Talk:Joe Volpe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 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.

Contents

[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)

I don't really have a problem with a lot of the content in the edits per se. But, having followed the Rachel Marsden arbitration somewhat closely, I have a new-found appreciation for WP:BLP, in particular concerns about weighting negative material. I think that there is too much negative material and in too much detail. --JGGardiner 08:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, most of the sources available on Volpe is about his leadership bid. It is also crucial to express each aspect in a way that is fair and covers both sides, that is why the section happens to be long. I take issue with some of CJCurrie's generalized statements in trying to contract that section. It is also possible to expand the other sections of the article, rather than cut from the leadership bid to achieve balance. GoldDragon 18:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The other parts of the article have already been expanded. Beyond which, there's no compelling need to mention Corey Hobbs in this piece. CJCurrie 02:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really, as his political career in the 1980s is still pretty sketchy by comparison. Most of the sources available on Volpe is about his leadership bid. Particularly, it is crucial to express each controversy in a way that is fair and covers both sides, that is why the section happens to be long. I further take issue with some generalized statements which result from trying to contract that section. GoldDragon 19:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I just feel that a lot of this is pretty trivial for such detail. For the donations, since we're on the subject, I don't think that it is even alleged that Volpe personally knew about them. And riding take-overs? If we’re going to start including every accusation of that, we’d probably have to create a new portal. BLPs are a balancing act; sometimes the desire to cover both sides can create unfair articles, however unintentionally. --JGGardiner 00:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The leadership campaign detail is as a result of lots of negotiations and debate in trying to temper the appropriate NPOV wording. It is also not surprising that his leadership bid would received much more coverage, compared to his re-election campaigns for the House of Commons. GoldDragon 14:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyone who agrees with you, GoldDragon? CJCurrie 01:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

  • First of all, I seriously cannot believe that this is happening again. As for the dispute itself, I have a few comments. Both of you, when there are as many changes under consideration as there are here, wholesale reverts do not help, and only inflame the situation. As I've said a dozen times before in your disputes, discuss it here rather than reverting. As for the content itself, I do think a small (ie. one sentence, nothing more) mention of the "youth for volpe" site is warranted, but in general GoldDragon's version is too long and contains too much information that is simply irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I endorse CJ's version, as it is more succinct and summarizes the points better. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 03:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
By way of clarification, I should point out that "Youth for Volpe" is already mentioned in a one-sentence reference. CJCurrie 09:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further changes

If no-one objects, I plan to change this sentence:

The poster was a response to relevations of the Liberals' involvement in the federal sponsorship scandal of 2004-05.

to this:

The poster was a response to reports that some members of the Liberal Party were involved in the federal sponsorship scandal.

Reasons:

(i) The Liberal Party as a whole was not responsible for the scandal; some members were. We should clarify this point. (ii) The scandal did not occur in 2004-05; it was reported in 2004-05. (iii) "Revelations" is in this context an emotive term, not an analytical one. In any event, it's misspelled.

I think we may need to reword the section about Graham and Mackinnon as well. I believe I've already mentioned that they didn't "stand by" Volpe, so much as indicate that he didn't break any party rules. CJCurrie 20:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


"Revelations" was used as news of the scandal unexpectedly broke out during that time period. Its much more specific than "reports that" GoldDragon 18:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Before the Gomery inquiry delivered its report in late 2005, the Liberals were claiming that it was just a subgroup of corrupt members, while opposition parties were saying that the Liberal Party as a whole was involved. The report hasn't been delivered as of the 2004 election, so "Liberals'" is intended to stand for both the members and the whole party. GoldDragon 18:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

With respect, the current wording ("the Liberals'") implies that the party as a whole was involved. Unbless you can convince me otherwise, I'll change the wording shortly. By way of compromise, I'll keep "revelations". CJCurrie 00:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GoldDragon's latest changes

I've already corrected a factual error in GoldDragon's last post. I also think we should change the wording concerning two other points:

On the subject of Karygiannis and the police, please consider the following:

"Turmoil" is not too strong a word. The Toronto Star reported that when Jim Karygiannis abruptly left as campaign manager last Friday, somebody had to call the police after Karygiannis, who is, like Volpe, a Toronto-area member of Parliament, refused to unlock the door of the Volpe headquarters.
At stake, or so the loyalists thought, was the list of almost 36,000 new Liberals, signed up in recent weeks. In fact copies were safe elsewhere, but it still took police officers to calm the dispute.

(Montreal Gazette, 30 July 2006, A14)

It might be appropriate to give some notice to this "tempest in a teapot", but we shouldn't leave readers with the impression that the campaign lists were actually at stake. I'll change this shortly if no-one objects.

On the subject of "Youth for Volpe", how many times do we have to go through this? We've already indicated the existence of the site: beyond that, it simply isn't important. CJCurrie 05:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Karygiannis, what is your proposed wording?
You've already got it most of your way with Youth. I personally feel that the full paragraph should be here instead of just a sentence but I'm willing to compromise. GoldDragon 06:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
You already restored this section to the footnotes a few weeks ago, despite a consensus viewpoint that one sentence was sufficient. I'm not going to let you return it to the main text as well. CJCurrie 06:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, you might be interested to know that the "Career Foundation" story was never followed-up on by the Toronto Star, and in fact completely disappeared from the papers after a single day. There's no way this flash-in-the-pan "scandal" deserves a full paragraph here. CJCurrie 06:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Events of the last month

In December 2006, I made a comprehensive edit to this article that removed some unnecessary sections and details. GoldDragon opposed these changes, and a controversy ensued. Two outside contributors examined the page, and endorsed my version (in whole or in part). Private discussions with GoldDragon followed, and he agreed not to blanket-revert the page again.

Unfortunately, GoldDragon's edits since that time have shown a clear pattern toward gradually returning his preferred wording into the article. ([2], [3], [4], [5]) This is, in effect, a form of edit-warring by stealth: taking an inch here and an inch there, and working toward the restoration of an earlier version that no-one else has endorsed.

I've been making an effort to avoid edit-wars with GoldDragon, and I was willing to turn a blind eye to this for a while. At this point, however, it's time to say that enough is enough. The current wording is not too far removed from GoldDragon's old version of the article, and includes some of the same information that was justifiably removed some time ago. Accordingly, I will remove this information again.

My changes are as follows:

  1. Shifting the wording in the "Libranos" sentence
  2. Removing one sentence from the Apotex paragraph
  3. Removing unnecessary information about "Youth for Volpe"
  4. Removing the Karygiannis/police sentence (someone called in the police over a misunderstanding; this isn't important enough to mention in an encyclopedia), and changing the header
  5. Removing the Career Foundation paragraph (this was in the news for all of two days, and was never mentioned again afterwards; the National Post never covered the story at all)

I've also tweaked my own wording in a few places. I can justify all of these changes, if challenged.

Based on past experience, it strikes me as entirely possible that GoldDragon will oppose these changes. If he does, I would recommend the following points of advice:

  1. Don't blanket-revert the page again.
  2. Don't restore the information by increments again.
  3. Don't try to justify a revert by claiming the information "needs to be" in the article, when no-one as yet has agreed with you.
  4. Don't precipitate another edit war.
  5. Do try to build consensus for your changes on the talk page.
  6. Do please consider doing something more productive with your time than dragging out this dispute any further.

(The irony is that I don't even like Volpe that much.)

CJCurrie 17:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


Well, I don't like blanket-reverting but CJCurrie leaves me with no choice but to force my hand. His harsh words deserve an appropriate response. Better yet, if he is willing to abide by his own advice, we would not be in this mess. I have not forgotten that his December edits were by "stealth", basically contradicting the rules that he now wants me to stand by.

I also will not forget that Blackeagle and ChrisThomson supported Youth. I will not permit CJCurrie unilaterally decide on what material is the most important.

Lastly, just keep your feelings for the subject person out of it. It is irrelevant. GoldDragon 22:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

  1. My changes did not take place "by stealth"
  2. Neither Blackeagle and Chris Thompson have had anything to do with this page in months, and the original reference always struck me as an attack-edit.

Btw, thank you for reverting my unrelated changes to the electoral record section. CJCurrie 23:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

GoldDragon writes: I will not permit CJCurrie unilaterally decide on what material is the most important. He may have forgotten about this and this. CJCurrie 00:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Chabuk's Response

  • Frankly, this is absolutely ridiculous. I almost didn't believe it when I saw on my watchlist GD and CJ going back and forth again on this page. This time, however, it's quickly become apparent that the dispute is completely one sided. GoldDragon, almost all of your recent edits have been destructive, PoV and Point-pushing. I'm asking you to stop with these edits immediately. As someone who has no interest in this article outside of preventing edit-wars, it is incredibly clear to me that your edits are being made in bad faith. If you have a problem with my opinion, find another outside opinion, I'll bet they say exactly what I'm saying, but until then, please stop this nonsense. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 03:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Please give examples.GoldDragon 22:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

How is pointing out that Pat Martin filed a complaint while Bill Graham defended the donations POV pushing? In fact, the old version did not have this generic sentence "Critics charged that..." GoldDragon 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

GoldDragon,
I could repeat all of my previous arguments as to why your version is inappropriate, but there's really no point. You are not acting in a reasonable manner, and I don't have the patience to go over this point-by-point again. No one else agrees with your version, and I can't for the life of me understand how you can justify reposting it. CJCurrie 05:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
No, we will not use a "blanket" statement to put closure. And when Blackeagle and ChrisThompson didn't agree with you, you just keep trying to push it through. Is THAT reasonable? GoldDragon 22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
"ChrisThompson" showed up in the middle of the Liberal leadership campaign, and wrote an obviously partisan concerning Youth for Volpe. "Blackeagle" agreed that the reference should be included, using an argument that now seems to have been misinformed. Neither of these users have made even 500 edits on Wiki-space, neither has a user page, and neither has been involved with this page since last summer. If these are your only allies, it may be time to reconsider your position. CJCurrie 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated statement by CJCurrie

I remain opposed to GoldDragon's version of this article, and I strongly oppose his behaviour on this page in recent days (which has included the removal of an NPOV notice, here; please let it be known that I consider the current version to have POV problems). I have refrained from reverting the article for two reasons: (i) I'm still trying to avoid being dragged into a revert war, and (ii) I'm convinced that GoldDragon will simply revert it back at the earliest possible opportunity anyway. I hope that others will soon weigh in on this matter.

For the basic difference between our versions, click here. I have removed several sections on the grounds of undue weight (see above). CJCurrie 06:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


Well, first of all, the NPOV tag was completely inappropriate. In the past, our differences with the same material was mainly stylistic differences. Second, if you force my hand...
Well, I will concede the few points that the other recent editors made, regarding Liberals vs some Liberals. So I'm not that inflexible.GoldDragon 22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I've posted the NPOV tag with reference to an issue of undue weight, and you had absolutely no right to remove it. It's a shame that you don't seem to understand this. CJCurrie 00:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Its a shame that you used the undue weight as an excuse to delete content without allowing proper debate. GoldDragon 18:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's a shame that the content was allowed to remain in the article in the first place. It's even more of a shame that you didn't accept the views of others during the debate that followed. CJCurrie 22:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Its a shame that you are bringing your personal opinion into this by calling the content shameful. Plus, YOU didn't accept the views of others during the debate. Lastly, I don't see a problem with undue weight, as a person is bound to get more attention sometimes and less at other points in their life. GoldDragon 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
There's no point in continuing this. I've responded to GoldDragon's arguments before, and it's quite evident he's not listening. I hope others will weigh in. CJCurrie 01:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I think the dispute is wrongly framed in terms of "undue weight". To me, the scandals are massively important and no amount of "weight" will communicate that, but that's entirely my POV. The problem is that this isn't a news history but an encyclopedia. I will propse an edit (later, when I'm not drinking Robbie Burns Day scotch) that takes a middle path. But I think the detailed back and forth of who said what and called who is definitely unencyclopedic. --Markdsgraham 03:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not proposing that we eliminate all reference to the scandals; I'm proposing that we remove references to aspects of Volpe's campaign that aren't especially notable. CJCurrie 03:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments

I've filed an RfC. CJCurrie 05:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting NPOV notices

GoldDragon has now reverted my NPOV notice for a second time. Does anyone believe this is reasonable behaviour? CJCurrie 02:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with you filing a RfC, as I acknowledge that you disagree with the content, but this is NOT an NPOV dispute. So an NPOV tag is not reasonable, especially as it was not a problem in our past disputes on this page. GoldDragon 03:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm making a charge of "undue weight", so the NPOV notice is quite reasonable. You have no right to remove it. CJCurrie 03:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
That is specifically mentioned on the Wikipedia:NPOV dispute page which is linked to from the tag. So I don't understand why it would be deleted. The tags are there to help prevent edit wars which I think would be the more harmful alternative at this time. --JGGardiner 08:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the NPOV tag, and made numerous copyedits that are consistent with WP:MOS. I have also made some minor changes to reduce the POV. I am going to take a closer look at the arguments presented above over the weekend. One thing I did notice was the paragraph about the Italian cancer quack. this really does not sound significant to me. i don't think it really belongs. Anyone else? Ground Zero | t 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Volpe led a Parliamentary Health Committee investigation of DiBella's "research" in Italy, and continued defending him even after it was obvious that the "magic exilir" had no curative qualities. His views wouldn't be significant under normal circumstances, but the official nature of his trip makes them so. In my view, at least. Others may disagree. CJCurrie 02:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

One niggling point: the article referred to the Career Foundation as a "non-profit charity". Are there any for-profit charities? Ground Zero | t 23:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I consider this a major issue since it was Volpe's previous department. GoldDragon 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Website issue

Trying to deal with one issue at a time:

", and it was initially reported that a member of Volpe's campaign tried to have it shut down. ref: Daniel LeBlanc, "Volpe seeks tighter restrictions on donations", Globe and Mail, 4 July 2006, A4. The author(s) of this parody site are unknown. Brenden Johnstone from the Volpe campaign was initially quoted in the Globe and Mail as stating "my Office has had the website suspended through CIRA [Canadian Internet Registration Authority] and CDNS [Canadian Domain Name Services] and it will be down as soon as 6 p.m. I think the issue with the website has been dealt with...." The registrants had quoted an e-mail allegedly from the website's domain name registrar (Canadian Domain Name Services) saying that their site was pulled because of complaints about its content. Michael Geist and the CIRA later held a press conference to state that the website was pulled because of false registration information. It was later made available again, and remains online as of September 2006. [6], [7] /ref"

This alleges in the main part of the article that Volpe's campaign tried to shut down a critical website, and only identifies in the references section that it was a false allegation. Boy, is that ever (a) misleading, and (b) unfair. This must go. I think that an encyclopedia article need not report on untrue allegations unless the false allegations become issues in themselves like the "Hillary Clinton's campaign claims that Barack Obama attended an Islamic madrassah" nonsense that a minor conservative rag made up. (Are their any non-Islamic madrassahs?) Ground Zero | t 00:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would perhaps add a blurb in the article about the CIRA saying that the site was shut down for technical reasons. That was what was agreed upon back at the start of December. GoldDragon 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why, if the website was shut done by CIRA and the sutting down of the website had nothing to do with Volpe, why it would be in this article? Again, there is no need to report on false allegations unless the false allegations themselves become an issue, which I don't believe they did in this case. Ground Zero | t

Trying to move this along, I propose:

  1. delete the line as I have suggested, or
  2. if we cannot agree on that, replace it by:
"and it was falsely reported that a member of Volpe's campaign tried to have it shut down. It was, in fact, shut down by the Canadian Internet Registration Authority because of false registration information."

Ground Zero | t 09:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There has been no resolution on this passage over the past week since I first tried to address it. I find the passage -- as written -- to be so egregious that I have decided to remove it until the issue is resolved. While I don't think that there is any need to include a reference to this incident, if others think this incident is worthy of inclusion, we can re-incorporate a new sentence -- such as the one I've suggested above -- that it not so glaringly misleading to the reader and unfair to the subject after we've resolved the issue here. Ground Zero | t 16:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify ... my position is that the article should include the sentence "A website called "Youth For Volpe" was later created to parody these events", with a simple newspaper reference for the footnote. CJCurrie 03:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted it because we're dealing with an issue on which I had raised an objection, proposed ways of resolving it, waited patiently for a response, and acted only when no response was forthcoming. Gold Dragon then slipped a reference back in with no discussion, no explanation in the edit summary, and misleadingly marked the edit as "minor". I hope that by reverting this, GD will come to the talk page to explain why he thinks it is appropriate to include here. Ground Zero | t 04:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
As per CJCurrie for the time being. With a full explanation in the footnote. GoldDragon 04:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I maintain that there is no reason for a "full explanation" of trivial and irrelevant material, and I believe that this edit (like the previous one) is entirely inappropriate. Among other things, it misrepresents my position. CJCurrie 05:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for neglecting to add my views to this section of the page before today (I had previously clarified my views in other sections, and forgot to add them here). CJCurrie 05:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My proposal

A website called "Youth for Volpe" was later created to parody these events.refDaniel LeBlanc, "Volpe seeks tighter restrictions on donations", Globe and Mail, 4 July 2006, A4.

[8] /ref I think that CJCurrie would agree with this, but will wait for both of you to comment before changing the article. Ground Zero | t 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Agree CJCurrie 05:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the Globe article is no longer accessible. Also, a long time ago, that was your idea to have the explanation in the footnote. GoldDragon 05:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Here's another view: [9] CJCurrie 06:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I prefer a short version as well. I like Ground Zero's proposal. I think that the biography articles are getting too cluttered with information that isn't central to the subject. It is helpful to describe Volpe's actions and it might be worth-while to note that he was parodied but the he said/she said which suggests that his campaign may have pressured to have it shut down is a loss of focus in my opinion. --JGGardiner 09:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apotex donations

A second issue:

"NDP MP Pat Martin filed a complaint, while interim Liberal Leader Bill Graham and party president Steve MacKinnon maintained that the donations were legitimate.ref FED -Liberals refuse to investigate Volpe donations 31 May 2006/ref"

I do not see GoldDragon's addition of this referenced point as being problematic. The Apotex donations issue was a big thing, worthy or some elaboration, and this seems to be relevant to me, but I am interested in hearing why others might think it should be removed. Ground Zero | t 00:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • On reflection, I agree that I may have been overzealous in removing this section. GoldDragon and I had previously disagreed over the specific wording of the Martin/Graham sentence ... when I concluded that the specific details were unnecessary for the article, it may have been in part because I was tired of arguing over aspects of the presentation. Ground Zero's argument in favour of elaboration makes sense, however, and I'm prepared to remove my objections to this point.
  • Would this version be agreeable to all concerned?
While donations from minors are not illegal, critics charged that the Apotex contributions as a whole may have been an attempt to sidestep Canada's laws on corporate donations. NDP MP Pat Martin filed a complaint with the Elections Commissioner, asking him to investigate whether "individuals may be trying to circumvent campaign fundraising limits". Martin initially suggested that Volpe's campaign had deliberately orchestrated fraudulent donations, although he withdrew this charge after Volpe threatened a libel suit. Liberal leader Bill Graham and party president Steve MacKinnon argued that all of the donations were properly reported, and said that no rules were broken.
Volpe responded to the controversy by promising to return any donations that contravened the letter or spirit of the law. He returned the five cheques from minors after extensive media criticism, and denied that any laws had been broken. The matter nonetheless damaged his candidacy. CJCurrie 03:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
No major disagreements this time. As well for more controversial stuff, the extra length works to allow everyone's viewpoint to be clearly identified.GoldDragon 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have revised the article according to this consensus. This issue is therefore resolved. Ground Zero | t 09:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karygiannis's computers

GoldDragon's preferred version reads as follows: After his abrupt departure from the campaign, Karygiannis called the police to prevent a Volpe official from seizing computers at the Scarborough, Ont., headquarters that contained the names of nearly 36,000 new party members he had helped recruit.

This, however, may be misleading. The police were called in to mediate a dispute between Karygiannis and Volpe's workers, but it's not clear if the lists were actually at stake.

"Turmoil" is not too strong a word. The Toronto Star reported that when Jim Karygiannis abruptly left as campaign manager last Friday, somebody had to call the police after Karygiannis, who is, like Volpe, a Toronto-area member of Parliament, refused to unlock the door of the Volpe headquarters.
At stake, or so the loyalists thought, was the list of almost 36,000 new Liberals, signed up in recent weeks. In fact copies were safe elsewhere, but it still took police officers to calm the dispute.

(Montreal Gazette, 30 July 2006, A14)

I've already said that I'm willing to include a reference to this controversy (see above), but I maintain that the current wording is inappropriate. CJCurrie 03:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've also discovered this:

"Apparently, the lease was in Mr. Karygiannis's name," Volpe spokesperson Corey Hobbs explained yesterday. "But it's just administrative stuff - a technical glitch."

(Toronto Star, 16 July 2006, A1)

There is apparently a rumour that Karygiannis owned the computers, as well.

In light of this, could I suggest the following:

Soon after his abrupt departure, Karygiannis called the police to prevent a Volpe official from removing computers at the campaign's Scarborough headquarters, which had been leased in Karygiannis's name. No charges were filed. CJCurrie 03:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind your "No charges were filed" addition but add that some speculated that Karygiannis' 36,000 recruits were loyal to him and not Volpe. That would thus (sort of) justify Karygiannis' reason for calling in the police. GoldDragon 16:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
We already have this: There was speculation that Karygiannis's recruits were more loyal to him than to Volpe, and that his departure would create serious difficulties for Volpe's candidacy. CJCurrie 23:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If the computer leases were in K's name, this might explain why he wouldn't hand over the office -- he would be on the hook for a bunch of 'puters in the possession of Volpe's campaign. Whay evidence do we have that it was about the membership lists? Were the Volpe workers right in believing that K wanted to hold onto the lists? Ground Zero | t 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's what the Toronto Star said in its initial report:
Tempers flared so hotly last Friday, the Toronto Star has learned, that Karygiannis called police to stop the Volpe official from taking the computers. The offices are in a little shopping centre on Kennedy Rd. north of Lawrence.
When officers arrived from 41 Division, Karygiannis apparently told them it had all been a big misunderstanding and no police report was filed.
The landlord came later and locked up the offices. It now appears that nobody is getting in.
But what about the lists? Earlier this month, Karygiannis took credit for having signed up the huge numbers of new members for the Volpe campaign and there has been speculation since his firing that new members are loyal to him and not Volpe.
"I took no lists," said Karygiannis yesterday, declining to comment further. He also wouldn't say if the computers are his, as has been rumoured.
I'm having second thoughts about including any reference to this situation in the article. It doesn't appear to have led to any long-term consequences, and there's really no way to tell if it wasn't just a minor misunderstanding that momentarily seemed like something else. CJCurrie 03:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
It does seem rather minor based on the information available. If there were more substance to the speculation and suspicions, it would be worth including, but there isn't. Things get very heated in leadership campaigns, and wild speculation quickly turns into rumours which quickly turn into "insiders say that...." I vote to delete unless further info becomes available. Ground Zero | t 09:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't feel that is is controversial or offensive to either side, though, as it lends support to speculation of the recruits' loyalty. GoldDragon 02:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Should an encyclopaedia be including material to "lend support to speculation"? I don't think so. Let's focus on facts, and leave out speculation. Given CJCurrie's concerns about balance in the tone of this article, which I think have some merit (even though I think Joe is some kind of scuzzbag, although maybe not the worst kind), the best way to even out the balance is to remove speculative material such as this. Ground Zero | t 16:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Fine, we can say that the Toronto Star speculated that... That is consistent with how the Sgro controversy was handled in this article as the Globe & Mail reported that...there is also Volpe's disagreement with the Globe. GoldDragon 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Should I assume that this line can be deleted from the article? CJCurrie 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

  • GoldDragon ... there are currently two votes in favour of deletion, and one in favour of retention. I waited more than a month before deleting the reference, to see if anyone else would weigh in. No one did. This is not "editing by stealth". CJCurrie 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, CJCurrie, in John Baird regarding the homeless shelters praise/criticism, we had two votes of opposition to one in favour, yet you complained that it was premature and GroundZero reinstated it. GoldDragon 21:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

GZ reinstated the talk page discussion forum for the matter you've cited, but he did not return the actual reference to the article. I have no objection if you want to keep this discussion "active" for a bit longer, but you should respect the fact that the present consensus supports deletion. CJCurrie 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The placement agency

I also have problems with this paragraph: On October 15, 2006, the Toronto Star reported that the Career Foundation, a federally-funded charity offering career-management services to the unemployed, had paid seven of its clients to work on Volpe's leadership campaign in spite of ethics objections made to foundation executive director Colin Morrison by three of the organization's managers. The managers objected that the Career Foundation, which is headquartered in Volpe's Eglinton-Lawrence riding and fell under his purview during his tenure as Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, was not a placement agency, and that paying workers in a partisan political campaign was an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds and incompatible with the foundation's charitable status. Morrison told the Star that assigning clients to the campaign had served a "higher purpose" of "help[ing] unemployed people," while Volpe campaign spokesman Corey Hobbs said that the campaign was repaying the funds, as it had planned to do, he claimed, even prior to the controversy. Four of the seven foundation clients sent to work on the campaign also claim they were not paid in full for their services.[92]Volpe called the Toronto Star's report "a total fiction," the latest in a series of attempts to derail his campaign by calling into question his personal integrity.[93]

I have two objections to the inclusion of this material.
1. The controversy was extremely ephemeral in nature. The Star's exclusive feature was published on 15 October 2006, and Volpe's response appeared in the same paper the next day (ironically in a story filed by the same reporter). The Globe and Mail covered the controversy in a "bullet" entry on 16 October 2006 (p. A4). After that ... there doesn't seem to have been anything else. The National Post didn't cover the story at all, and I haven't found any evidence that it appeared in papers published outside of Toronto.
2. Beyond which, there isn't any evidence of illegal or unethical behaviour here.

Given that this was basically a two-day controversy that didn't lead to any consequences, I can't see how we can justify a detailed paragraph on the matter. At the most, this deserves a single sentence ... and I'm not certain that we should include even that. CJCurrie 23:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Then again, this controversy happened under Volpe's past department. Second, though I can't take credit for the paragraph, it looks like it has been written in a NPOV manner and treated both sides fairly. We can probably reduce the length of it, though.GoldDragon 02:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it occurred in Volpe's previous department may be relevant ... or it may not. There's no evidence that wrongdoing occurred, let alone evidence that Volpe's past connections were a contributing factor in some way. The paragraph itself is both well-written and thorough to a fault; I will reiterate that a single sentence is the most we should include. CJCurrie 02:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't belong to any other section. It does not stand with just one sentence. And even though no "wrongdoing" occurred, it does not mean that it becomes unimportant. Its like getting rid of all the controversy on Belinda Stronach's floor crossing, just because no investigation was launched in the end. It might be a tad bit long, since the original author (CJCurrie) decided to include Volpe's full response Volpe called the Toronto Star's report "a total fiction," the latest in a series of attempts to derail his campaign by calling into question his personal integrity. I would just paraphrase it to attempt to derail his campaign. GoldDragon 23:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter? CJCurrie 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. On one hand, it appears to be further evidence of his general sleaziness. On the other hand, as CJCurrie points out, there does not seem to be strong enough evidence to warrant inclusion. If someone can find another source, I'd say it should stay, but that does not seem likely at this point, so I think it should go. Ground Zero | t 12:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, these are very serious allegations. If there was something to thi, why did the media not pursue it? Why was it dropped so quickly? I think that we have to conclude that we did not her more about it because it was not what it appeared to be at first glance. I have removed the passage in question. Ground Zero | t 11:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this takes care of the active controversies on this page. I'll remove the NPOV notice soon, unless anyone objects. CJCurrie 02:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You should present proof that there are not many sources on this, instead of us taking your word for it. GoldDragon 13:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Sigh ... you're asking me to prove a negative, which is not possible. CJCurrie 01:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be late to this party, especially as I'm largely responsible for the paragraph in question. I'd say a couple of things: first, I think the paragraph at its original (and now current, it appears -- as it's been restored) length was justified when the leadership race was a current event, but I have no objection to its being shortened now that's no longer the case. Maybe it was a bit too long, but I used the length of the paragraph on the Apotex controversy as a rough guide.
Also, the issue was hard to summarize: the five elements that seemed to me to require inclusion were that the Career Foundation is a charity, and charities can't participate in partisan political activities; the organization is federally-funded, and this may have been an improper use of taxpayer dollars; the Career Foundation is not a placement agency, and does not send clients to work anywhere, let alone in a leadership campaign; it's located in Volpe's riding; it is overseen by the department of which Volpe was formerly the Minister. It seemed to me that without those elements, the story wouldn't make a lot of sense.
I also think the paragraph was scrupulously fair to both sides, and even gave the Volpe campaign, and Mr. Volpe himself, the last word. Its inclusion wasn't motivated by any animus toward Mr. Volpe or his candidacy, and didn't seek to add to his campaign's putative reputation for "sleaziness": it seemed to me relevant in the context of other examples of allegations of questionable activities on the part of the campaign and, moreover, in the context of corruption allegations plaguing the Liberal former government of which Mr. Volpe had been part. I think it included sufficient balance for an adult reader to make his or her own judgment on whether this example belonged with this group of alleged misdeeds or not.
  • "If there was something to this, why did the media not pursue it? Why was it dropped so quickly? I think that we have to conclude that we did not hear more about it because it was not what it appeared to be at first glance."
I think that's a hasty and tenuous conclusion. --Rrburke(talk) 19:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about all of this. Your summary was balanced in the sense that it gave voice to Volpe's reply, but I still believe that it summarized the original Star article in rather too much detail, and was perhaps skewed against Volpe in other respects. I'm also not certain that that the particular allegations against Volpe should be considered as "relevant in the context of other examples of allegations of questionable activities on the part of the campaign and [...] in the context of corruption allegations plaguing the Liberal former government of which Mr. Volpe had been part". This seems uncomfortably close to a "pile on" effect, where the existence of past allegations automatically justifies reference to subsequent "scandals".
Finally, I still find it odd that the mainstream media didn't follow up on this story. GroundZero's conclusion may or may not have been "hasty", but I don't believe it should be dismissed out of hand: the fact of the matter is that we only have one newspaper source for these allegations, and a mysterious silence everywhere else.
My views about the paragraph haven't changed: I think that it should be streamlined at minimum, and perhaps discarded entirely. CJCurrie 01:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the paragraph, it should stay though I would perhaps recommend streamlining it. GoldDragon 11:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberal Party President

The article says that Steve MacKinnon was the Liberal president but I recall that Sen. Poulin took over from Michael Eizenga (who was rumored to be a candidate in that London by-election). Was Mackinnon not involved or not president? Hopefully not both. =) --JGGardiner 00:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I just followed the source. He was "national director" which I believe is just a staff position. --JGGardiner 00:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/e/Talk%7EJoe_Volpe_b2d6.html"