Talk:1993 Canadian federal election

older entries

Do you know what's missing from this article? The date of the election...

You're right. maybe someone could check on that. I think it was in 1993, but I'm not sure.Kevintoronto

25 October 1993 Here it is

I've done my peer review, and made a number of edits, mostly minor. Nice article! --Barefootmatt 22:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

From the Background section:

"In a deviation from their traditional position as staunch federalists, the NDP chose to align itself with the Liberals and Conservatives on the "yes" side of the 1992 referendum."

eh? I'm not sure what is trying to be said here.

Apologies

Sorry about the text deletion in my last edit. Stupid eMac ... CJCurrie 04:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Semantics

"The opposition was divided between four parties, and for the first time ever, the party that was the Official Opposition did not have a majority of the opposition seats."

Is this strictly true, given the results of the 1921 election? The Progressives did refuse status as the Official Opposition, but they were still part of the opposition as they did not form a coalition with the Liberals, and so the Conservatives did not hold a majority of opposition seats as the Official Opposition. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I wasn't even a teenager when it happened, but I do remember it being a really big deal. Great to see this major piece of Canadian history get star-worthy treatment. Thumbs up to all who contributed. Kelvinc 01:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Link to defination of francophone please

It's in the BQ section. I've never heard that word before. Joncnunn 13:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There .. its linked to our article on francophone, now. It basically means French-speaking. --Q Canuck 14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Date of creation of Bloc Québécois

This article claimed that the Bloc Québécois was created "two years" and later "three years" before the election. I have corrected the first reference to three years, as I believe that this is correct. — Grstain 15:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It is: the BQ was formed in 1990 (though I don't believe it was formally incorporated as a party until 1992). CJCurrie 23:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Current Event?

Is there any particular reason that this article has the current event template on it? None of the articles on prior or subsequent elections appear to have this template (including the most recent one), and it seems somewhat strange for an article on an election that happened 13 years ago to be labeled as such. 131.202.114.171 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please ignore above. I see the template has been removed in the time it took my connection to finally allow me to add that previous comment. 131.202.114.171 23:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"Let to" dissolution

This eventually led to the party's dissolution on December 7, 2003.

Hmmm...can we really make that statement? While of course it set the party back a long while, I would say a combination of Paul Martin, the DRC coalitition collapse, and outside forces led to that. Habsfan|t 15:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe this statement should be left out of the article. CJCurrie 23:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Incumbent's re-election rate

Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but I didn't see a % of the Incumbents who were relected or defeated. I think that is a vital stat that should be on all election articles. Does anyone know it. Kevlar67 20:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

popular vote numbers do not add up

In the summary table, there is some kind of mistake in the numbers for the popular vote. Referring to the eighth column of the table (headed "Popular vote / #"), the actual total of the numbers in the sixteen rows is 13,667,479. But the number given in the table is 192 more, 13,667,671. This latter number accords with the Canadian Parliament site [1]. So I guess one of the figures for one of the smaller parties is wrong? --Mathew5000 08:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Also I am confused that there are two separate rows for "Independent" and "No affiliation". I thought that if you run as an independent, it means precisely that you have no affiliation with any party. What is the explanation? --Mathew5000 08:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

On doing a bit more internet research, I found a source[2] that suggests that the article [3] is wrong about the vote totals for the Green Party and the Christian Heritage Party. --Mathew5000 09:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Indepedend and No Affiliation on recorded seperately. There is not much difference between the two, but I think NA refers to the fact that you wrote something other than Independent when you registered to run, but it wasn't a recognized party by Elections Canada. That is my guess, but I am not sure. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Minor Parties

Is there any actual evidence that the Libertarian Party of Canada that time 'oppose abortion'? Any link or quote? Such stance on abortion seems to contradict the left wing social policy that is embedded in Libertarianism. I'm a little suspicious of that little info. REDSoC (talk) 03:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

clarification regarding GST and Harmonized Sales Taxes

reworded the section on the harmonization of the GST and provincial sales taxes under ISSUES so that it was clearer that the saying In some provinces it was Harmonized with the Provincial sales tax while in other provinces the GST and the Provincial Sales Tax remained separate.. Marcie (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

File:PrestonManning.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PrestonManning.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Legacy section

I seem to remember this being quite an interesting, articulately written piece about the legacy of the momentous 1993 election on Canadian politics. But I see now it's become a hodge-podge of seemingly random facts about subsequent elections which don't bother to link back to '93. It's not at all clear how anything that's written there is part of the election's legacy. It needs to state clearly how different this election was from previous Canadian elections, emphasizing the collapse of the national vote (except where the Liberals were concerned) and the rise of regional parties. It could talk about how the election set the stage for Liberal dominance for the next decade, as there was no viable alternative after the Progressive Conservative implosion. I think the author was trying to get at these things but it's written as a list of information without making the *themes* clear. Talking about what Stephen Harper got up to the 2000s is already off-topic and irrelevant to this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.216.30 (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Canadian federal election, 1993. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090121120133/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090110.wpelltier0110/BNStory/National/home to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090110.wpelltier0110/BNStory/National/home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Political analysis

This article contains a lot of opinion and political analysis which has been written in Wikipedia's "voice". While it seems pretty accurate (to me, but I'm no expert), it's not up to the encyclopedia to say these things directly; the opinions should be attributed right in the text to journalists and political analysts ("Joe Blow, professor of political science at XYZ University, explained..."; "Editorials in the AAA and BBB newspapers agreed...") or trimmed out of the article leaving only facts.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Preston Manning 90s.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2022 (UTC)