Talk:Mattamy Homes

Canada: Ontario 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Section: Ontario Proud controversy

Editor User:Magnolia677 continues to revert edits on this article in the mistaken belief that there was not a controversy about Mattamy Homes' political donations, despite the existence of multiple cites to the contrary. See original revision at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Mattamy_Homes&oldid=956215521#cite_note-13

In the cited articles:

Global News quotes York University political science professor Robert MacDermid who stated the donation was "incredibly excessive."
The Canadian Medical Association Journal, a peer-reviewed publication, wrote an entire piece addressing the controversy: https://cmajnews.com/2019/07/31/do-the-politics-or-business-background-of-health-care-philantrophists-matter/
The company itself made a public statement apologizing for their actions, stating "in light of the polarizing nature of these organizations we will refrain from making these types of contributions to political advocacy groups in the future," which was also cited. https://mattamyhomes.com/articles/statement-122018.aspx

I believe Magnolia677 is approaching this article with a strong USA-centric bias, and is unfamiliar with the controversial nature of business interests donating to political causes in other countries. This article is about a company in Canada: what is notable and what is controversial about that company should reflect the standards of the Canadian public as represented in Canadian media. Per WP:NOTE and particularly WP:SUSTAINED, repeated mentions in multiple media sources makes this a notable controversy different from a typical donation to a not-for-profit. As such, I have reverted to the original revision. Marnevell (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marnevell: None of these sources come close to describing this as a "controversy". WP:CRIT is not being adhered to in this article. If a private company wishes to donate to a political advocacy group--right-wing or left-wing--it is not controversial, or wrong, or bad, or illegal. Nothing in the Ontario Proud article suggests it is some sort of fascist organization. They wanted to dump Kathleen Wynne and they succeeded. Where is the controversy? Magnolia677 (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: Once again, the cites include a York U professor -- an academic source -- stating the donation is "incredibly excessive." https://globalnews.ca/news/4747339/ontario-proud-donations/. Your statement "If a private company wishes to donate to a political advocacy group--right-wing or left-wing--it is not controversial, or wrong, or bad." is a political opinion, but on Wikipedia we need to write articles based on facts. As already explained, these donations were factually controversial, which was also evidenced by the statement Mattamy was forced to make. Nowhere in this discussion has anyone mentioned "fascism" -- bringing up fascism here seems like a non-sequitur or a straw-man and this, combined with the phrasing "dump Wynne", indicates a potential political bias and (particularly by using such loaded language as "fascism") does not feel like a completely good-faith discussion. Marnevell (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

After reviewing the article, various sources, and policies, organizations and companies may have sections provided that they are well documented by sources other than the company/organization itself as stated in Wikipedia:Criticism#Organizations_and_corporations. Also, something may be listed as a controversy when it is When I look at this, it is not undue weight, it is substantially covered and should be in the controversy section. Furthermore, it Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid_sections_and_articles_focusing_on_criticisms_or_controversies states it can be a controversy provided that independent secondary sources comment, analyze or discuss the critical material. I also did a google search for "Ontario Proud Controversy" and it popped up numerous articles on the matter and all associated with Mattamy Home. I would agree with Marnevell on this subject. As a reminder, this is only a third opinion and is not binding in any way. If you still feel that this needs to go to the next step, please make sure you get enough editors comments on this page before opening the next step in the dispute resolution process. I am a volunteer with the dispute resolution noticeboard, so shall it get to that point, I will not be your moderator, nor can I be named as an editor since I am only providing a third opinion. Have a great one and keep on helping Wikipedia! Galendalia _{CVU Member} \ ^{Chat Me Up} 04:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Largest donation

Hi Magnolia677 who reverted my edit here, there has been a larger donation since, 250 M for faculty of medicine. Please dont just revert contributions, especially those that make sense. Best --hroest 19:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]