Talk:Olivia Chow

message: I believe all Members of Parliament must be fluent in both English and French at least. Can someone confirm she is also fluent in French? I've looked around and can't find anything to officially add that.96.52.225.195 (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no condition that MPs be French/English bilingual. Many MPs from the western provinces speak only English. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I heard her talking a few days ago in a French speaking event, and I can confirm she doesn't speak French.  H4stings (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Language Fluency

message: Why are there question marks after Olivia's name? Krupo 00:03, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)
I think it's supposed to have her name in chinese. I don't even see question marks. I see "()" How does one enable chinese characters? Earl Andrew 00:15, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If you use Windows, I think the easiest way to get it is to install Microsoft's Input Method Editor (IME) for the appropriate language.  See  for more info.  You could also try downloading the appropriate font.  I believe there are some free Chinese fonts floating around out there called Sim Sun, MS Song, etc.  Arial Unicode MS contains the characters for many different lanaguages and is distributed with lots of Microsoft software. A good place to get more info on fonts, Unicode, etc. is http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/index.html.  You can also try playing around with the languages dialog in Windows' control panel.  In Windows XP, there is a dialog in the control panel called "Regional and Language Options", with a checkbox labelled "Install files for East Asian languages". -spencer195 01:22, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Olivia Chow

message: I don't think that many voters in Trinity-Spadina actually thought that the Conservatives might win the riding.  Anyone familiar with the riding would know how absurd the thought would be.  The Conservative candidate ended up with 8.5% or so.  It would have taken nearly one thousand such voters for Chow to have won.  In any event, it is speculative analysis to suggest so and the current article does so with so-called weasel words.
:Given the nationwide trend towards strategic voting, it is likely that some voters, though perhaps not enough to make a difference, did "vote strategically." There were people who voted strategically in this election in T-S; I've spoken to two online. Their logic is flawed, but essentially they believe that another Liberal is more likely to oppose the Conservatives/prevent a Conservative government than a New Democrat. - Cuivienen (Return) 23:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps.  But that is extrapolation, which is against WP policy (as a form of original research).  Frankly I think very few did in this riding.  Maybe your guess is better than mine but this is not the place for guesses, even the educated kind.  --JGGardiner 05:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strategic Voting in 2004

message: Can someone please justify why that big banner of Olivia Chow is there?  Eihterwhise this banner should be deleted from the entry. Pete Peters 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks a lot like an ad and adds nothing to the article. I think it should be removed. --Grstain 19:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: That Big Banner

message: I really don't think that all these categories are necceasry.  LGBT activist?  The entry has no mention of that.  She may support LGBT issues, but I don't think she has been any activist of such sorts.  Cancer survivor?  Her thyroid cancer was benign, I am don't think she should be in that category.  Pete Peters 14:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although she is obviously very supportive of LGBT rights, I don't know if she has been active in the same way Layton has (e.g. during the bathhouse raids). As for cancer, though, I will have to disagree: she had cancer and she survived it, ergo she is a cancer survivor. - Montréalais 18:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: I've reverted to the free-source photo. According to the template for fair use,
:"It is believed that the use of this photograph
:to illustrate the person in question, 
:in the absence of a free alternative, 
:on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, 
:qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."
Since there is now a free alternative,  we should use the free alternative and in fact we may no longer be allowed to use the fair use photo. - Montréalais 13:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct per WP:FU#Policy section one. The use of non-free images therefore nolonger qualify for fair use and MUST be removed.  YDAM TALK 12:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: I changed the text about her leaving the police commission because it left the impression that the problem was simply her comments, when it was the way in which they were made – she tried to interfere in a police operation. I happen to think she was right about the operation, and I believe she   acted because she thought she could keep people from being seriously hurt, but she does appear to have broken the rules and to have accepted that she broke them. Which also speaks well of her. Phrenesiac 15:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police commission 

message: Regarding this "controversy" about living in co-op housing, I've looked over the cited sources, which discuss the material in a very different light. The sources note first of all that this story is 24 years in the past, that Layton and Chow were cleared of any wrongdoing, that Layton chose to increase the rent paid even before any criticism occurred, and that around the same time the Federation of Metro Tenants Association praised them for choosing to live in co-op housing. Layton characterized it as a "brilliantly executed smear attempt", and the Toronto Star's opinion page recently called it "the smear campaign that wouldn't die". I'm doubtful that the Wikipedia article should have any mention of this manufactured "controversy", but it's plain to me that the unbalanced way in which it was presented is a violation of NPOV and BLP policy. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 11:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I worded it neutrally.  They did live in a government-subsidized co-op. (NB: They lived there from 1985-1990.  They only paid the additional rent for the last few months they lived there.)
It certainly was controversial at the time, and people protested against them.  With Chow now running for the Mayor of Toronto, it has come up in the campaign, which explains why an event that happened 24 years ago is relevant today.  
Finally, although I cited it, the Toronto Star is certainly not a neutral source (their opinion page, moreso); they have a left/centre-left political agenda, which aligns with Chow's.
If Rob Ford's 1999 arrest is relevant to include in his wikipedia article, why should this not be relevant for Olivia Chow?173.230.182.230 (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

text: The Star, with the exception of the recent federal election has always supported the Liberal Party.  The distorted story was originally introduced as part of a negative campaign by the Liberals and of course picked up by The Star.  TFD (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  So-called housing co-op "controversy" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Olivia Chow. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110429124733/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/politics/canadavotes2011/ to http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/#/202
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This section seems to lack specifics and references for the multiple claims made, when they should be easily citable if they are true. 24.140.237.249 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  School board and municipal politics 

message: IP users have been adding a paragraph on Chow's meeting with the Council of Newcomer Organizations. I've removed it because it is poorly written and unbalanced – vaguely suggesting that Chow is aligned with the Chinese Communist Party, which is not a complete picture considering that the same article notes that Chow "has generally not been a close friend of the Chinese Communist Party" and has been an outspoken advocate over the years for Hong Kong democracy activists and the Tiananmen Square commemorations. The original IP user's editing history is problematic (example) and suggests that this edit is intended as a smear. Ben MacLeod (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits regarding Council of Newcomer Organizations (June 2023) 

message: olivia chow has been elected mayor of Toronto, and is now Mayor-Elect Olivia Chow Geomcf (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor updated the article.  RudolfRed (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023 

message: Olivia Chow is not a member she is the mayor of Toronto.  Please remove her being a member of parliament as she has been elected as mayor. 184.144.41.100 (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already states that. If there's a part that hasn't been changed, please post it in a "change X to Y"-format. NotAGenious (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2023 (2) 

message: Change "an busway" to "a busway". Phrohlych (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Deauthorized. (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2023 

message: Hi @Rushtheeditor, sorry to have updated the picture with something more recent without discussing it before. It's just that the current portrait is 10 years old, so I looked obvious to me (WP:DOIT, etc.). But I've no problem with that. Do what you think right. H4stings (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! I think that an image update is needed too, but only if we have the right one! Thanks! Rushtheeditor (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated picture