Talk:2010 Toronto municipal election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{editsemiprotected}}

Untitled[edit]

Announced mayoral candidates

Sarah Thomson, CEO and Publisher of Women’s Post Media [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by HonestVaughan (talk • contribs) 00:59, 30 December 2009

Not done for now: Please cite a reliable source for this content. --Shirik (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark State[edit]

User Hezbollatte and I have been reverting each other over the Mark State blurb. I feel it is relevant to note that State finished distant last in the 2006 election, Hezbollatte has been removing that information. I also don't think it is appropriate to describe him as a "grassroots" candidate as that is a POV and mostly meaningless term. What do others think? - SimonP (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User SimonP's changes are disingenuous and biased: given his status as an Olivia Chow supporter, his ungrammatical attacks on the brief bio entry of a mayoralty candidate are agenda-driven and reflective of his own POV (the unnecessary modification of the word "last" is indication enough of bias). To an electorate, a candidate's value is based upon a perceived ability to serve their needs; this is determined through the campaign process, not via the misguided evaluation parameters of an historian manque. Moreover, John Tory’s claim to second place in 2003 indicates only that he did not win that election; accordingly it is mentioned that State, like Tory, is running for a second time, which makes it self-evident that neither candidate was successful the first time round. If people honestly intend to evaluate a candidate on the basis of the vote tally of a previous candidacy, there is a footnote link to a roundup of all 2006 candidates. And unlike SimonP, I have not crossed the line by attempting to besmirch other candidates and would-be candidates with negative and irrelevant edits. If he wishes to deliberately downgrade Mark State, he may start a dedicated Wiki page to that purpose. What do others think now? Hezbollatte (talk) 14:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight: SimonP's status as a supporter of a federal MP who's never been an electoral opponent of Mark State, and is highly unlikely to be one now, somehow makes him biased against Mark State? (Chow's former role as a city councillor is irrelevant, by the way; she had already gone federal by the time State mounted his first-ever run for municipal office.) You're going to have to explain that one a bit more. Particularly given the fact that you're hardly a neutral party yourself — just you go ahead and try to prove to me that you aren't directly involved in Mark State's campaign organization — whereas SimonP has a longstanding record of being one of the most prolific and highly respected contributors this site has ever had. His ability to be neutral and objective is utterly beyond question, while yours has yet to be demonstrated. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty clear that Hezbollatte is on this site purely to push the candidacy of Mark State, and quite likely is State himself. There is no reason the details of State's electoral history should not be included. The truth is that he is a fringe candidate with no chance of victory, and it is disingenuous to our readers not to suggest as much. - SimonP (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP has no business suggesting an election result on these pages, and it is astonishing that a Wikipedia admin who has spent several years positioning himself in the media as a beacon of Web 2.0 democratization is now attempting to subvert the electoral process of Canada's largest municipality. A few necessary corrections: user Hezbollatte is not Mark State, and as stated in my earlier post, I have violated NO Wiki protocol, stated NO opinion in State's bio, and made NO attempt to downgrade other candidates with vindictive edits, whereas SimonP has crossed the line in all three cases. So "it seems pretty clear" that his own anti-State agenda is the only tangible thing "pushed" here. And to address his bizarre final sentence with a quick public administration lesson: whosoever registers to run for elected office has a chance of winning said office, both by definition and backed by rule of law. Perhaps unaware of this somewhat significant fact of liberal democracy, SimonP makes an earnest case for a "some are more equal than others" clause in Elections Canada guidelines. I wish him all the best in his quest to roll back the Enlightenment, but he should remember that the 2010 Toronto municipal election will not be decided on a Wikipedia page.Hezbollatte (talk) 15:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the question. Why should the details of State's performance in the last election not be included in this article, when they are included for every other candidate who has run before? - SimonP (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What Elections Canada guidelines do you even begin to suppose are binding on Wikipedia? Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly valid to refer to a candidate's past electoral performance. Just saying he ran before is quite vague - we don't know if that means he was a serious contender who came a strong second or if he came in last with less than 1% of the vote. While there's no need to belabour his 2006 performance it shouldn't be ignored either. Fred the happy man (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it's valid to refer to past performance. This is why the user provided a link to the 2006 election results page and an additional link to further 2006 press coverage; however, both were deleted by Simon Pulsifer (along with additional relevant candidate information) in the service of flaunting a last-place finish. Pulsifer's continuing involvement in Toronto politics makes his predatory editing of this page more than inappropriate, and his own admission of bias above only makes a stronger case for a vandalism suspension; however, it was user Hezbollatte who was thrown off Wikipedia for attempting to restore neutrality to State's bio to counter Pulsifer's obsessive gatekeeping. Mista X was on the right track by wiping the bios, but we don't want to upset Bearcat and Pulsifer, do we? The election is eight months away and this page is already a wash. Nice going, kids. Charlie808 (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article with more information in it is more of a "wash" than one with none? Fascinating. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Simon P. here. State has no chance in this election, and it is disingenuous to our readers not to suggest as much in this article. As full and fair as possible an exposure is warranted to effect that position. To leave the thumbnail without any comment is to offer a disservice to voters, who should be at the very least given a clue about the possibility wasting a vote on a 2006 election fringe candidate in the upcoming contest by giving them the statistics of the previous one. My vote of thanks to Simon P. (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corruption Eraser (talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every single candidate who's run in a prior election has their prior results noted here, except for Mark State. Hezbollate's original project, furthermore, was to write a campaign-style bio of Mark State as an independent standalone article which was promptly nominated for AFD, because campaign-style bios of electoral candidates are not what Wikipedia is for — and he or she has never made a single Wikipedia edit that didn't involve State. Which means that the natural — and logically reasonable — assumption is that Hezbollate is directly involved in State's campaign and was using Wikipedia in an attempt to promote State's candidacy. Except that advertising is not what Wikipedia is for.
And when a person with no prior edit history suddenly shows up in the middle of a contentious debate, the likelihood that they aren't a puppet of the original editor is vanishingly low. When two people with no prior edit history show up in tandem, it's even lower. And when the whole thing is perfectly replicating the playbook of the 2006 "VaughanWatch" fiasco? I'll let you guess what that does to any reasonably intelligent administrator's suspicions. Bearcat (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“I feel it is relevant to note that State finished distant last in the 2006 election… There is no reason the details of State's electoral history should not be included. The truth is that he is a fringe candidate with no chance of victory, and it is disingenuous to our readers not to suggest as much.” –Simon P. Wikipedia editor[1] MarkTheHandyman is Mark State and has always held the position that Wikipedia should be as fully informative in a neutral way as possible. I respectfully request that this change be maintained in keeping with the intent and the spirit of the publication. Thanks. User:MarkTheHandyman —Preceding undated comment added 05:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Toronto_municipal_election,_2010

Election Date Change[edit]

Dear Established Users:

I am writing to request that you make an important edit to this Wiki. Please note that the province's Good Government Act, 2009, has changed the date of the 2010 municipal election in Toronto to: Monday, October 25th, 2010.

Please change as soon as possible.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TOVotes (talk • contribs) 17:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

current format[edit]

Hello, when you are ready to add more information about specific candidates, please do so instead of adding pointless and space consuming templates. --Mista-X (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, much of the content you removed was very useful, especially the potential candidates and candidates who have decided not to run. As someone who follows municipal politics closely, these sections have been an invaluable reference. - SimonP (talk) 05:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the things about candidates decided not to run was based on speculation, Pinball for example is not even a Canadian citizen. I'm reverting. --Mista-X (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. It might be speculation, but it is well referenced speculation, and extremely useful information for anyone interested in the election. Two users have already reverted your deletion, so let's try to come to some consensus on what should be included before you simply revert. - SimonP (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not well referenced at all, it's a bunch of tabloid-like news reports that speculate on who people think might run for mayor. It's complete garbage that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If you think it's really worth keeping in, fine but the empty templates really should go. --Mista-X (talk) 05:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Documenting the speculation of notable media figures, when properly referenced, is not the same thing as engaging in speculation. WP:CRYSTAL prohibits us from speculating; it does not prohibit us from talking about the speculations of others. And by the way, Mista-X, I'd be remiss in my duty as an administrator if I didn't remind you that you're in danger of overstepping the WP:3RR rule — and that you can be temporarily editblocked if you do so. Bearcat (talk) 05:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, I didn't 3RR nor did will I ask you for tissues. I don't see how the speculation of some candidates makes this article useful in any way, it's filled with more garbage and less navigational, and the empty templates make it even worse. Plus it just furthers attention away from candidates who are actually running, contributing to media monopolization of elections, and this does nothing for wikipedia. --Mista-X (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Including such information is standard for future election articles. Compare for instance United States presidential election, 2012. Nowhere mentioning the names of people like Giambrone and Murray, who have figured heavily in the pre-election discussions, gives only a very narrow view of the campaign. - SimonP (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to click on the history tab and actually count how many times you actually removed the disputed material from the article if you think you didn't 3RR. Just sayin'. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't 3RR. Just sayin'. --Mista-X (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted it three times. Where are you perceiving a difference between "3RR" and "three reversions"? Bearcat (talk) 07:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My first 3 edits to this page were edits. Then I reverted twice. That's 2 reverts. Please learn to count. --Mista-X (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not actually going to block you in this case, since you did stop, but you do need to understand for future reference that when it turns into a revert war like this, the first time you removed the disputed material counts as a revert too. So that is three. Bearcat (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reprinting speculation is not speculating? I care more about the ugly and empty templates that make the article less viewable. Please try to keep this compact so people can see all the candidates, then click on the names of notable ones for more information. No more than small summaries are needed about them in the article, endorsements, etc. only contributes to monopolization of the mainstream candidates. --Mista-X (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting is copied from the standard template for leadership campaigns. (see for instance Ontario New Democratic Party leadership election, 2009). I do agree that we probably don't need all the fields for each candidate. There will be several dozen people running for mayor, and most of them will have no endorsements worth mentioning. I think it would be fine to only add a field when a candidate has a relevant endorsement. - SimonP (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the fields are needed at all, but that's fair enough. Thank you. --Mista-X (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the "Possible candidates" section is not original research - it's derived from references in the mainstream media that this or that individual is a possible candidate. It could perhaps be refined to only include people who have said they are considering running or haven't made up their mind, such as Shelly Carroll, Rob Ford, Denezil Minnan-Wong and Adam Giambrone rather than individuals who've given no indication of an interest in running but have had their names mentioned once or twice in a newspaper - such as Olivia Chow and Frances Lankin. In any case once that person declares they are not running, or that they are running for another position, they are removed. It's a useful section and it is well referenced ie it's referenced by mainstream mass circulation newspapers, not by individual blogs.

Secondly, deleting information about declared mayoral candidates and expecting readers to instead click on links does not make things easier for the reader, it creates more work for them. There's no reason to remove this information. Now please, before removing a large amount of sourced information again please discuss it here first and see if people agree with you. So far, based on the fact that you are the only one pushing these changes and other users are reverting you I'd say you don't have consensus for your changes. Fred the happy man (talk) 15:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other possible candidates[edit]

I've separated individuals who've actually been reported to be considering running for mayor from those (Peggy Nash, Frances Lankin, Olivia Chow, Pinball Clemons) whose names were thrown into the mix in various media reports late last year but who have never been reported to have actually expressed any interest or to be considering running. Fred the happy man (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enzio Di Matteo of NOW Magazine as a reliable source?[edit]

Folks, I have a problem with anyone using Enzio Di Matteo of NOW magazine as a source. He usually seems to just make things up. If you read the October 2009 article, that speculates on who might run for mayor, the information is clearly wrong as three of them definitely were never considering it. Peggy Nash has never, to my knowledge, ever expressed any intention of running municipally. As it turns out, she's running again for federal Member of Parliament, after she secure's the Parkdale--High Park NDP's nomination. So Di Matteo got that one completely wrong. Even more controversially, he attempted to out Adam Giambrone as a gay man: one problem with that though, he isn't gay. Another fact/story he got completely wrong.

Where am I going with this, I think that if Enzio Di Matteo states, in one of his NOW Magazine articles, something about the municipal campaign, that it cannot be used as a citation. He and NOW do not seem to follow the same journalistic practices that the major Toronto Newspapers do: when they are wrong, they publicly admit it and correct their errors, Di Matteo and NOW apparently don't.--Abebenjoe (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be marginally fair to Di Matteo, a lot of people thought Giambrone was gay until he responded to that piece; you can see, for example, that there's a significant history of anonymous editors trying to insert the "fact" into our article on him every once in a while for at least the past couple of years. While Di Matteo got the fact wrong, he didn't make it up, as such — he merely repeated an idea that was already in pretty wide circulation.
As for Peggy Nash, I think a lot of people just generally wish she'd run for any leadership office that needs a strong, credible progressive candidate. Again, I don't think Enzo made it up — I think he just assumed that there was more truth than there really was to an idea that was already making the rounds long before he wrote about it.
That said, the problem with citing Enzo Di Matteo as a source isn't that he makes things up; it's that fundamentally, much of what he writes is opinion punditry, not news in the "dog bites man, Bill Blair could not be reached for comment" sense. We have to use him as a source the way we'd use Thomas Walkom or James Travers or Chantal Hébert (i.e. being careful not to overstep the line dividing known fact from opinion, informed or otherwise), not the way we'd use a front page news article. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Though I find his work being cited in other Toronto-centric articles on Wikipedia...kind of makes me cringe. I'm usually a first-hand witness to many of the stories he writes about, and they seem like fiction compared to what myself and other participants experienced in the events he's covered over the years. I guess many of the writers may not be aware that it is opinion punditry, and should be skeptical of it due to that reason alone: plus he rarely prognosticates correctly anyways.--Abebenjoe (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can all name a few mainstream big-newspaper columnists who have pretty dismal records of prognistication too :-) Bearcat (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

This article is becoming harder and harder to manage due to length. In terms of how to improve it, one possibility I'd like to suggest — it's just an idea that I'm throwing out for discussion, not a requirement — would be to do what some major US cities do, which is to spin out the mayoral race into a separate article from the council races. See, for example, Houston mayoral election, 2009 vs. Houston elections, 2009. Any thoughts? Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great idea. This article is a bit of a mess at the moment. - SimonP (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would do this myself but I'm one of the mentioned candidates so I'd rather stay of out of the editing business here : ) - MarXidad (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've chopped it into two sub-articles, which can hopefully help get things more organized. - SimonP (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Main Candidates"[edit]

Removing this POV statement, the elections are still open for a long time. The source was not reliable or authoritative, it was an all candidates meeting organized by a certain interest that deliberately excluded some of the candidates. We can't base this one thing on who the "main contenders" are, especially so early in the race. If you want to re-add this please insert a reliable opinion poll as a source, and not some short opinion piece from a random online source. --Mista-X (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Toronto city council election, 2010 with this article[edit]

Whilst editing some of the previous municipal election pages I found that for 2010 election that there are three separate articles where before there has been only one. I agree that the Mayoralty race for 2010 is sufficiently large to warrant its own article but I don't think the same is true for the ward races. I would like to see these two articles merged under the banner of Toronto municipal election, 2010 which would properly align it with all the previous election articles. So, keep this one and Toronto mayoral election, 2010. Get rid of Toronto city council election, 2010. Comments please. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is sensible. - SimonP (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and completed the merge and redirect. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I agree entirely with the merge as performed. My original proposal back in 2010 was to split the mayoral election out into a separate article, both on size management grounds and in accordance with the practice already established in many US cities, but I never suggested or even seriously thought that we needed a mayoral article, a city council article and a third overview article which served as really not much more than a summary/disambiguation page for the other two. Two articles are enough. Bearcat (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Toronto municipal election, 2010. 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:

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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Toronto municipal election, 2010. 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:

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) 16:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Toronto_municipal_election&oldid=1196575082"