Talk:Andrea Horwath

Pro-choice activist

The text as given seems to mention nothing to denote her being an activist for pro-choice. If there is no evidence of her notability, it is recommended that it be removed.137.122.14.20 (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrea Horwath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131410093900/http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/game+changer+Horwath+spotlight+budget+battle+looms/8235198/story.html to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/game+changer+Horwath+spotlight+budget+battle+looms/8235198/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Andrea Horwath. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/game%2Bchanger%2BHorwath%2Bspotlight%2Bbudget%2Bbattle%2Blooms/8235198/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140617105418/http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/en/general-election-district-results.aspx?d=031 to http://wemakevotingeasy.ca/en/general-election-district-results.aspx?d=031

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussions initiated by banned editor evading block

NDP Pharmacare plan Someone keeps trying to remove the NDP pharma care plan from the WP article. I suspect to influence the election against the NDP. I even put in 5 sources from different leading newspapers/media outlets from Canada! Yikes! Vegetables are good for you (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC) First, you need to stop reverting the edits. Since you added the text and two editors questioned that text, the onus is on you to justify it here. Making statements about bias or suspecting "influence" on the election not only fails an assumption of good faith but it's also not the best way to convince others of your point-of-view. Simply put, you can't revert to your preferred version at this time as it would be in violation of WP:3RR (I reverted you procedurally with no opinion at this time). Try to make your case here, without accusations and try to build consensus.. freshacconci (✉) 18:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC) I should clarify that I have no objection to including a reference to the Pharmacare plan; the problem is that the wording favoured by "Vegetables" is derived from an opinion piece in the Toronto Sun, which is a tabloid newspaper -- making the source inappropriate for a BLP. I'll add a proper line/reference at some point later today. CJCurrie (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC) Nonsense, I added 5 sources. All from different parts of the political spectrum. The Toronto Sun is a conservative newspaper, just as the Star is a progressive paper. Neither are tabloids. That is a ridiculous assertion. Anyway, that still doesn't explain why you don't like the other 4 sources. Change the wording if you want, but don't delete the entire pharma-care section. That's just bullshit. Vegetables are good for you (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC) The National Post is a (mostly) conservative newspaper. The Toronto Sun is a conservative tabloid newspaper. For our purposes, that makes a world of difference. The following notice appears at the beginning of all BLPs (and some other articles besides): "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." I recognize that you added other sources after my initial deletion; that notwithstanding, the specific wording was still derived from the Toronto Sun article (which was mostly an opinion piece, with a peripheral reference to the NDP's policy at the end). As a more general comment, I'll note that we need to exercise higher-than-usual caution on this page (and Wynne's page, and Ford's page, and Schreiner's page, and the party pages, and all other pages pertaining to the election) as election day draws nearer. CJCurrie (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Newspaper opinion pieces are not reliable sources per "News organizations". TFD (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC) As per my comments above, I've added a line about the NDP's Pharmacare plan, using a reliable source. (I don't believe the material itself is contentious, and no-one has disputed that it's relevant for the article, so I don't believe my doing so violates the letter or the spirit of the current page protection ... I won't object to someone reverting it if I've misunderstood.) CJCurrie (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2018 (UTC) Thank you for finally putting it back in. I already had a reliable source. In fact, I had FIVE of them! You actually removed 4 out of the 5 reliable sources. I have no idea why you kept trying to remove it in the first place. Vegetables are good for you (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2018 (UTC) NDP Clean Energy Plan The NDP has a plan for clean safe energy by importing from Quebec. Nuclear energy is not only dangerous, but environmentally irresponsible. Do you want to be drinking uranium? This article HAS to include the fact that the NDP will still provide Ontario with energy, by simply importing it. Removing this critical fact is criminal. Vegetables are good for you (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2018 (UTC) This article's job is not to be a campaign brochure for the NDP election platform. Its job is to be a neutral article about Horwath as a person. Due to the editwarring I've placed a 24-hour admin-only lock on the page — for starters, one thing you got very wrong is that the rule on here in the event of a content dispute is that the disputed information stays out of the article pending the resolution of the discussion on the grounds that it's disputed, not in the article pending the resolution of the discussion on the grounds that it's the oldest version of the article. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC) I'm not a cheerleader for any party. What I'm saying is, there's no point in simply stating that the Nuclear Power plant will be closed without also stating the plan to replace the energy that it generates. The information I added is completely sourced. Vegetables are good for you (talk) 02:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Ring of Fire Horwath supports building a road to mining areas in Northern Ontario despite the obvious environmental impact. Luckily, many many NDP members are not so easily fooled by greedy corporations. Most are actually standing up for the environment, and opposing this project. Basically, this is like Ontario's equivalent of Alberta's tar sand pipelines. Anyway, no matter how you feel personally about this project, it's important to note that even if Horwath supports it like the Libs and NeoCons do, other NDP candidates and MPPs are dead set against it. Vegetables are good for you (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC) You need to show that it is significant per weight for this article. Unless it attracts significant attention, it is not relevant to this article. Whether or not we consider it important is irrelevant. The article should summarize what mainstream media say about her, not what they ignore - that's policy. If you disagree, get the policy changed. TFD (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Holocaust comments Scandal

It seems that we are suppressing some potential anti-Semite and/or pro-Hitler content. Her comments on both were well known in Hamilton a few years ago…why aren’t they listed? Or are we air brushing? 207.35.136.250 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to elaborate on this. As a lifelong Hamiltonian, I have no idea what you're referring to, so some further clarity on "pro-Hitler" comments is needed. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 15:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)