Talk:Kevin O'Leary/Archives/2018

Degree

There are no "BS" degrees in Canada, it's a BSc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.117.174.82 (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/kevin-oleary-hes-not-a-billionaire-he-just-plays-one-on-tv/article4564334/?page=all. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Widy9 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This is a copyrights problem here. 205.189.94.12 (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Miss America Judge

I'm new to this page. Is it worth mentioning that Kevin was just named as a judge in the upcoming Miss America Pageant?Pistongrinder (talk) 19:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kevin O'Leary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120807111952/http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/task-force/task-force.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/task-force/task-force.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Net worth

The oft-cited figure of O'Leary's net worth is around $400m. However, there is no credible source for this on the web. The TLC deal is still cited as his biggest deal, but he only earned $11.2 million from the TLC sale (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/kevin-oleary-hes-not-a-billionaire-he-just-plays-one-on-tv/article4564334/?page=all). Shark Tank, etc. still imply in their marketing that this is his biggest deal. The Zipz deal is the biggest in Shark Tank history, yet hasn't exited and it's still only a $25m company, of which O'Leary owns 20% and an option to double his position on exit. His sale of O'Leary Funds to Canoe Financial was likely under some duress, as OF had consistently underperformed competitors and was losing assets under management. Typically fund companies sell for several times the annual fees they can collect, minus commissions they pay out. Assuming average fees of a max of 4% and 2% commissions, $800m under management and a five year multiple, that sale was probably around $80-$100m. This is pretty generous considering their underperformance and shrinking assets under management. It is probably safe to assume O'Leary wasn't the sole owner of OF, given that it was cofounded by genuine Canadian heavyweights Stanton Asset Management. I would bet O'Leary is worth well under $100m. FinnHK (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Spouse

We received an email (OTRS) at Wikimedia questioning whether the listing of Samantha Brown as a spouse is correct. I note that it was added recently to the INFOBOX but is not in the main text. Generally speaking items included in the INFOBOX should be discussed in more detail in the main text. In addition, information such as this should be supported by a reliable source.

This source:

Samantha Brown, Kevin O’Leary

should qualify.

Would someone be willing to expand the personal life section of this article to include the marriage to Samantha Brown?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In a follow-up, it was pointed out that it is a different Kevin O’Leary. I'm removing the entry.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Nickname

Should we put his nickname "Mr. Wonderful" in the lead? It is cited later in the article and nicknames are usually listed in the lead as well... however a user keeps reverting it. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I can find nothing reliable from the sources showing that the 'nickname' 'Mr. Wonderful' came from anyone else but himself. There is a youTube clip ( Kevin O'Leary is Mr. Wonderful - The Shark Tank iamdblu 109,493 views Uploaded on Apr 1, 2011 Friday 8:00 PM on ABC ) currently extant in which one of his fellow-'sharks' asks him quite pointedly, "Who exactly is calling you 'Mr. Wonderful'?", for which O'Leary has no other justification except "You are, right now". Which of course the man most certainly was not doing. O'Leary himself has come up with varying explanations. None of his colleagues have come forward in an interview and verified that he or she called him that, in sarcasm, or in jest, or any such thing, as far as I know.

I think all such references to the matter should be removed from the article altogether. The 'nickname' should be regarded as nothing more than a self-serving meme until the matter can be resolved by clear citations from reliable sources. JohndanR (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Wonderful is his nickname on Dragon's Den and Shark Tank. The host of the show, his fellow Dragons/Sharks, and the contestants all call him that. It's his TV nickname. It doesn't matter if he made it up himself or not. Think about Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson from the WWE. That's his nickname regardless of who came up with it originally. You can't just remove his well known nickname because you think it sounds complimentary. That's ridiculous! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.174.11 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Jesse "The Body" Ventura did not use his wrestling nickname when he ran for governor. If Wayne Gretzky went into politics, I doubt that he's call himself "The Great One". I don't think that nicknames from entertainment or sports are relevant in politics.77Mike77 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This is how O'Leary is described in the media. Virtually every article, interview, or TV appearance about him mentions the nickname. It's not just used on Shark Tank alone, but in all his TV shows. I don't see any reason to remove this well-sourced nickname from the Lede. If Wayne Gretzky did run for office that would not be an excuse to remove his well-known nickname from his WP page. Jesse 'the Body' Ventura also has his nickname in the lede. I agree with Vaseline on this one. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where I stand on this anymore. It does mention Mr. Wonderful in the lead when talking about Shark Tank in the last paragraph, but I'm not sure if it warrants inclusion as part of his name in bold. It's a little different than someone like Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson since he is always called The Rock. Gretzky's says the Great One in the lead but not his name in bold. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This format could be followed "Dwayne Douglas Johnson (born May 2, 1972), also known by his ring name The Rock, is an..." Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"Mr. Wonderful" should not appear in the lead paragraph. The statement above that "Virtually every article, interview, or TV appearance about him mentions the nickname" is simply untrue - I've never heard of the nickname until I saw this article (I live in Ontario and I pay attention to the news). The nickname is a self-applied joke. It appears in the section about Shark Tank, and that's enough, IMO. PKT(alk) 12:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The nickname is not self-applied. It's from Barbara Corcoran of Shark Tank. I'm huge Dragon's Den fan. This is his Dragon's Den nickname as well. He also goes by Mr. Wonderful on the Lang and O'Leary Exchange. Even the Conservative Leadership Debates introduce him as Mr. Wonderful. This nickname is so often used that many people don't know O'Leary's real name. "Kevin O’Leary, who is more well-known as “Mr. Wonderful." http://radio.com/2017/03/16/amber-roses-secret-crush-shark-tanks-mr-wonderful/ I therefore don't think we should remove the Mr. Wonderful nickname from the lede as this nickname is definitely used outside of Shark Tank. MohammedMohammed^محمد 14:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Vaseline, I like your wording idea. Here's proof that the "Mr. Wonderful nickname is not just about Shark Tank. www.torontosun.com/2017/03/31/wynnes-shell-game-not-fooling-ontarians

In this source, Shark Tank is not even mentioned once, however O'Leary is referred to by his nickname Mr. Wonderful.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

O'Leary residences

O'Leary owns a mansion in Rosedale (a rich neighbourhood in Toronto) and a cottage in Muskoka. He pays taxes in Canada. He also worked on the Lang and O'Leary Exchange and Dragon's Den (both filmed in Toronto). I'm not sure why someone is trying to vandalised this article by claiming he does not live in Canada just because he was on one U.S. TV show, ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.192.126 (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The source of this information is O'Leary himself, who has been quite open about it. In 2014, for example, he told Boston Business Journal, "I spend most of my time in Boston." Obviously he travels a lot. And he pays Canadian taxes, which the article should note. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

O'Leary owns a property in Boston, yes. He owns a property in Switzerland too. This does not mean he lives in Switzerland. It means he's rich and owns a couple of properties outside of Canada. His primary residence is in Toronto, where he works and pays taxes (this is the important part, because where you pay taxes is your official main address). In Toronto, he not only owns a home, but he also owns a downtown condo near where he works. He also owns a cottage up north. I've seen TV specials where he shows off where he lives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2XoMUZv4nE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMAOTNmaF-w 199.43.174.11 (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source. Regardless, it's not independent. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I have added sources confirming O'Leary's primary residence as Toronto, Ontario. He used to live in Boston from 1994-2004 during his Mattel/TLC years, but moved back to Toronto in order to work on the "Lang and O'Leary Exchange" and "Dragon's Den". MohammedMohammed (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think he said in 2014 that he spends most of his time in Boston - was he misinformed? Korny O'Near (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, he never lived in Boston. He only spent a lot of time working there on temporary work visas in the late 90s and early 2000. He never officially immigrated to the United States. This means he was never there enough days in a year to gain U.S. citizenship and a U.S. passport (although he has Irish citizenship because of his birth-dad). This also means, as a foreigner, Kevin O'Leary could never and has never voted in any American election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.192.126 (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's any question that Boston was his primary residence for years, starting in the early 90s - he has stated this himself numerous times. I think the only question is whether, or when, he started living in Toronto more of the time; he seems to have given contradictory information about that. U.S. citizenship is not granted automatically; you need to apply for it. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

In the mid 90s (not the early 90s) TLC was sold to Mattel, and O'Leary split his time working in Toronto, Boston, and many other places. Do you have any sources which state that O'Leary ever immigrated to the United States and gained U.S. citizenship? In the mid 2000s, he was done with this and he began working in Toronto; on 2 TV shows, and a Toronto-based mutual fund company. There's no question that O'Leary worked and lived in Toronto again starting in the mid 2000s. He also lectured at Canadian Universities during this time. As for his current residence, in the Toronto Star article, O'Leary states, "I pay tax in Canada, I'm a Canadian citizen, I'm a Toronto resident. I have many homes around the world, but Toronto is my tax residency and my domicile." I think this is pretty clear. My guess is, this is another one of your tabloid attacks. Bellpepper2 (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I found a more accurate article so we don't have to speculate anymore. "When he’s in Canada, he and Linda split their time between their five-bedroom, 150-year-old Rosedale mansion and a cottage on Lake Joseph.... They travel 181 days a year, the maximum number they can be gone while still maintaining Canadian residency. They ping-pong between Toronto, Boston, New York, L.A. and Florida just about every week." This means O'Leary never actually changed his primary residence to Boston. He spends slightly more than half the year in Canada, and splits the rest of his time working internationally. Bellpepper2 (talk) 02:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I never said he was a US citizen - what I was saying above is that the fact that he's not a US citizen is not proof of anything. He has indeed said that he more-or-less moved back to Toronto in the 2000s. But he also said, in 2014, "I spend most of my time in Boston." What did he mean by that? Was he just talking about his time in the US? If so, it's an awkward way to phrase it. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that O'Leary never immigrated to the U.S. or Switzerland is rather significant when discussing his current permanent address. When working internationally, as the articles indicate, O'Leary splits his time between many different cities/countries. It's not like all 181 days outside of Canada are spent in Boston alone. For instance, Shark Tank was filmed in L.A., he has a home in Geneva, etc. In any event, O'Leary's current primary residence is in Toronto, and has been for quite some time. Bellpepper2 (talk) 07:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but that still doesn't explain the 2014 quote. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Immigration

Korny, I have reinstated your addition on immigration as this content has not been disputed. I have added the word "university". In Canada, we have universities and colleges. In the United States, you have colleges and community colleges. Our universities are akin to your colleges (and offer degree programs), whereas our colleges are akin to your community colleges (and offer diploma programs). Because this is a Canadian article, it should reflect the terminology for post-secondary institutions used in Canada. MohammedMohammed (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

O'Leary for Canada

O'Leary for Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been created from a section of this article. I'm not familiar with the subject, so I will leave it to others to decide if the new article should be kept or redirected here. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

INeeDaFatToke has recently claimed that there is no platform listed on the 'O'Leary for Canada' website. This is factually wrong. The aforementioned website is here: https://olearyforcanada.ca/en/growth-plan/. MohammedMohammed^محمد 15:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

ETF and Investing

I believe the statement, "On 14 July 2015, O'Leary launched an ETF through O'Shares Investments, a division of his investment fund, O'Leary Funds Management LP, where O'Leary serves as chairman" is incorrect and needs to be changed. All the news sources I have been able to read say that O'Leary and Connor O'Brien launched O'Shares together, but there is nothing to indicate that it is a division of his investment fund. It is a separate company. O'Leary Funds Management was sold to Canoe Financial in 2015.Amost42n81 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

O'Leary's has entered the leadership race

O'Leary has now officially entered the leadership race. Before, the WP article only said he might consider running. Now, the article says he has actually entered the race. This addition is factual, sourced, and entirely uncontroversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.64.241.27 (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

RMC Saint-Jean?

According to WP's entry on this institution, "the four components of achievement are Academics, Leadership, Athletics and Bilingualism." Yet O'Leary is both proudly unilingual and an alumnus. It would be well if someone qualified in this area would add a line or two explaining this contradiction. How does one graduate from (or even get into) RMC Saint-Jean without a word of French? The question came immediately to mind when I read about the connexion in this article. Laodah 03:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

TV Persona vs the real O'Leary

O'Leary uses a lot of hyperbole as part of his TV persona. The character he plays on TV is just as different from O'Leary, the actor, as Stephen Colbert's TV personality is from the actor who plays him. I understand that there is sometimes confusion when the actor and the character use the same name. I would caution anyone from asserting that the hyperbolic statements made by the TV persona are literally the views of the actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.174.11 (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I think you should get back to class rather than shill for a celebrity politician. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please don't throw food in the cafeteria.77Mike77 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Carbon Tax

O'Leary opposes adding a new national carbon tax (which currently does not exist). This is not the same as wanting to cut or lower all forms of taxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.174.11 (talk) 20:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede

199.43.174.11:

I don't think that some of the language that you favor actually is supported by the cited sources (language must be directly supported by the cited source, see WP:V, and we can't go beyond the sources to create our own interpretation (WP:SYNTH, even if is a reasonable one).

First, the lead ("O'Leary has been outspoken in his conservative economic views, advocating economic responsibility in both personal finance and government expenditures"):

• This improperly conflates "a conservatively managed portfolio" with politically conservative views on economic policy. Those two things are separate. The sources don't connect them, so neither can we (WP:SYNTH)
• Second, the claim that O'Leary "advocat[es] economic responsibility" is (1) not phrased in a NPOV way and (2) is not supported by the cited sources. Some commentators may find his proposals responsible, others irresponsible.

Second, in the body, the phrase "O'Leary often gives prudent personal financial advice" is not supported by the Motley Fool sources. His advice is pretty standard for personal investors, and I don't think many people would disagree with it, but that kind of characterization simply isn't in the source. Neutrality^talk 20:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll do you one better: the IP in question doesn't sound like a disinterested editor. I support returning to status quo ante. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with that. Neutrality^talk 20:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Chris, Neutrality's recent attempted addition is certainly not the status quo. Neutrality is attempting to change the status quo through edit warring, rather than by achieving consensus. Also, I checked this user's editing history. It's all political edits. This sounds like the opposite of a disinterested editor. Lastly, the source does not mention anything about tax cuts. Neutrality just added that part in for no apparent reason. If Neutrality wants to change the Lede, than he or she should provide sources which support his/her changes and achieve consensus on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.157.30 (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

199.7.157.30: please don't make personal attacks. Now please respond substantively to the comments I made regarding the problems with your text: namely, that your edits are not supported by the sources. Neutrality^talk 23:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not 'my' text. Not is it that other IP user's text. The text you're trying to alter has been in the article for quite some time. What we are discussion is your proposed changes. That's why I changed the subtitle because we are discussing changes you want to make to the Lede. You are trying to spin things around and act like the other user is adding text to the Lede, but it is you. This means the onus is on you to achieve consensus and provide clear sources which back up your edits, not the other way around. You have not achieved a consensus for your changes. Nor have you provided sources. Specifically, you added that O'Leary favours tax cuts, but this is a really vague statement as there are many different types of taxes. You have not provided any sources, and the current source does not support your alteration.

FYI, I have now made an account. The other editor, who you are edit warring with, (IP: 199.43.174.11|199.43.174.11)is not me. MohammedMohammed (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I find that unlikely. You create an account and then first thing you claim you're not the other person in the conversation? What if we check and see if your IP and the other match? You do know socking is bannable? Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Kevin O'Leary's Response to Trump Comparison

I added O'Leary's response to the Trump comparison. The man is middle-eastern (half Lebanese-half Irish). He has completely opposite views on immigration. I added lots of sources as well (See below). Please stop removing this O'Leary quote.

Similarities between O'Leary and Trump are at best incidental. Both are old, both are overweight, and both shoot off their mouths. One could just as well argue that Muhammad Ali is another "Trump." O'Leary has more in common with the establishment wing of the Republican Party, particularly Jeb Bush. These people are not conservatives in the sense they want to conserve the cultural and demographic makeup of the country. They just want to make life even better for the top 1%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.149.138.18 (talk) 00:28, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

O'Leary is a social liberal. He's pro same-sex marriage, immigration, marijuana, euthanasia, you name it. He's only fiscally conservative (low taxes, no government deficits). You might as well compare O'Leary to Whoopie Goldberg for being an outspoken millionaire and TV personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.233.236 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

As far as the article is concerned, it doesn't really matter whether they're similar at all; all that matters is that they're often compared in the press. If every news article about Kevin O'Leary called him "Canada's Yul Brynner" instead, then this article would ideally mention that. That being said, they do have quite a few other similarities besides what you listed, reality television among them. And their political platforms don't seem that different: they both talk quite a bit about job growth through cutting taxes and regulations, and talk quite a bit less about social issues. Obviously, immigration and trade are the big exceptions. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello Korny,

I disagree with your assessment, as do many journalists (http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/o-leary-canadian-trump-1.3941549). Their opposing views on NAFTA and immigration are not exceptions, but rather part of a large list of issues they disagree on (like the ones other users have posted above). For instance, O'Leary talks quite a lot about euthanasia (a topic not usually favoured by conservatives). O'Leary has had family members who have been in quite a lot of pain on their deathbeds and this has been his influence to support assisted suicide. O'Leary has also talked quite a bit about legalizing marijuana and taxing it. Other than being wealthy and on TV, there really are extremely few similarities in character, and even fewer similarities in policy. Lastly, Trump not only talks quite a bit about social issues, but he constantly tweets about them! So you can't say neither of them talk about social issues. It seems you're trying to superimpose Trump's personality/policies on O'Leary's when, in reality, they couldn't be more opposite.

References

You seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. My personal opinion about similarities between O'Leary and Trump is irrelevant, as is yours (and now I regret having said anything about it, since it gave the false impression that I think my opinion matters). The only thing the article says is that many people in the press compare the two. Which is undoubtedly true. And articles like the one you link to, which argue that the two are not similar, actually only underscore the fact that the two often get compared. There is literally no POV there - it's just an obvious factual statement that O'Leary is often called "Canada's Trump" and the like, regardless of whether there's any merit to it. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I see we've had a bunch of Canadian IPs trying to pretty this article up and remove unflattering information. Be advised we can always have this article protected and none of you will be able to edit it, so I encourage honest discussion instead. How exactly does the source material not support the claims in the article? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2017 (UTC

Dear American editors. We get it, you don't like Trump. Please don't mistakenly project your negative views of Trump onto O'Leary. Most of us don't like Trump either. This vandalism and Americanization of Canadian articles has to stop. Our conservatives candidates, and especially O'Leary (who is a red Tory, i.e. social liberal) are probably closer in views towards your Democrats than to Republicans. If you're going to include a sentence stating that they're both rich and were on TV, fine. But you also need to include the vast differences between them. For instance, their policies are completely different, as are their family upbringings. O'Leary has never tweeted sexist and racist nonsense like Trump, been accused of sexual assault, or had secret bus videos of him joking about you know what. This comparison edit seems more like a smear job than adding content of encyclopedic value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎99.255.192.126 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear Ontario editor, no actual Wikipedians are projecting anything onto O'Leary. I, personally, like the guy. I see him on TV all the time. The issue is that we write based on the source material and you don't like what the source material says. Too bad! I wish sometimes that I could just write articles based on what I believe to be true versus what I have sources for. Sadly, we don't allow editors to just make stuff up. If you want to argue that the media coverage is wrong somehow or you have alternative outlets, fine. You cannot just ignore what sources are saying because it makes your guy look bad. I don't edit with a POV; obviously you do. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this, and let me just add that I don't see the Trump comparisons as particularly positive or negative. The things that they're compared on are standard elements of their biographies; I don't think noting the fact that both have appeared on popular reality television shows counts exactly as gotcha journalism. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Korny, do you even read the sources you are citing? The CNN article http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/canada-kevin-oleary-conservatives/ says that any similarities between the two are superficial. It goes on to say that they have "very different policies", and gives specific examples of their different policies on immigration, abortion, marijuana, and more. No wonder you keep getting reverted. The author of the article writes about how O'Leary and Trump have only superficial similarities, and how their policies are very very different. And you warp this into saying that the two are virtual clones of each other and all of the differences mentioned in the article mysteriously vanish from your edit. What are you trying to pull here? And stop with the weasel words like "frequently", which you completely invent out of thin air. Try actually reading the sources you are citing, and drastically reword your edit. Otherwise, just leave it out. 199.43.174.11 (talk) 20:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The content you're afraid of says "has frequently been compared in the press". It doesn't say they're clones or even all that much alike. And yet, you campaign folks can't have that because you know how the voters see it. The words say what they say. CNN is an accurate source for that assertion. Please stop casting aspersions on Korny, too. Actual Wikipedians deserve better than your contempt. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

1) Vandalism: There has been recent vandalism on this WP page. For instance, Dudeman 1985 deleted 3636 characters of sourced text, replacing everything with "i am the canadian donald trump dont let me be the pm of canada". I think we can all agree that this is not a productive way to edit.

2) Ease of navigation: It would be helpful for the purposes of "Improving the clarity and readability of a page" Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages to combine this section with the earlier discussion about the O'Leary Trump comparison, because they are essentially the same thing. I would like to invite any users who have been editing under IP addressed to make an account. I have done so recently, and I think this will make this discussion easier to navigate. I would also like to ask editors who have had longstanding accounts to avoid biting a newcomer as this is contrary to WP policy.

3) Content: In the CNN source you all are discussing, the author, Joshua Berlinger, asks if O'Leary is "Canada's Trump?", and then goes onto to answer his own question stating that the similarities between the two are "on the surface" and that they have "very different policies"; it then lists several examples. Many other sources also draw the same conclusion. Alexander Panetta, of the National Post, states, "Kevin O’Leary is right — he’s not Donald Trump, Canada’s not the U.S., and should he run for high office there would be huge differences between him and the swirly-haired political phenomenon sweeping the land to the south." Panetta goes on to list differences in celebrity status, voter demographics, economics, immigration, and politics. Robyn Urback of the CBC writes, "Social conservatives won't care much for his (Kevin O'Leary's) stances on euthanasia, marijuana, gay marriage and so forth, nor will hawks within the party welcome his pacifist approach to foreign affairs and apathy toward immigration reform.", and that O'Leary does not "get on Twitter and starts ranting about border walls and ideological purity tests for visitors (hiya, Kellie)." The Globe and Mail and Forbes Magazine also refute this comparison for similar reasons.

I would like to make a compromise. I propose be include a brief expansion of the Trump O'Leary comparison on two conditions in order to avoid unintentional conflation:

A) We note that similarities that exist are "on the surface", i.e. superficial or incidental similarities, as noted by the sources.

B) We note their policies are "very different", and provide sourced examples. MohammedMohammed (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

References

You seem to be somewhat unclear on the difference between fact and opinion. "O'Leary is like Trump" and "O'Leary is not like Trump" are both opinions. Note (again) that the contested wording does not say either one; it only says that the two are often compared - an obvious fact. And opinion pieces with titles like "No, Kevin O'Leary is not Donald Trump" don't weaken that fact; if anything, they underscore it. As to your suggested changes - it wouldn't hurt to add to the paragraph one or more of these additional opinions, noting the other policy differences, etc. But they don't cancel out opposing opinions. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Mohammed, I made an account, like you said. I also googled my ISP, and it said 70.48.150.255 for those of you who are interested. Hopefully this will stop editors from making Ad Hominem attacks, but I doubt it. My guess is anyone who was attacked for not having an account will now be attacked for having a new account. So, it's a bit of a catch 22. Also, I google searched some of the IP addresses of some of the IP editors here. 199.43.174.11 is from Mississauga, 184.149.138.18 is from Newmarket, 99.255.192.126 is from Toronto, and 50.68.50.74 is from Calgary. These are different cities. Some of the edits were also made in a relatively short time-span from each other too, so I doubt anyone is teleporting from city to city reverting edits.

Anyway, a much better solution would be just to remove the Trump stuff altogether. Justin Trudeau was often compared to George W. Bush due to the fact that both of their dads were the leaders of their respective countries. This is a fact, and it was all over the news leading up to the last election. The Bush/Trudeau coincidence is much rarer and more noteworthy than the Trump/O'Leary coincidence. Lots of politicians have been rich and owned business, but this is the only time in both Canadian and American history for father and son to become the future President/Prime Minister. If someone were to add this comparison to the Trudeau article, it would most likely be flagged as vandalism and removed immediately due to sounding too much like tabloid content. Bellpepper2 (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

No, removing that content would be dishonest. Again, I understand many of you editors are new, know nothing about Wikipedia, and yet insist on this article being how you like. It doesn't work that way. The article says there has been a comparison, which is true. The article doesn't say the two men are exactly alike or exact opposites. It says there have been comparisons. I can understand that you want to erase that little bit but you can't because it's true. There are better arguments you could make to have that content removed but again, you're new and you don't know how. My recommendation is to spend the next year or so editing around Wikipedia, perform some countervandalism, and then come back after the election and we can discuss this. Until the Ontario crowd comes up with better arguments I renew my objection to making any changes for which you do not have consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

One of the IP editors is from Calgary. Calgary is not in Ontario. It is in Alberta, on the other side of the country. Anyway, you have stated that large changes should not be made without consensus. I agree. So, by your own logic, Korny's massive 1000+ character paragraph can't be added to the article without achieving a clear consensus. This change has quite clearly not achieved consensus, as many editors from different cities and provinces have reverted this change (i.e. Countervandalism) and provided many reasons on the talk page. I therefore challenge you to self revert until there has been a clear consensus for this massive change. Also, it is quite telling that you only care about including this attack article up until the election. Yikes!Bellpepper2 (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to this, that's the return to status quo ante before the campaign staffers started whitewashing it. That's how the article will be until there's consensus per WP:BURDEN. My larger point is (because I've dealt with this before) is that you only care about this until election day. After that you'll disappear because you're not here to write an encyclopedia. I've been editing for almost four years. I'm interested in writing good content, not shilling for businesses or politics or religion. So, feel free to try to convince your fellow editors. I'm certainly willing to listen to reasonable arguments. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm a manager at Food Basics, not a shill. I just happen to like watching Dragons Den, and I stumbled across this article and, like others, got mad at the slander I read. Secondly, the recent Korny addition is certainly not the status quo. Ever since it was introduced only last week it's been reverted many times due to a lack of clear consensus. You're the only editor supporting this change. Don't lie and call it the status quo. We can all read the history page. The onus is on YOU to convince everyone that it should be added. And no, having an account for 4 years does not mean you are above the law and give you special permission to editwar without consensus. If anything, it means you of all people should know better.Bellpepper2 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

So, the sentence about O'Leary being compared to Trump date back to here which is about two weeks before the edit warring so yes, that's the consensus version. The language about O'Leary being inspired by Trump go back at least through December. However, you could present here an alternative version of what you'd like to see instead. I'd be happier if we have a balanced view. So we're clear, I'm not saying my longevity gives me permission to edit war or bully editors; I'm pointing out that I don't have a dog in the race. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Chris Troutman. Your preferred version is not the status quo ante. You should self revert, for now at least, or else risk being blocked due to edit warring as the new content has not yet been agreed upon. Perhaps post one new sentence at a time on the talk page first, and if agreed upon, we can amend the article.

Please don't bite a newcomer. I had that happen to me when I was new, it's not productive. It's also a way you could get blocked. Also, you're both getting pretty heated up with accusations, I would recommend against it. Bellpepper, don't use the term 'liar' as it is very incindiary. Chris Troutman, don't call people political staffers and shills. I also don't like the anti-Canadian and anti-American sentiments I have read. I have family on both sides of the border.

In regards to content, I feel the new content has errors in tone. For instance, sentences should rarely start with "Even". There's grammatical errors. You should not have several sentences in a row that begin with "They both". You could combine these thoughts into a single sentence. It also makes several questionable unattributed claims. For instance, it claims they are running on the same economic platform. Did Arlene Dickenson say this? As far as I know, Trump is a protectionist, opposing NAFTA, whereas O'Leary is a globalist who favours free trade deals. Some of the comparisons are anecdotal, and aren't really necessary, like TV catch phrases. Claiming similarities in "brash outspoken nature" I feel unfairly equates O'Leary's relatively tame TV personality to some of Trump's more offensive comments made towards ethnic minorities. The bit about O'Leary praising Trump is misleading. What was he praising him about? TV ratings? Corporate tax rates? O'Leary has slammed Trump on many many issues such as the Border Wall, and Syrian refugees. There's more differences in their platforms beyond immigration. O'Leary is a Red Tory in that he is liberal on social issues. This is neither good nor bad, as that is a matter of personal opinion, but it is certainly worth mentioning. To sum up, if there was one problem with the new content, I would just go and correct it, but because there are so many, I would recommend reverting for now. I understand you're not the author. Perhaps NearKorny, Mohammed, and IP user's can also assist in the process.

Long story short. All editors maintain decorum. For now, self-revert the new content, discuss, and build consensus. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Bellpepper2 - thanks for getting an account; it makes discussions easier. I have no idea why you think the Trump comparisons are "slander" - if they're slander, it's a slander committed by virtually every journalist who writes about O'Leary. I also don't know why you think that comparisons between Trudeau and George W. Bush would be "flagged as vandalism" - if the comparison has been made often, and the description is well-sourced, I would think people would have a hard time keeping it out of the article.

Ontario Teacher - I don't know what your grammatical expertise is, but there's nothing wrong with starting a sentence with "Even", or with the other supposed violations you list. But grammar doesn't seem to be your real concern here. As far as the content, it seems to me that you're reading more into the text than actually appears there. The text only cites the specific things that they have been compared on - it doesn't try to imply that everything else is similar too. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to have that paragraph also list more of the (cited) differences between the two, like their views on trade.

As to the question of consensus and status quo - I disagree with both sides here. As far as I can tell, there has never been consensus on any version of the Trump wording; it's just that someone wrote something, someone else changed it, and so on. Hopefully we can achieve some consensus now, but no one holds the upper hand in terms of the current version. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I just added a sentence about further differences between the two, using some of the references found by MohammedMohammed. Is that better? Korny O'Near (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Korny, thank you for adding the sentence about the differences between Trump and O'Leary. Although, I feel the terminology could use some changes. In this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwpHpXybpv8) CBC News Scrum, the host uses the term "Red Tory" to describe O'Leary. I feel this is much more accurate than "Libertarian", which is more of an American term. It would also be beneficial to perhaps list these differences using citations. This sentence seems to more or less reflect the views I have read on most editors here, so this part of your edit can stay.

If you read the Wikipedia:Consensus policy, it states, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." Basically, this means that because the large comparison paragraph you are trying to add lack consensus, we must retain the version prior to your large edit until consensus is reached. This is one of the most basic and foundation concepts that Wikipedia has. The Wikipedia:Disruptive editing section reads, "Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."

I recommend trying to add one sentence at a time first. If editors agree, it stays. If editors disagree and there is no consensus, try reworking that sentence until consensus is reached. Stop trying to edit war in such a large paragraph. I suggest demonstrating good faith by self-reverting your large paragraph in the meantime. In this way, we can more productively discuss your proposed changes. MohammedMohammed (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, the host in the above mentioned panel is not comparing O'Leary to Trump, but rather hosting a discussion on Arlene Dickenson's comments. Therefore, it might be more accurate to reference that Dickenson has compared O'Leary to Trump instead of saying that "O'Leary has been compared to Trump", as it more specifically identifies who is making this comparison. MohammedMohammed (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware of the term "Red Tory", and that it has occasionally been applied to O'Leary, but it became an ambiguous term after the 1990s, as the article about it notes; and I don't think any of the definitions of it describe O'Leary that well. I think the term "libertarian" is known enough in Canada; there's the Libertarian Party of Canada, for example, and if you look at their list of policy positions, it pretty closes matches O'Leary's. The big difference between them seems to be that he uses the language of pragmatism and entrepreneurship, rather than talking about individual liberties.

Note that the text that Chris Troutman and I favor is better-cited than the one it replaces. (The original text claims that O'Leary has been compared to multiple "businessmen-turned politicians", which is uncited and possibly untrue.) And it's not even that long a paragraph: five sentences plus a quote.

I don't know what panel you're talking about, but the comparison of O'Leary to Trump has been made by dozens of journalists - really, just about everyone who has written about O'Leary's candidacy. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Korny, in the U.S., there are Democrats, and Republicans. They have nicknames. The Republicans are known as the GOP, socially liberal Republicans are known as Libertarians (like Ron Paul) whereas the Democrats are known as DEMs. In Canada, there is the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada, the NDP, the Green Party, and the Block Québecois (Fringe parties don't count). They also have nicknames. Conservatives are known as Tories, and the Liberals are known as Grits. Conservatives who are socially conservative are known as "Blue Tories". This term was used to describe Stephen Harper. Socially liberal conservatives are known as "Red Tories" or "small c conservatives" in Canada. This term was used to describe Peter MacKay. In the last provincial election in Ontario, Tim Hudak described himself as a Purple Tory, mixing the two terms together. These are certainly contemporary terms, which are used all the time. I don't think it would be reasonable to Americanize this article by calling O'Leary a Republican, a GOP, or a Libertarian. FYI, our leader is also called a Prime Minister, not a President.

If you'd like, we can exclude the words "businessmen-turned" from the original text. O'Leary her certainly been compared to other politicians. In the most recent leadership debate, O'Leary was compared to Trudeau for being a celebrity.

The text you are trying to insert has sources, yes. However, these sources appear to be grossly misrepresented. For instance, in the CNN article, the host specifically says that while there are similarities between the two "on the surface", he notes that the "similarities start to fade after that" as they have "very different policies". Basically, the writer holds the position that they only have superficial similarities, and have very different policies. You (hopefully accidentally) have taken what the writer of the article is saying, and then write the exact opposite of his perspective in your edit (many editors, from different cities, have told you this). You cherry pick only the short list of superficial similarities (delete the term superficial) and list absolutely none of the large list of differences that the writer has included in what appears to be an effort to conflate the two individuals. Many of the superficial similarities are completely irrelevant, and seem to be added only to beef up the meager list that exists. You might as well mention that they both have kids, drive nice cars, and wear suits. These are not noteworthy similarities that one would read in a real encyclopedia article. The only similarities I feel would be worth including are their experiences are actors on reality television. Their experiences in business are more of a difference than a similarity as none of their business ventures are in the same sector.

I offered a compromise. Add a short sentence about their similarities including the term "superficial", and include the list of their differences. Instead, you added a gargantuan 2000 character essay, threw in a tone of sources that (in many cases) actually disagree with what you are saying, and then edit war like crazy. This is not going to work. I strongly suggest you try only one sentence here on the talk page. One at a time. On the talk page only. And for your one sentence, please write it in a disinterested tone. Don't state opinions as facts. Don't state seriously contested assertions as facts. Please review the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Please stop edit warring in, what reads like an unnecessarily lengthy opinion essay, into the article.MohammedMohammed (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson on Canadian politics - I didn't need it, but maybe someone else will. A few corrections to what you wrote: (1) "libertarian" is not an American-only term (see, for example, Category:Canadian libertarians); (2) "Red Tory" has a few different meanings, at least historically speaking, beyond what you wrote; (3) once again (Chris Troutman and I have both said this a few times) the new wording doesn't say that O'Leary and Trump are similar, just that they're often compared - which, I should note, is basically what the old wording says too; (4) irrelevant or not, these similarities have been mentioned dozens of times - which means that the press, at least, doesn't think that they're irrelevant; (5) the only thing the new wording says about business is that the two are businessmen - which, again, is the same thing the old wording says; (6) the new wording adds four sentences - it's not an "essay"; (6) the new wording lists some of the major differences between the two, not "absolutely none"; (7) I'm not edit warring any more than anyone else; (8) I haven't stated any opinions as facts (but I think you know that).

I have to admit that I'm surprised at the pushback that this has gotten. You just have to do a Google search to see that the majority of articles about O'Leary's candidacy mention Donald Trump - and list at least a few of the commonalities between the two. Some authors play up the similarities, while others dismiss them - but almost all see fit to mention them. I would think that this, in itself, is proof that these are noteworthy facts. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

NearKorny, I have pointed out errors in grammar. Rather than fixing them, you have questioned my expertise in grammar in the form of a personal attack. I happen to be a high school English and French teacher for the TDSB. I teach grammar for a living, in two languages. You are trying to insert a 53 word sentence that includes a colon, 3 commas, and the word "both" 3 times. This is known as a "run-on-sentence". This is more than just a grammatical error, as the length of the sentence artificially inflates the few similarities the Trump and O'Leary share.

There are also issues with content. Allow me to be specific. The sentence about running on "the same conservative jobs focused platform" is, quite frankly hogwash. The two sources you added do not support this in any way. The Trump and O'Leary electoral platforms are very different, both socially and economically. Trump's platform is largely protectionist (opposing immigration, and free trade deals like the TPP and NAFTA) while O'Leary's is globalist (favouring free trade deals, and in particular avoiding taffifs on Canadian softwood lumber) These are quite opposite economic platforms.

Also, I agree with Mohammed, "Libertarian" is more of a U.S. term notwithstanding the fringe party you mentioned. In Canada, "Libertarian" has implications of being extremist or American (which is seen as a negative) while "Red Tory" or "small c conservative" have implications of being a moderate.

I believe the reason you have received so much pushback, is because Trump is generally seen as unpopular in Canada. Your edit, appears to compare the two in such a way as to exaggerate irrelevant superficial similarities, while not mentioning specific and very relevant differences in policy. This can create the false impression that the two are political equivalents. This misinformation could be quite damaging to O'Leary's campaign. Mr. Troutman is the only editor supporting your view. This editor went as far as to suggest leaving your edit until after the election. You should see this as a red flag. This editor supports your edit, not because he feels it is accurate, but presumably because he knows this misinformation is harmful, and seeks that political harm to be inflicted prior to the election. I hope this is not your goal as well.

Please consider implementing the feedback you have received, and try reinserting one sentence at a time in a more carefully worded edit. I believe this one-carefully-worded-sentence-at-a-time approach would actually be to your benefit. It would allow other editors to prune your contribution for tonality, and you could eventually include most of what you wanted. Many editors actually agree with small aspects of your edits. This would make it easier to find common ground. Your current approach, of adding more and more sources, does not amend the foundational flaws I mentioned above. The edit warring tactic of reverting without making any significant alterations, to appease your critics, is likely to result in more reversions. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I certainly didn't mean to criticize you personally, and I apologize if it came off that way. Nonetheless, I don't think there were any grammatical errors there. But I think it's clear that the grammar isn't really the issue anyway (grammatical problems can easily be fixed). What you wrote, warning that the new text "could be quite damaging to O'Leary's campaign", seems closer to the heart of the issue. Now, I don't think it's actually damaging - if it were, O'Leary would be in massive trouble already, since this same Trump comparison shows up in nearly every article written about him in the last year or so - but regardless, the possibility that a fact may be damaging is not a valid reason to keep it out of Wikipedia. And let me be clear here: the fact in question is not that O'Leary is like Trump. It is that O'Leary is often compared to Trump, due to five or so similarities. That is an obvious fact, and I doubt that anyone disagrees with it, since the text you keep reverting to says pretty much the same thing (though it lists only a subset of those similarities). It's an obvious, notable fact, and if it does any damage, that's irrelevant.

Now, let's get to some specifics: you quoted the new text as reading "the same conservative jobs focused platform" - it actually says "a conservative, jobs-focused platform". Their two platforms are indeed different, although both platforms have been described as conservative, and jobs-focused, so the new text is factually correct. Though I can see how it might mislead people into thinking it's the same platform, so I'm willing to change it to make that clearer. As for "libertarian" - it may be seen as extremist, but he has been described that way in notable sources, which is all that matters. He has also been described as "small-c conservative" (like here), so I'm fine with adding that in. As for "Red Tory" - besides the ambiguity of the term, there's the more basic fact that I can't find any evidence that he's ever been called that. Even on the CBC show that MohammedMohammed found, the term is only raised as a question (see here). So I can't see a reason to include it, until/unless there's a citation for it.

I also don't know why you say the new text doesn't mention "specific and very relevant differences in policy" - it does, and to a greater extent than the old text.

I plan to revert back the text, then make some changes based on your comments. Hopefully that will get us closer to something everyone can agree on. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

It appears Korny seems unwilling to insert small edits at a time. I don't know why, as this would make it easier to find common ground by tackling one sentence at a time. In order to put an end to this edit war, I have decided to try an alternative approach. I have reinserted portions of Korny's edits.

1) Specifically, I have removed the term "business-men turned" as it appears we have a consensus that this is unnecessary.

2) I have reinserted the following: the part about "fast tracking immigrants", see below for the appropriate talk page section.

3) The Kellie Leitch comparison

4) The phrasing about "Trump's signature policy on immigration"

5) The terminology "right-wing populism" to describe Trump

To all editors (including IP editors), please comment on whether or not you agree that these portions of Korny's addition has consensus. If anyone disagrees with any part of these new contributions, please explain why and I will revert it. Hopefully this compromise will end the current edit war. Korny, please don't edit war back in the entirety of your proposed additions. Let's see, for now, if we have agreement that these parts are acceptable. MohammedMohammed (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Mohammed, I have reverted the dig at Kellie Leitch. Slamming a political rival on O'Leary's WP page right before the conservative leadership election is certainly problematic. The rest can stay.

NearKorny, you can't honestly believe a monstrously long 53-word run on sentence is grammatically correct. To be more specific, this run on sentence had the word "both" 3 times. Let me give you an example. "Both humans and bears are mammals, both humans and bears are omnivores, and both bears and humans are able to stand on both of their legs." This sentence can be corrected to read, "Humans and bears are mammals, omnivores, and are capable of standing on two legs". Notice how the three thoughts can be combined without the unnecessary redundancy of repeating the word "both" a million times. If you're not willing to fix something as non-controversial as grammar, it makes me wonder if you're willing to be flexible at all. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

MohammedMohammed - thanks for not doing a full revert this time. Unfortunately, your changes make the text somewhat incomprehensible. Right now the paragraph states "O'Leary has been compared to other politicians such as Donald Trump", before detailing how he's not like Trump. Left unexplained is which other politicians he's been compared to, in what way he's been compared, or why he would care that he's been compared to politicians.

Ontario Teacher - at the risk of offending you again, let me just say that I still don't think there are any grammatical issues in the text, and I don't think that that sentence (long as it is) is a run-on sentence. Nonetheless, feel free to change any of the wording - I care much less about the wording than about the content. (Plus, it's Wikipedia.) As for the Kellie Leitch thing - leaving aside whether someone as outspokenly pro-Trump as Leitch would consider a comparison to Trump to be a "slam" (as opposed to a compliment), there is nothing "problematic" about adding negative information here, at any time. There are various reasons not to include information on Wikipedia - unsourced, trivial, etc. - but the fact that it's negative is not one of them. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I re-added some of the text, but now it's shorter - I don't know if the text is any better than it was before, but it's an attempt at compromise. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

NearKorny, while I appreciate that you partially fixed the run on sentence, you have not edited out the unecesaary trivial content, nor have you fix the tone of your edit.

1) Trivial content: TV catch phrases are trivial content. O'Leary has dozens of catch phrases. This has no relevance to the article.

2) Tone: the term "businessman" is a gendered term, like "fireman", "policeman", or "mailman". Better would be "entrepreneur". You have far too many weasel words that adversely affect your tone, like "frequently", "very" and "even". The phrase "brash outspoken style" is problematic. Many of the journalists have noted that their temperament differ significantly. This also conflates the antagonist character O'Leary played on TV with, with O'Leary the person. The phrase "fiscally conservative message", means nothing. As noted above, their economic platforms are not similar.

Maybe you could note the comparison is based on their experiences as actors and entrepreneurs, prior to entering politics, and leave it at that. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:50, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

My responses: (1) I don't really think it was a fix, given that there was no problem before, but maybe we should just drop the grammar argument; (2) I don't think catch phrase are trivial - Trump's "You're fired" is strongly associated with him, for instance, and was brought up repeatedly by both sides during his presidential campaign; (3) does Wikipedia have a proscription against gendered terms, when referring to men? If so, I'm not aware of it; (4) they are indeed frequently compared, and both men are very wealthy (Trump has billions, and O'Leary has hundreds of millions, according to their infoboxes) - there are sources backing up both of these claims; and thus I don't think these count as weasel words in this context. As for "even", it's not a weasel word; (5) again, these words "brash" and "outspoken" show up in the citations, and many more citations could be found for both of these descriptions; (6) "fiscally conservative" is certainly not meaningless, but I'm willing to go with any other phrasing, to indicate that both are/were running as right-wing candidates.

Again, it seems like you're injecting your personal opinions into this - you clearly don't think Trump and O'Leary are similar at all, and you think that the similarities that people point to are trivial. That's a valid opinion to have, but it's an opinion obviously not shared by most journalists who have written about O'Leary, given that the Trump comparisons keep popping up, even by journalists who only want to point out the differences between the two. So please try to keep your personal biases out of it - I always try to do that also.

Finally, this is not to sound offensive, but I think if you spent half as much time trying to improve the text as you do explaining why you don't like it, we could be done with this quite a bit faster. As I've noted, the "old" text that you keep reverting to is cryptic and misleading; I haven't heard anyone defend it other than to say that it was there first. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Good evening Korny and Ontario,

Ontario, I agree that we should be using Gender-neutral language. This isn't the 1920s. Women's suffrage has been around a long time. There's no reason to be using gendered language anymore. In fact, if you do a Wikipedia search for "businessman", it redirects you to "businessperson". This, like the Run-on sentence you pointed out, should be noncontroversial grammatical corrections.

I also agree that the article needs to avoid Weasle Words such as qualifiers. Words like "frequently", "often", "sometimes", "occasionally" are not necessary and tend to violate the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. For instance, an editor might replace "frequently" with "occasionally", and in both cases, this would act as a weasel word designed to skew the reader. If I were to add a qualifier, I would probably put "seldom" as realistically most Trump articles (including his WP article) don't even mention O'Leary and vise-versa. Although, it would be better to avoid any qualifiers for either side of this debate in order to maintain neutrality.

Korny, the use of the term "even", is the context of your sentence, reads like a persuasive essay. For example, if one wrote, "Even Brett Wilson disagrees with these comparisons." The use of the term "even" is designed to act as a form of card stacking. That is to say, it is a form of propaganda designed to lead the reader into forming a belief. We can't have this. I have trouble believing you don't understand how these terms slant the way the article reads. If you really do believe you don't want personal biases in the article, than we must avoid these tone-altering-terms at all cost.

Even more shocking is the sentence where you claim that O'Leary praises Trump. This is extremely vague. What specifically are you claiming that O'Leary praises Trump about? In most of the articles you have cited O'Leary actually harshly criticizes Trump, on quite a number of issues. This is the exact opposite of praise. Additionally, you need to drop the line where you suggest their economic platforms are similar just because they are part of right-of-center political parties. As many of the sources have pointed out, their economic platforms are polar opposite with Trump favouring protectionism and O'Leary favouring globalism. This too needs to be dropped.

I feel the "old text" was actually pretty clear and concise. It included that there was a comparison, and a response from O'Leary. How was this cryptic? In any event, I understand that Ontario seems content just to revert your changes. I'm willing to work with you, but if you want others to budge, you too need to budge. You can't just keep edit warring in 100% of what you wanted to add with little or no substantial changes and expect it to stick. I would recommend that in your next edit, only reinsert the components where you honestly believe that you have reached consensus. MohammedMohammed (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

MohammedMohammed - thanks for responding. My responses: (1) Your views on the word "businessman" don't match up with any Wikipedia guidelines, but sure - feel free to change it to "entrepreneur" or "businessperson" if you want; (2) you're right that Trump is seldom compared to O'Leary, but O'Leary is frequently compared to Trump - there are multiple sources not just comparing O'Leary to Trump but noting that many others make the comparison; (3) you make a stronger case against "even" than Ontario Teacher did, but I still don't think it's "propaganda" - it's only trying to make the point that the two are compared in the press on a lot of things, not that the two are actually similar; (4) the text says "O'Leary has praised Trump, calling him 'smart as a fox'" - nothing vague about that; (5) I'm not aware of O'Leary ever having criticized Trump, actually, harshly or otherwise - I think the most he has said is that he personally disagrees with Trump on some issues; (6) they both have campaigned on increasing employment by reducing taxes and regulations, so I wouldn't call their economic platforms "polar opposites", and I doubt you could find a reference saying that - but anyway, feel free to rewrite that part; (7) the text was cryptic in that it said that O'Leary was compared to multiple politicians, but it only listed one, and it didn't say how he was compared to any of them; (8) "budge", really? I'm the only one here who has modified the text in an attempt at compromise. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

NearKorny, your recent slight change to your previous addition actually made things much worse. The term "Right-wing platform" is intentionally misleading, and incredibly inaccurate. If you've been paying attention to the recent conservative leadership debate, O'Leary's opponents are actually calling his platform left-wing, and liberal, as are several members of the media.

Rather than trying to slightly reword factually inaccurate sentences, just drop those sentences from your edit. O'Leary and Trump have very different platforms. Period. Stop coming up with new ways to conflates their platforms. Stop conflating O'Leary's TV character with the actor who plays him. Stop inserting unecesaary similarities in an attempt to beef up a meager list of things that you would never find in a peer reviewed encyclopedia. Stop using weasel words to corrupt text with political bias.

You're supposed to alter your edit significantly, until you are 100% confident that you have reached consensus. This means dropping sentences that others disagree with. If you cannot reach a consensus, the content stays out. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Before anything else, I urge you to read WP:OWN, if you haven't already - you have no more say over this article than anyone else does.

Also, please try not to get personal - when you say that my wording is "intentionally misleading", that sounds like a personal attack. For the record, I put in that phrase because it was another attempt to find wording everyone can agree on; clearly it didn't work.

So, is it really an indisputable fact that O'Leary and Trump are completely different politically? CNN says that they're "both fiscal conservatives", The Hamilton Spectator says that O'Leary shows "Trump-like economic thinking", and O'Leary himself says that he'll "have to match Trump's corporate tax rates and his regulatory moves" if elected. Now, others have different opinions, but let's not pretend that there's a single obvious truth here. There are various reputable sources backing up that they are similar on economic issues like taxes, and that's all that that text is stating in the first place - not they're similar in any way, but that commentators have said that they're similar. (I don't know how many more times I have to say that, but I'll keep saying it as often as it takes.) Korny O'Near (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

NearKorny, the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia is through consensus. The Wikipedia:Consensus policy states: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.". This means, since you are the one proposing to change the article with a bold edit, the onus is on you to reach a consensus. If no consensus is reached, the previous version is retained. This is how Wikipedia works. Why don't you understand this principle?

With regards to your edit, I have already gone into great detail about the issues with it, as have other editors. You have not adequately fixed these issues. For instance, you reduced a 53 word run on sentence to a 47 word run on sentence. You refused to admit this was a grammatical error, and inadequately addressed it. You were told about specific sentences and tone-altering weasel words that should also be removed. Unfortunately, you have not removed any of the contentious material you originally proposed, nor have you remedied the tone. Until these issues are fixed, I doubt you will reach consensus. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

That policy you quoted only applies when it's clear that no consensus has been reached, which is not the case (we haven't even canvassed outsiders yet). In the meantime, I've already pointed out problems with the old text, which no one has responded to yet - or, to use your preferred phrasing, you have already been told about specific problems. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Umm... I can't believe you guys are still on this. There's obviously no consensus to add Korny's extremely biased Trump stuff. The guy takes an article that basically says the Trump stuff is a smear campaign, and that most of their policies are different (O'Leary is a social liberal), and then Korny has the audacity to write they are both running on right wing platforms!!!

Actually, I read the Wikipedia policy you are all talking about. It says for biographies of living persons, contentious material is best left out. So, this whole Trump smear-campaign should actually just be removed from the article completely, not expanded. Let's remove this tabloid junk. No other Canadian politician, in any jurisdiction, has comparisons on their WP pages despite the fact that comparisons are always made prior to every election (often as attack comparisons). Think about it this way, on Fox News, they compared Obama to Stalin, but do you see these comparisons on Obama's WP page? Of course not! Bellpepper2 (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, here we go: (1) it's not clear to me that any of you fully understand what "biased" means. Bellpepper2 - you apparently want Wikipedia to describe the Trump comparisons as "a smear campaign", not understanding that that's a very biased description, since it implies that Trump is bad; (2) I already removed the "right-wing platform" text before, in the spirit of compromise; (3) as to the "audacity" of calling both O'Leary and Trump right-wing, now I'm curious: is it O'Leary who's not right-wing, or Trump, or both? (4) it's true that some politicians have been compared to Stalin - and just about every politician gets compared to Hitler - but with O'Leary and Trump, we're not talking about one-off comparisons, but something that just about every article and opinion piece about O'Leary's campaign refers to, no matter where they are on the political spectrum, or how they feel about those comparisons; (5) a much closer analogy is that Trump and Silvio Berlusconi are often compared to each other, and indeed, Berlusconi's article currently has a section about the Trump comparisons; (6) this is something I'd love for anyone to answer: if it's so beyond-the-pale for this article to state that O'Leary has been compared to Trump, why do you favor the old, so-called consensus text, which says the same thing? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Korny, either you have not fully read the articles you are citing, or you have read them and are feigning ignorance. Many of the articles you have cited note that Trump is generally seen as unpolular in Canada. They also note that this comparison is completely inaccurate (as they have very different political views), and harmful to O'Leary. I suppose if you google search "Trump O'Leary", you find some comparison articles, however, if you just do an O'Leary search, most articles do not include any references to Trump. Most articles are actually focused on comparisons between O'Leary and Maxime Bernier, Justin Trudeau, Kathleen Wynne, or Rachel Notley. Bellpepper2 (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

That's simply not true - I have indeed done straight news searches on O'Leary and his campaign, and Trump comparisons show up almost all the time - whereas comparisons with those other politicians happen rarely or never. I urge you to do such a search. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you're just looking at U.S. sources. There have been plenty of articles about O'Leary and other Canadian politicians. Maxine Bernier, Kellie Leitch, and Kevin O'Leary are the frontrunners right now. To say that these three have never been compared would be like saying that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton never had their views compared. What makes you think Canadians can't be compared to other Canadians? O'Leary has also been compared to Peter MacKay, Stephen Harper, Brian Mulroney, Mike Harris, and even Don Cherry (not a politician). Most articles about O'Leary don't mention Trump. For instance, there are articles about O'Leary's position on marijuana legalization and how it might affect the TMX. There are articles about his rants against Trudeau, Notley, and Wynne. Not to mention all of the business or TV articles that have nothing to do with politics.

Like I said, comparisons have always been made at every election. However, these comparisons are never worth mentioning on encyclopedia articles. Bellpepper2 (talk) 07:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I guess you haven't done the web search, then. Not only is O'Leary very often compared to Trump, but there are whole articles about how often he gets compared to Trump. As to your view that Wikipedia shouldn't mention comparisons: you might be on your own with that one, but if you feel strongly about it, I suggest you take it up at the Berlusconi article - not to mention with some of the recent editors here, who keep reverting back to text that mentions that same comparison. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I just restored back to the version that lists the commonly-cited similarities between them. If I can paraphrase people's objections to including this text, they seem to boil down to two things: O'Leary is nothing like Trump, and these comparisons will hurt O'Leary, given how deeply Trump is disliked in Canada. Now, these may both be true (though personally, I disagree with both of them), but they're both irrelevant to the question of whether or not this text should be included in Wikipedia. The fact is that just about everyone who has reported on O'Leary's campaign - from left-wing commentators to right-wing commentators to more-or-less center sources like the CBC and CNN - have noted these similarities, whether to agree with them or just to comment on how often they have been made. So to argue that they shouldn't be included on Wikipedia is to say that your editorial judgment is superior to that of all these mainstream, notable news organizations. It seems to me like a clear case of putting one's personal biases over general Wikipedia guidelines of relevance and notability. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Bell, I don't think removing the entire section is the solution. It's the way Korny's version reads which is problematic.

Korny, you have made two beneficial points in my opinion. 1) Until we list other politicians who have been compared to O'Leary on the article, the opening sentence (about being compared to other politicians) is a bit of a non sequitur. Although, O'Leary has in fact been compared to many other politicians, this line can temporarily be removed until content about some of the others is added. 2) It would make sense to list why these comparisons have been made. Although, if we can't agree on the wording, it might be best to remove this controversial section until we do.

However, there are many specific problems with your edit which you have refused to address. You are also creating a straw man argument in order to misrepresent the positions of others and to avoid addressing the real problems with your proposed contributions. There are three problems with your edits: grammar, tone, and content.

GRAMMAR: This should not even be debatable. Your massive run on sentence is not grammatically correct. Ontario noted that this sentence was over 50 words in length! The fact that you refused to acknowledge this error is an indicator that you are unlikely to make an attempt to amend other more controversial errors.

TONE: weasel words like "even" and "frequently" are unacceptable. Compare the following two sentences: "Mom agrees with me." and "Even mom agrees with me." notice how the adverb "even" changes the tone of the sentence? You are using this word to alter the tone of the article, which is part of why your version reads like an opinion piece.

CONTENT: It is irrelevant to list meaningless similarities, regardless of whether or not they have been found in one or two sources. For instance, both O'Leary and Trump wear suits, have children, and have been in a limo. Who cares? I believe you are artificially inflating the list of comparable qualities as a form of card stacking. This is a propaganda technique where you list more points on one side of an argument than on the other as a means of tilting the scale to your advantage. Compare the following two sentences, "Oranges are juicy, orange, nutritious, delicious, colourful, high in vitamin C, round, easy to eat and peel, and most of all affordable", "apples are cheap". Notice how the list of qualities about oranges has been artificially inflated in order to make it appear more appealing? The two areas that are most worth mentioning are their experiences in business and television. All the other stuff is just slapped on there to make the list longer. This also contributes to why your version reads like an opinion piece.

Ontario, I have reverted part of Korny's contributions, but retained other aspects. I understand that Korny is basically stonewalling by refusing to trim out the parts of his edit that do not have consensus. If his edit have 8 components which are disagreeable, and 2 which are agreeable, overall his edits do not have consensus. This is why I believe you are fully justified by simply reverting until he clues in and finally fixes it. Really, the best approach would be for Korny to simply add one sentence at a time so we can reach a consensus that way. The problem is, I believe Korny's goal is to achieve 100% of what he wanted, and is willing to settle for nothing less regardless of whether consensus is reached or not. However, in an attempt to resolve this edit war, I have taken it upon myself to trim out the opinionated content, and retain what I believe is acceptable. Please feel free to edit or comment as to whether or not you agree with this portion of what I have tweaked/re-added. MohammedMohammed (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

MohammedMohammed - thank you for responding. My responses: for the grammar thing, I've said before that I don't think there's any point discussing the grammar, since grammar can easily be changed once the content has been agreed on. But if you want to talk about it: I still don't think it's a run-on sentence. Thanks for linking to the run-on sentence article, which clarifies that whether or not a sentence is run-on is determined by its punctuation, not by its length; as the article notes, a run-on sentence can be as short as four words. So you'll have to better than just stating the number of words in the sentence if you want to show that it's run-on.

The rest of my responses are all more or less things that I've said before, but I'm happy to say them again. No, the word "even" is not there to "alter the tone" of the sentence, it's to underscore - and the thing being underscored is that O'Leary has been compared in a lot of ways to Trump. Not, I should note, that they are actually similar in a lot of ways, but that they have been compared in a lot of ways.

You're right that if these similarities are meaningless, then there's no point listing them. Now, how do we determine whether these similarities are meaningful or not? We could just go by your opinion, of course, and leave it at that. (You've even helpfully put the phrase "superficial similarities" into the article, lest some reader accidentally come to a different conclusion.) But the fact is that a very large number of articles have been written that mention these similarities - not just TV and business, but the others as well - which means that a lot of respected, notable sources apparently disagree you about whether the similarities are meaningful, or at least meaningful enough to be mentioned. Do you think your opinion on this matters more than the opinions of CNN, the CBC, the Globe and Mail, etc.? Korny O'Near (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello NearKorny. I was very specific in identifying why your large sentence qualifies as a run on sentence. I specifically gave the example of a run on sentence about bears on February 11th. It's not just the length that makes your sentence a "run on sentence", it's that your have so many different clauses (a whomping 5 of them!) that you halfhazardlly combine with a plethora of commas. In what universe can you combine 5 clauses (a clause includes a subject, a verb, and a predicate) into one monster sentence? More problematic is the fact that this monster sentence violate's WP's No Original Research policy. In this sentence, you are synthesizing information found in different sources (or not found in any source). Since there is no one source which includes everything on your list, this qualifies are synthesis, which is not allowed.

More importantly, you do not have consensus. Stop trying to shove in your content against consensus. In your latest edit, you did not even try to change or omit anything. You simply just shoved it all back in.

I'm glad you have admitted that you added the word "even" to add emphasis and underscore your opinion. This is precisely why this term can't be included.

Also, you asked Mohammed Mohammed "Do you think your opinion matters more than the opinions of CNN?" You have claimed that the terms "superficial" and "very different" are invented by Mohammed and are not supported by the sources. However, these are the terms used by CNN. Mohammed even specifically writes, "As noted by Joshua Berliner of CNN...". Therefore, this edit is in accordance with WP's neutral point of view policy.

Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

---

For the record, I favor Korny's version. I have not read all of the enormous wall of text above, but it seems apparent to me that Korny's version captures the broad range and sweep of the sources. Neutrality^talk 21:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality - thanks for weighing in. Ontario Teacher - even if Joshua Berlinger had used these phrases (which he doesn't - read it for yourself; "very different" is a quote from a source, and "superficial" is strictly MohammedMohammed's word), the article would need to make clear that these are opinions, not fact. "As noted by" is not a good enough way to express that; it would need to be something like "In the opinion of". Still, as Neutrality has noted, the wording I'm trying to keep is intended as a summary (not a synthesis) of the collective views of many commentators, not just one. I'd like to think it does that; I'd be curious if you could find a single source that disagrees with any of what's written there now, i.e. some opinion piece that states that O'Leary is not brash or that Trump is not rich - or even that these comparisons are not worth mentioning in the first place. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I have temporarily reverted back to the real status quo ante, prior to Korny's large proposed addition. I was trying to offer a compromise, as my latest edit included much of what Korny wanted, yet omitted the more controversial content and biased tone. We can start from scratch here and propose one sentence at a time, and go from there.

Secondly, just to be clear, Joshua Berlinger states: "O'Leary and Trump are speaking to very different audiences and have very different policies", and "The similarities between Trump and O'Leary, who is now the chairman of O'Shares Exchange Traded Funds, are undeniable on the surface. So, these are not my word's at all, but exactly what Joshua Berlinger of CNN states. I have not invented anything.

Thirdly, as Ontario mentioned, synthesis is not permissible. This counts as original research. None of the sources list all of the things Korny mentioned. In fact, many of the sources outright disagree with these assertions:

A) Specifically, the bit about "brash outspoken style" is problematic. The TV character O'Leary plays on TV is not the same as O'Leary in real life. As notes by Brett Wilson, "Because the television persona for many people is first of all edited, and it's exaggerated. The thought that Kevin has no heart — Kevin was the only dragon who stepped up to help me on one of the donations that I made. Kevin's was the first cheque I asked for when we supported Breast Friends." http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/brett-wilson-kevin-o-leary-1.3944082 Maureen Henderson of Forbes Magazine states: "It’s clear that O’Leary knows that his persona, however much it hews to or deviates from who he is off-screen, is good for business and you can see him frequently winking at this understanding." Brent Bambury from the CBC writes Stuart Coxe, executive producer of Dragon's Den, told O'Leary "You've got to work on being more evil. It's better that way.". http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-319-becoming-kevin-o-leary-saving-shaker-music-google-renewables-marrying-robots-and-more-1.3921088/meet-the-man-who-helped-kevin-o-leary-shape-his-powerful-personal-brand-1.3921093 Robyn Urback of the CBC states, "But Donald Trump truly is an unhinged, vendetta-driven, thrice-married former beauty pageant mogul with a weird fixation with conspiracy theories. O'Leary doesn't even try to play that on TV." http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/o-leary-canadian-trump-1.3941549 In short, Korny is trying to conflate the character O'Leary played on TV with the real life Donald Trump.

B) Trump and O'Leary have very different platforms. Korny is conflating these two platforms by the unsourced assertion that "both platforms are focused on lowering taxes and regulations". Which taxes and regulations are we referring to? This phrase is very vague. In reality, Trump and O'Leary have very different policies both socially and economically. O'Leary is often seen as having liberal views "Social conservatives won't care much for his stances on euthanasia, marijuana, gay marriage and so forth, nor will hawks within the party welcome his pacifist approach to foreign affairs and apathy toward immigration reform." (Urback CBC). So the part about both running on platforms of tax cuts and deregulation misleads the reader into believing their platforms are similar, when in fact they are quite polar opposite (as noted by the sources).

C) The sentence about TV catchphrases is trivial, and is only included in one source. It is not noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia article.

D) The sentence about "smart as a fox" lacks context. Which policy is O'Leary allegedly praising Trump about? It is also misleading to paint O'Leary as a Trump supporter as he has harshly criticized Trump many times, in particular on immigration. We have agreed on this already.

Lastly, in addition to content, the problems of grammar (run-on-sentence) and tone (weasel words like "even", and "frequently") have not been rectified. MohammedMohammed (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

MohammedMohammed - I guess the Joshua Berlinger thing is now irrelevant, since you took it out. So: 1) a list is not synthesis - see SYNTH is not mere juxtaposition (and that whole page, for that matter); 2) I'm well aware that TV O'Leary is different from real life O'Leary - I'm actuallly the one who added that bit that to the article - but it's not relevant to this. "Brash" can refer to a whole spectrum of behavior, and multiple sources have indeed called both of these men brash, and compared them in that way. Which doesn't mean that they're the same - as I've said before, you seem to be reading a lot more into the text that what's there; 3) the "taxes and regulations" thing is a strange objection - they've both said numerous times that they want to lower taxes and regulations in general, and this too has been compared between them, and yes, this too is sourced; 4) it's also strange that you bring up O'Leary's socially liberal views, since my text mentions those explicitly; 5) the TV catchphrases thing is on less firm ground, it's true - though personally, I find this a fascinating confluence/coincidence; 6) there's no context needed for "smart as a fox" - he was praising Trump's intelligence; 7) I'd love for you to find a single case of O'Leary ever having criticized Trump - I don't believe he ever has, other than just stating that he and Trump have different policies on immigration and trade; 8) I still don't think it's a run-on sentence (check the definition again), though, as I've said before, grammar is easy to change once the content has been agreed on; 9) "even" is not a weasel word; 10) "frequently" in this case has been sourced. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I prefer Mohammed's version. Although if neither version has consensus yet, we have to stick with the status quo in the meantime. Please stop edit warring in either version. Both of you should drop the parts which lack consensus. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we please stop with the "consensus" and "status quo" stuff? There's apparently only one sentence that has complete consensus - the O'Leary quote about walls - and it doesn't make sense on its own. As for "status quo" - I just looked it up, and it looks like the current "status quo" wording was put in place on January 25 - which means that it existed for only four days before I tried to modify it for the first time. It represents nothing more than one person's short-lived edit. Korny O'Near (talk) 20:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Korny in the sense that the statement O'Leary made about "walls" doesn't make sense on its own. It would make more sense to finish off the statement with some thing like ..."in reference to Trump's Executive Order to build a wall along the Mexico–United States border." However, the statements comparing O'Leary's "you're dead to me" and Trump's "you're fired", for example, are not needed at all. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Korny, The status quo policy absolutely applies here. While this article has been altered over the years, it is usually through one editor adding a sentence or two. It is extremely rare for an editor to add 2400 characters of text unilaterally. As it is your contributions to the article which are in dispute, we must revert prior to this massive addition and work forwards slowly, piece by piece, adding only that which has achieved consensus. As Ontario told you on February 17th, the Wikipedia:Consensus policy states: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.".

The CNN article is certainly not irrelevant. I have accurately represented exactly what Joshua Berlinger wrote in my edit as I posted earlier. The CNN article provides much needed context to the Trump section.

Vaseline, I agree with both points you made. Context would be beneficial with regards to O'Leary's "wall" statement. I agree that the TV catch phrase is absolutely not needed at all. I will therefore, add just the part you suggested for now. MohammedMohammed (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

MohammedMohammed - "It is extremely rare for an editor to add 2400 characters of text unilaterally" - you're... new to Wikipedia editing, I guess? Anyway, that "executive order" wording is an odd thing to add, given that O'Leary started talking about walls in January 2016, a year before any executive orders were made. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I see that this has been changed, although the new text is not ideal either: it says that O'Leary's statement was made "in criticism" of Trump, but really it's barely criticism - he's just stating that his own vision for Canada differs from Trump's vision for the U.S. By the way, I think it's strange to have these halfhearted attempts to improve the text when the wording I came up with for this exact thing is (in my opinion) more accurate and more legible. Korny O'Near (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Changed to reference, which is what I initially wrote above. By the way, your wording from what I saw previously, did not provide mention of what the "wall" is referencing in his statement. Some of the additions you made were unnecessary ones like their catchphrases. However, I wouldn't be opposed to seeing the various traits they've been compared to, as you wrote, in order to provide some context of what comparisons. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

That's true, my version of the wording didn't mention Trump's wall proposal, although I still think it flowed a little better. I just put in my attempt at compromise wording, which mentions the wall and leaves out the catchphrases. (I still think the similarity of their catchphrases is fascinating and noteworthy, especially if O'Leary were by chance to become Prime Minister, but it's true that only one reliable source, Vanity Fair, has seen fit to mention it so far.) I hope this is a step in the right direction. Korny O'Near (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

NearKorny, there were a lot more components to your edit which lack consensus, other than just that one tabloid article and you know it! Why don't you try a smaller edit and focus only on the areas which have consensus? Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Vanity Fair is a tabloid now? Okay, then. I thought we'd established that there's no consensus to any of this - the version you keep reverting to is a random edit made a month ago by an IP user that lasted all of four days before getting modified. Korny O'Near (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually think Korny's current addition is now suitable. Maybe using "smart as a fox" isn't necessary, but I think it's a fair addition overall. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:27, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Vanity Fair has always been a tabloid magazine. It's about celebrity gossip. The title of the magazine is "Vanity Fair" for goodness sakes! What did you think it was about?

What we actually agreed on is that since your massive opinionated edit is the one which is in dispute, without consensus the content has to be left out. You are more likely to reach consensus if you just leave the controversial content out, and make smaller edits adding only what other editors have agree on. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Vaseline,

I agree that the "Smart as a Fox" line is problematic. It has been thrown in there without any context. Which of Trump's policies is O'Leary referring to? Or is he referring to Trump's acting or business career? In reality, O'Leary has actually criticized Trump in on many policies, such as immigration.

There are a few other problems with what Korny is trying to add to the article.

1) The weasel word "frequently" is a matter of opinion. Other editors might write "often" or "sometimes". It's better to leave this word out.

2) "brash outspoken style" unfairly conflated O'Leary's TV character's zingers with Trump's highly controversial tweets and racially insensitive comments.

3) "on a platform that includes "lowering taxes and regulations" is unsourced. It is also an oversimplification that provides no context. Which taxes and regulations are we discussing? Canada and the United States have very different economies. This line also cherry picks a small aspect of their political platforms, which makes it questionable. This is certainly not the main reason Trump and O'Leary have been compared.

Ontario, you could try an adaptive edit, and retain some of Korny's content with your reversions. It seems Korny is finally willing to budge slightly now that more editors are weighing in. MohammedMohammed (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mohammed, fair points. There are some filler words that don't belong as you've said. However, I don't think Ontario Teacher needs to keep reverting the whole thing every time. Maybe change some words around and remove any phrases that aren't properly sourced, to start. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ontario Teacher - I encourage you to read the article tabloid journalism. This is great, I feel like there's a lot of education happening here. MohammedMohammed - I literally responded to all those points before, and now you're just repeating them, ignoring the rebuttals I made. I would still love to see a single example of O'Leary criticizing Trump. The Canadian and American economies may be very different, but O'Leary has promised "to match Trump's corporate tax rates and his regulatory moves" (direct quote), so clearly he sees some similarities. Finally, it's nice that you're praising my willingness to "budge slightly", but let me note that I've been making changes to my wording the whole time, in the interests of compromise, while everyone on the other side just mindlessly reverts back to the so-called "consensus version". Korny O'Near (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Vaseline and Mohammed, I think we are all in agreement that NearKorny's "smart as a fox" statement is not necessary.

Mohammed, I agree with every point you listed. I would add that O'Leary has been compared to many other politicians, such as Ralph Nader.

I think your 'budged slightly' was far too generous, as NearKorny is basically just reinserting the exact same thing despite numerous objections. The fact of the matter is, in the case of an edit war, the status quo stands unless consensus has been reached to change the article. This is the foundation of Wikipedia. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ontario Teacher - these "numerous objections" are all coming from the same two or three people, so let's not get carried away with how numerous they are. But I was curious about the Ralph Nader comparison, so I looked it up - and I assume this is what you're referring to: "O’Leary is more like Ralph Nader than Trump". To quote from the column: "Though his brashness and outsider credentials have earned the obvious comparison to President Donald Trump, O’Leary has greater similarities to a far more lacklustre American presidential candidate—Ralph Nader." Even when O'Leary is being compared to someone else, Trump is never far away. And note that word "brashness" in there - perhaps you and MohammedMohammed can write up a stern letter to the editor at the Toronto Sun.

But enough silliness. It appears that we've reached an impasse, and that the next logical step should be a request for comment. Any objections? Korny O'Near (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Korny,

You have claimed that none of the sources that compare O'Leary to Trump mention LGBT or euthanasia. This is incorrect. The CBC article states, "Social conservatives won't care much for his (O'Leary's) stances on euthanasia, marijuana, gay marriage and so forth, nor will hawks within the party welcome his pacifist approach to foreign affairs and apathy toward immigration reform." http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/o-leary-canadian-trump-1.3941549 MohammedMohammed^محمد 02:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw that, but it's not a comparison between O'Leary and Trump. (Trump has also been described as less-than-conservative, for what it's worth.) Korny O'Near (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

There are many other articles that mention these differences from different ends of the political spectrum. Jonathan Van Maren of BridgeHead writes, "He (O'Leary) told CTV that he was a “feminist” who supports LGBT rights, euthanasia, and Canada’s current no-holds-barred, legal-throughout-all-nine-months abortion free-for-all. In fact, at the leadership debate in Montreal this week, O’Leary decisively declared war on the Conservative Party’s so-con wing and announced that it was time to move on from those voters who still cared about such trivialities as the family and the fate of children in the womb: “LBGTQI: done; marijuana: done; reproductive rights: 100 percent. Get used to it. That is the definition of the Conservative Party going forward...And those social conservatives who look at Trump’s overtures to the American pro-life movement and convince themselves that O’Leary might be alright need to pull their heads out of the sand. Trump spent a great deal of time trying to convince so-cons he was on their team, and appointed a horde of so-cons to various prominent positions to follow through. O’Leary is promising quite the opposite, and there is not a single good reason to disbelieve him.” https://thebridgehead.ca/2017/02/14/kevin-oleary-is-the-worst/ Nicholas of the Huffington Post writes, "He (O'Leary) is against policies like border walls and the idea that Canada may need to be made "great again." Of the latter principle, O'Leary says that Canada is already great, and that he is in favour of things like gay marriage." http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/nicholas-ashmore/kevin-oleary-leadership-race_b_13635730.html

Long story short, whether social conservatism is a good or a bad thing is a matter of personal political opinion. However the facts are: Trump is socially conservative whereas O'Leary is not, on many issues including euthanasia and LGBT issues. MohammedMohammed^محمد 03:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 2

Those may be "the facts", but you haven't found anything to back up the statement that O'Leary and Trump differ on euthanasia or LGBT issues. We're in the odd situation now where you want to replace my well-cited facts with your totally uncited facts, just because you personally agree with the latter and not the former. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

NearKorny, there are only two sources which you have used in your sentence about policy differences between Trump and O'Leary. The Forbes Magazine article is about personality differences, and only mentions immigration in terms of policy. This source should be moved to a different sentence in the article, which shows differences in personality and immigration. As it says nothing to support either of your lists of "other issues", it doesn't count for this sentence. The CBC article actually does include same-sex marriage and euthanasia in its list of differences.

Additionally, Mohammed has just provided two more sources which yet again mention same-sex marriage/euthanasia. So, that's three sources to your zero on the topic of same-sex marriage/euthanasia. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If we can't even agree on basic stuff like this, no wonder we can't get anywhere. Let me say this again: as far as I know, no one in the press has ever compared O'Leary and Trump's views on euthanasia and gay rights. Certainly no one in the cited articles has. (I'm guessing that's in part because the two men's views are roughly the same, but that's another story.) Saying that O'Leary has been contrasted with social conservatives, and Trump is a social conservative, QED, is synthesis, not to mention silly. Can we just agree on this one thing and move on? Korny O'Near (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Donald Trump is a supporter of LGBT issues such as same-sex marriage and trans-people's washroom access? Or are you suggesting that O'Leary is opposed to these issues? The two men's views couldn't possibly be more different. I'm not sure where you're getting your views from on this one.

Here's another quote for you, "Unlike Trump, however, he (O'Leary) shies away from social issues that have long been settled by the standards of Canadian society, law and policy, including abortion, marijuana use and same-sex marriage." http://suffragio.org/2017/02/07/oleary-businessman-and-shark-tank-star-wants-to-be-canadas-trump/

In any event, please quote either of your sources which supports your sentence about policy differences. There doesn't seem to be any correlation between the sources you posted, and the text you wrote. MohammedMohammed^محمد 15:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I also added another source which specifically uses the terms "notoriety" and "superficial". MohammedMohammed^محمد 17:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that O'Leary and Trump have roughly the same views on gay marriage and transgender bathrooms. That's irrelevant, though - the burden is on you, if you want to add something about their policy differences, to find a citation for it. That quote doesn't count, unfortunately - regardless of whether or not it actually supports your point, "Suffragio" appears to be nothing more than one person's (very slick-looking) blog. As to "notoriety", I couldn't find it in the article you mentioned. Korny O'Near (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify your position. Are you saying that both Trump and O'Leary support gay marriage and transgender bathrooms, or are you saying that they both oppose gay marriage and transgender bathrooms?

In any event, the onus is actually on you to prove your list of differences, as neither of your citations support your list. So far, you have not provided a quote to support your proposed addition to the article.

As for notoriety, here are 4 more: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/david-martin/kevin-oleary-donald-trump_b_14272122.html http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/7073247-the-spectator-s-view-kevin-o-leary-isn-t-like-trump-honest-/ http://www.lifezette.com/popzette/kevin-shark-tank-oleary-to-enter-politics/ http://blackburnnews.com/london/london-news/2017/03/07/oleary-harsh-words-trudeau/. Notoriety just means name recognition. I'm not sure why this is controversial to you. MohammedMohammed^محمد 01:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that both Trump and O'Leary support gay marriage and transgender bathroom rights, though O'Leary more actively and Trump more passively. If you want to talk about the list I put together, I'm happy to talk about it, but I'd like to at least first establish that your current list is flawed. For "notoriety", it has a distinct negative connotation. I think it's fine to use the word when talking about their TV careers - brash personas and all that - but not when talking about their business careers, since it implies that there was something shady about their business dealings. And in fact, all the sources you found use the word strictly in talking about their TV careers. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

We can use the term "name recognition" if you prefer. I will make this change. As for LGBT issues, Donald Trump campaigned against same-sex marriage and transgendered bathroom access. So, I'm not sure where you're getting this view from. MohammedMohammed^محمد 03:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, but it's irrelevant - either there's a reliable source that says their views on these issues are different, or there isn't. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I mostly restored my version of the text, but with some changes: I moved the "brash, outspoken" stuff to a separate sentence, thus shortening the previous sentence (I still don't think it was run-on, but it was a bit unwieldy), clarified that "brash" is generally just used to describe O'Leary's TV persona, and kept some of the previous version's wording. I think this version is an improvement because it's fully cited (or at least, more fully cited), it doesn't cite personal blogs (like "Suffragio"), and it doesn't bother with the "has been compared to politicians such as Donald Trump" thing - I think we all know that, for better or for worse, Trump is the one he gets compared to all the time. I can't say I'm completely optimistic at this point, but I do hope that this modification will help move the discussion forward. Korny O'Near (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

To MohammedMohammed: please do not remove sourced content, as you did with this edit. I am not clear why you removed this content, which included articles about O'Leary in CTV News, Globe and Mail, and the National Post. You also restored content that was sourced to Twitter. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello FuriouslySerene,

The new content you are referring to, written by Korny, has never been accepted into the article. In fact, it has been reverted many times, by many different editors for the past two months, due to many issues. You can read about them in the giant wall of text above. Yes, there are sources, however these sources have been grossly misrepresented. For instance, there is a comment about lowering regulations followed by two sources (iPolitics and The Spectator). However, neither of these sources use the term regulations at all! We have made suggestions to Korny (like removing the "smart as a fox" sentence as it lack context and the only source is a tabloid). However this editor has refused to change his edit based on feedback on the talk page, and is instead edit warring in the entire large paragraph virtually unchanged. "Brash outspoken style" is an opinion, not a fact. Many of the articles, such as this one in Forbes Magazine, (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2017/01/20/why-shark-tanks-kevin-oleary-is-not-the-next-donald-trump/#6bc0d2eb4637) argue that their styles are very different. We have also asked Korny to only add the changes which have consensus, and leave out the controversial and opinionated content. Please comment on some of the specifics above. MohammedMohammed^محمد 01:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Vaseline, Mohammed and I asked you to stop adding the "smart as a fox" line. The only source is a tabloid magazine (certainly not a reliable source). This sentence lacks context as it's unclear which policy O'Leary is allegedly praising Trump about. It is unbalanced, as O'Leary has viciously criticized Trump on many issues, such as immigration. I'm not sure how you can keep trying to add this line and call it a compromise. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop with the patronizing "we asked you to do" stuff. There are a lot of editors on both sides of this dispute. And if you want something removed, you can remove it yourself. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

In regards to the LGBT topic. I have a quote here, "O'Leary says he considers himself a feminist who supports LGBT rights, access to abortion and the legalization of marijuana, each of which differs from Trump's stated positions." by WUSA Channel 9, a subsidiary of CBS news. I replaced the BridgeHead source with this one. BridgeHead, by the way, is a talk radio show, not a blog. There are many talk radio shows (like NewsTalk 1010) which are valid sources. MohammedMohammed^محمد 17:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

On a technical note, could you please re-add the section breaks that you just took out? It's cumbersome to edit a section that's this big. Anyway, yes, you did find a reliable source saying that O'Leary and Trump have opposite views on gay rights, so it can stay in - I personally disagree with this, but as I've said before, my opinion on this is irrelevant. Now if you can remove the other blog citation, the reference to euthanasia, and the word "superficial", your version of the text will be in much better shape.

Ontario Teacher - Vanity Fair is not a tabloid, and is a reliable source. I don't know how much clearer it can be that. I urge you to read both of those articles; I'm guessing you haven't read either one. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Korny, like I said, BridgeHead is not a blog. It is Talk radio. According to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, "Audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources.". However, considering there area plenty of sources backing up this information, I don't see a large problem with switching them. Suffragio was never inserted into the article. I only used it on the talk page. "Euthanasia" is mentioned in the CBC article. The term "superficial" is used by both CTV and CNN, whereas "lowering regulations" (in your version) is nowhere to be seen in any of the sources! "Brash outspoken style" is an opinion, not a fact. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states "Avoid Stating Opinions as Facts", and "Avoid Stating Seriously Contested Assertions as Facts". The Forbes Magazine and CBC articles describe their styles as very different (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2017/01/20/why-shark-tanks-kevin-oleary-is-not-the-next-donald-trump/#6bc0d2eb4637 http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/o-leary-canadian-trump-1.3941549). MohammedMohammed^محمد 21:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Oops, never mind on the blog thing - for some reason, I was sure that "Suffragio" was being cited. "Superficial" remains an opinion; there are a bunch of other sources (many cited in the article) that don't consider the differences superficial. This (cited) Inc article notes that O'Leary plans on "cutting regulations", and that he wants "to match Trump's corporate tax rates and his regulatory moves." In other words, not only does O'Leary want to cut regulations just like Trump, but he wants to do it deliberately in order to mirror Trump. (Which, by the way, seems like pretty good evidence that the similarities between them are more than superficial.) As for "brash", thanks for finding those citations - they back up what I actually originally wanted the sentence to say, which is that, though both have a reputation for brashness/bluntness, the general view is that with Trump it's who he is and with O'Leary it's more an act for the cameras. I'll try to rewrite the sentence. Finally, please do add those section breaks back in, if possible. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Why are you trying to remove the most important part of the O'Leary quote? The whole point of this quote is that O'Leary is using his middle-eastern heritage, and the fact that Trump wants to ban immigration from several middle-eastern countries, as a major differentiating factor.

"Brash" remains an opinion. As many of the sources note, even O'Leary's TV character does not say some of the comments about identity politics that Trump says. So, I don't think it makes sense even to equate O'Leary's TV character, who tells people to light their inventions on fire because they can't make money, and Trump who has said many questionable things about people of middle-eastern descent.

Superficial is a fact, and it comes directly from the sources. Even with regards to their biographies, O'Leary grew up with a struggling Lebanese single mother (his birth father passed away), while Trump grew up the son of a multimillionaire. You can't just cherry pick one or two similarities in biographies, which ignoring all differences.

There is a large difference between corporate taxes, and taxes in general. It is still unclear which regulations you are referring to. Regardless, this is not one of the main reason for comparison.

"Smart as a fox" lack context as it is unclear which policy O'Leary is referring to here. O'Leary has actually criticized Trump quite harshly on a number of issues. Mack Lamoureux of Vice (magazine) states (pardon the language used by the author) "O'Leary has actively shit on the immigration views espoused by Trump and leadership opponent Kellie Leitch." https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/everything-you-need-to-know-about-conservative-frontrunner-kevin-oleary We could replace this with a different O'Leary quote, "I am certainly not Donald Trump in policy – foreign policy or domestic or social. We are different people." as it is more relevant to a comparison statement. However, there already is a better O'Leary quote, so I don't think we need this either.

I don't think it makes sense to add arbitrary section brakes. If anything, maybe archive the start of the conversation (I'm not sure how to do that).

MohammedMohammed^محمد 03:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I re-added the section breaks. These are useful and encouraged; see WP:TALKNEW. You're right that the Lebanese-Irish ancestry is an important part of O'Leary's "wall" quotes; I took it out to try to minimize the amount of text, but I'll try to add it back in. You seem unclear on difference between facts and opinions - both "superficial" and "brash" are opinions; it looks like the issue is just that you agree with the first and disagree with the second. There is a lot more commentary, though that seems to agree with "brash" - even the people who ultimately think it's an act on O'Leary's part still agree that he acts that way. As for "superficial" - for what it's worth, I don't think you've found a single source that has used that exact word to describe their differences. For taxes and regulations, I think you're really wiki-lawyering here. This is a paragraph on comparisons that have been made between two politicians, not an essay on tax policy. Both politicians have promised to reduce taxes and regulations in general, and O'Leary has explicitly stated that he wants to match Trump on that front. I don't think any more detail is needed to show that they have campaigned on a similar approach to taxes and regulations. That Vice quote is just hyperbole on one journalist's part - since he doesn't offer any new quotes, I have to assume that he's just talking about that same "I don't build walls" refrain from O'Leary, which is hardly "shitting" on Trump's policies, let alone on the man personally. O'Leary is given a chance to personally attack Trump in just about every interview, but he never does - he usually just notes their differences on immigration; and even there, he's really just talking about what makes sense for Canada, not for the US. And in a few cases, he has personally praised Trump - I think that "smart as a fox" quote is useful because it illustrates that there's no apparent animosity between the two men. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to replace the O'Leary quote with an overly wordy explanation. Simply saying "I don't build walls" lacks context, and makes no sense without the rest of the quote (even with an explanation, it is still very confusing as a truncated quote). Just simply let the quote speak for itself.

"Smart as a fox" is unnecessary, adds nothing of encyclopedic value to the article, lacks context, and definitely lacks consensus. There has been no editor who supported adding this statement specifically, whereas there have been many who oppose it.

"Brash" remains an opinion, not a fact. Saying "other commentators" counts as an unattributed "passive voice", which is against WP policy. Most importantly, calling someone "brash" violates WP's Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy as this could be viewed as libel.

Taxes and regulations are very very complicated. Every politician lowers taxes in some areas, who raising them in others. For instance, Justin Trudeau lowered income taxes for income earners of less than 200k per year, while increasing them on higher income earners, and proposing a carbon tax. Does this mean taxes are higher or lower? The same is true for regulations. You still have not specified which regulations you are talking about.

Superficial is actually a fact. Here are plenty more sources which state their similarities are superficial and/or on the surface (which is a synonym for superficial). "the similarities between the two men are superficial." http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/kevin-o-leary-enters-conservative-leadership-race-i-m-in-1.3245919 "the comparisons taking place are superficial" http://www.themanitoban.com/2017/02/canada-prepare-prime-minister-kevin-oleary/30649/ "O’Leary as “Canada’s Donald Trump,” which is superficial and deeply absurd" https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/02/05/kevin-olearys-debate-debut-was-less-than-stellar-dimanno.html "He does on the surface resemble Trump" http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/kevin-oleary-doesnt-seem-to-actually-be-a-trumpist-he-just-plays-one-on-tv "The similarities between Trump and O'Leary, who is now the chairman of O'Shares Exchange Traded Funds, are undeniable on the surface" http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/canada-kevin-oleary-conservatives/ MohammedMohammed^محمد 23:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I know "brash" is an opinion - in my wording, it's clearly stated as the opinion of some commentators; so it's valid, and there's no BLP violation. (By the way, "commentators say" is not the passive voice.) "Superficial" is similarly an opinion - I stand corrected that no one has used that exact word, but the sources you found are all opinion pieces; except for the CTV News article, where "superficial" is a paraphrase of O'Leary's own opinion. It's all opinion. For taxes and regulations - the wording doesn't even say that they'll lower them, just that they've both campaigned on a platform of lowering them, which is undeniably true. I really don't know why you're nitpicking this. And by the way, how come you don't apply the same level of scrutiny to the phrase "LGBT rights", which similarly can mean any number of different things? But no, one reliable source says that the two differ on undefined "LGBT rights" and presto, that's enough to stick that phrase in this article. On that note, have you found a source for the two having opposite views on euthanasia yet? Korny O'Near (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

And another comment on your version of the text: given that O'Leary started giving his "I don't build walls" quotes in January 2016, surely he couldn't have been referring to Trump's Executive Order 13769, which came out in 2017. Korny O'Near (talk)

Yeah, I agree in that, "as well as Executive Order 13769; a temporary immigration ban on seven Middle-Eastern and North-African countries" shouldn't be there. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 15:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

As requested, I removed the Executive order reference from O'Leary's "I'm of Lebanese and Irish descent" quote. I would like to point out that Trump campaigned on this platform of immigration/travel bans much much earlier than January of 2017. O'Leary is not just referring to the border wall in this quote, but to Trump's immigration policy in general. When O'Leary says, "I wouldn't exist", he is specifically referencing the fact that he is the son of immigrants from Lebanon and Ireland.

There's no reason to replace O'Leary's response quote (which definately belongs in the article and has several scholarly sources) with the "smart as a fox" quote, which has nothing to do with the article, is unclear which policy O'Leary is allegedly praising Trump about, lacks consensus for its inclusion, ignores other instances where O'Leary has criticized Trump, and whose only source is from a celebrity gossip magazine. MohammedMohammed^محمد 20:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There's indeed no reason to replace one quote with another; for a long time, my version of the text (which you reverted numerous times) had both. I don't know why I keep having to repeat the same things, but: "smart as a fox" doesn't refer to a policy at all, Vanity Fair is not a celebrity gossip magazine, and I challenge you to find one instance when O'Leary has criticized Trump (and "I don't build walls" doesn't count). Oh, and I guess you're just going to keep not responding about "euthanasia". Korny O'Near (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have already responded about euthanasia. Like I said, the CBC article specifically mentions euthanasia.

Criticism of someone'e immigration policy absolutely counts as criticism. Here's a direct quote "As a Lebanese Irish Canadian I am disappointed with this short sighted approach. Here in Canada I am proud that our country celebrated our diversity and we have seen how much value entrepreneurs from a diverse background have created a vibrant business community. During my tenure as prime minister this will never change.” http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/justin-trudeau-finds-allies-across-political-lines-in-signalling-disapproval-of-trumps-travel-ban In this quote, O'Leary is directly criticizing Trump's executive order on immigration, not his border-wall idea.

The "smart as a fox" line has no context. You need to provide some context as it is very unclear what this sentence fragment is talking about. For example, if you wrote a sentence stating, "O'Leary has criticized Trump many times, calling him 'short-sighted'", it would be vital to explain that in this instance O'Leary is talking about Trump's executive order and immigration. It's best not to try and cherry-pick rare instances of criticism or praise, and present them without context.

Even more problematic is your "brash style" line. "Brash" means rude, arrogant, and insolent. "Brash" means to act without thinking of the consequences. You're not supposed to add harmful libel to Biographies of Living Persons. We have agreed that "brash" is an opinion. Even the few journalists who claim O'Leary and Trump share some personality characteristics don't always use negative terms. Some journalists, for instance, use the term "charismatic". https://www.pressreader.com/canada/national-post-latest-edition/20160115/281526520054637 I wonder why you chose a negative adjective. You have also asserted that some journalists think their personalities are similar, while others believe that only O'Leary's TV character is similar to Trump's real life personality. However, you have left out the fact that in the vast majority of sources, journalists have argued that neither O'Leary's TV character, nor his real life personality are similar to Trump's. "In imagining an O’Leary victory, I see nothing that has anything to do with Trump." http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/chris-selley-enough-with-the-trump-oleary-comparisons. Let's just leave the opinionated adjectives out. MohammedMohammed^محمد 21:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Opinionated adjectives like "superficial"? The difference between our texts is that, in mine, opinion statements are clearly labelled as the opinion of commentators, whereas in yours, they're presented as facts - so your text is the one with the POV problem, not mine. (And by the way, if "brash" were libelous, a lot of news sources would be in danger of a lawsuit.) Interestingly, the two opinion pieces you just cited basically bolster my point: this one says that O'Leary, like Trump, "prides himself on telling it like it is", while this one says that both are "notably braggadocious" - these are more or less synonymous phrases for "brash and outspoken". Ironically, these two make a stronger case for O'Leary and Trump having similar personalities than my wording for this article does. "Smart as a fox" has no context - it's just a statement about intelligence. Yes, you found an article that contains the words "O'Leary" and "euthanasia", but it doesn't say that O'Leary and Trump differ on the issue. Korny O'Near (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing even-handed about selectively using negative adjectives to describe two politicians you don't like. You have also not responded to the fact your description fails to include mention of the many many journalists who argue that neither O'Leary, nor his TV persona, resemble Trump's personality/style. MohammedMohammed^محمد 01:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "brash" is a negative adjective; and "outspoken" certainly isn't. Not that it matters; all that matters is accurately reflecting what commentators have said. And again, the wording doesn't say their personalities are similar; just that the two men are both known for their brash personas. Which I'm not aware of any journalist disagreeing with, let alone "many many". Korny O'Near (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

To both MohammedMohammed and Ontario Teacher BFA BEd, without commenting on the other changes you have made/want to make, you've repeatedly added the sentence "There are superficial similarities between O'Leary and Trump, which have contributed to this comparison" with no reference. This is an opinion, being stated as a fact. It needs to be attributed to someone if you want to add it. FuriouslySerene (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@FuriouslySerene:, there are 6 references which all use the term superficial. These are already in the article. There seems to be a consensus, at least in the sources, that say while Trump and O'Leary share a few incidental similarities (as far as work-experience goes), their policies are very different.

On the other hand, the negative adjective "brash" (which means rude, arrogant, and thoughtless) is only used in 1 or 2 sources. Other articles use positive adjectives/terms like charismatic, confident, or the-gift-of-gab. Most importantly, the vast majority of articles argue that O'Leary and Trump have very different styles. It would be highly inaccurate to list 'style' as a similarity when most journalists have listed style as a difference.

Ontario didn't add anything, she just reverted Korny's edit asking this user to try a shorter edit leaving out the parts which lack consensus. I've been the one trying to trim down Korny's new content to shave out the questionable parts. MohammedMohammed^محمد 01:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There's been a bizarre lack of understanding here of the difference between fact and opinion, since nearly the beginning. To take an example, "Citizen Kane is a great movie" will always be an opinion, no matter how many people say it. Similarly, "the differences between them are superficial" is an opinion, as FuriouslySerene points out, and will always remain that way even if you found 100 sources that said it. (And by the way, I don't think you actually found six sources that specifically use the word "superficial".) The correct approach is to do what I did, and say "Some commentators have said ....", or "Journalist John Smith wrote ...". Korny O'Near (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not correct. The sentence, at the very least, would need an inline source, not sources throughout the article which you claim support that view. In any event, there is nothing to support that there is a "consensus" that the comparisons are superficial. Even if there was a "consensus" that the comparisons are superficial, the opinion in that sentence needs to be ascribed to someone. I'm not sure who you think believes this - I take it you believe everyone does? FuriouslySerene (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

FuriouslySerene,

Here's what I recommend. Let's temporarily go back to the original version prior to both NearKorny and Mohammed's contributions. Each editor can propose adding one sentence at a time. If there is a clear consensus, we add it, if not we leave it out. In this way, only content which has a clear concensus will be added. I think this is the most fair and reasonable solution. What do you think? Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The "original version" you're talking about was created by an IP user, and was in place for a total of four days. (And nobody likes it.) Here's an another possibility: why don't you try to create a version of the wording that you're happy with, instead of just mindlessly reverting? It's strange that the sum total of your contributions to this article has been reverting other people's edits. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be crystal clear, writing "Commentators have said that [insert politician's name] is a brash and blunt jerk" is absolutely 100% an opinion. There is no possible reason to add negative adjectives to describe politicians you don't like on encyclopedia articles. Why not write, "Commentators have said that [insert politician's name] is a delightful and inspirational figure"? Yes you could find opinion pieces that use negative adjectives, but you could also find those which use positive adjectives. Why on earth have you decided to relentlessly insist that the article has to include these smear-job adjectives, instead of complimentary adjectives?

Equally importantly, what about all of the commentators that say O'Leary and Trump do not have similar styles? In reality, the vast majority of journalists have pointed out that their styles are completely different. In fact, I can't think of even one single article which describes their styles as similar. If we are going to mention style at all, it should be framed as a key distinguishing factor, and definitely not as a similarity. MohammedMohammed^محمد 21:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No, it's 100% a fact. You can argue that it's a fact that doesn't merit mention in this article, but that's a separate question. I think the sentence as I laid out was quite evenhanded, essentially stating what you're stating now - some people have said that their styles are similar, while others (no, not a "vast majority") have said that their styles only appear similar, but O'Leary is nicer than he lets on. And by the way, if there are notable commentators calling O'Leary inspirational or any other positive adjective, that should go in the article as well. (Not that "brash" and "outspoken" are that negative.) Korny O'Near (talk) 22:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

NearKorny, I think what Mohammed is getting at is that you're assuming that everyone agrees either their styles appear similar (but aren't), or they appear similar (and are). Completely absent are all the views that O'Leary and Trump's styles DO NOT appear to be similar. This seems to be the dominant opinion. Specifically, most of the editorial articles describe their styles as quite different. They even go as far as to say not even O'Leary's TV personality resembles Trump's style. There's nothing evenhanded about omitting the dominant viewpoint in order to push a fringe POV narrative.

In any event, you don't have consensus to add this controversial content, so perhaps just leave this part out. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

What are these editorial articles that describe their styles as quite different? Korny O'Near (talk) 02:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was unexpected - it turned out that Ontario Teacher and MohammedMohammed were the same person all along. Which does explain a lot, in retrospect - like the fact that they never seemed to disagree on anything, and that MohammedMohammed had strangely perfect English for someone claiming to be an (I think) immigrant from Iran. Anyway, this particular dispute may have ended for the time being, but - Ontario Teacher, if you're reading this, I'm sorry it ended this way, and despite our conflicts, the current text does reflect a lot of your input, and I think is the better for it. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Request for Comment on Kevin O'Leary/Donald Trump comparisons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been a dispute going on for a little over a month now, and a related edit war which led yesterday to this article getting protected. The dispute is over how much the article should say about the comparisons that Kevin O'Leary, as a candidate for the head of the Conservative Party in Canada, has gotten in the press to Donald Trump, another businessman-turned-TV star-turned-politician. If I can try to summarize in a neutral way: one side says that the similarities between the two men are trivial and superficial, that O'Leary has gotten compared to a lot of other people as well, and that highlighting these comparisons is a kind of slur on O'Leary, since it may give the impression that O'Leary's political views are closer to Trump's than they actually are. The other side, led by me, says that the sheer prevalence of comparisons to Trump in articles about O'Leary from across the political spectrum makes them noteworthy, and that there's no need to worry about false impressions if both the men's similarities and differences are noted. (There's also a side dispute about the grammar in the various proposed wordings, but I think that's less important because that's easier to change.)

You can see the current desired wording of the "fewer comparisons" side here, and of the "more comparisons" side here (4th paragraph for both). Korny O'Near (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh geez. Why can't the Canadian media be more original in their coverage. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Paraphrase the longer piece - I think the longer one is clearer, but skip quoting the entire O'Leary response and specific items by paraphrasing so it winds up a short summary of the point. Something along the lines of 'his policies differ by favoring pro-immigration, free trade, abortion and marijuana legalization' and put the O'Leary quote as a cite to being pro-immigration. Markbassett (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Use longer version with minor changes - Remove "Since first announcing his political ambitions" as that can be easily inferred. Remove "signature" from "in contrast to Trump's signature campaign promise", as it is subjective. "Open immigration policy" should be changed to something that O'Leary has actually said (could be policy or a quote), or just removed, because "open immigration policy" can mean very different things to different people and isn't sourced. Simplexity22 (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• 3rd version missing from this "Request for Comment" section - Firstly, the question is not, whether or not the Trump section should be lengthened. The question is which parts of Korny's proposed addition to the article have, and which lack consensus. I proposed a compromise option here. In this option, I trimmed down Korny's proposed changes by removing: 1) the weasel words "even" and "frequently", 2) trivial information (TV catch phrases), 3) misleading information ("smart as a fox" comment which lacks context, "brash outspoken style" which conflated O'Leary's temperament with that of Trump), and 4) Unsourced content ("on a platform that includes lowering taxes and regulations", which also lacks context). Trimming out this content also has the added benefit of fixing the 50+ word, 6 clause, run-on-sentence. This 3rd option should have been included in the above "Request for Comment" description. Long story short, we should only add the parts which have a clear consensus. MohammedMohammed^محمد 22:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Use any version except the Korny O'Near version. It just reads too much like an opinion piece IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.90.171 (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

An IP address whose one contribution to Wikipedia has been to respond to an RfC. Clearly a very... focused editor. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This IP is from Newmarket, Canada, as was one of the IP editors who was actively opposing these changes both on the talk page and the article itself earlier. This is likely the same editor. There were several IP editors who were reverting this new content a couple months ago (all from different cities). I'm a little surprised that only one of these IP editors has so far figured out how to commented in this section. Regardless, all IP editors, please sign your posts. When commenting on this section, please place your main ideas in bold.MohammedMohammed^محمد 01:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I would say either get rid of the Trump stuff completely, or leave the shorter version as is. The important stuff is already there. 1) A comparison is made. 2) A fair response is given by O'Leary. Getting rid of O'Leary's full response and replacing it with an exaggerated list of trivial, questionable, and opinionated, similarities is precisely what is wrong with the Korny version. Bellpepper2 (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• I object to NearKorny's changes -As it is currently written, the longer version is currently objectionable due to many reasons listed in the above discussion. I recommend trying a shorter edit. Propose one short change at a time. This approach would be less confrontational and might actually lead to consensus being formed. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the edits made recently by MohammedMohammed is a good compromise. It removes statements like "smart as a fox" and other crufty pieces, while keeping the concrete comparisons brief like being businessmen/TV personalities, but stating their policy views are actually quite different. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 01:56, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@MohammedMohammed: @Korny O'Near: I wouldn't be opposed to stating "brash", "outspoken" as there is probably truth in that which doesn't seem to be directly slandering. However, what is the obsession with "smart as a fox"?? If you remove that, it would be a much better edit. Also, why do you remove the clarification at the end of the "wall" quote? You were the first one who said the quote doesn't make sense on its own anyway! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:25, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The problem with "brash", and "outspoken" is that it A. Conflates O'Leary's TV persona with his real life personality, and B. It implies that Trump's temperament is similar to O'Leary's. It is indirectly slandering, as this line seeks to imply they have similar real life personalities. Their styles and temperament are actually quite different. Some of the sources point this out. For instance, Maureen J. Henderson of Forbes Magazine writes, "To dismiss Kevin O’Leary as Canada’s answer to Trump, however, is to do his carefully-cultivated persona a disservice. O’Leary knows he’s on Shark Tank to play the intimidating alpha with a cutting one-liner for every occasion and he relishes the role... Unlike Trump and his Twitter tirades about critics, he (O'Leary) doesn’t push back against shade, he embraces its ratings potential. It’s clear that O’Leary knows that his persona, however much it hews to or deviates from who he is off-screen, is good for business and you can see him frequently winking at this understanding... His (O'Leary's) is a performance of cultured, aristocratic wealth, while Trump's performance is the ostentation of a hustling populist who made it big, despite their respective backgrounds being the opposite...https://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhenderson/2017/01/20/why-shark-tanks-kevin-oleary-is-not-the-next-donald-trump/#79cc7447e8a8 Robyn Urback of CBC writes, "Donald Trump truly is an unhinged, vendetta-driven, thrice-married former beauty pageant mogul with a weird fixation with conspiracy theories. O'Leary doesn't even try to play that on TV... We'd all do well to remove the cold compresses from our foreheads — at least until O'Leary gets on Twitter and starts ranting about border walls and ideological purity tests for visitors." http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/o-leary-canadian-trump-1.3941549 MohammedMohammed^محمد 03:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with Vaseline in favour of Mohammed's version. However, my position is, if there is no consensus for changes, we should go back to the original version. This way, only neutral changes will be added. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 08:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support making comparison with Trump based on reliable sources. The arguments being made against comparing O'Leary and Trump appear to be based mostly on personal views and original research. There are extensive reliable sources, including, for example, the Globe and Mail, CBC News, Huffington Post, National Observer etc., who have made the comparison. The fact that there are articles specifically arguing against the comparison to Trump only supports the fact that there should be a mention of the Trump comparisons, as it demonstrates there is a wide belief that they have similarities. Of course, such articles should be included to balance the comparison. I am okay with either the second or third version being used in the article. I am concerned there might be some socking going on here based on the limited contributions of some of the people commenting here. FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Are opinion pieces by partisan columnists considered "reliable sources" now? These only show that there are opinions published that make that comparison, not that there is any valid basis for it, other than that neither of them are career politicians, and they were both involved with reality TV shows about business.77Mike77 (talk) 00:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@77Mike77:, I agree completely with what you said. If we are going to have a Donald Trump section at all, it should not include hand-selected opinions from one or two editorial pieces presented in such a way as to lead the reader. Arguing that O'Leary and Trump have the same style, and insinuating that O'Leary is a hardcore Trump supported by quoting him out of context is definately a problem.

1) Do you think the article should say that O'Leary and Trump have the same "brash styles"? 2) Do you think the article needs to include the context-free "smart as a fox" quote by Vanity Fair Magazine?Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that "brash style" is a partisan characterization. Basically, I think encyclopedia articles should stick to the facts.77Mike77 (talk) 23:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That was a misleading question, since the article never said that they both have a "brash style" - it just said that some commentators have said that, with citations. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Korny: Sigh. Okay, point taken. But what if there were a media columnist who said that both were right-wing lunatics? I think that including what partisan opinion-mongers have written in their columns (which are neither "news" nor "reporting") is treading into a grey area, even if those partisan hacks are writing in otherwise "reliable" sources.77Mike77 (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it's a matter of editorial discretion. I don't really want to get into an argument in this RfC section; I just wanted to clarify that there's a difference between the article quoting someone's opinion and the article stating an opinion directly - something that I've had to reiterate a surprising number of times. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

But reporting smears by partisan gossip columnists isn't relevant, and amounts to promoting political propaganda. It is not relevant what haters have written.77Mike77 (talk) 11:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

It depends on exactly what you mean by "smears", etc., but I agree that something like "right-wing lunatics" is usually not worth including. Korny O'Near (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello @77Mike77:,

I agree that WP should not be used to promote political propaganda. Korny just doesn't seem to get it. He thinks that by including the phrase "commentators have said", it gives him carte blache to selectively include only those opinions that happen to agree with his thesis: that O'Leary=Trump. Korny has ostensibly stated that commentators only have two viewpoints: A)Trump's Personality=O'Leary's personality, or B) Trump's personality=O'Leary's TV character's personality. Mysteriously absent are the plethora of commentators which present their personalities as different.

More disturbing still, is that the sources that Korny has used actually say the polar opposite of what Korny has written. For example, in the CBC article by Robyn Urback, the author explicitly states: "O'Leary doesn't even try to play that [Trump's personality] on TV." http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/o-leary-canadian-trump-1.3941549 Isn't that odd? Isn't it odd to take a source which presents Trump and O'Leary as having very different personalities, and then write a sentence on Wikipedia presenting their personalities as similar. This would be like taking at source which states "The Titanic was a commercial success", and having the audacity to write "The Titanic was a commercial flop".

Equally appalling is that despite numerous objections from many different editors, Korny has refused to remove this controversial content. Some minor aspects of Korny's new content are fine, but to repeatedly try to add in content against consensus is highly unusual behaviour. Do you know what steps we would need to take to get this user blocked? MohammedMohammed^محمد 15:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@MohammedMohammed. No, I don't know how to do that. Wikipedia is usually quite bad with NPOV re political articles, and the higher-ups in the moderator hierarchy would probably side with whoever is slanted farthest to the left. (Not that I favour O'Leary, just that I feel it is unfair for a NPOV article to cherry-pick statements by partisan newspaper hacks for the purpose of exploiting wikipedia for anti-O'Leary campaign purposes, which Korny clearly seems to be doing here. But you see that all the time in wikipedia articles.)77Mike77 (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

MohammedMohammed - I'd rather discuss this in the section above, rather than have this argument spread out over two sections, but since we're already on the subject: as I told Ontario Teacher, I'd love to see this "plethora of commentators" who have said that O'Leary and Trump are totally different. I have yet to see one. That Robyn Urback piece (thanks for linking to it) is not a great example for you, because in that same piece she says that "they both have a knack for saying dumb things that get them in trouble". If I can put it mathematically, she's basically saying that, on the craziness scale, O'Leary is about a 1 in real life and about a 6 in his public persona, while Trump is a 10 in both. That doesn't contradict anything in what my version of the text says. By the way, by "many different editors" who disagree with me, I think you mean three editors (two of whom are more or less single-purpose accounts). And to have me blocked, go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'd be tickled if you tried to do that, so feel free. Korny O'Near (talk) 01:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

• Support per FuriouslySerene. As long as we're meticulous in sticking to reliable sources, there's no problem with having a paragraph noting that the comparison has been made, some of the similarities, and then some of the key differences. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Environment?

This article lacks any info about O'Leary's policies on the environment. Is this an oversight, or has he not stated his position? And I don't mean only carbon emissions, but issues such as endangered species, protecting wildlife habitat, etc. I read that one of the majors in his bachelor's degree was Environmental Science, so the lack of info is odd. I'm not blaming the authors, because I've seen nothing elsewhere about him discussing the environment. The environment is definitely an issue that any political candidate should have a position on.77Mike77 (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@77Mike77: His degree was in environmental studies, very different than environmental science, but that's besides the point. If you can find some sources, that would be a valid position to state in his political section. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 02:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I came here looking for sources. I've never known him to comment on the environment, and haven't found any references to it. I'll watch for something.77Mike77 (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

He's still on Shark Tank

Maybe I should submit an edit request, because this edit was clearly in error - Shark Tank has already aired episodes in 2017 (see here), and O'Leary was on them. Korny O'Near (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't put an end date until either the show has made a statement its ceased or if O'Leary makes a statement he wouldn't be returning, which I don't think either has been made. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I changed the Shark Tank date to 2017. However, there is no information which states that O'Leary will be returning for season 9, nor is there information stating that Shark Tank will even be renewed for season 9. Until there is information confirming that O'Leary will be returning for season 9, we can't list him as a cast member for something that has not even been filmed, might never be filmed, or might not include O'Leary. MohammedMohammed^محمد 23:10, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

If I'm a reader reading he appeared on Shark Tank from 2009-2017 I'd assume he would not be returning for another season. It can be assumed he will return for the next season unless given official word. In the meantime it should still say he's taking part in the show. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kevin O'Leary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6YifxgqG8?url=http://deadline.com/2015/05/2014-15-full-tv-season-ratings-shows-rankings-1201431167/ to http://deadline.com/2015/05/2014-15-full-tv-season-ratings-shows-rankings-1201431167/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2018

I suggest the following change to Kevin O'Leary bio: The lede sentence refers to him as an Irish Canadian businessman, when he refers to himself (in the bio itself) as being of Lebanese-Irish descent. Shouldn't both of these labels be included in the opening description?

Thanks, Dan Patrinos 24.106.44.10 (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Nationality/citizenship descriptors in lead sentences are often contentious and need discussion so changes are not generally handled in a simple edit request. I suggest opening a separate discussion below and refer to this guideline and this guideline. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Protection requested from IP Vandalism

Reequest placed given the edit-warring by an IP editor Natty10000 | Natter  18:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Natty10000: See WP:RFPP to request protection. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 18:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It's there (I believe properly done). This was more intended as notice. Also

User 2601:249:100:d48:f18d:3648:78d5:7b7b, User 2601:249:100:D48:34C6:92CB:9B8D:D556 & User 2601:249:100:D48:E021:B636:9269:D7 ((likely the same individual) is vandalising other Wiki entries with the same change. I assume an IP block would be considered Natty10000 | Natter  18:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Military service

Is there a source about this? So far the only source does not metion him person. ...thus is a synthesis. --Moxy (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion between Officer Cadet, and Cadets. An Officer Cadet is the lowest Officer Rank in the Canadian Forces. An Officer Cadet is known as a Subordinate Officer, as the soldier has not yet earned a commission. After completing BMOQ, BMOQ-L, and their CAP, Officer Cadets are promoted to the rank of Second Lieutenant. By contrast, a Cadet is a member of a youth organization, and therefore not a CF member. Therefore, the military template should stay. Pierre Trudeau also was an Officer Cadet btw, and has the same template on his WP page. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Kevin O'Leary does not have military service, he did attend a military college which is meant to help transfer cadets from high school to university but it does not count as military service. The person who continues to add it has no sources to back their claim of military service and Kevin O'Leary himself while admitting to being a cadet has never said he served the military. Pierre Trudeau was conscripted into the military during WW2, had training but never shipped overseas.

From the wikipedia page of the school in question "It is the arm of the Canadian Military College system that primarily ensures the smooth transition of selected Cadets from Quebec high schools to university education by providing pre-university (Quebec's separate college-level) programs." [1]

From the official Canada Cadets page "Cadets are not members of the Canadian Armed Forces, nor are they expected to join the military." http://www.cadets.ca/en/about-cadets.page

Also here is the link to a tweet that he sent out earlier this year where he specifically identifies himself as a Cadet. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/oleary-gun-range-shooting-thursday-1.3963724

Thank You. And would much appreciate if you would stop stealing valour especially on a day like Vimy Ridge 100 year anniversa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8d80:6e2:b74c:c0f5:8d1c:a5b:5d1e (talk • contribs) 16:04, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with this shockpuppet we really need a source for this...not guess work.--Moxy (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, at RMC Kingston and RMC St. Jean, students are already members of the Canadian Forces with the rank of Officer Cadet. This is the Canadian equivalent of West Point in the U.S. I have a friend from high school who went to RMC. They swear in, receive service numbers, and receive military ID, prior to starting the school year. It's completely misleading to state RMC students may not join the military afterwards, as they have already joined the military prior to their first day at college. What you mean is, some RMC students quit the military upon graduation, while others stay on. Students who choose to stay in the military after graduation do not have to repay their student loans, so most actually stay on afterwards.

There is a protection template in place. Can anyone undo these questionable changes from an IP address (I believe this is likely the same person who just got blocked)?MohammedMohammed^محمد 18:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, I have looked online and there is 0 evidence that Kevin O'Leary even attended RMC Saint-Jean... He did attend Stanstead Boarding School (Which is the school he refers to in the tweet at the gun range saying it reminds him of his days as a cadet). The sourced website that this page uses doesn't mention anywhere in the article 'RMC Saint'Jean' so it could be assumed they were talking about Stanstead.

I have also checked Saint-Jean's hall of fame page and Alumni pages and Kevin O'Leary's name shows up nowhere... The only online sources claiming he attended Saint-Jean are pages that have copied and pasted from this wikipedia page (Which has no source saying he attended the Saint-Jean)

I have emailed his campaign to ask them directly if Kevin O'Leary attended Saint-Jean or has any Military Service to end this dispute once and for all.

Also, sorry if I am considered a "Sockpuppet" but I can't stand idly by while people claim a man has military service when there is 0 evidence for it and no one else does anything about it.

http://rmcalumni.ca/category/cmr-saint-jean-hall-of-fame/ (Link to RMC Saint-Jean Hall of Fame, which Kevin O'Leary would guaranteed to be on if he attended... Due to his success.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8d80:6e2:b74c:c0f5:8d1c:a5b:5d1e (talk • contribs) 19:01, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

Why was this military service template restored while this is still being discussed? It was challenged as being unsourced, and I see no new sources to justify restoring this claim. The IP's link to the CBC article seems to clarify the issue. O'Leary attended Stanstead College (as we already know). He was a cadet while there. We have no evidence that he attended RMC St. Jean. This claim appears to have been an assumption based on O'Leary's description of Stanstead as a military college. There's a difference between belonging to the Candian Cadets http://www.cadets.ca/en/about-cadets.page and being a cadet at a military college. This military service template should be removed unless we find reliable sources showing that O'Leary really does have military service. Meters (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

O'Leary attended RMC St. Jean for two years, from 1972-1974. Here are some sources:

1. www.worldebooklibrary.net/articles/eng/Royal_Military_College_Saint-Jean
2. http://www.tvguide.com/celebrities/kevin-oleary/bio/294970/
3. http://how-rich.com/4047/how-rich-is-kevin-oleary/ MohammedMohammed^محمد 21:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. None of these are reliable sources. An online encyclopedia that copies Wikipedia pages, the World's People Fortune Collection (obviously scraped their content from the web), TV Guide, and HOWRICH Celebrity Wealth News. We can't source this to anything like these sources. Meters (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the great sources. I'm adding them now. Meters, you can't assume that all online magazines, newspapers, and encyclopedias are circular reporting. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you are right about one of the sources. The World Heritage Encyclopedia is just a WP page. The others are legit. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

And I've removed them pending discussion. I don't believe any of htose sources qualify as reliable. And the McLeans source you added does not support the claim either. It does not say he attended RMC St. Jean for two years after graduating high school. Meters (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I've left your claim in for now, but unless it is reliably sourced soon it should be removed. And a reliable source means something much more solid than TV Guide or some blog about rich people. Meters (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Well for starters, it's not 'my' claim. The RMC St.Jean stuff has been in this article for years. I just added sources suggested by another editor (Mohammed) after a different editor (Charles) asked me (on my talk page) to prevent an IP editor from removing it. In any event, I found a better source www.investors.com. This is a biographical article of O'Leary from a business news website. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The statement was challenged and with good reason. It may be correct, but we don't know that and there were no reliable sources in the article to support it. You restored it so you are responsible for providing a reliable source. Did you even look at the sources the other editor proposed before you added them? TV Guide, a blog, a wikipedia mirror... And your latest source is a dead link. Meters (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Since the unsourced claim was in the article for years (as you point out) we have to be careful to ensure that any source we use to verify the RMC claim is not itself using information that came from Wikipedia or a source that used Wikipedia. I checked his bio on his Conservative leadership campaign page https://olearyforcanada.ca/en/aboutkevin/ but it does not mention any schools prior to his U of Waterloo degree. Meters (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The RMC Saint-Jean claim was added on October 6 2011 by Victoriaedwards. [1]. It's then "sourced" to his time there being two years the next day, [2], using an October 5, 2011 source that likely inspired the edits in the first place. [3] In that article, the "two years" refers to O'Leary talking about living in Cambodia. It's also unclear what "military college in Quebec" refers to, since RMC Saint-Jean isn't mentioned. The sources provided above definitely look like WP:CITOGENESIS, taking this information from Wikipedia. O'Leary himself refers to his time as a cadet as being when he was 16, at Stanstead College (which is in Quebec). [4],[5], [6], [7]. It seems that if he had been military cadet at RMC Saint-Jean, he would be mentioning that more in his statements. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging user:Victoriaedwards who made the 2011 addition and was still active as of a few months ago. Yup, I was just about to add the same conclusion,a nd I fully agree with the removal of this claim. A bit more for the timeline: we also know that O'Leary started his high school boarding at Stanstead College at age 13 (ca. 1967) after failing to be accepted at the only English high school in Cyprus (where his family was living at the time). MacLean's puts him in an Ottawa high school in 1970 and the Ottawa Citizen puts him there in 1973. He graduated University of Waterloo with a bachelor's degree in 1977.

So, Stanstead at age 13 ca. 1967, still there age 16. Ottawa high school in 1970 and 1973. This fits well with the two years as a cadet at what O'Leary calls "Military college". The problem seems to be that Stanstead is not actually a military college like RMC. They may have had cadets, but that is not the same thing as a true, post-high school military college such as RMC. Someone mistakenly assumed "military college" in Quebec implied RMC St. Jean. The UofW degree (normally 4 years, or 5 if it was a Coop program) in 1977 also fits well with the timeline. Is's also difficult to reconcile the claim of his having been in RMC from 1972 to 1974 when apparently he was still in an Ottawa high school in 1973..

O'Leary puts himself starting his first year at Stanstead in Fall 1967. [8], and the school magazine has him graduating as part of the Class of 1970.[9] Assuming our birthdate for him is correct, then being a cadet at 16 and getting marksman status would have been in 1970, his last year at Stanstead. I emailed the writer of the interview, who indicated that the "military college in Quebec" bit was taken from O'Leary's book Cold, Hard, Truth. Since that was written by O'Leary himself, and nowhere else does he mention RMC Saint-Jean, it seems increasingly likely that it's a mistake. I will try and check the book out sometime though.---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

At this point I think we've disproved the RMC claim. It seems likely that all of the online sources referring to his time at RMC St. Jean area result from the incorrect 2011 Wikipedia claim. Any further attempts to restore this claim will require reliable sourcing and should be carefully examined. Meters (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Meters, I fixed the reliable source I inserted. There seems to be a lot or Original Research and assumptions in Patar Knight's hypothesis. RMC locations are accredited learning institutions. Therefore, most of O'Leary's RMC university credits would count towards his Bachelor's degree from Waterloo. Therefore, there is no timeline issue. Investors.com is certainly a reliable source, as this businessnews organization thoroughly uses factcheckers.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Officer Cadet, and Cadets......pls stop the guess work.--Moxy (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the claim of attendance at RMC ST. Jean again. I'm not at all convinced that investors.com is a reliable source for biographical information about someone's teens from 40 years earlier, particularly when it appeared after the 2011 unsourced wikipedia claim. Can anyone find a reliable source for this claim that predates the 2011 Wikipedia entry? Meters (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Now that Ontario Teacher BFA BEd and MohammedMohammed are indeff'ed after a CU this seems to be over. Meters (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Mr. Wonderful nickname

There are several explanations as to how he got the name, but I have been watching old Canadian Dragon's Den and in episode 2 of Season 1, Broadcast originally October 11, 2006, he says: "That's why 'they' call me 'Mr. Wonderful'" for the first time on that show. I upped it to Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTM1wGpWgvM

Wow, that's a great find! That clip does indeed seem to be of the founders of GelFAST, from season 1, episode 2 in 2006. And O'Leary does call himself "Mr. Wonderful". Which means that the nickname predates Shark Tank, and probably even Dragon's Den. (Unless he just came up with it on the spot in that episode, which is possible.) That means that his explanation of how he got the nickname was off; though in fairness, in the 2013 interview where he explains it, he basically says that he doesn't remember how he got the nickname, and the Shark Tank explanation is just the "consensus" view.

I'm not sure how best to integrate this into the article, since this YouTube clip is sort of a primary source instead of a secondary one, but it would be good to get it in there. Korny O'Near (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I guess I got cleaned up, but here is a better version of the Mr Wonderful quote. I am not looking to be in wikipedia multiple times via youtube, but I did want to help get to the bottom of the name thing. My guess is it is a marketing gimmick he and a marketing rep came up with, "Call yourself 'Mr. Wonderful', it's a great duality play, be the financial bad guy." It took many seasons to hone, and was a hard sell in the canadian market where kindheartedness is a prized attribute. But on Shark Tank... This is the CASTING VIDEO for him auditioning For Dragons Den Canada, in at least Summer of 2006. It takes a few months at least to film and edit 6 episodes. Which need to be advertised for and premiered in October 2006. It is IMESHO much like Trump calling himself "The Don". Nobody ever did that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvthgyV5Pow Rob Avina (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

That's another great find! I modified the paragraph again to incorporate that newest clip. I also took out his whole explanation involving Barbara Corcoran, since that was clearly in error - suffice it to say that he doesn't remember the origin, or at least claims not to. We may never know the real origin, but this is at least a step closer. Korny O'Near (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)