Talk:Proposal for the Province of Toronto

Re-write

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)

There should be a reference on this page to The Skydigger's "There and Back Again" album, where Andy Maize refers to the Province of Toronto. Very public reference.

Currency and extent

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)

Candidates Paul Lewin and David Vallance

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)

I wouldn't call two paragraphs "great detail". CJCurrie 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Population of the Province of Toronto update

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)

Deletion

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)

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)

There are also numerous sources, indicating the article's notability. This needs a rewrite, not deletion. Mindmatrix 15:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

All good points. I'd tend to agree now with retaining the original title. freshacconci talktalk 17:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

I was considering that name too. I've moved it there. Mindmatrix 20:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

OR tag

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)

Gomberg

Can anybody find an independent ref for Tooker Gomberg supporting the Province of Toronto proposal. I've got one, but it's a eulogy (Note: the site is run by Gomberg's longtime partner, and before his death, Gomberg himself). Mindmatrix 20:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Anybody have this book, which apparently mentions something about this. Google's result forthis search gives only the following tidbit:

• In Toronto no such relief occurred but a Province of Toronto movement emerged ...
• opponent Tooker Gomberg and Mayor in 2003 (after Lastman) David Miller. ...

No preview is offered to get context. Mindmatrix 20:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article doesn't meet the "neutral point of view" standards. 95% of it's references are the views of a couple of crack pot MPP's which have been recently and repeatedly regurgitated by newspapers. The only other referenced are 10-15 year old newspaper articles which existence are questionable. The recent newspaper articles are almost all the personal point of views of the recent dispelled MPP Bill Murdoch who has been called a "Crackpot", "Off his rocker" and a "Hick/Hillbilly" by his peers. Besides Murdoch who's sanity is questionable the article only quotes personal points of view from a handful of others. The sources, which I stated are all regurgitation's of the original article, are all just hearsay an biased. The Calgary Herald article by Don Martin states "Secondary cities like Ottawa, Hamilton, Windsor, Sudbury and Thunder Bay support the partition idea because they increasingly see themselves as mere specks on a provincial radar ignored in the blinding glare of Toronto's political desires". This is completely fabricated. None of this cities have issued statements on the subject. Probably due to it's ridiculousness. The entire article is filled with the personal point of views of a handful of people quoted in a newspaper and than picked up by others. Po' buster (talk) 14:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick notes about the points you've made:

• I think you should read WP:NPOV; it states that an article must be written so as not to present the POV of the editor modifying the article. POVs of those discussed or involved in the subject are OK, so long as it's explained in the text, that it doesn't conflict with undue weight and FRINGE criteria, and that it's properly sourced. The NPOV policy states, for example, "It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view."
• Further, the source of material is irrelevant (excepting FRINGE and UNDUE, of course) - claiming that Murdoch is a crackpot and hence his views are irrelevant and his "sanity is questionable" is your POV (and perhaps others). His views have been widely discussed in the press and are verifiable with plenty of reliable sources. If you feel it should have balance (eg - adding Tim Hudak's views), I'm amenable to that.
• Old references are just as acceptable as current ones, and all the refs currently included in the article have links to the article or an archive abstract for it. I'm not sure how you infer "old newspaper articles which existence are questionable" from this.
• I'll look into the issue about Don Martin's statement of secondary cities, as that's a valid point.
• The entire article is filled with the personal point of views of a handful of people quoted in a newspaper and than picked up by others. - yeah, that's what newspapers do - they document events, debates, and so on, presenting multiple viewpoints with supporting quotations, data, etc. Perhaps you feel this is a fringe theory, but the fact that it has been discussed for decades, and even mentioned by at least three former or incumbent mayors of the city (for which we have documented evidence), indicates that the topic is viable. Also see my first point regarding "personal point of views".
• One thing you didn't mention is that the political party is essentially a fringe party, so that section needs more balance and explanation. That's a potential POV, and something I'll address soon.

To me, it appears that you're basically saying "I don't like it", and want the article expunged on that basis. I see nothing in your comment that demonstrates this article has a POV problem (other than the issues I've said I'll address). I'll post this talk page to the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board RfC section for more input, since you and I won't resolve this between us. Mindmatrix 16:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Another potential POV problem is the info about Glen Murray; although accurate, I haven't yet documented how it ties in to the subject. Mindmatrix 16:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

POV regarding Murdoch

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)

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 ideas—no 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)

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)

Proposed capitals for post-Toronto Ontario

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)