Talk:Jim Watson (Canadian politician)

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Canada: Ontario / Ottawa / Politics Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ottawa (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

LGBTQ+ studies: Person

	LGBTQ portal This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
	This article is supported by the LGBTQ+ Person task force.

Resignation in 2000

No details about his resignation in 2000? That's not good. -Joshuapaquin 05:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Old Ottawa Flag.png

Image:Old Ottawa Flag.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Article for Campaigning

This page is meant to serve as a biography of a living person. It appears that it is being updated to be an extension of a present political campaign. I suggest that the section that announces his "planks" in the present municipal election platform be removed. These have no pertinence to the biography of the individual, but are only meant to serve political aims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.9.56 (talk) 11:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your removal of his platform details. The section doesn't seem to have any further issues (it's only one line now) so I removed {{POV}}. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "New City"

I notice on Bob Chiarelli's, Larry O'Brien's and this page the mayor is number as 1s, 2nd, and 3rd mayor the new city respectively. Since its been nine years since the city was expanded to its current boundaries isn't "new city" a misnomer? I propose changing it to "post-amalgamation" instead. 99.241.90.42 (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

56th mayor of Ottawa

Jim Watson is the 56th mayor of Ottawa, he is also the 58th mayor of Ottawa. He was out of office and was re-elected ten years later. Does he really become the 56th mayor again ? Doesn't make much sense. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was and always will be the 56th mayor of Ottawa no matter how man more times he is elected. He was the 56th person to be mayor of Ottawa and nothing will ever change that. Pierre Trudeau was the 15th Prime Minister of Canada despite having two nonconsecutive terms, for example. It is only customary in the U.S. to count separate nonconsecutive terms in the way you have prescribed. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could see if the terms were consecutive, but they were ten years apart, one of the old city of Ottawa, and the second The "mega-city". UrbanNerd (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. He was the 56th person to be mayor of Ottawa. #58 will be whoever is mayor next. This is how we count leaders in Canada. -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd, but good to know. UrbanNerd (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how Ottaw numbers its mayors. Do they number via individual? or via mayorship? GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Order

I want to avoid violating the 3 revert rule, so I will address the recent reverts here. User:Mewulwe seems to think the order is "inaccurate", but failed to explain how it is. In Canada, when we order politicians, we don't count 2 non consecutive terms as being two different ranks in the order. Not sure if that is what the complaint is. I also know that with Chiarelli and O'Brien there was a dispute about them being the 1st and 2nd mayors of the city because of amalgamation, so we put that in the infobox as well as a compromise. Not sure if that's the issue either. I wish Mewulwe explained his/her issue with the order better. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to see a reliable source for the specific number, otherwise it doesn't belong. I suspect that there is no official or semi-official ordering of politicians at all in Canada. Mewulwe (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the numbering of certain politicians in Canada is well-established. Even Prime Ministers are referred to by their order of office, as well as premiers and mayors among others. As an example, check out this clip from one of Ontario's public broadcast shows, where a former prime minister and premier are referred to by their orders in office: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-15a773nqnQ The relevant bit is within the first 30 seconds. Additionally, check out the Twitter feed of the Governor-General of Canada: https://twitter.com/GGDavidJohnston Even he refers to himself as the 28th Governor-General of Canada. Although these are only a few examples, it's quite clear that it's well-established in Canada that politicians are numbered by their order in office. As far as I'm concerned, the 56th bit here should be put back in. Redverton (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any sources saying he's the 56th, but anyone who can count would be able to verify that he is the 56th person to have been mayor of the city. I suppose one could consider it "original research". I wouldn't agree personally, but I think it should be something we should discuss. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have made a point about that as well. I think Mewulwe's objection is based on two things - 1) an opposition in principle to numbering politicians, and 2) whether we can definitely say he's the 56th mayor. On the first point, I again highlight another example. On the website of the current Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, he is referred to as the 22nd Prime Minister of Canada - http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/pm.asp?featureId=7&pageId=27. I don't want to say that's the end of that debate, but when the Prime Minister is referred to by his order of office, you have to suspect the ordering of politicians is indeed well-established in Canada. On the second point however, I have no view - I don't know whether he can be definitely called the 56th mayor. I wait to see evidence either way. Redverton (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found a good reference to Larry O'Brien being the 58th mayor here (although that doesn't necessarily help here): http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/former-ottawa-mayor-one-year-later-1.1084087?cmp=rss -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the discussion earlier on about naming him the 56th mayor. Considering that, and the source you highlighted, numerically I can't see much doubt that he's the 56th mayor. Like you said, only the U.S. is in the habit of giving two different orders of office if serving non-consecutive terms. I stand then by my original statement, as I say put the 56th bit back in. Redverton (talk) 00:14, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The prime minister and even some mayors may well use numbers, but from that I don't think it can automatically be assumed that every city does it, and furthermore uses the same counting system. We can't just arbitrarily assign numbers by counting in some way down some Wikipedia list, which itself may not be accurate, and give the impression that those numbers are as fixed as the numbers of U.S. presidents. Mewulwe (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I didn't use this list to count. But I digress. It's not arbitrary. I found a reference to the previous mayor's order using a very reputable source. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CBC, like anyone else, may copy bits like that from Wikipedia, or they may occasionally, like Wikipedia, give such a number based on a dubious count of their own. After all, if CBC is reliable, so is this, contradicting Redverton's statement about two different numbers for one person. Now how do you go from Whitton 48 to O'Brien 58? Even if Whitton is just 46, it doesn't fit with the list. So unless you have a complete official numbered list, this is all OR. Mewulwe (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This article seems to have been written by people who support Watson. Notably, in the second mayoral term section, there is not a single point about negative points during his term, everything is positive. The Minister of Municipal Affairs section is similar, it boasts about his accomplishments and how he improved without providing any negative information.

Basically, there is no criticism. The whole article is "he did this, improved this, increased funding here, and didn't raise taxes", which clearly is not a NPOV. There is no mention of the reason for his resignation as well during his first term, which is very odd because there should always be a public reason given for the resignation. The article is simply too positive with zero negatives.Hti999 (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost three years on, and it's the same thing. Lots of weasel words, no mention of controversies like Lansdowne, LRT, "Zibi" condos on a sacred Algonquin site, etc. The white man whitewashing machine is in full effect! 70.48.113.232 (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Jim Watson (Canadian politician). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]