Talk:Toronto/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Demographic "verifiability?"

Sorry, I'm not "trying" to stir up ... whatever, but I'm an analyst and I know quite a lot and a place where the (closest possible thing to the general public) truth, this place, is a very powerful thing (or totally worthless) that should not be taken lightly; to me. And it doesn't matter whether it's an alleged "fact" about the alleged length and condition of a curb, or the alleged exact height of the CN Tower to me.

How did this:

Ethnic Origin	Population	Percent
Canadian	861,945	18.54%
English	783,770	16.86%
Scottish	517,115	11.12%
Irish	487,210	10.48%
Italian	429,380	9.23%

Come from the alleged source? [1]

Open the source in another browser instance (or tab; I think you press [Shift] while clicking in Internet Explorer to open another browser with the contents of the link in it) and try to figure it out yourself. City of Toronto, 2001 Census of Population, which is all we've got and is the alleged source.

Look at the source tables, then try to figure out where the aside (which is on the article page) came from; with regard to ethnic origin:

Any mention of Englanders, Scottishers, Irishers, Italianers (no offense intended; I [um, my family, 8th generation Torontonians from all over the planet, as Grandfathers; and no, Ranger is not my last name or even in my family history of names, that I know of] am more than one of the aforesaid; and no offense intended around that either) in any of the data, anywhere? So what is the source? It sure as hell isn't the above.

Not only do statements (and tables and such) have to be "validated" with a source, but someone has to already know the source and know that it contains nothing about what is being alleged, or actually do a quick check, for it to be truly validated. Anyone can stick a source beside anything. They all have to be checked. :)

1,198,815 in Canadian-born population. 1,264,230 in Foreign-born population.

697,995 Immigrated before 1991 (almost 16 years ago). 516,630 Immigrated between 1991 and 2001

It doesn't state which "ethnic" groups arrived before or after 1991 and quite a lot has happened in this former metropolis since 1991 and since 1998 ("amalgamation" forced by the "Ontario" feds; and Lastman became mayor of the new six PROVINCES combined) and every year since: along with the "GTA thing."

11,370 in Aboriginal identity population.

Visible minority population - all: 1,051,125

In numeric (descending; highest to lowest) population under that:

259,710 Chinese, 253,920 South Asian, 204,075 Black, 86,460 Filipino, 54,350 Latin American, 33,870 Southeast Asian, etc.

Run right to the bottom, Private Dwelling Characteristics and see if you find one thing stated about "English", "Scottish," "Irish," "Italian," -- at its alleged source.

Then it runs straight into religious denominations: not sorted numerically from highest to lowest, at the source:

ALL DATA - Toronto, Ontario (City)

Religion	Population	Percent
Total - Religion	2,456,805	100.00
Total - 2001 Census pop.	2,481,494	n/a
Total - Unaccounted	24,689	n/a
Catholic	771,190	31.39
Protestant	520,400	21.18
No religion affiliated	463,165	18.85
Muslim	165,135	6.72
Christian Orthodox	119,365	4.86
Hindu	118,765	4.83
Jewish	103,500	4.21
Christian (n.i.e.)	96,340	3.92
Buddist	66,510	2.71
Sikh	22,565	0.92
Eastern religions	5,940	0.24
Other religions	3,930	0.16

How could it all from the same alleged source? Nothing matches up.

Look at the next alleged "source" in the Demographics section, with a footnote of [3]. Click on the [3], check the source and guess what? Toronto CMA not City of Toronto.

This is not some irrelevant, ridiculous Toronto CMA page. Do "y'all" want to see all of the municipalities in the Toronto CMA? Just check the table above; it sure as hell isn't the City of Toronto, nor is it of any relevance to the City of Toronto on any level that means anything.

And who stuck the City of Toronto's and GTA's "GDP" numbers up? How do I find out, so that I can send them a message to either back up their sources or have them filled in with question marks?

Um, I'm not "angry" at all. I am simply encylopedic, stating and awaiting simple facts. --S-Ranger 07:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Update

---

I didn't even notice (because I got the proper stats up because I knew by the URL exactly where it came from and how and didn't need any link), but all of the sources in the Demographics section of the mainspace City of Toronto article are Toronto CMA.

The proper source for the City of Toronto article at StatsCan't is Toronto, Ontario (City), not Toronto CMA. Go to the StatsCon home page, click on Census in the left sidebar, click on Show me data on the community I live in, type in Toronto, select Ontario from the dropdown then hit the Search button.

You will then see a table of the various Torontos (but it's confederate, so the "Ontario" medieval parliamentary elected dictatorship's "GTA thing" doesn't exist there); and Toronto, Ontario (City) (or Census Division; same thing, the only thing in the Toronto Division CD/"county" of type Division is the Census Subdivision (CSD)/Municipality of Toronto), not any "CMA."

Or, you can get stats from the dissolved former six municipalities of the former Metropolitan Toronto from the same table: do not bother with any "CMA" crap around this article.

The entire Demographic section is garbage; or worthless fodder for some worthless Toronto "CMA" article, to be moved. And please make it fast, because the entire section (the entire article, as I have time) is about to be overwritten with proper City of Toronto data.

If anything at all is going to be used around the Toronto city-region -- it is the GTA, because it actually exists and has its own article/page.

If anyone wishes to create some irrelevant Toronto CMA page, then go to it and just stick one link on the City of Toronto and GTA pages: preferably at the bottom of the bottom. Nothing regarding the Toronto CMA will remain on this page by the time I get finished with it -- because nothing regarding anything but the City of Toronto belongs on this page or the mainspace page: other than to state so. --S-Ranger 05:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that statistics presented in this article should be about the city, and not the GTA or CMA. To start, the ethnic origin info can be updated using the StatsCan table Selected Ethnic Origins, for Census Subdivisions (Municipalities) With 5,000-plus Population - 20% Sample Data.

A full listing of tables, both free and for pay, is available here. Other tables are listed here. Let's keep in mind that this is an intro to Toronto; most demographic data should be put in the Demographics of Toronto article. Let's discuss it on that article's talk page.

BTW: I think it may be worthwhile to have a side-by-side comparison for some city/GTA/CMA numbers; at the very least, the article should mention the relationship between the city, GTA and CMA. I'm not sure where this should go (maybe a Politics section?) but it shouldn't be in the introduction. Mindmatrix 14:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Demographics Section Update 2

The Demographics section of the City of Toronto mainspace article has changed quite a lot since this section was started (thanks to whomever(s) cleaned it up). The English, Irish, Scottish, etc., table (copied/pasted from the Demographics section of the previous mainspace article, above) is gone along with its Toronto CMA source that has no data regarding English (other than around languages spoken, not population) Irish, Scottish, etc., so if the table was moved {{fact}} () should replace the source that was cited under that table; or the proper source if there is one.

Thanks for the link, Mindmatrix. I already knew it and have it in a spreadsheet (but others may not and, as usual, the totals at the top are incorrect; sum the numbers in the Total responses column and it's 3,389,010, which is well over the 2001 Census population of the Toronto CSD - 2,481,494, even though the footnote explains it (multiple responses), the alleged total responses are the usual 2,456,805, which leaves the usual 2,481,494 (2001 Census population of the Toronto CSD) minus 2,456,805 (the usual totals StatsCan't, part of the hundreds of reasons it is called what it is, and/or StatsCon) = 24,689 population unaccounted.

For proper percentages, the proper totals have to be used and everything has to be accounted for: not as "dictation" to others but regarding myself and for the consideration of others.

Whenever I'm working with numbers, $24,689.00 isn't missing, 24,689 (or 0.000000000001) isn't missing unless I (or in this case StatsCan't, which is never a surprise) screwed up.

And in the mainspace article, unless otherwise is clearly specified, everything is for the Toronto CSD (municipality of type City of Toronto as stated at the top of the page along with the City of Toronto flag and seal; not all of the municipalities of the Toronto CMA or GTA) so if any percentages are going to be put in parenthesis after each ethnic origin label (in descending order, sorted by the Total responses column) then Unaccounted 24,689 has to be included as a data row (in any spreadsheet) or none of the percentages are based on the full Toronto CSD Census 2001 population and the same goes for religion or anything else based on whatever population group(s) in the Toronto CSD; if any numbers are going to be added to the labels at all, and it's no problem: it'll just make it longer.

I would ask that anyone interested in helping, or trying/understanding, please open the Toronto article in another browser tab or window and click on Demographics from the table of contents to be able to follow along with the context of what still needs work.

Even with the proper table (Toronto Census Subdivision/CSD/municipality, City; not Toronto CMA) for "Languages spoken most often at work", this is not what is stated in the second-last paragraph of the mainspace Demographics section:

"While English is the predominant language spoken by Torontonians, Statistics Canada reports that other language groups are significant, including Chinese, Portuguese, Tamil, Persian, Spanish, Punjabi and Italian. Italian is second to English in languages used at work. [2]

It's sort of stated but comes across as disinformation to me for a few reasons:

• "English is the predominant language spoken by Torontonians at work" should be stated, not languages spoken by residents in general, which is what is presently stated. And if one looks at the proper source (for that table; Census Subdivisions (Municipalities) not Census Metropolitan Areas), here, Toronto, C for City not CMA., Chinese (n.o.s.) (no/none other specified as in Chinese is no more of a language than "Canadian" is, so Cantonese and Mandarin have to be added to Chinese (n.o.s.) is clearly the language spoken most often at work, behind English.

• Language(s) spoken most often at work says nothing about the City of Toronto due to the millions of commuters, business travelers, tourists and other visitors (speak to anyone to buy anything in the City of Toronto, from anywhere on the planet, and it is business).

• Does it even belong in the Demographics section? Language(s) spoken most often at work has more to do with the labor force/economic data, or economic stats. If there were no Economics section in the mainspace article, mix and match; but when the article is organized, this information (if it's of any worth at all on the mainspace page), I think should be in the Economics section for City of Toronto.

• And if anyone clicks on the footnote (in the mainspace article) it is quite plain to see Toronto CMA at the top of the table at the source. The proper source for Language(s) spoken most often at work for the Toronto CSD/municipality/city is here.

The table Mindmatrix pointed out (the proper one; Ethnic origins for City of Toronto, which means Toronto residents and is what is measured with regard to "most multicultural" because it has to do with the residents of the City of Toronto, not the millions of commuters, etc., who happen to work in or do any business in the City of Toronto), unfortunately has 93 data rows.

Even in sentence format, with percentages in parenthesis after each label (or not, which doesn't say much -- but it's easy to just state "See source for more information, while also getting the verifiability in); even if I cut the total responses off at 10,000+ persons (in Total responses column, it's still 47 data rows, even converted to this, with a little diversion first, to figure out which number to base the percentages on: ___

                                Total    % of Total
Ethnic Origins                responses   responses ...
___________________________________________________ 
Total population (StatsCan)   2,456,805    71.97    ...
Total - 2001 Census pop.      2,481,494
Actual total responses        3,413,699   100.00    ...
  Total - Unaccounted            24,689     0.72    ...
  Canadian                      373,540    10.94    ...
  ...
...

Make sense to anyone? If you get the actual table up, all you'll see is "Total population 2,456,805" at the top. That number is worthless because the 2001 Census population of the Toronto CSD/City of Toronto was/is 2,481,494 at many other Statistics Canada sources. But if you sum the numbers in the "Total responses" column, that total is 3,413,699 -- due to multiple responses (see footnote 2 at the source).

It's rather important (to me) to use "the proper" total, and an accurate total, or no percentage will be accurate and it's either Total - 2001 Census population or the Actual total responses -- not the number at the top of the table.

Regardless of what is used as the total to create the percentages, this is the proper order and it's a bit long (and the percentages are based on "Actual total responses" but that can be changed in 5 seconds -- to Total - 2001 Census population, not the number at the top from StatsCan):

Ethnic origins - 2001 Census - Toronto (City)
Canadian (10.94%), English (10.13%), Chinese (8.02%), Scottish (6.80%), Irish (6.53%), Italian (5.43%), East Indian (4.89%), Jewish (2.97%), French (2.94%), German (2.87%), Portuguese (2.79%), Filipino (2.64%), Jamaican (2.59%), Polish (2.32%), Greek (1.64%), Ukrainian (1.61%), Spanish (1.18%), Russian (1.16%), Sri Lankan (1.00%), Dutch (Netherlands) (0.90%), Korean (0.88%), Vietnamese (0.88%), Tamil (0.78%), Iranian (0.77%), Hungarian (Magyar) (0.77%), Unaccounted (0.72%)*, Pakistani (0.68%), West Indian (0.67%), Guyanese (0.66%), African (Black), n.i.e. (0.66%), Welsh (0.60%), South Asian, n.i.e. (0.55%), North American Indian (0.54%), Romanian (0.52%), Trinidadian/Tobagonian (0.51%), Somali (0.47%), American (USA) (0.47%), Black (0.44%), British, n.i.e. (0.44%), Japanese (0.39%), Serbian (0.38%), Macedonian (0.38%), Croatian (0.36%), Latin/Central/South American, n.i.e. (0.32%), Afghan (0.31%), Austrian (0.31%), Arab, n.i.e. (0.30%), Lebanese (0.29%).

If it's cut at 20,000 respondents in the Total responses column:

Ethnic origins - 2001 Census - Toronto (City)
Canadian (10.94%), English (10.13%), Chinese (8.02%), Scottish (6.80%), Irish (6.53%), Italian (5.43%), East Indian (4.89%), Jewish (2.97%), French (2.94%), German (2.87%), Portuguese (2.79%), Filipino (2.64%), Jamaican (2.59%), Polish (2.32%), Greek (1.64%), Ukrainian (1.61%), Spanish (1.18%), Russian (1.16%), Sri Lankan (1.00%), Dutch (Netherlands) (0.90%), Korean (0.88%), Vietnamese (0.88%), Tamil (0.78%), Iranian (0.77%), Hungarian (Magyar) (0.77%), Unaccounted (0.72%)*, Pakistani (0.68%), West Indian (0.67%), Guyanese (0.66%), African (Black), n.i.e. (0.66%), Welsh (0.60%).

* Total responses column total at source ([Statistics Canada, Ethnic Origins, Toronto (City/CSD)) is 2,456,805. The 2001 Census population of the City of Toronto is 2,481,494 leaving 24,689 (0.72% of the actual total responses; see source for details) unaccounted for.

Or even cut at 40,000 responses:

Ethnic origins - 2001 Census - Toronto (City)
Canadian (10.94%), English (10.13%), Chinese (8.02%), Scottish (6.80%), Irish (6.53%), Italian (5.43%), East Indian (4.89%), Jewish (2.97%), French (2.94%), German (2.87%), Portuguese (2.79%), Filipino (2.64%), Jamaican (2.59%), Polish (2.32%), Greek (1.64%), Ukrainian (1.61%), Spanish (1.18%).

Where does is get arbitrarily cut and why? There are only tenths of a percentage (or less, with more data included) in difference, but if everyone wants the real, sort of multicultural ethnicity of the City of Toronto, there are 67 ethnic groups with 5,000 or more in population (total responses anyway). Lots of CSDs in the Ontarios and Canadas don't even have 5,000 people. [No, it is not "condescending", "center of the universe" anything -- just simple reality. ;-)]

The full list from the source Mindmatrix provided above, with the percentages based on the actual 2001 Census population of the City of Toronto, is:

Canadian (15.05%), English (13.94%), Chinese (11.04%), Scottish (9.35%), Irish (8.98%), Italian (7.46%), East Indian (6.73%), Jewish (4.09%), French (4.05%), German (3.95%), Portuguese (3.84%), Filipino (3.64%), Jamaican (3.56%), Polish (3.19%), Greek (2.26%), Ukrainian (2.22%), Spanish (1.62%), Russian (1.60%), Sri Lankan (1.37%), Dutch (Netherlands) (1.24%), Korean (1.22%), Vietnamese (1.21%), Tamil (1.07%), Iranian (1.07%), Hungarian (Magyar) (1.06%), Unaccounted (0.99%)*, Pakistani (0.93%), West Indian (0.92%), Guyanese (0.91%), African (Black), n.i.e. (0.91%), Welsh (0.82%), South Asian, n.i.e. (0.75%), North American Indian (0.75%), Romanian (0.72%), Trinidadian/Tobagonian (0.70%), Somali (0.65%), American (USA) (0.65%), Black (0.61%), British, n.i.e. (0.61%), Japanese (0.53%), Serbian (0.53%), Macedonian (0.52%), Croatian (0.49%), Latin/Central/South American, n.i.e. (0.44%), Afghan (0.43%), Austrian (0.43%), Arab, n.i.e. (0.41%), Lebanese (still over 10,000 responses' 0.40%), Armenian (0.34%), Ghanaian (0.32%), Yugoslav, n.i.e. (0.30%), Finnish (0.30%), Ethiopian (0.29%), Czech (0.29%), Maltese (0.28%), Lithuanian (0.27%), Turk (0.27%), Swedish (0.26%), Egyptian (0.25%), Barbadian (0.25%), Danish (0.24%), Punjabi (0.24%), Estonian (0.24%), Chilean (0.24%), Norwegian (0.23%), Slovenian (0.21%), Latvian (0.20%), Swiss (0.20%), Slovak (0.19%), Iraqi (0.19%), Salvadorean (0.17), Bulgarian (0.17%), Mexican (0.16%), Colombian (0.14%), Métis (0.13%), Peruvian (0.12%), European, n.i.e. (0.12%), South African (0.12%), Taiwanese (0.12%), Belgian (0.11%), Australian (0.09%), Bosnian (0.09%), Syrian (0.09%), Czechoslovakian (0.07%), Icelandic (0.06%), Cambodian (0.06%), Acadian (0.05%), Laotian (0.05), Moroccan (0.05%), Scandinavian, n.i.e. (0.04%), Haitian (0.03%), Inuit (0.02%), Algerian (0.01%), Québécois (0.01).

That's only 93 sources. Hundreds of languages (another topic, but whatever) are spoken on the streets of Toronto and I'd rather use what the source does, the total responses as opposed to percentages. And it's a bit big but so is multiculturalism in Toronto, it's the best thing about living in Toronto, it's what the whole city is based on but with percentages it doesn't let others know that there are, oh, more people from Lebanon in Toronto than there are in the entire Labrador City (Newfoundland) "census agglomeration" (CA).

This makes more sense and says a lot more: (to me, it's up for debate; no numbers need be included with a source cited)

Canadian (373,540), English (345,895), Chinese, n.o.s. (273,855), Scottish (232,025), Irish (222,880), Italian (185,230), East Indian (167,005), Jewish (101,380), French (100,470), German (97,945), Portuguese (95,220), etc.

The actual number of total responses, not percentages and the male/female breakdowns are at the source. No percentages to bother with, so no totals to try to figure out (and explain) -- just the basic numbers stated at the source, crunched. And this is Toronto; the list should be long, even in summary it is long, which also gives others an idea what "one of the most multicultural cities in the world" means.

And then others can see that there are more people in ethnic groups in Toronto than in their entire 'cities', towns and villages and it whaps readers over the head with multiculturalism: given that it's what everyone who really knows Toronto loves about it. [Or hates around racists, bigots, etc.]

This is in direct relation to Miami, which does have more people in visible minority groups than Toronto does; but almost totally Hispanic, which doesn't get the "multi" in multicultural across as the above does, which can make it more clear as to why Toronto is one of the most multicultural cities on the planet and possibly end some 'arguments' on this page before they start, which is also why (IMO) it has to be made and kept very clear that this Toronto mainspace article is about one municipality, not any "metro" anything or city region or urban area: just one municipality. If the former six municipalities of the former Metropolitan Toronto hadn't been dissolved/amalgamated into one municipality then the info-stats on Toronto would be very different, which seems to be where almost all of the confusion re: City of Toronto comes from regarding this (municipality of Toronto) mainspace article is about: even though it still has Toronto CMA sources, which has to be fixed.

And every CSD (Census Subdivision/municipality of whatever type or no type as in unorganized areas, which tend to be First Nations/Aboriginal lands) in the Canadas can be found just using the dropdowns at the top of the source, so it's a reasonable measure of ethnic origin demographics, and municipalities are municipalities (not more than one, but one by each in their municipal articles), which makes it easy for others to compare, in other municipalities, which is why I stress municipality of Toronto so much (not that the mainspace article itself doesn't, right at the top and I didn't do that or amalgamate the former six municipalities of the former Metropolitan Toronto); which avoids confusion and potential "fights" on this page, along with proper verifiability.

Then the 'arguments' (re: "most multicultural") fall to different populations in different municipalities, such as "Toronto may have more residents in total but <whatever municipality> has the highest per capita/percentage of foreign-born population." Or "Toronto may have less people than <whatever municipality> but it has the highest per capita/percentage of foreign-born population" -- after the 93 ethnic groups are blurred by. "That's a big list..." then:

With the breakdown (all the way down to Québécois, not French) above, all 93 sources but not in a big table, just a blur of "that's a lot of ethnic groups" and then the real percentage of foreign-born population in the Toronto (or any other) CSD/municipality from Statistics Canada - 2001 Census - Toronto (City), scroll down to the Immigration Characteristics table and as usual "Total - all persons" isn't what is stated at the top of the source (Population in 2001: 2,481,494 leaving the usual 24,689 people unaccounted) ... and 697,995 + 516,630 = 1,214,625, ("Immigrated before 1991" + "Immigrated between 1991 and 2001"), not the 1,214,630 StatsCan claimed in (total) Foreign-born population.

1,214,625 * 100 / 2,481,494 = 48.947327698555789 or 48.9% foreign-born population, which is pretty clear: foreign-born, resident population. Not 'visible minorities' (once that as well is in context) but things like this should have been settled long before any article was allowed to be opened for editing, with templates to keep everything as consistent as possible. :-) But, it can still happen eventually, which is what I'm having problems with: I want the way the data is present and the order in which it makes the most sense (in the proper categories) to be as well-done as possible, to then possibly establish as a standard for every CSD, CD, CMA, CA, FED, etc., for the Canadas, but with a mind of eventually creating "a" standard template that can be applied to introduce all articles regarding all political jurisdictions (and census geographical areas, etc., even though around that it's different from country to country, but that's for another month or ten down the road. Other than that I would like to get it done right on this mainspace page, for starters.

Thus, I am "over-thinking" everything because I have a lot more in mind than one article.

If you (meaning whomever is browsing, if anyone) look at the table above, there are lots of other ways to come up with 'visible minority' (simply means "not of white skin" in Toronto, so what will it mean when we whities are a "visible minority"? And the number at the top of the Visible Minority Status table at the page/source, StatsCan but it can't, above, is wrong) plus the populations in the Aboriginal Population above?

Calgary (and/or Edmonton) has so many reserves in its CMA that if "visible minority status" + "aboriginal population" (which is not foreign-born population) is "the standard" way to measure what truly makes cities "major multicultural" amounts ("whiteys versus 'the rest'"; no offense but it's what "visible minority" means around here, which makes it inconsistent/impossible to use as a standard international measure as to what "multiculturalism" means) to how many answer yes/no to "Were you born in Canada?" (or any other country), "Were your parents born in Canada?".

What is a 2nd generation "Quebecois" supposed to answer to those questions? Until/unless it ceases to be part of Canada, the answer is OUI/yes to both; which has nothing to do with foreign-born population, the world living in "your city" (the municipality whomever happens to live in; I don't know of anyone who owns a city and everything in it, as in "their city" exclusively) and then you get percentages on those questions and less than one in three people in the City of Toronto will answer yes to either (born in Canada, parents born in Canada).

Aboriginal peoples, least of all, are not "foreign" to Canada or North America (Australia, etc.) because "they" (hopefully "we" someday but I don't mean it like that) were here first so can't be foreigners unless we all are.

It has to do with the second paragraph of the mainspace Demographics section:

"Toronto represents a multicultural mosaic. The 2001 Canadian census indicates that 42.8% of Toronto's population belong to a visible minority group."

It's true if you (whomever) go to the tables above Statistics Canada - 2001 Census - Toronto (City), don't check Statistics Canada's math by adding up what they claim is the total in the Visible Minority Status table, and don't use the real 2001 Census total population to base the percentage on:

1,051,125 * 100 / 2,456,805 = 42.784225854310782 or 42.8%.

But it's actually:

1,051,135 * 100 / 2,481,494 (Population in 2001 stated right at the top of the table and on lots of others as the Toronto CSDs 2001 Census population) = 42.358957950331534 or 42.4%, not the 42.8% claimed on the mainspace article.

But only "foreign-born" population should be considered (with whatever "visible" minorities means in a jurisdiction; and as long as all ethnic groups are named, Canadian, "English" is just what people responded with, it doesn't mean that they were born in England) -- or little areas with 100% Aboriginal population out-do every major city on the planet, if that's "multiculturalism" (visible minorities), which has nothing to do with foreign-born population, being a "worldly", multicultural city at all.

Sorry for the length but I'm trying to figure out a lot more than one section on one article. --S-Ranger 18:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Thanks much, Ccscott. I was looking at all of those ethnic groups and wanted to wikify them but locating the proper internal links, pipes, double brackets around each; the amount of time was for another ... week. But you had it done in about 15 seconds it seemed. It's not the proper place to ask, but how did you do it? "Formatting correction" or the like as the edit summary and that was that. I know I'm missing plenty of editing, um, "tips" around here, because they're all over the place in encyclopedias linked to other encyclopedias instead of a proper Wiki Editors Guide to Everything, Illustrated with Examples in proper technical manual format as PDFs to be printed and bound. But that's the most amazing editing feat I've seen yet. Is there some automated tool you used? --S-Ranger 21:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

whoever put the pie charts under the demographics - it looks amazing!! this toronto page looks amazing. one of the best i've seen.

Sister Cities

Many of the city articles I have read on Wikipedia (and elsewhere; sorry! : )) state the international sister cities of the city in the introduction.

Chicago is a long-time sister city of Toronto (MS-Word DOC: [2]), Chongqing, China[3], the former municipality of Scarborough of the former Metro Toronto was, still is listed as a sister city of Indianapolis[4], Frankfurt, and Milan (PDF: Toronto City Clerk), Sagamihara, Japan (The results of a search on "sister city" at toronto.ca given that every city but Toronto has a document about its Sister City Program and they mention Toronto; as usual, our own governments don't bother with much of anything around Toronto).

It would be nice to have a simple, definitive list from Toronto city hall and I'm sure that it must exist, somewhere, but after over half an hour of searching (far too long for such a simple thing); the above is the best I could come up with and it's a bit unweildy for verification.

Anyone else have any thoughts, or just use what we find, as we find it, and cite the source for each? And if it goes anywhere on the mainspace article, where? It's general information and would be more useful than the nicknames.  : ) IMO. --S-Ranger 13:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this would make a great sub-article. Sister cities of Toronto could include information such as the names of the sister cities, their status (eg: Partnership Cities, Friendship Cities), the year the relationship was established, past sister cities, what criteria Toronto council uses to defines a sister city, etc. I looked for this information about a year ago, and found very little - what you've dug up is the best information I've seen about this so far. To get an idea of other sister pages on Wikipedia, see this google search result. (Heh, you can use that to find info about Toronto sister cities, mostly unsourced though.) Mindmatrix 14:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe Twin cities of Toronto, which has been around for a while (and which I even edited a few days ago, but somehow completely forgot). Mindmatrix 16:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind; I've moved it to Sister cities of Toronto to be consistent with similar Wikipedia articles. Mindmatrix 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Attrocious Quality of Pictures

Firstly, there are so few pictures on the page; secondly, they're generally attrocious. Can we really not find better non-copyrighted images?

Um...the page is flooded with pictures. It looks like a promotional photo gallery/tourist brochure, rather than a good article.

I agree there were too many photos. I cut a few of them, and made some tohers a bit smaller. Just because we have multiple good photos of the Toronto skyline, does not mean we need to include all of them in the article. - SimonP 13:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture text

Just a general comment on pictures; the Lake shot of the Toronto skyline in the Demographics section states "View of the skyline from the Toronto Harbour."

Doesn't it look a bit far out (and west) in the Lake to be from the harbour?

I like the shot and the caption/title might be correct. I've just asked a few people (landlubbers; other than up north) because it looks a bit too far out to have been taken "from the Toronto harbour" and (with no "suggestive" questions/leading 'witnesses') to others as well.

Why not just "Toronto skyline, day" as the alt text (oops, it doesn't have alt text, but apparently it does in wiki-[[Image...]] format) and "Toronto skyline" as the text that shows up under the picture? Or "Toronto skyline from Lake Ontario?" or if it's from Ward Island (?) or whatever the furthest northwest island is with an unobstructed view, from <whatever island>?

If I took a picture of Toronto from the ports, it wouldn't be pretty. And if I were looking at that picture I would wonder why Toronto built its harbor a mile or so offshore as though the picture is taken from a moored freighter or whatever ship docked in "the" singular Toronto harbour.  :-) --S-Ranger 23:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Transit ridership

I haven't yet found completely reliable statistics, but I believe that the city of Chicago has an overall higher level of ridership than does Toronto. Toronto's official report says they had around 433 million riders last year. Chicago's main agency claims about 1.5 million rides a day, which comes out to about 540 million a year. Plus, we should include the other agencies that provide transit in Chicago: Pace suburban bus service and Metra commuter rail. I could be wrong, and Toronto's usage might be higher, but I think the claim (like all hyperbole) should be backed up with evidence.

Indeed. But I found a source (it's not "the source"; there was a broken link on some Toronto page about it and I fixed the link from the American something or other regarding public transit; but I can't remember where) in about 30 seconds with a simple Google search. www.toronto.ca is not a tourist site, it's the official City of Toronto (government) web site and they state so in the link I posted.

But as with all of the Chicago, Philadephia, etc., talk, this article is about the single municipality of Toronto and GO (short for Government of Ontario) transit, the other 10 or so transit systems that connect to the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC is all that is ever being referred to and in ridership, not land area of tracks/routes of the most or best transit vehicles; it's the most expensive and densely-packed transit system in the Canadas), so you'll have to merge Chicago up into one municipality first, because the real municipality of Chicago and its public transit system, not anything that connects to it from anywhere else, just how many people are moved around in the municipality of Chicago per day is all there is to compare to on this mainspace article because it's only about the City (one municipality, one public transit system, one mayor, one city council, one police chief, etc.), not what happens to dump whomever by whatever into the City of Toronto.

Chicago's main agency is probably "metropolitan" covering more than one municipality, so it doesn't count. http://transit.toronto.on.ca/spare/0052.shtml or http://www.ttc.ca/ both have the 2004 operating statistics for the Toronto Transit Commission but if you stick anything outside the main municipality of Chicago in then we start adding in all of the transit systems that hook up to the TTC, including VIA, GO, Amtrak, whatever happens to pull into Toronto and is called public transit; and then it would probably be killed by the Northwest ... whatever it's called from D.C. to Boston, but then it's at the Windsor-Quebec City corridor level, which is most certainly not the municipality of Toronto. :-)

All I entered was +"toronto public transit" +ridership +"new york city" on Google and the first hit, from, well there are contact addresses, feel free to call them on it, states outright under Did you know? Fun Facts about Toronto:

"Toronto's public transit system is the second largest in North America and has the highest per capita ridership rate on the continent."

And it has Chicago.com as a link on it (Member of Associated Cities) so perhaps a click on that (I'll get the stats but they will compare apples to apples and no "metro" anything need apply around the City of Toronto -- dissolve your municipalities, wherever, nothing personal, wipe them out of existence under one city hall, one everything with one municipality and it's apples to apples; on this mainspace article anyway.  :-) ) and/or email mayor_miller@toronto.ca to demand that Toronto.com stop publishing lies (kidding; it should link to something verifiable and I know it does but it's eluding me at the moment) or TTC.ca, contact them and demand satisfaction over the claim.

I live in Toronto and found it quite difficult to believe that its little public transit system had the second-highest ridership in North America, which tends to mean U.S/Canada around here, not Mexico. But everyone knows the nightmare of L.A., "why not to build freeways as public transit" (and then I was rather shocked to find out that hwy 401 through Toronto has the highest volume of traffic in North America on it, when those "expensive honors" usually went to L.A.) and then, around public transit, it's just between Toronto and Chicago and Chicago is no "just" around here. [Um, NYC aside in both cases.]

Hope it's of some temporary help. --S-Ranger 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Helpful, but go easy on the comma splices :-) Anyway, you're pointing exactly to the difficulty of the kind of comparison that gives us the "fact" that Toronto has the second-largest transit system in North America. Again, Chicago's main transit agency (which is owned by the city of Chicago, and is not a regional authority), claims 1.5 million rides a day. That winds up being more than the 433 million rides/yr that TTC claims.

The other issue is that, as I learned from this very article, Toronto seems to consist of a metropolitan area that has been annexed into one centralized municipal government. That's why I suggested a comparison should take into account the different governmental structure of Chicago and its suburbs. In any case, the numbers I have suggest that CTA alone has a higher ridership than TTC. To draw any conclusions from these numbers, though, would require knowing how they were calculated and thus how the two calculations compare. That should be done before citing a chamber-of-commerce style factoid.

Re: "Toronto seems to consist of a metropolitan area that has been annexed into one centralized government" there used to be six "municipalities" in what used to be called Metropolitan Toronto and all of them out-populated entire "Canadian provinces" but were dissolved by the "Ontario" feds in 1998, they cease to exist: and the former six city halls mean nothing, other than that the main/downtown (former municipality of Toronto) city hall isn't big enough to hold all of the city councillers, so some still have to work out of the old city halls that mean nothing anymore.

Even if NYC dissolved Manhatten and every other suburb, then merged/amalgamated them under one city hall (with no exec branch and an impotent mayor in NY state let alone the U.S.); it would come nowhere close to the dissolution of the former Metropolitan Toronto on any per capita basis around the U.S. Many states would have to be dissolved/amalgamated into one state with one state legislative (fake "executive"), judicial branch and pick one name for the new "megastate", never to speak the names of the former states again -- let alone former counties/municipalities.

Re: CTA claims 1.5 million riders a day, the TTC documented TTC's Operating Statistics 2005 report, 2,368,000 daily trips (average business day). That's certainly more than 1.5 million, but I don't know what documents you are looking at or for what time period or for what jurisdiction that compares to the county (of type Division) and single municipality of the City of Toronto. And I guarantee you that our mayors have had this discussion and settled it. :-)

The first objective is to find out what the claim is based on and I'm almost certain that it's the TTC. It doesn't matter if someone happens to get to the real/main municipality of Chicago by Amtrak, airliner or commuter air on down to helicopter, the Metra, NICTD, RTA, by commute (by whatever mode of transportation) to hub stations: as long as they end up in the municipality of Chicago and use the municipality of Chicago part of the CTA, it's comparable to the single municipality of Toronto: Not DuPage County or or any suburb that isn't in the municipality of Chicago, or it's not apples to apples and the single municipality and county of Toronto then starts pulling in transit systems from the semi-new (1998) suburbs of the municipality of Toronto; which has nothing to do with this mainspace article. --S-Ranger 00:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

S-Ranger: The TTC number I gave you was--in fact--from the very document you linked to. The CTA number I cited is from their web site (www.yourcta.com). Anyway, the 2.4 million trips is listed under "revenue passengers and transfer fares." The revenue passengers-alone number is 1.4 million. I really and honestly don't know how this compares to the way CTA calculates their trip numbers--i.e., is that 1.5 million fares+transfers, or just fares? I'm not gonna change it, I just want to suggest that someone either go to the trouble of making an accurate comparison between the two major cities, or, alternatively, revising the language of the section to suggest that Toronto's a great city for mass transit, but losing the ordinal number. In other words, place the comparison in context. So as to ensure the "apples to apples" thing.

Nor do I know and hence the problem.  :-) I have made a few enquiries to try to get this put into proper context with proper documentation, specifically with regard to Chicago. It happens a lot around public info-stats and all we can do around what is pretty much the public domain (here) is ask for better explanations of public documentation we have. If you want to email mayor_miller@toronto.ca (the office of the mayor to get pointed to the right office; they will respond to you, we will get the answers, but be patient), because I didn't bother with that (yet), I've asked Toronto.com, the ones that make two claims about "public transit" in Toronto: second "largest" system in North American and the highest 'per capita' ridership in North America, apparently even above NYC. As in "what does per capita" mean around ridership?" Each rider is one capita/person, but I assume it means "of the population of the municipality of Toronto, a higher percentage of people of that (capita) use public transit..." but what public transit system(s) and based on what from who/what that actually documents either claim? ("Second largest" with regard to what and with what proof" let alone "highest per capita ridership" in all of North America, above NYC? It's a bit hard to swallow and Mexico City has a federal public transit system, so there is really no way to even compare a system like that to the TTC, paid for entirely out of what the "Ontario" and confederate feds don't steal out of Toronto's municipal revenues; though it's still a totally separate issue that has to do with federal funding, not ridership or "second largest", regardless of anything. No matter what is claimed or how: Toronto public transit is not going above NYC other than in red text with, if I can get it all, the "per capita" formulas used to work it all out.)

Working sources (contactng them) is the only way to get to the bottom of this and I do have some time for free research, compilation, analysis but hope that at least the two of us can work together to flesh it out with no bias other than reality to get proper public documentation that can be cited in both the Chicago and City of Toronto articles (at least), and apples to apples doesn't bode well for Chicago or any other "urban area" because of the amalgamation of the six former municipalities of the former Metropolitan Toronto into one municipality. I am researching Chicago (in general; if you have any tips please post them on my talk page or user page; it can't include DuPont County, it can't include Cook any other county and it can't include any other municipaliy but the main downtown municipality of Chicago) and Toronto because that's the issue, and I'll contact anyone/anything in Chicago to get facts that are an apples to apples comparison. But I only have so much "free time" and my wife and friends (and colleagues, "free time" my ass) tend to dictate what goes on around that. :-) I hope that you'll try with me, so that we can get it cleared up and out of the way ASAP. And anyone else interested, no need to sign any NDAs, fill out any applications; just apples to apples documentation, starting with what I would assume is going to be the TTC inside the municipality (of type City and also a county of type District, which is very different from Chicago) of Toronto and the Chicago Transit Authority inside the main municipality of Chicago. --S-Ranger 03:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really don't have the time to do any more research than I have so far (which is, admittedly, typing words into google search boxes). Anyway, to repeat: My only point here is that EITHER 1) someone should take the time to produce an accurate, "apples to apples" comparison between Toronto's transit system and those of comparibly large cities, or 2) someone should take it upon themselves to change the language of the section to reflect the fact that we really don't know how Toronto compares to similarly-sized cities.

There are two different standards for counting ridership. There is unlinked trips (boardings) and linked trips (revenue riders). All Canadian systems count linked trips while American systems count unlinked trips, and 430 million figure for Toronto is linked trips, and not comparable to any ridership figure for any American transit system. According to the APTA website, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) had over 700 million unlinked trips in 2005, while Chicago only had over 400 million unlinked trips. So what is stated on this site that Chicago Transit Authority is a larger system than the TTC is completely false and should be changed.

The APTA. That's what I was looking for and found, but it's American (U.S.) so documents American public transit system stats. I know there's a link on the site for Canadian public transit systems (given that the link is on the TTC page at Wikipedia, but is or was a broken link and the directories in the link were of no help) and just spent too much time coming up with nothing (for Toronto) at that site. Thanks lots for clarifying, it's a perfect source but I still haven't looked at the link to find out how to get comparisons of U.S. and Canadian transit system stats. Maybe ... hopefully what you provided will put the issue to rest: for a month or so anyway. :-) --S-Ranger 15:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Has this issue been resolved? The current claim on the front page (that Toronto has the third-largest system after NYC and Mexico) doesn't qualify that statement at all in terms of how it's measured, and the source it points to is an offhand stat in a CTV news article. Speaking as a journalist, I would not rely on an unsourced, unexplained, offhand assertion in an unrelated news piece for fact-checking purposes. We should either state on what grounds the TTC is biggest (riders? busses? wearing of cute subway station pins per capita?) or remove the claim. - Mr random 04:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I found it surprising, especally so, since last week I found how low on the list the TTC subway rates in terms of miles of track. However, I found in [5] That split-second motion; that tiny, trip-arm fulcrum, turned North America’s third-largest transit system on its head. - but with no indication of how it is measured. Chicago< - second largest in US, maybe, or is it LA, or Wahinngton? Toronto is also mentioned [6]

• In terms of rail ridership in North America:
• 1. NYC
• 2. Mexico City
• 3. Toronto

• In terms of size of rail network, it depends if you are counting all commuter rail, even diesel lines or lines with sketchy service. If so, I believe Chicago currently has a larger network than Mexico City.

• 1. NYC
• 2. Chicago
• 3. Mexico City

--ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 04:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting, thanks. This could well be a case of the same claim getting picked up by a poorly-checked mass-media report and passed on to the next. Transit Toronto is a well-respected website, yet it contains articles that stretch back a number of years. So can we trust an offhand reference in an article about something that happened in 1995? It would be great to either pin this down or remove the claim. How might we ascertain this? Mr random 05:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the above numbered paragraphs are not my statements, they are from the middle of the discussion referenced by the second URL link I posted above. --ArmadilloFromHellGateBridge 05:41, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Center of the Universe

http://www.squashtalk.com/html/news/may05/news05-5-177.htm

There is a source which clearly does imply that Toronto in a negative term is known as the "center of the universe". With that said I'm adding it among the nicknames Editor18 04:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't do so. Not exactly the most WP:RS on the issue -- Samir धर्म 12:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. "Squash Talk" is hardly authoritative. In any event, it would be "Centre of the Universe", using the Canadian spelling. Skeezix1000 14:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see ANY sources for t-dot, etc nicknames mentioned in the article. At least I provided one. So either they all go due to lack of sources, or center of the universe is included. Open the door and step outside once to maybe hear the phrase centre of the Universe, being Canadian, and a Torontonian myself I do so even on tv ion a rather negative manner.Editor18 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"The big smoke" was documented on the History channel yesterday. Try this as the start of finding a source or 351,000.

T dot should go, I agree, made the case months ago, got no reply as to why it should stay; so it's gone. Or Toronto Tontos at the very least has to be added, due to Max Webster (and many other references to Toronto by bands). Google Muddy York if you actually live in the City of Toronto and have never heard of that before. Or pick up a real encyclopedia and read it, because it wasn't even a "nickname" of Toronto when it was called York. It was called York when it was called York and muddy because the wooden decks they called sidewalks back then weren't around and the streets weren't paved with cobblestone yet, so they were muddy (Toronto is very humid due to being on Lake Ontario and back then, at about the same height above sea level that Lake Ontario is), so the mud got tracked into everything, so people called it "muddy" because it was. And it was called York then, not Toronto. But feel free to Google "muddy york" (in quotes) and see what else you come up with other than Toronto. "T dot?" I'd never heard of it until it was explained above (some band) and it has a lyric that says "This is how we <get down/whatever> in Toronto." That is promotion of some Toronto band, not a real nickname of the City of Toronto, so it's gone. But you've never heard anyone call it "Tee Oh" (T.O.) either and you claim to live in Toronto?

For how long, a week? It should be called G.T. "Greater Toronto" and make no reference to the Ontarios at all (according to the Toronto Star), but I didn't come up with "Tee Oh" either and it's been around since I was a kid. [I'm 42, 8th generation "Center of the Universarian" and believe me, I have never heard of anyone from Toronto, not my grandpappies, not my grandmas, not their parents or their parent's parents or my parents or anyone else who lives in Toronto ever refer to the former Metropolitan Toronto, which is all they ever knew, as the "Center of the Universe." And since the amalgamation and the "GTA thing", "a disaster" is usually what it's referred to as because it's the simple truth.]

It's not a business disaster it is a political disaster (due to the 16th century insults that others in the Canadas refer to as 19th century insults to the words "political systems and structures" in the Canadas, created by Brits of Yore who could never have foreseen anything like Toronto; but outside the Windsor-Quebec City corridor, not much has changed since the 19th century) that is so far beyond repair that y'all might start looking for black holes in your gutters and ditches and fields out there in Nowhere; which is what every other municipality, county, province/territory has to have an official nickname of, if Toronto (which one?) is going to be the "Centre of All" then there is no way for anything else to exist in the Canadas.

Maybe write to your "Toronto" (uh huh) city councillor to ask it to get a second to table a motion that Toronto have the official nickname, "Centre of the Universe". See if you even get a response over such childishness and be sure to forward the link to the squash club with your proposal/"proof" as to why Toronto would bother paying attention to ignorance spreading ignorance to the ignorant, which has a nickname called "stupidity". And I claim nothing of the sort around you or anyone else so if you take objection to it, you'll be calling yourself stupid, ignorant, etc.; not I --S-Ranger 06:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You're being ignorrant and showing blind eye to what was already within the text. several other nicknames unsourced, with people claiming them to exist on this talk page which is of little more value than folklore. I provided a link, obviously if a website has used the nickname and others have contended that it does infact exist than it IS an existing nickname, regardless of wether you use it or if it is popular in your local area. With that said, it has just as much legitimacy to be included in the article as the other nicknames or none are to be included at all.Editor18 19:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. My ignorance is blinding me. So it's legitimate to call black people n...ers, jigaboos, Uncle Tom's, pimps/hoes, apes, whatever the mostly Anglo hicks of the Canadas happen to call "them" because it's "true" (to them) and also negative/dergatory and so what if "them n-words" don't like it or it's not popular in "their" areas, because it's a known hick-fact and Chinese are called Chinks, Vietnamese, Gooks, Italians WOPs (WithOut Papers, illegal immigrants) who also tend to be portrayed as Mafioso, so that's what every Little Italy and Sicily will be referred to, nicknamed as, in an encyclopedia, huh?

Based on your "logic" -- every racist, discriminatory, sexist, homophobic or any other derogatory term that has ever been used belongs as alternative names/labels in every encyclopedia, almanac, dictionary on the planet.

It's being removed from the mainspace article again. In fact, it's already gone. But is still off in the myriad obscure nicknames in the Names of Toronto article and I submit that it should be removed from there as well.

"Some" Candians refer to Toronto (which one? Why this page? What's the "big difference" between the people out in the outer suburbs of the municipality of Toronto across no lines you'll ever even notice around here, from west Etobicoke to Mississauga, North Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough into York Region across Steeles Ave., or east Scarborough and the other side of the Rouge? Or are you too ignorant to even know that when "commentators" state "Toronto" they're not referring to the municipality of Toronto alone unless they specifically state so?) in a derogatory manner, based on "the supposed".

What the hell is that supposed to mean around an encyclopedia? Which Candians, how many, what with credibility (around an encyclopedia; not for hick-chat in the barn eatin' grits with the mad cows) makes this supposed allegation?

"DEROGATORY PERCEPTIONS" are irrelevant period; let alone around an encyclopedia.

Or where's the "Dergatory 'Canadian' Terms" page so we can all get together and stick derogatory names on everyone/everything outside Toronto; just to get it down "right" and fast and without duplications? And hicks don't have a clue (or much of a care) where the City of Toronto happens to end and other municipalities begin, so where's this lunacy on the Greater Toronto Area article? And why would anyone stop there? --S-Ranger 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I added a citation to an early reference from the Globe and Mail's Toronto Columnist John Barber. It is from 1994 so is not available on the web but I will quote it below:

TORONTO A world-class challenge from the Centre of the Universe

Wednesday, July 27, 1994

JOHN BARBER

BY JOHN BARBER WELCOME, readers, to the latest dispatch from the Centre of the Universe.

Did I get that right? Isn't that what all you non-Torontonians call this city, the Centre of the Universe?

I have to ask because the phrase sounds so strange to my ears. I've never met a Torontonian - I doubt one exists - who actually thinks this middling place is the centre of the universe. But once you get outside the city, that's all you seem to hear: "Toronto, the centre of the universe."

All you kindly folk seem to know something that we don't. How can that be, if Toronto really is the centre of the universe? If that were the case, we would surely know everything first.

We are equally puzzled by that other odd phrase, "world class." I haven't heard a Torontonian say that with a straight face since Art Eggleton last ran for mayor, way back in 1988. But outside the city, you hardly ever hear the word "Toronto" without that familiar, double- barrelled adjective applied.

My best guess is that these phrases are supposed to be insults, said as if they were encased in sneer quotes. Ironic, ya know. You say one thing but you mean another. My hypersensitive cultural antennae tell me that these quite undeserved compliments are in fact meant to mock Toronto's pretensions.

That much is far from obvious to most of us. Insults that work are witty and well-aimed; tedious repetition of the same few stock phrases, aimed at a place none of us Torontonians have ever visited, just doesn't cut it. It doesn't sting, folks. You need to do better.

I'd go so far as to say that this excessive reliance on the same old stereotypes is doing serious harm to the Toronto-basher cause. It says more about the insulters then the intended insultees.

Every Torontonian who has travelled elsewhere in Canada knows what to expect. As soon as they find out where you come from, people get their backs up. They are determined to make you an enemy, and some of them say the most bizarre things. The bile just pours out. It's unpleasant and embarrassing.

After you've been exposed to a bit of that, you come to realize the problem has nothing to do with you or, indeed, your home town. You realize that no Torontonian could ever be as fixated on Toronto as most Vancouverites seem to be. They are insecure about their own status, and naturally they resent that. To justify their resentment, they need a monster. That's where we come in.

I should say that's where the mythic "Toronto, centre of the universe" comes in. That Toronto has nothing to do with the real thing; it's an effigy as crude as any Great Satan ever strung up by the mullahs of Iran. And that's why so much Toronto-bashing misses the mark, why it isn't funny: It's neurotic.

There was a time when westerners really did know how to sock it to us. Those were the days when Toronto in fact did regard all of Canada as a vast hinterland ripe for exploitation. But that quasicolonial relationship ceased to function decades ago. Even its last-gasp expression, the national energy program, is ancient history.

So the resentment is archaic. It no longer springs vigorous from the ground but must be painstakingly nurtured. I must say it's odd to see the symbolic remains of that old relationship propped up and venerated in the places that resented it most. Why can't they let it go?

Don't get me wrong - I don't resent Toronto jokes. As a sixth- generation Torontonian, I could tell a few. I only wish that people who feel such a strong need to put Toronto down, for whatever reason, were more adept in the task.

What we need is a new set of gibes for the new age. So consider this a challenge. Give us your best shot. Aim it well and make it sting. If it does, I'll publish it.

Mail your entries to John Barber, care of The Globe and Mail, Centre of the Universe. They'll find me.

Although I am open to the wording and context, I think "Centre of the Universere" is a worthwhile inclusion to this article. --Thylark 08:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The wording is irrelevant because the context is plain discrimination and has been documented here as nothing but. Unbiased information goes into encyclopedias, not discrimination based on total obliviousness, let alone ignorance.

Are the sewers, water mains, treatment plants, utilities in general, streets and buildings (and with what map of which Toronto?) the reason hicks with inferiority complexes (which is the context; other than they they discriminate over their mental problems) refer to, um, which Toronto again, as the "center of the universe?" No people in it, same thing?

No. Which makes it an intentionally derogatory generalization against people who happen to be in geographical area (and again, show everyone the "latest" map), which is called discrimination, is illegal in Canada (and some states and other countries too) and it doesn't get much more "inapproriate" than discrimination that isn't even based on age, occupation, income, the Oshawa CMA won highest "earnings per capita" last year according to StatsCan, not the municipality of Toronto, sex, race/ethnic "group", religion or anything but an unspecified geographic area that clearly is not even in the center of the solar system or even at the equator.

And that's the only "context" there is, so it's gone -- again and if it shows up again I'll have to call in an admin or two who know what "encyclopedia" means and what "discrimination" means, because they certainly won't want a precedent to be set that allows all of us to put every sexist, racist, bigoted, just plain clueless/stupid spew bigoted bullshit all over every OTHER page, citing this as the EXAMPLE. --S-Ranger 07:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Largest?

The first sentence on the mainspace City of Toronto article claims:

This article is about the largest and most industrial city in Canada. For other uses, see Toronto (disambiguation).

Edit: StudentWarz (Talk | contribs) (sounds more clean than "most populous")

I agree that it "sounds" more clean/cleaner, but if someone says, "What is the largest park in Toronto?" or "Which of the Great Lakes is the largest?", population has nothing to do with anything (it can be by getting clumsy: "This article is about the city with the largest population in Canada ..." but otherwise it specifies nothing but a geographical area (political boundaries), so this is how it breaks down, in the Canadas anyway: by land area not population:

Population and Dwelling Counts, for Canada and Census Subdivisions (Municipalities), 2001 and 1996 Censuses - 100% Data (Sorted descending by Land area in sq km column)

______________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                 Population
                                                   Land area in    density
                                                     square      per square     CSD
                                       Population  kilometers,   kilometer,  population
Name                           Type[1]    2001        2001         2001        rank
______________________________________________________________________________________
Baffin, Unorganized (Nvt.)       UNO         75    1,021,999.44      0.0       4,696
Fort Smith, Unorganized (N.W.T.) UNO         15      615,982.43      0.0       5,026
Inuvik, Unorganized (N.W.T.)     UNO          0      521,689.33      0.0       5,185
Yukon, Unorganized (Y.T.)        UNO      1,221      465,501.91      0.0       1,913

...then the first CSD of type C (City) on page 7...

Greater Sudbury (Ont.)             C    155,219        3,354.34     46.3          24

...then way down on page 33...

Toronto (Ont.)                     C  2,481,494          629.91  3,939.4           1
______________________________________________________________________________________

1. Census subdivisions (CSDs) are classified into 46 types according to official designations adopted by provincial or federal authorities. Two exceptions are Subdivision of Unorganized in Newfoundland and Labrador and Subdivision of County Municipality in Nova Scotia, which are geographic areas created as equivalents for municipalities by Statistics Canada in cooperation with these provinces for the purpose of disseminating statistical data. Click to view all census subdivision types by abbreviation and type.

Derived from: Statistics Canada (English) - Census (left sidebar) - Data (left sidebar) - Population and Dwelling Counts - Census Subdivisions (CSDs) - Municipalities - View Nationally (All Census Subdivisions) - Show land area, population density and population rank for this table (left side above table) - click on the "Land area in square kilometers, 2001" column and it will sort ascending (numerically) by that column data. Click on the down arrow (descending) and you'll have the start of the table above and this link. But now, anyone reading knows how to get there and everything available from the Population and Dwelling Counts index is certainly worth knowing; around the Canadas anyway. It's a handy link to have.
_____

The Baffin CSD (of type unorganized territory), in Nunavut Territory, is clearly the largest CSD in the Canadas. The Toronto CSD of type City is just a speck compared to, even the top 4 largest CSDs in the Canadas, even though they barely have the population of one rush hour subway train combined: though I could be wrong on that, it might take 1.6 rush hour subway trains to cram a whole 1,311 people into.

I changed "largest" to "most populous" (originally; I don't recall having to change that one though, I think it already stated most populous) because when referring to geographic areas (political or otherwise), Canada is the second-largest country on the planet behind Russia, but that's certainly not with regard to population.

If you sort by the Population density column (descending, down arrow), Toronto isn't the most densely populated CSD in the Canadas either: The one that is only has (had in the 2001 Census) 409 people. But Montreal North, the City of Montreal (Ville, actually), Vancouver (CSD/municipality of type City, not "metro Vancouver" or the Vancouver CMA) all have higher population densities than the City of Toronto.

I find "largest" to be misleading (and vague) and right off the top, a bit arrogant like Toronto has to take everything; even "largest" when it's nowhere close to being the largest CSD or "county" (Census Division/CD -- Toronto Division, with only the City of Toronto in it) in the Canadas; which is all it can be compared to (other CSDs or CDs) because it's not a province/state or country and even if it were a province, PEI is still quite a lot larger (5,684.39 km² to Toronto Division/City of Toronto's puny 629.91 km²). Thoughts ... other than "you freaking nit-picker?" :-) Sorry. I'm an analyst. I can't help it. --S-Ranger 20:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that largest is unclear. On top of that, I'm not sure I agree with the basis of the original edit, that "largest and most industrial" somehow sounds "more clean" than "most populous". What does "more clean" mean? Clearer? More succinct? If that's the case, then it doesn't sound more clean. The reference to "largest" is confusing, and "most industrial" is equally perplexing. Toronto has a lot of industry? Torontonians are hard-working? Assuming the reference is to industry, the reference is probably not all that relevant, in an age when Toronto's former industrial areas are converted to condos and office buildings, and industrial uses typically locate in far-flung suburban locales, where land is cheap and freeways close-by. I would just change it back to "most populous". Skeezix1000 21:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I too have no idea what "most industrial" is supposed to mean, other than around those who don't know that when Toronto alone is specified by most economists, analysts, etc., which the media pick up, it means GTA not City of Toronto and over half of all manufactured goods in all of the Canadas still come out of the GTA; which is "Toronto" without a qualifier such as "City of".

"The article is about the City of Toronto, Canada", period, other than see disambiguation. The rest is explained in the article if anyone wants to read on, was expecting to get Toronto, Canada, not the others specified in disambiguation. --S-Ranger 01:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Criminy. Every other city article in Wikipedia seems to use "largest." It's just plain confusing not to have it in here. Mr random 20:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that, as I'm sure have others. The solution is to get those other articles to be accurate, IMO, not to state inaccuracies simply because others have done so. The proof is above (with a verifiable source) that the Toronto CSD is nowhere near the "largest" anything in Canada; just the most populous within its boundaries as of the 2001 Census anyway. --S-Ranger 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody knows Toronto is the biggest city in Canada. So get on with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnhaupt (talk • contribs)

City of Toronto Millenium Project

Would it be appropriate to include any reference to the City of Toronto Millenium Project in this article? Or better yet? I was seeking information on this and did not find any article, so I thought I'd atleasdt mention it here. The sheer number of eyeball who'll read this alone could work on an article from this. That's the plan anyways. Nastajus 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Little Mogadishu

What are they talking about? It's just a street corner with the Somalia flag? Look at Little Italy or Chinatown! They're more than just a street corner. Islington and Dixon area has a lot of Somalis but i wouldn't consider it little mogadishu

Climate

Does anybody now what are the "weatherbase" data is based on, or have they not updated it or checked it for accuracy? likely not.

I can find no Environment Canada averages from Downtown, the Airport (in Mississauga but official weather station for Toronto), Buttonville (in markham but listed by EC as a Toronto station), the Island Airport, etc. to match those entries, tempatures and precipitation. It looks like they have combined numbers from different reporting sites and possibly previous time periods (not 1971-2000 which is currently used for the 30 year climate averages)

For example the average max. temperature for June is listed as 22C ....but the first three stations I mention have an average June max. of 24C (75F), only the island airport matches at 22 but the average minimum is 13C, not 12C.

I suggest replacing this with a table of Environment Canada data; http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Province=ALL&StationName=tor&SearchType=BeginsWith&LocateBy=Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&CityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=5051& this is for downtown station near University & Bloor, probably makes the most sense to use it (most visitors spend time downtown, close to ciy hall, etc) or the Airport. You could use both to show differences across the city, ie. more urbanized vs. less so but probably too much information.

Also, 1C converts to 34F (rounded), not 35F which would be 1.7C. Equasions are;

          xTempC x 9 /5 + 32 = xtempF  
          yTempF -32 x 5 / 9 = yTempC  

I don't know if this is a bug in wikipedia, or my FF browser, but take a look at the "Weather averages for Toronto" table. it says april average low is 35, even though when i edit the page it says 1 there. but still shows up as 35!!!!

The table has entries for both Fahrenheit and Celcius. Are you looking at the right one? (I checked, and see 1 for the Celcius entry, 35 for the Fahrenheit, so it appears to be OK. Mindmatrix 23:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Error was in {{Infobox Weather}}; fixed. --Qyd 23:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That was my fault. Sorry. It looks like the correct code now. Thanks Qyd. —MJCdetroit 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The best one is located here. July average 22.2C (just barely in Dfa), January average -4.7C. CrazyC83 02:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Landsat Image

Is anyone aware that this landsat image is from 1985? It's a 21 year old image of the Greater Toronto Area which looks drastically different than it did back then.

Economy/Picture

Someone needs to edit the picture of the Royal Bank Plaze since that is a picture of the Scotia Bank building, the bronze zig zag shape building is Scotia

It's called "Scotia Plaza". I had changed it earlier but now somebody has changed it back. why? Canking 18:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That gridlock press release

For those that are wondering, the press release about increased gridlock in the GTA was issued by the Residential and Civil Construction Alliance of Ontario. There's not much about this organization on the web, so thank goodness the government maintains hansard archives, like this one:

The RCCAO is a newly formed alliance which brings together labour and management representatives from across the residential and civil construction sectors. Our members include companies and workers who build both low-rise and high-rise homes, as well as roads, sewers and water mains, bridges and other infrastructure projects.

Note that I added the emphasis above. Mindmatrix 22:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Please find a substitute for that afwully bad picture that's in the box, upper right of the page. Toronto has such an exquisite skyline, how could somebody have possibly chosen this one to start the article with?!? I know it's not about the pictures, but this only makes the article look bad (and grey).

Beachlife..

Yes it is quite true. I am going to replace it right now, but tell me what you think of the new pic. http://pixels.dailyphil.ca/images/20060612092955_toronto_skyline.jpg Blackjays 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article

OK, so I just found out that this article on Toronto has been named 'good' by Wiki. But I would like to see it achieve featured status. I have never seen a featured article on a Canadian City or Province/Territory, but I may have seen a Canadian featured before. The point is, Canada doesn't get represented enough in Wiki's featured section, so what better article to have represent it than Toronto's. This link clearly outlines what must happen in order for this to be possible...Wikipedia:What is a featured article? If you are in favor of getting this article featured, sign your name after the X and in about 2 months I will show Wiki the results. Blackjays 04:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article doesn't only mean that it will be showcased on the main page, it is also a quality standard. Articles are nominated for FA status, they go to a round of votes/comments/improvement proposals, and if they pass they are eventually picked for main page. This article still has a few shortcomings, so be prepared to listen to constuctive criticism and improve the article acordingly. If you want to improve the chance of aquiring FA status, put the page through Peer review first. Last but not least, please add new comments at the end of the talk page, not at top. --66.82.9.61 14:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing references

"As of July 1, 2006, the population is estimated at 2,629,030.[5]" The reference tag is either empty of mis-spelled, anyway, there's no actual referenes attached to it. --66.82.9.61 15:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Introductory Population: Census or Projection?

I'm getting tired of the population number cited in the introduction be switched from the 2001 census value to the most recent estimate and back again every month. I agree that the "official" population in the infobox should be the latest census number, but I can see either number being used in the introductory paragraphs. I really don't care which number is used, but I would like to ask for a consensus so that we stick to one or the other at least until the 2006 census numbers become available in the new year. Please indicate your preference below. Thylark 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You know what? It's very misleading when you have the page saying that there are 2.48 mil residents when in 2006(five years later) it is at least 2.6 mil. Once and for all i will fix the first paragraph, but not the infobox. If you are gonna change it back to 2.48 mil, then why don't you at least tell us why? When the official census figures are released theres no doubt that it will be over 2.6. I say leave it till the new census or keep it cuz it will be over 2.6 anyways.

And what's with all these random peeps bumping up the population stats every week, ie metro Toronto from 5.4 to 5.6 now 5.9 mil, and its surrounding region from 7 to 8 to 8.6 mil??? One does realize that City of Toronto - the densest part of the metro, the part of the google earth view that's actually distinctly an urban area - has under 2.5 million people...anyone dare to suggest that the GTA contains more than 3 "City of Toronto"'s? Go get reality check, Tronna's a big city by Canadian standards but 3rd largest behind NY and LA?? Gimme a fucking break.

Degrassi

shouldn't there be atleast a mention of Degrassi in the article, probably the media section, since it's one of Canada's biggest shows, and it's filmed, and based in Toronto.--andrew|ellipsed...^Speak 05:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Lots of major Canadian shows are set, shot, or otherwised based around Toronto - we can't just single out one. Radagast 04:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I know, but it is one of Canada's biggest shows. Ah well. It's not that important. But you're right I suppose. If you mentioned Degrassi, you'd have to mention the rest. -andrew|ellipsed...^Speak 09:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Jamie the Rapist

Hey, I'm seeing this vandlized bit (italicized):

"The town's settlement formed at the eastern end of the harbour behind the peninsula, near the present-day Parliament Street. Beware jamie the rapest is on the loose!"

I can't find it in the code anywhere. Can anyone explain where its coming from?

Thanks

ML

you were looking at an old version of the page - it was vandalized by an IPVandal with that comment at 7:24pm EST and reverted at 7:31pm EST.--Invisifan 16:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

What Happened?

If anyone knows how to recover a page good after it's vandalized, you should probably get on top of that. I was going to try myself, but I didnt want to fuck up the page anymore than it is. Blackjays 04:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The pop comparisons

Not for the first (or last) time I know, but can we simply drop the fifth largest bit? In reading around, including on this talk, the best conclusion I can draw is that comparing US and Can metro areas is a crap shoot and I don't see that we need to do it. As it stands, the comparison is unsourced and I doubt we'll find a good cite; I see above that the comparison is supposed to be for the city proper at 2.4 (this is not clear in the wording) but these are always useless comparisons (the City of London has about 10,000 people, after all). If I'd take my own stab, I'd place T.O. contiguous metro at sixth, bumping the Bay Area ahead of it—but that would just be me. There's a pack of cities round about 5 or 6m that could reasonably be placed behind Chicago.

I realize there's a bit of chest-thumping involved, but ironically focusing on the numbers probably doesn't do the city justice. Fourth in NA on the Global City list (ahead of Mexico), third largest stock exchange, world's largest free standing phallic symbol, etc. Marskell 07:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey great idea. Marskell 03:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Demographics: A Mistake in the Visible Minorities of Toronto pie chart

In the Visible Minorities of Toronto pie chart, Arabs are classified separately from West Asians. But infact, Arabs are West Asians since all the Arab countries lie within West Asia (also known as Western Asia, or Southwest Asia or Middle East). I think this pie chart should be corrected accordingly and classify Arabs as West Asians or replace the term West Asian with Middle Eastern (and obviously Arabs would be included in that). It is a great pie chart, but I think it would be much better with this mistake corrected. Behnam 04:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The largest visible minorities of Toronto in 2001: Chinese: 10.6%, South Asian: 10.3%, Black Canadian: 8.3%.

  Southwest Asia in most contexts.

  Possible extensions.

You're forgetting North and parts of East Africa. Morrocans, Algerians etc., and Arab-identifying Sudanese etc., are not West Asian. Marskell 09:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A simulated-colour image of Toronto taken in 1985?! the year seems to be incorrect...

in the mid of the article, right-side, there is a satellite image with words describing it as "A simulated-colour image of Toronto taken by NASA's Landsat 7 satellite, 1985.". However, the NASA Landsat 7 was launched in 1999, so, either the year is incorrect or the image is not captured by Landsat 7.

You seem to be correct. I checked the original link and the image is described as from Landsat 7 with no date. I believe there was an ealier picture there before from Landsat 5 in 1985. Anyways I removed the date until somewhen can track down when the current picture was taken. Ccscott 07:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Request Move

The request is based on the principal that the common denominator, per the new category UTC-5 demonstrates that cities generally have the state or province name. Take for example Ottawa which should redirect to Ottawa, Ontario and not vis-versa. This will help when categorizing cities. Thank you for following through with the request to move this page to Toronto, Ontario --CyclePat 00:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

See Requested moves for the nomination and see WP:CCT to voice your opinion. --CyclePat 03:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This move discussion is located at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Current_Local_City_Time#Move_and_Rename_cities

Toronto is a global city. Moving this page to Toronto, Ontario is just as bad as moving London to London, England. When someone says "Toronto" you think Toronto, Canada, not... Toronto, Africa and whatnot. Jentile 08:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose: This usage of adding a state or province is very United States centric. It is not commonly used elsewhere, even in Canada and so would violate Wikipedia naming policies which are to use the most commonly used name. Dabbler 16:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. There has already been extensive discussion of this at the Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board and a fairly firm consensus was reached in favour of the current system. - SimonP 17:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Opposed to US-centric policies that we have decided against, and per my comments at the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Current_Local_City_Time#Move_and_Rename_cities.-Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 18:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The proposal at your project page seems not to have reached consensus to even start this move. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 19:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per SimonP. Ground Zero | t 21:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. There is just so many things wrong with proposal. What about Washington DC? What would you call London? Would you move Paris to Paris, Ile de France? Ben W Bell talk 22:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The local time project has not given a sufficiently clear explanation as to why its work somehow mandates the "Placename, Province" format; they've merely asserted that it does. Frankly, I view this as little more than a back-door attempt to impose the current US naming convention onto other countries that have already rejected it. Oppose. Bearcat 03:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Chensiyuan 03:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. —Silly Dan _(talk) 12:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose per all of the above! Mr random 04:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oppose.. —S-Ranger 19:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)