Talk:Ontario minister's zoning orders controversy

MZOs are different from the Greenbelt Scandals

The Greenbelt Scandal relates to the decision of the government to file a regulation to remove certain land from the greenbelt. The criticisms of the Ford Government for their use/perceived overuse of MZOs is separate from that. I propose we create a new article for the Greenbelt Scandal. Legend of 14 (talk) 02:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2024

Ontario minister's zoning orders controversy → Minister's Zoning Orders – The current title is unreasonably biased and specific. There is no page Minister's Zoning Orders so the word Ontario is unnecessary. The word controversy is too charged and should not be there. Legend of 14 (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, as the article seems to be about the controversy. That being said, if it is to be moved, it should be lowercase (as it is a type of legislation rather than a title of a piece of legislation) and singular (per WP:SINGULAR). Graham (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  The controversy surrounding the Greenbelt, has nothing to do with Minister's zoning orders. See the section above "MZOs are different from the Greenbelt Scandal". But you are right about the capitalization and the need for it to be singular. Also Minister's zoning orders are not legislation. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Both are controversial, though, right? Graham (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Some of the MZOs are, many aren't. The greenbelt stuff is controversial, but it shouldn't be in the article, because this is not an article about the greenbelt. Legend of 14 (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well, I'll change to neutral, pending being able to give it more thought. Graham (talk) 02:14, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• Move to Minister's zoning order. MOS:CAPS says to capitalize terms only if they're capitalized in a substantial majority of RS, which does not seem to be the case here. I briefly searched the archives of the CBC, Globe and Mail, and Toronto Star, and in all cases they use a mix of capitalization, which the uncapitalized form seemingly slightly more common. (They're also sometimes referred to as "Ministerial zoning orders", but this is somewhat less common.) Colin M (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

  Support. This name better aligns with policy than the name I proposed. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The page isn't about minister's zoning orders in general, but about the Doug Ford government's use of them in particular, which has been controversial and distinct from previous governments' use of them - see, for example, the CBC MZOs have been a trump card for the Ford government — here's why it's a serious Ontario election issue, the Narwhal What’s an MZO, anyway? Ontario’s obscure land zoning stirs controversy in Durham Region, Global News Doug Ford defends use of Ontario’s controversial zoning order power as development concerns mount, The Globe & Mail Eighteen zoning orders given to developers who were guests at Premier Ford’s family wedding, NDP says, and the National Observer Zoning out: Doug Ford's special land-use orders. NHCLS (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  This page has had a real problem with anti-Ford bias. I explain above why the word Ontario is not nessecary. While the need for more specificity could be needed if there were other articles on Minister's Zoning Orders, there are not. Under WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Article_titles#Neutrality_in_article_titles, the word "controversy"'s inclusion cannot be justified. The specific phrase, "minister's zoning orders controversy" or "Ontario minister's zoning orders controversy" are not words commonly used to refer to the subject. The word controversy has a negative connotation and its inclusion in the Article's title is not necessary and is inflammatory. People would expect to find content about the use of Minister's zoning orders by the Ford Government under the page Minister's zoning order.

  As in the interest of full disclosure, you came up with the current name of the article, with the use of a different apostrophe. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  • • Why is controversy non-neutral? The specific phrase "minister's zoning orders controversy" might not appear in that specific format in most news articles, but news articles are almost unanimously about the Ford government's use of those orders and about how that use of those orders differs from previous governments' use (which, as far as I can tell from the sources was very rare) and about the debates over that use (with a lot of the articles including the word "controversial" or a variant of). I don't know else to describe that other than a controversy? And if the article has a real problem with anti-Ford bias, can you point out some specific things that can be fixed so we can find sources and fix them? NHCLS (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

      I've already done a major cleanup of the biased article contents, including removing criticisms of rent control and Greenbelt policy which are wholly unrelated to MZOs. The term controversy in the Article's title is just one of the last remaining biased content from this article's past. But, the problem with the article is that only controversial MZOs get coverage in the news. You don't here about the MZO for the long-term care home for example. There's plenty of non-controversial orders. This article still does spend a disproportionate amount of time criticizing the use by the Ford government with much less time and detail given to support/supporters of the current policy and use. There's still work to be done and change the name to something less inflammatory is a step in the right direction.

      Per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Neutrality_in_article_titles, the word controversy can only be added if it is part of an established/common name or would not serve to be unnessecarily inflammatory. It is not. As I've said elsewhere in this thread the reason why Minister's zoning orders are notable is because of the government's use of them. Without the controversy, there is no article Minister's zoning orders. Minister's zoning orders and the controversy are linked in way where you cannot separate them like you are. These are not 2 different topics. The word controversy carries a negative connotation. As a matter of policy, as WP:NPOV cannot be varied through consensus, controversy cannot be included in the title. People would not be more likely to find this topic under the current title. Legend of 14 (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: "Minister's Zoning Order" is a legal term in Ontario planning law (are we sure the term isn't used in any other Canadian province, or elsewhere in the world?). This article is not about that legal term in itself, it is about a political controversy over how one particular Ontario government has used them. I think we should keep the current article under the current title to be about that political controversy, and save "Minister's Zoning Order" for a possible future article on the underlying term concept. That said, not completely opposed to dropping "Ontario": although it is useful for readers from elsewhere on the planet to get a quick fix on the article's geographical scope. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

  The only reason why Ministers zoning orders are notable is because of their increased use. If we were to create an article called Minister's zoning order and not include anything related to the "controversy" it would literally just be the section background of this article. There's a reason why other instruments like Ontario Hospital Directives or Ontario Health Memorandums of Understanding don't have their own articles. They were barely used before the Ford government and aren't notable outside their use by the Ford government. This article describes what Minister's zoning orders are, and how they've been used. There is no current usecase for the namespace Minister's zoning order besides moving this article there. Legend of 14 (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  I disagree that Minister's Zoning Orders are only notable due to their use by the Ford government. Ford has only been Ontario Premier since mid-2018. I can find reliable sources discussing them prior to that:

  • Smit, Anneke; Valiante, Marcia (2015). Public Interest, Private Property: Law and Planning Policy in Canada. UBC Press. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-7748-2934-2.
  • Howden, Peter H. (2017). The Ontario Municipal Board: The Last Trip. FriesenPress. p. 98. ISBN 978-1-4602-9905-0.
  • Kanter, Ron (1990). Space for All: Options for a Greater Toronto Area Greenlands Strategy. Queen's Printer for Ontario. pp. 102–103. ISBN 978-0-7729-7389-4.
  • Sandberg, L. Anders; Wekerle, Gerda R.; Gilbert, Liette (2013). The Oak Ridges Moraine Battles: Development, Sprawl, and Nature Conservation in the Toronto Region. University of Toronto Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-1-4426-1302-7.
  • Fusero, Paolo (2004). Il Rapporto pubblico-privato nel P.G.R. Pratiche, contesti e nuovi orizzonti [The public-private relationship in the P.G.R.: Practices, contexts and new horizons] (in Italian). Rome, Italy: Palombi Editori. p. 120. ISBN 978-88-7621-287-1.

  Many people may consider the details of Ontario planning law, prior to the current political controversy over this aspect of it, to be dry and boring, but it has received serious academic attention, and so that makes it a notable topic for Wikipedia's purposes. I expect someone will eventually get around to writing article(s) on it, including coverage of "Minister's Zoning Orders" in particular. A political controversy about the use of them by a single administration needs to be separated from their broader history–both are notable, but they are different (albeit related) topics. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  You haven't provided a single source primarily about MZOs. Although those sources may mention MZOs in their content, it is not significant coverage. These topics are not separate. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  However, I believe this discussion has strayed to far from the original topic. Regardless of the notability of a particular topic, the word controversy cannot continue to be included in the article per WP:Article title#Neutrality in article titles. It is too charged, and not a part of a common name. The current article's title does not align with policy and must be changed. The best solution IMO opinion is to take the unused namespace "Minister's zoning order" and move this article there.

  I will correct myself by saying this, no part of the sources you provide primarily covers or gives significant coverage to MZOs. They mention MZOs but are not really discussing the MZOs. I will also try to address your concerns As a part of post-move cleanup headings, ect. will be changed to align with the new name. Additionally, Wikipedia articles are not static. A person could add how MZOs were used prior to the Ford government to the article after the move assuming they could find sources for such. The article would be enhanced by doing this because it would give the reader a better understanding of how the Ford government's use is different, which is at the root of the controversy, and make it easier for them to draw their own conclusions. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

  If none of those sources are about MZOs, this article isn't really about them either. It is about the fact that the Ford government has done things which critics view as objectionable. The fact that they happened to involve MZOs isn't really important – if the Ford government had done the same stuff but used some other legal instrument to do so, the controversy would be largely the same. This is why I don't think this article belongs on the bare "Minister's Zoning Orders", because this article is not about them, it is about a current political controversy. 10 years from now, this controversy will very likely be in the past, but (unless they get abolished as a result of this), MZOs will still be around. And I disagree that "controversy" is "charged" or "non-neutral". To say there is a "controversy" over something a government has done, is not casting judgement on whether what the government has done is right or wrong. Maybe the Ford government really has done wrong here, maybe they've done nothing wrong and this is just a beat-up orchestrated by their political opponents. Either could be the case. But calling the article "controversy" is not taking sides on that question, it is just acknowledging the question exists. There are lots of other things the Ford government has done which haven't caused controversy – to pick a random example, they just enacted the "Croatian Heritage Day Act", officially declaring May 30 to be Croatian Heritage Day in Ontario – not aware of any controversy over that. There is no notable question about whether the Ford government has done the right thing there, since if anyone claims they haven't, those claims aren't notable. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)