Jump to content

Talk:Doug Ford/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Hydro

Someone made an edit adding something about Doug Ford promising to fire the CEO of Hydro One[1]. The new paragraph doesn't mention that even if he was Premier he'd have no authority to do that as Hydro One is a private corporation.(see https://www.bnn.ca/why-doug-ford-can-t-take-a-page-from-the-apprentice-in-firing-hydro-one-ceo-1.1056114 ) Having Ford's dubious claim in the article without adding the facts that contradict his boast makes the article biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:946E:5C00:A89B:9D68:F673:279A (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Or edited to make it clear he is unaware that he is not aware that he can't do something like that. On the other hand, as a significant share-holder, Ontario can push at a Shareholders meeting to do something like that. Disclaimer - I hold 800 shares of Hydro One, so it's possible my views on the subject may have some bias. Nfitz (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I disagree, what is being proposed is OR and/or SYNTH. We can't be going into our personal analysis. If it says in a RS that he does not have the authority, then IT would be ok. Also the use of the word "boast" is only 1 way to look at it. I think that if anything his threat...more of a threat than a boast... could be construed as negative bias against Subject, especially if, as you say, he is unaware of his limitations, that would make him look bad, at least I think so. If you have a source saying he can not fire these people, please add it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I see the anon supplied a BNN source which would be great for adding the content Nfitz mentions. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
  • So, maybe since I did the original edit, one of you 3 could add the BNN info, but we can not say that Ford was unaware of anything unless the RS says that. We can however say that he can not do what he threatened to do and source the BNN info. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Certainly we can only write what has been documented elsewhere, and no OR. I've not read most of the media articles about this - but I'm surprised that the media doesn't think that a shareholder controlling about 80% of a corporation can't find a way to remove a CEO they don't like - which is of course OR ... but it's patently absurd to think he couldn't do this somehow ... I'd dig deeper into RoB or FP reporting, and see what they might have said. But as I'm personally out at least a thousand dollars over the issue since he started pronouncing his thoughts on the subject - I certainly don't feel comfortable touching this aspect article! Not specific to this article, but the quality of the media has gotten so poor, and green, at times lately, that you wonder if they should ever be considered reliable sources! Nfitz (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Nfitz, I agree and it seems to be an epidemic. I heard a CNN "expert" say today that "Prosecutors are usually guilty."; wtf does that even mean? But Toronto newspapers used to be a whole lot better, imo, especially the Globe and Mail. Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Nfitz, the province doesn't control 80% of the organization. According to the BNN article it only controls 47.4% because of the partial privatisation. Mr. Dressup (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Partially it's much less staff, so much less oversight. Partially it's more corporate ownership, and less anyone taking individual responsibility - though I don't even understand the ever-changing Globe ownership anymore - even if I can see their shiny new skyscraper outside my office window! It's always been true reading something I'm professionally involved with, that the accuracy of even the best reporting was usually poor; but now I don't even have to be professionally involved to realise they've missed something big. I just looked a bit. I can't even find the big financial papers touching the issue. Nfitz (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
There's no doubt Ford made these statements. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
No, but we're not going to fill up the article with Doug Ford quotes, are we? We have an endless supply—how does this WP:DUE and not the thousands of others? Especially when it's not clear how to present it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The reference to the promise to fire the Hydro One CEO should either be removed or balanced with responses from critics that he doesn't have the authority to fire the CEO and that there's a $10.7 million penalty if the CEO is fired (see Doug Ford's Pledge to Fire Hydro One CEO, Board Would Cost $10.7M. The way the article has it right now reads like a PC Party campaign ad talking point and is completely unacceptable. 2607:F2C0:946E:5C00:BC6A:4CDA:72B1:83DD (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The Hydro issue is different because Ford promised to fire the people running it, and there has been so many follow up articles, but the reaction to his threat should also be included. Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I've edited the paragraph to trim Ford's rhetoric a bit, and balance that with his own party's energy critic saying he can't actually fire the CEO. The sockpuppet is right that we can't leave a section like this with just what Ford said about a thing, without any critical analysis, especially when criticism is coming from his own party. I wouldn't object to completely removing it either, but if it's there it needs to be balanced. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Ivan, reads better now and more comprehensive. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Doug Ford Flickr photos

I have a copyright concern about two photos that have been cycled through the infobox in the past couple days. These both come from a Flicker account "Doug Ford/Ford Nation" (such as here) which was created very recently, has 6 photos posted, and has zero friends and followers. The photos are released under CC BY-SA 2.0 so they're compatible with our license, but I'm concerned that this may not be valid if the person behind the account is not Doug Ford or his campaign, but is claiming to be (note the "author" provided on the image pages is "Doug Ford"). Can we use these? Pinging Tholden28 and IDW5605 who added the photos here, and I'm going to post a notice ... somewhere (I'm not sure where yet). Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the observation. It's not uncommon for politicians to use Flickr and release their image into the public domain (like Andrew Scheer) or under a license (like John Horgan). Also, if the account was created very recently, that might explain the lack of following. Scheer's Flickr account has posted over 1,000 photos and has existed for nearly 2 years and only has 10 followers and one following. I'd hold off on taking action on the photos and instead leave it up to Flickr to handle it... for now. (Note: If anyone has a Flickr account, it might be good to report the account to Flickr and see how they handle it. That seems like an appropriate litmus test.) --IDW5605 (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

acclamation v. nomination

Is used in the US only in the weird usage of "nominated by acclamation" or "unanimously" at political conventions. The actual normal usage is that a person is "named" or "nominated" as a "nominee" (see meaning of "nominee" to see why "named" is used.) The use of "acclaimed" is getting rare even in Canada (even though "unanimous nominations" are common in Canada for minor offices). It usage here is now getting to be archaic at best. But your mileage may vary. Even "casting one vote" is thus not a true Acclamation. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/acclaim https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/acclaim Two major British dictionaries appear to agree with my statement. Collect (talk) 10:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You're not wrong, but you did link to those dictionaries' definitions of acclaim when they both also have separate definitions for acclamation: Collins, Oxford. In Canadian provincial and federal elections, anyone can register to contest a district (given certain low qualifications) but in order to be considered the nominee of a (registered) party (and accept party funding, use party materials, have one's name on the ballot as that party's candidate, etc.), a nominee has to be elected by that party's members in a "nomination contest", a process that varies by province and sometimes by party. It's not unusual for there to be only one candidate in a nomination contest, in which case we call it an acclamation; when I was more active in politics the members would sometimes then vote to accept or reject the acclamation, though I never saw one actually rejected. It's probably equally not unusual for there to be several people contesting the nomination and for there to be a formal local election to select the party's nominee, in which case a voter has to meet the qualifications set by the electoral authority (usually the party itself) to vote in that election, the candidates have to submit a financial report, and the results are tabulated and published by Elections Canada or the provincial counterpart. Here are the results of the Liberal Party's August 2015 nomination contest for the federal riding of Hamilton Mountain, for example, or here is Michael Ignatieff's acclamation in a nomination contest in Etobicoke—Lakeshore in 2004. You don't get to be a party's candidate, formally, without being selected by party members in a nomination contest.
Functionally, it's common for parties to select some candidates strategically and decide which ridings they're going to run in, especially newly selected leaders, high-profile candidates, or candidates likely to be elected easily being selected to run in districts expected to be close calls or against another party's high-profile candidate, and since the party offices kind of hold all the keys to power the local associations more or less roll over. But it has happened in Canadian history that the local party association objects to the party's "chosen" candidate and also runs their own candidate in the nomination contest, for example Peter Li Preti contested the 1993 Liberal nomination in York Centre against Art Eggleton, a high-profile candidate said to have been personally selected by Jean Chrétien. And sometimes perennial candidates just contest this sort of predetermined contest as a matter of principle.
Anyway, sorry for the tl;dr that's not really meant for you but for anyone else that wanders by and isn't familiar with the mundane intricacies of Canadian elections. To the subject at hand: it wouldn't be inaccurate in any way to say that Ford was "nominated" as the party's candidate in Etobicoke North, but it's also not inaccurate to say he was acclaimed, which is how the source we're using describes it. But saying "acclaimed" also describes the process by which he was selected as the nominee, versus having been elected to be the party's nominee in a contested election, or having been appointed without an election (acclamations are sometimes described this way by the media but appointments are technically impossible), all just very slightly different scenarios. And while I also get your point about the more common meaning of "acclaim" possibly being confused here, I think that's also not wrong: electoral acclamations also tend to be celebrations of the candidate. Ford rented one of the largest convention centres on the continent for this. In the end the choice of wording here is very academic, and if you think "named" or "nominated" fits better I'm not going to argue. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that (even in Canada), the term "acclaim" and "acclamation" is now rare, and most of the time "nomination" and "name" are in current usage in the English language. The purpose of Wikipedia is to covey information, not to confuse readers. I assure you that saying a person was named as a candidate is more readily understood than saying the person was acclaimed as a candidate. Collect (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I 100% agree. It's just that it's less entirely accurate. But I also acknowledge that it's a nitpick that's very likely to fade into irrelevance very soon. If you look back at any of the articles on the politicians I've mentioned here, none currently describe this level of mundane detail of how they came to be a candidate in any particular election. For what it's worth I interpreted your initial correction as being done by someone not understanding the concept of electoral acclamation because of your edit summary, but it's pretty clear I was mistaken. And in case I need to say so explicitly because of the discretionary sanctions, I absolutely endorse your choice of wording. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
As an aside - many years ago, I managed to avoid being nominated for an office by being the Chairman of the caucus - who was the only person under state law where I lived to be absolutely forbidden to be selected as the candidate! Collect (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
That's a constructive strategy! I avoided being selected by pissing off everyone in the local party executive. That strategy seems to have come back around with different results these days, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:44, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Timing of new content

I'm concerned because the election is in 4 days and this recent edit is prejudicial against Ford, especially since the reference to Ford liking Trump policies at a time when Trump just placed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, could be seen as anti-Ford, was made by a contributor who seems to be focused on "Liberalism" in much of his Wikipedia activities. I removed the new content but another editor, likely well meaning, just put it back. There is no rush to include this content and obviously, imo, it should be taken out until there is a consensus here for it. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm the one who restored the content, and I did so because it is well-sourced and balanced. There are three references listed there that compare Ford to Trump — the Guardian, the New York Times, and CTV News. We do not remove information just because the timing is inconvenient. Bradv 14:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I think the complaint about the new content is a bit of an over-reaction. It does not appear to be POV. That someone has been compared to Trump is not, in itself, an insult or non-neutral. If the content said that Ford is as hare-brained or racist as Trump, well THAT would be POV. The Guardian and Times are legit journalism, and CTV is mostly, although the reporting on Patrick Brown is a bit suspect. Secondly, I don't think Wikipedia makes a big difference in an Ontario election. Thirdly, I think a comparison is valid. Trump is not ideology-driven, and Ford is also that way. $1 beer is not conservatism. Ford, like Trump, is in favour of reducing corporate taxes and is in favour of a reduction in taxes for the upper classes. So there is some commonality. Whether Ford is racist, misogynistic, or as big a liar as Trump as demonstrated remains to be seen. But the content does not lead that way. Alaney2k (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's funny, I was just thinking about how this article hasn't seen any significant editing since almost two months ago, and although we've covered the early election campaign a bit it doesn't much reflect the generally negative view of Ford in reliable sources over the past month or so. There's been a lot of coverage in the last couple weeks, for example:
We should have more in the article about these things, instead of just leaving Ford talking points like "finding efficiencies" hanging out there with no published criticism (there is plenty).
As for the comparison to Trump, it's apt, it's repeated in multiple reliable sources, and several of them are used in the neutral evaluation given in the restored edit. My only concern with it is where it's placed in the article: it doesn't really have much to do with the provincial election specifically. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I would agree with Ivanvector to relocate the info in question, perhaps Ivan can do that? Nocturnalnow (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
It doesn't have a lot of prominence in the article and the similarities are pretty uncontroversial. Obviously there are differences as well. I don't think anyone would read the text to say that Ford supported U.S. tariffs. TFD (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
True, I also just do not think comparisons are ever notable enough or add anything to a BLP....just seem too trite to me, like "so and so could be the next Muhammed Ali" or "May is often compared to Thatcher" (bad example, I know) or stuff like that. Nocturnalnow (talk) 01:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 8 June 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Timrollpickering 19:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)


– Seeing as Mr. Ford was elected Premier of Ontario yesterday, a position cited by multiple sources as the "second-most-powerful" political seat in Canada, it's clear that the subject of this article is the primary topic for "Doug Ford", now and for the foreseeable future. I would have simply boldly moved it but this discussion has been controversial in the recent past. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

(It's not necessary for the editor who proposes a move to express support: WP:RM#Commenting in a requested move. Dekimasuよ! 14:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC))
Nor is it forbidden, and why when I do so I comment "as nominator" which is conventional for most threaded straw poll discussions on the project. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, “should refrain” seems pretty clear, but OK. Dekimasuよ! 16:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I added links to the two previous discussions in the "old moves" template at the top of the page shortly after I opened the discussion. Personally I read the March 2018 discussion more as "consensus not to move" rather than "no consensus", but I think the circumstances have changed fairly significantly since that discussion anyway. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:44, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment While it may be self-evident and clear to you, I was wondering if you have considered Doug Ford (politician) instead, like the other entries at Doug Ford. I don't know if premier of Ontario is that big of a deal worldwide and that's something that should be considered. It's a bit of hyperbole to say second-most-powerful in Canada, but what does that really mean? Right now, he is the primary look-up, but his long-term significance, I don't know? Alaney2k (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I would oppose moving to Doug Ford (politician) for the same reasons as last time it was suggested, really only because the title is already disambiguated (with "Jr.") and changing from a naturally disambiguated title to one with a parenthetical seems like moving backwards, and there's doubly the issue of the (politician) title being ambiguous with the subject's father. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
Adding for clarity: if Premier-designate Ford is not the primary topic, then I oppose moving the article from the current title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
As for it being self-evident to Canadians, that's a good point. It's hard to come up with an analogue for Premier of Ontario that can be compared on a more global scale: the position (head of the legislature) is a close match functionally to a Majority Leader of a U.S. State Assembly, except that Ontario does not have a senate and its executive (the Lieutenant Governor) is not elected and is mostly a ceremonial position, so the Premier's "power" is more closely matched to that of a state Governor. If we can use population represented as a comparison, then the Premier of Ontario carries approximately the same political notability as the Governor of New York. Ontario is also Canada's most populous and economically productive province (with approximately 40% of the national population and national GDP - moreso by a very long way than any U.S. state), and there are only 10 Premiers as opposed to 50 Governors. With all of that taken into consideration I think the label of "second-most-powerful" (presumably this means "second" to the Prime Minister of Canada) is not entirely accurate, but certainly justifiable. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. Even before leading the PCs to their election win Ford was never referred to as "Doug Ford Jr.". Also, as AjaxSmack notes above, assuming the second most powerful office in Canadian politics should clearly indicate he is the primary topic. RA0808 talkcontribs 14:52, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Good Article

I would like to propose submitting this article to good article nominations. It's been under a ton[ne] of scrutiny since very early this year and I think we've talked through the key issues (sometimes over and over). I've read through again today and I think it's well-referenced, fairly thorough and balanced based on available references, and relatively stable notwithstanding rapidly changing news about an active politician, but we have lots of GAs already about active politicians ([2]). Before I start the process, can anyone else see any glaring issues that should be worked out first? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:19, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Nom?

I'm shocked that User:Ivanvector has nominated this article for WP:GAN. The article is far from stable—the guy's premiership just started! The article will obviously undergo significant and frequent changes for the foreseeable future, which should mean an autofail at GA. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, like I said when I suggested listing the article two months ago, we have plenty of good articles on active politicians. The article isn't automatically unstable just because the subject is in the news. The autofail criterion you're referring to is for articles that are unstable due to edit warring, which I hope is not what we're going to start seeing again after all the work to talk through things.
I'd also suggest that this article should be a biography of the man, and rather than filling it with minutiae of his government, it'd be better to create a Premiership of Doug Ford article, or the same at some more appropriate title. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a poor excuse to fall back on, and editwarring is not the only cause of instability. Regardless, there are gaping holes in the history of the man—thus it fails on comprehensiveness. I don't comprehend why anyone would want to try to have an article promoted on a person right at the moment when the most important events in their life is in the midst of being written. There's WP:NODEADLINE, so why rush to push this when it's obvious the article will be thoroughly overhauled by this time next year anyways? I'm considering bringing this up at the Village Pump, because allowing articles like this to be promoted only makes a joke of WP's content recognition processes. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree. This article is far from stable, and it will get edited heavily for the foreseeable future, as the subject himself is very controversial and is in the news nearly every day. I would recommend giving this six months to see if it stabilizes. Bradv 00:19, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Feel free to bring it up at one of the village pumps, then, I'd be interested in seeing that discussion. Currently, the good article criteria page is clear that the automatic fail condition for instability is specifically for instability due to edit warring, not due to incremental development which is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It is possible to have a good or featured article on a controversial person whose article is subject to frequent, collegial updating, and I think we established a good base for that here. I'm sorry that you seem to think that my GA nomination was somehow malicious, I simply thought that we had worked through the article's fundamental issues and that the result was a pretty decent article. I'm disappointed that you disagree so aggressively, but I'm not going to entertain this discussion any further. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
We're not talking about anything remotely resembling "incremental development", are we? And what's with this "somehow malicious" stuff? What in my comments look like an accusation? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Use of Ford Nation

@Curly Turkey: Primary sources are allowed. What is your objection to the material, it was described clearly that it was from his book. WP:PRIMARY says that primary sources cannot be the primary basis for an article, but it does not ban them. Alaney2k (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

  • We're talking about a book meant to promote the subject. There's no way that's appropriate in an article that has been as contentious as this one. If the information cited were seriously important enough, it sould be easy to find it in another source, given how widely covered this public figure is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:05, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
    • You say that, but I've not found education info elsewhere. Anyway, there was no promotion in the use. It was simply that he went to Humber, and in his own words said he was bored and dropped out. Further, there is a contradiction. He started in the 1980s at Deco, and the page says 90s. We need to get that resolved. Alaney2k (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
      • I would also suggest not using anything from this book which isn't corroborated by a secondary source. I believe we've tried to find a source for his attendance at Humber before and come up with nothing, despite his past having been very thoroughly researched by third parties. If he writes in his own words that he went to Humber, got bored and dropped out, without it having been mentioned by any source in the past, it's charitable to say that his words are suspicious. We already had something in this article which, under scrutiny, turned out to be about his brother. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
        • The text I inserted stated that it was from his book. In the absence of other info, I suggest we have it and have it clearly stated that is his claim. It's only a tiny part. I know he is blustery and not a fundamentally honest person. (Honestly, I am not a hater.) Alaney2k (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Unless you have a factual dispute with whether the statement is accurate or not, the fact that it's his own claim about himself, sourced to his own book, is not in and of itself a reason to deprecate it. We are allowed to cite self-published sources for uncontroversial information that doesn't pose POV problems — for example, we are allowed to cite a person's own self-published website as support for basic biographical details like where they went to high school or university, or whether they identify as LGBT, or stuff like that. So this isn't automatically invalid just because it was a self-published claim — the question you need to answer to get it out of the article is whether you have substantive reason to doubt that he was telling the truth about why he left college. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
It's not that I doubt his reason for leaving the college, it's that I doubt that he attended at all - politicians' alma maters are normally pretty well documented in reliable sources, but in Doug's case we don't have any that have ever mentioned it. We used to have in this article that Doug attended Carleton, with a source, until someone at Carleton pointed out that he in fact did not. That was the instance I was referring to about having info in this article that turned out to be about Rob. If we're going to put in the article something like "Ford claims that he got bored of college and dropped out" - why do we have that at all? If his postsecondary education is not important than minutiae like this is also not. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:07, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
I was going to add his marriage and four children similarly from his book, but I stopped there because of the objection. That's as far as I was going to go. Alaney2k (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
His marriage and four children are already in the article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Political positions

I propose removing the newly-created "political positions" section in its entirety. Such sections are extremely difficult to present neutrally, and what's been written up to this point does appear to be excessively promotional (much of it is unacceptably referenced to the PCPO's election platform). In its place I propose a chronological timeline of events of Ford's premiership, the same as we have for other Ontario Premiers (see for example Dalton McGuinty#First term (2003–2007), Ernie Eves#Premier, Mike Harris#First term as Premier of Ontario (1995–1999), Bill Davis#Premier). Of course it will be a work in progress, but we managed well enough during the election. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:16, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

My concern's not with the length of it, it's that we're repeating the subject's statements pretty close to in his own words, without any context or analysis, or any third-party sources suggesting that the information is noteworthy to include. The section is just a brochure for the Ontario PC Party. I'm not against having something like this in the article, or spinning it off into a Political positions of Doug Ford article (although I don't think Canadian Premiers often warrant such treatment, but we do have for example Common Sense Revolution), it's that it needs to be fundamentally rewritten and with better independent sources. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
It's poorly done, but that's what happens when articles are sourced to the day-to-day news. Leaving his political positions out is not really an option either when comprehensiveness is a goal. In the (probably near) future there will be books and journal/magazine articles that summarize these things that will make the job easier, more balanced, and more reliable. For example, the Notwithstanding Clause Drahmah is unfolding day-by-day and far from concluded, but one of these days will be an item of history with published analyses to work from. Until that happens WP coverage of it will inevitably be unsatisfying. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with removing it. In the U.S., politics is defined by wedge issues. If we say that someone is pro-life, pro-gun, etc., it maps them on the political spectrum. But Ford's political positions do no such thing, they are just positions he has taken in various campaigns. Buck a beer for example would only be a serious issue if there was any possibility that brewers would sell it at that price. TFD (talk) 01:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
You're saying one of his most prominent campaign promises should be deleted from the article? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not. But it does not belong in a "political positions" section. It belongs in the section about his campaign for premier. It's not like Ted Cruz etc. being pro-life, which is central to their belief system and figures in every race they fight. AFAIK, Ford never came up the idea before he ran for premier. One could even imagine that if the Liberals or NDP had suggested removing the minimum price, he would have defended it. Spoiler alert - You realize I hope that lowering the minimum price of beer will have no effect on the price of beer? TFD (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I hope we're not going to start talking about our political beliefs in this forum.
So what you're saying is such a thing should be moved to another section? It's not clear what you're aiming at. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
I have had lots of political discussions with people across the spectrum and buck a beer never featured in any of them. I don't think Marx or Locke or Burke ever said anything about it, or Mao or William F. Buckley. Beer prices were an issue following the 1922 election and divided the United Farmers of Ontario and their Labour allies, but has been ignored since then. By all means mention buck a beer, but its more part of the election than a political position. When Rob and Doug had their show, it never came up. Do you think it is a political issue? Let's stop talking about Nafta and get back to buck a beer. TFD (talk) 06:10, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
TFD: What I think is immaterial—this is not a forum to discuss politics, but content and its presentation. If you think the content is poorly presented, be WP:BOLD and fix it, or make a proposal for discussion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

New Hospital

https://www.narcity.com/toronto-is-getting-a-brand-new-dollar12-billion-hospital

Can someone add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:93B2:8400:305D:9884:808C:A335 (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

What would we add? Ford had nothing to do with the opening of this hospital, he just turned up to make an announcement, as Premiers are expected to do. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Doug Ford/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Woko Sapien (talk · contribs) 20:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


I think all the citation needed/better source needed tags should be fixed before going forward. This is especially true in the "Political positions" section. In fact, that whole section could use an overhaul. There are currently two subsections that effectively address the same thing: "Spending reductions" and "Government debt". With a little bit of effort, it could be reorganized into subsections like: Budget / Education / Energy / Regulation / Taxation (or something like that). The Toronto City Council affair could probably constitute a "Criticism and controversy" section in its own right.

Just my thoughts. Woko Sapien (talk) 13:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been a while and I've kind of lost track of changes to the article in the interim, but I'll go through and see what I can fix easily. Courtesy ping Curly Turkey since he was critical of this process proceeding in the first place, I'd appreciate your input here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:04, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Right off the bat I'm going to suggest that the presence of the "political positions" section is disqualifying to GA standards. It was added since my nomination and needs to be completely rewritten. I might have time to take a crack at it in a few days but certainly not right at the moment. If the reviewer decides to fail on this basis I understand. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:37, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the "Political positions" section as being automatically disqualifying per se. After all, other good articles have similar sections (Joe Biden, Rand Paul, Stephen Harper - who actually has multiple sections on his policies). As Ford's premiership continues, it might make sense to move the section onto its own page "Political positions of Doug Ford" and leave on his main article just a hatnote with a paragraph or two on his overall ideology. Woko Sapien (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
Here's my objection to the nomination in a nutshell: in 2015, I had Art Spiegelman made a GA; over three years later, despite a number of changes, it's still substabtially the same article. Now here's a diff of the changes Doug Ford has gone through since this July. His term as premier has just begun; there's been a lot of drahmah in the last few months, much of which hasn't been addressed, much of which has been summed up poorly or accretionally, and more promised to come. Articles and books will likely appear on the man in the foreseeable future, leading to substanital updates even outside of his premiership—the three very thin, short "Early ..." sections will inevitably be substantially expanded, as well as other parts of his career as they get proper summings up. This is ignoring the inevitable POV pushing and even good-faith content disputes the article has already gone through and likely will go through again.
The issue I have is with content stability. Even assuming every edit made to the article from here on in were of the utmost quality and balance, the article itself will change in far too substantial ways in the foreseeable future for a GA review to take into account. We're not talking about appending a public appearance, award, or even death to the article here and there, or mere copyedits.
If this article is made GA now, it will require regular GARs to ensure it has maintained that status. How frequent should they be? Annual? Quarterly? Does Wikipedia really need this headache? Please think about what that little green medallion is supposed to mean to the reader. How likely is it that it hold for that reader with this article in 2019? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of November 12, 2018, compares against the six good article criteria:

  1. Well written?: Redundant or incomplete information on important topics, as I mentioned above.
  2. Verifiable?: More inline citations and better sources are needed
  3. Broad in coverage?: A lot of focus on political career, limited focus on personal biography.
  4. Neutral point of view?: Seems to be fairly neutral in its tone
  5. Stable?: Major liability as discussed above, article could very easily become subject of edit wars.
  6. Images?: Media is its biggest strength in my opinion
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Should address some of the issues discussed here before being reconsidered for GA status

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Woko Sapien (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Douglas Robert Ford Jr

I know we've dropped the "Jr" from the title, but should we have from the lead? The Canadian Encyclopedia gives "Douglas Robert Ford Jr", and Crazy Town gives "Ford, Doug Jr (Douglas Robert). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I kind of let this article be for a while and haven't been checking the discussions here. I agree with adding "Jr" back, but do we need to also add something like "Douglas Robert Ford Jr., [better] known as Doug Ford" or is that explaining the obvious? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:21, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
There are articles that do that, but it's pretty obnoxious. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
I think we should leave out "Jr." because it is not normally included when he is mentioned. There is no evidence that Ford uses "Jr." as part of his name on a consistent basis. We might add to the first sentence "sometimes referred to as Doug or Douglas Ford, Jr." The book Crazy Town uses the term in order to distinguish him from his father. But importantly, he and his father had different middle names and usually they are not distinguished by using "Jr.," for example John Quincy Adams and George W. Bush. TFD (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Please repair OPP controversy section.

Julian Falconer is the lawyer for Brad Blair, (who was) the Deputy Commissioner of the OPP. Please repair this.2607:FEA8:88A0:184C:E006:A743:C55E:1B0 (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Time at Deco; misleading summary of linked article made to agree with campaign materials article itself criticized

Someone cherry picked from a not very positive article, that Ford was well-liked during his tenure at deco :

"Former Deco employees suggest that the company was well-managed under Doug Jr., and that he was well-liked in Chicago, but that the company declined under Randy's leadership"

Yet the lede of the article this sentence links to, summarizing his time there says:

"On his newly launched candidate website, the councillor offers up Wise Tag and Label as an example of his savvy business instincts. He writes that he purchased the "failing company" in 2008 and then turned it around. But former Deco employees say that the only thing the Wise Tag venture is an example of is Mr. Ford's impulsiveness and inability to plan."

Article: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/doug-ford-at-deco/article21067584/

A little more balance is needed as this article mainly states things that are quite of the opposite spirit of this supposed summary of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpcarney (talk • contribs) 06:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

You should read more than the first couple sentences of the article, I know it's long. It goes on to say: 'He is well liked in Chicago. Amy Devitt worked at the branch as a graphic designer for four months between 2008 and 2009. Mr. Ford left an impression. "I absolutely loved Doug. He was a great guy … a wonderful guy to work for," she said. She thought the office was a "very well run machine."' As for declining under Randy the Globe & Mail source only hints at it, but the second (National Post) source puts it pretty blatantly right in the title: "Ford family business 'a nightmare' since Doug handed managerial control to Randy, ex-employees say". We have no actual information on the outcome or fate of Wise Tag and Label as far as I've seen, so simply saying that Ford initiated the purchase is about all we can do here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Bunch of stuff about budget cuts

User:Oceanflynn inserted a bunch of stuff about budget cuts by the Ontario government. I reverted, saying this is a bio of a person not a bio of budgets. Oceanflynn, ignoring policy, re-inserted with the edit summary "Replaced content deleted by Peter Gulutzan. See other bio's of premiers. They include cuts, budgets, closures, etc)". Well, I did look, and for two current premiers (McNeil and Ball) there's a fair amount about "budget", but I didn't see it for the rest, in most current premier bios the word "budget" doesn't appear at all. So I'm calling it undue. I'm also calling it poor sourcing, since Oceanflynn's cite is "National Observer". It's not the worst cite in the article (I notice the blog of Sanford Borrins, the Daily Hive, Leafly, the Tyee, XTra) but I wonder why something quality couldn't be found. So I'm calling it poorly sourced. Anybody agree with Oceanflynn, or anybody agree with me? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation discrepancy in lead

Douglas Robert Ford (listen) ...

Well, maybe all my life I've been pronouncing "Ford" wrong.

Perhaps it rhymes with "fjord". So I clicked listen, and I get a voice with an East Indian accent saying "Douglas Robert Ford junior". Disappointingly, it doesn't rhyme with "fjord". Not even with a Hindi influence. :-(

It's a good Indian accent. I have no problems there. But shouldn't the "listen" item actually say the name as written in the formal lead? Is this perhaps just some way for an editor nursing a snubbed desire to have the lead to read Douglas Robert Ford Jr. to sneak his/her preference into the lead sentence?

This could be corrected on either side. I have no dog in that ring. — MaxEnt 21:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Parliamentary Assistants

I'm not sure where to ask this, but is "Parliamentary Assistant to x" a notable enough position to be included in the infobox? I see it has been added to some of the MPP's infoboxes with that role, but not all of them. Can we get some consensus on this? Heartfox (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Should be added if known. I've been adding them as time lets me. Kevinhanit (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
It should be added if someone has the time. TFD (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
What about opposition critics? The gov website lists links to mpp, pa, and critic lists. Heartfox (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Sure. TFD (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
I have some time and I will work on adding PA titles to all the infoboxes. Unfortunately critic roles aren't really an "office" and they kind of bloat the infobox so I don't think it really makes sense to include them (after testing them on Toby Barrett, who has had 7 terms in various critic positions over time). Heartfox (talk) 07:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Probably best to include only current assistantships and critic positions held and leave out proceeded by and succeeded by. Note that critic positions are included for the UK. For example, Angela Rayner, who is Shadow Secretary of State for Education. TFD (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. Thanks! Heartfox (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. A "shadow cabinet" role is not an office. These are partisan assignments that encompass no formal authority, and receive no public scrutiny. These are more political dossiers or assignments rather than offices or even state recognized roles. Unlike ministers or parliamentary secretaries, "shadow cabinet roles" are never introduced as such by legislative speakers. Accordingly, there is no reference to these critic roles (i.e., non-governmental assignments/dossiers) are not referenced in list of Indemnities, Salaries and Allowances for Canada's parliament (example). Moreover, MPs who act as critics do not list these assignments on official stationary, business cards or correspondence. The fact that Wiki info boxes have been created for politicians in a different country, perhaps erroneously, is not a valid enough reason to reverse the edits.Dylan Spanish (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dylan Spanish: You bring up a good point about them not being referred to as their critic role by speakers. However, I would have to disagree with your removal of them. The Ontario government website lists them in a sidebar alongside links to Ministers and Parliamentary Assistants, has a dedicated page with a list, and lists dates served in each members' profile. I infer from this that the government considers the roles notable. Independent media has also referred to members' critic roles (CBC, Sudbury Star, Global). It's not just the UK that lists Shadow Cabinet roles; federal politicians also have them listed (example 1, example 2)... if you remove some from infoboxes then all of them should be removed IMO. I welcome others' comments on this matter. Heartfox (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
@Heartfox: thank you for the two examples; however, they are clearly the exception from the norm in terms of usage/existence. Moreover, just because someone has decided to include them in the info boxes of a small sample of parliamentarians does not verify the use. The fact remains: these are not official appointments of the state, and should not be treated or be made to appear as such. I would be happy to remove the few instances where these critic assignments have been applied to the info boxes of Canadian politicians. If the community isn't strongly opposed, I will start removing in early July (should only take me about 10 minutes). Dylan Spanish (talk) 17:31, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Hash

@Fumarolo: Would appreciate it, if you'd bring your proposal of adding the bit about "hash", here. Instead of trying to force it into the article. GoodDay (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edit

I see warnings about editing this page, so wanted to get consensus before proceeding...

Is it appropriate to mention the under spend on public health https://www.fao-on.org/en/Blog/Publications/2019-20-expenditure-monitor-q4

Specifically here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Ford#Healthcare CT55555 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Specifically CT55555 inserted "A 2020 statement from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario reported a $0.5 billion underspend on health budget in the Ontario in the fourth quarter of the 2019-2020 financial year." but if I understand correctly all that they meant was that interest payment wasn't as high as planned. So I think this isn't due and even if it is I think it's not directly about Doug Ford. But let's see whether others chip in so that, despite my opposition, CT55555 gets consensus, which is required. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, that's bad timing. I posted here, waited a week for opposition and then made the change. I respect your point Peter Gulutzan, some thoughts on it that are a mix of agreement, neutrality and disagreement:
  1. Is it him or the government that he leads by majority? I'm not sure. But in the context of him being premier, I think my edit is on safe ground, but not stating a very solid opinion.
  2. Is it a fair point, if the interest explanation is accurate, I say yes, it's not like interest rates are unexpected surprises to governments, and 500 million dollars is not an amount that can be chalked up to last minute things. More importantly, this sounds like original research or opinion, my edit just states what is in a very neutral and authoritative source.
Both those points made, I'll leave space for more opinions, noting again that I did try to do that before the edit. CT55555 (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
If you are going to point out the savings in one quarter, you need to explain how health care has performed against budget for his entire premiership. I am guessing that after March 31, 2020, health costs went up. Also, there is no need to preface the sentence with "A 2020 statement from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario reported...." We should only use in text citation if the information is questionable or if there was something significant in the timing or manner in which the information was released.
I also think it is useful to mention the reasons for the savings, i.e., that interest rates were overestimated.
TFD (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Noting the feedback to aim a bit wider than the quarter, I've found a better source that talks about the whole of 2020. I can find something that covers a wider time horizon, I will improve further. CT55555 (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Doug Ford's record on healthcare

There is so much missing in this section. To an average reader, what is discussed in the article does not accurately reflect his track record, regardless of one's political affiliation.

For example:

  • Passed Bill 124, giving health-care workers and other government employees pay raises of one percent a year, below the current inflation rate [1]
  • Reducing the public health units' budgets by $200 million a year, followed by reversing the cuts [2]
  • Cancelled mandatory annual inspections of long-term-care facilities [2]
  • Rejected proposals to increase the number of nurses (ON has the lowest nurse-to-population ratio in Canada) [2]
  • Passed Bill 175, restructuring the home-care sector in which for-profit private delivery of home care will increase. No commitment to increase the number of patients receiving home care or increase the number of visits a patient can receive. Rejected requests to increase rehabilitation services for patients who are currently paying for such services [2]
  • Intention to privatize part of healthcare to deal with covid-related backlog [3]

And the list goes on. Is there a way to add this list the the article somehow?


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:1980:18f:98df:e301:bd6a:432f (talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Bill 124

Bill 124. 104.254.10.227 (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Insertion re universities and free speech

Anteosaurus_magnificus on 3 January 2023 added material from an article by James L. Turk in Constitutional Forum, with edit summary = "Added an academic analysis of Doug Ford's political ideology. The article is peer-reviewed and, as far as I can tell, a dispassionate study that is neither pro-Ford nor anti-Ford, and should be permissible under Wikipaedia's neutrality principles." However, Constitutional Forum's about page says "The Forum does not operate as a peer reviewed journal." And the added material includes the phrase "that it was based on a false premise concocted by alt-right provocateurs" which doesn't strike me as dispassionate, so -- since the article is paywalled -- I hope Anteosaurus_magnificus will supply a quote that establishes this. At the moment I'm in favour of reverting but maybe explanations exist. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Since the writer is an expert, it meets rs. The fact that the writer has an opinion is not an objection. Most academic articles are written to express an opinion.
However, I had a few questions. First, did Ford actually implement the free speech policy or was it just hyperbole that he hadn't thought through? Second, can we really say that occasionally using a populist style while adhering to the neoliberal consensus is an ideology? And why do we have to write so much about it?
TFD (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
By "peer-reviewed article" and "dispassionate study", I was referring to the other article, written by Brian Budd, in that edit description, as the paragraph on Ford's ideology being a mixture of neoliberalism and right-wing populism was the main part of my edit. The sentence in Education may require a bit of rewriting to make it clear that this is the opinion of Ford's critics or of James L. Turk specifically, but as The Four Deuces said, it's by an accomplished expert and meets the criteria for inclusion. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Do you refuse to supply a quote that establishes that Mr Turk said that it was based on a false premise concocted by alt-right provocateurs? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The Ontario initiative channels Donald Trump who, in response to the controversy over altright provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California at Berkeley in February 2017, famously tweeted, “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view — NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” Trump’s approach was elaborated shortly afterwards by the National Review in an article saying to Congress, “It’s time to crush campus censorship.” and subsequently formalized by the Goldwater Institute into a model bill designed to impose free expression rules on US public universities. Seeing advantage in this use of campus free speech as a wedge issue, Andrew Scheer brought the idea to Canada during the federal Conservative Party leadership contest in May 2017. Following the American right’s script, Scheer declared, “I will withhold federal funding from universities that shut down debate and can’t stand different points of view.” The UK Conservative government’s higher education minister, Jo Johnson (Boris Johnson’s brother), picked up the refrain in December 2017, declaring that universities failing to protect free expression could be fined.
Ahead of the start of the 2018 Ontario provincial election, Doug Ford joined the chorus, announcing he would tie university funding to free speech on campus. As Premier, he has now put these words into action in Ontario. The United Conservative Party of Alberta followed Ford’s example in 2019. After winning a majority government, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney announced that all Alberta universities and colleges will be required to “develop, post and comply with free speech policies that conform to the University of Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression.”
Ford’s policy works as a wedge issue by bringing together two very different constituencies. On the one hand, there are those on the right who have chosen to weaponize free expression, pushing relentlessly and aggressively at the outer boundaries of speech and vilifying those who express concerns. Think of the denigration of students who are concerned about racist, Islamophobic, anti-Indigenous, or homophobic speech as “snowflakes.” In a recent New Yorker article, Harvard historian Jill Lepore suggested that the guide for those weaponizing free speech “isn’t the First Amendment; it’s the hunger of the troll, eager to feast on the remains of liberalism.” How better to do that than to use the rhetoric of liberalism to attack one of the principal repositories of liberal, Enlightenment values — the university?
The other constituency Ford is seeking to draw in are those who genuinely care about universities and have come to believe, from the high-profile media stories of campus free speech controversies, that campus free expression is endangered. This is a potentially larger constituency than his core right-wing base. Ford’s campus free speech policy aims to unite these two very different groups against an unspecified university and university-educated “elite” that has betrayed its own liberal values.
That's the entire page from Turk's article about it originating as an alt-right talking point. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. From this I conclude that your addition citing Mr Turk was poorly sourced and should be removed. Now what about Brian Budd? He wrote that for an author pays journal while he was a candidate at the University of Guelph, and is not listed currently as part of the Political Science faculty there, so the defence that he's an "expert" doesn't appear to apply here, and I don't know why you think it's dispassionate. I'll wait to see whether others have opinions. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
After waiting a week for other opinions, I undid. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Doug_Ford/Archive_6&oldid=1225948336"