Talk:2014 Toronto mayoral election

Links/To do

Need stuff about Ford controversy + >> Why Toronto may re-elect crack-smoking mayor (Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)).

Potential candidates

Please be sure to include a reliable source when listing "potential candidates" on this page. Any person listed under this heading that isn't indicated by a reliable source constitutes original research and should be removed immediately. Ivanvector (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a sample source: Quick reference: people who might run for mayor in 2014. The article speculates on specific people who might run for mayor. Ivanvector (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I have been removing information posted here by IPs which I see as violating various bits of WP:BLP because the sources for many of these not-as-well-known candidates are naturally lacking so early in the election campaign. Given the lack of published information at this point (but expecting it to be published by reliable sources at some point) is there some information that editors here can agree is non-contentious, and therefore can survive here based on selfpub'd sources?

My thoughts:

1. Some selfpub'd info (say, from a blog) is non-contentious and reasonably neutral, such as age, occupation (but not employer), maybe political affiliation on the grounds that it's neutral if the subject self-reports?
2. Campaign literature may be politically contentious but is generally not contentious to the subject - if they said it in campaign literature it should be fair game here, as long as we're not repeating someone's disparaging quote about another candidate. Right?
3. Obvious blatant campaigning should be reverted immediately without discussion, and editors warned. See WP:SOAP.

Comments? In the absence of consensus on this, I'm going to continue deleting improperly cited text about the candidates per WP:BLPREMOVE. If I reverted one of your edits in the meantime, please discuss here rather than on my talk page (unless you really want to) so that other editors may benefit from the discussion. Cheers! Ivanvector (talk) 23:27, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless it is blatant plagiarism or obviously biased I would suggest you use the template. Give it a chance for the editor to come up with a cite. If nothing happens then delete after a month or so. In my experience, pages like this one can be quite active with editors, regular or anonymous. You should expect a lot of less than top notch edits so you should be prepared to be a little more flexible. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Understood, and I would agree with you except that we are dealing with information about living persons, which needs to be treated more carefully. If it's contentious then BLP says it needs to be removed right away. Would you suggest using for non-contentious info? Ivanvector (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Good enough. Use your best judgement/common sense. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 06:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Are YOU running for mayor?

If you are a candidate for mayor in 2014, or you have come here as part of one of the mayoral candidates' campaign teams with the intent of editing this page, welcome! Before you edit, you should be aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding conflicts of interest. As a summary, any information added to Wikipedia must be verifiable, reliably sourced and maintain a neutral point of view. It is difficult for an editor with a conflict of interest to uphold these standards - even if you have the best intentions, you may run into trouble. Instead of editing the page directly, I strongly advise you to read the instructions for how to suggest an edit here and have other editors review, and/or read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide.

If you have questions, you can ask here, or place a {{helpme}} tag on your talk page, and someone will be happy to answer. Happy editing! Ivanvector (talk) 23:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, conflicts of interest is a serious thing on Wiki. Prior to any edit to the article please review the policy to ensure that you are not in conflict. To clarify, if you are a candidate, or are a member of the campaign staff, or their friend, etc. you are clearly in violation of WP:COI. This article should be kept free of campaign materials and anything else that might be considered Original Research. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but rather an impartial encyclopaedia. If you have an update from a secondary or tertiary source, that you feel needs to be covered, please post it here and one of the Non-COI editors will be more than happy to make an edit.--Truther2012 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I've created a modded version of the {{welcome-coi}} template in my userspace that can be added to a user's talk page if it appears that they are a candidate editing this page. It's clunky and I don't really know what I'm doing but hopefully it works for you. To use it, add the following text to a new section on the user's talk page:

{{subst:User:Ivanvector/Template:welcome-coi-candidate|Toronto mayoral election, 2014}} ~~~~

Also, please feel free to edit the template. Ivanvector (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Official websites

How do editors feel about including "official links" to the candidates' campaign pages? After reading through WP:EL I am leaning towards no, since the sites are somewhat likely to be in violation of WP:ELNO #2 (misleading) and #10 (social media), and would violate WP:ELBLP if they are attacking other candidates. I'm also leaning towards no because not every candidate has a website or one that we can include, so posting those that do might give undue weight in this article. Thoughts? Ivanvector (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've seen them before for marginal candidates on election articles like this one. They are allowed on full articles. Once the election is over they are usually cleaned up. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, once the election is over, the article will be an account of the main events of the election covered by the media. CaffeinAddict (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

According to WP:EL, external links are not allowed in the text of the article. There is a potential place for them in the External Links section at the bottom. The only reason why you would see them in the election-related articles is due to the inherent edit wars that would follow any election. I was actually just about to move this links to the External Links, if no one objects. - Truther2012 (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't object per se, but I think maybe we can be a bit loose with EL here. EL prohibits placing external links in the prose section of an article, but this list of candidates is more of a WikiList, in which it would be appropriate to place some links (maybe not as "official websites", I don't know exactly). Ignoring all rules, it makes more sense to me to have the candidates' links next to their names in the list. Ivanvector (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I hear you. I dont want to play the WP Police here. One thing to consider though, is that there were only 3 official website links as of this morning (not that the count matters, but still). Also, all major candidates (and some not so major) have their own wiki articles with whatever links that are appropriate. I think keeping the links to the (somewhat) fringe candidates on the page, but at the bottom is a fair compromise. ...and hopefully places us on the right side with WP --Truther2012 (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Except they're normally not cleaned up after the election, or at least not promptly — I've discovered election articles in the past which still had "candidate website" directories comprised mostly of dead links years after the election was over. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a benefit to keeping the links in the article-- it helps point out which candidates are at least trying to campaign, and which are absentee candidates. There's always a few that no media outlet can track down. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not our job to provide that "service" in the first place — we're not a voter education clearinghouse or a public service project. If the media can't find a candidate, that's their problem and not ours. Bearcat (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Further discussion moved to new section - see below. Ivanvector (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Candidates who have served previously

User Martinclarkson made an edit today that sorted the list of candidates into candidates who have served previously, and other candidates who are declared. I undid the change, because I think that this gives undue weight to some candidates over others. Naturally, as we get closer to the election, some candidates will receive more coverage than others, and we could think of a way to categorize them accordingly at that time, but I think we should treat all declared candidates equally at this point. Ivanvector (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, until the chips are down there should not be any bias based on media attention or the like. This indeed does undue weight to some candidates and not the others. CaffeinAddict (talk) 07:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, although even the amount of coverage would not be an objective measure, but something like poll results will allow us to separate front-runners from fringe. In the meantime, the alphabet is all we got - Truther2012 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Because of some of the recent edits I've requested a semi-protection of this page. Because of Rob Ford's involvement in the election I imagine it will be at risk of vandalism as time goes on. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree in spirit. However, the recent edit activity was quite benign and I expect things to get much worse once the campaigning begins. Technically, protection cannot be applied preemptively, so I think we should wait until the storm starts.--Truther2012 (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Election Platforms

I noticed that some candidates' entries include mentions of their election platforms. I believe that this is covered by WP:NOT as in Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is virtually impossible to find NPOV and secondary sources for those, therefore, so the case is even stronger for not including them. What are your thoughts? --Truther2012 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Under WP:SOAPBOX, it is OK to report about candidates' platforms from a neutral POV. You're right that finding NPOV sources is likely to be difficult. Sources might come up later, but in the meantime I think it's OK to quote the candidates' own campaign materials if they're not controversial, and if we can do so neutrally and without giving undue weight or promotion and without violating BLP. Sources would be better, of course. This is a limited WP:IAR argument. If we do add something citing the candidate and it gets deleted, then it's by definition controversial and shouldn't be added back. Ivanvector (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, for me I added info on Richard Underhill for example because I've been working on his page. If the candidates are adding info then that's the issue, when they use POV language or try to represent their candidacy in way that is POV... CaffeinAddict (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

One reason I like NPOV summaries of platforms is that it helps readers separate the normal fringe candidates from the extreme, single-issue fringe candidates. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Official websites - include in candidate listing?

Note: I've moved a discussion to this new section for clarity. Please see above for the original discussion. Ivanvector (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with User:Zanimum (see [1]), and there hasn't been any real opposition here, just quoting policies, and technically listing all of the official websites at the end of the article also violates WP:EL. I think the article will make more sense if we do include one official campaign website for each candidate. Therefore, ignoring all rules, I propose we include one official campaign link (if one exists) for each registered candidate, because it will make more sense to readers, unless they are directly attacking other candidates or otherwise violate the BLP policy. Would anyone object to this treatment for the duration of the election? After the election, as User:EncyclopediaUpdaticus pointed out, the links should be purged from the article regardless of the treatment here. Note: since this is a proposal to ignore a guideline, I'd expect there to be a clear consensus formed here before any related changes are made to the article. Ivanvector (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support I agree, including them isn't a violation of NPOV or soapbox because, well, they're mentioned here anyway in a NPOV. If a reader wants further reading into a candidate an official website is where they'll go, amongst other places (e.g. media). It's kind of weird to have them down on the bottom, so I'd say, have them listed by the candidates or not at all. CaffeinAddict (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately WP:EL makes it simple: Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article. So, yeah, as long as it's not in the body it is ok, which is why External Links sections are generally designed for. Also, it is not our job to point out who's campaigning and who isn't, but rather reflect general encyclopaedia-worthy information.--Truther2012 (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Truther, we seem to have a consensus that the links should be included somewhere, and I've proposed specifically ignoring EL for the purpose of improving the article, by including an external link in a candidate's section of the listing rather than in an external links section at the end, because it makes for more logical navigation. Are you opposed to that? Ivanvector (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, specifically because of "ignoring the policy" bit. There is nothing wrong to direct a reader for further research off-wiki, but there is a place for websites in their own section. If you may, think about it this way: would this article get a GA status with all this in-line external links in it? Some of them being personal blogs and what not... --Truther2012 (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. If we're going to follow the letter of the policy, does WP:ELMINOFFICIAL say we should not include the links at all? There is no official website about the election (or there isn't yet) and all of these sites are by definition advertising. Ivanvector (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I dont see it that black-and-white. I think, the election is about a number of candidates, each of which may have an official site. One site per candidate, I think, would be more appropriate interpretation of the WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. But that's just my opinion... --Truther2012 (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No I don't really think it's that black-and-white either. But I'm struggling with the idea that one external link within each section about a candidate is bad, but a clump of up to 32 links (adding one for a potential election website) in a separate section is OK. None of the guidelines or WP:GA criteria forbid any one of these options; they suggest it shouldn't be done, but I think this is a valid usage. We're not inserting external links in the prose section, it's more of a section sub-header, or additional information. Based on the last protected version of the 2010 article before the election closed (here) the websites were listed with the candidates and not at the end, but they were removed not long after. Ivanvector (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct, both EL and GA strongly suggest as opposed to forbid the inclusion. If you feel we have a strong case for inclusion, so be it. On a somewhat separate note, all the more prominent candidates are notable enough to have their own articles, where their sites would very definitely belong. --Truther2012 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the normal rules about external links are as follows: no article or list is ever allowed to include external links directly in the body of the article, and the external links section is not for compiling a comprehensive directory of them either. WP:IAR, furthermore, is only applicable if you can actually make a convincing case that "ignoring the rule" actually improves the encyclopedia, and is not just a blanket license to do anything you want just because it's possible. (IAR is not, for instance, a license to disregard WP:BLP by inserting unsourced personal commentary about an article topic's private life.) There actually has to be a substantive reason why an exception to the rule is warranted, and "I like it better that way" is not enough of a reason.

Before the consensus against including links to individual candidates' own websites was actually established, what actually happened every time without fail was that after the election the links just lingered and lingered, with nobody even undertaking any serious effort to ensure that any of them were actually still active at all. Every election that took place before the consensus was established still contained a huge catalogue of dead links years after the election was over — which weakens, not improves, our reliability as a source of information, because it makes us look sloppy and disorganized.

When you get right down to it, it is not Wikipedia's job to help connect individual voters in the election with information about individual candidates they might want to vote for — we're not the media, and neither "public service on behalf of the voters" nor "assisting unelected candidates in publicizing their campaigns and getting their message out" has anything to do with our mandate. A voter who wants more information about a candidate has access to this neat little tool called Google which they can use to seek out further information on their own time — it's not our role to collate a gigantic directory of convenience links, because being a voter information service is not what we're here for. If a person has enough notability to stand alone as an independent article topic, then their campaign website is certainly a legitimate addition to the external links section of that article — but there's no value in the main article on the whole election containing a comprehensive directory of the personal websites of every individual person whose name happens to be mentioned in it. It doesn't "improve" the encyclopedia; its only real purpose is "voter service", which isn't something that it's our job to do in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree, Bearcat. A few sections above, I suggested we shouldn't have external links to candidates at all per whatever policies, but a few other users felt that it's okay to include them because we've included them during active elections in the past. And yeah, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but sometimes precedent is important. I don't think anyone who has commented (other than you) really feels strongly one way or the other, and if we're to go strictly by guidelines we should remove them. My reference to WP:IAR was only in the case that we do include them, it would be better to include them with the candidate listing rather than clumped at the bottom. I wasn't trying to argue that including them is a case for IAR; it isn't. Ivanvector (talk) 15:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this will help: a summary of the options considered so far:

1. Include links in the "External Links" section. Some editors have suggested that Wikipedia can serve as a navigational aid for off-wiki content, and links to candidates' campaign websites are relevant to the election, but adding external links to the body of articles is frowned upon by WP:EL. Therefore, list links under "External Links." This is the current treatment, but also runs against WP:ELMINOFFICIAL as the candidates' websites are not about the election, and are not the official pages for the election.
2. Include links within individual candidates' listing. Some editors (or maybe it's just me) agree with points made in #1, but feel that navigation is more logical by placing a link to a candidate's website below the candidate's name and date of registration. The WP:EL guideline expressly states that external links are not to be used in the prose section of articles. However, this was the treatment used for Toronto mayoral election, 2010 prior to the close of the election.
3. Do not include links to candidates' websites. Some editors have (correctly) stated that indiscriminately including so many external links is a violation of WP:EL (and maybe other guidelines) and therefore the links should not be included anywhere within this article.

I have not polled this and I don't intend to, but I am once again leaning towards #3 as it seems to be the least contentious option and the one most supported by our guidelines. I'm fine with any one of these, tbh, I just want to make sure we've decided so we don't go through this again every time some new editor turns up and adds a website. Ivanvector (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Date format

Truther2012, I'm not really concerned about which date format to use as long as we're consistent. The {{as of}} template adds some functionality to the page so it gets flagged if the info is stale, which we probably don't have to worry about, so I'm fine with your change. The "df" flag in that template only has one parameter - if you set "df=US" then the date format is mdy; in all other cases it uses dmy. Ivanvector (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Ivanvector, I completely share and support your intent. Indeed we need to be consistent with dates, and I concur that MDY is more common. However, any template that explicitly uses US format to overwrite "standard" format is a suspect and should be avoided (on non-US pages). I am a bit lost as to exactly what this template would help us achieve, but if you feel strongly about it, you will need to heavily disclose the need of using "US". Otherwise, I am sure, there will be scores of editors overwriting it causing unnecessary edit-warring (in the article on the subject, that is destined to cause some serious warring all by itself) --Truther2012 (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What the template achieves is that the page is added to a maintenance category for pages that may contain dated information (e.g. Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements from March 2014). I think that's very unlikely to be the case here. I only really added the template in the first place because I like fancy stuff, but you're right that it doesn't add anything since we'll likely remove it after the election anyway. Typing the date in plain text is fine for the purposes here. If it was something I felt comfortable editing, I would update the template so that it accepts "mdy" or "dmy" as settings for the "df" flag, for the sake of neutrality, but I'm not going to touch it since I'm sure I would screw up a lot of stuff. If you feel strongly about using dmy dates that would be fine by me as well, and I'd help you update the article if I happen to see you're working on it, but remember to switch the {{use mdy dates}} template at the top of the article so some bot doesn't come along and undo all your changes. Ivanvector (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Changing date format will only get everyone more confused. Btw, you should be bold and change templates if you feel the need ;) --Truther2012 (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I just put in a request on the talk page. The template is protected so I wouldn't be able to make changes anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

"First" Debate

CaffeinAddict, this is why I dont usually go to CBC for news or information or at all...

• http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rob-ford-touts-his-record-in-1st-toronto-mayoral-debate-1.2587035
• http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rob-ford-other-mayoral-candidates-meet-for-1st-debate-1.2525139

For us to call the first "chronologically" debate first, probably wont amount to OR, but still... I made the appropriate edits.--Truther2012 (talk) 15:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Ha, pretty hilarious. Maybe the next one they'll call the "Real, Real, First Debate". To be fair I think they thought of yesterday's debate as the first because it was the first properly televised one. Thanks. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

They meant first broadcast, and thus first mass audience. Apparently Ford went to over 150 debates where Rossi showed up, last time, so debates are too numerous to count, otherwise. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I know the "first" was small potatoes, but the media is biased toward the debates that they pay for and televise anyway. CaffeinAddict (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Election navbox

Kingjeff has created a navbox for candidates in this election but has only included 5 candidates. I'm ready to argue that the 5 he listed are the candidates who are being marked as serious contenders by the media, based on the depth of coverage to date and the scope of recent polling. They are of course Olivia Chow, Rob Ford, Karen Stintz, David Soknacki, John Tory. That seems to be the situation now but of course it may change over the next few months. Does anyone disagree?

I'm also going to add more candidates to the navbox, for those who have not been covered in as much depth but who nonetheless have Wikipedia articles. Ivanvector (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The five I added are the candidates that could have their own articles for the mayoral election. There is enough media coverage for them to do that. You could also add the other candidates that don't have an article. But just don't link them. Kingjeff (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it unusual in a navbox to have a long list of entries that don't have articles? Ivanvector (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but so is the list for mayor of Toronto in elections. Kingjeff (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Issues

I propose to start building an Issues matrix with main issues listed against (main) candidates' positions. We can start building it here and, as it gets filled up, migrate it to the article... Here is what I have in mind...--Truther2012 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Issue / Position	Chow	Ford	Soknacki	Stintz	Tory
Mayor Ford's Scandal	"Embarrassed"	Rehab			"Better mayor"

Great idea, but it sounds like you're getting dangerously close ot original research. You'll have to be very careful to provide reliable sources and ensure that you are not synthesizing. Ground Zero | t 00:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Definitely. We will need to define what constitutes a "major issue" (e.g. at least four candidates raise it in their platforms) and then we'll need proper citations for all. This way we'll overcome the OR trap.--Truther2012 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A simple test for significance of an issue is depth of coverage - if a number of local papers are talking about it then it's probably worth mentioning here. I wouldn't rely on candidates' platforms - things that are important to candidates aren't necessarily major issues. Ivanvector (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. CaffeinAddict (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not?--Truther2012 (talk) 18:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Campaign photos

I've moved this under a new header for clarity. Ivanvector (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ivanvector, I'm with David Soknacki's campaign and noticed that there is no photo of him on his page. Our campaign has some photos of him that we've released for common usage here: http://www.soknacki2014.com/photos. As I'm with the campaign and it would be a conflict to edit the page, can someone else please post one of the images? (The one with a tie if I have any say in the matter). Thanks! Agent to (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Agent to, thank you for disclosing your COI and addressing NPOV editors instead of editing the article. I don't think this article is ready for pictures of candidates yet. However, I noticed that Soknacki's personal article does not have any pictures. If I may suggest that you upload whatever images you deem appropriate to that page first (with appropriate disclosures of copyright restrictions). When we are ready to update candidates' pictures here, we would be able to simply pull them off their respective articles. Hope this helps. --Truther2012 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Truther2012, My bad. Yeah, meant about his personal profile page, not this page. I was referred to this talk page by a friend since it answered some questions about ability of campaigns to upload their own content. As for uploading myself, my account isn't autoconfirmed yet, so I am unable to do so. Not sure if I'm breaking etiquette but by asking but would someone else be able to do it? If so, thanks! Agent to (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any issue with adding a photo to David Soknacki - the copyright is clear and the images are neutral. We should try to get photos for the other candidate articles as well, and we should try to have photos for all of the "frontrunners" before we add them to the article, just to keep things clean. I'm a bit busy at the moment - I'll look into uploading an image tonight if someone doesn't beat me to it. Ivanvector (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Endorsements

I propose to include Endorsement column to the candidates' table. So far, I know of only one notable endorsement: Smitherman -> Chow. Can we start building a list here (with appropriate refs)? And once we have at least three candidates been endorsed we can move them into the table. --TRUTHER2012 20:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd add a proposal that we consider an endorsement notable if the endorser is notable (has an article) and/or if the endorsement gains significant coverage. Neither of these should be very hard to satisfy. I've stolen the format below from Toronto mayoral election, 2010. Searching for endorsements right now just throws results for the provincial election, but this should be easy to fill in when the municipal campaigns ramp up again. Ivanvector (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Olivia Chow: Deepa Mehta, George Smitherman, The Iron Sheik, Toronto & York Region Labour Council
• Rob Ford: Ben Johnson, Sam Tarasco, Bill Maher
• David Soknacki: Councillor Paul Ainslie, Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby
• Karen Stintz
• John Tory

I think it would be better to mention any important endorsements in the body of the article. A list is likely to be non-neutral, because we need to establish criteria to add names. The only exception might be to have a list of councilor endorsements and of newspaper endorsements. TFD (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm going by what we did for the 2010 election, as far as format. We can keep the list neutral as long as we establish a neutral criteria and follow it. I agree about councillors and newspapers, but what about unions, former mayors, other politicians, celebrities, etc? There were examples of all of those in the 2010 article. There's also a BLP issue if we get an endorsement wrong, or if someone revokes an endorsement. I like keeping it simple, which is why I proposed the basic criteria above. Open to suggestions, though. This should apply to potential endorsements for the other 47 candidates as well. Ivanvector (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

An RS showing the endorsement should be the only criteria, this will take care of both notability and BLP issues.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

On the second thought, I support Ivanvector's proposal of the "article+RS" criteria. This will cover politicians, unions, media, etc. Such a list cannot possibly be NPOV, as it simply reflects (properly sourced) POV of notable players. No problem there.--Truther2012 (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Endorsements are of course inherently non-neutral, but writing about them doesn't violate WP:NPOV unless we give them undue weight based on their prominence in reliable sources. Adding an endorsement to our list if it meets our criteria (which is a low bar) is no more biased than adding a person to the "declared but not registered" list because reliable sources have covered their declaration. Later on we might want to create a section for "notable endorsements" if any create a significant buzz; I'd argue none have so far. Ivanvector (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that we have three candidates' endorsements, I will move this into the body of the article.--Truther2012 (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Debate Picture

Does it strike anyone else as strange that the only picture of the debate we have is the one that excludes the incumbent? Better yet, the picture seems to be copyrighted by one of the candidates? I am raising a possible POV flag. --Truther2012 (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

That is odd, yeah. Also, the file data indicates that the author is Our Place Initiative but it is clearly hosted on Olivia Chow's Flickr. Can we find a better image? Ivanvector (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll comment it out for now. Not sure if we even need a picture there...--Truther2012 (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Issues - Take 2

I am reintroducing the "Issues" idea. I believe a number of clear issues have emerged. I will start the section here. Please feel free to add prose and sources.

• Ford's Scandal
• Transit
• Land transfer taxes

--Truther2012 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I put together the skeleton. --Truther2012 (talk) 18:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing Tory Endorsements

Under endorsements, John Tory received an endorsement from Councilors Gary Crawford and Denzil Minnan-Wong, as well as from Liberal MPP Mario Sergio and former Liberal MPP Donna Cansfield. 67.241.142.28 (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there was a request on top of the page with an RS: "Please add Denzil Minnan-Wong to the list of Councillors endorsing John Tory. Citation link here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/john-tory-endorsed-by-denzil-minnan-wong-1.2793784"--Truther2012 (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done for Minnan-Wong--Truther2012 (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

Add Morgan Baskin website to list of mayoral candidate sites. Her site is http://morganbaskin.ca. She is a legitimate registered candidate for mayor. Kapn1966 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

 Done --Truther2012 (talk) 14:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Toronto Star's Doug Ford non-endorsement

The Toronto Star's public editor published a column saying that while the paper has yet to endorse someone for mayor, they will definitely not be endorsing Doug Ford: [2]. Is this worth adding to the article somehow, say as a note below the endorsements table? I only mention it because the Star's endorsement is normally considered notable. Ivanvector (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Their endorsement is notable, and the article says that they will endorse a candidate soon. We could just add it then. The Sun also mentioned that last time they went with Ford and now they are disappointed, i.e. not endorsing Doug. Nobody expected Star to endorse Ford anyway.--Truther2012 (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Oct. 17 Mainstreet Technologies poll

Has not been entered yet. 99.235.143.27 (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Treating this as an edit request, which is now  Done. Ivanvector (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Torontoist Endorsement

Do we consider blogs as notable endorsers? I'd say not. --Truther2012 (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought that might come up. I've used Torontoist as a source numerous times across the encyclopedia, having never realized that it is technically a blog. However, it's one of the largest websites of its kind in Canada, published by a large publishing company and partnered with the Globe and Mail, with editors and regular columnists, but I don't know to what extent its material is subject to any kind of editorial oversight. It doesn't seem to have ever been addressed at WP:RSN either. Worth asking there? I don't object to removing the endorsement in the meantime. Ivanvector (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh hang on, that wasn't what your question was asking, was it? I personally consider Torontoist a notable publication in Toronto, but I don't know how to quantify that. The 2010 election article didn't list any media endorsements, so that doesn't help. The article Media in Toronto doesn't list it, so that's not looking good either. But it is part of the Gothamist chain which is itself notable, so maybe? I originally added the endorsement so I'll defer to other editors' judgement here. Ivanvector (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a question of reliability and notability. It could be considered reliable as a source, but is it notable as an endorser? I don't know the answer, hence a question. I lean towards "no" on notable, but could be convinced either way. The fact that its article here isn't really up to wiki standards (and actually focuses on Gothamist publications) gives me even less confidence. In any case, if we don't get enough responses here, I think it is worthy of an RfD.--Truther2012 (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Torontoist warrants a mention. Torontoist has grown larger than most blogs, largely because it publishes articles from multiple authors, just like old style newspapers. The endorsement is written by 'Torontoist' as the author, just like the editorial board of any newspaper. It is widely read on the web and just because there is no paper version does not demean its notability as a media publication. IMO, Torontoist gets to stay. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I realize that this isn't the substance of the question at hand, but just wanted to clarify in case anybody's unclear that our rules for using blogs for sourcing vary depending on the nature of the blog in question. It's not the word "blog" by itself that disqualifies a source — we accept the Huffington Post for sourcing, for example, and that's technically a giant collective blog too — but rather the editorial structure. I've also used Torontoist (and BlogTO, too) for sourcing before — they wouldn't be sufficient sourcing to demonstrate that a topic was notable enough for an encyclopedia article if they were the only sources I could find, but they're perfectly acceptable amid a diversity of sources.

One-man personal blogs on WordPress or Blogspot or the writer's own self-published domain don't count, while larger entitles like HuffPo or the Gothamist network, which have multiple contributors and recognized editorial standards and wide readerships, and are effectively best understood as "newspapers without the paper", are acceptable. So, too, are traditional media entities which use a blog format for some of their content — for instance, a blog-formatted column on a major daily newspaper's website, or Kady O'Malley on the CBC's website, or CBC Music if the topic is a musical artist or their album. The reality, of course, is that even traditional media entities are rapidly evolving in that direction, and it may very well soon be the core model that that virtually all media follow — so we evaluate whether a source is reliable or not by looking at the parent entity that's publishing it, not by the format it happens to be using. The quality of Wikipedia's article about the source in question also isn't relevant to the matter — our articles about the National Post and Saturday Night still have some problems too, but that doesn't have any bearing on their usability as sources.

To get to the substance of the matter, though, we don't have any corollary rule about how to distinguish the notability or non-notability of a media outlet's endorsement in an election — the only rule that's ever really been applied at all is that if the entity in question would be considered a reliable source in other parts of the article, then its endorsement is notable enough to list in the endorsements section. So the only real reason to not list Torontoist would be if there was a consensus to deem it not a reliable source at all — and I don't really foresee that happening, personally. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sourced Material vs. Campaign Material

Dear campaign-affiliated editors, I know you are eager to share information (such as endorsements) with the world about your candidates, however, there are standards here at Wikipedia that we need to adhere to. First: WP:RS, only well and reliably sourced information is allowed, and no, your candidate's website is not it. Second: WP:COI, if you are connected with the campaign you should abstain from editing, instead, please post the information here on the talk page and one of the neutral editors will be more than willing to help. Let's keep wikipedia clean.--Truther2012 (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2014

My request is for the John Tory media endorsement box to have the National Post added to it, per this item... http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/10/24/the-national-post-endorses-john-tory-for-mayor-of-toronto/ RaginRonic1 (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 10:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Toronto mayoral election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141022210910/http://thewalrus.ca/2004-09-security-2/ to http://thewalrus.ca/2004-09-security-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 7 November 2017 (UTC)