Talk:Toronto/Archive 001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Article name

Why isn't this article titled "Toronto,Ontario" as is Wiki policy for all cities in the U.S. and Canada? The only other exception is New York City, but that case has numerous issues. --142.161.179.115 05:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Should WNED be on the list of TV and radio stations since it gives its location as "Buffalo Toronto"? See http://www.wned.org Edmilne 17:24, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

Shouldn't really, thats just the region it covers, the TV station is in Buffalo. -Fizscy46 05:07, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
CHCH (Hamilton) and CKVR (Barrie) made the list. WNED thinks its a Toronto stations as much as those two. Edmilne 05:22, Dec 15, 2003 (UTC)
WNED certainly thinks it's a Toronto station. I even got into their mailing list somehow and got a donation request…—Wing 05:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If appropriate there could be more economic and cultural information (on immigration, concentration of certain industries in Toronto) perhaps link to in separate topics (eg. I have added one). The phrase "thin on the ground" seemed a bit colloquial so to test how things work I've changed a bit of the phrasing. Not marked as a minor edit due to the comment (is that right?).

Toronto

The EB gave an estimated population for the city at 653,734; (2001 est.) metropolitan area, 4,881,400. Did Toronto's population jump overnight?!

653,734 is for the former city of Toronto, which was merged with several of the suburbs in 1999. The population of the current city, as of the 2001 census was 2,481,494.
The article gives 5,033,541 as the population of the Greater Toronto Area, which is a region diffined by the provincial government and is different than what the census department considers the "metropolitan area" (most significantly, the GTA includes Oshawa). - Efghij 03:59, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Moved from old Toronto/Culture and Politics:

Sub topic for more detail on contemporary Culture and Politics. Perhaps each city could have such an entry. A metadirectory for Canada/Urban_Politics could regroup them all?

Personally, I don't think so. I wish subpages would all go away, and that a page like this would live at Culture and politics in Toronto or better yet Toronto culture and Toronto politics (since no doubt they're often disparate topics). --LMS

OK good point. I was letting myself be directed by traditional library subcategories for place names. But it would be better if separate articles were written and then regrouped on the main Toronto page for example (for that matter they could go under a Culture and Politics heading in the main article).

See also : Toronto

BASHO or whoever, your excellent photos are way too large and should be scaled down 50-60 % to fit neatly with text....DW

Thanks for the feedback (I'm a newbie here thanks to Slashdot); I've scaled down the graphics and put them in tables to make things flow better. --User:Basho

Is a mention of the Stones concert in 2003 really relevant to an Encylopedia entry about the city?

I don't know...now that I think about it maybe the whole article on the concert itself isn't all that necessary. But the SARS stuff (and related concert, etc) should probably be mentioned somewhere, shouldn't it? Adam Bishop 18:09, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
It was larger than Woodstock; if Woodstock gets an article, I don't see why this one doesn't. - Montréalais
Yes. It was very closely associated with the city's recent troubles, and dominated the press for weeks. Also it's a totally Toronto solution to a health problem, to have a big concert for everyone to catch even more diseases from each other, and from Keith Richards, who is immune to all of them, but also carries all of them.
I won't comment on whether SARStock belongs here, but the rankings as a 'large concert' is wrong. SARStock (larger than Woodstock) still isn't in the top 5 large concerts. See Ask Brett or Ask Men. Uccemebug, 2005/06/26 10:40

Sorry Fizscy, we were editing at the same time - you were doing pretty much the same thing I was, with the list of famous people. I just put them in alphabetical order, so I don't think I undid anything you did. Adam Bishop 04:24, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


Under "TV Stations", TVO (TVOntario - http://www.tvo.org) should be listed. Although it broadcasts province wide, its main studio is in [Toronto] (at younge and eglinton). Hyakugei 19:48, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Also under "Toronto's Neighbourhoods" we have "The Beach". Its really called "The Beaches" here (and also The Beach links to the book). Hyakugei

There were a few questionable spellings and namings in the Neighbourhoods list, which I've started to correct. It'd also be good to link them in as The Beaches (Toronto) or similar - there are doubtless plenty of other Parkdales and Rosedales in the world. (I'm in the midst of reading up about naming conventions.)

As for the Beach(es), locals are split over the 'proper' name, and have been for decades. A redirect would be a good idea. (There's a discussion of the naming debate in Robert Fulford's "Accidental City".) Emcilveen

Isn't CKVR actually from Barrie? Adam Bishop 04:25, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes. - user:zanimum

It is from Barrie, but it specifically targets the Toronto market as a sort of secondary to CityTV, so I thought it would be worthwhile to include in there. I thought about CITS in Burlington as well, but figured that is better stuck to Hamilton. There is also CHEX in Oshawa, but that is more Peterborough then anything else.Snickerdo

CKVR is now known as the New VR, it is owned by CHUM television, which is the head company for: City TV, Much Music, Much More Music, New VR, New RO, and SexTV the Channel.

Chex is a CBC channel in Peterborough


The merger of the megacity was in 1998, not 1999 (To the top comment)

To Adam: Yeah, I just re added everything, I saw you fixed the spelling for the Barenaked Ladies too.

Does anybody know whether or not April Wine is for the GTA? No, Ottawa Dhodges

CHEX's main transmitter is on Channel 12 in Peterborough, correct. They also have a semi-satellite that broadcasts Oshawa-Durham specific news on Channel 20. CHEX-TV Oshawa isn't carried on Toronto cable so I figured there was no point in including it in the list. Snickerdo

There are errors on the list of famous people. Shania Twain is from Timmins, Ontario, a very long way from Toronto - she moved to Nashville, Tennessee almost as soon as she left Timmins and now lives in Switzerland most of the time. David Suzuki is from British Columbia and lives in Vancouver, even further away. This list needs to be checked over.

Immigration

Important facts worth mentioning about immigration:

  • Toronto absorbed a vast number of immigrants from Hong Kong before that city reverted to China in 1997.
  • There are 40 religions actively practiced in houses of worship, and 100 languages spoken in Toronto.

[quote]But now Toronto is the highest immigrant population[1][/quote]

  • Um... What's up with the constant revisions to that sentence? It doesn't even make sense grammatically right now... Krupo 06:49, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Amalgamation referendum

In fairness, the way the referendum was held was questionable at best:

  • The voting was not run by Elections Canada, or a qualified third party organization. In some cases, the referendum was run by groups that were vocally opposed to amalgamation.
  • There was no standardized, city-wide voting system. Some votes were taken by ballot-box, others were phoned in. There was no actual city-wide enumeration process.
  • In some cases, to register your vote, you would have to put your name and address on the ballot. (e.g. Scarborough)
  • Some of the phone-in voting lines had messages which tried to dissuade people from voting for amaglamation (e.g. North York)

The results of that referendum cannot be taken as totally accurate.

The Peanut

The Peanut... which Toronto is this? I've never heard of anywhere with that name? Did you make it up or something? - user:zanimum

It's south of Finch & Don Mills. Easily found on a map. It's a widely used name in t-dot. A friend of mine was a long time ago director (or something) of an organization there called the Peanut Project. At its centre is the Peanut Plaza. it's real. Trontonian 23:02, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I've never heard of it either, although I myself don't live there, but more power to you. I just took the liberty of looking it up, and wow, I must admit that it is quite peanut-shaped. I just hope someone can do writeups, even if they're just stubs, for all the neighbourhoods. Aurang 05:21, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Although the question is a year old, I'll vouch for the peanut's ID. Have a friend living down the street from there. Krupo 02:56, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)

The peanut is an area on Don Mills Rd. north of the 401 and south of Sheppard. It has been called this since at least the mid 70s. It is given this name due to its shape.

I've never heard the actual area being referred to as The Peanut but there definitely is a little plaza called Peanut Plaza at that location. In fact, the location of the plaza forces Don Mills Rd to split with the southbound road going around the west side of the plaza while the northbound road going around on the east side.

I took out the assertion that Barbara Hall is projected to be elected mayor. It seemed inappropriate to me. Even if the balance of opinion is that it's appropriate it needs to be documented. Trontonian 23:02, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Good thing you caught that. Frankly, pre-election polls consistantly show themselves to be inaccurate, so it would be inappropriately hasty to say she is the new mayor. - user:zanimum
And the campaign isn't really underway, either. Trontonian

Torontonians

Further to the list of Famous Torontonians. Does this mean anyone who has spent significant time in Toronto, or was actually born there? William Shatner, for example is from Montreal and Paul Shaeffer is from North Bay.Dhodges 17:12, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Could be either, I'd say at least raised there... should we vote? -- user:zanimum
Paul Shaffer is actually from Thunder Bay. Born and raised. Only spent a small amount of time in Toronto. -- djsasso
It would be ridiculous to include people who have spent some of their professional lives in Toronto as 'Torontonians'. Due to its sheer size a vast number of Canadians in showbiz spend some of their time in Toronto. DJ Clayworth 17:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Conan

Shouldn't someone add a 'graf about the arrival of a certain foul-mouthed canine puppet and his friend, Conan O'Brian, in February 2004? Posterity will want to know.

It's not exactly monumental in shaping the course of our history, but I'll add a link to a stub I'll create. -- user:zanimum

Statement about Quebec's language laws and Toronto's immigrants

It seems to me that the statement

Due to the Quebec language laws, the majority of Canada's new immigrants now settle in Toronto.

needs to be moderated somewhat. Surely it's not the ONLY reason the majority of new immigrants settle in Toronto, as this sentence appears to imply? Moncrief 06:52, 24 Feb 2004

---

Brampton

An anonymous user says that Brampton should be in the northwest, not the west...? --ugen64

---

4th largest city in North America

I am admittedly asking this question before doing any independent checking, but where exactly does Toronto rank among North American cities? Aren't NYC, LA, Chicago, and Mexico City all larger than Toronto? Maybe Chicago is smaller. -- fabfablew

This depends on a number of factors, namely (a) your definition of North America (which most people define as including Mexico and Central America, but some Amerocentric people may think otherwise), (b) whether we're talking about the population of the city itself (within political boundaries) or the urban area, and (c) what the definition of the urban area is (census metropolitan area, Greater Toronto Area population, or a little of both). Assuming we all agree that Mexico is a part of North America, Toronto would be the fifth-largest city in North America but would have the ninth-largest urban area in NA. I'm going to take out the fourth largest city bit right now. Darkcore 07:58, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The major consideration is whether it is single city size, in which case it would be Manhattan, LA, Chicago, Toronto.
Central America is a subcontinent, but, along with the carribeans, is North America. -Fizscy46 03:23, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't; it would be (1) Mexico City, (2) New York (Manhattan, contrary to popular belief, is NOT a city in its own right), (3) Los Angeles, and (4) Chicago. Darkcore 18:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
By city proper population, Toronto ranks #5 after Mexico City (8,605,239), New York (8,084,316), Los Angeles (3,807,400), and Chicago (2,896,016). City proper population is unreliable for comparing sizes of different cities because some city boundaries encompass the entire urban area (for example, Calgary and Shanghai) whereas other cities only occupy a small section of the total urban area (for example, Melbourne and London). It is therefore more useful to compare the populations of the urban areas themselves. However, Darkcore's ranking of Toronto at #9 in North America is incorrect due to the incompatibility of the U.S. Census Bureau and Statistics Canada systems for determining "metropolitan area" size. For example, Oshawa and Hamilton, despite being directly linked via 50km of suburbs to downtown Toronto, are not included within the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA), whereas the Philadelphia Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) includes cities such as Atlantic City, 90 km of farmland from downtown Philadelphia. It is for this reason that many feel that the U.S. metropolitan area criteria exaggerate American city sizes compared to international cities. The UN Urban Area estimates are more acceptable because they use more or less the same criteria for all world cities. Using UN Urban Area criteria (UN Population Division), Toronto is also #5 (4,752,000) behind Mexico City (18,066,000), New York (16,732,000), Los Angeles (13,213,000), and Chicago (6,989,000). The cities that would be larger than Toronto if compared using U.S. CMSA numbers instead of UN figures are Boston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Detroit, Philadelphia, Washington, and San Francisco (combined with San Jose)- vicente
You should note that the U.S. Census Bureau uses a few different measures for determining the size of a metropolitan area. The CMSA (Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area) is simply the largest possible one. The PMSA (forgot what the "P" stands for) may be more reliable. Funnyhat 06:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Excellent post Vicente!

Beach pollution?

I find this strange: At the time Toronto's own beaches were far too polluted to use, a side effect of dumping garbage directly in the lake. The Grand Trunk Railway and the Great Northern Railway joined in the building of the first Union Station in the downtown area.

From what I understand, people would bathe in the water until about the 1950's, when the pollution got *really* bad. The quote implies this was already the case around 1900. The Sunnyside Bathing Pavilion, after all, was all about bathing in the lake in the early 20th century, no? Krupo 21:16, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I used to swim in the lake in the 1970s. It was actually quite safe. E-Coli bacteria is actually the main source of pollution not industry.


Excellent post vicente!

Attractions

I wonder about these places:

  1. Scadding Cabin
  2. First Canadian Place
  3. Rowland C Harris Filtration Plant
  4. Canadian Bank of Commerce Tower

I wouldn't call them attractions - going to remove them. Krupo 02:58, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

List Mania

The very long list of parks is troublesome - should it even be there? A few notable parks makes sense; this looks excessive. I also wonder about that hotel section... Krupo 03:01, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Subpages are the best option. - SimonP 03:06, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

Insanity

The R.C. Harris Filtration Plant is a significant Toronto landmark and architectural gem in an Art deco style, believe it or not. As a resident I would definitely include it in a list of important Toronto landmarks. Another anonymous person!

Nothing wrong with putting it in a list of landmarks or significant architectural achievements, but that really does belong on a subpage, or, failing that, in a seperate category. It was originally listed as an "attraction," which implies that it's a regular spot for people to visit. Aside from architecture buffs, I can't imagine someone taking a field trip to the filtration plant. Krupo 03:58, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe there is something weird about Torontonians, but it is set in a park like grounds and there are public tours of the Palace of Purification. If you look around in Google Images you can find some pictures. Anonymous unregistered.

The Harris filtration plant is an astonishing building that perhaps should not be on a tourist destination site, but for those who are interested in architecture and engineering, it is worth seeing. BF

By the way, the beaches water works (in or near Scarborough) has been featured as the bad guy headquarters a number of times in films (as I understand), and even for the more recent mutant-x tv show. We're sorof embarassed/proud of that. -- Sy

Pronunciation

Feel free to remove my modification of the observations about the pronunciation of Toronto. It just felt good at the time.

Canadians often pronounce the name as "Toronno" or even "Trono". This merely reflects general local pronunciation (for instance, "ninety" is often pronounced somewhere between "9-D" and "9-E", rather than "9-T"). It is never incorrect to pronounce distinctly the second t in Toronto, and many local people do so. Other occasionally heard pronunciations are "Toranna" or "Taranna".

-I'm not sure how widespread slurring is, but it certainly is the standard practce in Toronto. My mother would pronounce the cities of Toronto and Tehran as homophones (which is pretty strange, I admit.)

Here's a piece of trivia for ya.. We may slur the word locally, but it's becoming a common trend for us to speak more clearly when talking to non-Torontonians, probably because of how embarrasing it is to be thought to slur our own home's name. To that end, I am really kindof offended by this sad reference in the article. =p -- Sy

Links

I've taken these links off the "external links" section. I don't think the external links area serves as a place to promote your website just because it has some connection to Toronto. It should at least add something to the reader's understanding with original content, eh? Krupo 04:24, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

External links criteria needed

The anon user User_talk:70.27.88.137 has been rather both persistent and annoying in the edits concerning external links. (That user deleted some map references which I reinserted.) Are these links being deleted primarily because the editor is not registered? Have these links been examined in detail and discussed here, as they should be?

In the case of an unrelated article, Limousine External links: that section was simply a linkspam magnet, I deleted the external links section and put a note in HTML comment as to why it should not be reestablished. However, there might come a time when it would be appropriate to have an external link - e.g. "The Museum of Outrageous Stretch Limousines".

I think destination travel articles should have some outside information links as these are useful to travelers - but if we cannot agree on some reasonable cut-off point, or some ranking criteria, then should only government and nonprofit links be allowed? On the other hand, if you let (for example) one taxicab service in then all should be let in, so we could establish a rule - only external directories that are non-exclusive would be allowed (e.g., an external link to a directory of all city taxicab companies - one link), but no plumbers, for that would not be generally useful to a traveler. Also, no directories to for profit directories, or just exclude expensive (to the vendors) directories?

There should be some specific criteria that we can follow in all such articles, and so I am considering establishing a page City article edit criteria, to contain general edit guidelines, preferred article section ordering, image content, map refrerences, etc. and a related discussion page where issues such as this may be discussed. This is just a proposal for discussion, I don't have good answers at this point.

Leonard G. 15:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

In this particular case I objected strongly because the user in question was persistently adding links to one particular site, "Good Ol' Toronto," across multiple articles. This runs counter to the Wikipedia:External links guideline that states "adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged" and "persistently linking to one's own site is considered vandalism." You are right that some specific criteria for cities would be useful. Personally I think the official Tourism Toronto site is enough, and that for most cities allowing commercial links will just lead to an accumulation of spam at the bottom of articles. - SimonP 03:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
There are two questions here:
  1. Is the water tower important enough to need an external link about it? That's more or less the same question as is it important enough to be specifically described in the article. The threshold should be somewhere between "The main avenue in Foobarville passes by a water tower" and "The Barbaz Water Tower, built by Eifel, is the most memorable landmark in Freedonia".
  2. Is this the best external link for this water tower? I'm not a connoiseur, but I'd say it's possible. OTOH, I'm quite sure that it's not the best website for all water towers, as the abundance of links to it seems to suggest. Zocky 23:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Chicago > Toronto

i take issue with this statement: "in 2003 Toronto had 65 homicides, while similar sized Chicago had over 590."

nominally, toronto and chicago are similar in population. but chicago is much more built up, more heavily urbanized and sits in the center of a large suburban sprawl. the city of toronto, on the other hand, includes a LOT of suburbs within the city limits.

it just doesnt seem right to me to be comparing the two, but i wanted to see if anyone could argue it before i change it.

Downtown Toronto is a fairly built up urban centre as well, and is the centre of the Greater Toronto Area which is quite sprawling, and getting more so. Besides, according to Toronto Police Services (http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/ ) of the 65 homicides in the city in 2003, 27 occured in "Central Field Command" which includes a small amount of subrurbia as well as the downtown core, and 38 occured in the rest of the city, which is far less urban. I'm not sure that this "suburbs withing the city limits" fact is an issue. I think there is some playing with numbers, though. I think when Chicago and Toronto are considered similarly sized, it includes the whole CMA, doesn't it? These figures are only for the (Amalgamated) City of Toronto. -Senning
The City of Chicago, including the suburbs within its city limits, has a population of 2,896,016 (US Census 2000). Toronto, on the other hand, has a population of 2,518,772 (Statistics Canada 2004 estimate) within its city limits, so in terms of population, they are comparable. However, the Toronto CMA has a population of 5,715,386 while the Chicago CMSA has a population of 9,157,540. So they certainly are not comparable when taking the suburbs into consideration. Darkcore 19:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Why are we comparing U.S. Census CMSA numbers with the Statistics Canada's CMA? The CMSA definitions are far looser than the Canadian equivalent, for example, if a whole county has over 15% of its commuters commuting into the city, then it is included in the CMSA, whereas the CMA only counts individual municipalities, and uses a 25% commuter threshold. If we use UN Urban Areas (defined by the UN Population bureau), Chicago's metro has 7 million while Toronto has 5 million, which makes Chicago only slightly larger than Toronto. - vicente
I just verified Chicago's homicide stats. The 590 homicides took place within the city limits. However, the comparison is still weak since, as the other person mentioned, Chicago is far more urbanized and includes fewer suburbs within its city limits than Toronto. Darkcore 19:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That observation is silly. Chicago's Metro is not infinitely larger than that of Toronto. Toronto had 62.4% of the population. The two cities fit within 5-10 million metro bracket. These two metro's are CLEARLY comparable. And I think noting that Toronto A MAJOR METRO AREA having 11% of the murder rate of another Large Metro Area, Chicago, is a noteworthy contrast. Atlanta, Houston, Detroit, and DFW are probably better comparisons but it does not mean that the one chosen was by any means a weak one.

No, it's not really that silly considering that Chicago is known for its high crime rate (New York City, which has over 8,000,000, saw 572 murders in 2003, well under Chicago's numbers if you're comparing murder rates), which could be attributed to a variety of factors that you may not necessarily be aware of. So any kind of comparison could be potentially misleading. Comparing murder rate per 100,000 is far more useful as a comparative indicator than giving fixed numbers.
It would be downright ridiculous and stupid to compare Toronto to any of the cities you mentioned. Detroit has been losing population steadily over the past decade or two. Houston, Atlanta, and Dallas are much more sprawling than Toronto. So, again, any comparison would be potentially misleading. I don't see why we need this Chicago/Toronto homicide comparison anyway. As far as I know, no other city article has such a comparison and I don't see how it gives any useful information anyway. Darkcore 06:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh brother! I am beginning to think that you are simply picking a fight. If it is not one thing, it is another . . . Do not take this as a personal attack but I think your criticism (not you) is very petty . . . I do not see the problem here . . . Detroit's metro has actually been rising. Secondly, we are simply looking at metros that are of similar population or status. The issue of sprawl is absolutely tangential to the conversation. I find it quite interesting to know that the homicide rate is lower than many American cities of similar size and status. I know of American cities of much smaller population and sprawl that cannot say that they had as few as 65 murders. It was a factor in my decision to visit Toronto and not Detroit-- which I did have to go through. By American standards, it is an incredible statistic and without question should be mentioned. I have always heard this comparison come up when folks talk about Toronto. Heck, if I did not see it mentioned, I would have inserted it myself.

Yes, Detroit's metro population has been rising, but it's core city population has been falling. Besides, these statistics are not for metro areas but for core city areas. Look, I'm just saying that it is misleading to mention this statistic, given the fact that there are a whole host of reasons why this could be so, and a comparison based solely on population numbers is superficial at best. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you--but I am trying to make you see that it doesn't make sense to throw random statistics in an article, unless the comparison actually makes sense. By the way, you should sign your comments so that people know who is saying what (with ~~~~). Darkcore 09:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus!,that was the stupidest argument ive read in awhile. Chicogo and Toronto are both same in that their both urban wastelands with no naturaly pleasing sceanery, who's claim to fame are the Sears tower and the CN tower. [Posted by User:GNU4eva on 28 July 2005.]

GNU4eva, You lament the lack of goodwill on Wikipedia, but I would suggest that comments like the one above do nothing to advance a cooperative spirit. HistoryBA 13:25, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Statement about Quebec language laws and exodus to Toronto

moved from Wikipedia talk:Contact us by ESP

Wilkipedia talk

To whom it may concern :


If the "truth" of the following comment about Toronto (Ontario) - Canada :

(quotation)

Up until the 1970s, Toronto was the second largest city in Canada, after Montreal. Much of the growth in the Toronto area was due to the growing separation movement in Quebec and the election of the Parti Québécois in 1976. The PQ enacted several French-language laws that were unfavourable towards businesses and English-speaking Montrealers. As a result, businesses and English-speaking Montrealers left for Toronto. Due to the Quebec language laws, the majority of Canada's new immigrants now settle in Toronto.

(End of quotation)

is like the rest of your Encyclopedia, I am wondering how I will trust you again after I read that comment!

The tendancy for Toronto to become larger than Montreal begun long before the PQ won in 1976. Even with most immigrants choosing English rather than French when settling in Montreal before 1976, most of immignants then choosed (and still do)Toronto. Only a small amount of English-speaking people from Montreal left to Toronto after 1976.

Law number 101 making French the official language of Quebec in 1977 did not prevent neither forbid businessmen to make business in English in Quebec, specialy in Montreal. English-speaking population in Quebec is still about 12-15% - as it was before 1976 - and still has its English-speaking radio stations, TV stations, newspapers, hospitals, schools, colleges and universities in a greater proportion than French-speaking population in Canada out of Quebec has itself. English is official too in National Assembly and in Justice courts.

If immigrants have now to study in French in Quebec since 1977, it is true only for the primary school and the secondary school, not for colleges and universities. Moreover : English-speaking immigrants whose parents already studied in English (and many other exceptions) can choose the English-speaking school.

Sorry to say that, but your comment are unappropriate, too simplistic and tend to represent only that Canadian opinion which oppose (which is understandable)to Quebec views about separation from Canada.

Truly yours,

Michel-Guy HUOT 388, 13e Rue Québec (Québec) G1L 2K8

cuir_noir@hotmail.com

Michel-Guy: this is a wiki. If you disagree with something on Toronto, be bold and edit the page yourself! --ESP 20:05, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

In every economic history of Canada I have read in the past Toronto surpassed Montreal as the biggest city in Canada and the economic metropolis of Canada a long time before any kind of language law was enacted in Quebec. The big boom in Toronto started in the 1930s (and in a sense has never stopped) with the exploitation of the huge economic wealth of northern Ontario and the expansion of the car industry in its economic hinterland (Windsor, etc). The completion of the St Lawrence Seaway in 1959 (as the article already notes) and major infrastructures such as the Toronto subway are what finished making Toronto as the metropolis of Canada. When banks and some big companies moved their head offices form Montreal to Toronto in the 1970s and 1980s (with a lot of noise in the newspapers) it was in a sense an afterthought because most of their employees were already working in Toronto for a long time. In the last two decades much of the growth of Toronto has come form immigrants pouring in from the British Commonwealth, along with quite a bit of investment funds. So the statement about the language laws of Quebec and the English leaving Montreal seems like pointing out a trickle and forgetting torrents.--AlainV 11:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Following up on Michel-Guy and Alain's contestations to the 'Montreal to Toroto' exodus statement, I have added in the article a mention that the extent of which the rise of nationalism in Québec has influenced the growth of Toronto is still debated, and provided [1] as a source (which seems to me pretty much grounded with facts, even though they are probably biased bytheir political agenda). I briefly tried to find on the web some sources which could help settling down this question (how big was the exodus of people from Montreal to Toronto mainly due to Quebec nationalism (and not other factors like the auto industry or whatever), and to which extent this contributed to the growth of Toronto). I didn't; so for now, I think that it is NPOV to mention the dispute. If somebody can find reliable sources which could settle the question in one way or the other, I would be happy to see the article edited to include the conclusion. --Simon Lacoste-Julien 10:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Toronto's name

Can someone come up with a source for this? I have not been able to find anything online or in any books that I have that mentions this.

However, it is much more likely that the term is from the Mohawk word referring to "the place where trees grow over the water", a reference to a specific location at the northern end of what is now Lake Simcoe, then known as Lake Toronto. The portage route up the Humber River eventually leads past this well known landmark. As the portage route grew in use, the name became more widely used and was eventually attached to a French trading fort just inland from Lake Ontario on the Humber.

Darkcore 13:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Natural Resources Canada says "Linguistically, it originated as the Mohawk phrase tkaronto, later modified by French explorers and mapmakers." Lots of good info there. Blacklite 14:21, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


"World Class"

Why are we not allowed to mention the anxiety of some of the city's leaders about whether or not Toronto is world class? Or the fact that it is a Beta city in the GaWC? If we want to include the "world city" information, the information should be complete and accurate. David Miller was in the Star just last Sunday saying he didn't think Toronto should try to be world class - he believes that it should just be itself. I think a lot of people outside Toronto would say that that is an awfully green and nice beta city. I used to live in Toronto and it's lovely, but it has an unrealistically high self-regard, at least from the perspective of many British, French, Australian and American people I've spoken to.

Eh, I think in last week's The Mayor (on Pulse 24) he did say Toronto is "world class". (Whether or not I agree with him or not, this is what he said on TV.)—Gniw (Wing) 06:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Toronto's civic insecurity and its constant navel-gazing (and self-promotion) adds to its quirky charm. That might be why it is so thoughtfully planned and preserved, at least in the centre.


I am not from Toronto but actually reside some 5,000 miles north east of there. I'm not Canadian but have been blessed enough to visit the place. "You have got to be kidding" as you North Americans say, when you do not consider Toronto to be a world class city. As an outsider, I can tell you that as it stands, Toronto is currently enjoying a global resurgence in popularity along the lines of New York. As may or may not know or as you may or may not agree, it might very weel take over some other "world cities" in popularity.

The term "world class" is a mark of provinciality and parochialism, surely. And what does it mean anyway? Nobody would think of referring to London or Paris or New York as "world class." Torontonians who are moderately cosmopolitan and well-travelled would blush at this small town boosterism being used in respect of their city. Masalai 06:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


Ummmm.......Masalai? Show me a city in the developed world with a COMBINED population of over 7,000,000 people that isn't world class and those "moderately cosmopolitan" torontonians would have a point.

  • This very discussion demonstrates why the article should avoid this issue, except for the link to the Global city article. Positions on this point are subjective, speculative and anecdotal (see the "...at least from the perspective of many British, French, Australian and American people I've spoken to" comment above for a classic example). Skeezix1000 16:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Alain

Alain, j’ai des nouvelles pour toi:

  • La langue d’un artiste n’est pas très importante;
  • Il n’existe aucun pays du nom «English Canada».

C’est la deuxième fois que j’ai dû enlever une telle référence de cet article. L’autre était d’un cochon qui plaignait des services disponibles aux francophones à Toronto bien qu’ils ne fassent que 2% de la population torontoise. Si tu veux discuter de la situation entre les groupes linguistiques du Canada, va s’il te plaît à Yahoo!, où cette activité est permise. Ou, tu peux faire ce que j’ai dit au cochon: Va en discuter avec ton Membre du Parlement!

A translation of the above message by "Kelisi" and my clarification

begin translation:

Alain, I have news for you:

  • The language of an artist is not very important
  • There is no country with the name of "English Canada"

This is the second time I have had to take out a reference like that in this article. The other one was [from] a swine who [complained about]] services available to francophones in Toronto even though they only make up 2% of the population of Toronto. If you want to discuss the situation between linguistic groups in Canada please go to Yahoo!, where such activities are permitted. Or, you could do what I said to that swine: Go talk to your member of parliament about it!

end translation

I must apologize if my attempt at making a concise "scope" comment on the status of Toronto as a cultural capital has been misunderstood as the basis for linguistic debate. English is not my mother tongue so I am sometimes clumsy with it. For the last year and a half or so that I have contributed to Wikipedia I have trusted other editors to correct my faults, and I am glad to say that they have done so repeatedly. So, I cannot be anything else but happy and joyful to receive your comments (even though I have some doubts as to the positive nature of your allusion to a swine or a pig) and revise my scope note accordingly. --AlainV 03:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. It seems the misunderstanding was caused by someone else. That nasty little word "the" has no business being there. Heritage Minister Liza Frulla has announced that Toronto is to be A cultural capital, not necessarily the only one. So, I shall edit the article accordingly. Curiously, this announcement came only yesterday (2005/1/27), after our mysterious editor inserted a similar announcement into the article. --------Kelisi

Anonymous edits on 19 March 2005

I have just reverted a series of anonymous edits made early on 19 March 2005 (or late 18 March in North America). The edits were not vandalism, but they included a lot of unsubstantiated factual changes, removal of some substantiated information, and some economic analysis that might qualify as original research. Some of those changes may have been legitimate factual corrections, but it's hard to track those specifically through so many rapid-fire edits, especially when no sources for the changes were cited. Perhaps the anonymous user who did that could start with an edit exclusively correcting verifiable factual errors and list the sources here on the discussion page; we could then use that as a baseline for more substantive changes. The reversion was a tough call, because I believe that these were intended to be legitimate contributions, and I'd encourage the anonymous user to resubmit. Dpm64 13:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

There seems to be an overabundance of "skyline"-type pictures in this article, which I think is getting a little excessive. How many times can you look at the CN Tower before you start getting nauseous? I propose that we pick one such picture and remove the rest, to leave room for pictures of other scenes around the city. My vote would be for the "Toronto skyline at night" picture. (Could we also get a better picture of the Bloor Viaduct?) Darkcore 23:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • They are also too small. They should really be enlarged to 300px across because of their detail. I suggest to keep the following skyline photos:
  • Toronto skyline at night
  • Night view

Elevation of Toronto???

Toronto's elevation above sea level varies quite a bit: downtown is close to lake level, while St. Clair Ave. and further north is quite a bit higher because of an east-west ridge running along the city. According to the Canada Flight Supplement (the official publication used by airlines, etc.) the elevation of Toronto City Centre Airport is 251 ft, or 76.5 m MSL. The elevation of Toronto/Downsview Airport, on the other hand, is 652 ft, or 198.7 m, and the elevation of Toronto Pearson Airport is 569 ft, or 173.4 m. I suggest using the elevation of City Centre, since it is adjacent to downtown and at about same elevation; I could also see an argument for using Pearson, because it's the major airport, but that approach will sometimes give very distorted elevations (at North Bay, for example, the airport is on a height of land far above the city). David 21:54, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)

Not only that, Pearson is not even in Toronto (not even in 416 area code region). It's in Mississauga. My only input on this matter would be to say that maybe we could include a range... --GNU4Eva 12:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Belatedly, elevations for Toronto City Hall or the Toronto City Centre Airport should be included (if available), not both. The purpose of the information is to indicate (generally) how elevated the city of TO is, not its airport or specific landmarks per se. E Pluribus Anthony 01:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Restaurants

Hey All...

Ok, I'm a wiki newbie. I'd like to start a wiki for Toronto Restaurants linked from the main page. This comes out of a discussion on a related message board called, "Chowhound". It's not a commercial enterprise, just a discussion board for foodies, and the issues we've been having lately involve folks posting the same "I'm visiting Toronto: where should I eat?" queries. We (the active list members) would like to start up a wiki to chart the evolving TO restaurant scene. It's not going to be a commercial thing: check out chowhound to see what we're about.

Anyway, the question is: is it OK to put this in as a sub-site of this Toronto page?

Thanks!

alan

Articles on well known restaurants or on the Toronto restaurant scene in general would be welcome additions. However, you must be very careful to ensure that any such articles are written with a Neutral Point of View. This means that you could not say that a restaurant is good or bad. At most you could perhaps quote the opinions of prominent food critics. This would make it difficult for the article to answer the "where should I eat?" question. Wikitravel might be a more appropriate location for what you want. Its Toronto article already has a small section on restaurants. - SimonP 22:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
...and for more on all this, see Talk:Toronto restaurants. Samaritan 22:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you want to add information on restaurants you like and think others may like to visit them possibly it would be better on Wikitravel. That's where I've been putting that sort of thing, and Wikitravel needs more editors. Ben W Bell 07:43, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

52 kb +

I notice that the "this page is in excess of 52 kilobytes long" message is coming up. Should we be moving some sections to sub-pages? --Dhodges 15:05, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Southern boundary is the US border?

Accoring to provincial law, the boundary of Toronto extends south to the US border?

But there's no US border south of Toronto on Lake Ontario. If you go south from Toronto on Lake Ontario, you end up at St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada. The bearing to the nearest land in the USA from Toronto is about 151.

Should this be editted? Can anyone find this "provincial law" ?

PRovince of Toronto

A user added info regarding the movement to become a province (http://www.provinceoftoronto.com). Now, most Torontonians have not even heard of such a movement, and this definitely seems like a fringe group -- should this info be here? --GNU4Eva 9 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)

Agreed, one of our more persistent trolls has a fixation on this issue so it appears inappropriately in a number of pages. - SimonP July 9, 2005 01:22 (UTC)
Didn't this "movement" start after Mel Lastman cracked a joke? --Mista-X 21:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The Provincehood movement was around long before Mel Lastman made his remarks about it. It is an issue that several Torontonians believe strongly in (Pierre Berton and 3 former city councilers to name a few) It is with out question a more debated issue than the Computer leasing scandal, something even fewer Torontonians know about. To call it a "fringe" issue may be accurate but it does not change the fact that it is an issue that tends to devide those taking part in its debate. I believe what I had put up regarding this issue was removed because it was viewed as negative. Please understand that an opinion is simply that and not a law of the land, more to the point, the Provincehood movement is fact wether people like it or not and should be left in amoung the list of other Toronto issues. Surely you would not remove an article on Quebec seperation just because you did not agree with it. We must all respect opinion and free speech provided it does not incite hate or ask for money.

Christian Tobin

I would not move reference to an article on Quebec separation from the main Quebec article because it is a major issue issue there and the main opposition partyy supports it. The issue here is whether provincehood is a major issue in Toronto. It is not. A few media gadflies raise it from time to time, but no-one takes it seriously. There is a Wikipedia article on the issue, and it should remain, but minor issues should not be mentioned in this list. Ground Zero 15:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


well I see once again the info I put here about the Provincehood movement has been removed. How I long for the days which never existed when freedom of speech actually meant something. To whom ever removed the information I put on this site let me just say you will NEVER stop this movement. It is growing everyday and one day provincehood will be ours, you can not stop the course of history by silencing it

4 distinct seasons

A user removed the phrase, 'unlike other Canadian cities, toronto experiences 4 distinct seasons' (not verbatim). I think that is a point that should be noted because a) Canada DOES have, not just a number of cities, but regions that do not experience 4 distinct seasons and b) a very big misconception that Toronto is just as cold as the arctic all year round... I remember when I was in Houston, a family was going to Toronto and they were earnestly asking if they should bring their ski equpment.... in June! --GNU4Eva 17:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with the recent change. The original wording made it sound like Toronto was somehow unique for having four seasons.--Vgedris 17:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Riot(s)

Regarding this sentence in the article:

"This led to what was portrayed in the mainstream media as Toronto's first large-scale 'riot' in the summer of 2000 - a confrontation with violent police in front of the provincial legislature - as well as several other events and demonstrations in 2001."

Firstly, I wouldn't even have called this a 'riot'. It was confined to the Queen's Park area, and was between activists and police. I would call it a 'large clash' or something.

But whatever. The real question is, why is there no mention of the real riots that happened in Toronto? Both were the results of the reaction of Toronto communties against systematic racism.

In the 1930s, a riot broke out after a large fight a Christie Pitts, when during a baseball game a "nazi" organization held up a swastika banner. One of the teams playing was made up of Jewish players.

In the early 1990s (I think it was in '91), a riot broke out on Yonge St., which lead to full scale looting, after Toronto police shot two unarmed young Black men. The community had enough of police racism and this riot mirrored what happened in L.A.

This info would have to be verified for exact details, as this is just from memory and may not be entirely correct. I saw the Cristie Pitts thing on History Channel, and in the early 90s I was 11 or 12 years old when that riot happened... --Mista-X 18:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Mista-X's comments above. The OCAP-police clash in Queen's Park wasn't a true riot, it was a demonstration which became violent. OTOH, the 1930s Christie Pits and early 1990s Yonge Street conflicts more closely fit the definition of riot.
As well, according to "TORONTO POLICE IN THE 1850s; The Gangs of Toronto and the Call For Reform" at [2]:
"Between 1852 and 1858, six major riots between Protestant and Catholic militants unfolded in Toronto. The city’s Orange-dominated constabulary was of little help in quelling these disorders with any semblance of impartiality."
and:
"It would be two riots in the summer of 1855 that would expose the Toronto Police to unanimous condemnation in Toronto and illustrate just how far the new industrial middle-class consensus had replaced the old Orange municipal solidarity in the Toronto City Council as far as it came to the Alderman-appointed constables. Ironically, neither of the two riots — the Firemen’s Riot or the Circus Riot, were sectarian in their causes."
Anyone feel like including in this article a mention of the riots and gangs of Toronto in the 1850s? :) Cheers, Madmagic 12:49, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
See also the O’Donovan Rossa Riot of March 18, 1878, described in detail at http://www.brucebelltours.com/html/st__patricks.html . 30,000 people fighting in the streets of Toronto? Now, that's a riot. :) Cheers, Madmagic 13:01, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
That's some awsome info Madmagic, cheers! --Mista-X 21:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Literature

I feel sure there must have been something more on Toronto Literature than the fact that the son of an early Hardy Boys author lives here... I have tried to update the thing, but it is pretty sketchy at present. Anyone know why that got skipped?

Neighbourhood articles

Some articles about Toronto neighbourhoods are in the format Riverdale, Toronto and some are in the format Swansea, Ontario. I would recomend moving all the ones in the format "Neighbourhood, Ontario" to "Neighbourhood" or "Neighbourhood, Toronto" if disambig is needed. These would make all articles consistant and prevent giving the impression that they are seperate municipalities. I would appreciate any feedback on this preposal. - Farquard 02:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll guess I'll go ahead with it then. - Farquard 03:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for not speaking up sooner, Farquard. :) I think this is a great idea -- and looking at your contributions page [[3]] it's good to see you're moving ahead with it. Cheers, Madmagic 07:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Add external link: The Good Ol' Toronto

I would like to add an external link, The Good Ol' Toronto http://www.goodoldtoronto.com, to the external links section of Wikipedia's article on "Toronto." I've added it several times, yet Wikipedia user SimonP always keeps deleting it, out of personal vendetta I will never know.

I would like to add this site, among other sites to the external links section of the article, because I feel it is a useful site for tourists to the city. I am a proud Torontonian, and feel that this website provides a lot of useful information for newcomers who are not used to the city. It gives an overview of the city, how to get around, extensive lists of attractions, restaurants and the such. It is not an overly-commecial site, only some ads that I see. This is compared to sites like Toronto.com which is heavily-commercial, yet for some reason, SimonP has no objection to (even though he says sites with commercial content is "spam").

SimonP, I believe, is not only unreasonable and illogical in what he chooses to add, but also has a personal vendetta against the owner of the site for The Good Ol' Toronto. I do not know any of these people, just a proud Torontonian, but I contacted the owner of the site, and he notes that he has a bad relationship with SimonP. The personal vendetta is clearly shown here.

What do you guys think? Should The Good Ol' Toronto (http://www.goodoldtoronto.com) be listed in the external links section of the Toronto article? This is a poll. YES or NO?

I personally choose YES.

I don't mind, I was just following SimonP opinion. I'm indifferent to the issue. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 03:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
This is about as clear a case of spamming as I have found. The site has been linked to from a slew of tangentially related pages (e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7]). I have also just discovered that the site, which is only in English, was also linked to from multiple languages.
The site in question is of low quality, despite its glossy appearance, and of little use to our readers. The What's On page hasn't been updated since February, the history of Toronto section is a copy and paste from Wikipedia, and the maps are taken from Google, and still bear the Google watermark. - SimonP 04:13, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
I second SimonP's sentiments; the links add little value to the discussion, and offer no additional insight into Toronto. Further, adding this link to unrelated articles is spamming — SimonP is quite right in this respect. If the site is well-maintained and expanded with original, interesting content, then maybe at some point in the future we can add a link to it. But not now. Mindmatrix 16:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the site. I vote yes.

No: I concur with negative opinions cited: website quality is questionable and adds little value; even the website tagline is incorrect (...ours) E Pluribus Anthony 05:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

No. Calling SimonP or any other Wikipedia contributor names ("unreasonable and illogical") is not how Wikipedia works. Please read the Wikipedia:No personal attacks Help page. Neither is it helpful to Wikipedia to anonymously question or criticize another contributor's motives ("personal vendetta" and "I contacted the owner of the site" etc., etc.)

Further, if the anonymous contributor who wishes to add this link to the Toronto article would identify themselves so we could see their other contributions to Wikipedia, their argument would be far more persuasive. SimonP's work is known here, his viewpoint is respected because he has contributed work and time to Wikipedia. Where is the record of the contributions of the person who is attacking SimonP?

Finally, the suggested website is not well-known as an information resource or reference point for Torontonians; nor is it especially helpful to visitors and tourists. There are many Internet websites about Toronto. I see no reason why this one in particular should be favoured above the others by linking to it from the Toronto article. If the person suggesting the link can provide reasons why this website is better than the rest, those reasons will be heard and fairly considered here. Please stop the attacks, they don't help in any way. Cheers, Madmagic 07:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi! I believe said user also added, a few days ago, a link to torontohostel.com; though I could be mistaken. I removed it. Be warned! :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

About Toronto Racial Groups

I am a student and I study statistics. I have official statistics about the number of different races in Toronto. Someone keeps changing them putting abserd numbers. I wrote in the article that there 1.2 million Asians in Toronto. Someone changed the numbers that I had making Toronto have over 2 million Asians all together. That does not add up witht he information. I have official Statcan single response infor. Leave it please.

Provide a link. Marskell 16:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

The link is here and they are based on single responses: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/themes/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2001&PID=58628&APATH=3&GID=431515&METH=1&PTYPE=55440&THEME=44&FOCUS=0&AID=0&PLACENAME=0&PROVINCE=0&SEARCH=0&GC=99&GK=NA&VID=0&FL=0&RL=0&FREE=0

Toronto Unlimited

why the criticism? WillC 22:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Demographics

For what ever reason, a previous contributor(s) chose to include Mississauga when posting information regarding the racial make-up of Toronto.

This made no sense to me, as why would Mississauga be included and not Brampton, or Markham or Vaughan, etc, etc....

The article is about the city of Toronto, not the GTA, the "Mega-City" or the "Golden Horseshoe".

I have reposted statistics taken directly from Statistics Canada from the last official census, 2001. Mikeman

Hi! Thanks! I think the demographic information in the article should obviously be referenced/valid, but it also needs to be massaged and formatted properly. I'll get back to you ... :)

Port city?

The article repeated claims that Toronto is a major port city. In fact it is only sixth in Canada, and probably the smallest by far in terms of of ships to population. I don't know how anyone could possibly consider Toronto as a port city, considering the only shipments we get are for the sugar plant and salt for the roads. Maury 15:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi! It might be more correct to characterise TO merely as a port city (its function as a port has decreased largely due to its mid-position in the Great Lakes), or perhaps a minor one in comparison to others worldwide, but it is not incorrect. On the other end of it: if another city('s port) ranked sixth nationally (e.g., Edmonton or Calgary based on population), should it be considered major?
On second blush, I can't find the 'claims' you've stated; perhaps you are misreading it (or I am?) E Pluribus Anthony 16:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
The passages in question are in the Economy section, which states (twice) the imporance of the port. Perhaps it just needs to be re-worded or something, but it seems to me making "a port of entry" the first sentance seems to be odd. Further the mention of the Seaway seems to be suggesting Toronto's growth was somehow dependant on it, but that strikes me as extremely unlikely.
I bike the "portlands" three times a week on average. At any one time there is a ship parked at the Redpath plant (typically from Eastern Europe) and one perma-parked in the passageway to the turning basin. Infrequently I see a CSL ship parked there too. I would estimate total shipping at around 1-2 ships per week. Basically the port is dead, if anything, that is the important fact that should be mentioned.
Let's put some numbers to this. In 2003 Port of Toronto got just under 2 million tonnes of cargo, the vast majority of that sugar and road salt. For comparison, Vancouver handles about 75 million tonnes a year, St. Johns 25, Halifax about 13. [8]
In fact, a little googling seems to suggest that Toronto is WAY below #6, judging by only those on the St. Lawrence that are larger; Sept-Îles 24, Port-Cartier 18, Baie-Comeau 5.9, Quebec 21, Trois-Rivières 2.4, Montreal 12, Windsor 4.6, Hamilton 11, Thunder Bay 8.5 -- note that there are more than six just on the lakes that outrank Toronto. [9] Maury 21:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification; I see now! However, I think the (initial) "port of entry" refers to Toronto generally (not as a seaport per se), since it elaborates about other traffic modes later in the sentence and paragraph. I'm open to massaging this, though.
I've also edited the 2nd instance, etc. to summatively, yet accurately, reflect its seaport status. Perhaps it was a major seaport (e.g., one might ask what accounts for all the capital you bike past periodically?), but increases in road cargo/trucking etc. (given its location, as opposed to Vancouver's) have since obviated its importance in this respect. By the way: I periodically visit 'elevated' drinking establishments downtown and also see the same, derelict ship(s) in the port. :) Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 01:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Demographics 2

I still dont understand why someone keeps on changing the demographics of Toronto people. The Stats I have includes the whol GTA, Brampton, Mississauga, the five Toronto boroughs, Vaughn, and Maple etc. Here is the reference to the population numbers and figures: (StatsCan link)

Please see the discussion under the heading Demographics, above, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Toronto#Demographics
In brief, this Wikipedia article is about Toronto. The article is not about Missisauga, or about the other regions around Toronto.
Your link immediately above is to a Statistics Canada Census Region named 'Toronto'. Your link is not to numbers or statistics about the demographics of the City of Toronto. Therefore, the numbers you are using are not accurate as descriptions of the demographics of Toronto. Please don't keep trying to include those numbers in this article about Toronto. Cheers, Madmagic 17:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
A further note: there are also Wikipedia articles about the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and the Golden Horseshoe. You're welcome to contribute demographic information to either of them as well, if you wish. Cheers, Madmagic 18:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
However, main city articles nearly always reference Metro-wide stats. Mississauga, for instance, is absolutely contiguous with Toronto. An ethnic publication originating in one will surely appear in the other. I see no harm in the removed material if tidied and sourced. Marskell 18:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi Marskell. :) Some clarifications... this Wikipedia article about Toronto is about the current City of Toronto, which includes all of former Metropolitan Toronto. 'Metro-wide' now means 'City of Toronto'. If publications are using GTA or Golden Horseshoe numbers when they write 'Toronto', that's their issue, not ours.
I guess what I'm trying to suggest here is that we have to draw the line somewhere, in defining what goes within an article about Toronto, and what fits within articles on the GTA and on the Golden Horseshoe. Both the GTA and the Horseshoe articles are linked from the first para of the Toronto article -- it's not like those articles are difficult to find.
However, if we start rewriting the Toronto article to include the demographics of the GTA/Horseshoe, for consistency we'll need to rewrite the rest of it. History, geography, govt., transport, etc. And then, the article ends up being about the GTA or the Horseshoe. Not about Toronto. Cheers, Madmagic 18:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
I meant Metro-wide generically; i.e., the current GTA is the de facto Toronto "Metro-wide" area. I would "draw the line" before the Horseshoe (Hamilton is not Toronto) but after GTA (Mississauga, effectively, is). Further, note abundance and redundancy is not against wiki policy. Obviously you need to retain focus, but observations that occur both here and on the GTA aren't necessarily a bad thing. Just qualify it. For instance, if you have a stat that is relevant to T.O. but you can only find the info for the GTA and not the city, should it not go in? I think it should. Marskell 18:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Toronto definitely is not the entire horseshoe; no one would say Hamilton is part of Toronto. However, Mississauga or Vaughan can be "Toronto" depending on the context. For someone living out of town (e.g., when I was a student at U of W), when I or my friends say we are "going back to Toronto for the weekend", we meant I and a few others were going back to Scarborough (back then still a separate city), another back to Mississauga, and another back to Vaughan, and in fact no one back to the "City of Toronto" proper.
For those of us who know what "Metro Toronto" is, it is easy to call the GTA "Toronto"; for us back then, "Toronto" can mean a number of things, viz. the (old) City of Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto, or the Greater Toronto Area. If you ask a random Torontonian today, you would likely also run into someone who just translates the above into the new terminology, i.e. downtown Toronto, the (new) City of Toronto, or the Greater Toronto Area. So the answer to the question "why do people think the article refers sometimes to the GTA" is "because that's how the locals actually use the word".
Perhaps that's the problem with the current first paragraph. It just glosses over the GTA and the Golden Horseshoe and it is not very clear what their relationship are. In particular, it does not acknowledge the fact that the GTA can be simply referred to as "Toronto" in some contexts (but the "Golden Horseshoe" is never considered part of Toronto in any context), so when some Torontonians come along they will mis-interpret the scope of the article.—Wing 19:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The article should retain demographic information about the City of Toronto. It should be noted in the article that some people refer to the GTA as Toronto, but that shouldn't affect demographic information. Heck, I use Toronto when referring to the GTA, but that simply means that there are two different uses for the term, it does not mean the term has been redefined. Let's put the appropriate demographic data in each article (Toronto, GTA, Golden Horseshoe) so people who don't know the area can understand it better. And let's also note the loose, local use of the term Toronto as well. Mindmatrix 21:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I felt I was referring to a single addition: should we quote a GTA wide stat for ethnic publications where we don't have a stat specific just to the city limits. I'm saying we should. Just add a qualification. This is simple enough—we aren't "re-writing" anything.

Regarding the larger debate, every NA city you look at on Wiki: references the city stats; subsequently references the metro area stats. That's what this page does and should do. If you feel it unclear, clarify. As I say, the Golden Horseshoe should be clearly demarcated. You take a bus from Toronto to Niagara you're not travelling through a contiguous urban environment. But that Mississauga and Scarborough are a part of the "metro-wide" area is inarguable. If some notable cultural or media phenomenon originating in Mississauga or Scarborough has found its way to the city centre, it should be noted here. Marskell 23:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Here are the direct links in the following NA major city articles to their Demographics sections: New York, LA and Chicago. The article on Mexico City does not have a Demographics section, but the population is described in the third and fourth opening paragraphs.
Marskell, I'm genuinely confused about what you want the Toronto article to include. The total population of the GTA is mentioned in the third sentence of the first paragraph of the current article. The population of the Golden Horseshoe is noted a few lines below. (And FWIW, I'm not at all opposed to keeping these figures in the current article -- the context is very helpful, IMO.)
What I objected to was the addition of a full demographic breakdown of the GTA -- within the article on Toronto. To my reading, NY and LA and Chicago and Mexico City all do not include the demographics of areas outside the city -- in the demographics sections of the articles on those cities, linked above.
Are we misunderstanding each other? Seriously, I don't entirely know what we are discussing here; please clarify. Cheers, Madmagic 01:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I think both the {{otheruses}} header and the first paragraph need rewriting. I read the discussion at {{otheruses}} and I don't like it; this article needs a verbose header that IMHO must mention the City of Toronto, the GTA, and only then "other uses" (what a strange term!). Otherwise people will continue to be confused.—Wing 01:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

A, B, C

  1. I was responding to what I thought was a drop of "79 ethnic publications." I see instead it has been moved. Yes, yes demographics should detail the 2.5 in the city itself first and foremost.
  2. I agree you should have a go at otheruses. That's the right spot to explain the overlapping uses of the term. Along with "centre of the GTA" perhaps add that the GTA itself is often simply referred to as Toronto.
  3. On what basis are we calling Pearson the fourth largest in N.A.? Simply the area it takes up? It seems a touch misleading, as in terms of passenger volume it doesn't crack the top ten. Marskell 08:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi again! I'm unsure how this ended up there, but it should be removed, as you indicate, or replaced solely with 'busiest airport in Canada,' something or another. E Pluribus Anthony 15:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

About the nicknames

I agree with most of the listed nicknames, but I've never heard The World's Second New York, nor Canada's New York, nor The Big Banana. Are these highly localised uses, specific to one part of Toronto, or is somebody inventing things? Here are the diffs of the additions: The Big Banana, New York. Both were unsourced, anon edits. A google search finds the following:

  • Canada's New York - refers to several cities, and is used in phrases like Time Canada's New York office etc; some references are WP or mirrors. Including all these irrelevant hits, there are still only 346 such references. Not widely used, I'd say.
  • The World's Second New York - a whopping 9 hits.
  • The Big Banana - search narrowed to Toronto, since the term refers to other things too; 694 hits, and I couldn't find any use as Toronto's nickname.

I'm removing the references; if someone wants to re-insert them, please justify it. Mindmatrix 21:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this move. In my view we could also lose "The Economic Engine of Canada" and "The Most Multicultural City on Earth," which are not so much nicknames as statements sometimes made about the city. - SimonP 21:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Hey there; I agree with removing nicknames that aren't prevalent, unsourced, or cannot be corroborated. I thought about doing so myself, but decided to not rock that boat just yet; that's why I expanded on Ustinov's utterances. The only one that may be worthy of noting (based on usage), if at all, is Canada's New York, but take your pick. (FYI: I've never heard this.) Go to, er, town! :) E Pluribus Anthony 01:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi! While cleaning, I stumbled across a titular book called Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names by Alan Rayburn, and it has a section about TO. So, that may help in rounding out nicknames for the Big Smoke here. I'll get back to ya! :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Demographics 3

Okay, I understand that you want the demographics for the city alone and not the greater area.


That is good to hear. If you read the geography section of the article, it sets Toronto's boundries as roughly the 427 in the west, Steeles Ave in the North and the Rouge River in the east. Putting up figures representing the Greater Toronto Area, that is including areas outside the boundries of the City would not be consistent with the rest of the article and would be very misleading.Mikeman 19:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Liberal

Torontonians tend to exagerate the extent of the conservativism of Canadians outside of Toronto. Really, there is no good reason for saying that Canadians outside of Toronto are "far more conservative." "Somewhat more conservative" would be acceptable. Let us remember that universal health care and Canadian social democracy were driven not by Toronto but by the Praries and small-city Ontario. Even now, the NDP would be nowhere if it were not for rural and small city support

Actually, I, having lived in Toronto for three years, Edmonton for ten years, and rural martimes for about three years, can say with no difficultly at all that Toronto is "somewhat" more liberal (in the American sense) than Edmonton and the rural maritimes on some matters, and much less liberal on other matters. Same-sex marriage is much less of an urban/rural split than many Torontonians believe. I must say it is quite hillarious to hear Torontonians lecturing outsiders on "ethnic" food (present in all mid-sized Canadian cities as well, and often at a similar quality) and tolerance and multi-culturalism.

I have seen far more examples of overt racism (and numerous examples of poltically correct people who maintain their illusions by never talking to anybody racially or culturally different from them) in Toronto than anywhere else in Canada. It is possible to shut yourself off from people you don't like in Toronto in a way that is quite difficult in smaller cities.

Also, let us correct the use of the word liberal. There is simply no reason why we should use the term in its American sense. Some Canadian pride, please. In any case, if by liberal we mean tolerant, I would say that many Maritime cities are actually more tolerant on a range of issues than Toronto, and, because the cities are smaller, are more likely to have to put their tolerance to test.

Nitangae

I actually revised the passage on politics. I split the section on electoral politics and the discussion of "liberal" attitudes (as they were rather badly combined).

The changes I made are as follows:

I removed the claim that Toronto forms of the core of support for Universal Medicine. What evidence is there for that? I would say support is pretty broadly-based.

I left a number of very dubious looking claims, such as that Toronto forms the core of support for Canadian content rules. Is this the case? Do you have evidence? What about gun control?

Also, how do we define liberal. If support for bilingualism is considered part of Canadian liberalism, then should not New Brunswick be considered much more liberal? How about needle-exchange, in which case Vancouver would win out. In many cases Montreal or even Edmonton might have a case. As for support for the NDP goes, Toronto is not marching in the van; I am afraid you lose out to Regin and Winnipeg and Hamilton and Halifax there. As you yourself point out, Toronto at times votes for quite conservative politicians. If we include the 905 region, then it votes for Conservative politicians frequently. Currently it is dominated by left-leaning politicians (although I have to say, one seat in the Federal Parliament does not equal strong support for the NDP) but that can easily change.

Even Wolfville and the rural regions around Wolfville did not have any trouble about voting for a gay member of parliament! Get over your self-image - Toronto is a very very nice city (I actually say without a blush that I love it), but it is not that special. One raunchy day of gay pride a year does not change that much.

I allow that Toronto is rather progressive compared to other cities. But I have softened the language. What do you think?

I have also reworked, slightly the comment about the NDP being strong in downtown Toronto.

Nitangae


Well, I substantially rewrote the first section on politics, and slightly reworked the section.

I will give my reasons as follows:

1) Really, the first section on politics was badly sourced (all sorts of claims were made without reference. "Many experts claim" - which experts? How so expert?) I didn't remove that, but suggest that other people might think about reworking that point. The passage was also influenced by the Torontonian fear (not all Torontonians I know, but many, share this fear) of areas outside of the city - and the great horde of lily-white gun-totting bigots that some seem to expect to find there. Now, I understand, and even admire Torontonian love of their home, but I do wish it wouldn't so often be accompanied by a desire to smear other parts of Canada. I rewrote and softened the paragraph, removing some of the stark - and, I believe, unjustified - distinctions made between Toronto and the rest of Canada. By no means to I consider my work to be final - in many cases I expect that at times I have softened points to the point of meaninglessness, and it might be better either to remove or to rework the sentence to bring out the point that the author (if he or she is still taking part) had originally intended to make.

In the section on electoral politics, I removed some of the "the"s and replaced them with "a"s. Again, I was attempting to reduce the tendency to see Toronto as somehow unique. It is not the Liberal bastion, for instance, but only a Liberal bastion, along with Prince Edward Island, the Northwest Territories, and parts of Ontario, Montreal and the Maritimes. It isn't even always Liberal, as is later pointed out.

I don't know why the original authors wrote "Toronto has been known to support Mike Harris." I simply changed that to "Toronto supported Mike Harris." It is not a dark rumour, it is a fact that, yes, Torontonians at times vote for right-wing politicians.

Also, is Mel Lastman right-wing? I thought he was largely without ideology.

I hope that others (and perhaps the original author) will:

a) find proper sources for some of the claims

b) do so while avoiding hyperboly. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but on a range of issues Toronto is less progressive than even Saskatoon and rural Nova Scotia, not to mention Vancouver and Montreal. Toronto is a wonderful city, but don't push it.

Nitangae

Computer leasing inquiry

I'm not sure how much about this really belongs in the Toronto article, but I've added updated information. Resisted the temptation to name the "former city budget chief" ;)

I'm not sure it should be in there. Yes it is an issue in the city but it's not really a city issue the same way the others are, it's just a scandal and Toronto has had plenty of them. Ben W Bell 08:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
It should be included, but only briefly: one or two sentences at most, and perhaps combined with talk of municipal politics. E Pluribus Anthony 15:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with E Pluribus Anthony. Nitangae.

Location of LBPIA

Darkcore, I desire clarity when referring to this and that too. While universally accepted that Pearson airport is largely in Mississauga, however, any map of Hogtown will reveal that a small sliver of it is actually in (what was) Etobicoke. As the current article now makes this unclear, since it "straddling" the border infers it's merely on the border and outside the city, I think this somehow needs to be edited in to reflect this, but in an exceedingly brief manner. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 14:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Images

I don't know what (if any) Wikipedia's guidelines are regarding images (size and number recommended for a page), but the recent back & forth edits make it clear that a consensus needs to be reached for this page. As a reader of this page (on a 1024x768 screen where my browser window is about 3/4 of the width of the screen) I don't see any problem with the article with the images as they were before being removed by SimonP (e.g. as in this version). So I would recommend putting them back, and I would have just reverted the changes by SimonP but I thought it better to discuss it first. Hayne 12:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Remember that 800x600 is still by far the most common resolution for web users. Somewhere there is a guideline as to how much width per row should be taken up by images and tables. I forget the exact number, but it is something like 350px or 400px. Anything more makes the articles difficult to read on lower resolutions. The entire article width on an 800x600 monitor is only around 550px. - SimonP 16:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Believe it or not I did switch my system to 800x600, full screen and without before going back to 1152x864 which I recommend as a universal standard. Get yourself a better browser. Firefox displayed both images pefectly in all resolutions.Jok2000 20:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello! I believe it germane to include the TSX image (since a paragraph in the article concerns it and its stature), but we can also reduce it in size and move it. I have a widescreen monitor (1680x1050): both in this and lower-resolution modes (both in IE and Firefox), the dual images appear fine. However, there's no reason per se that the images must appear side-by-side and as large as they are. To that end, I've moved the TSX image down and reduced it slightly in size: we can have our cake and eat it too.
Perhaps an ideal solution would be to include a pic of the TD Centre/skyscraper (with its grandeur) with the TSX. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 21:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Toronto > Toronto, Ontario

Was this move at all discussed? If not, the prior state should be restored. It seems to fly in the face of a prior discussion/consensus and appears arbitrary, but I can be convinced otherwise. E Pluribus Anthony

I agree, and have moved it back. Montreal, Vancouver, and Ottawa are all at their single names, and Toronto is just as unambiguous. - SimonP 15:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Great! From what I can gather, Answar may disagree with this: it appears that similar moves (or said position) may be true for other city articles. While there may be basis in Wp policy/guidelines for this, it wasn't discussed, was tagged a 'minor' edit, and seemed odd anyway. Anyhow, merci! E Pluribus Anthony 15:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The article has been moved again to ... why? This is irksome. Unless there's reason to do so, it should be moved back. E Pluribus Anthony 06:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Pending a consensus otherwise, the article has been restored to Toronto. E Pluribus Anthony 08:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a big discussion on this somewhere else on whether or not all cities should be moved to their states/province/county names. There is a lot of resistance, and I think the resistance is winning, to moving the big unambiguous ones. Toronto was one of the ones listed to remain as Toronto and not Toronto, Ontario, as is Montreal, Ottawa etc. Now where is that link? Ben W Bell 08:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
AH here it is Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (city names). Not yet resolved. Ben W Bell 08:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for this; it's helpful! Whatever the result of that discussion, nascent users have been moving this article without discussion here or against the consensus otherwise (above) to keep this article at Toronto. Personally, I believe global cities and other such notable locales (based on online mentions etc.) needn't be moved in Wp in such a manner and disambiged without discussion: e.g., Toronto (Ontario) but Toronto, Ohio. (I'll comment there, too.) If there's significant support for moving it, fine; let's discuss there and here again too. Otherwise, the status quo should hold here. Make sense? E Pluribus Anthony 09:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Slum Tourism"

A new user is trying to add a protest link to Parkdale Tenants Association to the tourism link section. This is fraud and misleads the reader. Instead, I recommend creating a Parkdale Tenants Association article and linking to it in a "See also" section to make their concerns known. - Tεxτurε 17:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not fraud and it is not a protest link. It is a link to a new tourism site, called Slum Tourism Toronto, created by the Parkdale Tenants Association. It is very much geared to tourists and will be offering a free "Slums Unlimited" bus tour of several Toronto slum neighbourhoods to show tourists another, less glossy, side of Toronto starting February 2, as featured on their website. Don't you think tourists should see the true character of a city, warts and all? The Parkdale Tenants Association, which has been around more than 30 years, and is quite well respected, obviously feels that by showing tourists a different side of Toronto than what they usually see on a traditional tour, the City and the Province will improve conditions and make Toronto a better city for everybody, one that all Torontonians will be proud to call home, not just those who can afford decent accomodations. I'm not sure why you consider this a less worthy tourist site than any other. Their upcoming bus tour has received widespread international attention and has been featured in literally thousands of articles as far away as India, Australia and Italy as well as on ABC News and MSNBC. The site is not about the Parkdale Tenants Association, which focuses on rental conditions in Parkdale and has its own site, www.goldencockroach.org.

You say that this is "not about the Parkdale Tenants Association" but the site you link for "slum tourism" says at the very top "Parkdale Tenants Association presents" - Tεxτurε 17:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
If they are providing tourist tours then you are providing links and promoting a business or other such agency. This is against Wikipedia policy. Ben W Bell 17:54, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
So, how about you just create a Parkdale Tenants Association article about the horrible conditions and stop this charade? - Tεxτurε 17:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Also be careful with the reversions, Wikipedia has a 3 reverts policy, one which Ae871 is very much in violation of. Ben W Bell 18:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello! While new contributions aren't discouraged, this is a POV addition that a consensus of Wikipedians who contirbute to this article do not agree with including here. As I've suggested, add this information (after garnering consensus) to an article that's more appropriate (e.g., Parkdale, Housing in Toronto, slums) or similar. E Pluribus Anthony 18:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah, the disingenuousness of it all. I lived in a slumlord's apt. block in Toronto for several years; nice view of the lake and all, but generally, if you've seen one piece of peeling paint, you've seen 'em all. Go to Home Depot and buy a scraper and a can of paint and leave the Toronto article to those of us who've seen a little bit more of the place.Jok2000 18:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

I take exception to a claim that I violated 3RR:

(cur) (last) 14:20, 7 December 2005 Jok2000 m (rv to last version by E. Pluribus Anthony. 3RR vio. by texture & ae871)

I reverted ae871 twice and then chose to compromise by only moving the link to a new section and not removing it. After that I have only one more edit that removed a duplicate link but retained the new link by ae871. ae871 has indicated that this compromise is acceptable. Jok2000, please look at the facts before making allegations. - Tεxτurε 18:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well you had 4 edits. An rv note is hardly a formal claim. I'll go revert a dozen vandals in penance.Jok2000 19:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Formal or not, we should be careful in how we criticize others if we want to maintain some sense of decorum here. An apology, rather than a snide response, would have helped to defuse this dispute. HistoryBA 19:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, but don't make him until he reverts those dozen vandals. That'll make me feel better than the apology will... - Tεxτurε 19:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
While guidelines are clear, let's all remember that consensus, civility, assuming good faith, and maintaining a spirit of co-operation are at the core of Wp. And yes: annihilate the vandals, too! :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hear, hear! HistoryBA 03:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Protest website

Now that the "slum tourism" website is legitimately labelled please do not revert it as vandalism. There is no support for the argument that the site is simple vandalism. It is now a content dispute. Jok2000, please discuss your objections to the site here. I, for one, have no objection to the site being listed properly. - Tεxτurε 15:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Jok2000, hiding your deletion as "improvements" in the edit summary is no less dishonest. - Tεxτurε 16:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
What dishonesty? I intend to whack that link at every opportunity, mostly because it doesn't reflect reality. Leaside, various North York neighbourhoods, lakeshore and others contain buildings built in the 1960's. I actually did live in one for a while. The renter culture is not to repair their own homes, probably extending beyond just Toronto. Very nice condos stand next to these types of buildings, in for example, lakeshore and the community itself is not bad, with parks and such. Developers have spent and made uncountable billions providing alternatives to those buildings in the GTA. The link serves no purpose. I'm rather tired of shows like the Simpson's or what have you portraying Toronto as a hick town. Some renters need to re-evaluate their value systems. They don't need to come to wikipedia forcing their POV on the rest of the world and making a mockery of the reality of life here to do it.Jok2000 18:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the content of the link or whether it is appropriate. Only that you should be honest in removing it. Make it clear that you are removing it for the reasons you give above. Don't gloss over your edit if you are this passionate about it. - Tεxτurε 20:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


ae871, will you consider creating a "see also" article that would contain your website link? Above Housing in Toronto is suggested and would provide you a larger canvas for discussing your concerns. - Tεxτurε 15:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Such a specific article (as suggested) would be more appropriate: this would also allow, for instance, the possible inclusion of a well-known, citable United Way report about 'poverty by postal code' et al. ... E Pluribus Anthony 20:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I commend efforts to accommodate various users. However, there is currently no consensus for including this dubious POV website with the others ... with or without labelling it as such. For example: should we include a website to the proposed Ritz-Carlton or Trump skyscraper projects to highlight the other end of the spectrum? Or how about for my beloved HellScarberia? Wp is not a web farm: I think the precedent of acceding to or including a 'protest' website – POV by its mere entitlement – requires us to exclude it. Moreover, as this website largely focuses on one neighbourhood, alternate and more appropriate approaches have also been suggested and should be investigated. E Pluribus Anthony 19:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Anthony's comments above. I live within walking distance of Parkdale and I lived in Parkdale in rental housing for five years. I was walking around Parkdale and shopping there two days ago. Some of my friends are in bad housing in Parkdale which the Parkdale Tenants Association have spotlighted and even helped improve. I think the PTA is a good organization doing good work, and I commend them for it.
That said, they (and their Slum Tourism offshoot) are not IMO a Toronto organization large enough to be deserving of a link within the article on Toronto. Within the Parkdale article, for sure. Take the link there and keep it there, until the work they do is done -- and known -- right across Toronto. Cheers, Madmagic 20:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I won't argue (not living in Canada). - Tεxτurε 20:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
TY! E Pluribus Anthony 20:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Should We Request the Toronto Article Be Locked While We Resolve This?

User:Ae871 has just (21:37 UTC) added the external link again. Checking their User contributions page, it seems they've edited in the change about 20 times, by a rough fast count. And looking at the discussion on their User talk:Ae871 page and here, we seem to be in a stalemate of revert-revert-revert.

Would it help to lock the Toronto article until this issue can be resolved? I'm asking. Dunno what else to suggest. Cheers, Madmagic 21:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, lock it until people agree to respect the spirit of consensus. 69.159.27.246 21:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought we had a consensus. At Texture's suggestion (I think), I agreed to place the link in a separate category of external links called "Protest Websites". Both Texture and Ben W. Bell appeared to accept this compromise, but for some reason jok200 (I think) keeps deleting the link altogether. I'm ok with locking the page until this is resolved. Ae871

Note: I wasn't accepting this compromise, I didn't want to get a ban for violation of 3RR which is why I stopped removing it while a discussion was in place. Ben W Bell 08:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Ae871, I didn't object to the link if properly cited but the consensus here is against a link from this article and instead would like it in peripheral articles like Tenant Protection Act. - Tεxτurε 22:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Ae871, you and your apparent sock-puppet require a lock. I am a civilized Torontonian not in need of one. You are in violation of the sock-puppet, 1RR and 3RR recommendations. That ridiculous link should stay off the page until a concensus is reached. There is no "keep" consensus. You should really make an effort to make what you write sound less like disingenuous flame-bait.Jok2000 22:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to share with everybody another email I just received from JOK2000, to illustrate the high level of discourse in this debate, in which I've attempted to be reasonable and compromise repeatedly: ".....They can f-ing dynamite Parkdale, its half-way houses and reforming child-molesters for all I care, although to be honest, I think the highest density of reforming child-molestors is centered around Dundas West station. It's loopy crap like this that creates false cliches, wrecks tourism and such, but that is your intent, right?......." In case anybody is wondering, no that isn't the intent at all. The intent is to show people what the conditions are like for hundreds of thousands of poor people, mostly immigrants, so that privileged people will be moved to demand change and these tenants' lives will improve for the better. It's the way non-violent social change has always been achieved.Ae871

I've already cited (above) decorums for behaviour for everyone in Wp. I cannot attest to your e-mail from Jok outside of Wp; if it did occur, that's unfortunate. Whether this is an attempt at discreditation from either end, I cannot say.
By the by, I did send a private e-mail, but the "With all due respect" and list of mid-price Toronto eateries that were included do seem to have been missed in the quotation. Surely a harmless oversight, I bear no ill will.Jok2000 15:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Understood. The meat of my case is below. :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
However, this doesn't deny the fact that you have repeatedly and demonstrably included this solitary link in this article without substantive discourse or, importantly, consensus. In your quest to demonstrate the plight of one community, I'd expect discussion and advocacy, not repeated edits to assert your/this point of view. Personally, I find your evocation of social enlightenment/change through repeated edits here (without collective support) irksome and distasteful. If you expect to compel for changing anything, you must respect and reciprocate.
Moreover, you have not indicated anything in the poll below supporting or opposing the inclusion of this information. You cannot compel change working outside the system. An apparent consensus against including this link seems to be forming: this is all that is required in Wp and should guide our collective actions. E Pluribus Anthony 03:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
An article lock may be unnecessary: we just need to be diligent in ensuring a consensus is honoured (through reversion, if needed). If a user persists to the contrary, block the user. E Pluribus Anthony 23:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

To reduce any ambiguities and ID consensus, we should actually ask each user to cite (restate) and sign below what they prefer. Thus:

Poll

Should the website/URL Slum Tourism Toronto, presented by the Parkdale Tenants Association, be included in the Toronto article? State preference below:

  • Strong oppose As stated above, this link in any form/section is POV and doesn't belong in the Toronto article. This information may be more appropriate in an article about Housing in Toronto, Parkdale, or slums ... if a separate consensus exists to do so. E Pluribus Anthony 23:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the same reasons E Pluribus Anthony listed. Silly Dan 00:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose In agreement with EPA's points as stated above, and also because I don't think this organization (worthy as it is) is prominent enough within Toronto to deserve mention in the Wikipedia article on Toronto. There are dozens of Toronto NPOs and NGOs I'd link to before this site, and I know the local NP field very well. Cheers, Madmagic 00:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. POV links are fine in certain circumstances, but this is such a minor issue it doesn't belong on the main Toronto page. - SimonP 03:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a definite POV in my opinion, the user Ae871 and his sock puppet are obviously involved in the promption of this and as a result they are not neutral parties posting simply to an encyclopaedia. This added to the fact that they have also been spamming the link to every other wiki they can find (Wikitravel for one) turns me against it. That being said to get away from my POV on how it's been promoted I cannot see how that link deserves to be on the Toronto main page, an article on it in the Toronto category fine, but not a link from the main page. Also I cannot conceive that it would be a popular tour for tourists who go on holiday to enjoy themselves and view nice locations. Ben W Bell 08:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose The link is not the typical "tour" it purports to be, when compared to even unusual tour books. There are thousands of run-down apartments in Toronto, but millions of decent places to live in the GTA. I think this is typical of most modern cities, so the details of it can go in some other article, perhaps.Jok2000 14:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This reality should be reflected in the article. Reality is not POV. --Mista-X 23:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - NPOV means balance, among other things. Just because something is "reality" doesn't mean it's NPOV. HistoryBA 23:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not every link about Toronto belongs on the main article. Links don't have to be neutral, but they should be placed where appropriate, i.e., in the Parkdale article, or an article baout housing in Toronto. This is not a general tourism link. Ground Zero | t 04:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 23:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion

Hello again! If I may be so bold: after a few days (as of 19:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)), there is Wp unanimity – 6 votes against, none for – that Slum Tourism Toronto doesn't belong in the Toronto article. Given that the original proponent didn't re-assert oneself in the poll, coupled with their relative obfuscation and insincerity throughout, is additional testament to this verdict. This matter is closed (unless someone thinks differently), and thank you all for your participation! E Pluribus Anthony 19:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

As of this date: a supermajority – 7 8 votes against, 1 for – maintains the exclusion of this link from the Toronto article. Unless there's significant Wp groundswell, (in this instance) this is the only reality that counts; I believe the prior conclusion stands. Thanks for your participation. E Pluribus Anthony 04:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (amended by Ground Zero | t)

Stronger City of Toronto for a Stronger Ontario Act, 2005

Why isn't there any mention of the upcoming City of Toronto Act, and the contriversy surrounding the proposed strong mayor system? --coldacid 16:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Good question; is it confirmed? Add something! :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately I wouldn't really know where to begin. Also, AFAIK the bill that will become the Act hasn't gone to its first reading yet (and again AFAIK won't until some time in early 2006). --coldacid 22:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, mention it as soon as you wish. :) It's often better to include a starting point in a Wikipedia article, than to ask "why isn't this here?" When people see a starting point, they often add and build.
Speaking from the purely non-existant powers not-granted to me by Wikipedia, I hereby confer on you coldacid, full powers to begin mentioning! Cheers, Madmagic 04:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
And there we go. A brief mention, now that the bill has actually gone for its first reading, earlier than I thought. I wish there was a copy available though, since Hansard transcripts are free of bills. The official name, which I'm retitling this talk section, is: Stronger City of Toronto for a Stronger Ontario Act, 2005.[10] --coldacid 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm also co-opting the City of Toronto Act article for details on the new bill, but I really think that perhaps it should be folded into a new article on Politics of Toronto, along with much of the government information in this article. Not that there's too much information here, but there's a lot more in general, including political history (especially these past 10 years) that may be better served with a spun-off article. --coldacid 05:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Makes sense to me! It's ironic that this act (and others) are named so ... 'eloquently'. :) I think a new article as you propose (with same or diff title) would be good too. While I'm the first to admit that a spade is a spade, perhaps the heading in the Toronto article et al. can be tightened to Municipal governance, 2006, Changes in municipal governance or similar? E Pluribus Anthony 08:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Iranians

The article talks of significant numbers of Iranians in Toronto. Are there enough Iranians to merit mention alongside the Italians, Chinese, and Vietnamese? HistoryBA 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I raised my eyebrow at that too. I tried to pare down that section based on the Statistics Canada link/figures provided. Based on that, no: it probably shouldn't be included. However, some may beg to differ or use a different rationale (with different numbers) and it can be rewritten anyway; whatever it is, we should be consistent. E Pluribus Anthony 16:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I am going to take it out until someone can make a convincing case for including it. HistoryBA 16:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
It certainly has contributed to yielding "a unique combination of communities and neighbourhoods that are often strikingly different from one another", which seem to be the context. In my neighbourhood you are overwhelmed with Korean and Persian language store signs; I don't know whether this counts Iranians as significant, or Koreans as equally significant, or neither. The inclusion of Iranians, however, seems to me to fit the context.—Gniw (Wing) 16:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi! OK: we should probably limit mentions in this overview article to only verifiably large populations in The Big Smoke. We can't verify yet, so nix it. Upon verifying, we can include detail in the Demographics of Toronto article, which needs help: I've only edited it in a limited fashion and as a shunt for excess in the Toronto article. E Pluribus Anthony 16:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Fran's Restaurant, Toronto

There is an ongoing AfD discussion about this article. People there don't seem to agree on wether this is a notable Toronto chain of restaurants or not. I ask the editors of the Toronto article and inhabitants of Toronto in general to join the discussion here. JoaoRicardo talk 15:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/o/r/Talk%7EToronto_Archive_001_cb43.html"