This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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
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
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]
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]
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]
