Talk:2018 Toronto mayoral election

Faith Goy

Faith Goldy doesn't use the term white nationalist to refer to herself, why is it on this page? No surprise the page is locked. Very sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.178.4 (talk) 20:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm wondering the samething. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.103.211.146 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all, the "white nationalist" description is reliably sourced. More importantly, Goldy describes herself as a Euro-Canadian nationalist - these are her own words in her own verified Twitter account. I think "white nationalist" should stay based on sources, but if using her own words will prevent an edit war, "Euro-Canadian nationalist" could work, too. Any other thoughts, here? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you think "Euro-Canadian Nationalism" means, though, when it's a self-description coined by an alt-right personality who has appeared on the neo-Nazi Daily Stormer and recites the Fourteen Words by heart? And who is described in reliable sources with passages such as: "Goldy’s forceful defence and the opinions she expressed about the issues that motivated the organizers [of the Charlottesville Unite The Right rally] should be required viewing for anyone looking for insight into the long-term goals of the white nationalist movement." [1] "Euro-Canadian" is code for "white", a term invented by a group whose tactics include relabelling themselves to attempt to gain legitimacy. We should describe such people as they are described by reliable sources, not how they attempt to describe themselves. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely, and I've restored the phrase "white nationalist" to the article a couple of times at this point. I meant to use her self description as a "Euro Canadian" nationalist as evidence that the entry here should go ahead and call her a white nationalist, because it's really the same thing, though I obviously didn't make that point clearly enough. I only suggested using Goldy's own words as a compromise to keep the page stable if necessary - it's becoming an edit war. So to be clearer than I was above: ideally I think the well sourced term "white nationalist" should stay. Any other thoughts? Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about compromise, but really I would prefer to use the reliably sourced description rather than capitulate to various swarms of things just so that they'll stop edit warring. My thinking on it is this: if we describe her as "Euro-Canadian Nationalist" in the bio entry, readers will wonder what Goldy's neologism means. Normally in those cases we would avoid the word altogether, or at least make a piped wikilink to a known term, but in this case the best we could do would be a piped link to white nationalism anyway. So we ought to just call it what it is, as reliable sources describe it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The description now says far right , which is a lot more fair to her views. I'm not quite sure being a "European Nationalist" is the same as being a "White Nationalist". The identity of a "white identity" is almost an entirely American concept. If Faith Goldy does not refer to her views as being "White Nationalist" then she isn't one and putting the term up there is you subjective opinion, for which there is no place on a so called encyclopedia. Please keep your opinion and interpretations to yourself :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:fea8:13e0:26c:182b:9f1c:2aa3:bd1 (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2018‎

The issue is that reliable sources have described her as a white nationalist, which means, contrary to what you've said, it isn't a "subjective opinion". The fact that she chooses to use a euphemism to describe herself is not the only thing that Wikipedia should take into account, if it should take it into account at all. An encyclopedia should not use euphemisms. "Euro-Canadian nationalist" is a neologism that has no set meaning, as Ivanvector pointed out above. Terms used here should be precise. The sourced descriptor "white nationalist" should be restored. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Please note, as editors we haven't seen before continue to revert the descriptor, I have opened a discussion at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Goldy’s Wikipedia page describes her as a political commentator and a reporter. It does not explicitly state that Goldy is a white nationalist, and instead says that she challenged this label. Your personal opinion, which is cited from an opinion article, has no place as someone’s official description. Washingtonediter (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

If we are so concerned about the fact that she disputes the "white nationalist" label, why aren't we at least using her own self-descption as a "Euro-Canadian nationalist"? Reliable sources have described her as a white nationalist, so the description should stand, as described above. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

/* Faith Goldy */ has been a third place candidate according to most polls. How come the "major candidates" section does not list her, but includes two other far weaker candidates instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:F1DF:F2D1:EC16:8B31:155:F8F7 (talk) 22:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Info Box

I think we need to decide who will be in the info box. Faith Goldy has been added, removed, and readded. Despite how you feel about her and her views, she is quite a polarizing public figure who often makes headlines. It could be argued that she's better known than Keesmaat. What are everyone's thoughts? RoyalObserver (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

If that's your argument, provide the sources. Tory is the incumbent, and Keesmaat has for a long time been subject of media speculation of her political ambitions, and her campaign is actually getting coverage. Goldy was not and is not. Miscellaneous people who have as yet had no impact at all on election coverage should not be given undue attention here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The only poll so far that lists her has Faith Goldy at 3%. I don't think that's enough to list her as a major candidate.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.156.132 (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2018‎

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Faith Goldy by Peter Duke.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2018

Please add Christopher Brosky's neo-Nazi/white supremacist views. CharlemagneXVII (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: (courtesy ping ElHef) I looked up references myself, but CharlemagneXVII it is customary to provide reliable sources for any edit you wish to make. Per the biographies of living persons policy, no potentially controversial or defamatory information may be added about a living person without a reliable source. Thanks for your suggestion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Endorsements

The reference cited for Mike Layton's endorsement of Jennifer Keesmaat seems to be a tweet where Layton discusses how the speed limit in residential areas should be lowered to 30km/h. I fail to see how this is an endorsement of Keesmaat. Is there somewhere else where Layton has endorsed Keesmaat? Mark Alfred (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity and RoyalObserver: endorsements cited to tweets by the endorser are usually acceptable - they must be presumed to be statements in their own words, and all of the endorsements we currently list are cited to tweets. The problem I have with the Gillian Smith endorsement is that she does not seem to be notable (doesn't have an article). Should we include endorsements by non-notable individuals? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't see why we should. How would we choose among the possibilities?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Jennifer Keesmaat has been endorsed by Olivia Chow, here (https://twitter.com/oliviachow/status/1041753182425108480) and here (https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/olivia-chow-endorses-jennifer-keesmaat-for-toronto-mayor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.172.170 (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Jennifer Keesmaat has been endorsed by Suze Morrison, MPP Toronto Centre https://twitter.com/jen_keesmaat/status/1052910083682787328, https://twitter.com/SuzeMorrison/status/1052911980099465222 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.172.170 (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Colours

It appears that Jennifer Keesmaat's website has been tweaked in the last few days to adjust the key colour of the campaign materials. Formerly, the shade of red used on the site was #F07263. It is now adjusted to a different red, #E93D30.

Since this page has protection levels beyond my own permissions, can someone adjust the colours?

Thanks! Rgroen (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks for pointing it out. Colours updated. // sikander { talk } 02:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi sikander I see its been changed from #F07263, but now is #ED6055. From my review of the jenniferkeesmaat.com site, it should be #E93D30. Rgroen (talk) 12:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Collapsed by default?

Why is the candidate listing collapsed by default? -- Zanimum (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Locked?

Does anyone know how long this page will be locked for? Forum put out a second opinion poll but we are unable to add it.

I believe a lot of people turn to Wikipedia to see a list of all opinion polls during an election, so this is a big disservice.

Mikemikem (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mikemikem. The page is protected and can only be edited by users meeting the extended confirmed criteria, and it is locked until after the election, because of users adding information that violates our biographies of living persons policy. If you would like to propose a change you can use the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See the link for instructions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the poll. Much appreciated Mikemikem (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, September 9, 2018

The September 5 Probit poll has Faith Goldy at 3% and other at 2%. Could the Probit poll entry in the "other" column be broken down accordingly? I don't think a new column is needed but the column entry should say Goldy 3%, Other 2%.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.156.132 (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2018‎

Done. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:06, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, October 1, 2018

Could someone please add the Toronto & York District Labour Council's endorsement of Keesmaat to the list of endorsements as per here: [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.117 (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2018‎

 Done Fish+Karate 10:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Faith Goldy

Faith Goldy has been polling over 6%, shouldn't her picture be added to the infobox? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

6% isn't enough to make her a major candidate. Other polls have her at even less. If a third candidate can crack 10% (as has happened in past elections) it could make sense to include them. - Seazzy (talk) 21:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request, October 10, 2018

Could someone add Faith Goldy to the other candidate section? Just because she doesn't share your views does not change the fact she is running for mayor. She has more polling percentage than the 2 currently on the page. She is mentioned in the polling. Even if she is a literal Nazi the record should state that she ran, stop ignoring facts.[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.241.105 (talk) 02:30, 11 October 2018‎

Welcome to Wikipedia! You can add Faith Goldy, or any other registered candidate whose short bio can be cited from a reliable source, to the Other Candidates section! You must be a logged-in editor with extended confirmed edits. This is achievable by contributing meaningful edits to other pages. Please make sure to use neutral tone and to cite your sources. - Seazzy (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 October 2018

Under Keesmaat Endorsements please add the following. City councillors: Joe Cressy Other: Elementary Teachers of Toronto (ETT) OhioExpress (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC) OhioExpress (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 03:19, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2018

Under Keesmaat Endorsements please add the following. City councillors: Gord Perks In the same section, also recommend updating reference for Mike Layton and moving reference to the next column.OhioExpress (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC) OhioExpress (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17/18 October 2018

Under Keesmaat Media Endorsements please add the following. Daily Xtra & Spacing (magazine)

Under Keesmaat Provincial politicians endorsements please add the following:

Jessica Bell(NDP) Suze Morrison(NDP) Marit Stiles(NDP) Doly Begum(NDP) OhioExpress (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done

• @Fish and karate: (I think you actioned this request) I had a look at the sources yesterday but got busy. Daily Xtra is definitely an endorsement, but I don't think Spacing is, it's just a pros-and-cons discussion with no actual "you should vote for Keesmaat" type statement. Did you see something different? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ivanvector: I thought it was an endorsement, based on the last two paragraphs alone, but happy for it to be removed if you don't think it is. Fish+Karate 12:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose, it's at the very least a very positive review. As an endorsement it seems a bit hollow, but I'm not going to argue. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2018

Under Tory endorsements please add Toronto Sun[6] 199.7.156.252 (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done by Ivanvector. Fish+Karate 12:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 October 2018

The Toronto Star has also endorsed Tory.[7] 69.165.146.225 (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Danski454 (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent page moves

I've been seeing lots of moves from this page recently, between 2018 Toronto mayoral election and Toronto mayoral election, 2018. All of the existing previous Toronto elections in List of Toronto municipal elections use the "election, date" naming convention, so I think that's why someone attempted to move it back to that name.

It looks like someone started a RFC at WP:NCGAL that's proposing using a bot to rename all election/referendum articles to the "date election"-style naming convention. If anyone has any strong opinions on the matter, and you haven't already, it might be worth checking out the discussion at WT:NCGAL#Proposed change to election/referendum naming format -- Ununseti (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Poll not included in table. Please add

Please add the following poll to the list of opinion polls. DART Insights. Tory 62%, Keesmat 27%, Others 11%. Sample of 669 with error +-4.3pp. Conducted October 12-15, 2018. Link to the page with the tables and factum below.

http://dartincom.ca/poll/the-toronto-municipal-campaign-majority-57-say-mayor-john-tory-deserves-re-election/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infometric21 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I added the poll to the article. 344917661X (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 October 2018

Please add the following to Keesmaat Endorsements Other:
Charles Spearin (Broken Social Scene) [8]
Edward Keenan (Toronto Star Columnist) [9]
Heather Mallick (Toronto Star Columnist) [10] OhioExpress (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done 344917661X (talk) 19:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 October 2018

Add "The 2018 Toronto mayoral election sparked controversy when candidate Faith Goldy was refused to participate in the debates. As a result, she stormed the debate stage on September 24th, 2018 in protest."

Source: https://globalnews.ca/video/4480875/faith-goldy-storms-the-stage-at-toronto-mayoral-debate-gets-escorted-off-by-police 67.218.223.54 (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - someone else can actually process this request, but it's non-neutral trivia. This was about the least "controversial" election in the megacity era. There's a note about Goldy's antics in her own bio, that's about all this deserves. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done, requires discussion. Fish+Karate 12:14, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

More about Faith Goldy

(moved comments peppered throughout the page to a new section) Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits)

Are there objective criteria that are used to decide this (please cite specifically)? The present trend with other Toronto mayoral election pages is to list three candidates. This also jives with a general trend in contests of all kinds to list the "gold, silver, bronze" winners. Previous elections' pages have listed 2 candidates, or 4, and then if you go back far enough, the formatting is inconsistent until recent. Additionally, there has been obvious efforts on many fronts to suppress discussion of the Goldy campaign for politicized rather than any other legitimate reasons, not simply on Wikipedia but generally. This goes against the attempts to be objective which characterize Wikipedia, and isn't something we should further here. Finally, notability is beyond question in this case. For these four reasons, it seems logical that Goldy's image and results be included in the box. I'd add as we that we need to be vigilant to prevent the aforementioned politicized narrative construction from removing it if and once it's been added, including those masquerading as objective editors, as that's a real and grave concern. Mr.troughton (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

On what basis precisely are we deciding the criteria for inclusion in the info box? I've not been. Made aware of a Wiki policy stipulating a certain percentage in polls before inclusion in an election results info box (nevermind the sub-policies in the case of widespread poll tamperingand coverage suppression). The hesitation throughout this talk page with respect to Goldy's inclusion reads much more like politicized narrative control than following Wiki policies, which would be consistent with her campaign at large, where outlets refuse to cover her despite notability and buzz, and then it's claimed she's not notable because these same outlets have selectively ommited her campaign... This is more than likely to have found its way to this page, and is certainly not something we want to allow on Wikipedia, and given that notability is more than satisfied, the prudent way to avoid even the appearance of indulging partisanship would be to list her in the info box. This is weighed against what the drawbacks of doing so would be which are nothing at all. The only way to see a drawback on the costless inclusion of a picture of a notable candidate and a few characters describing same is from a politically partisan perspective, nothing relevant to Wikipedia. Mr.troughton (talk) 18:53, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

A particular candidate's prominence in the article (including their presence in the infobox) is determined by their real-life prominence in reliable sources, as it has always been. In this election, Goldy was not described by reliable sources as a serious presence in the campaign; the election was very consistently described as a contest between Tory and Keesmaat, polling was consistently counted as "Tory-Keesmaat-other", and it continues to be described that way after the election's conclusion. This is exactly the same as for past elections, it's not inconsistent at all. In 2003 there were five prominent candidates (out of 44) but one basically dropped out, leaving 4 in the infobox. In 2006 only Jane Pitfield was a significant challenger to David Miller. In 2010 it was between Ford, Smitherman, and Pantalone, though throughout the campaign there were four other candidates covered significantly right up to when they dropped out. In 2014 it was a three-way race between Rob Ford, John Tory, and Olivia Chow, until it wasn't (Ford dropped out to be replaced by his brother). It's not that we picked three candidates in those cases, we are just following the coverage in reliable sources, just as we're doing here. The idea that there's a grand conspiracy among mainstream media and Wikipedia to keep down coverage of Goldy is just not the case. Giving her undue highlight here when she really wasn't a factor is what would be politically partisan.

That being said, there is some discussion about how to describe Goldy's candidacy in her own bio, which is where it belongs. Much like how we talk about Sarah Thomson's 2010 campaign for mayor. It ended up not being relevant to the election, but is worth mentioning in her bio. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:47, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

In both Toronto mayoral election, 2014 and Toronto mayoral election, 2010 the third place finisher received more than 10% of the vote. In Toronto mayoral election, 2006, the third place finisher, Stephen LeDrew, received less than 5% and he's not listed in that page's infobox despite the fact that he received more media attention than Goldy and, as a former president of the Liberal Party, was fairly prominent. In Toronto municipal election, 2003, four candidates are in the infobox, but they all received at least 5% of the vote. So if there's a pattern here, it's that the threshold for inclusion is 5%. Goldy fell short, just as LeDrew did in 2006. 199.212.27.190 (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)