Talk:Endorsements from individuals and organizations in the 2015 Canadian federal election

I authored this article, and I would suggest as a litmus test that inclusion be limited to prominent individuals and organisations with Wikipedia articles and corresponding citations. Indeed, I am of the opinion that endorsements of this sort may in fact be more relevant than newspaper endorsements (or at least equally so). (Chris-Gilmore77 (talk) 05:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

I deleted the endorsement of the Liberals by "freelance journalist" Miroslav Gladic as the person in question does not appear to have a Wikipedia article of their own, they do not appear to be attached to a prominent news agency nor is there a relevant citation. If the person who included that reference could provide those, I may be willing to concede that it is an appropriate endorsement. Otherwise, I am afraid not as it opens the door to a slippery slope (there are lots of political engaged people who have different opinions; we can't include them all). (Chris-Gilmore77 (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Le Devoir

Undoing revision for academic endorsement of the NDP in Le Devoir. The note says it is redundant. It doesn't appear anywhere else and the consensus in Newspaper endorsements in the Canadian federal election, 2015 is that it is not an official newspaper endorsement. Andwats (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This line "Twenty prominent academics from Quebec endorsed an NDP government and Thomas Mulcair for prime minister in the left-wing Quebec newspaper, Le Devoir. They cited the NDP's ambitious childcare plan, its national carbon reduction targets, plans to increase corporate taxes and opposition to Bill 51 as making it a more progressive option than Justin Trudeau's Liberals. They also expressed disappointment with Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe for having joined Harper's divisive attack on the niqab.[17]" leads to the same link. I think your version is more elegant, but there should only be one. Fsbarnum (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just sort of merged them to be fair. I didn't see that when I commented, could have been in between contributions (or, I'm just blind).Andwats (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for Inclusion?

As Chris-Gilmore77 noted we might want to restrict inclusion to persons or organizations with wiki articles. Under that criteria I would question the inclusion of the Stephen Bronfman and Frederick Ghahramani endorsements. Thoughts?169.253.194.1 (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bronfman should stay. He has a French wiki profile, fr:Stephen Bronfman. Normally, I would agree about notability on the second one too but the statement has been in at least three mainstream media publications, including CBC, Huffington, and Toronto Star, so I'm not sure.Andwats (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I bow to your superior wisdom in terms of the advisability of keeping either. Fsbarnum (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think if Bronfman meets the fr.wikipedia Wikipedia:Notability criteria, he does on the English version. There's a wiki page about his family, and they are important members of the community in question. So, I think erring on the side of caution in this case is best, considering the election is active and we should try to meet neutrality. I see the point with the other one.Andwats (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assembly of First Nations

I'm not convinced that this should be listed as an NDP endorsement, as we've already got Perry Bellegarde in the non-endorsers, and the article makes it clear that its not an endorsement per se. They basically ranked all the parties on issues and gave the NDP the best score, but it's a case of drawing one's own conclusions from that rather than the Assembly formally saying they explicitly endorse the NDP.Fsbarnum (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think because other organizations "grading" metrics have been included as endorsements throughout, the AFN should as well. However, I agree that Perry Bellegarde's position should be clarified, and will edit the article accordingly now.Andwats (talk) 00:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fsbarnum (talk) 01:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates vs Parties

I put in two endorsements that are only explicit about specific candidates and worded them as such. But if there's more like that over the next few days, it might be a good idea to separate them out into their own section. I think any endorsement which includes mention of the party leader is indeed also an endorsement for the party. I think Darrell Pasloski is clearly endorsing the CPC as well as Ryan Leaf, due to his political affiliations. Phil Fontaine, I'm not so sure about.Andwats (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea. It can be really ambiguous sometimes, Dona Cadman endorsed a candidate and said she wasn't endorsing the Liberals, but then also said lots of nice things about Trudeau so in the end I was like 'arrrrgh seems like a Liberal endorsement to me.' But yeah there are clearly cases where folks are endorsing a single candidate or candidates rather than the party. Fsbarnum (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly a difference in all of these from say Suzuki who is explicitly endorsing two candidates from two parties, but certainly not endorsing the leader of at least one of those parties. But in a parliamentary system it is a little difficult to uncouple a candidate endorsement from the party, so I think it is probably fair to keep them where they are unless the party was explicitly not endorsed.Andwats (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Endorsements from individuals and organizations in the 2015 Canadian federal election. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]