversy has overtaken the whole of the country (those who care or are paying attention anyway...). Once it's all over, if it's over on Monday that is (and according the CTV pundit I saw a little while ago, Harper plans to ask the G-G for prorogation (word? proroguement?) - in which case the....debacle...will continue until January. but in t he aftermath there will be a different article for this episode, however long it takes, vs the voernment that results (or the government that survives, whichever). I imagine in the aftermath, also, non-wiki historians and journalists will coin a phrase to sum it up. Debacle. Imbroglio. Also distinct from this week (however long this week turns out to be) would be the 2008 Canadian proroguement crisis, if Jean were to refuse Harper's request for a supposed cooling-off period ("heating-up period" I suspect will be a more apt term). BTW further to "controversy", how can we include non-professional-politician/journalist material - I dno't mean simply quoting "man on the street" opinions, and not just the groups organizing on either side...I'm thinking of things like the egging of Ujjal Dossnjh's constituency office and any potentialmore serious disturances that may result. And I'm not meaning to be alarmist, it's just if we're covering an ongiong current event we shoudl cover all aspects of things going on because of it....Skookum1 (talk) 04:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

But hey Skookum1, the US was completely wrong on both of those issues. ;-) DoubleBlue (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Did I say the weren't? The point is they were disputes, not debates. And Ottawa and London were wrong, too, on the Alaska boundary dispute, too; in their ignorance, or fear of Teddy R, they signed away an area of BC roughly the size of Vancouver Island (see map with green line on talk:Alaska boundary dispute...an article I should be spending time on, plsu fort Stikine, Stikine Gold Rush and relateds, but.....Skookum1 (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Canadian parliamentary crisis would be preferable to the current overly vague title. I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't use the term "crisis" so it's NPOV. 142.55.152.80 (talk) 14:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the current name is fine for now. It may well end up being renamed something like "41st Canadian Federal Election" soon enough. I say just leave the article title as it is and see how it looks in a week or two. - Ahunt (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, wouldn't use the word "crisis". The attacks in Mumbai were a crisis. The global economic situation is a crisis. This is disagreement about who should form government that will be solved one way or the other through peaceful legal means. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I heard the CBC radio use this exact term today (2008 Canadian parliamentary crisis). Eb.eric (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To refine my suggestion above, how about 2008 Canadian debate on parliamentary coalition. This cannot be confused as a parliamentary debate, it avoids the use of terms like crisis or controversy (which is really a creation of the politicians and media; I think annoyance is the way most Canadians would view this). It's a tad wordy, but better than the current title, in my opinion. Mindmatrix 16:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I support the current title. It is purely descriptive, much like Canadian federal election, 2008. Too many of the other names are either partisan attempts to frame the situation or media sensationalism. Esn (talk) 03:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Due to the prorogation, we could call it 40th Canadian Parliament, 1st session. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, yeah it is, after all, the only thing that happened in the session. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Since prorogation has happened, something like '2008 prorogation of Canadian Parliament' would be accurate as well as descriptive and neutral —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Grey (talk • contribs)

Or Prorogation of the 40th Canadian Parliament. However, I think that this situation will extend beyond the prorogation, since it will be based on a vote of confidence when Parliament reconvenes in January. Mindmatrix 01:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Government Response

This section of the article states that the opposition parties have introduced a non-confidence motion. I have not heard of this and think it is incorrect. They do not need to do this, since the government itself has introduced a issue which requires the confidence of the House. Can anyone else confirm the non-confidence motion in question?Óghog (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

the way it works is that the spending bill, being defeated, demans a further formal vote of non-confidence; it's that that has been delayed until the 8th, unless Harper successfully prorogues the House so as to avoid the vote until January.Skookum1 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

2008 Canadian Liberal-NDP coalition government

Isn't this a bit redundant to 2008 Canadian political crisis? Plus it's a bit crystal-ballish, it is plausible that Harper can a. still work out an 11th hour deal b. there will be elections c. Harper will be sacked for proroguing parliament and/or other less plausible scenarios?--Maxim_(talk) 21:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This could be its own article once the government actually forms, but as it stands now it should be merged with 2008 Canadian political crisis. Eb.eric (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This should be moved to 29th Canadian Ministry once the government actually formed. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This article does not have "crisis" in its title, it is (now) 2008 Canadian political dispute; would both of you please avoid the use of "crisis", which is clearly POV? i.e. it's only being used by Tory partisans.Skookum1 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Reaction": bias?

I think that suggesting that the TSX drop was due to the coalition being formed is a negative bias, especially since the American stock markets dropped by large amounts on the same day due to the announcement that the US was in recession. I am deleting that section of the article. If you guys decide that this is an inappropriate measure then by all means revert my change. --72.38.3.14 (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree--although your point's completely true, I think it's worth mentioning that since there was somewhat of a coincidence. But if this isn't going to be overly important on the bigger scale of things in say a week, I think it should be removed then.--Maxim_(talk)

It's a Tory line that the markets fell because of teh "socialists and separatists" in the impending coalition; teh reality is that ALL WORLD MARKETS FELL. It's POV to claim otherwise, i.e. to claim that the Tory spin on the market is what the facts are is POV; it can be cited as the opinion of Conservative commentators, but it shoudl not be stated as it it were the reason.Skookum1 (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Let the facts speak and leave interpretation to the reader. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that we should have that information in there. It's really unrelated to the topic being discussed. There was flooding in Venice. Shall we mention that in here too? If we do mention the TSX drop in there, it should be in a clear context that the connection was being made specifically by the Conservatives.

I believe I will have to concede this argument, folks. I personally feel it's worthwhile mentioning it, however consensus is against me and it is not such a major fact right now either.--Maxim_(talk) 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Images

I don't think any images are suitable for this article given the current political climate; I intially removed only Harper's image as I hadn't seen Dion's (much) farther below). Either they're all at hte top of the page or any placement of any one over the others is POV in teh extreme; pretending that optics don't matter and that hte PM's image is fine-and-dandy is POV. Also having Lord Byng's image is slightly POV as it's been Tory activists who've been pointing to that series of events as if they were relevant; they're not, and if any G-G shoudl be on this page, it's Michaelle Jean. I didn't take him out yet but I don't think it's appropriate at all to feature images taht are part of the Tory spin.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The only reason Harper's at top is because he is the current incumbent, while Dion is placed in the section that discusses him more. Jean's image is a good idea though. I'm thinking of actually make five images appear in the lead with a table...--Maxim_(talk) 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In politics, "optics is everything" - ask any p.r. consultant (there's a few lurking hereabouts no doubt). Having the Harper image at the top is in advertising something like an endorsement; it's "optics" and inescapable; your rationalizations as to why YOU think such a placement is not POV do not matter; others do (me) and others will (in support or otherwise). If you did so in all innocence, that's fine, but now that you've been informed that "optics do matter" and that I, at least, found it POV (and rest assured others will as well), then some kind of banner-image maybe is indeed the only way to go; otherwise "no images". Another image, if you want this to be an article with pretty pictures, is to have the table of the seating of the current House, with all Coalition partners in related shades of....um, red? pink(oP)? Candy striped orange-and-purple-and-rouge? And I still maintain the background section is POV in flavour/nature; "equal time" for the Coalition parties is needed, especially because the first two sentences come off like an endorsement of the Tories as the "legitimate" government; again it's all in teh insinuation and not in the overt, as with optics.Skookum1 (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll be honest here and lay my cards down and go off somewhat with opinion: it seems to be obvious you're against the Tories; you may have figured out that I'm a Blue Tory, so things you see are really not like mine, and I'm toeing NPOV not on purpose, let me assure that. I've made a compromise version for the images, by grouping the PM and GG, and the coalition separately. It's very good to have a sanity check. ;-) Hope this settles this,--Maxim_(talk) 00:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

About the GG/PM optics... I'm somewhat screwed if I do, screwed if I don't, since if I make it 1pic:1pic:3pics, it looks awkward, and with groups of two and three, the GG and PM look bad too... :( Maxim_(talk) 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm against the manipulation of Wikipedia by spin doctors, period, of any political stripe; that there have already been blatantly pro-Tory content/edits in this and other articles is what I'm upset about. If you bothered to read the related discussion on CanWiki's noticeboard (which you ignored apparently - see next section) you'd know that I'm non-partisan; "the only true NPOV is the truth". And Truth is not what's being sold by disigenous so-called POV edits/content/optics.Skookum1 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, the images are valid. Don't confuse what you consider "bad optics" with being POV or poor faith editing. You have your opinion, Maxim has his. Consensus will determine how best to organize this article. Optics don't really matter. Resolute 01:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In the art and science of information (and misinformation/disinformation), optics always matters.Skookum1 (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with your boldened statement, but you may have misunderstood most of my comment: I appreciate your opinion very much since my is slightly clouded.--Maxim_(talk) 01:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Order of images

I changed the order to one that I feel makes the most sense, putting the GG at the top, then PM Harper, then the 3 opposition leaders. There are basically three "sides" here. Esn (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Credentials please, Maxim

I just looked over my watchlist, which has this and its former redirects on it, and wonder why it is that you, Maxim, took it on yourself to decide what this article should be called singlehandedly and without discussion. There were already discussions by experienced editors about whether or not this article shoudl even exist, as well as what it shoudl be called; you did not take part and just "went at it on your own". Such controversial changes are normally to be discussed by teh parties at hand; yet you ignored us. Please explain your actions and whatever credentials you may have where your opinion/decision matters more than mine, Bearcat's, DoubleBlue's, Resolute's, NorthernThunder's - or indeed, Rupertslander's, who started the original "constitutional dispute" title/article....Skookum1 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In truth, I think Maxim nailed the title on the head. If you can think of a more accurate and neutral title than this, I'd be impressed. Resolute 01:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I put everything here since this page was most active and I wished to centralize the article and remove the various forks. I view this title has merely temporary, and I'm open to all ideas on how to name it. At least now there is a centralised section. As to why I acted somewhat unilaterally: it was a mix of being bold, and after reading some discussions and looking at the various degree of completeness of articles, I merged them here. Also, can you please assume good faith of me: I'm merely trying to help, not sabotage.--Maxim_(talk) 01:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Maxim's move to a NPOV title, but I would still like to have the page moved to something more specific to a proposal for governmental change than "political dispute". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The term "dispute" is not accurate; there is a controversy yes in that sense of a dispute; but there are no clear either/or parameters to define what is being dieputed; other than what is and what isn't allowed by the constitution and/or what is going to go down. I repeat - "political dispute" is not accurate and refers to all of politics, as politics is disputes. The original title 2008 Canadian constitutional dispute whiel not perfect was at least a bit more specific. The recent election campaign also was a political dispute, as were any other political arguments this year. I don't see why it was changed, and once again I'm also averse to seeing any one editor take such a lead given the prsence of others, and the now-derailed debate over what it shoudl be called and whether or not it should exist until the proceedings are over. Kyoto-or-not-to-Kyoto is a political dispute, Danny Williams' arguments with Ottawa were a political dispute; the matter here is constitutional and only being turned into politics; but it's by no means the only political dispute in Canada in 2008 and I don't think it was an appropriate title AND I think Maxim was hasty and presumptive in making the call single-handedly, given the presence of other editors already discussing the issue he chose to cake (wrong) action on.Skookum1 (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I for one would oppose a move to "constitutional dispute" because it's pretty clear what the constitution says; that is not what the dispute is about. The dispute is about democratic legitimacy and partisanship. I'm opon to other ideas, but I don't like that one. I'd still prefer something to do with "leadership" or "governance", but I can't think of a good one yet. This will all be a moot point after the vote, when we can name it based on the outcome, either "2008 Canadian power transfer" or "2008 non-confidence motion" --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"2008 non-confidence motion" or "2008 non-confidence crisis" seems better. I don't think "constitution" should be in the title, since it's not yet a constitutional crisis. I do think "non-confidence" should be there, since this is the key issue. Andareed (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no objection to Maxim's actions here. There were duplicate articles being worked on simultaneously at different titles, and Maxim simply merged them into one article. That doesn't at all forestall further discussion; it simply ensures that we don't have multiple forks being worked on in the meantime. That said, I don't think that this is the ideal title, but it was certainly the most appropriately NPOV title out of the choices that existed at the time — and nothing prevents us from discussing and/or choosing a better final title. Ain't it fun trying to write history as it happens? :-) Bearcat (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that history is written by the victors didn't count on us! --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Motion to protect, or to transfer to Wikinews

Although a regular protect won't be very relevant here, as there are no IP contributors and few new-users, there's a kind of protect that requires changes be discussed on the talkpage FIRST and unilateral actions (such as the name change and deletions of redirects by Maxim) should be suspended until further notice. What kind of a block is that? It's high time to put it in place; this article is already out of control, adn never should have sxisted IMO anyway, not until all this is over; this shoudl be transferred to WikiNews as I've already suggested.Skookum1 (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with both. Protection is not pre-emptive. A single move would not justify a {{pp-dispute}} tag. It is used to stop edit wars. And, obviously there has not been much vandalism. If need be, I'll be willing to protect the article as needed, but right now is not the time. Also, while this is primarily a news story at the moment, it is also a developing story in Canadian political history. This is a significant current event and should be covered here as well. Just MHO. Resolute 01:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There absolutely should be a WikiNews story about this, but I think it is also encyclopedic and should have an article here. So far I think the page has developed well and disagreements have quickly led to compromise. I don't see the need for protection, but we should all keep an eye out for edit wars, because it might need protection eventually. If protection is needed, it will happen quickly, as there are at least three sysops editing this page. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a pretty big article on what's one of the biggest recent political stories (I hope we can agree on that, I hope? Canada's gvt hasn't switched without election in over 80 years), and a move to wikinews would be prudent. If this resolves itself and it is not relevant in a few months, then let's look at deletion, for now, this is an active article that doesn't only parrot the headlines, but reads like an encyclopedic article IMHO.--Maxim_(talk) 01:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that there should be several WikiNews articles written for this, and that this is encyclopedic because of the implications of a constitutional crisis. 76.66.194.58 (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keeping up with the bylines

In addition to the report tonight that Harper would seek proroguement there was also coverage of the screaming match in teh Commons in response to Tory charges hat the BQ already had the Lib-NDP coalition with a gun to its head, and a flag hadn't been displayed etc (it had)...I didn't catch all of it. Also in Elizabeth' May's news conference today (which I watched live) she offered various opinions, including one that the coalition represented something approaching proportional rep which is just spec on her part, but she also stated in addition to supporting the coalition that "this is not a crisis, this is the normal functioning of our system" etc, and as also mentioned above there was the egging of Dossanjh's office in Vancouver, and Danny Williams endorsing the coalition, formation of the pro and con groups and announced rallies and so on. What I'm getting at is how much do we keep up with, what kind of priorities can we evaluate what is article-worthy and what's not? I'd say to keep the polls out of it, as they're part of the spin apparatus by all parties; but the terms concerning hte Liberal succession shoudl be here, i.e. Dion is only temporary and the leadership race will take place - not , as I'd ventured earlier, by selection by the combined coalition caucus - a true Coalition Prime Minister - but by a Liberal leadership race in mid-term - also not unusual (given the Martin succesion, e.g.)....what I guess I'm meaning is "how complete is this coverage to be"? What's significant and what's not?Skookum1 (talk) 04:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with you on polls. Informal ones, absolutely, but if Ipsos-Reid is contracted to conduct a poll, that would be highly notable, as an example. Danny Williams' endorsement is only slightly less shocking than the fact the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, so I'd find that trival, along with the petty acts of vandalism that will likely occur both ways. The rallies, I think, are notable if they earn any kind of media coverage. I'm probably going to see if Calgary's has any weight behind it on Saturday. Elizabeth May building herself a pulpit I don't find to be any more notable than the comments of any other failed or wannabe politician. Though the rumours that she might gain a Senate seat for support would be worth noting if they come to pass in reality. Just my thoughts... Resolute 06:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There's a poll that was done by Angus Reid about the current situation - http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/32364/political_crisis_splits_views_in_canada/ Tony Kao (talk) 10:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say that Elizabeth May's reaction is very relevant considering the number of voters who voted for her party in the last election. Her support will influence the opinions of Green party voters. Basser g (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems she may be getting a Senate seat out of all this, so....Skookum1 (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that party polls should be kept out of it due to the spin factor, but independent scientific polls are critical to the understanding of the issue. I have added the Angus-Reid one mentioned above by Tony Kao, good find! - Ahunt (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In politics there is no such thing as an "independent scientific poll". Science for one thing require experimental method, verifiable results, and peer review, and no polling companies in this country are independent. It's not a matter of if a poll is commissioned by a party; it's that all the polling companies have party affiliations. They are inherently subjective, and also inherently partisan; they implicitly cannot be scientific, even if their press resleases claim they are.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Request citation for "Red Revolution"

I've not seen nor heard any one refer to this current political situation by this name. Can anyone provide a citation? Isaac Lin (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd say to remove it. It actually would be nice if the media took a phrase like this and made it a defacto descriptor of this situation, as that would eliminate our article name controversy.  ;) Resolute 06:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems premature to try to assign a label to the situation, especially since there seems to be a lot of effort to frame things for political advantage along with speculation and possibly misinformation. Peter Grey (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Polls and POV

I just got up (10am Atlantic time, I'm a late sleper) and am going over the changes since I went to bed...noting the "Polls" section and taht so far there's only an Angus Reid poll in, this is going to be a quagmire but I suppose an unavoidable one . Angus Reid is a Liberal-associated polling firm; an Ipsos Reid (I think it was, Decima maybe) poll last night had that ~60% of Canadians didn't want Dion to be coalition PM - but it was a Tory-backed/commissioned poll, and what other numbers there were (e.g. for Rae, Ignatieff etc) weren't stated. Speculation on Jack Layton being Deputy PM was also out there, though not polled. The situation reminds me of when Clark was kicked out by the Liberals, who didn't even have a leader at the time, and "had" to go back to Pierre and get him to come back out of retirement. If not Dion, an interim PM (i.e. until the Liberal leadership race) is giong to have a big edge in that leadership radce, even if it's a bsckbencher pulled up into the job. Anyway, that's not going to happen, too politically risky, beyond the current political risks....it's the poll that interested me. Who else did Ipsos-Reid/Decima poll about? And if we're going to use polls in this article - polls being a form of opinion-manipulation rather than opinion-survey (their ostensible but not real purpose), we should make in each instance a comment/clarification as to what the political affiliations of the polling companies are. Polls are all POV, and are meant to be so; it's why they're worth big bucks....Skookum1 (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And so for every Ipsos-Reid poll we have, we should have one from Angus Reid to balance....(even if not on the same subject, as they don't use each other's questions); as explained above polls are POV, so we have to balance them...Skookum1 (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The key is balance and so other polls should be cited when they are available with refs.

Please keep in mind that these talk pages are not a blog and therefore keep comments focused on discussing improvements to the article. This is not the place to debate the issue, catalog speculation or offer opinions on the outcomes. see also Wikipedia:Talk page. Please spell check before you post too, it is hard to read if you don't. - Ahunt (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Polls are POV, but keep in mind that attempting to "balance" them could be POV in and of itself. We have to be careful not to cherry pick which polls we choose to use because to create a false sense of "neutrality" that doesn't necessarily reflect how Canadians feel about the situation would be a gross violation of NPOV. Resolute 14:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Foreign coverage

I've only just begun reading the morning's online New York Timesand while it didn't have much yesterday it did occur to me when opening it this morning that as this thing escalates there's likely to be a lot of foreign coverage; although one of my colleagues in another forum did opine that the world won't pay attnetion unles there's violence and/or mass protests....anyway I'll have a look around the Guardian, the London Times, Le Soir, Figaro and other major world papers to see if there's much coverage; generally it won't be anything we haven't heard here, but editorial commentary, especially from countries with the same parliamentary tradition/constitutional reality, might be worth noting; I'll see waht turns up but it may well be that a "foreign coverage" section is called for. I'll be back. on this....Pravda was very interesting on the day after Obama's victory, by the way....more op-ed than reportage, but "international reviews of the crisis" may be pertinent, we'll see....Skookum1 (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just read the NYT's latest...not much of interest except: "There is broad consensus among constitutional scholars that Ms. Jean should allow the opposition to govern. Ontario changed its government under similar circumstances in 1985." I hadn't heard the bit bout Ontario before, not familiar with Ontarian political history. Is this a valid comparison and is it in any Canadian papers? this is the link to that article, though you may need to subscribe to see it, I don't know.Skookum1 (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, nothing in the British papers so far, though I did write the foreign desk of The Independent to ask why/when. what I did find that was amusing, though, was the coinage "Vancouverism", in reference to urban design, adn "Vancouverization" - see this. Vancouverism as an article? seems like a neologism, and to me would have other meanings (certain kinds of bad manners, particular kinds of slang and/or insulting comments/behaviour, NIMbyism, "No Fun City" etc...). Anyway I'll continue keeping my eyes open.....~if not my mindSkookum1 (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ahunt's deletion of this whole section was highly arrogant and also out-of-context, so I've reinstated it; the search for international coverage concerning this is highly legitimate and pertinent to the ongoing events; that I find other things along the way is part and parcel of the process. There was nothing here warrantnng the put-down "this is not your blog". Bug off Ahunt, police your own mind before you police mine. I don't take kindly to people tryingt to censor me....Skookum1 (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There's some coverage by the UK press. At the time I posted this, there are articles from the BBC, Guardian, and Telegraph, as well as secondary publications like Life Style Extra and Interactive Investor. I'm not sure if simple reportage in foreign media is all that relevant though. Mindmatrix 16:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I must not have looked hard enough, or didn't know where to search etc. In the case of the British and maybe other Commonwealth papers, I was looking for op-ed pieces or material/comments from constitutional scholars in those countries; which would be pertinent; straightforward coverage, no, at laest not at this point; the NYT item made the comparison to Ontario in '85 I haven't seen in any Canadian media so far though.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

re: I hadn't heard the bit bout Ontario before, not familiar with Ontarian political history.

The PC minority government of Frank Miller was defeated on a confidence motion approximately six weeks after the Ontario general election, 1985 on an accord between the Liberals and the NDP, making David Peterson the new premier. There wasn't a true coalition between the Liberals and the NDP, however; the Liberals took power on their own and the NDP merely agreed not to defeat them for X amount of time, more comparable to the BQ role in the current agreement. But there's still an amusing footnote: the NDP leader in this scenario was Bob Rae. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The "precedents" section makes no mention of it, I suppose because of "federal myopia"...but viceregal interventions at the provincial level are still precedents; "we" don't have a decent writeup on the the Martin Affair in BC (the 1900 Martin Affair, not t he recent one) but I did add something to British Columbia#History about the L-G in '83 in BC having to intervene when Bill Bennett overstepped his mandate. I think the minority situation in 1952 also invovled the L-G, but in a less central fashion, I'll look into it. Provincial precdeennts may be more common, especially as regards minority coalitions.Skookum1 (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The "precedents" section makes no mention of it It does now :-) Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere that Miller asked for a dissolution and a new election but was denied by the Lt.Gov. Do we have a reliable source for that? DoubleBlue (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In fact, Norman Spector says the opposite here. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And here's where I had read that he "half-heartedly" asked for an election: [1]. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Michael Valpy also says he asked for an election in today's Globe and Mail.[2] DoubleBlue (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting; the constitutional interregnum in BC in April 1983 has been passed over in the media since and ignored by historians - see that section and it's another instance of reserve powers being used in Canada; I have to brief myself again on teh complexities of the Joe Martin government in 1900 and am not sure if it was reserve powers in that instance; I think it was, though the technicaclities I'll have to check on again.

User:Skookum1 please read WP:Civil. Telling other editors who disagree with you posting your opinions on a talk page to "bug off" is not an acceptable way to conduct yourself on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ho-hum, you might try taht yourself bvefore taking the lawnmower to a whole section without proper reason to do so. You didn't just disagree with me, you CENSORED me, which is very WP:UNCIVIL. it's YOu that were out of line, baby, not me, and I suggest for the sake of this forum that YOU apologize for trying to silence someone else without good reason Don't hide behind WP:CIVIL when you've been WP:CENSORSkookum1 (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if this is true: "Mr. Clark was defeated on a budget seven months after the election that brought his Tories to power. He asked Edward Schreyer, then the Governor-General, for a dissolution of Parliament. Mr. Schreyer, quite properly and according to constitutional convention, asked the Liberals, under Pierre Trudeau, whether they could govern with a working majority in the House of Commons. Mr. Trudeau passed, and the Liberals won the ensuing election." [3]

Yes, it's true. Iwas 25 or 26 at t he time thoguh wasn't paying close attention to politics at the time - except that Pierre wasn't their leader when they called hte confidence vote; they had no leader; so guesspeculating I think the machination was that as the Opposition couldn't form a government, having no leader, so the House was dissolved and teh writ dropped. I'll check on the gory details and come back; but Trudeau was not the leader when teh vote went down; eh was drafted out of retirement to lead the party into the election; his price was the party's support for his constitutional plans....I'll have to check but I think he had resigned his Commons seat at the time and was not a member of the caucus when the vote went down, and no leadership race had yet been scheduled; some say it was Allan McEachern's plan to get him out of retirement, i.e. to call the confidence vote to force his hand, as htye had no one else electable as PM in their ranks......23:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If that's true then Pierre Trudeau, Liberal Party of Canada, List of Canadian Leaders of the Opposition and Mount Royal (electoral district) will all need modifying. All say/imply that Trudeau had announced his resignation though was still serving (like Dion) but Clark's government fell before the leadership convention and that Trudeau was still an MP, leader of the party and leader of the opposition throughout the period. Also for Trudeau (or any Liberal) to have put together a government without an election he'd have needed the support of the NDP just to get ahead of the Progressive Conservatives and then Social Credit to be sure, lest he repeated Clark's mistake. That's not particularly comforting maths. Timrollpickering (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The Globe's story that day say Liberal Leader Trudeau was intending to resign. So yes, he was still leader. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's been a while...I do remember it took them a couple of days to persuade him, though....there was a "pregnant pause"....and to Timrollpickering, just wanted to comment that your use of "Social Credit" in your post had me do a double-take; partly because I'd forgotten that there were still Creditiste members at the time, but also because in those days we never used "Social Credit" in English to refer to the Quebec wing of the national Socreds, partly because there were not other federal Socreds, and "Social Credit" and "Socreds" both were used to mean the BC Party/regime (and granted, I'm not sure "Socreds" was ever used for the federal party). I know it's not in the article but if it's in article-space somewhere, the French name was the convention in the timeframe/context in question and "Social Credit" applied to the decidedly-different-in-character western provincial parties, particularly BC's and formerly Alberta's....it just looks/sounds odd otherewise; like seeing Bill Bennett referred to as "William Bennett", likewise "David Barrett" instead of "Dave Barrett" and so on; there almost should be a 'BC styleguide" for certain things like that; e.g. Premier Johnson was also "Boss Johnson", and only Byron Johnson on official documents, ditto with Boomer Walkem and Duff Pattullo - full names, or in WAC's case, the acronym alone, are what we use/d out here; some Wiki usages look a little stilted because they go with the full-form official name; this is tangential to this discussion but just to note it in general stylistic usages for any mentions that may occur here or elsewhere....Skookum1 (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Scope of article

I've quickly reviewed the article, and find it's missing quite a bit. We need to cover the following:

• the Conservatives stating that the formation of the coalition is undemocratic
• in general, the accusations between parties about the current situation and the possible coalition
• the role of the Bloc, and claims by the Conservatives that the coalition includes or is propped up by a separatist party
• the possibility of prorogation (mentioned), and the fact that this would be the first time (fact check) that it would occur at the beginning of a parliamentary session (well, this is mentioned as an aside - I think we could find enough enough to make it into its own sub-section)
• the idea that prorogation would simply delay the inevitable non-confidence in the current government
• a separate section for the role of the Governor General, and the options available (grant/deny prorogation request; recognizing non-confidence in government, and asking other parties to form new government; dropping of writ for new election; etc.)
• media reaction (perhaps editorial positions of major media outlets)
• public perception (expand on polling section - not sure if reliable sources are available for this yet)

There are certainly other things I've missed. Mindmatrix 16:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed one typo, but also to add that Don Newman, in his questioning of a tory MP on today['s Newsworld coverage, mentioned that the G-G could dismiss the PM before he can make the prorogation request, i.e. because she has evidence he no longer has the Confidence of the House and because she has an alternative government waiting in the wings. It's a procedural issue, apparently; he may not be able to make the prorogation request if he does not have the confidence of the House, and she does have evidence to the contrary....i.e. the joint letter from the opposition parties to that effect. Also Jason Kenney made a remark tha the Wikipedia page about prorogation was wrong; perhaps we can help him with that :-) but it also suggested to me that this talkpage should have a directory of related articles that we all should be watching.Skookum1 (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Also about the public perception bullet/point, "public response" is very far-reaching and detailed; I don't know how we could cover it all...CBC's online letters archive is a place to start maybe. I think their site probably also will have all the polls related to this side-by-side.Skookum1 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't even try to "cover it all", because public opinion can be slanted in so many ways. As MindMatrix noted, we need reliable sources. Public opinion can easily become a magnet for NPOV stuff. PKT(alk) 19:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course, and that was basically my point; but it also applies to network coverage, particularly privately-owned network coverage, though CBC has its quirks too - constanntly referring to "the West" as if we all thought like Albertans, and as if all Albertans thought alike. Their selections of "persons-in-the-street" interviews/soundbites also seem meant to "lead" the discussion in certan directions; and it's a given that thee opinions out of how many cannot possibly represent the whole; it's one of the main problems with that kind of reportage. But just please bear in mind that news coverage, not just public opinion, is also highly and much more deliberately engineered to influence the issues/debates, likewise the polls as discussed below (above?). And as far as pundits go, there are a number of major columnists whose opinions are perhaps distillable, so long as we try and maintain "equal time", relative to teh proportional amount of pro/con coverage taht is....medai-featured opinions from constitutional historians/lawyers fall in a different category, unless they have clear political affiliations as some do; certain high-profile bloggers also fall in the "pundit" categorySkookum1 (talk) 19:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Just looked up what Kenney was referring to, Parliamentary_session#Prorogation is the link and that page has a globalize-UK tag on it.Skookum1 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I had actually attempted to fix the section at Parliamentary_session#Prorogation earlier today, but then abandoned about 40min's worth of work because I didn't like what I'd written. Sigh. There are excellent resources for this, though, for example Prorogation and Dissolution and “Recall” During a Prorogation (both at parl.gc.ca). I may take another stab at it in the next few days... Mindmatrix 19:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Backroom efforts to seek defectors from the Liberals, mabye the NDP, have been being made, allegedly, and oen Tory MP, maybe it was Kenney, also said something that "well, we feel that there are members of the Liberal party who may have second thoughts about supporting a separatist-backed coalition" etc....will need to cite this of course, but at least one Liberal MP said a colleague of his had been offered a cabinet post by the Tories....Skookum1 (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Coalition Crisis" - CBC Newsworld

Just watching the Noon News on Newsworld (in AST) and they announced their special website area's name as about the "Coalition Crisis" (capitalization theirs). This may coalesce with other usages from the other networks and news chains, we'll wait-and-see, just noting it for now. Also, though you're probably all awware of it, it was just announced Harper would do a national address at 7 tonightSkookum1 (talk) 16:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was quite surprised to read that calling what's happening a "crisis" is POV. I want to mention that here in Quebec, every medias call it a "political crisis". Personally, I think it's more a "crisis" then a "dispute". Procule (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly become a crisis, but it wasn't at the start except for the one side. A lot changed in the last 72 hours. But don't forget taht because the media brand it a crisis doesn't mean that they're correct in using the term; or were correct, as they are correct now. I sure wouldn't want to have Michaelle Jean's job today....talk abut sleepless nights.....Skookum1 (talk) 21:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I would not want to be GG neither ! But it think it has became somewhat a crisis after the speech of Harper Procule (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it could become a constitutional crisis if the PM asks her to do something and she rejects his advice. Nothing has happened yet except the formation of a coalition that is prepared to take over should the current government fail. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The media need to sell papers and/or attract eyeballs, and the word "crisis" is more likely to help them do so than "dispute". PKT(alk) 21:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Frankly this is developing into a constitutional crisis regardless of what Jean decides (as there will be partisans unhappy but, more pertinently, making assumptions based on different interpretations) because the Westminster system operates on interlocking conventions that are self-contradictory, especially when it comes to the power, authority and rights of PMs around no confidence votes. Here in the UK at least there has been quite a bit of scholarly debate about whether in the Westminster system a PM can automatically get a dissolution after they've lost the confidence of the House or if the monarch/GG should first shop around for alternatives, whether there should be a particular minimum time between dissolutions and so forth, but most of it has been based on the assumption of an election producing a hung parliament where it's not 100% clear for a few days what will happen and who can get a majority before the Commons is actually sitting. The one case on this that I have seen generally criticised is King/Byng on the basis that King had not lost the confidence of the House when he was denied his dissolution request, but that may just be my reading.

The current Canadian situation is more obscure because Harper has previously got the confidence of the current House and a vote of no confidence doesn't specify the replacement government so an alternative can't actually be formally tested until it's in office (unlike Germany's "Constructive vote of no confidence" which locks the current government into place unless the Bundestag nominates a successor, thus allowing the President to evade controversy). Changing governments midway through Parliament doesn't have all that many precedents at national levels in other Commonwealth countries - the British ones in the last century all involved the existing ministry throwing in the towel or the key decisions being taken outside the Commons (1916, 1922, 1931, 1940, May 1945). There were three no-confidence votes in parliament, but the January 1924 one was on the Queen's speech and thus the first in that parliament, the October 1924 one brought down the alternative government formed and led to a general election, whilst the 1979 one did to (but it was clear that the Conservatives couldn't form an alternative government for the last few months anyway because of numerous small parties making up the no-conf majority. (The Irish 1994 precedent is less relevant still because it involves a formal vote in the Dail and Fianna Fail had changed leaders in the hope of rebuilding their coalition with Labour.) One possible precedent comes from Australia. They had several changes in the 1900s but that was before the party system settled down. However in the 1940-1943 parliament the numbers were so tight that two independents had the balance of power between the UAP-Country Coalition and Labor. In 1941 Robert Menzies found he had lost political support and resigned, with Arthur Fadden taking over at the head of the coalition. However the two independents disliked the way Menzies was treated and joined with Labor to bring down the government on the budget. Fadden resigned the same day (though I don't think he sought to recommend any alternative course of action), but the Governor General Lord Gowrie only commissioned Labor leader John Curtin as Prime Minister after personally seeing the independents and confirming they would support Labor in power and end the instability. Oh and Labor since the 1940 election had reunited with the breakaway Lang Labor party which is vaguely similar to the "parties uniting that were separate at the election"...

Everyone and their uncle probably "knows" the correct constitutional course of action and can find a scholarly authority to back them up so this article is very likely to get messy as people try to prove whatever happens as right or wrong. If we acknowledge that this is an area traditionally debated and that the circumstances of the day are going to be the deciding factor (in whatever direction) that should limit the edit wars (though I'd also recommend semi-protection because the worst problems come from anon ISPs who never read the talk pages or listen). Timrollpickering (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I really think that after what we have heard tonight, we should change the title of this article to "crisis" and not "dispute":

[Crisis]

1. A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point.
2. An unstable situation, in political, social, economic or military affairs, especially one involving an impending abrupt change. Procule (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You see a lot of journalists these days using phrases like "ongoing crisis", which doesn't really make sense since a crisis involves an impending "abrupt change" as cited above. As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia has the responsibility to use linguistically correct words. Facts and claims may need to be verifiable in order to obtain neutrality, but I really don't see why the overly sensational terms of journalists should be more important than the definition from a dictionary. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 17:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wording of images

"Coalition leaders Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe."

While the BQ are going to support a coalition government, especially on all confidence matters, they are specificaly not going to be part of any coaltition government. Perhaps the wording should be "Opposition leaders"? Singularity42 (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's still not right which is why I changed it to Coalition leaders in the first place; coalition members maybe? The reason is there's only ONE "Opposition leader" aka "Leader of the Opposition". If Wikipedia and CanStyle consistently used capitalization it might not be so confusing, but the reality is there's only one "Leader" of the Opposition" or "opposition leader" - "leaders of the opposition parties" might work, but note small caps throughout and also inclusion of "parties" and "opposition" as an adjective rather than a noun.Skookum1 (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Duceppe is not a member of the coalition though. Agreed on other points. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Member" ain't quite right either, as all MPs in those parties are members of the coalition, not just those two....are we agreed on "leaders of teh opposition parties"?Skookum1 (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, everyone else is labelled by their position, GG, PM, and now leaders of the opposition parties. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Absence of bias

I expected this article to completely smell like ass. Surprisingly, it doesn't. Well done to all concerned. I think there is a faint whiff of pro-coalition bias but that is likely the "fault", if any is to be attached, of the sources - as I think the media would love to see this happen. Well done by all editors, in any event.139.48.25.60 (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, to me a lot of it smells like tory ass, and some of the media seem just as much anti-Coalition, especially n their selection of various "man on the street" stuff. So you see it the one way, I see it the other; this is a sign that it's managing to be as neutral as it can be. AS for it seeming pro-coalition, that may just be because the coalition position is the rational one , rather than the emotional.....but again, you probably feel exactly the opposite. On the other hand, I haven't seen any signs of dishonest edits by Liberal or NDP supporters, only by Tory supporters (see above in "Scope of article" section). One side's wrapping themselves in the Constitution, the other one's wrapping themselves in the flag while trying to burn the Constitution.....and there, granted, I'm being POV but paraphrasing what several commentators (some of them Tories not in support of the govt) have said in the course of the day, sorry can't provide a quote, when I can, it'll go on the main page....and if you can find evidence of NPOV edits on Tory pages by Lib/NDP supporters, please advise; as yet, again, we've only seen that coming from the Tory side, adn that's not our fault.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You're completely off your rocker if you think the Conservatives are being "emotional" or if this power grab is anything but. However, having dealt with you on other talk pages, and knowing it is irrelevant to editing this article, I won't waste my time further on you. Suffice to say I think you're dead wrong on these ridiculous assumptions you've just made.139.48.25.60 (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Assumptions? What assumptions? I'm just reporting/observing what's out there...if you find the truth POV, then I suggest you adjust your perception of the truth to fit reality. Which is what's meant by "If thine eye offend thee, strike it out". I burned my partisan bridges a long time ago; you shoudl try it, it's quite healthy, and good for the mind.Skookum1 (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at your user contributions all the way back into 2007; and don't see a single article that I remember having any contre-temps in with anyone. In fact, I don't see any articles I recall editing at all. You were, perhaps, postign from a different IP? Or are you jsut going "I've haerd about you, I don't want to play with you, you're mean"? Accusation is not guilt in Wikipedia, espeically if there's no facts behind it...what articles are you talking about?Skookum1 (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that Harper sent a letter to the GG when he was in opposition to Martin's government asking her to consider giving him a chance to seek the confidence of the House should Martin's government fall. And this interview where he says "that's not how our constitutional system works. The government has a minority - it has an obligation to demonstrate to Canadians that it can govern. That it can form a majority in the House of Commons. If it can't form a majority, we look at other options, we don't just concede to the government's request to make it dysfunctional. I know for a fact that Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton and the people who work for them want this Parliament to work and I know if is in all of our interests to work. The government has got to face the fact it has a minority, it has to work with other people." but I don't think that can be put in the article without be unbalanced. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, uh, well, the truth is often unbalanced .... especially when it's the kind of material you've just pointed out. Adn now that you have, it's highly NPOV not'' to include it in the main article....in the "background" section perhaps. Sorry I cant help but laugh, but it's true. We can't keep things out to remain "balanced" if that amounts to suppressing it. Politicians' words in Opposition always come back to haunt them in Government.....Paul Martin is probably chuckling into his beer, I'd imagine.....and I wonder what we might have from the Clark adn Trudeau coalitions. Minority government politics in Canada or some such title might be a good thing, given teh range of minority government history; Deif v. Pearson also provides some good meat, as I recall, though exactly what escapes me just now...and what might there be in teh history of minority governments in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which I recall having had some in recent years. (relatively recent years, I'm getting on, it may have been a couple of decades ago)..Skookum1 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think using that would be unbalanced, so long as we provide context. Heck, we should also find the Liberal response to that (from that time, of course), and contrast to the current positions of all parties involved. This could get fun... Mindmatrix 21:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already fun....and my headache's gone away, though I haven't done anything else in real life today as a result...I think having a lot of experienced editors patrolling these pages has made the stress of last night abate somewhat....Skookum1 (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If we could get a Liberal response from that time that would be perfect. I have now mentioned the Harper/Layton/Duceppe letter in passing in the Governor Generals role section concerning former GG Clarkson's view and memoirs. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

When I compiled the list for the "Scope of article" section, I was simply presenting information that was missing from the article. While some may represent the bias of the individuals or parties in question, the point was to incorporate it in NPOV terms. I think the anon was simply stating that, for the most part, this article is free of editorialisation (I agree), and it has a marginal lean toward the coalition (which it may, as the anon said, be based on the sources). As an aside to that, it may also reflect the fact that most political scholars et al interviewed about this say there's absolutely nothing wrong with the process of the proposed coalition following a motion of non-confidence. Mindmatrix 21:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That's it exactly. You nailed what I was saying. As for lingering bias, I was thinking stuff like the article implies there was no stimulus package offered. Well, the Finance Minister said he is prepared to offer stimulus in future, but the GDP just went UP, if marginally, and we are rock solid right now compared to the Americans, so panicking and spending like drunken sailors is not the course to take. 30 billion dollars is a lot of money to throw at a problem that doesn't exist. I don't have a source for that, naturally. ;-) 139.48.25.60 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the media cares what the result is, so long as it drags on and they have their talking points. I'm surprised how little it took to label this a "crisis" and "controversy", given that it's nothing more than precedural politicking. If anything, it demonstrates that Canadian politicians have become an increasingly whiny bunch. Then again, perhaps this was always so, and I simply failed to notice. (And just what does Sheila Copps have to say about this, anyway?) Mindmatrix 21:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Now there's a name I haven't heard in a while.....also to observe that it's interesting how driven the country is by this controversy, given their lackadaisical/cynical/apathetic behaviour during the election campaign and low turn-out etc. "We" didn't care about the election, but we sure care about Parliamentary propriety. Quelle étrange/How strange.....I suppose the clincher in terms of public concern may come in the form of turnouts at the respective rallies in the next few days...re Copps, there's other old guard politicians on the media - Ed Broadbent's interview has been replayed a number of times on CBC Newsworld today.....Mulroney is conspicuous by his silence...it's well-known he doesn't like Harper very much.....further thought: I'm wondering what the "foreign" language press in the country might be saying, I can check the Indo-Canadian Times, which has an English edition, and will scan Kanada-Kurier and Das Echo but my German's not so good...there's also a large italian weekly or two...just as me curious as to how much "new Canadians" are hot and bothered about this as much as the English media/population...and we should possibly try and source some reportage from Quebec - Procule can you help with that? And how is all this playing out in French-language Wikipedia? And does anyone here read Chinese? I'd be curiosu to read what's in the Chinese-language papers......Skookum1 (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to help in a French article. Is there one yet about what's happening ? I have not found one. What's happening in Quebec is very different from the ROC. 75% are FOR a coalition while it is not that in the ROC. There is also an important theme coming up here: Quebec bashing. Sovereignists (or separatists if you want) are really divided about the Bloc. Some says it will help the cause while others says it will hurt it since Duceppe is "sleeping" with Dion, one of the central person of the Clarity Act. This article is clearly about the ROC view of the "crisis" and I think we should include a Quebec section view in this article since the Bloc is big actor here. Procule (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So's Alberta LOL......hey look Procule, as I gather you're a francophone (moi, je suis un mort vivant...) could you give us a precis of differences between this article and the one on French wikipedia, and maybe could you provide the interwiki link to the other title. And what is the French title, by the way?Skookum1 (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to reference the french article on Wikipedia if you want me to help. Procule (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to find it; is there a French version of WP:Canada or WP:Quebec? Maybe a good place to ask, and/or look...Skookum1 (talk) 07:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just created a stub French article, unsourced with some text from the Governor General's French article if anyone wants to help work on it. Basser g (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The McInnes "precedents"

Just for your edification and also because it bears on the "precedents" section, though I'm in no mood to distill it, here's the passage from Thomas Robert McInnes about his triple-whammy of L-G reserve powers usage; if soembody would care to boil this down and add ito to the article I'd say it's suitable:

McInnes’ term as Lieutenant Governor was often stormy as he twice dismissed Premiers and appointed successors who were controversial. A party system was only emerging in the province at the time and it was often unclear which members commanded support. Following the 1898 provincial election, incumbent Premier John Herbert Turner refused to resign, despite having only minority support. McInnes asked former Premier Robert Beaven to form a government, despite not having a seat in the legislature. There were rumours at the time that McInnes had asked Beaven that his son, William Wallace Burns McInnes, a federal Member of Parliament, be included in his cabinet. Beaven was unable to secure support for a government; four days later McInnes asked incumbent Opposition Leader Charles Augustus Semlin to form a government. Premier Semlin lost a no-confidence motion by one vote in 1900. McInnes then asked Attorney-General Joseph Martin to form a government, despite little support in the legislature, which fell on another no-confidence motion, 30-1. McInnes made another controversial choice, asking James Dunsmuir the heir of a powerful business family, to become Premier. Prime Minister Wilfrid Laurier had finally become exhausted with McInnes and replaced him with Henri-Gustave Joly de Lotbinière, a cabinet minister from Quebec. McInnes thus became the only Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia dismissed from the office.

William Rayner tells it rather better in his book on BC scandals, as it's a lot more sordid esp. McInnes' close ties to Martin and the end of the Martin regime, which was rather spectacular; Martin had accepted appointment as Premier and then not convened the House; that 30-1 vote was after 6 months of ruling without a sitting of teh House, and was t he immediate effect of being forced, finally, to call it into session. BC at its most twisted. Because all governments in BC before 1903 were effectively "coalitions of independents" the only relevance here is to reserve powers precedents, not to minority governments. The WAC Bennett "succession" in 1952 may be relevant though I'll look into it, i.e. as to what the L-G did. I'll also be back about what Bob Rogers had to do in 1983 when Bill Bennett ignored the constitution/British Columbia Act.........Skookum1 (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I think you can blame me for the writing on the McInnes article. Sorry. =) I did that back when a bunch of dead BC MPs still did not have articles. But I was thinking that this is similar to the situation in 1873 when Mackenzie replaced Macdonald in the same Parliament. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Elimination of public subsidies

I'm not sure why this information was deleted from the article, but I'm adding it back in because I feel that it's vital to understanding the whole picture. Esn (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Good you caught that, ESn...do yo mind hunting back in the edit history to see who took it out? Inquiring minds want to know....it's a core issue but perhaps someone thought it was "unbalanced", or at any rate wants it forgotten....Skookum1 (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've taken it back out, reluctantly to be sure, because there is no source that that was the reason. If this can be sourced I would prefer it be put back in properly sourced:

Another reason for rejection was the elimination of public subsidies, as this would have dramatically worsened the financial situations of the opposition parties compared to the Conservatives. The Conservatives received 37% of their funds from public funding in 2007, the NDP 57%, the Liberals 63%, the Green Party 65% and the Bloc Quebecois 86%.

DoubleBlue (talk) 23:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've re-added it as a suspected reason with a reference but it only says, "Liberals were simmering over the lack of economic stimulus in a document they saw as attacking women, minorities and working people, as well as ending public funding of political parties." which is a bit weak. Is there any other reference that says the fed funding cuts were the reason for the coalition? DoubleBlue (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly certain I saw an article that suggested this was the case on a webforum I have been debating this on. Let me see if I can find it. Resolute 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Added a link to a story from the Epoch Times. Also of note, it is one of a growing number of stories that are using the word "coup" in either the url, title or body. Resolute 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Coup is clearly sensationalist and untrue. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To me, the spreading use of th at term is maybe not so much a sign of the effecivenes of Tory propaganda as such, but of the weakn ess of the language in recent years; using terms with "fuzzy meanings" is something that hte soundbite culture has caused; using a thesaurus as if it were a dictionary. The Epoch Times used that? Hmmm...they're an intersting paper, if overtly Falun Gong in tone at times when reporting on China...their "Ten Great Lies" series of whatever it was called was a classic critique of the CCP and PRC.... Still, like "crisis" it's a word that sells papers, i.e. "sensation is good for readership".Skookum1 (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Would you lay off the "Tory propaganda" bit already? The more you rail against it, the more you appear heavily biased towards the left. I don't see you railing against left wing propaganda, such as the ridiculous claim that 62% of Canadians voted for these parties, ergo 62% support this coalition. Resolute 00:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, since the Tories are saying "Canadians want a Tory government" when clearly 62% of them didn't on October 14 is the easy response to that.....Skookum1 (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No relevance. You have been extremely vocal about anything that resembles "Tory Propaganda" in your mind, yet completely silent on "coalition propaganda". As you say, we're the ones that need to maintain NPOV. Harper, Dion and the rest are not under the same rules we are. Resolute 01:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

[undent]That's because I haven't seen/heard any Coalition propaganda. Perhaps you could point to an example. Just now on Newsworld Jim Prentice opened his comments by calling the coalition "a separatist coalition". Not "a coalition with separatists in it", which isn't even true either. How 'bout I just start saying "Tory misrepresentations and distortions", since "propaganda" means "speaking towards" and is really about all kinds of supportive information, not just the distorted kind. And perhaps you could explain to me why Harper said "separatists" in his English speech, and souveraintistes in his French one? (a term which includes teh provincial Liberals in Quebec, please note). And if you can point to the kind of political deletions and additions that Tory supporters have been making on the various s articles observed by Bearcat somewhere else on this page, please do so. And why on John Baird's article there were [Category:Multicultural and ethnic newspapers published in Canada Harper-friendly edits related to the events] and news of an incipient Tory leadership race was deleted? Seriously - where can you point to me efforts by NDP and Liberal-oriented editors to put in false information or inappropriate links or delete materials on Tory pages?? If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck OK? The Tories are engaging in tried-and-true propaganda techniques. I have yet to be shown anything remotely similar, or anything anywhere near as dishonest (if dishonest at all) by another of the other gropus in the equation.Skookum1 (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There is an entire section in the article discussing how the mythical 62% figure comes about without any counter commentary about how the opposition side finds it invalid. You know, balance. Resolute 02:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Did I make that section? Maybe, it's been 72 hours of mayhem. Why didn't you bring balance then? Why blame me?? The truth is often not balanced - especially when one side ls lying and fear-mongering as the Tories are doing; and it wasn't just Prentice, it was a bunch of them including Harper in the House, using "separatist coalition" as if Dion and Layton and their parties were separatists. it's not my fault if they're spewing lies, but it's my "job" to make sure those lies do not go unreported.Skookum1 (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Job" in quotes because I'm unemployed; just to clarify I'm not a professional spin doctor....nor am getting a paycheque from the propaganda departments of any of the coalition parties.Skookum1 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And just thinking of the metaphor of "balance", there's a famous scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail that's very apt - "Ducks float, and witches float, so if she weighs the same as a duck, she's a witch. Burn the witch! Burn the witch!" That's the argument you're using, basically. Show me some coalition PROPAGANDA and I'll call it Coalition propaganda. To their credit, if it's out htere, it's nowhere near so blatant or ugly, but they don't seem to need it to distort and fear-monger, and they don't have a list of buzzwords/talking-points that they recite in answer to any question asked of them....it's not my doing that the Tories are doing that, it's their doing.Skookum1 (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, your bias is now clearly exposed, Skookum. Ultimately, your proclaimed neutrality was as flimsy as a house of cards. You are doing good work, so far, but my caution is simply to avoid letting your own biases affect the article as much as it has affected your talk page messages. Resolute 04:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL your own biases have been on display for quite a while now, whether on this talkpage or judgement calls you've made in/re the article. My only bias is for the truth, and I asked you for some - where's the Coalition propaganda to balance the "Tory propaganda" you claim doesn't exist, yet I just gave a series of examples of it, and waht propaganda is. One I know well and have seen lots is "if you can't face the facts, go for the personal attacks" which you continue to do here, as I jsut asked you for the other POV to the observations in the media that the Tories have been misrepreesenting and distorting the facts; to whit, that was the subject of the Don Newman-Jim Prenitce interview tonight, and the panel with Andrew Coyne and Cnantal Hebert in it, and also in all the commentators commenting on teh PM's speech. They may not use the term "propaganda" directly but they do use "buzzwords", "talking points", and "well he said that, but it's just not true". Just like he said "You voted for me" when that comment only applies to 38.65% of the population, and I'm not the oen who made up that figure, it's reality. You have been repeating Tory buzzwords and Tory arguments throughout, though very politely, granted; but when I started observing a little too much truth, you went after me, which is a classic propaganda technique, as just stated "when you don't like the facts, bring out the axe" as I've heard it put. All I'm doing is relaying what's in teh media about what the Tories are saying vs what reality is; you're claiming I'm being POV in doing that, or in noting that the use of inflammatory arguments, fear-mongering, and outright fabrications and lies are classic propaganda techniques; and I'm not the one who reported that the Tories tonight have started using words like "treason" and "sedition" in reference to the Coalition; taht was the CBC Anchor and at least two commentators. So bite the bullet and face it - "balance" does not mean "giving both sides equal weight" when one is clearly untrue- "balance" means "stating the truth fairly". And the truth is that a lot of what the Tories have been saying doesn't jibe with reality, and a lot of teh heated invective and outright fear-mon gering - again, words commoonly used in the press, and by academics and scholars and pundits of all kinds, not just by me - those are 'propaganda techniques. All you'r doing is trying to do is cast aspersion on my motoives, as if yours were pure, as a way to detract from the points I've raised that are already covered in the media. It doesnt' change the facts of it that I noted that a witchhunt is waht teh whole thing is sounding like - "traitors to CAnada" and such, and inciting an angry hostility among Tory supporters by ethinci fear adn hate-mon gering; in fact raising the Alberta Separatist Party as something likely to prosper "if we sell out to Quebec" is just a double-whammy of fear-mongering; this, too, was pointd out in more than one interview/panel tonight and it will be in more than one paper tomorrow. I'm not t he one responsible for this, I'm only reporting it, and pointing it out to you as obvious fact. What's the balance to obvious fact - obvious lies? You figure it out, and find me some lies and ppropaganda-style hate-mnongering of the kind we're hearing from the Governmetn bench but from the NDP and Liberals and Bloc. I aksed you that more than once; and each time rather than answer you've attacked me for being POV. While pretending to be NPOV.....no wonder I went for a walk. The truth is not two-sided, Resolute - "balance" does not mean giving falsehood equal time to substantiated fact, and it does not mean silencing those who raise criticism of the government already made in the media and not of small import either. I asked you for information; you attacked me, wrapping yourself in Wikiquette; all I did was ask you to bring up "balance" by giving examples of lies told by the Liberals and NDP that were equivalent to those being told (loudly, and repeatedly) by the Tories. Instead you attack me, and no doubt will do so again. I'm asking for facts, you're trying to pick a fight....and that, too, is a propaganda technique. Not that you're a propagandist, but you've certainly been affected by the culture of the POV in question; as I noted at teh start fo this reply, your accusation that I have a bias when your own is so clear is....well, just too typical of politics, and why I went and played music for two hours....Skookum1 (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time reading your full blog entry. We're all biased, Skookum. Don't forget it. In my experience, those who proclaim their impartiality the loudest are always the ones who are, in fact, the most biased or partisan. My only point is that your constant, repeated and exhaustive whining about "propaganda" that is opposed to your viewpoint becomes tiring. Your POV is very, very clear. We don't need three talk page posts a day whining about "Tory propaganda". If it doesn't belong in the article, remove it. If a specific user or IP is constantly introducing what you view as POV, report it. Just stop wasting everyone's time with all of this proselytizing. Resolute 15:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Not going to waste [your] time reading [my] full blog entry. LOL, it's not a blog entry, it's calling you on your duplicity and own obvious bias; that I'm habitually long-winded (as Bearcat can attest) doesnt' escape the FACT that I make a lot of sense, or the FACT that you have an obvious bias against the Coalition and have been actively defending and using Tory "talking points". I'm not a blogger, this is not a blog, this is a Wikipedia talkpage. all you're really saying with this reply is you don't want to listen and you STILL haven't provided any response to my request that you DO provide the balance you claim is absent from my pionting out that hte Tories have been using classic propaganda techniques. You refuse to provide them, and now slag me for blogging and other forms of personal attack, instead of providing the answers/"balance" that you claim I haven't. That's because you can't, and you're refusing to answer and, once again, are wrapping yourself in the wiki flag. "Your POV is very, very clear" Resolute, very very clear, as well as your technique of attacking me instead of providing answers to the very questions you yourself asked. Accusing me of "proeslytizing" because I'm listing off the various ways in which Tory spoksemen and supporters have been distorting facts - as documented by the news media - is evidence to me of your interest in silencing truth; that's YOUR oonly agenda, and it's YOU who are the waste of time.Skookum1 (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Refusing to read my reply to your challenges is just a way for you to refuse the validity of the truths I offer; refusing to read, or admit to, the truth, is just another way of trying to silence it. Claiming that I am a blogger is just another personal attack; you have no wik-balls - I asked you to provide the balance to the poitns I amde, and you have been unable to provide them because they do not exist, and instead denounce me for blogging, and refuse to read my response to your attacks. Show me the money, Resolute - prove to me that there is an equivalent level of distortion and hate-mongering coming from teh Liberal-NDP side. That's what I'm asking; you don't want to answer, so you attack me and say I'm "not worth reading". A late friend of mine used to say "a mind is like a box. If you leave it open, good things get put into it. If you keep it shut, nothing gets put into it.' Enjoy your closed mind, I'm sure it's very comfortable in there....shutting out reality doesn't make it go away. Have a nice day.Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ont that counting the popular vote section. That way [added by an IP and was part of a huge POV addition. With some reservations, I radically edited it but, perhaps assuming too much good faith, tried to keep some of the intent of the context without the POV. It still does seem a little strange being there and I assumed it would undergo further improvements or removal. I wouldn't object in the least to to it being removed. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

POV edits at John Baird (Canadian politician)

Checking up on someone who'd broken in half my post at Talk:Stephen Harper I thought innocently but in retrospect perhaps to make theri comments seem as if they were mine, I followed the IP address to the User contributions for John Baird (Canadian politician) which ahd been mentioned in the newly posted material. I found this edit which while containing important information that we haven't heard before also is written in a hghly POV style/content. It appears an incipient Tory leadership race is also in the wings right now; heard it before but here we see some active signs of it. would someone else care to take that edit on? My hands are already full, though I'll start a setion here on "Other articles in need of watching".Skookum1 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This seems more like someone trolling (that is, pretending to be the opposing side to make them look bad). As I said below, I edited that page a bit to make it more sane, though I'm not sure I got all of it. Esn (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Cyber-warfare

Removing this here, as it doesn't really have a place in the article. The source itself would be good for a proper section about the on-line reaction, but an external link dump is not appropriate, imo. Resolute 00:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands of posts on the news websites, and thousands of paid posters posting on blogs and on articles. There are new websites being created by both sides, including:

Then you should have left in the first part, I will put that back. Please expand and clarify it instead of removing the entire entry. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because, aside from the fact that "Cyber warfare" is POV, a one sentence sub-stub section with no context is not a benefit to the article. I removed it to the talk page in the hopes that someone with the time to do so would be able to use the source as part of a proper section, not simply return it to the article as the same useless sub-stub. Resolute 02:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In the time it took you to type that I have greatly expanded the section. I invite you to assist in expanding the main article, there is a great deal of newsmedia on this subject that can be brought into the article if you are so inclined. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am adding where I can. Your efforts at expansion are appreciated. Resolute 05:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent re-ordering of sections and additon of popular vote section

An IP recently re-ordered some sections of the article and added sections on adding up popular vote counts in the last election and one entitled False claims regarding popular vote and party support. I completely removed the False claims one as irretrievably POV and attempted to re-word the popular vote counting one to be more NPOV (but I'm not sure it belongs at all). The re-ordering confuses me a bit. Now we have an additional section on "Official responses" but we already have a "Formation of the coalition" and "Government response" section. Oughtn't they be merged? DoubleBlue (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I get some reaction and opinion from others here. It looks like a dog's breakfast to me now with multiple response sections. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that section is all over the place, take a crack at combining, and I will too. I just did a quick combine on the leader speeches. More can be done though. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've moved some of the pieces to more appropriate sections. Let me know if you like what I did. I think the clean up is going well. --Clausewitz01 (talk) 02:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you. I was unsure about the best approach. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Schreyer's opinion

As a former G-G, Ed Schreyer's opinion on the situation would seem to be relevant to the article....a friend summarized an interview with Don Newman as:

Ed Schreyer (former Governor General of Canada) was on Don Newman's program explaining what a GG could and couldn't do. Schreyer said there's no point trying to influence the GG as they are strictly bound by the protocols of Parliament (Westminster model) which, he said, is very, very clear and simple. She will have to interpret the laws of precedence, without fear and/or favour, regardless of how she may "feel".

I don't know where that interview is, but a mention/summary of it should probably go in the "Powers of the G-G section".Skookum1 (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Related articles in need of watching

This is a listing of articles which have been noted as having dishonest/POV edits in relation to the subject of this article. Please do not debate these in this section, it's meant only for reference/compilation purposes, though feel free to add other articles and preferably link to the edits in question (though I haven't here, basically I'm copying the initial list here over from the WP:Canada talkpage where they were brought up by Bearcat, who observed that all of them (other than J. Baird, which I added to the list) were from Saskatchewan government domains:

• Joyce Murray ([4])
• Bob Rae ([5])
• Ujjal Dosanjh ([6])
• Ralph Goodale ([7])
• Scott Andrews ([8])
• Malcolm Allen ([9])
• John Baird ([10])

I'll add the relevant edits re each of the above articles as I have time to find them; again, if you know of others - and that would include cyber warfare it seems, and also reserve powers or wherever that directs to - Parliamentary session#reserve powers I think.Skookum1 (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To further note the five big obvious ones - Harper's, Dion's, Duceppe's, Layton's, Jean's - we already know about and are all watching...one woudl think so anyway.Skookum1 (talk) 02:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Geez, the John Baird page was just ridiculous. I've fixed it up a bit to make that section more in line with Wikipedia's policies. Esn (talk) 03:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I dknow, I didnd't want to touch it, I've been busy enough with all this...thanks for fixing it up some. The IP address that originated from is in Yarmouth NS< whatever connection that might have to him; "somebody who cares" anyway. BTW for any admin reading this, I'm just speculating that this talkpage, if not this article, might be one of the most rapidly-growing in wikipedia's history; is there any way to source that? Thinking of throwing the subject of the consensual creation/management of the article by a reporter or two, i.e. not on a partisan count, just out of interest in terms of Wikipedia's role in charting public events and the "vibrancy" and resilience of the Wiki community. Wikipedia takes a lot of hits in the media for being puff'n'fluff, but it's situations like this where its true value is shown/earned. More on this later, I need to eat and get out of the house; I've been in the house and "at this" since I got up...14 hours ago...Skookum1 (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"one of the most rapidly-growing in wikipedia's history"? No, I can remember far more rapidly-growing talk pages than this one. This is fairly tame, considering. Now the Georgia-Russia crisis, that was something... Esn (talk) 04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Or the flood of people asking for images removed from the Muhammad article after an online petition hit the Muslim world. That one actually generated two talk pages that grew far faster than this. Resolute 05:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that would be the case with that issue...and things like active wars; was Wikipedia a going concern during 9-11...not quite yet, I suppose...well, certainly among Canadian articles anyway, and I can see that there must have been some rapid-fire high-volume stuff going on in the U.S. campaign like Sarah Palin and the talkpage there, and at times the Talk:Tibet page grew fairly rapidly, depending on what was going on; Mumbai bombings, wherever that redirects to, is probably huge already....but among Canadian articles...was it this busy during the election and its lead-up?Skookum1 (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Poorly written

To the person copying/writing sources explaining the process by which Harper would approach the G.G: the sentences are nearly rambling they're so long. Reading them makes for an arduous exercise, and any first-year English major would suggest immediate revision. Seriously - become familiar with a period, semi-colon or colon!99.226.181.149 (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. I anxiously await your revision. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's great that it's written at all and want to thank the people who did it for a timely and interesting contribution. I wasn't bothered by the sentence structure, but I'd far rather have a little rambling than no artile at all. - Robyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.216.41 (talk) 17:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To our anonymous friend, I'd like to stress that there's absolutely no value in criticizing other people's writing styles on Wikipedia unless you're personally prepared to fix what you perceive as bad writing. Wikipedia has what's called the WP:SOFIXIT rule: since anyone, including you, can personally edit an article, there's no good reason to criticize other people's work when you have both the right and the ability to fix it yourself if it so grievously offends your sensibilities. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The course of speculation

This skirts dangerously close to OR or synthesis, but in listening to the three-way panel on CBC tonight and the talk of a "prorogation with conditions", i.e. day-to-day government only, like during the emergency warrants period in British Columbia (.

The idea that the panel brought up is for only "day-to-day governing to go on; unless - fifth possibility - the election is called in January adn w're into a Xmas campaign - which Harper would lose, ggiven the publlic's mood) "Anything can happen in six weeks" was Chantal Hebert's comment, referring to the Coalition breaking up from within in such a period of time, but again that's her speculation not mine, I'm just reporting this; there doesn't seem time for hte organizing of a United Progressive Party of some name or other ("Democratic Party" someone I blog with has proposed; and he's a commie and proud of it, just thinks it's inevitable, just as Reform and Alliance had to become CRAP and then the Conservative Party as it is now; mergence on "the left" would have the same shutting-out effect on the right, nationally, as it did in British Columbia as the unification of right and right-centre parties had in BC from Coalition years on down; minority rule, always unliked by the majority of the people who didn't vote for them, will always eventaully result when there's three or more parties in the equation; it's why European countries have run-off elections in many cases, to make it clear who people do and don't want). So the idea, as it seems to be evolving," is to give to Harper a chance to earn the confidence of the House and hope the Coalition breaks down; my own speculations I'll keep to myself, I'm just trying to describe the situation as it came out of the panel's description of what will go down.

The reason I brought this up is because there's been a "history of speculations" in what we've charted; it's even in our own edits; but with this new shift in what may come of things it occurred to me there's definitely a chronology of such commentaries....I know, close to synthesis but it's not really; just a tracking of the perceptions as they changed, just like mapping the opinionscape by geography and language and such. The phrase "history on the making" is all over ht media, and the point is there's a course of events, and part of the events are the speculations, and the course of them, how they cahnged and grew; and maybe turn out completely wrong, as they may tomorrow morning. I brought this up because as a community, which we are in our curious way, we are charting the evolution of the perceptions of hte crisis, all in one place; the document itself is a form of "active synthesis" and very interesting. So....simplifying my point here, hopefully, teh "first appearance" of given dieas and terms in each case - the provenance by timedate stamp in the media/here -. I know you can't quote wiki edits as sources, badn I don't mean a synthetic section on all the possibilities - which has evolved anyway -

"And without your vote" he says, which is quite wrong, just now; it's like saying that George Bush won the popular vote in 2000; he won the electoral/presidential selection process, or played a great hand of cards maybe as a lot was bluff - Gore could have pushed for a more openly democratic equation - "And without your vote", he says...sorry, just on TV as I write this, 12:04am Halifax time according to my computer; "Traitor, treason and sedition" mentioend as part of new Conservative buzzwords on CBC also, also 12:04AM). I know I know this is not a blog, I'm not meaning to opinionate, just been keeping watch...going for my walk and play some tunes.

"The course of speculation has grown...etc" is the idea, and of course it doesn't have to be anywhere near as elaborate as I'd write it :-). I'll migrate this later somewhere, for now "just sharing". Seen a lot of politics over the years, haven't seen much like this....the rise of the Alberta Separation Party ("ASP", charming acronym...) has gotten a lot of press too...and I wish they'd stop talking about "the West" and "Albertans" as if they meant the same thing....Skookum1 (talk)

Mentioning provincial coalition precedents

I added back the section about provincial precedents, because many, particularly the Ontario 1985 example, have been mentioned as precedents for this situation by many commentators. I thought I'd take the question of whether to keep the section or not to the talk page. Thoughts? Esn (talk) 04:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Some examples them being mentioned as precedent: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. (just some random recent links from a Google news search, there are many others) Esn (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, it just seems like it's not really necessary information. If they are going to be kept, least do something to link it to the current situation rather than just making it a list of coalitions. After all, this article is not called coalition governments in Canada. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 04:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the 1985 Ontario link is fairly obvious; a Conservative government with a plurality of seats being brought down by Liberals with the support of the NDP, who then proceeded to govern for two years. Esn (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Reserve powers

The precedents section should list occasions when provincial Lieutenant Governors have exercised their powers... they keep mentioning Ontario in the news afterall. And from other Commonwealth countries with GGs... and if the King/Queen did it in Britain. 76.66.194.58 (talk) 07:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

1975 Australia

Since people coming to Wikipedia are not necessarily Canadian, I fail to see why linking a "See also" section to 1975 Australian constitutional crisis is inappropriate, if they're looking at the function of Westministerian Parliamentary democracies, I should think it's a highly relevant see also, since it's a dismissal of a sitting Prime Minister! 76.66.194.58 (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's very relevant. This is perhaps the biggest decision by the Queen or her representative in any of the 4 major Commonwealth nations (Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand) since 1975. Any other examples? There may be some from Sri Lanka. Nfitz (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

• I added a reference to the Australian precedent - but people are deleting, despite no objections here. Can someone explain why precedents in other Westminster democracies shouldn't be mentioned, given there are no precedents in Canada? Nfitz (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the section is okay, but if people oppose it for whatever reason, it should be at least be brought up in See also. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Calling MPs "traitors", firebombed signs

I'd like to find some way to incorporate this into the article; the Conservatives are, to use a colloquialism, intentionally stirring up an angry mob, and I think a lot of us should be concerned about where this will lead.

(also, just as a curiosity, here are Harper's writings about the Bloc's role from 1996; he said "If Quebec stays in Confederation, the Bloc will either disintegrate or become an autonomist party, participating in federal politics as a representative of Quebec’s specific interests")

Esn (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems like it might get to the point of attempted murders of liberals and liberal supporters that happened in T.O. in the last election campaign... 76.66.194.58 (talk) 12:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

??? That's a bit of news that didn't get wide circulation. Can you cite a news item please. And Esn, you're all too very right, and it's very disturbing, especially some of the hot-headed yahoos in the extreme end of Toryism (and "Albertanism"); among all the precedents we're looking at we've mostly been looking in the British/Commonwealth parlaimentary system.....the image of the Reichstag Fire haunted me last night when I heard the Tory invocation of "sedition" and "treason" and other hate-mongering distortions...it's near-impossible to be NPOV about this; it's often forgotten that Hitler was elected, also in a minority situation initially....and began fabricating and circulating lies. Now, no doubt, somebody is going to loudly object that I'm being POV by making a comparison to the Reichstag putsch and the associated propaganda firestorm...all to back a legislative programme that not only stripped funding for other parties but also "went at" institutions like the right to strike. Anwyay I've just got up, waiting for the doors to Rideau Hall to open, and wondering not where this will end, because it won't end, but rather where it is going to go...and as I've said above repeatedly, "the only real NPOV is the truth", and that there's a difference between giving balance in an objective context, and giving equal time to propaganda and hate-mongering vs constitutional truths.Skookum1 (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Godwin's Law strikes again! Timrollpickering (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that the Reichstag was mentioned as a comparison just now by an MP being interviewed by Don Newman on CBC Newsworld, 12:10pm Halifax time, in case I'm challenged for "blogging" by mentioning the comparison. It's out there, as are so many other comparisons that some people say "aren't worth reading"....Skookum1 (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And actually, Timrollpickering, the Nazi analogy has been present all along, though without name-specifics, in all the Toryite claims of "anti-democratic" and "coup" and "dictatorship by G-G" and other imputations made to discredit the Coalition or to speculate on the situation; I may have been the first to name something to do with German history directly, but the indirect imputations have been there all along, coming from the Tory side....and before this now-crisis began, Nazi analogies re the Tories, particularly their extreme factions, have always been there....Skookum1 (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And somebody else, if not here then on Talk:Stephen Harper or on the WP:Canada talkpage, had already used teh term "December coup", a reference to the Decembrists in Russian political history (an equivalent comparison, though not as rancoroous) in reference to the Coalition.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It really amuses me how it's always the conservatives around the world who call the leftists "fascists" and "nazis". Fascism is an extreme-right ideology. It's even more amusing when they call someone a fascist one moment and a commie right after that. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Skookum1 "Can you cite a news item please" - it's all on the 2008 federal election page; the brake lines of Liberal supporter's cars were cut during the night in Toronto (including one Liberal senator), causing some near misses. Esn (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

What the article would have to explain

In order for this article to make any sense to non-Canadians, it would have to be explained why this is a crisis. For people from Europe, the whole thing looks insane - in Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway and many other modern democracies, coalition governments are very common. That a united opposition with the majority in parliament agrees to form a coalition government is the usual way politics work in most countries with a long history of democracy. Harper's attempts to stop this by asking the GG to prorogue, if not explained, looks close to a fascist power-grab to many people - a prime minister who has lost the support of the parliament but instead of facing the consequences asks for parliament to be shut down so that he can continue to govern, that would be a coup in most democracies and would be sure to land the person in question either in prison or in charge of a one-party state. Now, having lived in Canada for many years, I do understand the situation differently, but believe when I say that this is the way at least European readers will interpret the article. I'll be happy to help in the work myself, but I'm not an expert on the finer details of Canada's constitution. I'll be happy to engage in a discussion about how to explain this so that it makes sense to as many readers as possible. JdeJ (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Canada is not Europe, coalition governments here are extremely rare. Rare as in "happened only one or twice" (back in the 1926s or so I think, under Robert Borden). I agree that it looks insane to have a crisis because 62% overthrows 38%, and IMO it is, but the party with the most votes (38%) wants to keep power, so uses inflammatory arguments such as "it's undemocratic for coalitions to overthrow a minority government" and "Democracy is under threat", and other similar emotion-appealing remarks (I'm paraphrasing BTW). Another thing is the party (right-leaning) in power has rarely been in power and finally has a change to implement right-leaning policies, and perceives this as an attack from the "left", and believe they are "sore losers". The thing is, Canada's demographics are left-leaning, and do represent the majority. So in this crazy Canada, where people are not used to coalitions, this is viewed as "ganging up" on the "'legitimate' ruling party". Even thought this is all perfectly legal and constitutional.

Another aspect is the GG. Traditionally, the GG does whatever is asked of him/her by the PM. But the GG has the constitutional responsability to have a working government in place. So the GG is stuck between upholding tradition and prorogate the session, even thought it means that there's no government no parliamentary session for two months, after which the Harper government has a good chance of being defeated, and following the will of the majority of MPs.

I hope that made things clearer. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Prorogation doesn't mean there's no government at all — it just means Parliament isn't actually sitting. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In many of the European democracies you named, the national legislature is elected in some form of proportional representation, such that coalitions are effectively a necessity much of the time, whereas in a first past the post system such as Canada's, they're much rarer precisely because majority governments are the norm and parliaments where the governing party doesn't actually hold a majority of the seats are the exception. Bearcat (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

European readers perhaps though not British readers. Here there is little tradition of peacetime coalitions (and the exceptions were either parties that had all but formally merged or governments that no-one would seek to emulate) and on the rare occasions that we've had hung parliaments minor parties have found that any whif of creating a coalition brings deluges of complaints from voters that "we didn't vote for you to put/keep that party in power". So instead the largest single party forms the government, even if it's in a minority in the Commons. General elections are fought not as "elect a parliament and the parties will choose the government" but "elect a government" on a "winner takes all" basis, almost like a US Presidential election. For several opposition parties to get together, especially if they've explicitly ruled out a coalition during the most recent election, would be highly unusual. (When in the 1992 parliament the Conservative majority was lost through defections and by-election defeats, everybody expected that if the government lost the confidence of the Commons there would be a new election, not a new government in the same parliament. The same thing did happen in the October 1974 parliament where Labour eventually lost a confidence vote.)

As I understand it Canada is predominantly in the British tradition on this (so too is Australia if you count "the Coalition" as basically a single party with formal urban/rural wings), although hung parliaments are more common. So in line with this the attitude (on at least one side) runs something like "the Conservatives won the last election and have a mandate to govern", "nobody voted for the coalition as it wasn't put to the voters", "Dion couldn't get the electorate to put him power so he had resort to deals" and so forth.

The other key point is that in the Westminster system as practiced in Canada, the UK, Australia and other countries, there is a basic contradiction built in. The idea is that the prime minister (and their government) must be acceptable to the lower house but the prime minister (normally) has the power to get the lower house dissolved. So in a conflict between the two it's not automatic who will prevail. Strictly the power is actually held by the Governor General but normally only exercised on the prime minister's advice (and this is a hair that the dispute is splitting). So you have a situation where it's not 100% clear whether a defeat in a confidence vote should lead to a dissolution or a different government. And at the moment Harper hasn't yet lost the confidence of the house and has previously had it confirmed since the general election. So it's into unchartered territory.

A key difference from Germany is that there the constitution specifies that a government can only be voted out if the relevant motion (a Constructive vote of No Confidence) has both an absolute majority of Bundestag members and also nominates an alternative Chancellor. This saves the President from having to adjudicate. By contrast the Westminster system assumes that a new government can only be called together when the existing one dies - so the fact that a potential alternative government with a majority is less relevant in Canada than in Germany (and other countries who use that system).

Does any of that help towards an explanation? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Many good arguments and I agree with all of you. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, I'm well acquainted with Canadian politics and I don't have any problem understanding it myself - not more than any other person in Canada at least :-) The point I was trying to make is that we should have a section explaining the good arguments you've made to readers who aren't familiar with this system. JdeJ (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that all this should be added to the article, but with a couple more important bits. First off is that the Bloc isn't just another opposition party; it's a party that many English-speaking Canadians view as being fundamentally opposed to the very existence of Canada. Whether that's actually true is of course a subject of long debate, but having the Bloc formally agree to support the proposed coalition even from the outside is fairly shocking to a good portion of the Anglophone Canadian body politic. I'm reminded to the run-up to the 2002 German election, when it looked like the SDP-Green coalition was going to lose its majority; the leader of the ex-Communist PDS said that his party would support the government in Parliament to prevent the Christian Democrats from gaining power, and the SDP leader explicitly rejected his support.

This brings up the other point that I've heard repeated, which is that the Liberals and NDP explicitly said during the recent election that they didn't intend to enter into a coalition with the Bloc, or with each other. I'm not Canadian so I wasn't paying enough attention at the time to remember if this is true, but if it is it is relevant and should be added to the article and sourced.

(From my own POV, it seems that the coalition partners have every right to do what they propose, but I do think it's important to explain, both in terms of Canadian political culture and the current circumstances, why this isn't quite just another bit of parliamentary maneuvering.) --Jfruh (talk) 14:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

I have moved this article to '2008 Canadian parliamentary dispute' for specificity: the prior title was too vague, and the current one is more to the point (as this dispute is largely one centred on Parliament currently). If this dispute somehow goes awry or escalates (e.g., prorogue request declined and subsequent resistance from Harper), a move to '...political...' and/or just '...crisis' may be justified (IMO). Thanks. Bosonic dressing (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We should avoid having "2008" in the title, since it will span two calendar years. Also "parliamentary dispute" could equally apply to the dispute proceeding the 2008 election. How about something like "Dispute of confidence in 40th Canadian Parliament". --Rob (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be alot easier for people to find if it was simply renamed 2008-2009 Canadian parliamentary dispute when it does enter 2009, or Canadian Parliamentary dispute (2008-2009) BritishWatcher (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, BritishWatcher, with 'Canadian parliamentary dispute, 2008-2009' or similar (uppercase P is unnecessary); that also settles Thivierr's concern re date, but I'm unsure what other parliamentary dispute there was proceedingprior to the election that is obvious. Bosonic dressing (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Governor-general response

The front page on wiki says that the governor-general has agreed to harper's request, but this page does not mention anything. RobHar (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's here: 2008_Canadian_parliamentary_dispute#Request_to_prorogue_and_Governor-General_reaction. I'm editing the ITN item to have a link to the section, from the words "The move". -- Zanimum (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Bill Casey "neutral"

http://thechronicleherald.ca/NovaScotia/1093491.html

According to this, Casey was intending to vote with the coalition in a non-confidence vote, not neutral, as the claim is made here. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Suspend vs Prorogue

In the lead, "prorogue" is used. In the body, "suspend".

Michaëlle Jean, the Governor General of Canada (the country's de facto head of state), granted the request of Stephen Harper, the Conservative Prime Minister (the head of government), to prorogue Parliament until January 26, 2009

Stephen Harper visited the Governor General at Rideau Hall at about 9:30 am Eastern Standard Time on December 4 for more than 45 minutes to ask that she suspend parliament until January. This request was granted, and Parliament was suspended until January 26, 2009.

Are these words synonyms in this context? Even if they are, using a different term is confusing. CBHA (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, using the word "suspend" is either an attempt to dummy down the technical wording or just to change up and keep phrasing fresh. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I dislike using thesaurus equivalent when technical terms can mean very different things....and in this case I'm pretty sure in constitutional/parliamentary langauge "suspend" means something different from "prorogue". Not sure about that..."suspend" also has connotations of "suspend the constitution". Prorogue's etymology, hopefully, is in that article; the root rog- has some kind of meaning of dialogue/debate - can't remmber if it's Latin or Anglo-Saxon or waht though...I first came across it re a runestone text that goes "on the second Minor Rogation Day, so-and-so and whatisname piled stones and cleared". Still dont' know what a Rogation Day is, or what calendar day that refers to, though....anyway it may be that th etwo terms are identifical in parliamentary langauge; my gut feeling tells me that they're not....but I'm not a lawyerSkookum1 (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

"Prorogue" has a very specific legal meaning, we should use it unless we actually intend to convey something different at some point. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to use the clear, unequivocal, precise term as well. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A parliament is "dissolved" by the Crown. A session is "prorogued" by the Crown. A sitting is "adjourned" by a legslative assembly (House of Commons, Senate, etc) to another day. In, for example, the U.K. House of Commons, a sitting may, without adjournment, be "suspended" and, for example, in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly, a sitting may be "recessed" until a later time on the same day. Strictly, a "recess" is the period between sessions (or a period of suspension where "recessed" is used in place of "suspended") but is also commonly used to describe a lengthy period of adjournment. The CBC notwithstanding, "prorogue" is not archaic, just not in wide everyday use (at least until now!). It, not "suspend", is the proper term for what the Prime Minister asked for and got from the Governor General i.e. prorogation of the session. A session cannot be suspended; the House of Commons, not the Governor General, can "suspend" a sitting and then only until the hour of adjournnment at the end of the day. Hebbgd (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)