Talk:Christine Elliott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Reference sources

Regarding the references, my original contribution was to reformat the source links — I did not originally review them for content. Seeing CJCurrie's comments about them, however, I've reviewed the references now, and have the following comments now that this is beginning to turn into a revert war:

1. The first article, "Conservative no shoo-in in byelection", at no time claims that Judi Longfield enjoyed greater name recognition in the byelection than Elliott did. Nor does it actually provide quantifiable evidence that the headline claim is true beyond the fact that a byelection is always a significantly different dynamic than a general election. In fact, it's an opinion column by Ian Urquhart, not an objective news article, and other than a few passing references to Elliott's opponents it's little more than a puff profile of Elliott which offers nothing of any real substance.
2. The second article, "Budget coming March 23", again a column by Ian Urquhart rather than a news article, states that opposition leaders alleged that the budget was a "buy-election" scheme; it's not a verifiable, NPOV fact that can be stated as objective truth in the articles on individual byelection candidates. The article makes no reference to Elliott or the potential impact of the budget on her campaign whatsoever, and the end of March isn't a remotely unusual timeframe for a provincial budget to be delivered anyway.

Bottom line, if we're going to make these claims, I think that at minimum we need stronger sources than an opinion column. I'm inclined to agree with CJCurrie that they should be removed, but I wanted to discuss this here first rather than simply reverting without discussion. Bearcat 17:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to revert the edits, pending a more thorough discussion on this page. CJCurrie 01:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Could we cut this revert war out, please? Bearcat 19:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to see the matter resolved.

Perhaps if GoldDragon would try to build consensus on the talk page rather than reposting the same rejected edits over and over, some of the silliness and repetition could be avoided.

See also Judi Longfield, Howard Moscoe, David Miller, Rob Davis (Ontario politician). CJCurrie 23:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you the arbitrator for these articles? I resent having to reject your edits over and over again... GoldDragon 04:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Problems with GoldDragon's preferred wording

A member of the Progressive Conservatives, she was elected in the Whitby—Ajax electoral district over Judi Longfield who was running as the provincial Liberal candidate. History showed that opposition parties in Canada tend to gain seats in by-elections. However, Longfield entered the race with strong name recognition from her past federal experience. ^[1] An early scheduled budget announcement was also expected to increase the chances of the Liberal goverment picking up seats, according to opposition parties, although others pointed out that it could have hurt their prospects^[2]. During the by-election, Elliott and PC leader John Tory campaigned together, while Longfield's ads made no mention of Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty. Elliott won the seat by a narrow margin as predicted.

Flaherty reportedly did not campaign heavily for his wife, deciding instead to focus upon his federal department. Although Flaherty had previously run against John Tory for the provincial PC leadership in 2004, Tory campaigned for Flaherty and Elliott during their campaigns.

(i) This is far more background information than is required for a by-election result.

(ii) It doesn't read particularly well. The line about opposition parties gaining seats comes out of nowhere, and disrupts the flow of the article.

(ii) The wording is more than a bit leading. "History showed that opposition parties in Canada tend to gain seats in by-elections. However, Longfield entered the race with strong name recognition from her past federal experience." This implies that Longfield was expected to win the by-election, which is not accurate (per Urquhart's article). It also ignores the fact that Elliott came into the race with high name recognition, as the wife of a federal cabinet minister.

I am sort of open to footnoting some of this information, although I do prefer some mention in the body.GoldDragon 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(iii) "An early scheduled budget announcement was also expected to increase the chances of the Liberal goverment picking up seats, according to opposition parties, although others pointed out that it could have hurt their prospects."

I see that you've included a tangential reference to the information I provided on Talk:Judi Longfield. The main thrust of your sentence, however, remains unchanged: that the budget was directed toward the by-elections. I've already indicated that this is somewhat inaccurate; it's also POV to highlight it so.

But, we cannot ignore the fact that the budget was scheduled earlier than normal. Plus, it is fact that opposition parties criticized it as a by-election budget, so its not completely inaccurate. Blanking this would be mis-information. GoldDragon 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

(iv) Is it really significant that Elliott campaigned with her party's leader?

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

(v) Considering that Longfield was re-using her federal ads, is it really surprising there was no mention of McGuinty? I think you're extrapolating a bit too much here.

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

(vi) The only cited sources, as before, are opinion columns.

I just found a couple sources. Plus, reporting that the opposition criticized the early scheduled budget as a by-election booster is not opinion.

An analyst here states that it was a good-new budget [3] [4] GoldDragon 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion: GoldDragon has made some subtle modifications to his original wording, but his basic premise remains the same as before. Assuming that Bearcat's previous "vote of opposition" is still in effect, the count is currently 2-1 against inclusion. Perhaps GD would be advised to seek consensus on the talk page before reverting again. CJCurrie 00:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe some of your commentary and especially the conclusion is condescending. I already find it insulting that my attempts to compromise have been rebuffed with blanking. I would rather you find a way to make the language more neutral instead of footnoting it. GoldDragon 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, GD, you could suggest a revised wording here, on the talk page, rather than continuing with our dispute on the article page. Your attempts at compromise so far have amounted to adding a few tangential phrases while keeping the main points intact -- the problem is that its the main points I object to. CJCurrie 04:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

My comments are in between your points. Finally, I don't believe that revisions have to be prohibited to the talk page first before "making the cut", that would essentially give the other side an upper hand. 02:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Husband/Wife and electoral district

The current wording claims that this is the first time that a husband and wife has represented the same electoral district. However, Whitby-Ajax and Whitby-Oshawa are by no means the same electoral distict, and the current wording that the borders are "not completely identical" significantly misrepresents the distinction. One includes half of Ajax, the other much of Oshawa. We're not talking about the border jogging a street or two further, here.

Perhaps the wording should instead refer to Elliott's announced intention to run in Whitby-Oshawa in the 2007 general election, after redistribution, and state that if she wins, they will be the first husband/wife to represent the same district. Daveharr 18:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I have made this change. Daveharr 12:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in a much more general sense, is there any real precedent in Canadian history for a husband and wife to be simultaneously serving as elected representatives in two different legislatures regardless of whether their riding boundaries are the same or not? (Note: I'm talking about provincial/federal; a city council isn't a legislature, so Jack Layton and Olivia Chow don't count.) Bearcat 17:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)