Talk:Ottawa South (federal electoral district)

Needs a slight cleanup

It may be in the interests of Wikipedians to look through this article. I cleaned up the article's introduction due to bad spelling, grammar, apparent bias, slang, etc., but it may be good for an actual Canadian who knows more about this than I do to review it. JJE 13:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Map

Is the Ottawasouthndp.PNG image/map shown here for a reason? PKT (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That and the accompanying table seems to have been a practice run for something intended to go on the page. While it's a little unusual to remove something on a talk page, I'm officially declaring it a "test edit" and removing it as such. If anybody disagrees, by all means, re-instate it. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite

Calling this article start-class is high praise, given how messed up it is. Intro and "Political geography" sections are/were rife with opinion masquerading as fact, tables are poorly laid out, sections with overlapping information ("Member of Parliament" vs. "Members of Parliament", etc), just a total gong show. I've already edited/re-written the intro, and am working on the rest as time allows. As with any political article, language should be kept as neutral as possible! Calling areas "lower class" rather than "low-income" smacks of bias, as does using the term "immigrant areas" instead of "areas with a high proportion of immigrants/New Canadians". I don't even care by whom this bias was injected, nor who it purportedly benefits. If sections can't be written in a verifiable manner, they have no place in an article.

I'm not a hardcore Wikipedian like some, but I don't see why my riding can't have a better quality article than it currently does, while adhering to the central WP principle of neutrality. OK? OK. Suggestions are always welcome, unsourced material will always be deleted. I'm watching!

Thank you, come again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HuntClubJoe (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, those things you removed from the article should have been rewritten, as you suggested, not removed. It is not cool to come here and start removing valid information off the page. I'm going to put it back, and let's come up with a consensus before you remove if again, okay? That's the proper way of doing things. And by the way, I sourced the political geography bit, so please don't remove it. I can find more sources for everything else. As for the MP, that's standard on many riding articles. The riding association and political geography paragraphs are on my ridings articles too. If you don't think something is written neutrally, don't remove it, just make it read more neutral. I did the best I can, but your comments are fair. However, I take exception to you removing content. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Take all the exception you like, but don't let your opinions blind you to WP norms. The "Member of Parliament" section is extraneous, and gives nothing to the article that the "Members of Parliament" section and the link to David McGuinty's personal page don't. As for not removing non-neutral sections, the onus is on the writer to make them neutral, not on the editor to rewrite them. If something needs to be written in a neutral fashion, that's not grounds to keep biased material in an article, period. As for your "sourcing" you sourced a few parts, but left others unsourced. This is not grounds to keep the whole section.

So in the interest of consensus, these are the changes I propose:

"Political geography": First off, it shouldn't be the lead section. Geography (i.e. physical geography) is paramount, and thus should be placed first. Anyone unfamiliar with the riding will first want to know, "Where is it?" If it is ever written in a manner that does belong in the article, it should probably follow "Demographics", which answers the next question the uninitiated might have, which is, "Who lives there?" This is not a WP policy, just common sense.

Next, any sentence with the words "arguably", "many", "most", "a bit" or other words to watch has zero place in the article. This is not the place for editorializing, and that is not negotiable. Also, generalizations about polling trends could be useful, but should be based on the entire history of the riding rather than a single election, or even the past three. "Sourcing" said information doesn't make it any more valid when there is no historical context. So what does that leave in this section???

"The Liberals...winning polls in every neighbourhood. The NDP...won one poll in 2004, in Heron Gate. This poll would be lost in 2006. The Greens in both 2004 and 2006 were able to finish in third place (ahead of the NDP) in a number of polls. In 2008, the Conservatives lost all of their polls in Elmvale Acres. The Liberals strengthened their support in Alta Vista."

That's it. Fair? Encyclopaedic? Thorough? No, no and no. In lieu of that, the section needs to be deleted until a suitable rewrite can be fashioned. Once again, the onus is on the writer to provide neutral, verifiable content, not on the editor to not delete garbage. If it's garbage, it has to go. Period. If/when it's rewritten, it would be better to include numbers. For example, "The Liberals gained 2406 votes at the expense of the NDP", rather than, "The Liberals picked up much of the vote that went to the NDP". See the difference???

"Member of Parliament":

The article is about the riding, not the MP. There are several links to McGuinty's Wiki page as well as to his constituency page (you're welcome), thus negating this section's existence. Pointing to the mistakes on other WP pages could justify anything, given all the stuff that goes unedited. David McGuinty's bio is not relevant to the constituency, and the proof is simply that this info will necessarily be deleted when he vacates the seat.

"Riding associations":

Sorry. It's spam, and it's not relevant to the article. "External links" is the place for links to the websites of political parties, whose only relevance is as it relates to their place on the ballot. Why should the "Progressive Canadian Party" show up in the main text of the article? Will they be historically relevant to Ottawa South? And if they are, why not include the Marijuana Party, the Marxist-Leninists, Libertarians or all independents? These links may have a place in the article, but it's not smack-dab in the middle of the part people want to read! This is especially true when the original iteration of the section included links to only two of the five mentioned parties. Not relevant, not fair, not staying.

So.....is there anything else I deleted or edited that I should explain? I'd be happy to consider serious, thoughtful suggestions, but you're not making any. Show me a WP norm, a source for specific information you insist on keeping, anything encyclopaedic! Otherwise, expect me to revert your reverts until given proper justification why I shouldn't.

Sorry if my consensus seems one-sided, but Wikipedia isn't a democracy. I made my edits and deletions deliberately, and with much forethought. I'll give you until midnight to source and edit the above sections, after which time I'm gonna take out the trash. If that offends you, by all means, get a second opinion. Show them the diffs, and get an unbiased opinion. This article isn't my baby, I'm not attached to every word. I just want a nice, clean article with no bullshit. Capisca? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HuntClubJoe (talk • contribs) 01:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Sir, first of all, please sign your comments. Stop spewing Wikipedia policy if you can't at least do that. I'm not finding you particularly civil, and you can't just create ultimatums. That's not how Wikipedia works. We have to come up with a consensus first. I will alert the governing WikiProject. Please do not make changes to the article until a consensus has arisen. It appears that you don't want to reach a consensus however, so please don't have me protect the page. Your requests are more likely to be respected the more willing you are to make concessions. Let that be a lesson for you on Wikipedia. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Believe it or not, I had a problem with my tilde key (multilingual laptop keyboards are a pain). As I haven't opted out of automatic signing of my posts, I fail to see how that makes my points any less valid. 2. Civility does not require me to compromise by keeping biased, poorly sourced "information" in the article. I have been civil to you personally, despite standing behind my edits. Your post above is devoid of anything that could be construed as helpful to the article. Is that civil? 3. The fact that you revert my edits without even looking at the diffs is uncivil, to say the least. This is clear, because the intervening versions have several innocuous edits (i.e. ((French: Ottawa-Sud)) vs. ((fr.: Ottawa-Sud)), etc.) that seem to disappear like Jimmy Hoffa whenever you touch the article. That is not editing, it's being vindictive.

I'm not here to insult anyone, nor to stroke anyone's ego. If you're really concerned, then you, like me, ought to make individual manual edits to the page (I'm old-school like that). Reverting at this point is a dick move, given how many edits I've made that aren't contentious (spelling, grammar and layout). Now I'm going back to editing this page, as I've been doing for several hours now. If you want consensus, make some suggestions! My tilde key still doesn't work, so by the power of Character Map..... HuntClubJoe (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made a note of this discussion on the talk page of the WikiProject. Because we have differing opinions as to what should be included in this article, I believe it is important for others to comment. I recommend you hold off from editing until we can bring some new blood into the discussion. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave the offending sections in for now, but I may also make some edits to said sections, including (at a minimum) moving the "Federal Riding Associations" section nearer to the bottom of the page. Further opinions are always welcome, but unsourced material really shouldn't be in this or any article. In my humble opinion, there is too much editorializing in the article which, though possibly true, can't be confirmed without citations of solid sources.

Having said all that, I will confine any contentious edits (specifically, deletion of sections) to offline/sandbox until I have a cohesive article with verifiable facts. I've found a free source for 2006 Census numbers (not so easy), which should be helpful. I will also scour the Elections Canada website for as much data as I can, in order to confirm or refute existing statements rather than just deleting them. I'll let you know through your talk page when I have a sandbox version ready, so you and others can have a look-see and make suggestions/changes there. Thanks for bearing with me. It's clear we both have the same motives. HuntClubJoe (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest taking a look at the pundits guide to Ottawa South, it has much of the information on this article, and is a good reliable source. Also, much of the yearly synopsis data was taken from "Canadian Politics Riding by Riding" by Tony L. Hill. ([1]). I don't own the book, so I can't immediately locate the page numbers, but I could head to the library and find it again. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I suggest taking a look at WP:V and more specifically WP:V#SELF. After perusing your user talk page, I see that you have a habit of adding unsourced material. You are in no position to question my deletion of such material, no matter how "uncivil" it may seem to you. Consensus if a fine ideal to strive towards, but on Wikipedia, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores information. In this case, that would be you. This is not a blog, and articles in the political sphere are not crying out for unverified opinion-cum-political analysis. From one New Democratic voter to another, please, stop editorializing and using questionable sources. It debases your work here.

If you were the author of the article, then thanks. It makes a fine starting point for further edits. So instead of an irrational defence of the article, accept that it will change, and that you will not be the author or final authority of those changes, and neither will I. I've spent the entire day tracking down "real" sources, and synthesizing them into the article (offline, of course). When I finish, it's gonna be posted, and I'm fully prepared for it to be torn down and reassembled as others see fit...as long as it's done for a reason. This is just as I gave you a reason for the deletions I made. As the author of the removed material, you may not like the reason, but it is valid nonetheless. If my edits are not welcome, it's easy enough for those involved in the WikiProject to revert back to a previous version of the page. Now, back to editing. HuntClubJoe (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What? I was trying to be helpful by giving you a couple of sources you could use. What's wrong with them? One is a book that details past elections, voting results, %'s, etc, and the other is a database that pretty much is the same thing, but online. If for some reason you don't think that database is a good source, it has plenty of sources on it to back it up. In any event, there is a specific wikiproject devoted to articles on ridings, and anything you find irrelevant for riding articles should be approved by the Wikiproject first. They may agree with you, they may disagree with you, but they should know what's going on. We should strive for consistency among the riding articles. Anyways, I don't see the point of going to all the work of providing references for everything if you are just going to keep removing the information anyways. I would rather focus my time on getting input from the community. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

You're in no position to get snippy with me. I've looked at your user page, and it seems you're (in)famous for creating pages that are not verifiable. Like I said, the onus is on the editor who adds/restores information. You're making it quite clear that you could not care less about "the community" because if you did, you would abide by its rules (or at the very least, take two minutes to read the relevant ones). Instead, you're an egomaniac who thinks that working as one of Frank Graves' minions qualifies you to comment on anything with the slightest whiff of statistical relevance. Sorry to break it to you, but you don't.

I've laid out my course of action, and even modified it to be more reasonable, but you insist on opposing at every turn without any input for betterment. In any event, I will proceed in the manner I previously laid out, and "the community" will have every opportunity to vet the changes I make. With any luck, they will also put the kibosh on your wannabe political/statistical analysis. If you feel the need to offer unsolicited opinion, start a blog like your "friend" Jessica Funke. Yes, Pundits' Guide is a blog. It's a well laid-out blog with a sophisticated (by blog standards) statistical database, but a blog nonetheless. For the purposes of Wikipedia, it is not a verifiable source. Now seriously, knock it off until you get some direction from "new blood". HuntClubJoe (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey you, quit the personal attacks, okay? That's not how you have a discussion. As for the pundit's guide, everything is sourced there, so if you don't consider it as a primary source, then one can use its sources. But I digress, I'm not having this discussion with a person who insists on ridiculing me with every comment. -- Earl Andrew - talk

Well thanks for all the helpful suggestions that you have (not) contributed to this discussion, I will be sure to (not) include them. HuntClubJoe (talk) 14:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

HuntClubJoe: Your attitude is rather uncivil. WP works because editors - even with opposing views - collaborate and try to achieve consensus. I suggest that you focus on the content of the article (specific proposals for change) rather than the other editors. What are the proposed changes? What are the options? Which solution is best for the readers? I have not yet looked at the merits of the content Earl Andrew is proposing, but your proposals will be better received by all if you present them in a civil, objective manner. See WP:Civil and WP:Tenditious for details. --Noleander (talk) 00:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Fact Check

With an Arab community of 6.3%, Ottawa South I am sure does not have the largest Arab Community in the Province of Ontario... Would love to see that reference from StatsCan...lol...--Oracleofottawa (talk) 07:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

If I'm reading this right, Ottawa South has over 20% of Ontario's Arab population, so it's not inconceivable. I couldn't find anything that specifically listed Arab population by riding, though. It was added back in 2005 by Earl Andrew who still appears to be active. I'll point him to this and see what he says. – RobinHood70 ^talk 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Pundit's guide backs this up, http://www.punditsguide.ca/riding/?riding=1117&pane=2 -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put that in in place of the {{Citation needed}} tag. – RobinHood70 ^talk 02:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)