Talk:Manicouagan (electoral district)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Canada: Quebec / Electoral districts Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada.

André Forbes no longer a Liberal candidate

I am afraid that common sense rules here. Just because Elections Canada cannot change the description for Forbes from Liberal to Independent, does not mean it is not so. That is just bureaucratic stubbornness. Their rules say that he had to resign as Lib and resubmit his name as Independent. However, what really counts is that the Liberal party does not even recognize that riding on their official list at [[1]]. So for Wikipedia, let's stick with the facts, not some bureacratic mumbo-jumbo that says he has to be on the ballot as a Liberal. Everyone in that riding knows that he is Independent. Even Reference #2 in the article (after his name) says so. "Forbes said Monday morning he's staying in the race and will bill himself as an Independent candidate." --Skol fir (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. --33rogers (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the use of starting a discussion over a contentious issue (Liberals not accepting Forbes, but Elections Canada insisting on leaving him as a Liberal) when editors such as 117Avenue ignore the discussion and revert perfectly valid edits without discussion? This contravenes common courtesy.

My point above, which obviously no one except for 33rogers has read, is that Forbes can no longer be called a Liberal candidate, because his OWN PARTY rejected him. Elections Canada is not the proper source here, because they don't decide who is the Liberal candidate. The bureaucracy did not allow him to be removed from the official ballot, because of the timing of this controversy, and because he did not offer his resignation. Everyone voting for him in that riding knows that they are actually voting for an Independent, because even if he won the riding, his caucus would reject him. For all intents and purposes he is an Independent. --Skol fir (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The practice has always been to follow Elections Canada as the official record of parties, candidates, votes, etc. 117Avenue (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You forget that there are always exceptions to "the practice." That was my point. Obviously, Elections Canada was just following its own rules to the letter, which Wikipedia does not have to do. We can think for ourselves and come up with creative solutions to a situation. A bureaucracy is not able to do that, because it is inflexible. As I said above, the fact is that Forbes is Independent, while the "appearance" is Liberal. I prefer to call a spade a spade, not a trowel. --Skol fir (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of problems with that option. If a candidate's affiliation changed during the election in a past election (ie. before the age of the internet), we have no record of that, and so Wikipedia lists the official results, the 41st election is just another election in a long line. The other problem is that the stats will not add up, Elections Canada says that the Liberals have 308 candidates, so there shouldn't be a blank on the list of Liberal candidates page. 117Avenue (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manicouagan (electoral district). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304045200/http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand%2Fcanlim&document=index&lang=e to http://www.elections.ca/content2.aspx?section=can&dir=cand%2Fcanlim&document=index&lang=e

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]