(Redirected from
Talk:Doug Ford Jr.)
 | Doug Ford was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 12, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| 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. |
 | This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
|
 | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
.svg){kind=small} |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
There is so much missing in this section. To an average reader, what is discussed in the article does not accurately reflect his track record, regardless of one's political affiliation.
For example:
- Passed Bill 124, giving health-care workers and other government employees pay raises of one percent a year, below the current inflation rate [1]
- Reducing the public health units' budgets by $200 million a year, followed by reversing the cuts [2]
- Cancelled mandatory annual inspections of long-term-care facilities [2]
- Rejected proposals to increase the number of nurses (ON has the lowest nurse-to-population ratio in Canada) [2]
- Passed Bill 175, restructuring the home-care sector in which for-profit private delivery of home care will increase. No commitment to increase the number of patients receiving home care or increase the number of visits a patient can receive. Rejected requests to increase rehabilitation services for patients who are currently paying for such services [2]
- Intention to privatize part of healthcare to deal with covid-related backlog [3]
And the list goes on. Is there a way to add this list the the article somehow?
- 1: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-nurses-pay-increase-ona-covid-doug-ford-1.5607068
- 2: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2020/07/15/why-doug-fords-to-blame-for-health-care-mess.html
- 3: https://pressprogress.ca/doug-fords-government-wants-to-privatize-parts-of-the-health-care-system-to-reduce-covid-19-surgical-backlog/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:1980:18f:98df:e301:bd6a:432f ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I suggest including the section below in the main text. This is a neutral posting that reflects the current situation with colleges in Ontario as many private colleges will collapse soon after the restriction imposed on the private education business. I am not a businessman and I do not work in a college.
On March 27, 2024, the Government of Ontario, led by Doug Ford, made an unexpected decision that may have a huge negative impact on the entire educational system of the province leading to the bankruptcy of many private colleges. It was announced that the private colleges will not receive any international study permits as 96% of spots will be allocated to public colleges and universities while the remaining 4% of international students may be allowed to study in some private universities and language schools. The decision to eliminate a "low-quality education" in the Province of Ontario is controversial as a "low-quality education" cannot be generalized to all private colleges of Ontario. Moreover, so-called "low-quality education" allegedly practiced by private colleges implies complete discrimination against domestic students because of the (allegedly) lower standards of education. The real issue that led to such a controversial decision is the conflict of interests between public and private colleges. This decision leads to a monopolization of the educational system and complete predomination of the public colleges. [1] Nomonopolyofeducation ( talk) 17:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with quality of education. Unfortunately, Canada is the country where the most educated and talented people with MSc and PhD degrees cannot find jobs according to their skills and qualifications. [2] So, any private college in Canada can easily find and hire highly qualified specialists with MSc and PhD degrees for teaching positions. Therefore, poor quality of education is just an excuse. What we actually see is that the large business of public colleges expels the small business of private colleges. Observateur Canadien ( talk) 00:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- The shares in all public or community colleges of Canada largely belong to the big private businesses that, of course, may not be interested in competing with small private colleges. When tons of dollars are involved the scale of business becomes too attractive for influential tycoons as millions of international students entering Canada must pay their very expensive tuition fees. This is the only sound answer, which explains the preplanned collapse of many private colleges in Ontario. It was a corporate lobbying that convinced the Ontario Government to exclude private career colleges from the business. The small private colleges are outsiders now and this monopolization is idiomatically saying "riding the gravy train" for the richest private shareholders of the public colleges. Snowflake Enneagram ( talk) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral tone means the a reader cannot tell what position the writer takes on a topic. You need to re-write the suggested text in order to reflect that. Also, you need a reliable source that supports the text.
TFD (
talk) 17:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is
not a platform for political advocacy. Please also see
Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits) 17:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- The suggested section is neutral and not used as a platform for political advocacy. It only states the negative impacts to the educational system of Ontario that are cased by this decision. Nomonopolyofeducation ( talk) 18:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The section I proposed is neutral and it does not criticize Doug Ford's government. It only states the real facts and issues in the educational system of Ontario that are caused by this decision. As far as a reliable source is concerned, this article [3] supports the proposed section:
- "New Ontario rules to deny private colleges international students will wipe out their partnerships, killing jobs and ending a lucrative source of income for public colleges, experts and advocates say.
- They're going to have to make some very difficult financial decisions. They’re going to have to do some restructuring. There are large administrative questions — where that lands is not going to be a good place,” said University of Toronto education Prof. Glen Jones, an expert in post-secondary policy."
- As we know, any kind of monopolization is illegal in USA and Canada. This decision certainly creates a monopolization of the educational system of Ontario by public colleges and we should say something about it. Nomonopolyofeducation ( talk) 18:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is
not a platform for political advocacy. Please also see
Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits) 17:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Majority of Ontario international student permits to go to public colleges, universities". City News. 27 March 2024.
- ^ Schein, Daniel Roy Torunczyk (30 July 2019). "The PhD employment crisis is systemic". Institute for Research on Public Policy.
- ^ "Ontario's public colleges will be hammered by new international student visa rules — and the Ford government needs to act, critics warn". Toronto Star. 28 March 2024.
Bill 124. 104.254.10.227 ( talk) 14:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Anteosaurus_magnificus on 3 January 2023 added material from an article by James L. Turk in Constitutional Forum, with edit summary = "Added an academic analysis of Doug Ford's political ideology. The article is peer-reviewed and, as far as I can tell, a dispassionate study that is neither pro-Ford nor anti-Ford, and should be permissible under Wikipaedia's neutrality principles." However, Constitutional Forum's about page says "The Forum does not operate as a peer reviewed journal." And the added material includes the phrase "that it was based on a false premise concocted by alt-right provocateurs" which doesn't strike me as dispassionate, so -- since the article is paywalled -- I hope Anteosaurus_magnificus will supply a quote that establishes this. At the moment I'm in favour of reverting but maybe explanations exist. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Since the writer is an expert, it meets rs. The fact that the writer has an opinion is not an objection. Most academic articles are written to express an opinion.
- However, I had a few questions. First, did Ford actually implement the free speech policy or was it just hyperbole that he hadn't thought through? Second, can we really say that occasionally using a populist style while adhering to the neoliberal consensus is an ideology? And why do we have to write so much about it?
- TFD ( talk) 16:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- By "peer-reviewed article" and "dispassionate study", I was referring to the other article, written by Brian Budd, in that edit description, as the paragraph on Ford's ideology being a mixture of neoliberalism and right-wing populism was the main part of my edit. The sentence in Education may require a bit of rewriting to make it clear that this is the opinion of Ford's critics or of James L. Turk specifically, but as The Four Deuces said, it's by an accomplished expert and meets the criteria for inclusion.
Anteosaurus magnificus (
talk) 18:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do you refuse to supply a quote that establishes that Mr Turk said that it was based on a false premise concocted by alt-right provocateurs?
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 19:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- The Ontario initiative channels Donald Trump who, in response to the controversy over altright provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California at Berkeley in February 2017, famously tweeted, “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view — NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” Trump’s approach was elaborated shortly afterwards by the National Review in an article saying to Congress, “It’s time to crush campus censorship.” and subsequently formalized by the Goldwater Institute into a model bill designed to impose free expression rules on US public universities. Seeing advantage in this use of campus free speech as a wedge issue, Andrew Scheer brought the idea to Canada during the federal Conservative Party leadership contest in May 2017. Following the American right’s script, Scheer declared, “I will withhold federal funding from universities that shut down debate and can’t stand different points of view.” The UK Conservative government’s higher education minister, Jo Johnson (Boris Johnson’s brother), picked up the refrain in December 2017, declaring that universities failing to protect free expression could be fined.
- Ahead of the start of the 2018 Ontario provincial election, Doug Ford joined the chorus, announcing he would tie university funding to free speech on campus. As Premier, he has now put these words into action in Ontario. The United Conservative Party of Alberta followed Ford’s example in 2019. After winning a majority government, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney announced that all Alberta universities and colleges will be required to “develop, post and comply with free speech policies that conform to the University of Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression.”
- Ford’s policy works as a wedge issue by bringing together two very different constituencies. On the one hand, there are those on the right who have chosen to weaponize free expression, pushing relentlessly and aggressively at the outer boundaries of speech and vilifying those who express concerns. Think of the denigration of students who are concerned about racist, Islamophobic, anti-Indigenous, or homophobic speech as “snowflakes.” In a recent New Yorker article, Harvard historian Jill Lepore suggested that the guide for those weaponizing free speech “isn’t the First Amendment; it’s the hunger of the troll, eager to feast on the remains of liberalism.” How better to do that than to use the rhetoric of liberalism to attack one of the principal repositories of liberal, Enlightenment values — the university?
- The other constituency Ford is seeking to draw in are those who genuinely care about universities and have come to believe, from the high-profile media stories of campus free speech controversies, that campus free expression is endangered. This is a potentially larger constituency than his core right-wing base. Ford’s campus free speech policy aims to unite these two very different groups against an unspecified university and university-educated “elite” that has betrayed its own liberal values.
- That's the entire page from Turk's article about it originating as an alt-right talking point.
Anteosaurus magnificus (
talk) 19:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. From this I conclude that your addition citing Mr Turk was poorly sourced and should be removed. Now what about Brian Budd? He wrote that for an
author pays journal while he was a
candidate at the University of Guelph, and is
not listed currently as part of the Political Science faculty there, so the defence that he's an "expert" doesn't appear to apply here, and I don't know why you think it's dispassionate. I'll wait to see whether others have opinions.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 14:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- After waiting a week for other opinions, I undid. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 18:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. From this I conclude that your addition citing Mr Turk was poorly sourced and should be removed. Now what about Brian Budd? He wrote that for an
author pays journal while he was a
candidate at the University of Guelph, and is
not listed currently as part of the Political Science faculty there, so the defence that he's an "expert" doesn't appear to apply here, and I don't know why you think it's dispassionate. I'll wait to see whether others have opinions.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 14:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do you refuse to supply a quote that establishes that Mr Turk said that it was based on a false premise concocted by alt-right provocateurs?
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 19:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
- Former good article nominees
- Biography articles of living people
- Active politicians
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Canada-related articles
- Low-importance Canada-related articles
- C-Class Ontario articles
- Low-importance Ontario articles
- C-Class Toronto articles
- Mid-importance Toronto articles
- C-Class Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
- Low-importance Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- C-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
(Redirected from
Talk:Doug Ford Jr.)
| Doug Ford was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 12, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
| 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. |
|
| This page is about an active politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. |
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
|
|
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
There is so much missing in this section. To an average reader, what is discussed in the article does not accurately reflect his track record, regardless of one's political affiliation.
For example:
- Passed Bill 124, giving health-care workers and other government employees pay raises of one percent a year, below the current inflation rate [1]
- Reducing the public health units' budgets by $200 million a year, followed by reversing the cuts [2]
- Cancelled mandatory annual inspections of long-term-care facilities [2]
- Rejected proposals to increase the number of nurses (ON has the lowest nurse-to-population ratio in Canada) [2]
- Passed Bill 175, restructuring the home-care sector in which for-profit private delivery of home care will increase. No commitment to increase the number of patients receiving home care or increase the number of visits a patient can receive. Rejected requests to increase rehabilitation services for patients who are currently paying for such services [2]
- Intention to privatize part of healthcare to deal with covid-related backlog [3]
And the list goes on. Is there a way to add this list the the article somehow?
- 1: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-nurses-pay-increase-ona-covid-doug-ford-1.5607068
- 2: https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2020/07/15/why-doug-fords-to-blame-for-health-care-mess.html
- 3: https://pressprogress.ca/doug-fords-government-wants-to-privatize-parts-of-the-health-care-system-to-reduce-covid-19-surgical-backlog/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:1980:18f:98df:e301:bd6a:432f ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I suggest including the section below in the main text. This is a neutral posting that reflects the current situation with colleges in Ontario as many private colleges will collapse soon after the restriction imposed on the private education business. I am not a businessman and I do not work in a college.
On March 27, 2024, the Government of Ontario, led by Doug Ford, made an unexpected decision that may have a huge negative impact on the entire educational system of the province leading to the bankruptcy of many private colleges. It was announced that the private colleges will not receive any international study permits as 96% of spots will be allocated to public colleges and universities while the remaining 4% of international students may be allowed to study in some private universities and language schools. The decision to eliminate a "low-quality education" in the Province of Ontario is controversial as a "low-quality education" cannot be generalized to all private colleges of Ontario. Moreover, so-called "low-quality education" allegedly practiced by private colleges implies complete discrimination against domestic students because of the (allegedly) lower standards of education. The real issue that led to such a controversial decision is the conflict of interests between public and private colleges. This decision leads to a monopolization of the educational system and complete predomination of the public colleges. [1] Nomonopolyofeducation ( talk) 17:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with quality of education. Unfortunately, Canada is the country where the most educated and talented people with MSc and PhD degrees cannot find jobs according to their skills and qualifications. [2] So, any private college in Canada can easily find and hire highly qualified specialists with MSc and PhD degrees for teaching positions. Therefore, poor quality of education is just an excuse. What we actually see is that the large business of public colleges expels the small business of private colleges. Observateur Canadien ( talk) 00:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- The shares in all public or community colleges of Canada largely belong to the big private businesses that, of course, may not be interested in competing with small private colleges. When tons of dollars are involved the scale of business becomes too attractive for influential tycoons as millions of international students entering Canada must pay their very expensive tuition fees. This is the only sound answer, which explains the preplanned collapse of many private colleges in Ontario. It was a corporate lobbying that convinced the Ontario Government to exclude private career colleges from the business. The small private colleges are outsiders now and this monopolization is idiomatically saying "riding the gravy train" for the richest private shareholders of the public colleges. Snowflake Enneagram ( talk) 15:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
- Neutral tone means the a reader cannot tell what position the writer takes on a topic. You need to re-write the suggested text in order to reflect that. Also, you need a reliable source that supports the text.
TFD (
talk) 17:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is
not a platform for political advocacy. Please also see
Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits) 17:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- The suggested section is neutral and not used as a platform for political advocacy. It only states the negative impacts to the educational system of Ontario that are cased by this decision. Nomonopolyofeducation ( talk) 18:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- The section I proposed is neutral and it does not criticize Doug Ford's government. It only states the real facts and issues in the educational system of Ontario that are caused by this decision. As far as a reliable source is concerned, this article [3] supports the proposed section:
- "New Ontario rules to deny private colleges international students will wipe out their partnerships, killing jobs and ending a lucrative source of income for public colleges, experts and advocates say.
- They're going to have to make some very difficult financial decisions. They’re going to have to do some restructuring. There are large administrative questions — where that lands is not going to be a good place,” said University of Toronto education Prof. Glen Jones, an expert in post-secondary policy."
- As we know, any kind of monopolization is illegal in USA and Canada. This decision certainly creates a monopolization of the educational system of Ontario by public colleges and we should say something about it. Nomonopolyofeducation ( talk) 18:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is
not a platform for political advocacy. Please also see
Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs.
Ivanvector (
Talk/
Edits) 17:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Majority of Ontario international student permits to go to public colleges, universities". City News. 27 March 2024.
- ^ Schein, Daniel Roy Torunczyk (30 July 2019). "The PhD employment crisis is systemic". Institute for Research on Public Policy.
- ^ "Ontario's public colleges will be hammered by new international student visa rules — and the Ford government needs to act, critics warn". Toronto Star. 28 March 2024.
Bill 124. 104.254.10.227 ( talk) 14:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Anteosaurus_magnificus on 3 January 2023 added material from an article by James L. Turk in Constitutional Forum, with edit summary = "Added an academic analysis of Doug Ford's political ideology. The article is peer-reviewed and, as far as I can tell, a dispassionate study that is neither pro-Ford nor anti-Ford, and should be permissible under Wikipaedia's neutrality principles." However, Constitutional Forum's about page says "The Forum does not operate as a peer reviewed journal." And the added material includes the phrase "that it was based on a false premise concocted by alt-right provocateurs" which doesn't strike me as dispassionate, so -- since the article is paywalled -- I hope Anteosaurus_magnificus will supply a quote that establishes this. At the moment I'm in favour of reverting but maybe explanations exist. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 15:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Since the writer is an expert, it meets rs. The fact that the writer has an opinion is not an objection. Most academic articles are written to express an opinion.
- However, I had a few questions. First, did Ford actually implement the free speech policy or was it just hyperbole that he hadn't thought through? Second, can we really say that occasionally using a populist style while adhering to the neoliberal consensus is an ideology? And why do we have to write so much about it?
- TFD ( talk) 16:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- By "peer-reviewed article" and "dispassionate study", I was referring to the other article, written by Brian Budd, in that edit description, as the paragraph on Ford's ideology being a mixture of neoliberalism and right-wing populism was the main part of my edit. The sentence in Education may require a bit of rewriting to make it clear that this is the opinion of Ford's critics or of James L. Turk specifically, but as The Four Deuces said, it's by an accomplished expert and meets the criteria for inclusion.
Anteosaurus magnificus (
talk) 18:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do you refuse to supply a quote that establishes that Mr Turk said that it was based on a false premise concocted by alt-right provocateurs?
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 19:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- The Ontario initiative channels Donald Trump who, in response to the controversy over altright provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California at Berkeley in February 2017, famously tweeted, “If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view — NO FEDERAL FUNDS?” Trump’s approach was elaborated shortly afterwards by the National Review in an article saying to Congress, “It’s time to crush campus censorship.” and subsequently formalized by the Goldwater Institute into a model bill designed to impose free expression rules on US public universities. Seeing advantage in this use of campus free speech as a wedge issue, Andrew Scheer brought the idea to Canada during the federal Conservative Party leadership contest in May 2017. Following the American right’s script, Scheer declared, “I will withhold federal funding from universities that shut down debate and can’t stand different points of view.” The UK Conservative government’s higher education minister, Jo Johnson (Boris Johnson’s brother), picked up the refrain in December 2017, declaring that universities failing to protect free expression could be fined.
- Ahead of the start of the 2018 Ontario provincial election, Doug Ford joined the chorus, announcing he would tie university funding to free speech on campus. As Premier, he has now put these words into action in Ontario. The United Conservative Party of Alberta followed Ford’s example in 2019. After winning a majority government, Alberta Premier Jason Kenney announced that all Alberta universities and colleges will be required to “develop, post and comply with free speech policies that conform to the University of Chicago Statement on Principles of Free Expression.”
- Ford’s policy works as a wedge issue by bringing together two very different constituencies. On the one hand, there are those on the right who have chosen to weaponize free expression, pushing relentlessly and aggressively at the outer boundaries of speech and vilifying those who express concerns. Think of the denigration of students who are concerned about racist, Islamophobic, anti-Indigenous, or homophobic speech as “snowflakes.” In a recent New Yorker article, Harvard historian Jill Lepore suggested that the guide for those weaponizing free speech “isn’t the First Amendment; it’s the hunger of the troll, eager to feast on the remains of liberalism.” How better to do that than to use the rhetoric of liberalism to attack one of the principal repositories of liberal, Enlightenment values — the university?
- The other constituency Ford is seeking to draw in are those who genuinely care about universities and have come to believe, from the high-profile media stories of campus free speech controversies, that campus free expression is endangered. This is a potentially larger constituency than his core right-wing base. Ford’s campus free speech policy aims to unite these two very different groups against an unspecified university and university-educated “elite” that has betrayed its own liberal values.
- That's the entire page from Turk's article about it originating as an alt-right talking point.
Anteosaurus magnificus (
talk) 19:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. From this I conclude that your addition citing Mr Turk was poorly sourced and should be removed. Now what about Brian Budd? He wrote that for an
author pays journal while he was a
candidate at the University of Guelph, and is
not listed currently as part of the Political Science faculty there, so the defence that he's an "expert" doesn't appear to apply here, and I don't know why you think it's dispassionate. I'll wait to see whether others have opinions.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 14:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- After waiting a week for other opinions, I undid. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 18:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. From this I conclude that your addition citing Mr Turk was poorly sourced and should be removed. Now what about Brian Budd? He wrote that for an
author pays journal while he was a
candidate at the University of Guelph, and is
not listed currently as part of the Political Science faculty there, so the defence that he's an "expert" doesn't appear to apply here, and I don't know why you think it's dispassionate. I'll wait to see whether others have opinions.
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 14:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Do you refuse to supply a quote that establishes that Mr Turk said that it was based on a false premise concocted by alt-right provocateurs?
Peter Gulutzan (
talk) 19:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
- Former good article nominees
- Biography articles of living people
- Active politicians
- C-Class biography articles
- C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- C-Class Canada-related articles
- Low-importance Canada-related articles
- C-Class Ontario articles
- Low-importance Ontario articles
- C-Class Toronto articles
- Mid-importance Toronto articles
- C-Class Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
- Low-importance Political parties and politicians in Canada articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- C-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles