Talk:Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates in the 2007 Ontario provincial election

Merge to this article
The following unelected individuals have articles about them; prior consensus was that such individuals belong at a comprehensive party candidates page, not in their own article (unless they merit inclusion for other reasons). Mind matrix  16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

List of articles to merge:
 * Mark Beckles
 * Sam Hundal

Taylor
In regards to the Pamela Taylor quote - political candidates make campaigning statements, that's not a surprise and they shouldn't be excluded from articles. WP:POV isn't about the subject's POV but the article's. Fred the happy man (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there even one valid reason for the statement to be in our article at all? Being NPOV doesn't mean we need to uncritically report each and every politician's campaign talking points in detail. There's simply no reason for the quote to be in the article unless one wants to promote the idea that "vote local" should be the defining issue of the campaign. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm ok with removing the quote but there's simply no reason not to state that Murray only moving to Toronto two years ago isn't an issue that's being brought up by Taylor. Deliberately removing that when it is properly sourced *is* a POV edit. Fred the happy man (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Removing the quote is not equivalent to saying that it isn't an issue that Taylor is raising. It's equivalent to saying that the question of how long any candidate has or hasn't lived in the riding is not relevant to a neutral article about either Murray or Taylor. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it's an issue in the campaign - it is biased and doesn't belong in the profile of Ms. Taylor.  PK  T (alk)  16:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't personally believe that residency should be an issue doesn't mean it isn't or hasn't been brought up. It was mentioned a number of times when Murray's possible campaign for Mayor of Toronto was being mooted. It's a bit like saying John McCain's age shouldn't have been an issue in the presidential campaign therefore we won't allow the fact that anyone brought it up as an issue to be included in his biography.Fred the happy man (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi all, i noticed a disagreement about the inclusion of quote on one of the politican's profiles. If i may briefly wade in with an opinion, i would like to argue that the quote does not really have a place in the article. I see it as a meaningless soundbyte rather than anything that is particularly important. I feel that the quote should be excluded. Best, Darigan (talk) 16:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The question isn't a matter of whether the issue has been raised. It's a matter of how Wikipedia presents that — there's a big difference between stating that "Fairly or not, the question of whether McCain was too old to serve as president was raised as a campaign issue" and simply providing a verbatim quote of an opposing candidate saying that "McCain is an ancient old fart who's liable to die in office and leave you with President Sarah Palin! So vote for me...or EEEEEEEK!"
 * Can you see how those two approaches aren't equivalently neutral? Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm ok with removing the quote but I don't think it's valid to remove any reference to the issue being raised. Taylor is, rightly or wrongly, contrasting her "local roots" to Murray's alleged lack of same and it's legitimate and NPOV to mention that in her bio. Fred the happy man (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said that we shouldn't even acknowledge the fact that the question has been raised as a potential issue. It's just that providing a verbatim campaign quote from Taylor herself, without context, isn't an appropriately neutral way to do that. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting that the reference clearly attributes the "local" comment as a "swipe" at her rival. If it was a major part of her campaign, then a NPOV bit could be easily added, but the reference is clear in presenting the Sales Tax/Jobs bit as Taylor's platform and the "local" bit as a, quote, "swipe", which isn't relevant for an encyclopedia. -M.Nelson (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Murray's alleged peripateticness is something that's been commented upon. See for example this column in a recent edition of Xtra: "Don't believe that he won't dump you, too, if a hotter offer comes along. After Murray left Winnipeg, he landed a position with Toronto consulting firm Navigator for a couple of years, but quit so he could take charge of the Canadian Urban Institute. Now, less than two years into that job, he's hoping to become an MPP. Yet he still considers himself a Winnipegger, and says he'll return one day to run for MP again. At least that's what he told me a few months ago, when I interviewed him at a Winnipeg coffee shop. I have no doubt that Murray sincerely wants to serve the people — he's just always keeping his options open about which people to serve." Fred the happy man (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kaj Hasselriis about a lot of things (and I didn't even need to click on the link; I'd already seen that article and knew who wrote it) — and actually, I agree with him about this too — but that is an opinion piece, not a news article that would make a viable Wikipedia source for anything except a statement of Kaj Hasselriis' opinion of Glen Murray. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And Pamela Taylor's opinion of her rival isn't relevant to an article about her? Fred the happy man (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in this article, no.  PK  T (alk)  16:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Back up to where I asked you to consider the difference between "Fairly or not, the question of whether McCain was too old to serve as president was raised as a campaign issue" and "McCain is an ancient old fart who's liable to die in office and leave you with President Sarah Palin! So vote for me...or EEEEEEEK!". Ponder it some more if you need to. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The quote doesn't seem to be a useful addition to the article. It may be verifiable, but it doesn't seem to be encyclopedic content to me. However, I agree that that doesn't necessarily mean that neutrally worded facts about the issues of the election cannot be included. I do agree that Pamela's opinion of her rival is not relevant in this article. DigitalC (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)