Talk:Sarah Thomson (publisher)

Religion
Does anyone know what religion Sarah is and what the religion of her parents are? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.28.103 (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Notability and deletion
This article should not be deleted because the individual has received significant, non-trivial, media coverage by reliable sources. See Google News. Be in Nepean (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How notable is her mayoral candicacy? 7% of the readership was it? Worries me regarding Notability (people). SGGH ping! 20:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." She's not elected, and how many of those sources are from the publication she is related to? SGGH ping! 20:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are major sources, I don't think they are related to the "Women's Post" (National Post may be, but it is still a national newspaper with editorial oversight independent of the her publication). – xeno talk 20:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not referring to coverage in the Women's Post but in mainstream media where she has received significant coverage. Also, the ex-publisher of the National Post has endorsed her candidacy. For instance, see this item from the CTV News Page (which is a national news network in Canada) "Conrad Black backs candidate in T.O. mayoral race". Be in Nepean (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable enough to meet GNG. The person who won the 2003 Mayoral election was initially in single digits as well, see David_Miller_%28Canadian_politician%29. I don't think she'll win but an early poll result is not a reason to render her unnotable. Also, if you read the Google News coverage, her promise to build more subways has influenced other candidates to respond so she is notable. Be in Nepean (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See for instance this article in Toronto Life "Ford signs up for subway-unicorn brigade along with Commander Thomson". Be in Nepean (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to have it decided at WP:AFD? There every editor is invited to comment on the topic. SGGH ping! 20:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I've been requesting for the past hour. By all means replace the speedy tag with an AFD and let's have a full discussion. Be in Nepean (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For the record, I have declined the latest speedy deletion tag. WP:POLITICIAN makes it clear that candidates are only suitable for inclusion if they meet the requirements set out at WP:GNG; in my opinion, this candidate does. AFD is, of course, available if anyone does not agree. Note this was discussed here. – xeno talk 21:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename
I don't think she is actually most notabe for being a politician and there was some discussion at the AFD that the article name should be altered, any comments. Off2riorob (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * She isn't a politician - she is trying to become one. - Josette (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, so what would be a better title, one that defines who she is in regards to her notability? Off2riorob (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How about, as was suggested in the AfD, just changing it to her name,Sarah Whatmough-Thomson? Silver  seren C 21:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple solution and good, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that would be best as she is not really notable as a publisher either - I mean just being a publisher is not notable in itself. - Josette (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and moved the page to Sarah Whatmough-Thomson. That seems like a better location to me as well. Feel free to revert/revise.  Cheers,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Per this, she's registered as "Thomson, Sarah" for the 2010 Toronto mayoral election. Isn't she best known under that name, for that candidacy? (So see WP:TITLE: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article....Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)".) TheFeds 02:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And by the way—"trying to become" the mayor of a city by declaring candidacy makes one a politician (per definitions "one engaged in politics" & "a person active in party politics"). TheFeds 02:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's still a redirect to the article anyways, so people will still be able to find it as it is. Silver  seren C 02:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * She's not widely known as Sarah Whatmough-Thomson these days and has used "Sarah Thomson" for several years. Individuals should be listed under the name they are best known as. I suggest Sarah Thomson (publisher). Be in Nepean (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good bold edit.I quite like that too. She is imo most notable for her publishing work. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. No problems here either. Cheers,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 16:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The actress Sarah Thomson (the current target of that link) doesn't seem especially notable compared to the publisher/politician Sarah Thomson. Why not put her article there, and disambiguate the actress' article? TheFeds 16:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I doubt very many people outside the city of Toronto have ever heard of Sarah Thomson (publisher). BTW, I don't live too far from there myself and I had never heard of her. - Josette (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, totally agree with that Josette. Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The primary topic guideline considers the likelihood of one intended target versus another, given the same search term. Despite the limited locus of recognition, it's quite likely that the hundreds of thousands of potential municipal voters in Toronto will be more likely to search for "Sarah Thomson" than the legions of Power Rangers fans looking for a supporting cast member from a non-current series, or New Zealand soap opera fans. Also, the politician is apparently best known by her own (married) name, while the performer is probably identified by her roles (but much less recognizable in her own right). Besides, the volume of reliable coverage (as established via Google News and Google searches) seems to clearly favour the politician—who was covered in major national and local newspapers and news broadcasts. (Whether or not Thomson the politician/publisher is the primary topic, it's safe to conclude that the actor certainly isn't. I'm going to create a disambiguation page now, and redirect Sarah Thomson (actor) as an entry there.) TheFeds 18:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you just said. :P Silver  seren C 18:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As there are clearly people that oppose your position, you should continue with discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've made the disambiguation change, but I won't mark one or the other as a primary topic, or revert to "(politician)" until we've had more discussion. TheFeds 18:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You made it before your comment here, saying that you were going to do it? seems a bit of a waste of my time bothering to comment.Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, a disambiguation page was a good idea. Makes things less confusing for readers (potentially). Silver seren C 19:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's called being bold, Rob. Silver  seren C 19:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with the disambiguation page as it stands now. Referring to her as a politician though seems rather silly - she holds no elected office and never has. However, if she wins the election I would agree to the change. - Josette (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My reasoning was that as far as reliable sources go, they've tended to cover her in the context of the political campaign, not in the context of her work as a publisher of a minor magazine (though occasionally, both have come up). But I don't disagree that her chances of winning the mayoral election are slim. Maybe if the election heats up, or her magazine gets more recognition, we'll have a clearer answer as to what she is primarily known as. TheFeds 00:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree and there's the rub, she is not really notable as a publisher or as a politician (and maybe never will be) and yet we have this article...  - Josette (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How about "Sarah Thomson (candidate)" or "Sarah Thomson (Toronto mayoral candidate)"? By the way, she's up to 17% in recent polls, placing her third. I think that's clearly notable. The leader is only on 26%. 99.225.130.171 (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to clean up this article and add in the allegations she has brought forward. I'll do my best to keep it up to date

Gas station
The gas station claims are unsupported and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.206.161 (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The gas station claim is supported by the Royson James column referenced in the article. Ivanvector (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Erroneous news reports
I see you've tried to remove some of the information in the article because it's "wrong based on errors in reports". The sections you've tried to remove are all cited to various news reports in the Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, and by the CBC, which do seem to validate the claims here and which we normally accept as reliable sources. If you're saying that the information in those news reports is wrong, then I would like to help you fix the article, however you will need to provide sources which demonstrate that the information we have is incorrect, and/or point out how our article does not reflect the information from the sources cited. Wikipedia requires that all information presented is verifiable, normally checked by publication in reliable sources. We also require articles to reflect a neutral point of view, which doesn't mean that we automatically remove negative information, but that reliably-sourced negative information must be presented fairly and without undue bias. Since it appears that you have a conflict of interest I recommend that you suggest improvements to the article on this talk page rather than editing the article directly, and we will do our best to implement your suggestions in a way that best conforms with our guidelines. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Allegations against Steve Paikin
Just came out: Her sexual harassment allegations against TVO celebrity host Steve Paikin are all over the news media right now. --Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Rob Ford "Groping" incident
1) it is somewhat conclusory, but more importantly, 2) it is not quite factual: a) I can't find any "suggesting" within the given references - the "others" in question simply stated what the subject (Thomson) said and did; b) The references state that Thomson made the grope allegation, and then subsequent to that, attempted to stage a 2nd incident for the purpose of capturing a photograph.
 * earlier you reduced much of the content regarding the Rob Ford "groping incident"; in particular, the sentence "Others present at the event later suggested that Thomson staged the incident" has a couple of issues:

As for brevity: I am of the opinion we can devote a few sentences to this; it is notable when the sitting mayor of Canada's largest city allegedly grabs butt; it is similarly notable when the butt owner allegedly becomes "agente provocatrice" in an attempted frame-up of said mayor.

So I suggest: 1. We create a new section devoted to this; 2. We just state the facts as given from the references; 3. We give enough information to give the reader the relevant facts.

I would like to build consenus before making further changes, so please feel free to comment.Wisefroggy (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with Ivanvector. --Denis.g.rancourt (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned about devoting too much attention to this incident, as you noted, and I scaled back because three whole paragraphs on this while the entire rest of her political career is bare-bones and barely a paragraph to each of her campaigns is undue coverage of the incident, notwithstanding who the allegation is against. As for the "facts", the entire incident is "he said she said", there is nothing for Wikipedia to report as a fact other than that the two Richmond Hill councillors and Ford's chief of staff claimed that the incident was staged (I used "suggested" instead). As far as I'm aware the incident was a flash in the pan, there was never any investigation or legal resolution, it just went away. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

We are dealing with two separate issues here: #1) the alleged groping, and, #2) the subject's attempted alleged attempted frame-up of the mayor. #2 is not, as you say, a "he said she said", it is a "she said, they said", which is substantially different as far as credibility goes. Also note that "flash in the pan" is opinion, not fact. And again, above you say "Ford's chief of staff claimed that the incident was staged", but I cannot find this in any of the references. We need to stick to facts here. So unless anyone has a valid concern, I will add a couple of sentences quoting the two councillors. The fact that the paragraphs about her political career is bare-bones is irrelevant; the above issues have nothing to do with the subject's political career, nor is the subject particularly notable for her political career (wiki lists her as a "publisher", not a politician). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisefroggy (talk • contribs) 03:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)