Talk:Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] POV

Detractors of the regional system, including Mississauga mayor Hazel McCallion have accused Peel Region of being a redundant layer of government with an anti-democratic structure. Mississauga council has asked for the city to be separated from Peel Region and become a single-tier municipality, arguing it pays far more into the region and relinquishes far too much power, and did not have fair representation on regional council. They have argued that as a single-tier city, Mississauga would better serve its residents.

Opponents of Mississauga's position, including Brampton mayor Susan Fennell, have argued that from the 1970s through the 1990s, Mississauga was the chief beneficiary of Peel's infrastructure construction projects -- funded by taxpayers in all three municipalities -- and it is now Brampton's turn to benefit, as it is growing faster than Mississauga, which is mostly built-out. As well, they have argued that common infrastructure, such as waste and water services, would be more efficiently managed at a regional level.

THE ABOVE IS ONE SIDED IN FAVOUR OF WHAT PEEL REGION AND THE PROVINCE IS DOING TO MISSISSAUGA

It's an explication of two opposing POVs, each given about the same amount of space (not that that's always a good measure). The section of the article is about a dispute or a controversy, so it can't really have content without some reference to the arguments on differing sides. Your edits, on the other hand, take out everything relating to the Brampton position and keep in the statistics that are at the core of Mississauga's argument. That's slanted. --Gary Will 00:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. If you are going to keep the lies quoted about Mississauga stated by Brampton then you need to add my part that deals with those specific issues. You write Mississaugas possition your way, then counter it by adding irrelevancies without addressing the issues. My suggestion is you take both out and just state facts as follows:

[edit] my version without any propaganda sticking to facts - no opinions is

Mississauga and the Region of Peel Controversy Seats on Peel Regional council are not assigned to member municipalities according to population or tax contributions, and this has produced considerable controversy within the region.

Mississauga comprises about 62 per cent of the region's population, but had been assigned 10 of the 21 council seats (or 48 per cent) distributed among the municipalities, with Brampton receiving six and Caledon five. In April 2005, the provincial government introduced legislation to assign two additional seats to Mississauga and one additional seat to Brampton starting with the November 2006 municipal elections. The bill passed in June 2005 and will give Mississauga half of the council seats -- 12 of 24. These numbers do not include the regional chair, who is appointed by council members.

Mississauga council voted unanimously to become a Single Tier Municipality and continues to pursue this objective

Well, naturally I appreciate that the biggest chunk of this is the one paragraph that I wrote -- obviously in a moment of estrangement from my Mao-loving, goosestepping bosses at Peel Region. But, it's not going to cut it. What's here is Mississauga-centric -- the population statistics are used to support the view that council representation has been assigned unfairly, and the final sentence is all about Mississauga. Someone reading this would have no idea what the dispute is and the basis of a contrary view. This isn't a Mississauga page, it's a page about Peel Region and there are different views of this issue within the region that need to be described. What's there now could certainly be improved with better citations and more specific attributions, but at least it attempts to be balanced in covering the different views within the region, which is the subject of the entry. --Gary Will 04:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikidoo

I posted the following two edits several hours ago and made a note on each of the prior editors talk pages who deleted it before; who now apparently don't have any issue with this. I will wait 24 hours for comments and/or suggested revisions and then re-post the articles in each of the Regional pages. I would hope that the critics do not simply delete it like vandals and then complain after I re-post it. I have given ample notice and opportunity for comment. This is Canada and not China. Facts about our governments here are properly publishable even if people can't handle the truth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiDoo (talk • contribs) 23:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiDoo: Please keep in mind the discussion we had on your talk page when deciding to go forward with these edits. If you introduce one-sided material it is subject to removal by anyone. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario

Ontario is unique among the provinces of Canada with its structure of Nine Regional Governments, namely Peel, Niagara, Waterloo, Oxford, Muskoka, Durham, York, Halton and Metro Toronto.

The unique structures created by the government of Wm. (Bill) Davis in the mid 1970's using his majority government over the objections of the local Villages, Communities, Towns and Cities affected. In the thirty years since creation they have been under a constant struggle for power and local control with the local level governments about which of them will become the Single Tier Municipality when the local development reaches maturity.

In the case of Metro Toronto the struggle was won by Metro Region who succeeded in annexing the local Cities of Toronto a few years ago. A similar struggle is currently underway in Peel Region most clearly, but similar struggles have been won and lost in other places as the local governments struggle to break free from their Region to become Single Tier Cities and preserve democratic government structures over less democratic ones.

In Canada, because our constitution only names two distinct government i.e.; The Federal and The Provincial; these Cities and Towns do not have any proper say in the matter of their Regions since both are created by Acts of Provincial Parliament and neither are constitutional governments.

Whereas Cities and Towns are democratically controlled government organization with elected representatives and elected mayors and leaders, the Regions are not. Regions have no elected leader, no full time elected representatives on their Council with offices or personal regional management staff, and there is no structured system for obtaining a majority vote in any proportionate representation of its citizens. Not even a political party system exists that can attract accountability by the votes of its citizens.

[edit] WikiDoo

I want to publish the above or something close. Please post your objections and edits to this so we can reach a concensus.

I also what to balance the slanted article that gives Brampton/Caledon views but not the Mississauga view by adding the with the following edit addition in the part.

Mississauga contends that it has always paid more into the Region of Peel than it ever got back. That Brampton and Caledon combined votes always exceeded Mississauga on Peel Council which has resulted in Mississauga always subsidising Brampton and Caledon dollar per dollar. Furthermore, with Caledon having a median income per citizens of over $80,000 where as Mississauga median income is in the mid $30,000 it is not fair that the taxes of lower income earners should be subsidizing higher income families living in Caledon.

[edit] move to Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario

If anyone's interested, please comment on the message I left at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion#Mass-move of Ontario Regional Municipality pages. Thanks. --Qviri 06:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag

I know that Peel has a flag that includes the coat of arms that's on this page over three diagonal bands, one each of green, yellow and orange, but I don't know which way the bands run, or the size of the coat of arms, and can't find one on the web. Anyone have information?  OZLAWYER  talk  02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed a rather slanted, poorly written comment about the politcal fighting about the future of Peel. What I wrote last year, I felt, was reasonable and impartial. I have made two edits that have largely reverted this section. --Spmarshall 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not NPOV

Definetly not NPOV, the bias towards Mississauga and secession is evident. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.33.136 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

- I noticed this too. 216.154.134.91 continues to vandalize this article. --Spmarshall42 17:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

...Now under the username WikiDoo. WikiDoo: please discuss your edits here first and gain consensus prior to adding them, as thus far they have been deemed inappropriate. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


NO ONE IS COMMENTING...So why can't it go on as it is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiDoo (talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please give it time, it's been less than 2 days since you first posted here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Commenting on what? Your 300-word essay on "the unique regional government structure in Ontario" has no place being added to nine different Wikipedia entries, as you previously edited them. I suspect that it would always be deleted from those pages. It's not up to me, of course, but if you're expecting that at some point in the next few hours there will be a consensus that your essay belongs on all those entries, then I don't think you should get your hopes up. Your best option might be to create a new entry on regional government in Ontario (which the entries for the regions could then link to), but even then, I can guarantee that what you've written will be edited by the Wikipedia community -- it's incomprehensible in parts, and includes POV and errors. You may be the originator, but once it's on Wikipedia, it "belongs" to everyone. And your track record is not promising when it comes to accepting edits of what you like to call "your articles." --Gary Will 03:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal Case

In order to help resolve the debates currently active on this article, this article has been listed for informal mediation at the Mediation Cabal. The case can be found at: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-05 Regional Municipality of Peel, Ontario --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, I will serve as mediator

Can you all put a "yes" next to your name so I have an idea of who is activly participating. Eagle talk 05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. Eagle 101 (talk • contribs)
  2. Spmarshall42 (talk • contribs)
  3. AbsolutDan (talk • contribs) yes
  4. Garywill (talk • contribs)
  5. WikiDoo (talk • contribs)
  6. Osgoodelawyer (talk • contribs)
  7. Peter Grey (talk • contribs) (yes- put in by Eagle talk)

Note: if I missed you, just add your name and a "yes" next to it.

[edit] Proposed spin-off

I believe to help with the above debate, the current "The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario" section should be spun off onto it's own article. The content is primarily focused on the regional structure of Ontario as a whole, not Peel. Once spun off we can then add to this article a link to the new article, and keep this article relating to Peel specifically.

Thus, I propose moving the entire "The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario" section into an article titled "Regional Government Structure in Ontario." I do not at this time propose removing or changing any other content. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

On second thought (and considering all the editing that has gone on since then) this is a bad idea. This same and similar essays are still being plastered across multiple articles. Until/if we can agree to channel these edits somewhere and discuss them BEFORE adding them, they should not have any further foothold here. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oops

I moved the NPOV material in "The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario" (there was very little) to the regional municipality article, not realizing it was under discussion on the talk page. Please feel free to move it back if the content is still under dispute. Peter Grey 22:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the move, but I believe some editors involved in this discussion may wish to add to it. I recommend to them that they make the changes on the new article (regional municipality). As you do so, please cite your references (per WP:CITE). Thanks. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Below are a non-exhaustive list of references to be used in improvement of this article. Please feel free to add to this section links that can serve as references for text that is currently in the article:

--AbsolutDan (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I will be gone for one week

Will return 19 July 2006. I will not be accessable by ANY means. "Real life" :) Eagle talk 05:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on things in the interim. --Ideogram 05:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Now WikiRoo

On July 7, WikiDoo, now posting as WikiRoo, added his "The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario" essay to Muskoka District Municipality, Ontario -- with no change in content. It has now been deleted at least 12 times from nine entries by four or more editors. --Gary Will 09:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to file a Request for Comment against him. Eventually you may have to file a Request for Arbitration. There is no hurry to do so; you may want to wait until Eagle gets back and get his input on the matter. --Ideogram 09:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I grossly underestimated his output. He's posted different versions of his POV-filled, error-riddled personal essay nearly 50 times since June 27. Every instance has required -- and received -- a reversion. So far, it it has been reverted by at least six editors: User:Ixfd64, User:Dcandeto, User:Qviri, User:Adam_Bishop, User:PrimeCupEevee, User:Garywill

Initial 200-word version:

Expanded version of above:

Further expanded version:

--Gary Will 16:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment - WikiRoo/WikiDoo

A user-conduct Request for comment (RfC) has been filed against WikiRoo/WikiDoo, citing repeated viloations of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:VAND, among other Wikipedia policies. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct for general information and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiRoo to participate in the process. Gary Will 23:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation active?

Does this case still require mediation? --Ideogram 03:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the matter is settled for now - the controversial edits have ceased, and the editor has apparently turned a new leaf --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I have closed the case. --Ideogram 13:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mandarins of Ontario Regional Government

I wanted to start an Article listing the Top Mandarins of Ontario Regional Government and when I started it was shot down for things like copyright violations or that I was somehow pushing a POV by simply listing information, or claiming I was posting a Bio of non-notable people.

I don't see what is wrong with making up such a list. It would basically list only the top Mandarins, the CAO, the Commissioner of Business Services, the Commissioner of Public Works and the Regional Solicitor. This would result in a list of say 24 individuals and can list where the came from to expand the job-stub of Wiki and provide interesting and useful reference information about who is who in government in Ontario Regions. This would not POV anything and simply be a source of information about who and how people get these jobs by listing their past jobs in government positions. Once up it can be expanded and be kind of like a hierarchy of command and control positions. No Bio's on them.

Can I have some reasoned comments here on why you people would object to such an article of pure reference information from being created on Ontario's regional government structure?

WikiWoo 05:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mandarins, as in Chinese people? I'm sure there is a better term than that. --curling rock Earl Andrew - talk 06:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a normal term for senior civil servants. But in this case an unnecessary one, since WP:NOT a directory and we don't have articles listing functionaries, not leats because unless they are notable for something else they won't have Wikipedia biographies, because WP:BIO includes elected not appointed individuals, mainly because there tends not to be enough information on appointed officials. Add to that WikiWoo's stated animosity towards the government of Peel and I think there is a problem. Just zis Guy you know? 13:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Mandarin is the Chinese word for Bureaucrat which term is prefered because Bureaucrat has aquired a negative connotation due to the general lack of integrity the people that are getting such jobs tend to have because their positions and roles tend to be kept secret from the general public. An encyclopedia is a source of interesting and important information. It makes no sense what you are saying. Putting an article that contains a list of top bureaucrats in a system of government together and some information about their qualifications and job history that got them the job is not making a Bio, it's not POV, and is not publishing a Directory. Each of the reasons given are not valid and patently false. Furtermore the information would be linked and made part of the Job Stub so people can know what types of jobs they are.WikiWoo 14:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
As Guy said, the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not specifically includes lists of people among the things that Wikipedia is not. You could make lists of people who are notable -- like the List of Prime Ministers of Canada -- but a list of regional bureaucrats in Ontario wouldn't make the cut. And if you're discussing how they got their jobs, then that's definitely biography content of non-notable people. They might be notable to you, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia. The content you're proposing is either a directory or biography or some hybrid. It won't help your case that everyone who's paid attention to your contributions will know that you want to create the page to disparage regional bureaucrats, and Wikipedia isn't the place for that. --Gary Will 15:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That is very unfair comment on your part. Creating a list and providing information all in one place about the workings of senior government jobs and how people move about in the Public Service is not disparaging. If they are so insecure that what they do is not legitimate then they should apply better practices and systems that are more legitimate. You wanting to hide information from the public about who the people are that run government in Ontario and their movement from one government organization to another like its some kind of secret only the mandarins can know is ver troubling. People thing of Canada as an honest country. You seem to think that it is not and the what our bureraucrats do should be hidden from public knowledge. You are pushinig POV and propaganda as well as censoring interesting and important information from Wiki because you obvioulsy feel it is disparging. Since you agree that what bureaucrats in Ontario and how they move about like bees from flower to flower collecting nectar from the public purse, you should be looking to help create a depository of information people can use to see how things work. Maybe we can clean up some of the bad things wwe hear about like the Adscam and GunScam and all of the other Scams plaguing Canada'c Civil Services at every level of goverment. Maybe its because they keep this kind of information so secret that they are able to get away with corrupt activities outside of public scrutiny.WikiWoo 00:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
WikiWoo, do you really think GaryWill, JChap, myself, JzG and whoever else really want to censor information regarding regional government in Ontario? Everything that's been quoted and explained to you is either Wikipedia policy, good editing standards, or just plain old common sense. Nobody here cares about whether Emil Kolb, or some Szwarc guy, or Susan Fennell or whoever is considered a "bad guy". We care about keeping up the standards on Wikipedia. It's that simple. Really. OzLawyer 00:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unique Structure of Regional Government in Ontario

This arcticle was started and then there where edits and discussions about moving it to its own page. It's been deleted but I thing another attempt should be made to crete a new one whith everyone working hamoniously to reach a consensus. Its a rather important and interesting piece. The structure was set in place in 1970's and it is still running its course in Ontario shaing the face of Ontario and therefore all of Canada in the eyes of the world. I would therefore propose we bring back the frame of the article that was sarted and link the Nine Regions to it.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 02:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More POV pushing

I stopped contributing to this article for a while because of the animosity caused by the various edits. I made a revert to this article on Aug 5, as I saw that WikiDoo/Roo/Woo was again pushing POV in a section now called "Interesting Facts", making uncited claims about the structure designed to give 2 of 3 municipalities control (please find the section that mandates this). It was then reverted back to WikiWoo's version, with further POV-pushing content. If this is an argument, then it should go into the controversy section and then countered if appropriate. I am getting tired of the continued edits and reverts of this and other articles. --Spmarshall42 23:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Your POV and propaganda pushing is dully noted. However listing interesting facts in a netral and unacusitory tone is not POV. You seem to be confusing Censorship with POV monitoring. I see nothing POV expressed in the listing of intersting facts. If you want to contribute more facts or edit wording of the cited fact to make them sound more netral then go ahead. No need to CENSOR interesting factual information.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 01:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You see what I mean? Anyone who goes up against WikiDoo/Roo/Woo is accused of having an agenda and censorship. This is not your article. Oh, if you do keep editing this and other articles, at least spell correctly. --Spmarshall42 02:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No I don't see what you mean. There is no POV in the Article. If you want my POV here in the discussion page, then yes, I have a POV and the POV is that Regional Governments in Ontario are the most corrupt governments outside of the Third World and ANY politicial who supports them past, present, or future, is CORRUPT especially those in the Provincial Government level that keep them around so long and that includes members of all THREE political parties. CORRUPTION spans partisanship and it a completely personal matter. This is my POV but I do not put this in the Article. My Agenda is to publish truthfull information and if that goes against the PROPAGANDA of corrupt government so be it. You are free to add interesting information to balance good with bad if you can find anything GOOD to say about Regions in Ontario, which I doubt anyone can since they are only good for nothing but institutionalized form of corruption.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting viewpoint, though I see that bias apparent in many of your current and previous edits under various usernames. I can understand your issues with the structure of Peel (which is why, over a year ago, I helped to make the article represent both sides of the debate), but to accuse it of corruption worthy of a third-world dictatorship is a bit extreme. As for the untendered contract, it might be useful to say why that waste contract was not tendered. I don't know what the reason for that was, and don't necessarily want to defend the region, though since I had some public procurement experience, there are several reasons. Perhaps it was an emergency contingency measure (as an "emergency" there may not be time to follow standard practice), or because of terms of an existing tendered contract, or several other reasons that are allowed in procurement bylaws.--Spmarshall42 21:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I am sure that the Rouge Bureacrats running Peel Region have all the professional reports anyone would want crafted to defend their recommendation for Council Decisions that the Council rubber stamps. I don't think its Wiki's job to defend anyone one way or another or to find reasons behind the a Half-Billion Dollar 20 year long contract being awarded without tender. That kind of information would be simply POV. The facts are what is Encyclopedic, and not the excuses the Public Business Officials of Peel had for making that kind of long term commitment without any competitive considerations. They have the money for now and decided to spend it the way they please and the current version of an Elected Council lets them get away with anything the professional staff dream up to recommend. I would tend to delete explanations given since they would obviously be propaganda and Wiki is not part of the Propaganda Machine governments can pay for with their selective public spending.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 21:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You asked as to how "listing interesting facts in a netral and unacusitory tone is not POV" - it is if you promote an agenda based on what you define as interesting.
Perhaps this should go back to mediation. There's no reaching consensus with WikiDoo/Roo/Woo, who is acting like a troll. --Spmarshall42 02:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Way to many people here are interested in censoring information. Going around being uncivil trying to harrass people from adding good content. The only agenda here is the one in your mind, which wants to keep people stupid. Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I see the above as a personal attack. --Spmarshall42 15:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The comment certainly doesn't WP:AGF, or even seem to admit of a worldview where good faith disagreements over content are possible. ;) JChap T/E 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion over proposed censorship of interesting information

What is the beef with the interesting facts section that is being censored by JChap and GaryWill?

1) Please learn to sign your comments. 2) Please stop using uncivil comments like "censored" -- they're called edits. 3) I actually kept your edit about the alleged "interesting fact" of the without-tender contract, so you really need to make an effort to read the edits before commenting on them. --Gary Will 17:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • An "edit" is something I consider when someone tries to corect or expand or improve wiki with constructive activity. Reverting a factual non POV statement saying it is uncited I call "censoring", since the User had the ability to ask for a cite and has already cause this editor considerable frustration over reverts without effort to edit.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 21:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • An edit is also an attempt to make an encyclopedia more reliable by eliminating opinion, irrelevancy, incorrect material, etc. JChap T/E 22:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The interesting facts section was all cited and good. You did not like the information. An encyclopedia is not a source of ONLY pleasant information. Facts and information are absolute and the more there are in an ecyclopedia the better it is. Taking information out is not legitimate participation in Wiki. Everyone should be trying to add more facts and information. If wording is an issue there's plenty of ways to write things up. I'm no linguist and there are plenty of wordsmiths around to clean things up. But Censorship is BAD and much worse the POV. I would rather see someones POV with facts and information than go without the facts or information out of fear of one POV or another. Its a balance between FORM and SUBSTANCE. Substance MUST always take precedence over FORM or mankind will become a race of imbecils preaching nonsense.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no particular like or dislike for the information. I have no connection with the Peel government. I have questions over how relevant the garbage deal is to the article. As an outsider trying to find out about Peel, why is this important to know about? If this was widely commented on and controversial, fine: show this through cites. If there is another reason why this is important (one of the largest...) assert this. You should also note that WP:NPOV is absolutely nonnegotiable per WP policy. You should also be aware that characterizing a good faith editing agreement as "censorship" is uncivil and unacceptable. JChap T/E 15:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I see that WikiWoo has successfully protected this page, citing repeated vandalism. I guess we need to resolve this.

– Now, in my opinion, I doubt that this will be easily resolved, given the longstanding debate about POV between one user and several others. My opinions can be found above, so I don't feel that I need to repeat them here. I again gave up on editing the page itself because of all the reverts that have been taking place before this page got locked, but I hope for a page that will again meet Wikipedia's standards for a well-written, NPOV article. --Spmarshall42 14:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • We do seem to have a few people with their own POV they want to be reflected on the article. I think if we all stick to recording facts and adding more facts regardless of the POV of anyone that would be better. Censoring Information is not the way to go. If an aarticle seems unbalanced or sugesting one POV vs another then people should find something positive to add to the article rather than censor negative information because it could be interpreted as a POV. Wiki is an encyclopedia and not a propaganda machine and should properly record as much information as posible and deliver the information in a netral tone. This does not require censoring of negative information or facts about a government structure or organization.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 15:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
This link may be of interest, and is more readable than the transcript of the parliamentary session. http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_22741_1.html It also suggests a compromise edit for the "structure" paragraph which seems so vexing to the parties involved. Specifically in the postscript, "The legal truth is otherwise. Regional councilors, whether or not they also wear an area (local) hat, represent all taxpayers in that region. This reality is muted in Peel because it was structured so that no one area municipality has a majority of regional councillors. This is also why Mississauga's claim for two more regional representatives was seen as vexing - Mississauga would then have a majority at the regional level. Mississauga magnified the control issue by complaining of a historic underrepresentation given that a majority of taxpayers in Peel reside and have resided within Mississauga's boundaries. Of course, even that reality is a product of the Peel regional structure which amalgamated Streetsville and other urban concentrations into Mississauga.
The approach taken in this report is to recommend a continuation of a structure that denies any one area municipality a majority at the region." Hope that helps with the dispute. Mucus 05:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, the Anti-democratic systems, as oposed to being simply non-democratic that the Regional Structure of Ontario reprepresents are quie evident in the entirety of the thing. This may be a POV that many people have and Wiki has a responsibility to record the information in an unbiased manner so that the basic structure is documented. I tried to do this early on and came under attack most likely from people that have their own POV about Regional Government and who feel that it is a possitive thing for whatever reason, likely believing that elite individuals should have control and not democracy. In anyevent such a thing as anti-democratic systems should properly be outlined and not censored by confusing facts and information so that people think that something like Peel Region is a legitimate organization when they are the biggest gestapo network of gangsteers in Canada's history that even a Hitler never dreamed of having it so good at being totally bad for society yet keeping their low profile in false legitimacy and false integrity the propaganda machine is paid to produce.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Riiight. I think you just hit Godwin's Law. Mucus 20:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Read that linked article. It says that if you invoke Hitler in an online argument, you lose the argument. Better to stick to WP:RS and WP:NPOV. JChap2007 20:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
LOL...ok then Stalin, Musolini or any of the other historical figures will do. Absolute Power Corrupt Absolutely...and all that jazz that everyone can understand and can relate to when dealing with abusive authority without integrity or honour like the people running our tottaly corrupt Regional Governments in Ontario, Canada.--Wiki The Humble Woo 21:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I really don't want to get into another discussion with you about conspiracy, censorship, vandalism, and the new Gestapo, but I have to ask: Why do you think that something is bad simply because it's not democratic? Democracy isn't the only thing out there, y'know? In fact, Wikipedia's not democratic--and if it were, it would be crap. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 21:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
What do they have to do with WP:RS and WP:NPOV? ;-) Seriously, I'd be able to support including some reliably sourced, relevant information about this topic. Surely, newspapers have reported on this municipality, no? JChap2007 23:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Generally OsgoodeLawyer who professes to study Masonic Cult type groups must also recognize the adage "When power is left in the hands of too few those with the mentality of gangsters tend to take control"... "Power corrupts"... etc. Just as in history there have been very large conspiratorial associations working hidden among the general population, so too it is very easy for people in organizations like the Regional Governments of Ontario to form gansterlike groups that can control all other people and systems around them from such a vantage point outside of public scrutiny. The best place to hide a tree is in a forest...And this is what we have today in Regional Government in Ontario which basically are controlling every aspect of Canadian life, media and politics by the illegitimate use of public money and power acquired and used under the false pretence of doing public good. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C. S. Lewis:--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, goodness gracious! Freemasonry is not a cult. Maybe you should read one or two of the articles on this great encyclopedia and educate yourself. As for your rambling about the evil of regional government, I fear I have no more time for it. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 02:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
You should read more about the Secret Society you say you belong to. Maybe a google search [1] then you will see that most people would call it a Cult. I took a closer look at the article you created on Freemasons and see that its all a one sided POV thamt makes them sound like a good thing, and not balanced in the least. Maybe the freemasons are behind the Region of Peel and Regional Government structural problems in Ontario, or a new Secret Cult like the Freemasons influencing local events from the behind the schenes. BUT when hundreds of millions of dollars every year are being pilfered it is very wrong...“Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity.” Lord Acton --Wiki The Humble Woo 13:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hitler and the Freemasons in the same thread?!?! Let's send this to WP:BJAODN. JChap2007 15:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
JChap, If one had to choose between a dictator out in the open and a hidden dictatorship where people work behind the scenes of a democracy to manipulate events surpenditiously as a secret dicator, I would choose the Open Dictator since at least there is someone to point a gun at when the time comes to get rid of them when they ineviatably start abusing their power and authority as they become corrupted by their power--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Seriously, JChap, this is getting absurd. Sorry, WikiWoo, Freemasonry is not a cult and most of the information "critical" of it out there is written by people with a screw or two loose (and who are out to promote their own agenda of Christianity as the only organization one should belong to). In addition, I have to point out that I did not create the Freemasonry article, that was done by hundreds, if not thousands of editors who have worked very hard to present the verifiable information while getting rid of the utter crap. It was also previously a featured article, which means that it was voted as one of Wikipedia's best articles (although currently because of conflicts with anti-Masons, it is a "former featured article"). That said, it's getting quote close to featured article standard again, I believe. Have fun in your little world of conspiracies involving masonic cults and the "new world order" (Maybe masons are at the heart of the Regional Municipalities?! Good lord!) but I have to say, I won't be joining you. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Which has the loosest screws, those that belong to a secret society or those who are critical of anyone belonging to any secret society. This tends to be a POV and if Wiki is true to the tune you play on balance both POVs should have equal attention. I don't know much about the masons one way or another, but anything that is kept secret and tries to influence world events can't be a good thing--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

a) Freemasonry is not a secret society. It has secrets, but so do hundreds of other organizations. Freemasonry is a fraternity. Most fraternities have their esoteric aspects. College fraternities, the Knights of Columbus, Oddfellows, etc. Secrets are not bad simply because they're secrets. b) Freemasonry does not try to "influence society" unless by "influence society" you mean help to make men better people so that they can do good works in God's name. c) If you don't know much about masons "one way or another" then do you really think you're qualified to judge them? └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 01:01, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. C. S. Lewis: If this is what you mean by making men better then I would rather live in an openly corrupt country that one where the corruption is hidden behind a cloak of legitimacy like in the Regional Governments and Province of Ontario. I think a lot of the top bureaucrats are Freemasons. Is there a list published somewhere? Why do members keep their membership secret?--Wiki The Humble Woo 02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
No, of course that is not what I meant. Duh. Go read Freemasonry from beginning to end. Really. A little information might help you. In addition, most masons, in fact, advertise their membership quite prominently--pins, car license plate covers or decals, etc. They certainly do not keep it a secret. They're proud to be masons, and want you to know it. Again, get the facts. You obviously have no clue what masonry is or who masons are. As for your ridiculous question: "Is there a list published somewhere?" I ask: Does the Roman Catholic church publish a list of all the "top bureaucrats" who are Catholics? Or ANY organization, whatsoever? Really, this conspiracy stuff you're spewing is tiresome. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 03:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
You might find it tiresome, but judging from the sucess of The DaVinci Code, people like to talk about this sort of thing. If the Masons are not a secretive sect why is it not many people know much about them after the hundreds of years they have been around. Any of your members top beuracrats of Peel Region?--Wiki The Humble Woo 04:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, first off, the DaVinci code is fiction. If you consider it to be fact you will find that it is filled with inaccuracies and outright lies. You might want to reconsider using it as anything but a novel. Secondly, many people do know about Freemasonry, and anyone can get information about it if they want to. The fact that there is a very in-depth article here on Wikipedia shows that, in fact, knowledge about Masonry is easy to come by. In addition, any man with good morals and a belief in God can become a Mason--even you could become a Mason, if you actually wanted to. Just call or visit your local lodge and ask some questions. Someone will be more than happy to answer your questions. The only thing Masons are supposed to keep secret are a couple silly words and hand gestures. Those are irrelevant to the idea of what Masonry is. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 16:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but then with a 'nudge' 'nudge' 'wink' 'wink' many evil things have been done thoughout history by individuals working together in association. It's more commonly called conspiracy. All you need is a secret handshake and a couple of silly words and many peoples lives can be ruined by what was said before or afterwards.--Wiki The Humble Woo 16:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
<sigh>... I just created a secret handshake with my wife. Off to take over the world. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:47, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resolving the Protection

I think if everyone will agree that having more content on Wiki is the objective, then efforts to NOT CENSOR content must be the first rule. Look's like several people here want to be editors on this page. So lets all be editors and not CENSORS. Have respect for other editors who are contributing and don't do blatant reverts, because that is vandalism when you know the editor was trying to add content and make contributions. I see no problem with requesting cites or REWORDING someones contribution leaving the information and facts when a POV is shown in the delivery of the facts. Deleting facts is not being a good editor and shown disrespect and lack of civility--Wiki The Humble Woo 00:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Going around in circles. As many editors already pointed out, there is no "censoring", but are removing unencyclopedic content as it promotes a POV. Personal attacks, BTW, also show a lack of civility. --Spmarshall42 02:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Population of Peel as of July 1st, 2006, is 1,235,790.Please Change (StudentWarz)

I think someone (perhaps myself, but I have been involved somewhat in the controversy - can I do this?) should request this page to be unblocked for editing. WikiWoo has been indefinitely banned, so the edit war should be over. --Spmarshall42 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. As the community has determined that WikiWoo's edits alone were the source of the issue, and that we expect there will be no further edits from that source, unprotection is a good idea now. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. posted here Thanks! --Spmarshall42 02:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/g/Talk%7ERegional_Municipality_of_Peel%2C_Ontario_90e6.html"