Talk:Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006/Archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 David McGuinty 2 Rules 3 Bevilacqua 4 Prep 5 Justin Trudeau? 6 Marlene Jennings 7 Alberta Liberal Party convention 8 Maurizio Bevilacqua 9 Caucus support listing 10 Watchlists 11 Registered candidates 12 Endorsements 13 Links 14 David Orchard 15 Godfrey 16 McTeague 17 Official vs. registered 18 Potential Candidates 19 Volpe affair 20 Blair Wilson 21 Indicated they will not run for leadership

David McGuinty

I've restored David McGuinty to the potential candidates list. He was added to the list of confirmed people "not running" but no source was provided.

Rules

We should ensure that the rules as outlined on this page of the official Liberal Party website are reflected in the rules section of our article.Homey 14:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Bevilacqua

Has he actually formally announced yet? Homey 23:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

As much as Godfrey has, both confirmed on television programs that they would be candidates for leader. - Jord 14:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Then might as well include Michael Ignatieff and Stephane Dion. The media has been reporting they will both anounce their candidacy this Friday. - Ogryx 19:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. Bevilacqua has himself said that he would be a candidate. That is very different from media reports of rumours that Ignatieff and Dion will take the same step on Friday. Once they do take that same step, they can be considered in the same category. PoliSciMaster 00:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Then how do we determine what's official? I have heard Ignatieff say so himself that he's in the race. Neither Bevilacqua nor Godfrey have actually officially entered. They just said they would be in the race. If we mark Bevilacqua as "on the race" just because he said so then I say we should put at least Ignatieff has well. -- Ogryx 19:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

After tomorrow we can redo the article so that only those who have actually filed their candidacy papers (ie paid the registration fee etc) are given writeups and unofficial candidates who have declared but not registered are just given head shots. Homey 23:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Splendid idea. -Joshuapaquin 02:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Although it's worth commenting-out, rather than removing, the writeups for the declarees in the interim. The Tom 03:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And I think we should wait until early next week - I assume "registered candidates" will be listed on the Liberal Party website within a day or so of them having filed papers. Homey 12:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Consultant" doesn't actually mean anything. I think the author of this section should give a more detailed description of Bevilacqua's former job.

RELEASE Date: June 2, 2006 For release: Immediate

Liberal Party of Canada Announces Tenth Official Candidate Ottawa –The Liberal Party of Canada today announced that Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua has become the tenth leadership candidate to fulfill all registration requirements.

Registration requirements include gathering the signatures of at least 300 Liberal Party members, at least 100 of which are in each of three provinces or territories, as well as the payment of the first $25,000 installment of the entry fee.

Further information for registered candidates will become available on the Party’s website at www.liberal.ca as it is received.

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Liberal Party of Canada Press Office Tait Simpson Communications Officer (613) 203-0216 tsimpson@liberal.ca

Prep

Don't know if we can do this with the current declared candidates but future blurbs for declarees should include a mention of key supporters/organizers (eg Eddie Goldenberg, John Rae, George Smitherman and Greg Sorbara for Bob Rae; Senator Terry Mercer for Gerard Kennedy; Senator David Smith for Michael Ignatieff etc. Homey 15:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Justin Trudeau?

I know the source is weak, but for those of you who can read french, please read : [www.lactualite.com/vastel]. I think we could add it to the potential list. - Ogryx 20:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the text said he was going to announce it the morning of the next day (April 1st) and he didn't. Seems to me like an April Fools Joke. --D'Iberville 15:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in John Ivison's column in today's National Post: "There is apparently a move to draft the former prime minister's oldest son... Mr Trudeau couldn't be reched yesterday but friends were dismissive".

This seems about as substantive as the Louise Arbour rumour but since we now have a reference in a national paper to people trying to convince him to run we should list him until he says otherwise (or until the deadline passes). Homey 15:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah, if the person has demonstrated no interest whatsoever, than it's not worthwhile - we don't put John Manley in, even though we link to the Toronto Star article saying he's facing "pressure" to join the race after all. -Joshuapaquin 21:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We had this argument over Louise Arbour - who has expressed no interest whatsover in the Liberal leadership but has been included because there is "evidence" of an attempt to get her to run. Trudeau passes the Arbour test (and I suspect there's probably more evidence of a movement to "draft Trudeau" than one to "draft Arbour".) Frankly, I'd be happy to drop Arbour and Trudeau both but I can't justify having Arbour and excluding Trudeau. Homey 21:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oy, OK, I didn't know there was a prior discussion. Well, consistency, then... -21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've commented out Trudeau. He's been appointed to lead a "task force" on party renewal [1] - unlikely this would happen if he were planning to run. Barring any more news stories suggesting he might be a candidate or any statements by him suggesting same I don't think we should list him. Homey 12:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Marlene Jennings

I'm not sure how rigid your criteria for declaring someone "not running" is, but Marlene Jennings appears to be supporting Stephane Dion [2], which would lead to the conclusion that she herself is not running. I'll leave it up to one of the regular editors of this page to remove her, as you please. --Hamiltonian 00:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Nicely caught. The Tom 01:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Alberta Liberal Party convention

In the timeline on April 8th it talks about a bunch of the candidates attending the Alberta Liberal Party convention. But there is no mention of the significance of this event. How does it affect the federal party's leadership race? Qutezuce 09:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a "leadership panel" which has been portrayed by the media and most candidates as the first debate of the campaign. - Jord 14:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Maurizio Bevilacqua

Why are we listing Bevilacqua as a declared candidate, when he is not? CJCurrie 22:44, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

He was added on this edit [3] by Pellaken. No note on the edit but Pellaken seems to have a talk page if you're interested. --JGGardiner 22:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

None of the press articles in the past few days that listed declared candidates include MB. I recall that the Globe had him in their second list of individuals waiting to declare and said explicitly that he hasn't done so yet. Don Newman aside I think it might be prudent to move MB to the prospective candidate's section until he makes a formal announcement. Homey 23:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. CJCurrie 23:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case then Kennedy should be moved too - Kennedy said at a press conference announcing his resignation that he was going to run but has not formally announced and even says so in his speeches, Bevilacqua said the same on Newman; the two of them belong in the same category. - Jord 23:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The difference is the media has widely reported that Kennedy is running, those were the headlines following his resignation. Indeed, I believe the same article in the Globe that said Kennedy is running also said Bevilacqua isn't running yet. We do have a category for officially registered which doesn't list anyone either because no one has yet done so or because the Liberal Party hasn't seen fit to put a list of registered candidates on their website.Homey 04:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that a declaration is a declaration, formal or informal. Maybe I haven't been following closely enough but I think that Jord is saying that both Bevilacqua and Kennedy have said that they are running but not "formally" announced. Is that correct? --JGGardiner 04:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

That's right JGGardiner, regardless of what the media is reporting both Bevilacqua and Kennedy have made essentially the same statements in terms of whether or not they are running. - Jord 23:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well if they have both informally declared, I would include them both. --JGGardiner 07:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I may be misremembering, but I don't believe that Bevilacqua has announced that he's running (formally or informally). CJCurrie 04:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

From today's Globe and Mail: "MPs Maurizio Bevilacqua, 45, and Joe Volpe, 58, are expected to throw their hats in the ring in the contest to succeed Paul Martin this week, while Nova Scotia MP Scott Brison, 38, is planning a weekend launch in his home province." (later in the same article) "Author and rookie MP Michael Ignatieff, 58, and former environment minister Stéphane Dion, 50, both launched their campaigns April 7. Ontario MPP Gerard Kennedy, who stepped down from his job as the province's education minister to run, and Toronto lawyer Martha Hall Findlay have both said they are in the race." [4]

What, exactly, is our source for saying Bevilacqua is already in the race?Homey 14:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

His appearence on the April 6 edition of Politics with Don Newman for which, unfortunately, there is not a transcript. - Jord 01:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Caucus support listing

Should we include senators there as well? They are members of the caucus. - Jord 14:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes, especially because senators often hold major organizational responsibilities within leadership campaigns - consider Smith, Mercer. -Joshuapaquin 01:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why not. CJCurrie 01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been working on a caucus (house and senate) support list mostly for my own amusement on my user page. Feel free to pilfer, etc. --Hamiltonian 01:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why should candidates names be included in support of themselves? I think it is more mis-leading than accurate! SFrank85 02:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just for technical accuracy. We shouldn't say that Hedy Fry (for instance) has no supporters in caucus when she herself is a member of caucus. CJCurrie 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

But it should already be a given that she will support herself. SFrank85 14:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was perfect. CJCurrie 23:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Watchlists

I'm asking that everyone involved with this article add all the leadership candidates to their watch lists and look out for smears, POV editing or attempts to puff up the candidate. I've just removed what seems to be a clear smear in the Maurizio Bevilacqua article, for instance. Homey 02:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It's going to be a long eight months... -Joshuapaquin 05:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Registered candidates

Kind of a no-brainer, but have we seen any evidence that anybody has paid up a fee and is recognized by the party as an official contestant? Certainly the candidates listed as such right now have held flashy launches and almost certainly have lined up the means to pay the fee, but can we conclusively prove otherwise that they can be neutrally differentiated from Blais, MacIsaac and Wolf Child? The Tom 00:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail article mentioned in the hidden comments explicitly named the individuals who had paid all or part of their fee as of last week saying that MB was to join them:

Mr. Bevilacqua's official entry into the race will bring to three the number of candidates who have put down all or part of their $50,000 deposits.

Former senior Chrétien and Martin cabinet minister Stéphane Dion and Mr. Ignatieff officially entered the race last month. Both have been busily campaigning since then. Mr. Ignatieff spoke to Toronto Liberals last night, and Mr. Dion is touring the Maritime provinces this week, and will end his week in Manitoba.

And by that time, two more candidates besides Mr. Bevilacqua will be in the race. Former immigration minister Joe Volpe is expected to launch his bid in his Toronto riding on Friday; Nova Scotia Liberal MP Scott Brison will put his name forward this weekend.

Former Ontario NDP premier Bob Rae is to announce his intentions next week, as is former Martin cabinet minister Carolyn Bennett.[5]

More recently the Globe included Martha Hall-Finley when they rattled off the "official candidates" (their words) so I am assuming that they mean by that that she's paid as well.Homey 04:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. --69.232.208.191 04:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone but Ignatieff is registered officially:

RELEASE

Date: May 2, 2006

For release: Immediate

Liberal Party of Canada Announces First Official Candidate

Ottawa - The Liberal Party of Canada today announced that Michael Ignatieff has become the first candidate for its leadership to fulfill all registration requirements.

Registration requirements include gathering the signatures of at least 300 Liberal Party members, at least 100 of which are in each of three provinces or territories, as well as the payment of the first $25,000 installment of the entry fee.

Further information for registered candidates will become available on the Party's Web site at www.liberal.ca as they are received.

-30-

For more information, please contact:

Liberal Party of Canada Press Office Tait Simpson Communications Officer (613) 203-0216 tsimpson@liberal.ca

Looks like the Globe and Mail was wrong. So how should we proceed?Homey 02:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Endorsements

Could somebody take a look at the endorsement article. It seems very problematic. If you're interested I've been talking on the talk page there but nobody seems to be listening. --JGGardiner 18:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There needs to be some standard. On my user page, I've been keeping track of candidate supports found among the federal caucus (House and Senate). Everything is cited (some of the links are now dead, but they did at one time work). Might something like what I have done be more useful? It's probably more detailed that necessary (I am a nerd), but something useful exists there I think. (A list of "prominent supporters" outside of those who meet a rigid standard might be better served in the main article?) I figure MPs are most useful because in many cases they can "deliver" a significant portion of their riding delegates just based on their endorsement (or, at least they did in 1990). --Hamiltonian 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that is very detailed. And very useful. I actually think that is put together better than the actual article, although I don't have the nerve to suggest a wholesale swap. I don't mind having some prominent others, such as June Callwood but right now the article lists a riding president, a Young Liberal committee member and Liza Frulla's former Ontario desk staffer for example. It also seems to be spawning other questionable articles such as this one for a Brison staffer.

I've wrote on the discussion page of that article to bring some sense in people. If we don't come up with criterias at all, I might as well suggest the name of my boss and my barber as endorsers. Hell, if this guy has an article, I think there should be an article about me. But I'm hopefull that there's enough wikipedians who believes the same thing that we do. -- Ogryx 2:35 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Links

According to the Wikipedia Manual of Style, links to date fragments and ordinary words are not necessary. The Manual of Style advises against over-linking. This article is already heavily linked. See WP:DATE and WP:MOS.

David Orchard

What happened to David Orchard on the "potential candidates" list? I see no indication he has formally stated he is *not* running?

--I was just wondering the same thing.

I'm no wiki-code expert, but I think it has something to do with the fact that the picture was coded as part of a "gallery" and the picture was subsequently later "commented out" (hidden) because it's not properly licenced. Because it's part of a gallery, if the picture goes so does the whole thing. Alternately, maybe not. --Hamiltonian 01:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

--- Well, if its just a matter of getting a new photo, is there someone here who could fix that? I don't know how to upload images or I would do so myself. Robbie dee 19:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Godfrey

Should Godfrey be listed as "withdrawn"? I've been wondering about this for a while. Though he annouced he was running and began to campaign a bit, he was never formally a candidate, never registered with the party and dropped out pretty early. One could argue than anyone who went to the first "debate" in Edmonton was almost as much in the race as Godfrey was but at least three (Dhalla, Fontana, Zed) are not running. In my mind, Godfrey should be moved to the list of people who decided not to run and we only add people to a "withdrawn" column if they actually get into the race formally and then quick later on (eg. John Manley in 2003, Mitchell Sharp in 1968). - Jord 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree, but could never be bothered to raise the point myself. He only informally announced that he was planning on formally announcing, which he never did. He did have some sort of organization, but it certainly never even got to the level of formality as even Hedy Fry. Will we have to list Ashley MacIsaac as withdrawn when he inevitably doesn't run? --Hamiltonian 15:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We could just list him as "not running" and move the blurb on him to his biographical article. Homey 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I did say Godfrey should be moved to the list of people who decided not to run ;) - Jord 23:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was agreeing with you:) I've carried this out. Homey 23:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

McTeague

What's the story with his candidacy? Our source on that is quite old. It actually precedes the election/Martin's resignation and was therefore pretty speculative (although it did interview his advisor). Anything more recent?

McTeague endorsed Kennedy.

Does anyone have a cite on Sens. Watt and Campbell and for McTeague supporting Kennedy? --Hamiltonian 12:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Official vs. registered

The infobox says that there are 6 registered candidates, but only 5 official candidates. I don't understand the distinction and doubt the average reader would. Can we provide a better explanation in the infobox? HistoryBA 18:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Jord, I think just changed official to announced. That helps but it still it says that more have registered than announced. Is it supposed to be the other way around? --JGGardiner 18:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. Never mind. --JGGardiner 18:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering what the difference is between "declared" and "announced". HistoryBA 19:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe the distinction is that one "declares" behind a podium and in front of a large banner and perhaps an ethnically diverse group of supporters. Before that one is merely announced. --JGGardiner 19:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; that makes sense. Will the average reader understand that distinction merely from reading the infobox? HistoryBA 15:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced the amount of space given to MacIsaac, Wolf Child and Blais given the fact that there has been no sign of their campaigns in almost two months. Homey 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. -Joshuapaquin 00:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We should merge the Unofficial Candidates with the Potential candidates. At this point in the race they are essentially the same thing. Thoughts?

If we moved them, I'd move them up with the unregistered candidates. That's what they are. The only difference is that they don't have the means to pay so quickly (or perhaps at all). In fact, I think that it is somewhat POV of us because we're basically dividing the ones that we find credible, from the ones that we don't. --JGGardiner 18:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Potential Candidates

I'm wondering if it's necessary to keep the "potential candidates" list up anymore. Given that the leadership debate is on the tenth of this month, I think anyone who's going to declare has already done so. If Orchard, Payette, McGuinty, Wilson or McTeague were going to run, they'd probably already be running. unsigned

I've reduced the amount of space given to potential candidates by reformatting the list in the manner of "unofficial candidates" and people "not running". Have added dates for when their interest was reported so that readers can judge how "stale" the names are. Is this acceptable to people?Homey 18:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The first debate is nine days away. Anyone who hasn't declared yet is unlikely to raise $50,000 and obtain 300 signatures from party members across the country by then. Frankly, I think we should keep the "potential candidates" for now but in a downgraded display (they will likely endorse official candidates in the next little while anyway) - as for the "unofficial candidates" I think we should discuss taking them out of the article altogether if we haven't heard anything more from them by June 10th. Homey 22:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that the first debate has come and gone and that this was a key target date for candidates (all 11 completed the registration process in time for the debate) I have merged the "unofficial" and "potential" candidates section and made it more succinct given the reduced chances that any one new will enter the race.Homey 12:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Volpe affair

We should probably mention the Volpe scandal in the chronology (as we've mentioned the Brison affair earlier).Homey 16:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Blair Wilson

He was added to the Shadow Cabinet on May 30 when all leadership candidates were removed. Can we take that to mean that he will not be a candidate? - Jord 20:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Indicated they will not run for leadership

does this section still serve a purpose? i understand how it was interesting when it was still unclear as to who the candidates would be, but now it seems unnecessary and a bit crufty. i would be in favour of scrapping it Geedubber 17:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be in favour of reducing it to just the "big name possibles" like McKenna or Manley, not people like Louise Arbour. --Hamiltonian 17:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

well there is a lot of overlapping info if you compare the list to the timeline. so if we killed the list the big name possibles would still be included. Geedubber 08:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)