Talk:Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca

2008

There should be info about the cancelled recount. 76.66.195.63 (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Political geography

Should riding articles contain "Political geography" sections, as this one currently does, which attempt to break down each individual party's pockets of strength in the riding? I don't think they should, but I was challenged when I removed it earlier today, so I'm raising this for discussion instead.

My concerns about this are threefold:

1. I don't think it's appropriate or useful in the first place,
2. its only source is a page on Pundits' Guide — and don't get me wrong, I love Alice Funke's whipsmart political analysis as much as the next guy, but Pundits' Guide is still fundamentally a blog, not a reliable source that counts as media of record; further, the page doesn't even really support the political geography claims all that well, with its only relevant information being a graphic overlay — and a currently dead one, at that — on top of a Google Map,
3. it falsely implies that these are static demographic patterns which never change from election to election — but given the results of the election we just had, in which the NDP vote in the riding effectively doubled over 2008 and the Liberal vote more than halved, it's simply not even possible that the same voting patterns applied both times.

Any second or third opinions? Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing to dispute in anything you've said. → ROUX ₪ 23:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This could be expanded upon into more of an historical analysis, which is worthwhile of inclusion. A community's historical voting patterns is of interest in the article, I'd say. As for her site, I'd say that it's more than just a blog. There's a blog portion, yes, but there is also the data portion, which is where this information is from. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Giving that poring over old Elections Canada spreadsheets yourself would fall afoul of Wikipedia's proscriptions against original research, where on earth do you propose to reference a more complete historical analysis to?

And again: the core problem is that the PG page this is referenced to doesn't contain any data that support the assertions. Apart from very general overall numbers that aren't broken down into anything that would suggest a Colwood vs. Saanich vs. Esquimalt vs. Langford analysis, the page's only other content is a graphic overlay on top of a Google Map. And even that graphic overlay isn't working at present, so we can't even tell if it's a "broken down by individual polling station" map or just a basic riding map — and even if it's the former, it'll lose any ability to support the 2008 assertions if and when Alice ever updates it with 2011 assertions.

So yeah, maybe Alice posts data too — but the specific page in question doesn't contain any data that has anything to do with the assertion that it's being used to reference. Bearcat (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps its best to go election by election in terms of political geography then? As for looking at Elections Canada spreadsheets being considered Original Research, I would disagree... if it's done properly. Depending on the riding, the speadsheets usually include placenames. Saying "the NDP won most of the polls in Colwood" would not be original research, as it would be obvious from looking at a spreadsheet. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have to personally analyze raw data to formulate a conclusion that hasn't already been placed on the record by a reliable source, no matter how obvious or indisputable or straightforward that conclusion may seem you're still engaging in original research. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I think I would have to disagree with you on that one, personally. I would not consider that to be original research. But, that's just my opinion. -- Earl Andrew - talk 02:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Bearcat (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've read this through and think that Bearcat makes a more compelling case backed up by references to Wikipedia polcies. I agree with removing the section. Ground Zero | t 22:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060929195238/http://www.elections.ca/eccandidates/district.asp?ran=2008.092&objectType=district&action=provinces&ul=1&ElectionID=191 to http://www.elections.ca/eccandidates/district.asp?ran=2008.092&objectType=district&action=provinces&ul=1&ElectionID=191

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)