Talk:Joe Volpe

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]

See Talk:Joe Volpe/Archive for previous discussions.

[edit] For CJCurrie

...Youth for Volpe incident needs to be left in. A politician's attempt to have a website critical of him shut down is a serious matter and ought to be included in their Wikipedia entry.

Quoting Blackeagle who argued for its inclusion. As Chris Thompson supports it as well, that does not give you the right to decide what is "not important" so you have an excuse to delete it or footnote it.

If there's doubt about specific elements, the article should express that doubt. Doubt about details is not a reason to leave something out entirely. Blackeagle 06:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As well, the original version was not written in a manner that is meant to be leading or critical, it does express the doubt surrounding both sides of the story. In particular, it did take into account all of the facts, such as registration information (which was a reason why the website was shut down).

GoldDragon 17:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• (i) It's not an important incident.
• (ii) "A politician's attempt to have a website critical of him shut down is a serious matter". Perhaps, but a low-level aide boasting to a journalist is not. Blackeagle's comments are no longer relevant.
• (iii) I will repeat my previous statement: the paragraph, in its initial form, was included as part of an attack edit. CJCurrie 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all your pure opinion. GoldDragon 03:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's my considered opinion, and it's the considered opinion of other contributors. CJCurrie 20:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Concerning my most recent revert: I stand by my previous comments. CJCurrie 22:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I stand my reasoning, and the rationale of other contributors. GoldDragon 20:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Blackeagle's rationale was outright wrong in light of later events. In any event, the "Youth For Volpe shutdown" controversy is unimportant, while the current controversy is important. CJCurrie 23:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie's rationale is outright wrong, that is also insulting to Blackeagle. When the current controversy was added, I assumed good faith, CJCurrie should do so for Blackeagle's addition. I'll treat both controversies as important enough to include, as they are not mutually exclusive. GoldDragon 17:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Blackeagle's rationale was as follows: A politician's attempt to have a website critical of him shut down is a serious matter and ought to be included in their Wikipedia entry. We now know that the premise of this statement is wrong. I'm not assuming bad faith on his part, but there's no need to provide insinuations that are obviously incorrect. CJCurrie 17:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If there's doubt about specific elements, the article should express that doubt. Doubt about details is not a reason to leave something out entirely. Blackeagle 06:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So that is what the original and current versions are doing, by factoring in all the aspects, including the official explanation. (I gotta admit didn't help that one of Volpe's campaign gave the slip, only to later retract it). GoldDragon 03:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try a compromise ... we'll see if it works. CJCurrie 01:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

GoldDragon: We're almost agreed on the current wording. I maintain that the "Youth for Volpe" paragraph isn't important enough for the main body of the text, but I'm willing to allow it as a footnote. Is it really necessary to drag out this revert war any further? CJCurrie 21:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The footnote is often considered a sticking point, because its often essentially same thing as omitting it from the body of the article. Also, I wouldn't state that the Apotex donations are not illegal just yet. The current wording treats it as fact. GoldDragon 03:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's any doubt about the latter point: the donations were not technically illegal. However, I can adjust the wording if it's really of concern to you.

I'll just retain your former wording for that gem. It will be up to the commissioner to decide. GoldDragon 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The footnote is a compromise between omitting the disputed from the body of the article and including it in the main text. It's also the most obvious way to end this pointless feud. CJCurrie 22:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw: I also think that we should mention the campaign defections in chronological order (ie. Dhaliwal before Karygiannis). CJCurrie 22:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This move should solve the chronological defection problem...the Isreal issue is considered far enough after Volpe's campaign kickoff.

Aside from other recent issues, the suspicions of Ignatieff should stay. I'm not so sure about the Mafia addition, but it could possibly be an explanation for why Gagliano's explanation might be disproved...so that is up to you.

Your edit removes the links from Volpe's expense claims.

My compromise for Youth is shortening down the paragraph, but still leaving enough to tell the important details. GoldDragon 16:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I maintain that footnoting the disputed information is a fair compromise. There isn't anything about the story that's particularly important.

Several contributors besides myself have supported its importance and its inclusion. So that does not give you the right to delete or footnote it.

BTW, I remember you warning Chris Thompson about the 3R rule and then Blackeagle corrected you. So does that put you against them? I'm not surprised why you want to ignore their rationale. GoldDragon 21:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try something else ... CJCurrie 22:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

2. One of the links is inactive, and the other is not based on a reliable source.

Actually, the other is the most detailed article on Volpe's expenses that I've seen. It is a reliable source as it is a news article and NOT an editorial.

I believe that you deleted it, not because it came from the Sun, but rather because it listed out his spending. If we wanted to dispute reliability of sources, we wouldn't be allowed to use the Star either. GoldDragon 21:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken. I deleted it because it's from the Sun, an unencyclopedic source. CJCurrie 22:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

3. The "mafia" reference was vandalism, made by an anonymous poster. (Btw, Gagliano and Volpe weren't allies in caucus.) I don't think anyone's ever made a serious "Mafia" allegation against Volpe. CJCurrie 20:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really for or against its inclusion, but you assumed right off the back that its vandalism or an attack edit if it doesn't come from your supporters. GoldDragon 21:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I assume it's vandalism when an anonymous poster links someone to the mafia without any supporting evidence. CJCurrie 22:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

4. Volpe hasn't directly accused Ignatieff of running a smear campaign. CJCurrie 20:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

See the source. Unnamed supporters of Volpe, however, have. GoldDragon 21:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

GD: The entire question of having the site shut down is moot, given that the site has not been shut down. CJCurrie 22:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

GD: I don't think there are very many differences remaining between our preferred wordings. If you want make any further changes, can I request that you only revert those sections of the article that you disagree with. CJCurrie 23:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Just a few notes: It might be subtle but we don't need brackets for Sgro's clearing.

The canoe.ca is news and not an editorial...is there anything wrong with the specific article in particular? Just deleting it because it "belongs to the Sun" is not a reason. Also, no other source for that section contains the details, so that is another reason to keep it.

We don't have to say "Canadian media reported" all the time, especially if there is a second unrelated source. I will however put it in for the Cullen incident because that has only one source.

The donations section is getting unmanagable unless it gets its own subsection. I've already conceded on all of the other headers that you do not want such as same-sex and overspending, however this one is staying.

Gagliano's argument should stay in the body as it provides some backing for Volpe's own accusation of racism. GoldDragon 15:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

I've made some further adjustments. I'm willing to accept a separate section for the "Donations" controversy, given that this has been a fairly significant story in the Canadian media. I've also decided to leave Gagliano in for the time being.

I'm not going to compromise on the following two points:

The Cullen paragraph doesn't belong in the article. Internal riding feuds happen all the time; they are not especially noteworthy, nor are they worthy of inclusion here.

The Sun article should not be referenced, particularly when the CTV link makes the same basic points.

I would request that you accept the current wording as a fair compromise. One way or the other, do not blanket-revert the page again. I'm tired to having to correct these unrelated changes every time. CJCurrie 21:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, the Sun article has some information that is not in the CTV article. In particular, the CTV article focuses upon the double-meals, the Sun on pizza lunches and limo rides. (You have already managed to delete off of the pizza and limo info, essentially replacing it with the double-meals.)

Cullen's riding takeover should get some mention in the article, as some say it is characteristic of Volpe's career. Then again, it may not need such detail as it currently is, but it feels out of place in the Chretien years when Volpe's member signup was the most prominent.

Again, Gagliano does lend some credibility to Volpe's accusation of racism (the National Post has said that racism is irrelevant). That will allow the reader to decide.

Speaking of the donations, did Pat Martin ever retract? He just didn't repeat them again after Volpe threatened legal action. As well, Graham and MacKinnon did defend them, to which Martin criticized the Liberals for condoning the donations instead of investigating them. GoldDragon 04:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Check this article. Graham and MacKinnon did defend them.[1] GoldDragon 01:38, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Graham and MacKinnon defended the legality of the donations. The CBC story simplified this to "defended the donations", but there's no reason for us to go with the less precise language.

How's this for a compromise: I'll keep the reference, but adjust the wording accordingly. CJCurrie 04:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

And here's proof:

The Liberal Party insisted yesterday that all of the donations to Mr. Volpe's campaign followed the rules.

"These were clearly reported by everyone and that's because they were within the rules," said interim Liberal leader Bill Graham.

The party's national director, Steven MacKinnon, agreed.

"We have absolutely every procedure possible in place to both catch and correct any provisions of the Elections Act that appear to have been contravened, and we don't see any in this case," he said.

("Executives' donations to Volpe draw fire", G&M, 30 May 2006)

Graham and MacKinnon didn't actually "defend the donations", they defended their legality. Our wording should reflect this.

Are we agreed on this point now? CJCurrie 04:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I'll again remind you to only revert those parts of the page you disagree with. Or, better yet, try to work out the differences without more reverts. CJCurrie 05:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sunmedia link

GD,

I think the Toronto Sun link is our only remaining disagreement on this page (unless you're going to insist on including the Pierre Poilievre quote, which I don't think is particularly notable). Rather than continuing a revert war over something this minor, can I recommend that we ask for an outside opinion? CJCurrie 23:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Toronto Sun is not my fav either, but I would hope we're going to be broader than only using info from the top 5 newspapers of Canada. Otherwise I don't think we would be acting in the spirit of the idea of Wikipedia. The Sun has enough skin in the game that it can't libel without fear of being sued. In this particular case they say that have the proof. That's good enough for me. The Sun is claiming an exclusive which is why the others aren't reporting on it. I don't think we want to get into saying the Sun newspaper is outright lying. And without taking sides I think we can still observe that, at this point, this is hardly a wildly out of character fact regarding Volpe given all the controversy. Deet 23:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm ... I'm not certain if I agree with the logic here. None of the other papers covered this particular story even after the Sun ran it: this leads me to believe they didn't judge it to be important. While I doubt they were "outright lying", I strongly suspect the Sun was engaging in one of their standard practices: skewing the story in favour of the right-wing, and misconstruing events to that end.

I'm not recommending that we narrow our source list too far, but I think we should use Sunmedia very sparingly, if at all. They simply aren't a good source. CJCurrie 00:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

While its reputation is not stellar, Sunmedia is one of the largest newspaper chains in Canada. It is a valid source. Though, I may soften the comments by making mention that the Sun is a right-leaning paper. That may help the reader decide what weight to put on the story. Resolute 00:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think about this particular story? My view is that its importance was trumped-up by the Sun, and that there's no need for us to include it at all. CJCurrie 00:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe $10k isn't that big a deal in the scope of spending. That's an executive trip to London. I think it should be discounted somewhat given the narrow coverage. ps, I don't agree with labelling Sun Media as right-wing unless you can get that label to stick on the Sun Media main article. Deet 00:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The expenses section will stay. This was already debated and agreed upon in previous editions. Regarding the Sun, we could also argue that the Eye and Now magazines engage in their standard practices: skewing the story in favour of the left-wing, and misconstruing events to that end. I don't like it when CJCurrie points out that the Eye and Now endorses some politician and/or his actions but I can't disagree about it since that really happened.

I don't have any problem with Volpe's criticism of the Conservatives who attacked the donations (though it was the NDP that led the charge against Volpe instead of the Conservatives). However, the Conservatives had a reason to turn down the Liberal amendments. GoldDragon 04:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)