Talk:Emil Kolb

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 16 06. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Notable statements made in public office 2 Gael Miles 3 Emil Kolb Statement 4 Quote POLL 4.1 Option 1 4.2 Option 2 4.3 Option 3, added by WikiWoo, adding one more sentence 5 If you guys want to report the proper statement of notoriety then this is it

[edit] Notable statements made in public office

They have worked hard to muster a citizen’s agenda, but much like a balloon, without the continuous application of heat,... the chance of this great cause rising is not great. If the heat source for this falters, so does the cause. [circa 2004] Given in response to Mississauga's decision to leave the Region of Peel to become a Single Tier Municipality.

Moving quote to talk, please add a citation. Thanks. Wjhonson 18:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks that a whole section titled "Notable statements made in public office" with a single quote that is clearly there to serve a political purpose by the editor is completely unencyclopedic? OzLawyer 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

And it turned out the quote had been edited (with no ellipsis) to remove "less-than-accurate platform" from the final sentence. I restored the paragraph as it was written, and I find it less troubling now. Still, whether there was anything notable here depends on one's POV. Not quite up there with "we shall fight on the beaches" or "Ich bin ein Berliner." --Gary Will 22:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not troubled for the following reasons. Gael Miles has a page, which is simply his name. On this page, is the thesis, from which the opening paragraph is this quote. Apparently Gael herself feels this particular quote, is quite notable, otherwise it would be buried on some miscellaneous page instead of on a page devoted strictly to the thesis. Wjhonson 22:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

A page that doesn't seem to be linked to from anywhere on Gael Miles's site. So, if she's the litmus test, then even she doesn't seem to find it notable anymore. Google comes up empty, but Yahoo finds two mentions of this quote -- one dated 2003 and the other 2004. But I hope it stays, now that it's been restored and properly cited. It sure beats "I still do my chores every day." --Gary Will 23:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Undent. Well I think that many users have these sorts of pages, that get orphaned simply because the user (in this case Gael) doesn't really know how to do mark-up very well. As for Google, it's notoriously bad at actually crawling through orphan-space. I've had pages up for six months, perfectly linked, that they still can't seem to find. Wjhonson 23:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You people that don't see this as highly notable don't seem to get it. This is a top government official pissing on a citizens agenda (in this case the one that 750,000 people in Mississauga want out from under his Region and don't want anything to do with the government he represents. The Statement is highly arrogant and something expected from a Fascist Dictator and not from someone in Public Office in Canada. The excuses he gives for making the statement are not relevant. You have to read the arogance of the man into the statement made. Kind of something like Dr. Evil would say, followed by muhuahhahhaaa. This is what makes it notable.WikiWoo 04:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the POV that you want to promote with this quote. But the full quote shows he is "pissing" on Mississauga council's attempts to drum up a citizen's agenda for what he thinks is a plan lacking in accuracy and stability. I think the most notable part of the entire page is where he describes Mississauga council's efforts as "crying," -- pretty strong stuff for someone chairing the regional council. So maybe we should just use that paragraph in its entirety to avoid accusations of massaging Kolb's message to push a point of view. --Gary Will 12:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the POV you are trying to push Gary. The fact remains that with your addition which more of the letter he wrote being published here as you would have it the Statement becomes a POV. The sentence as I have it is not a POV. It does not matter the reason why he say it. The reason he said it is the POV. Secondly that he personally dislikes the citizens agenda is besides the pointWikiWoo 13:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiWoo, don't confuse comments made by Mississauga councillors as the will of Mississaugans. It may very well be true that some, or even a majority of people in Mississauga do not want to be part of Peel Region, but until you have a referendum or some other data to show that, it is a highly specious argument. Surely there is no way that a statement that all "750,000 people in Mississauga want out from under his Region" is anything but pure fantasy on your part. As for my original question here, let me rephrase it. Doesn't the fact that there is a single quote sectioned off under a heading that says "Notable statements made in public office" strike you as incredibly POV? Even if one were to remove the "s" from "statements", it would still be incredibly POV, insinuating that it's the only notable thing ever said by Mr. Kolb. It reeks of agenda to include it at all (even if it's been fixed up by GaryWill). OzLawyer 15:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiWoo, the whole quote is obviously POV -- Kolb's POV. You were the one who wanted it on the page. You were the one who added a doctored version of the quote into the article. You even cried censorship when it was removed. Whether the quote should be there at all can be debated, but if it's going to be included in the article, it's not going to be edited in a misleading way to suit your POV pushing. --Gary Will 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gael Miles

Is Gael sufficiently notable to have her own article ? She gets 586 google hits by the way. Wjhonson 20:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

586 hits doesn't even come close to notability via the Google test (not that that is the only way to establish notability). OzLawyer 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• She is very notable and should have her own article. She is a controversial figure of out standing notoriety.WikiWoo 04:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Bull. Many mayors of towns are not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Since that is so, how is a regional councillor notable enough? OzLawyer 15:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emil Kolb Statement

The statement made by Chair Kolb is very notable as quoted "They have worked hard to muster a citizen’s agenda, but much like a balloon, without the continuous application of heat, the chance of this great cause rising is not great. If the heat source for this [alledged] less-than-accurate platform falters, so does the cause." GaryWill is attempting to make the sentence less notable by additing irrelevant sentence before it. There is no reason to add the prior sentence other than to make the acual notable sentence less notable.WikiWoo 04:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, GaryWill is putting the sentence in its proper context. You are being ridicuous in claiming that GaryWill is doing wrong here. It is you who is suppressing the context of the statement and attempting to make it more sinister than it really is when read within context. OzLawyer 15:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You two (or three) have too much energy. I read the two different versions, really I can't see that one is more arrogant or sinister than the other one. But I do (sorry WikiWoo) like the bigger quote, only because it *explains* what he is talking about. The smaller one seems like he is talking about some mysterious balloon and the reader has no idea what it is. The bigger quote explains exactly what program or plan or idea he is talking about first, then he denigrates it. Wjhonson 16:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I read this quote also. As the source is a regional councillor's website, is the quote really "notable," as the header claims? If Kolb's statement received significant press coverage, it is better to establish notability by citing that press coverage. The circumstances surrounding the statement should be better explained. A bare quote should probably go in Wikiquote, rather than in an article, if you think that the quote is really notable. JChap (talk • contribs) 17:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• When Kolb made the statement is was notable. ANYONE READING CAN SEE IT FOR THEMSELVES any one sayinig somoething like that would have been tarred and feather and run out of town in any US State if it happened there. Lots of people where quoting it on websites. But keeping with Peel's Iron Fisted Rule of Media by Blacklisting the papers and jurnalists did not give it the recognition it deserves. But the public did. You people need to realize that a Region of Ontario is like a Secret Society. People who work there are forces to sign confidentiality contracts and when they leave they are sworn to secrecy. The CIA or KGB have nothing over them on Secrecy.WikiWoo 00:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Um, if you read the quote in context, as GaryWill is trying to show it, you'll see that it's actually a pretty apt critique of the Mississauga position. The way that the Region's services are constructed will make it impossible for everything the Region is now doing to ever be passed down to the constituent municipalities. It will be a hodge-podge of a system if the Region were dissolved, or if Mississauga was separated from it. But that's another argument--this one is simply whether context should be included, and, of course, it should be. How do you decide where the "notable" part of the quote begins? It was all one quote. Heck, if you had your way, you'd remove "less-than-accurate platform" from the quote (like you did with this edit) to make it even more one-sided! How can you possibly defend that kind of action--you didn't even insert an ellipsis! OzLawyer 01:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• The part rendering his opinion of the merits of Mississauga's possition is irrelevant. The statement about pissing on the citizens agenda is what makes it notable. This is something that Hitler or Stalin might say, and it and only it, if the notable statement comming from a gentleman farmer turned CEO of a Milti-Billion Corporation. The man is showing himself to be an Arogant Dictator who has been corrupted by too many years off the farm and in public office getting away with things for so many years scott free without personal accountability. The adage Absolute Power Corrupt is very fitting and with his Statement in responce to a citizens agenda, ragardless what that agenda is shown him to be a power mongering dictator. These are reasons that it is a notable statement. His opinions about Mississauga or the Ciitizens agenda are not worth their weight in salt and are just his personal bald statements trying to save his possition of power.WikiWoo 02:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• the statement about mississauga being right of wrong is irrelevant. What he was doing by flying in the face of the citizens agenda is what is corrupt and worthy of makinig him notorious as a public figure.WikiWoo 19:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"The statement ... is what makes it notable. This is something ... [coming] from a gentleman. These are reasons that it is a notable statement. Mississauga or the [Citizens] agenda are not worth their weight in salt." Quote by WikiWoo

OzLawyer 03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote POLL

Please give your opinion as to which option is best (this is assuming that the quote should stay at all, which I'm not so sure about). OzLawyer 01:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for working to reach a consensous. Please follow option 3 and do not resume edit warring or blocks will result. This poll is no longer active. Thank you for participating. --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 03:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Option 1

"They have worked hard to muster a citizen’s agenda, but much like a balloon, without the continuous application of heat, the chance of this great cause rising is not great. If the heat source for this less-than-accurate platform falters, so does the cause."

1. Support. This is the only thing he has ever said in his life that was notable. Without this statement and only this statement he would have sucseeded in staying under the public radar remainng in obscurity for the rest of his life. This will likely be engraved in his tombstone and be talked about long after he is gone.WikiWoo 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment this is the simple line he said that is notable. The Option 2 is a fabrication by Will and Ozgood who support it. The Option 3 is the whole paragraph so at least you are not bublishing false statements no one ever made.WikiWoo 19:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Option 2

"[Mississauga council has] a plan that can be described as less than stable, that would see some services fragmented back to municipalities, others pushed back up to the Province and still others delivered across the Greater Toronto Area by some kind of service board. They have worked hard to muster a citizen’s agenda, but much like a balloon, without the continuous application of heat, the chance of this great cause rising is not great. If the heat source for this less-than-accurate platform falters, so does the cause."

1. Support, because context is obviously important. OzLawyer 01:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Support, we've already had this dicussion and no one supported WikiWoo's edited version. WikiWoo wants the quote taken out of context and written in a way where "they" (the first word of his quote) aren't even defined. If we're going to have a quote, it should be there to illustate the subject's POV, not to push one editor's POV. Who's the "they" -- WikiWoo wanted you to believe it was the people of Mississauga. Turns out it was Mississauga politicians. And now we find out why Kolb opposes their action -- he thinks their plan is flawed. You wouldn't know that from the expunged version. WikiWoo wants you to think Kolb is thumbing his nose at "a citizen's agenda" where, with the fuller version of the quote, we find out it's politicians he's criticising and predicting that their attempts to create a citizen's agenda will fail. --Gary Will 02:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   Against This is a white wash statement which is nothing but POV and is without merit or foundation.WikiWoo 02:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

3. Support This provides a much better context for the quote. However, it seems like it should read "citizens'" rather than "citizen's", no? JChap (talk • contribs) 02:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   I note that you are pushing for a falsified statement that doctores what he actualy says in the letter. The letter does not say what you are quoting it says...Read the Article... If you are going to push for something at least ensure it is not falsified. You are therefore pushing a false statement you have put in and atributed it to him. Then you guys criticise me when I talk about the gangsterism and the propaganda pushing machine at work here on Wiki. Garbage is what you are pushing.WikiWoo 02:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   All I see is the non-inclusion of a leading sentence (the square bracketted part is an uncontroversial type of replacement--"they" is replaced with the name of the council). There's nothing falsified about the statement. But you've already added a third option including it, so, whatever. OzLawyer 02:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   Commeent Common not don't tell me you did not put the whole sentence in to avoid saying quoting that he said Mississauga was crying to be let out of Peel. You propaganda spinners really get my goat but I know the system from the inside out.WikiWoo 03:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   Actually, I never even looked at the original before this, but I couldn't care less if you want to add it. OzLawyer 03:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   You do remember, WikiWoo, that just two days ago I said that the part about Mississauga council "crying" was what I thought to be the most interesting part of the quote (coming from a regional chair). I then suggested putting in the entire paragraph. You didn't say anything in support of that suggestion. Now, all of a sudden, leaving it out is part of a propaganda campaign. --Gary Will 06:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

   • when faced with the option of the clean Notable Statement vs one that's been doctored to suit an agenda, then I prefer the whole paragraph with the bald statements he makes included with the Notable Statement.WikiWoo 19:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Option 3, added by WikiWoo, adding one more sentence

"Mississauga Council is crying for their municipality to be permitted to leave the Region of Peel. They have a plan that can be described as less than stable, that would see some services fragmented back to municipalities, others pushed back up to the Province and still others delivered across the Greater Toronto Area by some kind of service board. They have worked hard to muster a citizen’s agenda, but much like a balloon, without the continuous application of heat, the chance of this great cause rising is not great. If the heat source for this less-than-accurate platform falters, so does the cause."

I'm indifferent between this, option 2, and no quote at all. The only one that clearly is inappropriate is option 1. To address WikiWoo's concerns, we can go with option 3. It's the whole paragraph, it presents Kolb's views accurately, and it includes everything that WikiWoo finds notable. --Gary Will 05:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I will compromise by accepting Option #3 which is the whole paragraph intact without anyones version of spin. Let Kolb say what he said and let him live by his statement rather than either Option one or two that applies anyone else opinion on what he is saying.WikiWoo 14:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to call the matter settled at this point, unless someone else wants to make additional points. --Gary Will 16:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. OzLawyer 13:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you guys want to report the proper statement of notoriety then this is it

"Mississauga Council is crying for their municipality to be permitted to leave the Region of Peel. ... They have worked hard to muster a citizen’s agenda, but much like a balloon, without the continuous application of heat, the chance of this great cause rising is not great. If the heat source for this less-than-accurate platform falters, so does the cause."

The above sentences is what this all boils down to. The missing part is bald propaganda POV opinion he renders to justify his blatant arogance, your trying to white wash the abuse of public trust his statement embodies. What you don't maybe realize that this is the true state of Regional Government in Ontario after Bill Davis set the public up for this.WikiWoo 03:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stating this (which is opinion) without the other part (which is also opinion), is far more POV. What possible justification could you have to remove the part of the quote which EXPLAINS what he means by the rest of the quote? OzLawyer 03:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I thought you said you are a law student. Mississauga is crying... is a statement of fact there is no opinion rendered. He then says what he believes will happen if the issue is "Stonewalled". His opinion is of the cause and effect of not reacting to the Citizens Agenda. There are no opinions in these two statements. Other than his statement of that way the citizens agenda should be treated. The part that is taken out is the part where he it trying to justify making the statement giving his personal opinion on the merits of Mississauga's possition. The personal opinion is a bald statement without any facts. It is pure self-serving POV, especially when one considers the alternative which is he looses his job as CEO of his beloved corporation Peel Region.WikiWoo 04:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no statements of fact anywhere in the quote. It's 100% POV -- Kolb's POV, and that's okay. He's the subject of the article, and illustrating his views is fair game for a Wikipedia article about him. Your argument about what's fact and what's opinion is both 1) silly, since it's clearly all opinion and 2) irrelevant, since it's just the writing of the article that has to be from a neutral point of view. The subject doesn't have to be neutral. Kolb isn't neutral, clearly. But his non-neutral views still have to be presented neutrally and accurately. That's why your version of the quote will never be acceptable. It distorts Kolb's views and is a non-neutral presentation, edited to suit your POV, which you've described. If you don't want the whole paragraph included, I think you'd be better off asking to take the whole thing out. There doesn't seem to be much (if any) opposition to that action. --Gary Will 05:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• What about the fact that you people are proposing to quote him as saying something he did not say? I think that may even be a legal issue. You can't quote someones words as his Statement and substitute what you three think that he said. Only what he said should be used. so sentences are either added or not, but no replacement of terms or words should be allowed.WikiWoo 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But nobody is making him say something he's not saying. They're substituting the word "THEY" for what the "THEY" refers to. The sentence before, which you're now saying to include, makes this CRYSTAL CLEAR. This is a very common thing to do when quoting. Here's an example to try to get you to understand:

Someone said:

WikiWoo has had a lot of trouble on Wikipedia. He has been accused of POV-pushing and was even blocked for disruption.

Now, if I want to quote the second sentence on its own, how would I do that? Would I use "He"? No, I'd substitute it with [WikiWoo]:

[WikiWoo] has been accused of POV-pushing and was even blocked for disruption.

The square brackets show that this was not said by "Someone", but that it is what was meant by someone. It's not a legal problem at all. The part you removed when you first wanted to include the quote, and didn't even include an ellipsis (...) is what would be a legal problem. Not only are you cutting out important information (unimportant information can be and often is removed using ellipses), but you didn't make it known that you were cutting it out by adding the ellipsis. That is, you misrepresented what was being said. Now, WikiWoo, do you get it? OzLawyer 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I get how you keep slandering me by your innuendo. I also know this as the modern Gestapo tactic of the Ontario Regional Government goons working out of their Legal Departments. Did they promise you a job when you grow up for helping to preserve their propaganda on Wiki... or do your hope to be apointed Judge to an Ontario Court someday as a reward for keeping the public stupid?Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 03:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right, WikiWoo, I'm slandering you by stating the complete truth about what people are accusing you of and what you were blocked for. And yes, WikiWoo, I hope to be appointed to an Ontario court someday as reward for edits I made on Wikipedia! Everyone knows that anonymously editing an online encyclopedia where two days later your work might not even exist any more, and which doesn't mean a can of beans to anyone in power is the best way to climb the corporate (or legal) ladder. I expect my edits will propel me to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. OzLawyer 13:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would not call the slide down into the inner circles of hell of Government in Canada a climb up a corporate ladder or anything else in society. You seem to have a twisted view of reality so you would probably make a fine Judge or Top Civil Servant someday.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 15:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Osgoodelawyer has already explained why you're wrong about this. If you're skeptical, you might have to do some research to confirm that what he said is correct. Any resource about how to quote sources would cover that topic. It's very basic stuff. The only person who tried to include an inaccurate quote (where you edited out content and didn't even insert an ellipsis) was you. But now that the consensus is to use the entire parapraph, the point is moot anyway. --Gary Will 16:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• And Woo has accused people here of pushing government propaganda that would make Stalin smile. Get over your fixation with pushing propaganda and twisting what people say. Quotes I referenced where clean and undoctored. You guys are putting words in Kolbs mouth he did not say. YOU'RE THE POV pushers not me WikiWoo 18:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if after explaning it to you this many times you're still accusing us of being POV-pushers and doctoring the quotes, I declare you a lost cause. Honestly. I'm not going to bother any longer. OzLawyer 19:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)