Talk:Patrick Weiler

2025 results context

I believe mentioning the collapse of the NDP vote is justified, as Weiler experienced a large increase in his vote share compared to the previous election.

For context, the NDP received 23.7% less votes, whereas the other small parties (Greens and People's Party) both received around a 3.3% decrease. While we are unable to directly make a causal statement linking the collapse of the NDP vote to the rise of Weiler's, including it provides valuable context to Weiler's 2025 electoral success.

I'll also note that the user making these edits is User:Politicsenthusiast06, who has strong evidence suggesting he is the NDP candidate Rosenberg (the NDP candidate in this riding), see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jäger Rosenberg. Therefore, simply removing this statement and calling it "biased" seems a little odd and potentially motivated by self interest. DeanWithersLover (talk) 01:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh I missed you so much. Not gonna waste energy engaging with the last part :3 — let's leave behind the conspiracies and stick to the actual discussion, shall we? In 2021, the Green Party support fell from 22.44% to 6.5%, and then again to 3.44% in 2025. That is just as much a collapse of support as the NDP going from 13.89% in 2019 to 25.6% in 2021, then down to 3.24% this year. So yes, the NDP vote did fall significantly this election, but selectively calling that a "collapse" while completely ignoring the Greens’ decline — which followed a nearly identical pattern — seems pretty inconsistent.

Also, none of the sources (which you didn’t even provide for the statement) I’ve seen describe it as a “collapse” specific to the NDP. Most coverage frames it as strategic left-wing voting, not a rejection of any one party. If we’re going to include context about vote shifts, it should be sourced and applied evenly, not just where it fits a certain narrative.

And to be honest, given your edit history — where you've consistently removed well-sourced content from other pages, claiming it’s not relevant — the selective labeling of only the NDP result as a “collapse” does strongly suggest personal bias. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Interesting tone to write that in. Attempting to dismiss something which is backed by substantial evidence by labelling it a "conspiracy" doesn't really seem like a very compelling argument. That said, I am not here to re-litigate that discussion, as I believe the deleted page already speaks for itself. I mentioned it only to give context to your edits.

I'm a bit confused about why you find this contentious. Regarding the Green Party vote shift, your point is valid, but it overlooks the main reason I included the reference to the NDP. While the Green Party’s support did drop significantly between 2019 and 2021, this decline didn’t correspond with any substantial change in Weiler’s vote share (34.9% vs. 33.9%). In contrast, in the 2025 election, the NDP vote fell by 23.7%, and this decline coincided with a 26.8% rise in Weiler’s vote. This is a notable shift and is why I specifically included this context. To clarify, this article is about Weiler, and the intention behind the statement was to highlight the significant change in his vote share, which stands out in this election.

Regarding the term "collapse": I use it descriptively not editorially. Still, I'm happy to replace it with "significant decrease" or any other synonymous statement; the purpose is just to convey the magnitude of the shift.

On sourcing: the edit makes no claim of causality, precisely because there is no well-documented analysis specific to this riding. However, pointing out that in this election Weiler's support substantially increased, and the NDP's substantially decreased is a straightforward, descriptive claim, directly supported by the election results.

You conjecture that the change in vote to be due to strategic voting. There is definitely some truth to it given the nature of Canada's electoral system, but it is very unclear to what extent it explains the NDP's decline. The reasons behind the NDP's broader collapse are being actively debated, and there are alternative hypothesis that have been suggested. Framing it as just "strategic voting" oversimplifies the issue, and I disagree with your assertion that "most coverage frames it as strategic left-wing voting".

However, without analysis of this riding's results we cannot conclusively say why any results happened. It may not be accurate to infer broader trends to a specific riding, as many local concerns, such as, for example, an unpopular candidate can significantly shift the local electorate.

I am also unclear about your concerns with my edits on other pages, and I disagree with your claim that I have consistently removed well-sourced content. If you would like to open discussions on the page(s?) you are referring to I would be happy to address any concerns. DeanWithersLover (talk) 07:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I understand your perspective, but I continue to firmly believe this statement has no place in Patrick Weiler's article.

This article is about Patrick Weiler and his political career, not a venue for electoral analysis or speculative interpretations about vote shifts. The reference to the NDP vote “collapse,” even if softened to “significant decrease,” remains interpretive. It subtly implies a relationship between the NDP’s decline and Weiler’s gains without any reliable, third-party source to support that narrative. That’s classic WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, deriving conclusions from raw data that no secondary source has explicitly drawn. For all we know, some former NDP voters could have shifted to the Conservatives, with an equivalent number of Conservative voters moving to the Liberals. Without robust sourcing, such speculation has no place here.

You’ve noted that the Green Party’s decline doesn’t align neatly with Weiler’s past performance, but that only reinforces the point: voter behaviour is shaped by a broad mix of factors—national trends, local priorities, and strategic voting decisions. Without a secondary source directly linking the NDP’s drop to Weiler’s rise in this specific riding, the statement clearly violates WP:V.

Weiler’s vote increase is already reflected in the election results table. That’s more than sufficient for readers to assess the data themselves. We don’t need to nudge them toward a specific, unsourced interpretation—especially one that targets another party. Doing so risks violating WP:DUE and sidetracks the article’s central focus.

This is also a WP:BLP, where speculative or loosely relevant content—particularly unsourced—should be avoided altogether. (You’ve actively pushed this in many of your own contributions on other articles). Comments about another party/candidates' performance, unless directly relevant and well-sourced, don’t belong in this article, (especially when it appears you have a degree of personal bias against that candidate). The line about Weiler's vote share significantly increasing is relevant and grounded, this line about the NDP is neither.

Ultimately, this sentence adds nothing to the reader’s understanding of Weiler’s career, while raising multiple concerns. Let’s keep the article clean, well-sourced, and focused—leaving vote-shift theories and party commentary for articles where they’re directly supported and truly relevant. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you’ve taken to respond. That said, I believe your concerns about the proposed sentence reflect a misapplication of those policies. However, my goal here is to reach to a consensus, and I have included a suggested rewrite to address your mentioned concerns.

To start, the goal of this sentence isn’t to imply a direct causal relationship between the NDP’s decline and Weiler’s increase, but rather to provide the full context of the election results. By highlighting that the NDP’s vote share fell substantially in 2025, it helps illustrate the significant shift in the political landscape, which makes Weiler’s re-election more notable. This is contextual information, not speculative interpretation.

On verifiability (Wikipedia:Verifiability):

The vote totals referenced are drawn directly from Elections Canada, a non-controversial and reliable source. The figures cited are official and publicly available. The sentence does not interpret or speculate, it summarizes verifiable, quantitative data. Describing a shift in vote share as "significant" (as I have suggested to change it to) is a straightforward observation that stems directly from the numbers themselves. Per WP:V, no secondary source is required to repeat basic numerical facts.

On synthesis (Wikipedia:Synth)

The intent of the sentence is not to suggest causality between the NDP’s decline and Weiler’s increase, but simply to provide contextual data. The original phrasing I used was not intended to imply causality ("amid"), but I am happy to adjust the wording to remove any potential inference of synthesis. Noting two data points that occurred simultaneously, without drawing an analytical link, is not synthesis, and falls squarely within the bounds of descriptive content.

The key issue is that Weiler’s significant vote share rise occurred within the context of the NDP’s sharp decline, which is a noteworthy and highly relevant electoral shift. While we can’t definitively say how the votes changed or where they went, the NDP’s decline remains a critical piece of the puzzle in explaining the dynamics of this election.

On original research (Wikipedia:No original research):

Nothing about the statement qualifies as original research. It reports the vote share for Weiler, notes the change from the previous election, and references a significant change in the NDP’s result. These are all simple, descriptive facts. There is no analysis, no novel interpretation, and no extrapolation. The claim that this constitutes original research stretches the definition of the policy beyond its intended scope.

On due weight (Wikipedia:Due):

A one-sentence factual note to contextualize an unusually large change in vote share is proportionate and aligned with standard practice. The data point is not about giving weight to the NDP, it’s about framing Weiler’s result in its electoral context. Providing such context is both helpful to readers and common in similar articles. If anything, the section might benefit from expansion rather than further reduction.

The sections about his previous elections have highlighted the notable aspects of the campaign, and in this instance I believe it is the change in vote shares between parties. It has resulted in a significant change in Weiler's results.

On biographies of living persons (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons):

BLP concerns are valid and important, but this sentence does not involve any personal claims, speculation, or potentially contentious content. It simply reports publicly available election data. There is no harm, defamation, or privacy issue at play.

Revised Proposal:

Weiler was re-elected in the 2025 federal election with 59.8% of the vote, up from 33.9% in 2021; during the same election, the NDP’s vote share declined from 25.6% to 3.2%. DeanWithersLover (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we are going to agree on this so I'll invite @RedBlueGreen93reen93 @Liz @Kawnhr @Wellington Bay and @GoodDay Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2025 (UTC)