Talk:Proposal for the Province of Toronto

message: I undertook an aggressive re-write of this because it sounded like it was promoting the idea of a Province of Toronto, rather than reporting on it in an encyclopedic fashion. In particular, I deleted the reference to David Miller because I don't think that he is an active supporter. Someone will have to provide solid evidence in order for his name to be included.  This is not a big issue for the public, even if there is a small group of people who strongly believe in the idea. I expect, in fact, that it would require 50% of the provinces with 75% of the population in order to go through, effectively giving the provinces of Ontario and Quebec vetoes.Kevintoronto 21:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-write

message: Indeed, do any of the proponents listed currently support provincial creation? Prue is often mentioned as a future Ontario New Democratic Party leadership prospect - I'm sure he'd sing a different tune. All this was, culturally, a reaction to the Mike Harris government, the creation of the megacity before it could find a suitably progressive voice, etc. And saying Eves, Harris, Stockwell and Korwin-Kuczynski were "prominent opponents" suggests there was more prominent serious debate than there ever really was. Don't get me wrong - this entirely merits an article - but these things still need to be considered. Samaritan 09:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Currency and extent

message: Is it noteworthy to list in great detail someone who gets a few hundred votes in a city of 2.5 million people? We are only talking about 0.04% or 0.08% of the total vote. Someone with a funny name will get more votes than that.  Esptoronto 10:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't call two paragraphs "great detail".  CJCurrie 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The well-sourced paragraphs on these 2 men do show that has been some actual support for this province, and also that this support has been minimal. However, the biographical details unrelated to the political party probably don't belong here. Pomte 03:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created bio-stubs for numerous candidates for public office on other pages.  I could store this information elsewhere, but it makes more sense to include it here.  CJCurrie 03:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, since they don't seem to be notable for anything else. Not exactly vanity or trivia, as anyone researching the party would want to know about these guys, and naturally redirect here anyway. Pomte 04:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidates Paul Lewin and David Vallance 

message: The table in the article uses 2001 census data.  The 2006 census data for populations are available.  Can anyone update the table with that data? Johnny Au (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population of the Province of Toronto update 

message: This article has been nominated for deletion due to infringement of WP:NPOV as well as WP:IRS. The article is terribly written with almost all non sourced hearsay. It should be deleted promptly. Po' buster (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's not well written, but how about you try improving the article? This is a notable topic. An Ontario MPP (Bill Murdoch) is currently planning to introduce a private member's bill which would create a separate Province of Toronto, and all the mainstream media outlets are talking about it. And interestingly, every newspaper columnist I've read agrees that it's a good idea. 69.159.196.72 (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

text: There are also numerous sources, indicating the article's notability. This needs a rewrite, not deletion. Mindmatrix 15:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, it is a "filler" story, mostly for entertainment purposes. It would never happen. The "sources" are all 10-15 year old questionably existent newspaper articles with references from the marijuana party. This article should be deleted. It does not meet wikipedia standards let alone a high school newspaper standards. Po' buster (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A filler story that has been discussed numerous times over the span of at least four decades has some value. Of the current references listed, all the "letters to the editor" should be deleted. I'll see if I can dig up links to the others. Given that this has been coverred by notable media organizations in Canada, I'd hardly qualify this article as not meeting the standards of a high school newspaper. Mindmatrix 18:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It has little to no value. It would be the equivalent of an article on hearsay of Canada post changing the colour of mailboxes from red to green. The sources are very questionable to say  the least.  It has the spelling and grammar of a 3rd grade book report. Po' buster (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we don't edit on the basis of whether the topic is "worthy" but that it is notable and sourced. Would it ever happen? I doubt it, but who cares? It's a legitimate topic that's sourced. The other issues you mention are matters of editing. freshacconci talktalk 19:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, Freshacconci, don't delete my comments again ! So who is going to spend the time rewriting the whole article ? Exactly. Po' buster (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I didn't delete your comment. Anyway, as I believe Mind mentioned at the Canadian noticeboard, if you don't feel the article belongs in Wikipedia, you should take it to AfD, but I doubt an article that is sourced and is clearly a notable topic would be deleted by Wikipedia standards. You may want to read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. freshacconci talktalk 02:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Well, I've already re-written the introduction and part of the history section, adding refs as I go. It takes time to do this, though; I have another half-dozen refs regarding such debates from the time of municipal amalgamation, but simply scouring them for info is time-consuming. I don't intend on rewriting all of the article, but I will update portions of it, and prune what is clearly junk, POV, or synthesis. Mindmatrix 20:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I think there's value in covering the subject matter - specifically, the various proposals that Toronto become a province - but it should not be under this title (because there is, in fact, no such thing as the Province of Toronto).  Perhaps "Toronto provincehood proposals" or something along those lines, sort of like the article Proposals for new Canadian  provinces and territories. -Joshuapaquin (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea, as there is no Province of Toronto, it is potentially confusing (I mean, let's face it, outside of Canada, this kind of topic is pretty obscure; Canada's capital city is also a province? Is that where the President of Canada lives?) There are a few precedents we could follow, such as the link suggested. freshacconci talktalk 02:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Although the page has already been moved, I have objections to the new name. First, the concept as presented about splitting the city or GTA from the province is always named "Province of Toronto" (check the refs in the article); second, the fact that it doesn't exist doesn't imply it can't use this name - we have articles about thousands of fictional and non-existent places, people, and objects. Third, any potential reader confusion will immediately be dispelled upon reading the introduction, or even just the first sentence. The name of the article should be "Province of Toronto" because that is the topic of the article. Mindmatrix 15:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Province of Toronto is a valid page title; the article is about the hypothetical "Province of Toronto", a commonly used (and referenced) name. "Toronto provincehood proposals" seems pretty contrived to me. The title used should be the one used externally in references, not one thought up by Wikipedians. -M.Nelson (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All good points. I'd tend to agree now with retaining the original title. freshacconci talktalk 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, of course you do. What about "Proposal for the Province of Toronto" ? Seems more accurate.Po' buster (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I was considering that name too. I've moved it there. Mindmatrix 20:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: Could the specific instances be pointed out of where it is felt the original research lies? It would make it easier for editors to respond and possibly fix any problems. One editor's idea of OR may not be the same as another's and we will need to discuss some of this. freshacconci talktalk 15:40, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR tag 

message: The phrase "proposal for a new province has only been made by politicians and urban affairs commentators, most recently in 2010 by MPP Bill Murdoch, who has been repeatedly expelled from caucus and suspended by the Conservative Party of Ontario" contains POV, as it uses information about Murdoch in order to taint the ideas he expresses. The qualifying  text "who has been repeatedly expelled from caucus and suspended by the Conservative Party of Ontario" should be deleted.
Murdoch has not been repeatedly expelled from caucus (at least, there aren't citations showing that - the refs show that he was suspended from caucus once, and expelled from the legislature once). The reason for his suspension was also removed (it was "for suggesting that party leader John Tory "find a new job""), leaving a POV statement that attacks the character of Murdoch, without explanation of the context leading to the suspension. This is, in my opinion, done to discredit the concept covered by this article, and smacks of POV (this is known as poisoning the well). There are surely better sources that speak about the credibility, or lack thereof, of this concept. Mindmatrix 01:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the discussed material attacking Murdoch in the intro. This is obvious WP:SYNTHESIS, as it implies a conclusion not directly stated by any of the sources. The material implies that Murdoch's opinion on the Province of Toronto proposal should be discredited because he has been expelled from the caucus, or because he has been described as a "hillbilly" or "maverick". However, these are separate ideasno sources specifically state that his expulsion has any relevance to his Province of Toronto opinions. The only article that does so is this op-ed, which by itself does not make this issue notable. If this material is to be re-added, sources must be given that directly link Murdoch's Province of Toronto opinions with the attacks against him. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

text: PS, I also changed "has only been made by politicians and urban affairs commentators" to "is most frequently made by". I'd like to see a reference that it has only been made by politicians and urban affairs commentators. It makes more sense to leave it open-ended with "most frequently made by": if I personally made a proposal for a new province of Toronto, then the "only" statement would be instantly made false. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: POV regarding Murdoch

message: Aside from the reference here to London, have any other Ontario cities been proposed as capitals for Ontario were 416 to secede? 68.146.70.124 (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed capitals for post-Toronto Ontario