Talk:John Tory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Tory article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This is not a forum for general discussion of John Tory.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Contents

[edit] Mr. Tory is a Tory MP?

Mr. Tory is a Tory MP? Surely there's some intersting background there. Ubermonkey 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You suspect perhaps that his birthname was John Grit? Somegeek 17:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Headings

Please note that WP:MSH, the Wikipedia Style Guide on headings within articles, says that headings should follow sentence case, not title case, i.e., only proper nouns are capitalized -- other words do not take capitals. Ground Zero | t 15:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment

I have assessed this article as B Class, given its level of detail and organization, although it needs more referencing and in-line citations and the "Other facts" section should be incorporated into the main body of the article. I have assessed this as low importance, as I do not feel that many people outside of Canada would be familiar with the subject of the article. Cheers, CP 23:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Efficiencies

I noticed Reginald Perrin has removed the quotation marks around this word where it appears at the end of the lead paragraph. The point being made by the quotes, which I believe to be validated in any questions that have been asked of Tory about this word, is that not only is it an unusual way to commit to paying for new benefits, but it is also never defined. (If I am wrong about this, and someone has a source for the explanation of "efficiencies", please insert it and the quotation marks will not be as important.) In order to make the point that there are some gaps in Mr. Tory's explanations, either we need the irony of the quotation marks or the addition of words like, "- a term he has failed to define." I believe the quotations marks be preferred, though I am content with either method of highlighting the unusual use of the word. Bielle 19:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If John Tory's words are that he intends to pay for programs using efficiencies, then that is what he intends. It is up to the reader to decide if it is an unusual choice of words, or if he hasn't adequately explained what it means, or even if it is impossible to achieve. Adding quotes around the word is designed to scare people. In fact, you are suggesting the quotes be there for that exact reason -- to scare people. We should trust that the reader of the article is capable of being scared on their own. Jhayman 20:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
If your argument is that the unusual word doesn't deserve quotation marks because it is a direct quotation, then you have lost me. I admit to having been distracted by Mr. Perrin's use of the concept that quotation marks are scarey or denote scarey things. It comes down to this: "efficiencies" is a direct quotation and it is also a common word used in an unusual way. To make it clear that the word is not one selected by a Wikipedia editor, but is an exact quotation, it should have both quotation marks and a source. If, on the other hand, some editor would like to explain what he meant by "efficiencies", and has a source for that explanation, then we can go that route, too. As it stands without the quotation marks, it assumes that this use of "efficiencies" is well known, and that is simply not true. I don't want to scare anybody; I would like the clearest possible statements about Mr. Tory's positions. This is unclear, and made more so by the loss of the quotation marks, which did, at least, tie the word to the man. Bielle 02:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I can be convinced otherwise. In the Progressive Conservative "Election Plan for Ontario" found here, http://www.leadershipmatters.ca/resources/Plan_for_Ontario's_Future_060907.pdf, it says the following:

Replace high taxes by finding savings and efficiencies. Ask yourself if there’s room for the Ontario government to become 2% more efficient over the next four years. John Tory thinks there is. After all, even Dalton McGuinty claimed he had found more than $800 million in annual savings by finding ‘efficiencies.’ With his strong leadership and management skills, John Tory knows how to find $1.5 billion in savings – less than 2% of government spending over four years.

The efficiencies is in quotes in their official platform. However, when I did a search on news articles, the only examples I found of just the word "efficiencies" in quotation marks were in opinion pieces comparing him to Mike Harris and contrasting "efficiencies" with "service cuts". Perhaps the best thing to do is to remove this from the lead section and having a more detailed section on his election platform?
Or, we could do as you say, include a longer quote, and provide a reference. How about changing the sentence that begins with "While the Progressive Conservatives supported..." to "Tory plans to phase out the Health Premium introduced in the 2004 Ontario budget by finding savings and efficiencies", Or something like that, with a reference to the official party platform.
I guess the problem *I* have with just the word efficiencies in quotations, is I infer (as a reader) that they aren't "real efficiencies" they are "fake efficiencies". When I see quotes around a single word, I read it as a nudge, nudge, wink, wink, take what I'm saying with a grain of salt, I'm really saying something completely different.
My preference would be to remove this from the lead section, and put a section later on about specific policies in his 2007 election platform. I realize the intent was to categorize him as a Red Tory who is socially liberal and primarily fiscally conservative. Jhayman 04:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Now that I think this through further, I agree that it would be sensible to remove election platforms and catch phrases from the lead paragraph. The encyclopedia article is, after all, not supposed to be a part of an election campaign, but a quick introduction to a notable politician. (It will be upadted, no doubt, after the election). "Efficiencies" can then be used in context, and properly sourced, in the 2007 Election section. Bielle 02:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STILL a MPP

Tory is still an MPP, until the new government isi sworn in - he is not a "former" MPP. We have an unhealthy tradition in Canada that as soon as someone is defeated in an election they are a "former". In the USA, when an incumbent President loses, he is not a "former" president until January 20 of the next year - a whole two months after the election that defeated him. Tory is not a "former MPP" until the new government is sworn in. Nopm 16:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when the Legislature is formally desolved, no elected official is technically a MPP, just as the Premier is not really the premier in the sense that the legislature is desolved. That is why the media, I believe the CBC, called Dalton "Premier-elect" last night. nattang 16:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I don't normally post on these, but I thought I would comment. The Cabinet continues to be the Cabinet until a new Cabinet is sworn in. The Premier remains the Premier until the new Premier is sworn into office. There is always a Cabinet, always a Premier, always an executive branch that oversees the government and "advises" the LG. As for MPPs, they cease to be the MPP on election day, or immediately if they resign, or are removed from office, (or obviously if they die.) While the House is dissolved, they continue to operate their constituency office, they and their staff are paid, etc. That said, it is normal not to treat them as the MPP as they are a candidate for a party at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.142.161 (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] proposed paragrafs

Its interesting to note that Dalton McGuinty is a Roman Catholic himself which could explain why he has nothing against status quo of Ontario education inequality. Canada's approach to religious education has sometimes been criticized as inconsistent. Catholic education public funding is mandated by various sections of the Constitution Act, 1867 and reaffirmed by Section Twenty-nine of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The United Nations Human Rights Commission declared in 1999 that Ontario was in violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights by only funding Catholic schools and not other faith-based schools. Newfoundland withdrew Catholic funding in 1996, via legislation that required approval from the Canadian House of Commons. Quebec abolished religious education funded by the state through the Education Act, 1998 which took effect on July 1st of that same year.


If such a act of Antisemitism and discrimination, against any other religion, is permissible for Dalton McGuinty the premier of the most populous province of Canada, how could Canada condemn other countries like Russia or China about human rights or religious freedom??? How could we force someone to listen to United Nations if we don’t listen??? Is Canada a good example??? There is no other western democratic country which violates the rights of its citizens just because they are minority and are not big percentage of electorate! John Tory was the only leader who maid a point to do something right and not just something that will help him to win an elections!

here are the links:

here is the official un website saying it Decisions of the UN Human Rights Committee

and here is alink to wikepedia site saying the same thing (look under education)

and here is another one from wikepedia

and the fact that dalton mgcinty is a catholic you could see on this wikepidia site by his biografy what do you think Ntb613 06:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The proposed addition appears to violate Wikipedia policies, most particularly the ones about reliable sources and neutral point of view. It is fundamentally opinion, not factual (although apparently opinion based on political facts in Canada). I would also suggest reviewing what Whikipedia is not. Studerby 06:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure, I would like to note that I was brought here to mediate this dispute by Ntb613. It would appear that the proposed paragraph has some serious problems with it. For example, beginning with "It is interesting to note" is a decidedly non-neutral idea. Interesting to whom? Interesting to what purpose? This sounds like the personal feeling of whoever is writing the paragraph. Later on, "which could explain" again sounds like a novel opinion. The fact that Dalton McGuinty is Roman Catholic may be true, but I fail to see how it has any bearing on this article, which is not about him, but rather another person. It only gets worse from there. The entire proposed paragraphs above are nothing but a diatribe consisting solely of the unreferenced opinions of its author. The opinions expressed have MANY appropriate places on the internet. There are THOUSANDS of blogs, discussion forums, and chat rooms discussing Canadian politics which would be excellent places to publish the above information. That the information is blatantly non-neutral (See WP:NPOV), is unreferenced (see WP:V) and represents original thought (see WP:NOR) means that the proposed paragraphs violate all THREE of Wikipedia's cornerstone policies. Again, I have no personal opinion on this particular politician, or on this article, but I was brought here by a request from Ntb613 to give my honest opinion. That is my honest opinion. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Addition to John Tory Article

Arguably, John Tory can be seen as a liberal Progressive Conservative, meaning towards the left of the PC Party (compared to a conservative Progressive Conservative like Mike Harris). John Tory might be considered to be more liberal than the Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty (who wanted increased spending?) and McGuinty is thought of as a conservative Liberal (someone on the right, due to his fiscal policies).

To this end, I suggest we add to this article on John Tory the following: In this election, Tory, the Progressive Conservative Leader was arguably seen as the less conservative Leader relative to his Liberal opponent.

By the way, I got this phrasing from the article on US president Gerald Ford, where it says in 1976 election, Ford, the Republican, was seen as less conservative relative to his Democratic opponent, Jimmy Carter.

What are your thoughts on this addition? Nopm 22:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that kind of thing only belongs if it was widely seized-upon in the media or among the public. It is just an opinion and can be argued both ways. I think that there might be a place to mention that Tory is/was a "moderate" Conservative because that did come up a lot in his leadership and in the most recent election. --JGGardiner 09:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think its a pretty tough stretch to say Tory is more liberal than McGuinty. Taxes: McGuinty raised them, Tory would cut them. Spending: Tory said it would rise more slowly under him. Health Care: Tory favours a greater role for the private sector, McGuinty opposes that. Education: Tory favours private school funding, McGuinty does not. Environment: McGuinty passed Endangered Species Act, Greenbelt, Clean Water Act, Tory opposed. Caledonia: McGuinty favours negotiations, Tory wanted direct police action. Minimum wage: McGuinty wanted it raised, Tory opposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.142.161 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

The recent additions regarding Tory's leadership review are obviously slanted in favour of his critics. This needs to be improved, soon. CJCurrie (talk) 00:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Better now? CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Nobody spoke up so I am removing it. CallipygianSchoolGirl (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)