Talk:The One (Toronto)

Removal of section

@Vidguy1976: Do not want to start an edit war, but your addition violates WP:Germane and WP:Relevance. Please discuss your edits here. Aimerlamer (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have reviewed the change by the User:Vidguy1976, and believe it also breaks the NPOV rule as it pretty obvious that it only represents one side of the story. Ntb613 (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this discussion to the Talk page. Here are my arguments in favor of keeping the content up.

Aimerlamer issue:

First, whoever is the user behind @Aimerlamer: please do not take this personally. Respectfully, evidence suggests Aimerlamer is doing reputation management on Wikipedia for Sam Mizrahi (the property developer who owns/is building The One). The deletion and his past edit activity suggest this. Here is some evidence to support this:

Fifteen edits, between 10/24/16 and 6/14/17 (34.09% of the total edits made to the page) were made by Aimerlamer on this page - The One (Toronto). (Source: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Aimerlamer&page=The_One_%28Toronto%29&max=500&server=enwiki) Additionally, on the Sam Mizrahi page, Aimerlamer has made 22 edits between 9/20/16 and 6/1/17 (Source: https://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/usersearch.py?name=Aimerlamer&page=Sam_Mizrahi&max=500&server=enwiki). Based on the volume of edits to both pages, which are connected because they are about Sam Mizrahi and his development project, it would appear that Aimerlamer has a connection to Sam Mizrahi. However, it cannot be definitively proven whether it is Sam Mizrahi himself doing these edits as Aimerlamer or if it is a friend, relative, or paid Wikipedia editor. But I believe it is one of those. Why else take such a long-term focused interest in Sam Mizrahi and this page?

Why I added the additional content:

It is part of the story and narrative of the business of Sam Mizrahi, who is building The One. Sam Mizrahi and Khavari are business partners. Khavari is charged in Iran with embezzlement; Mizrahi isn't charged with anything. It doesn't say or imply that Mizrahi is doing anything bad; it just merely states the facts about who he is in business with. In fact, the two sides are involved in a legal battle that is all over the news around Toronto. That legal battle is mentioned. And in my text I wrote what both sides say about the other side in the lawsuit.

Why the section should be put back up:

It is part of the story. it expands the page and the narrative. It is germane and relevant because it deals with the business perspective of the subject (the building). It is neutral because it is a merely a collection of factual sentences about a timeline of events that do not contain judgments or opinions. @Ntb613:'-I don't know what the other side of the story would be. What I posted was a narrative and timeline between the Mizrahi and his business partner. When I did the research for this, I wrote what I found and didn't omit any relevant details. If there is "another side", I would suggest someone add it and I would be happy to have it there.

Therefore, I believe the reasons for deleting the section are not valid. And the real reason, I believe, as i stated in the opening paragraph of this comment, seems to be reputation management of Mizrahi by Aimerlamer.

I agree with not starting an edit war. (To clarify, I didn't put the section back up after it was first deleted - some other user put the section back up). I will post this comment and leave it at that. Community consensus should shape how this is resolved. Thank you for reading. --Vidguy1976 (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have looked at the section in dispute and agree that it does not appear to belong in this article. The section does not mention this tower. It ties the developer of this property to someone who is accused of crimes but doesn't actually tie that person to this project. To get anything about Khavari into this article we would need reliable sources that tie him to this project. All the information that was part of that section would never belong in this article, that may belong in Khavari's article depending on the sourcing, I didn't look at the sources.

I don't know if anyone here follows American football, but here is a partially hypothetical situation. Tom Brady and Aaron Hernandez played together on the New England Patriots. Aaron Hernandez is later convicted of murder. Now to the hypothetical part, Tom Brady starts a business associated around football, would we put anything about Aaron Hernandez into the article about Tom Brady's business? No we wouldn't, Aaron Hernandez has nothing to do with the business. This is the same, Mizrahi and Khavari have been partners on other projects but are not on this project, so their relationship and Khavari's legal problems have nothing to do with this project and does not belong here. ~ GB fan 11:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Vidguy1976 and Aimerlamer: & ~ GB fan Thanks for joining the discussion

Re: Aimerlamer issue:

I have no idea who is user Aimerlamer , but while you write "please do not take this personally" your post definitely touches WP:PRIVACY and am pretty sure that it is a borderline "attempted outing". Outing rule is that : "do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts." So i suggest you delete that section ASAP.

Furthermore i have made 41 edits to Toronto municipal election, 2014 does that mean i work for City of Toronto or elections Toronto???

Many Wikipedia users "adopt a page" doing research, building it up, placing it into their watchlist and going back to it whenever they see someone else made an edit. So making assumptions based on number of edits, is ridiculous.

Re: Why I added the additional content:

According to this logic you should include the whole Sam Mizrahi page, which would obviously be wrong. There is a reason that there are separate pages on Wikipedia... This page should at maximum include a short one sentance of who is the developer, not list all his achievements and / or controversies. And while the lawsuit mentioned "The One" it's not central to the lawsuit. Also IMHO giving it a title of "The Iranian connection" makes it sound as if the building was built by Iranian Government. That title by itself even before reading the rest of your addition already raises the NPOV issue. (see WP:POVNAMING & WP:UNDUE )

Re: Why the section should be put back up:

Please see the previous part of my comment regarding this being "part of the story". Regarding the NPOV, as mentioned above the section title is one issue, but the fact that so much back story is given and court decisions are not mentioned give me the impression that the purpose of that post is negative reputation management...

I came across Sam Mizrahi's page probably close to a year ago and the reason i got originally involved in that page and by extension this page, was that there were two users who were deliberately adding negative sourced & unsourced information (for example claiming that he wasn't Jewish, which can be proven wrong with a very basic google search), which i had to ask admins to block, and they agreed. One of the steps they took when blocked from adding the negative info on the developer's page, was to add it to this page. And if my memory serves me right those edits were removed by admin's because of an edit war and the fact that they agreed that this type of stuff shouldn't be on this page.

Another point regarding the NPOV rule is that, you can't say i will post something that is not NPOV, and someone else should fix it. That's not how it works.

Again Thanks for participating in this discussion Ntb613 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Article listing multiple heights

The first paragraph says the building will be 309 meters tall, but the height listed in the information box is 338 metres. I am aware that the developers are seeking to increase the buildings height to the ladder, but I don't see any sources to suggests that the increase has been approved yet. WikiSurfer2005 (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)