Talk:Bill Blair (politician)

Regent Park

Regent Park is in 51 Division. That should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.117.43.150 (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Billblair.jpg

Image:Billblair.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

removal

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Allegation of "misleading" public

Asked Tuesday if there actually was a five-metre rule given the ministry’s clarification, Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair smiled and said, “No, but I was trying to keep the criminals out.”

— Globe and Mail, Last updated on Tuesday, Jun. 29, 2010 9:27PM EDT

With this edit (summary: "Returned previously censored link to Globe and Mail article in which Chief Blair admitted to misleading public on facts of the recently passed Public Works law."), Johnmierau (talk · contribs) asserted that Blair was personally and deliberately misleading the public about the status of the law. While this is quite plausible, and can be inferred from the article, it is not clearly stated that this was Blair's motivation. Interpretation of Blair's ambiguous comment without full context is original synthesis, and is inappropriate for a biographical article. Without knowing whether Blair himself was under a mistaken impression about the regulation at some point, it is inappropriate to assert that it was a deliberate act. At best, the article's old—and since-updated—title stated that the police (which ones?) were using deception. The fact that the title was changed to a new version could well indicate that the Globe is no longer willing to assert that the confusion over the law was a deliberate ploy.

By the way, "censored" was most assuredly the wrong word. This is just a matter of WP:NPOV—the requirement that we use a neutral tone and make verifiable assertions in articles. No harm, no foul—you're apparently new here. If you don't post any objections, I'll go ahead and modify the article to correct the issues I outlined. TheFeds 04:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, similar updates have been made to other articles from the same Canadian Press source (e.g. CBC), perhaps implying that Canadian Press wishes to tone down its original headline. Also, the Toronto Star has reported that Blair claims his comment was interpreted out of context, and that he was originally mistaken about the nature of the regulation. Given this, I think we should avoid the accusatory language in the article (at least until a reliable source can be found that categorically supports the idea that Blair was deliberately lying). Since this is a BLP article, I'm going to remove that passage now. TheFeds 16:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There should be a section in this article about Bill Blair allowing, or at least presiding over at least 14 police who covered or removed their name tags and badge numbers during the g20, and then proceeded in an unprovoked attack against peaceful protesters who were protesting in a designated protest zone. These unprovoked attacks resulted in various injuries including the shattered jaw and nose of "Adam Nobody" as well as the public strip search of a 13 year old girl, as well as the unlawful detainment of nearly 1000 people. Following the incident Bill Blair would not release the names and badge numbers of the officers involved, even though he admitted to the media that he knew who the officers were. The Toronto star documented all of this on its front page every day during the week of Dec 5 through the 11 of 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevus1 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Adam Nobody and the removal of name tags should be mentioned. Considerable press coverage resulted from both of these incidents, and Blair commented on both numerous times. --Quinn d (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Should the article refer to the 2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests or 2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests?

Should the article refer to the 2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests or 2010 G-20 Toronto summit protests? 206.130.173.55 (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have given two identical alternatives. Please clarify. TheFeds 20:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bill Blair (politician)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bill Blair (politician)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "globemailjuly2011":

• From 2010 G20 Toronto summit protests: Morrow, Adrian (23 June 2011). "Toronto police were overwhelmed at G20, review reveals". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 24 June 2011. Retrieved 24 June 2011.
• From Police misconduct: "Toronto police were overwhelmed at G20, review reveals". The Globe and Mail. 23 June 2011. Retrieved 24 June 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)