Talk:Lisa MacLeod

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lisa MacLeod. 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/20140923153953/http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/en/general-election-district-results.aspx?d=052 to http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/en/general-election-district-results.aspx?d=052

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lisa MacLeod. 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/20091007160233/http://www.elections.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/AB409CCD-84F3-46FA-B3BD-39AB659EFC2D/0/SummaryofValidBallotsCastforEachCandidate.pdf to http://elections.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/AB409CCD-84F3-46FA-B3BD-39AB659EFC2D/0/SummaryofValidBallotsCastforEachCandidate.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130330163815/http://elections.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/7849B894-4C4F-490E-9E8C-271BCF0C0D4D/5712/SummaryofvalidvotescastforeacndGE2011.pdf to http://elections.on.ca/NR/rdonlyres/7849B894-4C4F-490E-9E8C-271BCF0C0D4D/5712/SummaryofvalidvotescastforeacndGE2011.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

New information on Lisa MacLeod
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/pc-civil-war-establishment-actively-trying-to-sabotage-doug-ford-senior-party-official/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.42.101.135 (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

In the second sentence, the statement "and, since 2018, serves as the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services in Doug Ford's cabinet. " is no longer correct, given that the article clearly states her term as Minister of Children, Community and Social Services" ended on June 20, 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.86.141.141 (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Termination of the Ontario Basic Income Pilot
I added a brief note explaining MacLeod's involvement as the minister who cut the Ontario Basic Income Pilot program. It was removed by per WP:NOTNEWS which almost certainly doesn't apply here. This was a significant project; the first of its kind in Canada in recent times. What also makes it notable is that the cancellation of the program was done despite the Progressive Conservatives saying during the campaign that they would see the project to completion. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am looking at the WP:NOTNEWS statements "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." This event was reported on August 1 and added to the Wikipedia article on August 2. I do not agree that one can determine that a news report about something like this has "enduring notability" in one day. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Cancelling a three-year pilot a few months into it is going to have some notable, long-term consequences. It doesn't take a week to determine that cutting a relatively substantial amount of income for pilot participants (who were reassured the pilot would continue whether it was the Libs, PCs, or NDP in government) is going to have meaningful impacts on those people across the province. If it were part of the PC platform to dismantle the pilot it would be less noteworthy as Ontarians would have expected the change. A complete 180 on the campaign promise happened instead, and now people are concerned about what the future holds. Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your predictions about the future might be true, if so in the future it might be worth mentioning in the appropriate article -- which might not be the bio of Lisa MacLeod. For example a footnote in the Mincome article, which by the way contradicts the claim that the Ontario plan was "the first of its kind in Canada in recent times". Anybody else have an opinion? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not a proper application of WP:NOTNEWS. The most relevant part of the policy reads as follows: "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The qualifier "routine" is of vital importance. MacLeod making a speech at a local Chamber of Commerce would be a "routine" news story that wouldn't rise to the threshold for inclusion. This policy announcement is in a completely different category – it was a major decision that has already been reported in the international press. By any proper estimation, it is encyclopedic and suitable for the article.

WP:NOTNEWS might provide some useful guidance as to how the event should be incorporated into this article, but it does not prevent us from mentioning it.

I could add that WP:NOTNEWS does not restrict events from being referenced on Wikipedia by virtue of their recentness. CJCurrie (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Actually "for example" means "the following is an example" not "the following is vital and major", so what matters is the sentences before those words, which I already quoted. And now Ms MacLeod says she did not admit that a promise was broken, which was the vital and major point of Jon Kolbert's edit (look at the diff not the innocuous title of this talk thread). And WP:NOTNEWS (what it really says) is consistent with "Sometimes sources are too new to use, such as with breaking news (where later reports might be more accurate)" -- another WP policy -- and how one should "keep in mind that depictions of recent events may be unbalanced" -- yet another WP policy. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've already said that WP:NOTNEWS might provide some useful guidance as to how this event should be incorporated into this article, and my point isn't to defend the wording of the previous edit. Sure, breaking news reports need to be treated with caution, and our tone should be encyclopedic rather than journalistic; if an edit isn't up to standard on either of these fronts, this can be addressed by editing rather than blanket reverting. The larger point is that there's absolutely nothing in WP:NOTNEWS that says, or even implies, that a major news story receiving international coverage somehow wouldn't meet the standard for inclusion. CJCurrie (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Although not agreeing, I alone won't stand against two strongly insistent editors. I have self-reverted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)