Talk:Howard Moscoe/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

GoldDragon edits

I think you may be confusing the taxi/police quote with this:

Driving a taxi is still a dangerous profession because there are a lot of people out there who see it as a chance to grab some quick money.

(Howard Moscoe, quoted in the Toronto Star, 7 September 2005, A04)

No confusion at all. The Star (Toronto Star, 1 April 2006, A15) did have the exact Moscoe quote stating that a taxi driver was more dangerous that a police officer. This could imply his contempt for the police service which enjoyed strong backing from Mel Lastman.GoldDragon 03:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure where the Star took that quote from, and I think it might be slightly garbled. In any case, your subsequent comments are (i) conjectural, and (ii) probably incorrect. Moscoe has made several statements in support of taxi drivers, particularly in response to the shootings that occurred last year. If the Star quote is real, it was likely taken from that period. (I wonder if more taxi operators than police officers died on the job in Toronto last year). CJCurrie 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The comment is truth, no doubt about it. That doesn't change even if you and I don't debate the conjecture. Of course, the Star brought it that old quote after the Nunziata remark, so their editors had their own conjecture to why they used that quote.GoldDragon 02:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the other quote, do you seriously think that a cop/donut shop joke is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article? CJCurrie 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That was made in response to Julian Fantino's request for police choppers...so again this clearly clarifies Moscoe's position.GoldDragon 03:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a trivial throwaway joke. CJCurrie 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is what most politicians think, until the Star brings it up again. GoldDragon 02:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Moscoe's been in politics a long time yet about half the article is on two relatively trivial incidents. Is there also nothing positive he's done in his career? I seem to recall Moscoe being a force in lobbying for more provincial funding for the TTC and if you search the archives of Eye Weekly and Now Magazine online you'll find a number of laudatory references, particularly in regards to the TTC.

There's also the whole reform of taxi licencing that Moscoe helped bring in a few years ago ie the "Ambassador" plates that are reserved for actual drivers as opposed to the standard plate system that had become very corrupt with most plates held by lawyers, bankers and investors renting them to drivers for exorbitant sums.

As for the negative, surely Moscoe's motion to raise city council wages last year is more worthy of mention than the trivial incidents that the article focusses on at present.

In short 1) the article needs to be balanced with the positive as well as the negative 2) the minutae should be reduced. Surely those two parargraphs can be replaced by one or two sentences each.

Also, the fact that Moscoe is a teacher by profession should be mentioned as should his rivalry with Mel Lastman back on North York City Council.Homey 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Expanding this page will probably be my next "big project" on Wikipedia ... CJCurrie 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Pssst. Eye and Now are left-leaning. Of course they would have a lot of laudatory references. The right-wing on the other hand would have savaged him for two fare hikes in two years. Speaking of positives, I looked at your article on John Baird and it much of it appears to be a Eye/Now view of his provincial career. Might you want to balance these parts out with some right-wing positives?GoldDragon 03:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Supposedly he tried to sneak it through without much debate... GoldDragon 03:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In future, please don't place your comments in the middle of someone else's. It's considered rude. Yes, I know Eye and Now are left leaning but for this article to be *balanced* it has to include both left and right opinions, both laudits and criticism. Right now it only includes criticisms and fairly picayune ones at that. If you're interested in actually having a fair NPOV article you'll dig up some of the positive things mentioned in NOW, Eye, th Star or even that left wing rag the Globe and Mail and put them in. Right now you seem to be depending on the sort of criticisms one finds in right-leaning sources such as the Toronto Sun and the National Post. Homey 06:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine, so CJCurrie can add positives from the Eye/Now to balance the current content out, but I object strongly to him removing/marginalizing most of the negatives in the process.

In particular, my response to what CJCurrie considers "minutae"; he had an entire paragraph devoted to John Baird's OPSEU call in the legislature. He against devoted an entire paragraph in the McGuinty article to the evil kitten quote but he wants no detail regarding the 1999 debate. So the minutae is relative, not absolute. GoldDragon 02:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the other articles: The Baird/OPSEU situation was referenced in a relatively recent news article about Baird (as distinguished from a collection of quotes), and I've given his side of the story in any case. Some of the contested passages about the 1999 debate are simply not relevant to an article about McGuinty (I'm thinking specifically of Hampton calling Harris a "thug").

Neither situation is especially relevant as to whether or not a cops/donut shops joke should be included on this page. CJCurrie 04:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

June

The cited article does not say that HM will be resigning in June -- it says that his current term will end in June. Also, citing an obviously partisan blog isn't recommended. CJCurrie 22:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, I've just noticed that the Sun article is from 2005. CJCurrie 22:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Helicopters

GoldDragon,

I've discovered that the Toronto Star made a mistake with its "helicopters" quote. The line they attributed to Moscoe was actually from Julian Fantino, who was misquoting something Moscoe had said earlier.

“I think [City Councillor] Howard Moscoe, though, said . . .‘I wish I had a whole slew of them and have them land on doughnut shops,' ” the chief says, shaking his head and muttering the words “uninformed, uneducated” before trailing off.

Globe and Mail, 26 February 2005, M1

Moscoe's actual comments were somewhat different, and were more hyperbolic than insulting. CJCurrie 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Now ...

Could someone please review the page for style errors. CJCurrie 04:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Gold Dragon edits

GD,

Homey previously commented that the disputed section is trivial, and should be reduced to 1-2 sentences per incident. I agree with this assessment. This means the vote is currently 2-1 against your current edit. Why not try to build consensus on the talk page if you want a change, rather than reposting the same thing over and over and over. CJCurrie 20:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Put it better this way, this is one area where you want change (you want to get rid of it). I want it to stay as it has been. I didn't "add" this to the article, I'm trying to prevent you from trivializing it, since other similar controversies for other politicians don't get reduced to 1-2 sentences. GoldDragon 02:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

GD, you did add the information to the article, even if someone else altered the wording afterwards. CJCurrie 03:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I added it and Homey altered it, but its been there all the while you were making your additions to the article until now. So it is not a recent addition which was reposted again and again, rather CJCurrie has tried deleting again and again. GoldDragon 04:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I expanded the article by going through Moscoe's career in chronological order -- I changed the disputed section when I made it to "recent history". CJCurrie 04:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The current dispute

Do other editors believe that GoldDragon's changes should be kept, or removed? CJCurrie 21:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather than going though this edit war again and again, I'm going to post a notice on the Canadian Wikipedian Notice Board asking for other opinions. Since the vote is currently 2-1 or 3-1 against you (depending on how you choose to count), I would ask that you not revert the page again until we've discussed the matter. CJCurrie 04:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie deletes

First of all, the votes were from a long time ago and its been just you and me. Second, I have a long list of issues to start rolling over, notably the police section which is pretty POV since it doesn't show any police attempts to refute it. So its not appropriate to decide whether it should be included ot not at this stage. GoldDragon 14:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the edit war, what is wrong with the police in chrono order? GoldDragon 14:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have all the "ethnic controversies" information in one section, though this particular matter is not really that important one way or the other. CJCurrie 02:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The wording

Later than getting into another edit war, can I suggest that we try to work out a compromise wording on the talk page. We're much closer to a resolution now than we were before -- constructive dialogue might be a better idea than the same old back-and-forth. CJCurrie 02:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any problem with the wording in my version. "Constructive dialogue" will not serve any further purpose, since I've already made enough concessions with regard to both controversies. In fact, I feel that too much information has been lost and you don't intend to consider it resolved until its entirely your way. GoldDragon 02:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting, because I was tempted to say much the same thing about your version. Leaving aside the question of who has already conceded too much, however, the fact remains that we can either have another revert war or try to find some mutually acceptable version here. CJCurrie 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My version:

In late 2005, Moscoe distributed a prankish memo to other councillors entitled "How far will Lady Jane go?", drawing a connection between Jane Pitfield's planned challenge against David Miller in 2006 and Lady Jane Grey's nine-day reign as Queen regent of England in 1553. He later withdrew the memo following criticisms, and wrote an apology to Pitfield. Pitfield did not consider the memo offensive, and initially joked that she was planning to enter the contest.[61]

This was not the only time Moscoe has been accused of rudeness toward other councillors. He was overheard telling Rob Ford to "fuck off" during a council debate in 2004, and was later criticized for comments made in an exchange with Frances Nunziata in 2006. Nunziata had complained that bus service in her ward was substandard, and asked Moscoe to walk the area's streets for a first-hand view. Moscoe responded by saying, "Councillor, I leave walking the streets to you", which some interpreted as comparing Nunziata to a prostitute. He apologized for both comments, adding "on occasion my mouth gets ahead of my brain" on the second occasion. [62]

Your version:

Moscoe was criticized for yelling an obscenity at Rob Ford in a 2004 meeting, for which he later apologized.[61]

This was not the only time Moscoe has been accused of rudeness toward other councillors. He sparked controversy when he distributed a prankish memo to other councillors in late 2005, entitled "How far will Lady Jane go?", drawing a connection between Jane Pitfield's mayoralty candidacy and Lady Jane Grey's nine-day reign as Queen regnant of England in 1553. Karen Stintz criticized Moscoe's initial apology as insincere when he only replaced the "Lady Jane" reference with Pitfield's name instead of withdrawing the bet.[2]. Moscoe later withdrew the memo entirely, and wrote an apology to Pitfield (Globe and Mail, 13 December 2005) who did not consider his memo offensive, and initially joked that she was considering entering the contest (National Post, 17 December 2005).

[...]

Moscoe was accused of sexism in March 2006, during a heated exchange with Frances Nunziata. Nunziata complained that bus service in her ward was below standard, and suggested that Moscoe should walk the streets for a first-hand view. Moscoe responded by saying, "Councillor, I leave walking the streets to you", which allegedly Nunziata to a prostitute. He subsequently apologized, saying that "On occasion my mouth gets ahead of my brain". Nunziata said that she was not satisfied, and planned to refer the incident to the city's integrity commissioner[3]

My reasons for opposing your version:

(i) Maintaining chronological order is not particularly important in this situation. The "Lady Jane" memo attracted far more attention than the other incidents, and is (IMO) the best introduction to the section. The Ford and Nunziata situations are best mentioned as comparative developments.

That way why I supported a seperate section (Controversies, Gaffes, etc.), such that we don't have to compromise the detail of the incidents. Also if a reader is not interested (i.e. in your case), she/he can easily skip over the segment, so it won't interrupt the main body. Having said this, I am inclined to restore the information under the header... GoldDragon 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

My view is that a separate section, in this instance, will only serve to sensationalize a fairly trivial matter. I'm prepared to make further concessions on the matter of wording, but I do not believe a separate section is warranted.

Unfortunately, I won't be online for very much longer tonight -- I'll respond to the rest tomorrow. CJCurrie 23:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

(ii) The two-step nature of Moscoe's apology is not especially important, in that Karen Stintz's accusation is not especially notable. Further, it's not especially difficult to see the rationale for Moscoe's actions -- he might have thought the initial criticism was directed against the title, not the content of the "memo". No insincerity need be assumed.

First off the back, you shouldn't try to assume unimportance right from the start. Second, Moscoe's insincerity is a matter of question, but it is not a matter of question that Stintz accused Moscoe of being insincere. Stintz's accusation is notable because Moscoe's initial (insincere) reaction was what put the memo into much public controversy. If Moscoe decided to geuinely apologize and withdraw the bet right away, instead of simply changing the name, then that might have spared much public attention.

From several papers that I have read (Globe, Star), all of them not only mentioned the Lady Jane memo but also that Moscoe initially only changed the name instead of withdrawing the bet, so the Stinz accusation is very notable. I haven't read Pitfield's own reaction and Moscoe's written apology anywhere else so that did not get as much attention by comparison. I already consider it a concession to include Moscoe's written apology in the section. GoldDragon 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see the following section. CJCurrie 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(iii) If we are to mention Stintz's complaint, then we should also mention the subsequent media speculation that she and another councillor were attempting to make political capital out of the matter in order to target David Miller's re-election campaign. Doing this would result in a fair amount of text about a relatively unimportant matter -- for this and other reasons, it's probably best to leave out Stintz's complaint entirely.

The Stintz accusation is not an awkward sentence that sticks out, so don't feel compelled to have to do something about it. It is equally possible to include futher accusations that Moscoe was acting as sexist. However, I feel that leaving it where it is is perfectly fine. GoldDragon 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood me -- I was referring to media skepticism concerning Stintz's motives. Please consider the following:

Mr. Moscoe and Jane Pitfield have kissed and made up. Well, OK, there was no actual kissing, but they did shake hands in a firm yet affectionate manner.

Mr. Moscoe angered many of his council colleague last week by launching a betting pool on when Ms. Pitfield would drop out of the upcoming mayoralty race.

The entry form compared Ms. Pitfield to Lady Jane Grey, who ruled England for nine days before she was beheaded. Councillors complained the comparison -- and the contest -- were demeaning to women.

While Mr. Moscoe is usually unapologetic for his mischief, this time he said sorry. The veteran politician publicly apologized on two separate occasions and also sent Ms. Pitfield a formal letter.

The pair made nice on Wednesday with a little chat, putting an end to their spat.

It is worth noting that when Mr. Moscoe announced his pool last Friday, Ms. Pitfield told reporters she was not offended and even said she'd enter the contest. That didn't stop a pack of her supporters from decrying Mr. Moscoe on Monday morning. Perhaps council's right-wing members realized that the flub by Mr. Moscoe, an ardent Miller supporter, could be exploited to Ms. Pitfield's advantage. The mayoralty race doesn't officially start until January, but the political games have already begun.

(National Post, 17 December 2005, A17)

Toronto city councillor Howard Moscoe was chastised twice yesterday by his fellow politicians for launching a betting pool on when councillor Jane Pitfield will drop out of next year's mayoralty race.

Ms. Pitfield last month announced her intention to challenge David Miller in the upcoming election.

Mr. Moscoe, a close ally of the Mayor, responded with the betting pool. He circulated entry forms last week that asked "How far will Lady Jane go?"

The name of the contest was inspired by Lady Jane Grey, who ruled England for nine days before being beheaded. Comparing Ms. Pitfield to a murdered woman was "despicable," Councillor Sylvia Watson said.

"It is insulting in the extreme to direct the kind of commentary to any candidate, but in particular to women," Ms. Watson told her colleagues. "To have this kind of thing circulated is a disgrace. It makes a mockery of the candidacy of Councillor Pitfield."

Frances Nunziata called for an investigation by David Mullan, the city's integrity commissioner.

"I think it's time that someone shut Councillor Moscoe up," Ms. Nunziata said.

Mr. Moscoe said he did not intend to demean Ms. Pitfield.

"I certainly apologize if anyone took it as a sexist slur," he said. "Yes, it was a political statement, but it had nothing to do with her sex. I believe she is a very special person."

Following his remarks, Mr. Moscoe re-circulated the betting form with the references to Lady Jane removed. The revised form was printed on purple paper, which is used by clerks to identify confidential documents.

Councillor Karen Stintz argued Mr. Moscoe's action were still inappropriate. She added that Mr. Moscoe was inappropriately using city resources to operate the pool.

Mr. Moscoe once again apologized.

"If, in fact, it is still offensive, I sincerely apologize and will withdraw the document and pay for any city paper that I used in order to produce it," he said.

(National Post, 13 December 2005)

Some conclusions that may be drawn from these articles:

a) Moscoe's apology was very much a part of the original story, and deserves to me mentioned in the article.

b) Moscoe's statement ("If, in fact, it is still offensive") indicates that he did not regard the amended memo as offensive. The most logical conclusion is that he believed the initial controversy concerned the "Lady Jane" references, and not the nature of the bet.

c) The motivations of Stintz and Nunziata are also very much a part of the story.

Some other facts of note:

a) The actual story does not appear to have been taken overly seriously by the Toronto media (note the somewhat jocular tone of the first Post article). Most journalists seemed to realize that the matter was, in fact, fairly trivial.

b) The Toronto Star didn't cover the story at all.

c) No national newspaper has mentioned the "Lady Jane" story since December 2005.

I don't have a problem with mentioning the "Lady Jane" story in the article, but I object to depicting it as a scandal of significance.

Under the circumstances, I'm willing to suggest the following compromise: both Stintz's complaints and the speculation as to her motivations can be included in a footnote. CJCurrie 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(iv) "accused of sexism" is somewhat leading as a paragraph introduction.

That was actually Homey's rewording, not mine, when he tried to find a compromise. Plus, another important function of putting that at the introduction is that it pre-empts one from putting in "made sexist comments". GoldDragon 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Those aren't the only two choices. CJCurrie 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

(v) Nunziata's threat to file a complaint is not notable, particularly in that she doesn't seem to have actually filed the complaint.

I think that you are getting a bit presumptuous here, which is why I frequently keep accusing you of trying to make excuses to roll over stuff. Maybe Nunziata's complaint has already been filed and the commisioner will come back with his findings later, but neither of us can be sure that occurred. Neither of us can be sure that she dropped her threat either. What is not debatable is that Nunziata did make the threat. GoldDragon 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I see that Moscoe threatened to bring Stintz before the integrity commissioner for referring to councillors as "prostituting themselves" on a different matter (he later retracted the threat, with a sarcastic comment that he didn't want to waste the commissioner's time with frivolous complaints). Should this also be mentioned?

In any event, I also see that Stintz, Nunziata and Pitfield actually wrote a more comprehensive letter about this. I'll see if I can work this into the article in a balanced manner. CJCurrie 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, back to the Stintz accusation when she and David Solnacki both signed an affidavit requesting an investigation. We may not know the results of the investigation and so we should not presume, but we do know that both councillors requested it, so we should leave it like that. It is sort of like the Maurice Vellacott on the defamation, where I supported the current form of the woding as it tells the reader what has happened, as well as leaving the door open for future updates. GoldDragon 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I await your response. CJCurrie 03:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Response is indented. GoldDragon 23:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Third party view

I've tried looking at this dispute before to see if I could resolve it, but frankly, it has gone on so long and it seems to be a dispute over relatively little. I will try to focus only on the two versions identified above as "My version" (CJCurrie) and "Your version" (GoldDragon).

Lady Jane Grey was "Queen regnant", not "Queen regent".
"This was not the only time Moscoe has been accused of rudeness toward other councillors." I don't think this sentence is necessary. It seems to be trying to argue a point. It is more neutral to present the information, and let the reader decide for him or herself if there is a pattern of rudeness here. Let's leave it out.
I think it does make sense to have a separate "Controversies" section. We have that in a number of other articles, and helps to clarify for the reader what he/she is reading about. If it were unduly large compared to the rest of the article, I would be concerned. This article covers Moscoe's whole career, the issues he's worked on, and so on, so I don't think that this is being blown out of proprotion.
"which some interpreted as comparing Nunziata to a prostitute" vs. "which allegedly Nunziata to a prostitute". I think there is a missing word from the second phrase. Reading what Moscoe said, I don't think that there can be any question that he was making a play on words using a reference to prostitution. (I thought it was kind of funny when I first heard it, even if it was inappropriate.) So I think we need to find some wording that acknowledges the prostitution reference without being coy about it, but does not overplay it. He was not actually suggesting that Nunziata is a hooker, after all, just engaging in wordplay. How about: "which was a play on words referring to "street-walker", which is a euphemism for "prostitute".

I must go, but I'll lokk at this again tomorrow to see if I can provide any more comments. Ground Zero | t 12:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

(i) I thought that the correct term, although someone else (not GD) changed it a while ago.
(ii) This can be deleted.
(iii) I'm still not certain that a "controversies" section is necessary for what amounts to three fairly trivial incidents. If we are to have it, though, a different header may be in order. (His tenure as TTC chair has been marked by more serious controversies, yet I doubt that dragging these from their current section would serve any useful purpose.)
(iv) Sounds good. I can live with that. CJCurrie 22:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

further edits

CJCurrie wrote on my talk page:

"(ii) How should we convey the controversy regarding Moscoe's role in Rick Ducharme's resignation? I'm attempting to provide a balanced and comprehensive view, although I'm concerned that the text may be skewed too far towards Moscoe....

I am not clear what the dispute is here. The current version looks to be fairly balanced to me, but I'd like to hear what concerns about it may be outstanding.

"(iii) GD also wants to change the "police" section. I don't believe his changes are appropriate."

The current version presents Moscoe's view. It does not present any criticism of Moscoe's approach to policing. I think some balance may be required here.

Instead of "Controversies", would you consider "Verbal gaffes"? Ground Zero | t 00:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't really work, since the "Lady Jane" memo wasn't verbal. I'll address the other points presently. CJCurrie 01:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Stintz/Nunziata and political outrage

(James Cowan, "Pay raise up in the air as year ends", National Post, 17 December 2005, A17.)

Other columnists and talk show hosts (besides the councillors) see the Pitfield bet and Nunziata prostitue comments as a sign that Moscoe is sexist and disrespectful to women. This intepretation is equally plausible. GoldDragon 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

In that case, feel free to suggest an alternate quote to balance the section. Such a quote might be acceptable (depending on a variety of factors), but removing a sourced reference is not.

Bear in mind that tabloid op-ed pieces aren't usually suitable as excyclopedic sources. I haven't seen any credible media source describe Moscoe as sexist (the guy was a pioneer in supporting affirmative action laws, for god's sake). CJCurrie 23:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Police section

What, GD, would you suggest as an improvement? CJCurrie 01:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom Jacobek's statement is better than nothing but it still doesn't come close to evening the tide. Fantino's criticism comes too late in the section to make any difference. The biggest problem is that all of the accusations are not refuted. As a good example of refuting criticism, perhaps a too effective, look at the way you refutted Pitfield's criticism on breaking taxes in David Miller. Until the police section is entirely neutral, the POV tag must stay on to avoid misleading readers. GoldDragon 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem, GD, is that there hasn't been much critical press coverage concerning Moscoe's views of the Toronto police (in the respectable press, anyway). I might be able to add a few more things, but there's not much to choose from. (Also, bear in mind that the 1991 police budget is quite different from the modern TTC budget -- comparing these situations doesn't seem quite right.) CJCurrie 23:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Every one of the four paragraphs now ends with a statement critical of Moscoe. Would you say that the section is NPOV? CJCurrie 00:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As for Ducharme's resignation, I don't think "temper-tantrum" is appropriate as it seems a little over the top to be plausible. If anything, I feel that tantrum is strategically placed such that it removes attention from Moscoe's meddling. It is better to leave it out entirely.

It is also noted that Moscoe has not refuted criticism that the Bombardier contract was non-competitive, he only highlighted the benefits of choosing Bombardier over Siemens. GoldDragon 21:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Both "juvenile temper tantrum" and "whom he described as very incompetent" are quotes from respected sources. If one is deleted, both should be deleted. (I've adjusted the order of the quotes, btw. Perhaps this will be an acceptable compromise.)

On the second point, you are mistaken -- Moscoe has argued that non-competitive contracts are standard practice for such purchases. I suppose I should include this in the article.

Other observations: There's not much point in mentioning Giambrone's situation, given that (i) it doesn't really have anything to do with Moscoe, and (ii) I've already explained the accusations and/or smears against Moscoe in detail. Also, "more controversy emerged" is more than a tad leading as a sentence introduction. CJCurrie 23:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning your revert: virtually every point that still you object to has been addressed here. CJCurrie 02:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are my concerns.

Bombardier's recent donations/solicitations to Moscoe and Biambrone, in fact it is far much more relevant that the Isreal trip, which was long ago. In fact, the Isreal trip is rather a straw man arguement that you are using to try to setup a political counter-attack.

Juvenile temper tantrum does not describe the manner of Ducharme's resignation; does that even fit with the other news sources?. Was it the columnist that used the term tantrum? The incompetent quote is in a different section and has nothing to do with Ducharme, plus its a quote from a directly involved party (Brian Ashton) as opposed to the press.

He did argue that it was standard practice, but he not refuted concerns that the closed bid would be more directly costly to Toronto. His arguements for Bombardier have nothing to do with whether its open bid or closed bid. GoldDragon 02:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that Bromell and Jacobek's comments do not count as proper refutation. Its good that you haven't removed the POV tag GoldDragon 02:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

(i) I still don't believe that the Giambrone matter is particularly important to a Moscoe biography. I will, however, meet you halfway on this one. I'm prepared to include the reference in the footnote section ... right next to the reference which indicates that four of six right-wing councillors who opposed the Bombardier deal had met with Siemens or its lobbyists. If one point is returned to the main body of the text, the other should be as well.

The Israel section is not a "straw man" -- the right-wingers on council insinuated that something was improper about the trip, and Moscoe responded.

By the way, both Bombardier and Siemens contributed to Moscoe's recent fundraising banquet. In fact, Siemens paid $350 more. In light of this, I don't think Bombardier's donation is particularly relevant to the article.

(ii) Yes, GD, the columnist specifically used the term "juvenile temper tantrum".

Everybody knows that the player who tips the board and stomps away in anger loses the game. So TTC chief general manager Rick Ducharme, who yesterday ended a tremendous career in public service with a juvenile temper tantrum, is clearly the biggest loser in Toronto today.

(John Barber, "Manager ends great career with juvenile temper tantrum", Globe and Mail, 7 June 2006, A13.)

To your question "does that even fit in with the other news sources?", I can only respond, "what difference does it make?" I've indicated that the comments were made by a single columnist (and by a credible columnist writing for a credible source). Why you continue to delete this is unclear to me.

(iii) Moscoe has argued that the Bombardier deal will generate $142 million. Is that refutation enough? (In any case, the so-called Siemens saving has been questioned by others -- whether or not Moscoe added his voice to the choir isn't really that important).

(iv) As to the police section, I'm not sure what else you would have me do. As I said, there isn't that much material to choose from in the respectable press. CJCurrie 02:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

My response: (i) Merely a reference is not half-way. Giabrome is significant too in that it constitutes lobbying on Bombardier's part. You've already included a reference saying that Moscoe blamed Siemens lobbyists for the controversy, but Bombardier has its own lobbying too, so we must add that to balance it out. I would rather add this instead of the Isreal trip if you are worried about balance.

(ii) Thank god that I know that a columnist described it as a temper tantrum, instead of a politician. If we can start using columist quotations, we can also use the Toronto Star editorial quote which states that Moscoe is treating the TTC like his own personal fief. By making use of editorials, we can even have a quote which describes Moscoe of being sexist towards women. The accusations of meddling, on the other hand, have been made not only by columnists, but also by Ducharme and councillors.

(iii) No, that is not enough, because he could have argued for the Bombardier benefits even if the subway contract was open bid. And the $142 million generated itself is open to debate - unions make this arguement all the time in order to get a project made at home as opposed to abroad. What Ducharme is taking aim at is that it is estimated to cost the City directly more because of its non-competitive bid nature.

(iv) Leave the POV tag in until more effective refutation is found.

GoldDragon 16:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

(i) I think it makes more sense to include the Israel reference, if for no other reason than that the article is about Moscoe and not Giambrone. As I said before, if you want to move the Giambrone section to the main text, you should do the same w/ the 4 of 6. CJCurrie 01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(ii) I've already changed this section, shifting the "temper tantrum" quote into footnotes and adding more neutral language into the main body of the article. No-one is disputing the fact that John Barber came out against Ducharme in a major Toronto paper -- therefore, why should the reference not be included?

(iii) I think you're clutching at straws here. Moscoe has not personally refuted Siemens' claim (to my knowledge), but others have made the case for him. Further to the point, I'm not certain that anyone has specifically requested that Moscoe refute the claim. As it stands, the reference seems like an accusatory answer to an unasked question.

(iv) The police section seems NPOV to me, and I'm not certain if the refutation you seek even exists. I really don't know where to go from here -- could you give me an idea of what you'd want the final version to look like? CJCurrie 04:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Other points:

(i) re: Stintz/Nunziata I'm not aware that anyone else suggested the contest was demeaning to women (Pitfield certainly didn't). Moreover, Moscoe specifically rejected this accusation -- he acknowledged that it was targeted against Pitfield (obviously), but denied it had anything to do with her gender. I'm not sure why you're still changing this section.

(ii) If we're going to mention the Stintz/Nunziata opposition, then it makes sense to reference criticism of (or cynicism toward) the same. I don't understand why you're deleting this, either.

(iii) Gunn may have supported a "state of good repair" policy, but it seems more than a bit leading to reference it in this context.

(iv) The Siemens estimate is only one side of the story, and there's nothing to suggest it's more accurate than Moscoe's estimate. We should note present either version as fact.

(v) Why are you deleting Moscoe's recent quote? It's entirely relevant to the section, and it provides the reader with his side of the story.

CJCurrie 04:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(i) I'm not sure that it was only Stinz and Nunziata that considered it demeaning, so I would not give the incident such a slant either.

(ii) The problem is that you have Stintz opposition countered by Moscoe refutation, followed by a columnist's cynicism which itself has not been countered (by another columnist?).

(iii) If you can state Gunn's position in less words, it would be fine, but give his side of the story on opposing special buses, not just a "too expensive" criticism. Gunn did not oppose subway expansion only because it was "too expensive".

(iv) The Siemens estimate is countered by Moscoe's estimate of the savings that Bombardier would save. And both are stated clearly to be "estimates" or from a study, rather than the actual costs. So we don't need extra info which disputes Siemens or Bombardier.

(v) Well, I only included the relevant part of Moscoe's quote, I did not include all of the rest of his excuses and wild claims.

GoldDragon 02:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

(i) I think the operative phrase here may be "I'm not sure". Unless you can find an instance of any other politician or credible journalist making the same claim, the reference is out. (Note that the journalist you've cited doesn't actually do this.)

(ii) I believe you're chasing phantoms -- no columnist, to my knowledge, has opposed the G&M reporter's suggestion that Stintz's "outrage, outrage" was political. If the rebuttal isn't there ...

(iii) Really? What were his other reasons?

(iv) The problem is that your preferred wording lists the Siemens claim as fact.

(v) "his excuses and wild claims" is your POV. It's Moscoe's article, so there's no reason not to give his version of events.

(vi) Moscoe has refuted charges against the bidding process.

(vii) I've already addressed your concerns vis-a-vis Giambrone. "It came to light" is still leading.

(viii) Could you please outline your current concerns for the police section? CJCurrie 03:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On another matter, could you please indicate why you consider the Norman Gardner article to be POV (on that article's talk page, I mean)? A specific example would help. CJCurrie 04:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

GD,

Could you please outline your current objections to the article here on the talk page? CJCurrie 04:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the POV notice for the time being. GoldDragon is welcome to put it back if he details specific examples of what he views as POV issues in this article, but I've also warned him that he may face a temporary edit block if he continues to apply POV tags to articles without providing specifics. Bearcat 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Moscoe rejects claim of financial loss under Bombardier deal

Councillor Howard Moscoe (Ward 15, Eglinton-Lawrence), chair of the TTC, said negotiating exclusively with Bombardier makes sense because Ontario taxpayers are footing the bill for the new cars. The company buys most of its parts from Toronto-area firms, accounting for 250 jobs in and around Toronto, he added. The new cars will be compatible with existing Bombardier-built equipment, Moscoe said.

He promised TTC staff will do a good job negotiating terms: "We will get a fair price or we won't go through with the deal."

(Toronto Star, 29 June 2006, A17.) CJCurrie 04:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Moscoe is still not really addressing the non-competitive issue, he is merely stating why Bombardier is the better choice. This is a similar argument that a union supporter could have made to have Canadian-built Fords being the only automobiles that Canadians could purchase. GoldDragon 17:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that "negotiating exclusively with Bombardier makes sense" addresses the non-competitive issue.

I've now addressed every single one of your concerns, and I'm confident that the current version is the most appropriate one. If you want to make changes, please suggest a course of action here rather than reverting to a version which seems factually incorrect in parts. CJCurrie 23:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The debate closure should not be on your terms. So I've allowed the rest of your changes, but your disputed section will not stay.

No phantoms being chased, in fact the Sun even saw the entire City Hall as sexist [1].

I said that the non-bid contract was estimated to cost... And likewise with the Bombardier study that stated that... The point is that you don't have to "argue" such things like that - you never had Moscoe "arguing" for the validity of the Bombardier study

Giambrone is far more relevant than Isreal. I've considered putting the the Isreal trip alongside, but the Giambrone lobbying is crucial to counter Moscoe's blame on Siemens lobbyists.

We do not need Moscoe's entire tirade, I've already included his main points.

Moscoe wants to emphasize the benefits of Bombardier, but these benefits would still arise whether it was a non-bid or not. He did not actually address the potential costs of the lack of competition in the quote you presented.

If you can't come up with effective refutations in the police section, just leave the NPOV tag there.

GoldDragon 03:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Responses: (i) the Sun didn't accuse Moscoe of sexism, (ii) "is estimated" conveys a false impression of authority, (iii) the Giambrone bit is not particularly relevant to a Moscoe article, (iv) he's defended the manner of the bid and the financial viability of the Bombardier contract; has anyone even asked him to do both at the same time?, (v) "tirade" is your POV, (vi) I'm still not sure what you want in the police section. CJCurrie 03:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to review this in more depth before I can make really substantive comments, but what I will say at this point is that in every single dispute I've ever seen between the two of you, CJCurrie has been pretty unreproachably neutral and balanced, while GoldDragon has consistently gone for the idea that "bias" means "doesn't conform to my preexisting opinion". Every time, bar none, GoldDragon continually insists on balancing even the slightest criticism of conservative councillors with laudatory media interpretations of the same events, while simultaneously removing even the slightest hint of positive spin from criticism of progressive councillors and refusing to allow anything other than a negative balance of viewpoints in those cases. And what I've seen so far doesn't give me any reason to believe that this time is any different.

So far, I genuinely don't see one thing in CJCurrie's edits that would warrant a reversion. And as for the police section, GoldDragon, I am removing the neutrality tag until you provide specific examples of what you view as POV edits. Bearcat 04:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No I don't think that you are a neutral party in this dispute, Bearcat. And your assessment of CJCurrie and I is irrelevant to this article or any article, as well as assuming bad faith and coming close to personal attacks. CJCurrie himself did not do what you just did, even in the most heated debates. I think that Bearcat has crossed the line. GoldDragon 00:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You're free to disagree with his assessments, GD, but I don't believe that Bearcat has crossed the line into unacceptable behaviour. CJCurrie 01:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Moscoe didn't actually make the comment that was attributed to him concerning Julian Fantino. CJCurrie 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: Moscoe did not actually make the comment that was attributed to him concerning Julian Fantino's request for helicopters. CJCurrie 21:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Toronto Star quoted Moscoe as making the comment on police helicopters. (Toronto Star, 1 April 2006, A15) If you don't believe that Moscoe could make such a quote, keep that to yourself. Plus, it illustrates his understanding of police issues. GoldDragon 21:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Star misattributed the quote. The line was actually from Julian Fantino, who was misquoting Moscoe. I have proof, if you need it. CJCurrie 04:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And how do you know which paper is (more) correct? GoldDragon 01:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Er ... both quotes from the Star. In any event, I'm more inclined to credit a full news article than a tabloid-esque row of quotes.

Here's the real source material:

“I think [City Councillor] Howard Moscoe, though, said . . .‘I wish I had a whole slew of them and have them land on doughnut shops,' ” [Fantino] says, shaking his head and muttering the words “uninformed, uneducated” before trailing off.

(26 February 2005, M1)

The real quote was a bit different:

Then [Moscoe] asked: "Do we need a helicopter to track down drug dealers in Parkdale? It's tough to land a helicopter on a doughnut shop."

(National Post, 21 April 2004, A16)

In other words, the Star quote was a misattribution. Frankly, I'm not certain we should trust their "role-call of quotes" listing very far. CJCurrie 02:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there is no problem with the inclusion of the quotes, whether it is mind or your version.

Regarding Ducharme's manner of resignation, I will concede the editorial which criticized it, but I'm still doubtful since that viewpoint is made as prominent as the ones criticizing Moscoe as meddling. Remember, councillors, Ducharme, and the Star criticized Moscoe's interference. Moscoe himself said that Ducharme's position was untenable after public criticism, but only the columnist said that his reputation was damaged. GoldDragon 04:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The current wording puts "some in the Toronto media" against "one journalist". I don't think the latter side is "as prominent". CJCurrie 23:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Btw, do you not think your use of the word "retorted" is a tad problematic. CJCurrie 03:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The rationale for my edit

I have difficulties with the following aspects of GoldDragon's version:

(i) GD writes that "Karen Stintz, Frances Nunziata and others" (my emphasis) described the "Lady Jane" contest as demeaning. The implication is that there was widespread opposition to the memo among both council and media. In fact, there is no indication from newspaper reports that any other councillors or reporters agreed with Stintz and Nunziata's assessment, and at least one reporter was of the opinion that it was a contrived controversy. I've pointed this out to GoldDragon several times, but he keeps returning "and others" without providing a shred of evidence.

(ii) GD's other reversions to the "Lady Jane" section are trivial, although they serve to depict HM in a slightly less favourable light.

(iii) David Gunn may have emphasized keeping equipment and infrastructure in a "state of good repair", but using the phrase in this context serves to "poison the well" and depict Moscoe's requests as misguided. It's subtle, but it's POV all the same.

(iv) The Toronto Star did not actually say that the strike resulted from Moscoe's talks with the union. Read the source material again.

(v) The timing of Ducharme's departure is not particularly salient to this article, and GD's reference to the same has the appearance of a non-sequiteur.

(vi) It is not clear why a media report criticizing Ducharme's resignation should be removed from the article.

(vii) "In order to get the best deal for the city" is POV, as there is no evidence that a non-competitive contract will prevent this from occurring.

(viii) To argue that "Moscoe did not refute the lack of competitiveness" for a non-competitive contract is nothing short of absurd. Why GD sees the need to include this is a bit of a mystery.

(ix) The Giambrone matter is currently included in the footnotes, as is the fact that four out of six Bombardier critics met with Siemens or its lobbyists. If one is included in the main body of the article, both should be. (Mind you, I don't believe that either is necessary for a Howard Moscoe biography).

(x) Moscoe's extended quote is about the larger Bombardier/Siemens controversy, and not about the Tel Aviv trip specifically. GD's version suggests the latter.

(xi) I've already noted that Fantino's mis-remembered Moscoe's words concerning copters and donut shopts, and I suspect that Moscoe's intent may have been rather different from Fantino's extrapolation. In any event, the chief got his facts wrong -- there's no compelling reason to include his faulty criticism in the article.

(xii) The other Moscoe quote re: police was made in the aftermath of a cabbie being stabbed to death. There is no suggestion, in the initial report, that any members of the Toronto police were offended by the comment. I suspect the Star may have gotten this "fact" wrong as well (you can't really trust a quickie quote-list very far).

(xiii) GD's version also omits unrelated changes and corrections.

I think that's everything. CJCurrie 02:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The rationale for my edit

Difficulties with CJCurrie's version: (i) A morning radio talk-show has described Moscoe as being "a hit with women". So its not simply just Nunziata and Stinz. To imply only the two would make it look like they were doing so purely for political gain and ignore that it was offensive.

I'm puzzled by this logic. A morning-radio talk-show (presumably a right-wing program) describes Moscoe as "a hit with women", and this constitutes proof of sexist behaviour? This sounds more like a whispering campaign than concrete evidence. CJCurrie 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(ii) I don't see any reason why it would depict Moscoe in a less favourable light. However, he was initially criticized for insincerity before he decided on a full apology and you earlier tried to consider it "trivial".

True, but the two-step nature of the apology isn't particularly important (and Moscoe's explanation has some plausibility). CJCurrie 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(iii) Well, if no rationale for Gunn's position was provided, it would give the falso impression of him being uncaring about handicap rights. My version, one gets the impression that Moscoe is presumable a more "human rights" emphasis, compared to Gunn's pragmatic approach. So in that sense, I've trying not to poison the water, so that is why increasing clarity is important.

Perhaps I can work out a mutually acceptable wording here, but your wording still seems skewed toward Gunn. CJCurrie 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(iv) The Star said that the strike was the fruits of the secret negotiations between Moscoe and the union.

Not exactly: their wording was a bit more ambiguous. CJCurrie 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(vii) and (viii) Moscoe's main defence of the non-bid contract was that the lowest-price for the city was not the "bottom line", so that is why he argued other benefits such as tax breaks, not made in China, etc.. Critics of the non-bid contract emphasized the lowest-price.

I don't think this is correct, although he's certain made the point about focusing on "net financial benefits" rather than just the specific cost of the one project. CJCurrie 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(ix) and (x) I would have rather footnoted the Isreal trip, although I'm willing to include it as an inclusive compromise. If we include the Siemen's lobbying, we also have to mention the canadian unions' influence (Moscoe's allies) in support of Bombardier.

In my version, both of the latter are included in the footnotes (and the Israel reference touches on the reports of a link between HM and Bombardier). I still think that the Israel trip is more significant to a biography on Moscoe. CJCurrie 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(xi) It is not up to you to speculate and pass judgement on where Fantino's intent was. And I'm not going to question the validity of the Star, if that was so, neither of us could trust the sources being used.

I'm not questioning the validity of the Star generally, just this one list of quotes. Anyway, we've already noted Fantino's opposition to Moscoe. CJCurrie 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

GoldDragon 15:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

(i) A morning radio talk-show has described Moscoe as being "a hit with women". So its not simply just Nunziata and Stinz. To imply only the two would make it look like they were doing so purely for political gain and ignore that it was offensive.

I'm puzzled by this logic. A morning-radio talk-show (presumably a right-wing program) describes Moscoe as "a hit with women", and this constitutes proof of sexist behaviour? This sounds more like a whispering campaign than concrete evidence. Or possibly it's just a fat joke ...

Well, we at least know that not only Stinz and Nunziata found the memo offensive...the talk show host quote was not to "prove" that Moscoe has a notorious history of sexism. GoldDragon 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

? A talk show host describing Moscoe as "a hit with women" doesn't constitute evidence that the same host found the "Lady Jane" memo offensive. It's not evidence of anything, as far as I can tell. (What's your source, anyway.) CJCurrie 03:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The host mentioned the Pitfield memo when describing Moscoe as a "hit with women". GoldDragon 22:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Which proves absolutely nothing. CJCurrie 04:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Except that it was more than Stinz and Nunziata that saw it as offensive. GoldDragon 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but the two-step nature of the apology isn't particularly important (and Moscoe's explanation has some plausibility).

Again, this is where it will become a sticking point, because one could argue otherwise. You only want to argue one way and completely discard the opposite. GoldDragon 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I want to leave out the "two-step apology" as trivial. Perhaps I'll revise this section as well. CJCurrie 03:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And I don't want to leave it out because that was what escalated the issue. Even David Solnacki got involved. GoldDragon 22:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue wasn't "escalated" at all, let alone by this. CJCurrie 04:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Moscoe had apologized right off the back instead of merely changing the name on the bet, it wouldn't have been a story.GoldDragon 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(iii) Well, if no rationale for Gunn's position was provided, it would give the falso impression of him being uncaring about handicap rights. My version, one gets the impression that Moscoe is presumable a more "human rights" emphasis, compared to Gunn's pragmatic approach. So in that sense, I've trying not to poison the water, so that is why increasing clarity is important.

Perhaps I can work out a mutually acceptable wording here, but your wording still seems skewed toward Gunn.

Plan to revisit this in the future...plus Gunn also commented on Ducharme's departure. GoldDragon 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

True, though I don't see how his comments on Ducharme add anything "new" to his position. CJCurrie 03:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

(iv) The Star said that the strike was the fruits of the secret negotiations between Moscoe and the union.

Not exactly: their wording was a bit more ambiguous.

I call it as I read it. GoldDragon 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should use a direct quote. CJCurrie 03:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The fruit of those talks was evident on May 29 when the Amalgamated Transit Union launched an illegal strike that stranded thousands of commuters. GoldDragon 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is correct, although he's certainly made the point about focusing on "net financial benefits" rather than just the specific cost of the one project. CJCurrie 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The TTC could have had an open competition (which would drive down prices), and still reap Moscoe's touted benefits by picking Bombardier in the end. Did Moscoe refute this? GoldDragon 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Did his opponents specifically ask him to refute it? If not, this seems like OR. CJCurrie 03:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

His opponents are not criticizing him for choosing Bombardier, they are criticizing him for a non-bid. GoldDragon 22:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and his response is noted. CJCurrie 04:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

He didn't address the direct non-competitive costs. GoldDragon 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

He responded to the accusation, even if his response wasn't what some would have preferred. CJCurrie 05:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

But he didn't directly address it. Otherwise, they wouldn't be hounding him for that reason. GoldDragon 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In my version, both of the latter are included in the footnotes (and the Israel reference touches on the reports of a link between HM and Bombardier). I still think that the Israel trip is more significant to a biography on Moscoe. CJCurrie 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the Isreal trip should not be mentioned, but not at the expense of Giabrome and lobbying. Personally, I see the Isreal trip as a straw man arguement which can easily be shot down... As well, we do not need every word in Moscoe's tirade, a summary will suffice. GoldDragon 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before, if the Giambrone section is to be included in the main text, so should the Siemens section. I'm open to cutting back on Moscoe's, um, "tirade", but your version makes it look like he was just talking about the Tel Aviv trip (which he wasn't).

And we should also mention the CAW. GoldDragon 22:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the validity of the Star generally, just this one list of quotes. Anyway, we've already noted Fantino's opposition to Moscoe in a different section -- we don't need to rely on a mangled quote. CJCurrie 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Not really, to just "criticize" lacks any real beef. Plus, it can't be denied that Moscoe made such comments and that will go some way towards addressing balance in the police section. GoldDragon 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already added specifics. The fact of the matter is that Fantino mangled Moscoe's original quote, and may have completely misunderstood his intention. Perhaps it would suffice to put the *real* quote in its proper context. CJCurrie 03:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I argue that the Fantino quote is not really notable in the long term. Adding it appears to be a more tit for tat entry. Quotes like that turn people off, and question the objectivity of Wikipedia. Pete Peters 03:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We are not here to speculate intentions. And it provides some answer to: why has Moscoe been criticized for his understanding of police issues. GoldDragon 02:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It just proves that Fantino mangled Moscoe's comments on the matter. CJCurrie 07:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

All this quote mangling is just speculative, its one paper's word against the other. GoldDragon 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It was the same paper. CJCurrie 05:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

One writer's word against another. Again, don't keep trying to look for excuses on why you don't want the quotes there. GoldDragon 17:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

The correspondnce on this article between CJCurrie and Gold Dragon is so long now that it prevents other editors from joining in the discussion uness they are will to devote hours to this issue.

I have compared the last two edits and made changes to three paragraphs on the basis of what I think to be reasonable. I list my reasons below. if youdisagree, you can go at it again, but I really think you should work toward compromise so that this doesn't take up all of your time.

1. In late 2005, Moscoe distributed a prankish memo....

" and others " -- let's name names, or leave it out.
"Stinz stating that Moscoe "has a history of making disparaging comments to women"" What Stintz said seems to be relevant. Keep it.
"Moscoe denied that the contest was sexist, acknowledging that it was directed against Pitfield but adding that it had nothing to do with her gender." If we're going to make a big deal out of the ciritcism of Mosecoe, we should let him have his full say, too.
"in order to aid Pitfield's potential candidacy" -- she wasn't a candidate yet, so "potential candidacy" works better than "her campaign"

2. Moscoe was later criticized for allegedly sexist comments....

"The integrity commissioner declined to deal with the issue." --Surely this is relevant. Why would this be taken out if we're going to mention to referral to the integrity commissioner? And "sexist" is an ordinary word that does not require a link per WP:CONTEXT

3. TTC General Manager Rick Ducharme announced his resignation....

"The Toronto Star initially speculated...." Is there a reference for implying that the Star later backed off this idea? If so, add it back in.
"secret negotiations" I thought it was widely known. If there is a reference here, add "secret" back in.
"Several councillors and the Star accused..." Which councillors?
"persistent meddling" -- "interfering" is more factual, less emotive.
"although one columnist suggested that Ducharme had damaged his own reputation with his manner of resignation." Hmmm... this level of deatil would be better in the Rick Ducharme article. Not necessary here. How about: "Some in the media suggested, however, that Ducharme's resignation was not a reasonable response to Moscoe's alleged interference."

4. Ducharme also criticized Moscoe for giving a non-bid contract to Bombardier

"Siemens estimated' -- I recall reading that Siemens has made a guesstimate of what they could do it for, and have bandied the $100m number about.
"Ducharme and several councillors had advocated making the process open to competition, arguing that this would result in the best deal for the city." -- This does not presume that openinig competition will get the best deal as does the alternative. Less POV, IMHO.
Let's keep the reference about the $142m in taxes in there. References good. Unreferenced material bad.
" Moscoe has also defended the contracting process, arguing that non-competitive contracts are standard practice for such purchases." -- This is a relevant argument even if you don't agree with it.

6. Moscoe himself sought an appointment to the Metro Police Commission....

The difference in the last apragraph seems to be CJCurrie's deletion of:

Notable were several controversial statements he made that recieved negative press. During Fantino's calls for police helicopters, Moscoe responded "It's tough to land a helicopter on a doughnut shop". Fantino later described Moscoe's comments as "uninformed, uneducated". Moscoe also claimed that "driving a taxi is far more dangerous than being a police officer in this city", angering members of the Toronto Police Service.

I think these comments are relevant in discussing Moscoe's difficult relationship with the police, and would be inclined to keep them in. I suspect that they have been contentious because CJC felt that GD was trying to turn this into an attack piece. Let's try to consider each point on its own merits. I haven't made any changes here.

There is one more paragraph that is disputed, but I'm tired and bored, so your on your own:

5. Critics noted that Bombardier had donated to Moscoe's 2003 re-election campaign....

I hope this helps. Ground Zero | t 22:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to Point Six, I'm inclined to leave these sentences out, as they do not accurately represent the source material. Let's address these points separately:

During Fantino's calls for police helicopters, Moscoe responded "It's tough to land a helicopter on a doughnut shop". Fantino later described Moscoe's comments as "uninformed, uneducated".

This is, at best, a highly selective account of the events in question. It would probably be more accurate to describe it as a garbled account. Here's an excerpt from the National Post's initial coverage of the helicopter debates, taken from their edition of 21 April 2004, p. A16:

Then [Moscoe] asked: "Do we need a helicopter to track down drug dealers in Parkdale? It's tough to land a helicopter on a doughnut shop."

Moscoe made a few other over-the-top comments in the course of this debate, but there was no suggestion that his statements were particularly offensive to police representatives.

Julian Fantino later misremembered the details of Moscoe's remarks:

The Star subsequently reprinted Fantino's misattribution in a row of controversial Moscoe quotes. Readers will note that Fantino did not actually accuse Moscoe of holding "uninformed, uneducated" beliefs, obvious extrapolations notwithstanding.

I do not believe that we should reference the details of Fantino's criticism, given that the "donut shops" quote on which his comments were based was in fact badly mangled. I have no problem referencing Fantino's more general views of Moscoe, and in fact I've already included a separate reference from the same 2005 TorStar article. I would also have no problem with referencing Moscoe's opposition to the copters in a different context. CJCurrie 23:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Moscoe also claimed that "driving a taxi is far more dangerous than being a police officer in this city", angering members of the Toronto Police Service.

Moscoe did in fact make this statement, but he made it in the context of a Toronto taxi driver having been slain by a passanger. The only indication that his statement "angered members of the TPS" occurred later, in a brief and unreferenced comment on the aforementioned "row of controversial quotes" page, right next to the Fantino misattribution.

I'm willing to keep the quote, but not in the present context. CJCurrie 00:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Update: I've included both Moscoe quotes in the main body of the article, while changing the contextualization. CJCurrie 01:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my errors in these edits [2]. Ground Zero | t 02:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Editorial dispute

User:GoldDragon and I are currently (still) involved in a protracted disagreement as to the content of this page. Could I please request that other readers weigh in on the controversy? CJCurrie 02:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay I read thw whole entry inside and out. My issues:

-Mel Lastmans toupee, should that be moved to Trivia. I am mixed over this issue. I don't feel the toupee is really that notable, but it helps to highlight the conflict between him and Lastman. I wonder if this should be added into the Trivia section, or something like that.

-I talked to Janet Davis the night he made the Street Walking comment, she thought nothing of it, and I wonder if the issue is yesterdays gossip, I don't feel it really is that Encylopedic.

-The Bombardier fundraising thing, doesn't belong at all. I once saw the donor lists for the 2003 elections, but I can't locate it on the city of Toronto website these days. I remember the initial article, Giambrone said this was a non story, and as much as Giambrone annoys me, he is right. Siemens also bought tickets to his fundraiser. I believe that GoldDragon edit is really more soapboxish, than encyclopedic.

-The email, big deal I say. He used an email account, and corrected himself. These are just partisan attacks designed to look poorly on Howard Moscoe. If there was one thing I feel really strongly about, it is this email accusation.

-The ATU conflict was a misunderstanding between the two. The media played it up, looking for a story.

My concern with all politicians, is that Wikipedia becomes a place for Soapboxes. I always find something way too fluffy or critical of Canadian Politicians, things I believe that are not Encyclopdic to begin with. We should just stick with the notable instances in someones career, and not put in daily partisan charges, if these charges have no legs, and the story doesn't last more than a week. Pete Peters 19:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the "streetwalker" and e-mail sections could be removed ... although, in the case of the former situation, a least one editor apart from GoldDragon has argued for its inclusion. (Truth be told, the entire "council controversies" section could probably be excised.)

The "toupee" incident was mentioned as a practical example of Moscoe's flair for political theatrics. It gets the point across, and it's basically harmless; I don't think it should be removed. CJCurrie 23:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am having second thoughts about the Toupee. I think it highlights the political spirit of Moscoe. I never found it harmful, I found it rather comical. But the Email is Stupid Stupid Stupid. No need what so ever. Pete Peters 02:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article is big enough for Moscoe's attacks on the police, trivia, and many of his colourful quotes (both good and bad), even though most of it is not necessarily encyclopedia material or notably. For instance, the "bomb-squad" quote after adverting a strike is not necessary to get the idea across, but I'm willing to tolerate it nonetheless since CJCurrie finds them interesting. Same with his private signs business, his Sunday shopping views, the Tommy Douglas street, and his illness on the eve of the 2003 vote (which was put there to "dramatize" his victory). If we decided to absolutely get rid of non-notable stuff, then we would have to consider the entire article and not just 1-2 passages. Indeed, I feel that CJCurrie and Peters are using that non-notable excuse to get rid of the 1-2 passages they don't like. GoldDragon 03:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What?????Sunday shopping was a HUGE Deal.Pete Peters 12:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Council Controversies isn't moving, as admin Ground Zero did impose it in his compromise. Bobby Lowe is inclusive because safety issues set the context for the wildcat strike. The Isreal trip is irrelevant because it happened way back in 1998, while the Giabrome invitations are relevant because they took place during the most recent municipal election of 2003 and that was part of the successful Bombardier lobbying to get a non-bid contract. GoldDragon 03:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Israel trip is relevant because (i) it was mentioned recently with regard to the Bombardier-Siemens matter, and (ii) it involves Moscoe personally. By contrast, the Giambrone situation (i) is somewhat dubious, and (ii) does not involve Moscoe personally.

"safety issues set the context for the wildcat strike"? If so, why not add a brief reference to safety issues, rather than dredging up the trumped-up non-issue of Bobby Lowe? CJCurrie 02:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside input

I've given this debate a bit of a read through, and for the most part, it seems clear that although the actual content of many of GoldDragon's may be important, they are presented in an extremely PoV manner that IMO smells agenda-pushing. Issues (ii) and (vii) below are prime examples of that, though the rest work as well. The key here that I think GoldDragon needs to understand (and trust me, I have experience with POV pushers) is that Wikipedia is not a place to campaign, all additions to the article need to be entirely factual and presented in a clearly neutral manner - something that User:CJCurrie seems to have done well. GoldDragon's edits (specifically the ones identified as contentious in this discussion) should be reworked to be presented in a neutral manner, or else removed. In addition, this issue of what is notable enough for inclusion has come up often in my own disputes. The most useful tool I've come up with to deal with this is to ask myself "Will the average, a-political Torontonian find this information useful?" Things like the election sign business for example; while interesting to those who are intensely involved, if you were to ask the average person, they'd probably say something along the lines of "Who cares?" That, I find, is a good measure of notability when dealing with trivia in politician articles-- pm_shef 03:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary

I oppose the following aspects of GoldDragon's version:

(i) Stinz [sic] and David Soknacki signed an affidavit requesting that the integrity commissioner investigate Moscoe for the comments.

Reason: It's not relevant. Anyone can sign an affidavit, and this particular bit of information adds nothing to Wikipedia's presentation of the "controversy". There is, moreover, nothing to suggest that the integrity commissioner followed up on the request.

GoldDragon may object that the next paragraph references a separate letter to the integrity commissioner by Stintz and others. The latter piece, however, was an "open" letter published in a major Toronto newspaper -- it's relevance has nothing to do with the fact that it was sent to the integrity commissioner, and everything to do with the local publicity it received.

(ii) In the same section, GoldDragon's use of the words "criticized the concert as demeaning to women" seems to imply that the contest actually was demeaning to women. As that particular point is very much in doubt, "argued that the contest was demeaning" is more appropriate.

(iii) In early August 2006, Karen Stintz and first time candidate Chris Ouellette accused Moscoe of using his city hall email account for his election sign making business., etc.

Reason: This is a trivial matter. Moscoe was accused of a minor infraction (along the lines of making personal calls from one's office), and no formal complaints were laid. I was initially willing to let this one stand, but now I agree with Pete Peters that it should be excised.

(iv) When the ATU placed ads in the newspapers highlighting the plight of assaulted transit operator Bobby Lowe, etc.

Reasons: There isn't much of a story here, and GoldDragon's presentation is grotesquely one-sided.

The ATU ran ads suggesting that the TTC had acted in a callous manner toward Lowe following his injury. The TTC responded by arguing that the ATU's anger was misplaced, and that a different agency was responsible for the driver's insurance problems. Moscoe later met with the injured driver, and promised to investigate the matter (he also suggested that Lowe was being used for political ends by Kinnear and others). The latter facts have been omitted from GoldDragon's account, and the material has been presented in such a manner as to make Moscoe appear callous and unconcerned.

GoldDragon has suggested that this story is useful to our understanding of the one-day wildcat strike, without providing any compelling evidence to this end. His attempt to link the story to the strike via the "safety concerns" issue is threadbare and unconvincing: safety concerns can be mentioned without dragging this trumped up "scandal" into the article. CJCurrie 21:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

(v) Bombardier sent out invitations to a political fundraiser for TTC Commissioner Adam Giambrone, an ally of Moscoe, although he turned down the assistance, and had donated to Moscoe's 2003 re-election campaign.

Reasons: (i) Both Bombardier and Siemens have donated money to Moscoe in recent months (Siemens actually donated more), making this information dubious at best; (ii) the Giambrone situation is peripherally important to a bio piece on Moscoe, which is why I've relegated it to a footnote, (iii) I've also footnoted the fact that several of Moscoe's opponents on council have had meetings with Siemens in recent months.

It's interesting that GoldDragon would move (ii) to the main article, while omitting reference to (iii).

(vi) Moscoe responded to the accusation by saying that there was a "smear campaign" against him, and that there had been "nothing secret" about the trip, arguing that his political opponents were "trying to get to the mayor through me".

Reason: GoldDragon is actually conflating two different Moscoe quotes, one of which is not directly related to the Tel Aviv trip.

(vii) Rob Ford criticized Moscoe's comments as insulting to the city police force.

Per my second point, "Ford argued that Moscoe's comments were ..." is more appropriate wording. CJCurrie 02:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit Summary Wars

So I've noticed that the last 40 or so edits have used the "edit summary" box as a kind of chat feature. I encourage all the parties to this dispute to avoid talking to each other through the edit summary. If you feel the need to do so, it probably means it's an issue that should be addressed here, on the talk page. By using the edit summaries to make a point, you're simply adding fuel to the fire. So, in the future, it might help this page run more smoothly if you were to avoid this practice, and come to an agreement before editing. If agreement simply can't be reached (as I'm aware this has been going on for some time), I suggest that you start a request for comment. -- pm_shef 21:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: (i) I won't make a big deal out of it, but David Solnacki did sign the affidavit, so its not just Stinz and Nunziata's view that the contest was offensive.

(ii) Restored to original wording.

(iii) In early August 2006, Karen Stintz and first time candidate Chris Ouellette accused Moscoe of using his city hall email account for his election sign making business., etc.

I'm not really for or against its inclusion, CJCurrie and Peters can debate that.

(iv) Addressed concerns about Bobby Lowe. However, its definitely more notable than some of the other information in the article. Plus, I'm not going to past judgement on Moscoe's comments and I've pared them down just in case you think the original quotes made him look callous (mind you, these are Moscoe and Kinner's words; Kinner's use of "incredible" is a bit attention-grabbing).

No idea who donated more (Peters said that Siemens donated more), but we can add to the body that Moscoe blamed Siemens lobbyists for the controversy instead of footnoting it. I thought that that was the original way you put it. The invitations on the other hand is notable and much more recent than the 1998 trip. The other thing to note is the CAW lobbying as well...

Comment:Mr. Moscoe told The Globe that at his own recent fundraising banquet, Bombardier bought four tickets, for $400. German-based competitor Siemens, which has complained that it was unfairly shut out of the subway contract, bought an eight-person table for $750, the maximum allowable donation.[3]

This is where I got that info. It may not be factual, but it is verifiable. Pete Peters 16:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll break it up and add the Siemens lobbyists to the end of it. However, I will not restore the exact quote, since some of the adjectives are unsavoury. I'll also pare down the Kinnear quote to be consistent.

(vii) Restored to original wording. GoldDragon 16:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable compromise?

I've adjusted the Giambrone and ATU sections, hopefully in a manner acceptable to all parties. CJCurrie 17:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond tomorrow. GoldDragon 22:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Giambrone section is somewhat improved, however I would not include Moscoe's tirade, since it is possible to get the point across without being inflamatory.

The ATU (Bobby Lowe) on the other hand, its actually missing crucial details, notably Kinnear's response. I would consider putting part of the quotes back in, though not all of it, since Moscoe's comments are partly to blame for the controversy.

And speaking of the emphasis you put on deleting and later modifying Bobby Lowe, that standard brings us back to the police issues, notably the Hispanic ads and the council bug sweep. There is not really any context surrounding the ads, so the reader essentially just sees a racism accusation which is not really refuted. And the council bug sweep, the police simply don't have a dog in the fight, not being able to defend against the intimdation and spying charges. These police issues are as POV if not more than the early version of Bobby Lowe.

GoldDragon 17:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Kinnear's response occurred prior to Moscoe's meeting with Lowe. In addition, I'm not certain that Moscoe's comments (when viewed in the proper context) were directed against Lowe at all. He's described as "agreeing with a caller who said Lowe was lying", not "agreeing with a caller that Lowe had lied" -- it's possible (even probable) that the caller made several statements against the ATU, and that Moscoe responded with a blanket statement agreeing with the thrust of his comments. I'd like to see a bit more information on this point, before assuming the worst. (Finally, the controversy disappeared after the meeting took place -- I'm not convinced this is important enough for inclusion at all.)

The Hispanic ads and the council bug sweep aren't "police issues"; they're "police *union* issues", and the accusations of racism and harrassment against the police *union* are relevant to the article. In any event, we already have other councillors criticizing Moscoe -- what more do you want? CJCurrie 19:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not debating relevance at the moment, but its still obviously one sided, much more so than the early drafts of Bobby Lowe. Given that you've spent so much effort about the "balance" in issues involving Bobby Lowe and Rick Ducharme among others, would you do the same for the police union issues? GoldDragon 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain that the police union responded to Moscoe re: the "bug sweep" situation. Some rival politicians did, and this has been noted -- but I think the union just chose to ignore the matter. I'll see if I can find the police union's defence of the "Hispanic" posters, assuming there was one. CJCurrie 03:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Left out the police bug sweep and Hispanic ads, not because it isn't notable, but there because there isn't sufficient balance. GoldDragon 23:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Most recent revert

GoldDragon is right about one thing: there isn't much that we disagree on at this stage. Unfortunately, the differences that do exist are real, and can't simply be shrugged away.

I don't have any particular difficulties with GD's wording of the ATU section, and I'm prepared to return his changes after finishing this post. As to the rest ...

(i) We've been through the Giambrone/Siemens matter so many times that it almost seems unnecessary to clarify this again, but if we're going to mention the perceived link between Giambrone and Bombardier in the main body of the article, we should also mention the perceived links between Siemens and the right-wing councillors. Also, I think GD's edit conflates two separate Moscoe quotes.

I did mention the Siemens lobbyists and Bombardier critics. As usual, it clearly states that Moscoe was adressing the Isreal trip in his rebuttal, so there is not conflating. Plus, I don't feel that we need two seperate paragraphs to do this, and we certainly don't need Moscoe's tirade (considering that you removed all of the actual quotes from Bobby Lowe). GoldDragon 03:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(i) Perhaps you missed my reference to the "main body of the article". The Siemens connections are only mentioned in the footnotes in your version, while Giambrone's sort-of link to Bombardier is put at the start of the paragraph. This is hardly a neutral presentation.

Sorry -- I misread this. All the same, it doesn't make any sense to have the Giambrone/Bombardier pseudo-scandal at the front, and bury Siemens deep in the copy. CJCurrie 03:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(ii) The two Moscoe quotes are taken from different articles. I don't think there's any need to edit them, although I could entertain a compromise on this front. CJCurrie 03:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(ii) There is balance vis-a-vis the bug sweep (Moscoe was criticized by other councillors). I'll check for the police union's comments on the Hispanic ads shortly. CJCurrie 01:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, barely since you already included additional comments like "free and democratic society" to further inflame the accusation. Plus, "criticized Bromell for his reported..." is leading. Other times, you have replaced "criticized" with "argued" if you don't want to treat it as fact. GoldDragon 03:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

(i) "Free and democratic society" is a direct quote. Concerning Bromell, you're mistaken -- I've presented his case about as generously as could be expected, given that the union never actually apologized for the ad. However, I've adjusted the wording slightly. CJCurrie 03:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Concerning balance, the following might be of interest:

The Toronto Police Services Board has vowed to continue its efforts to persuade the police union to admit it made a "regrettable" error when it ran a subway poster depicting gang members as Latinos.

Board chair Norm Gardner told Hispanic community leaders yesterday at the board's monthly meeting that he will fight on their behalf to resolve the issue with Craig Bromell, president of the 7,000-member Toronto Police Association. (Toronto Star, 25 June 1999, p. 1.)

Chief Boothby has written a magisterial letter to Craig Bromell, president of the police association, saying he has done the force a disservice "by stereotyping in this manner." (Globe and Mail, 17 June 1999, A18 - Michael Valpy's column)

In a strongly worded letter to the Canadian Hispanic Congress yesterday, Mr. Lastman said he shared community concerns about a poster paid for by the Toronto Police Association, saying it was "inappropriate" in a culturally diverse city. And he promised he would "go to any length to assure something like this never happens again." (Globe and Mail, 2 June 1999, A9.) CJCurrie 02:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

... more to the point, I've already included Bromell's version of events. What more do you want? CJCurrie 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, having read this, its not really an issue central to Moscoe's biography, is it? Its rather an excuse to include a swipe at Bromell and it is poorly balanced, considering the effort you put in to "balance" Bobby Lowe and the Bombardier controversy. GoldDragon 03:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've significant in the sense that Moscoe publicly criticized the ad. You're the one asking for Bromell's side to be represented, so I'm not sure what you're objecting to here. CJCurrie 03:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not only asking for the criticized side to be represented, I want an NPOV presentation in the manner of Bombardier and Bobby Lowe. You know it yourself when Moscoe is on the receiving end of criticism - you not not add only his response but also plenty of counter arguements. Otherwise, it won't be allowed to stand. GoldDragon 17:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify: is the "police" section the only part of this article that you are objecting to at present? If so, I suspect we may be at an impasse in our discussions, and a third party view may be needed (again). CJCurrie 19:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Again?

Alright, I was under the impression that this content dispute was close to being resolved, it seems I was mistaken. Please remember to not use edit summaries as a means of editwarring. Further, unless these back and forth reverts stop, I'm going to request that the page be fully protected. In my opinion (and since I couldn't give half a damn about Moscoe, my opinion is pretty unbiased), the revesion written by CJCurrie seems to be more neutral, and more importantly, provides far more context, I believe it should be the one being used. By all means, get other opinions, but in the meantime discuss before reverting. -- pm_shef 01:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

My main gripe is often the manner of presentation in the controversial sections. There has been plenty of polishing and back and forth to get the compromise result in Rick Ducharme, but none of that in the police section whatsoever. GoldDragon 01:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So then put the problem on here and we'll come to a consensus, rather than reverting mass sections of the article at once. -- pm_shef 02:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not accept GD's premise: I've gone out of my way to add balance to the police section. In any event, I'm tired of arguing these same points over and over. CJCurrie 02:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you compare the police section to Bobby Lowe and Rich Ducharme, in particular the sections on Bromell, would you still claim to have gone out of your way to balance the police section? It should just go and that should make it easier for us. GoldDragon 02:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

GD, everyone in Toronto was slamming Bromell for the Hispanic subway ads. The only way I can think of to make the section more balanced would be to add the condemnations by Norman Gardner, Mel Lastman and the major papers -- ie. to indicate that it wasn't just Moscoe or the left attacking him.

As far the bug sweeping thing goes, practically everyone in Toronto (Lastman included) was slamming Bromell for intimidation during that period too. I'm not aware of Bromell or any of his allies criticizing Moscoe for the sweep, so the criticism of a fellow councillor will have to suffice. CJCurrie 03:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Btw, it might be useful to review the history of outside parties who've looked in on our dispute:

HistoryBA: decided against GoldDragon's version
HOTR: decided against GoldDragon's version
Bearcat: decided against GoldDragon's version
Ground_Zero: mostly decided against GoldDragon's version
Pete Peters: decided against GoldDragon's version
pm Shef: decided against GoldDragon's version

A pattern should be evident by now. This isn't so much an edit war, as it is one contributor not being reasonable. CJCurrie 03:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Please allow me to amend my previous comments: GoldDragon's version has now been endorsed by two anonymous contributors with no posting history prior to today. Not to insinuate anything, but we're all familiar with the rules about Sockpuppets, right? CJCurrie 03:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the sockpuppets, I wouldn't not gain anything from using them and I'm well aware of the penalties. In fact, I've toned down the edit war so I don't come close to the 3RR rule...why would I use sockpuppets? Obviously, the onus is upon CJCurrie to prove it rather than make up a baseless accussation.

Second, would you agree that this is the most reasonable and NPOV way of presentation? He has argued that much of the controversy over the Bombardier contract has been fomented by Siemens lobbyists, whom he blames for "all kinds of stupid, wild accusations" made by his opponents. Moscoe is quoted as saying, "It's the right-wing attempting to smear me, but the truth is, they don't have a lot of public sympathy. The truth is they're trying to get to the mayor through me." This is from the same CJCurrie that removed another direct quote: "It is incredible that the TTC Chair would personally attack the honesty of an employee who was viciously assaulted in the line of duty" The reason? The first quote is critical of Moscoe's enemies, the second quote is critical of Moscoe himself. I have no plans on re-introducing the second quote, and I hope that you realize that the first quote adds no salient information and only serves to make it more inflammatory.

Third, HistoryBA, HOTR, and Bearcat have not intervened in this dispute regarding its current incarnation, when was the last time they did? I did accept Ground_Zero's arbitration (he did rule against you regarding the controversies section). Pete Peters, I'm aware that you made a deal with him on Warren Kinsella so you could skirt the 3RR, as he has not provided any indepth analysis. I do have a case to argue to pm Shef. So please do not use imaginary consensus when it does not exist. GoldDragon 21:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(i) I didn't make any accusations concerning sockpuppets (or meatpuppets, for that matter). I just want to be clear that we're all aware of the rules.

(ii) No, I removed the Kinnear quote because the entire situation with Bobby Lowe was a trumped-up pseudo-scandal. I still don't think it needs to be in the article at all.

(iii) I cannot remember the details of any "deal" that I made with Peters on the Kinsella page, but it's most likely that I simply asked him to revert some borderline vandalism from someone who was obviously skirting the 3RR. CJCurrie 21:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

In any event, none of this changes my basic point: every single time I've asked someone to review this page, that person has opposed GoldDragon's version. At present, no one apart from yesterday's anon supports GD's version, while no fewer than three regular contributors are opposed to it.

I've already said everything I need to say vis-a-vis the specifics of the edits. CJCurrie 22:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Do I have to ask again? Would you agree that this is the most reasonable and NPOV way of presentation? He has argued that much of the controversy over the Bombardier contract has been fomented by Siemens lobbyists, whom he blames for "all kinds of stupid, wild accusations" made by his opponents. Moscoe is quoted as saying, "It's the right-wing attempting to smear me, but the truth is, they don't have a lot of public sympathy. The truth is they're trying to get to the mayor through me." This is from the same CJCurrie that removed another direct quote: "It is incredible that the TTC Chair would personally attack the honesty of an employee who was viciously assaulted in the line of duty" The reason? The first quote is critical of Moscoe's enemies, the second quote is critical of Moscoe himself. At this point, its not an issue of whether its "important" or not, it doesn't warrant an exception to handling quotes.

With regard to Howard Moscoe and Bombardier, we are essentially saying the same things, but in my version, I made the connection and put it into one paragraph. The reader does not have to see that Moscoe blamed it on lobbyists and then find out that that happened a paragraph later.

GoldDragon 17:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No GD, your version is most notable for highlighting an alleged link between Bombardier and Adam Giambrone, while burying the Siemens/right-wing link deeper in the text. I've already indicated why the Kinnear quote doesn't belong in the article, and (you may have forgotten this) I've also indicated that I'd be willing to compromise on the Moscoe quote. I'm not willing to accept your current version of the Moscoe quote, because it conflates two separate interviews (one of which was not about the Tel Aviv trip, one of which was). CJCurrie 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The Kinnear quote's inclusion does not depend upon whether you claim that the scandal is trumped up or not. If anything, that involves Moscoe personally.

I will not accept the Moscoe quote in its current format since much of it is irrelevant and adds no salient information. Actually, it isn't much trouble to change it. Although you seem concerned about the Bombardier/Giabrome highlight, remember that Moscoe's accusations of political gain which features prominently at the end. Plus, I oppose your two paragraph revision because it features the Siemens lobbyists twice, which is overhighlighting that point.

By the way, David Solnacki was one of the councillors that signed the affidavit to investigate Moscoe, so it isn't just Stintz and Nunziata complaining about the comments.

GoldDragon 03:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(i) We've already covered the Kinnear quote. Please refer to previous statements from myself and Pete Peters.

(ii) My version mentions Siemens and Bombardier twice, so I'm not certain what you're complaining about.

(iii) Signing an affidavit for investigation isn't the same as endorsing Stintz's position. Anyway, you seem to be confusing two incidents. CJCurrie 03:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The difference that is Bombardier is mentioned for seperate instances. You are mentioning the Siemens lobbyists twice. No you have not justified the Moscoe tirade...not in your current and previous statements. GoldDragon 15:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit War Reminder

GoldDragon, simply commenting on the talk page doesn't mean you automatically have free reign to revert an edit. Commenting on the talk page needs to be a means to resolving the dispute - by continuosly(sp) reverting near-consensus edits without waiting for a resolution, you're only inflaming the situtation. -- pm_shef 20:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is only two of us arguing in this dispute. If I have a concern on the talk page and he says "no" for a reason that I disagree with, then I could go no further as he would not further discuss my concerns. GoldDragon 16:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, there aren't two of you in this dispute. I've been watching it as well, and have made my opinion on the matter clear, and the same can be said of a number of other editors. There is an entire community party to this dispute (as with all disputes on Wikipedia) and it is important that you remember that before engaging in further editwarring. -- pm_shef 16:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This is sadly typical of GoldDragon's posting history. His general modus operandi is to make the same edits OVER and OVER and OVER, even after they've been rejected by other contributors.

When he does this, other contributors are stuck with two unpleasant choices:

(i) Revert his edits every time, thereby running the risk of appearing to participate in an edit war.
(ii) Leave his edits in place, possibly bringing down the quality of the article.

It's not just on political articles that he's done this. Readers may be interested in the page history of the John Ferguson Jr. article, available here, where GoldDragon's feud with Tykell ended only when Tykell stopped posting to Wikipedia. CJCurrie 21:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC) [Note: When I wrote the previous message, I was unaware that Tykell had been banned from Wikipedia for instances of idiotic vandalism. That fact, however, has nothing to do with his or GD's participation in the Ferguson edit war.] CJCurrie 03:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any ideas to fix John Ferguson Jr? I would like to here them. In fact, several other subsequent contributors have built upon my verson and not Tykell's, so I'm not doing something wrong there.

I don't have any opinion about the Ferguson page; I was just illustrating a point. CJCurrie 18:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Back to Howard Moscoe, CJCurrie is painting a misleading picture of the situation. It is just him and I for the most part...the others only participated at the bequest of CJCurrie to skirt the 3RR (have I seen any major discussion from them, with the exception of mediator Ground Zero and perhaps pm_shef at the present). CJCurrie is assuming that he has consensus, and by assuming consensus, that is why he insists upon being the gatekeeping for any edit that comes his way.

Has anyone scrutinized his edits? He simply brushes off the POV concerns to the police section and Moscoe's attacks on Bombardier critics...but he spent countless hours to moderate any section critical of Moscoe himself. I have no disagreement with the latter but his first act is always to make excuses like "not important" and try to delete or footnote them, while he is more than happy to include countless other bits of "intersting" trivia about Moscoe.

Speaking of choices...a POV leaning police section and Moscoe's tirade actually lowers the quality of the article. GoldDragon 16:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, GD, while CJ might not have "consensus" (by virtue of you disagreeing with him), he does have far more agreement for his side of the issue. Despite your attempts, I have yet to see any evidence of POV in the Police section, and the Bombardier section, while seemingly a bit messy, isn't IMO, POV. -- pm_shef 16:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Upon further review, it seems that it is in fact GoldDragon's edits that are PoV, not CJ's. For example, the removal of the section on Brommell investigating City Councillors and Moscoe's comments related to that. That is clearly something of interest to the public, and it is clearly important, encyclopedic information. This is just one example, but further reinforces our point that these constant reverts are petty and not constructive. -- pm_shef 16:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not dispute the importance of such information, but its currently presented in a way to clearly embarass Brommell (does CJCurrie remember Judy Sgro's resignation on Joe Volpe?). GoldDragon 18:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with GoldDragon version.

Keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonito e Gostoso (talk • contribs)

"Keep it" is not a valid reason. Please stop reverting the page unless you're ready to explain your reverts. -- Chabuk 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the second time something like this has happened in the last month, and I have a sneaking suspicion that these problems could continue until November. CJCurrie 20:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've posted the issue at ANI. And trust me CJ, I know the feeling. We've got the same issue in Vaughan. -- Chabuk 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've been following that situation too. CJCurrie 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the truth is that Chabuk hasn't explained in any more detail than —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonito e Gostoso (talk • contribs) . GoldDragon 18:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A one-trick-pony anon does not "even the score". CJCurrie 13:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely have explained myself, and I'll go line by line and do it again if necessary. Bonito, on the other hand, shows up - his first edit being to revert Moscoe to GD's version, and when asked to explain himself, is unable to. -- Chabuk 15:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy on Meatpuppets

A related issue occurs when multiple individuals create brand new accounts specifically to participate in, or influence, a particular vote or area of discussion. This is common in deletion discussions or controversial articles. These newly created accounts, or anonymous edits, may be friends of another editor, may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion, or may have been solicited by someone to support a specific angle in a debate. Wikipedians also call such user accounts single-purpose accounts, because whereas committed Wikipedians are usually active on a range of articles, and their aim is to see a balanced growth in articles and in the encyclopedia as a whole, single-purpose accounts come to Wikipedia with one agenda.

These accounts are often described as "meatpuppets", a name perhaps inspired by the band of the same name. They are often difficult to distinguish from real sock puppets and are treated similarly. Neither a sock puppet nor a single-purpose account holder is regarded as a member of the Wikipedia community. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that,[citation needed] for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one individual.

My comments:

1. I have no reason to believe that Bonito e Gostoso is a sock/meatpuppet of GoldDragon, and I'm not making that particular accusation. I've known GoldDragon for over a year on this forum, and while I strongly disagree with his general approach to Wikipedia and his recent actions on the Moscoe and Joe Volpe pages, he doesn't strike me as the sort of person who would openly violate policy in such a matter.

2. That being said, it's clear that User:Bonito e Gostoso is a "single-purpose account". BeG's only contributions so far have been to revert the Moscoe page to GoldDragon's version ~~four~~ ~~five~~ six times, write "I agree with GoldDragon's version" on the talk page, revert to GoldDragon's version on the Joe Volpe page, and add an ungrammatical comment to the edit history. It's obvious that this user ID was created solely to influence this discussion (albeit poorly), and perhaps to skirt the 3RR here and at the Volpe page. (Updated: 19:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC))

3. I do not consider Bonito e Gostoso to be a legitimate member of the Wikipedia community.

4. As such, I do not believe that reverting BeG's edits should count toward the 3RR.

CJCurrie 22:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There will be no exceptions to the 3RR by either party, for whatever reason. If Bonito e Gostoso had supported CJCurrie's version instead, I would have to ask whether CJCurrie would consider such an exception. GoldDragon 02:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

GoldDragon's new edit adds POV

(i) It is not accurate to describe Moscoe as "an opponent of the police union". People can oppose a union's practices without opposing the union itself? (Should Moscoe also be described as an opponent of the Amalgamated Transit Union? I didn't think so ...).

(ii) Adding a strategically-located "though" in the middle of the Hispanic ad section adds POV, rather than removing it.

(iii) I see you returned "and others" again, despite being told not to.

Btw, your edits are also removing every unrelated change that I've made to this article in the last month. CJCurrie 20:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Moscoe has criticized the Toronto police union on several ocassions. In 1999, he claimed that their advertisements portrayed Hispanics as criminals, though union chief Craig Bromell said that it was not meant to be offensive. ^[1] The next year, Moscoe accused Bromell of hiring private investigators to investigate city councillors. ^[2] When Moscoe had a bug sweep of his office, Tom Jakobek and other rival councillors derided the move as a publicity stunt.

(i) It wasn't just Moscoe who made this claim: practically every interested party apart from Bromell was saying the same thing.

(ii) The media response to Moscoe's sweep was mixed. Your edit focuses only on the criticism, and comes off as POV-pushing.

Btw, I believe you're confusing two different incidents re: Soknacki. CJCurrie 21:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie's preferred version is POV

No confusion over Soknacki, he knew what he was doing.

(i) I am not downplaying the significance of this, but at the same time, the extra Moscoe quotes only serve to imflame the issue. I include only the salient information for controversial passages.

(ii) What ever way that you read it...I'm not making a big deal about it.

GoldDragon 22:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

~~(i) You're missing the point re: Soknacki. Read what I said again. You're confusing two separate incidents.~~ Never mind; I've restored your wording on this matter.

(ii) I don't see any issue being inflamed here. The description is accurate, and the quotes are both accurate and appropriate.

By the way, could I please request that you only revert those sections of the article that you object to in the future, rather than deleting unrelated changes left and right. You may not care about these changes, but others do.

CJCurrie 22:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed to the second request.

In this case, its safer to just leave out the quotes for controversial passages. GoldDragon 01:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you still consider the Giambrone section to be contested, even though others have weighed in against your wording. I'm wondering what it will take to end this. CJCurrie 01:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

If you put it in a seperate section, then it seems like Giambrone has no place. I put it with the Isreal trip in order to collate Bombardier's lobbying. Plus, Moscoe states that the Siemens lobbyists are to blame...and right after I put that Bombardier critics have met with Siemens. No need to have two paragraphs. It wouldn't make any sense to put Siemens first, since Moscoe's retort is at the end. GoldDragon 03:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

CJCurrie explains his version

Bombardier/Siemens section

(i) "arguing" vs "specifically stating". ("TTC manager Rick Ducharme paragraph", sentence 2) "Specifically stating" is an unnecessarily emotional turn of phrase; it's best to keep our wording as dry as possible. I'd be willing to change "arguing" to "asserting".

Actually, "specifically stated" was your original wording. I don't think Moscoe himself disputes this either, especially when he argued that he wanted to advert a second strike.

(ii) "The Toronto Star argued/speculated". This isn't particularly important, one way or the other.

(iii) "involve himself in discussions" vs "take part in discussions". No real difference.

(iv) "Some in the media suggested that Ducharme's resignation was not a reasonable reaction to Moscoe's alleged activities." There's no reason not to reference the criticism against Ducharme in the main text of the article. Including this sentence adds balance.

I finally decided upon a place to put it, right after the Toronto Star accussations. So case closed.

(v) "giving" vs "granting". Granting is more accurate.

(vi) "rival company Siemens". It makes sense to clarify who they are at the time of the first reference.

(vii) "asserting" vs "suggesting". Since the Siemens estimate was based on speculation, "suggesting" seems more accurate.

Although you do use asserting for Bombardier's tax savings estimate.

(viii) "(Siemens has also acknowledged that it reached its figures without having access to the TTC's specifications.)" There's no good reason not to mention this in the main text. We could probably lose the parentheses, I suppose.

My main gripe with this is that Bombardier's tax savings are also estimates, so that doesn't give Bombardier a "better" claim than Siemens. It is also likely that the TTC refused Siemens access to its figures. Just like on Rick Ducharme, you should not just dispute one side's arguement while ignoring the other, otherwise that would muddy the waters.

(ix) Would you accept this as a solution to our main dispute:

Some councillors have accused Moscoe of an improper relationship with Bombardier, drawing attention to a trip he made to Tel Aviv in 1998 to promote subway construction in Israel. The trip was organized by Bombardier, but paid for by the Israeli government. Moscoe responded that he was the target of a smear campaign, adding that there had been "nothing secret" about his trip. He also argued that the controversy over Bombardier was being fomented by Siemens lobbyists, and that his opponents were "trying to get to the mayor" by attacking him.

Nice, succinct, and balanced. In this version, both Giambrone and the 4 out of 6 will go in the footnotes. What do you say? CJCurrie 06:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The wording is much improved, as you get right to the point about Siemen's lobbyists. So adding that Bombardier critics did meet with lobbyists should balance out Giabrome. Plus, with Giabrome, there is already a refutal to that already, "though he turned down the assistance." Indeed, it makes Moscoe ally Giabrome look like the reasonable actor in this event.

(x) I cannot, for the life of me, understand why you insist on deleting De Baeremaker's comments, particularly when they're already balanced by Karen Stintz. I'd be willing to add "noting other city contracts ..." to the end of the last sentence in my version.

Doesn't add any salient information...it is likely intended to make Moscoe's critics look idiotic. Indeed, the main balance is as follows: consultants argue for the deal, but Stintz says that the deal did not follow the procedures that other city departments follow. Simple as that.

(xi) Your version deletes (perhaps inadvertently) a short update on the contract's progress. CJCurrie 06:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Update

I've revised the section. Please review it carefully before reverting again. We're probably closer to resolving this than we've been in some time: in fact, I believe that our remaining differences are fairly minor. (Btw, there's little point in having a header called "Rick Ducharme's resignation" when most of the section doesn't actually concern Rick Ducharme's resignation.) CJCurrie 23:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Bromell

(i) In 1999, he claimed that their advertisements portrayed Hispanics as criminals, though union chief Craig Bromell said that it was not meant to be offensive. In the first place, it wasn't simply Moscoe who opposed the ads -- practically everyone of singificance did. Moscoe's opinion is especially notable as he was TTC head at the time, but let's not pretend or suggest he was the only objector. Second, "though" is a weasel word in this context -- making it appear as though Bromell was the reasonable party.

I'll get rid of "though", but that is around it. The main difference between my version and yours is the quotes. Since your version did not explicitly state whether Moscoe was the lone objector or not, I plan on keeping that precedent.

(ii) Moscoe accused Bromell of hiring private investigators My recollection is that Bromell admitted hiring private investigators. I'll recheck.

I've rechecked. Bromell acknowledged hiring private investigators: this isn't an accusation, it's a statement of fact. CJCurrie 00:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

My revised wording should clear this up.

I don't believe there's anything wrong with the wording in my version.

Unfortunately, most of your quotes are being used as weasel words in order to embarrass Bromell and make him look like a dictator (not to mention, make Moscoe look like the reasonable party). Remember on Joe Volpe how you practically had to firewall Judy Sgro against immigration pizza allegations? GoldDragon 21:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss here rather than reverting again. CJCurrie 06:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

At this point, as there is meaningful dialogue, then mediation is not needed. GoldDragon 21:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Moscoe had his office swept for bugs and several councillors, including Tom Jakobek, described the move as a publicity stunt.

Do you seriously believe this is NPOV wording? I've made several compromises in the Bombardier/Siemens section in the interests of finally moving on, but I don't think there's a compelling need to change anything in the police section. (Btw, the accusations against Sgro were later proven false, so that analogy doesn't quite work.) CJCurrie 23:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Its definitely more neutral than the old version. Indeed, the shortened intimidation paragraph is the facts as you put it, minus the quotes. The bug sweep publicity stunt balances out the charges of intimidation. GoldDragon 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is a compelling need to change the police section and rid it of weasel quotes. GoldDragon 17:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The bug sweep publicity stunt? Do you not see a certain POV in this statement, perchance?

I said that so that I could save words in the Talk. That is NOT what it says on my version, so please do not mislead neutral parties.

This should fix it. Moscoe had his office swept for bugs, claiming that it was a precautionary procedure. Several councillors, including Tom Jakobek, described the move as a publicity stunt. So do you have any objection to this (other than its not as anti-Bromell as you would have liked)? GoldDragon 23:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that there's absolutely nothing wrong with the police section as it currently is. The only person who seems to find it POV is you. We've had other readers (Bearcat and Chabuk) approve the section in its current form: you do not have the right to mindlessly revert it over and over.

And will you please stop reverting unrelated sections of the article. CJCurrie 17:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to bring closure to what was a meaningful debate. GoldDragon 23:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made some adjustments to your wording, but I'm prepared to live with the principle of a "reduced" section re: Bromell. Are you satisfied with the article in its current state? CJCurrie 23:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is considered much improved. Notably in the old version, with quotes like "free and democratic society", I feel that it blows it out of proportion.

Regarding the Giabrome, this puts more light on the anti-Bombardier councillors, so I curious to what you think. GoldDragon 18:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the G-i-a-m-b-r-o-n-e, my view is that (i) referencing Bombardier's offer of assistance at the start of the paragraph makes absolutely no sense, (ii) the wording casts unnecessary doubt on Bombardier's relationship with Giambrone [even though he turned down the assistance], (iii) it's not necessary to mention the matter at all in an article about Howard Moscoe.

Really, GD, we've almost reached agreement as to the wording. Is it really necessary to drag this out any further? CJCurrie 21:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, since a large part of the Bombardier deal is covered including the supporters, detractors, and council vote, it would make sense to mention Bombardier's move on Giambrone, although perhaps not in that paragraph.

Indeed, that perhaps made more waves than the Isreal trip, "Bombardier’s Quebec office quickly went into damage control mode"[4]. GoldDragon 17:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve Munro isn't a reliable source. Anyway, why exactly are you revert-warring now? CJCurrie 20:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives

Talk:Howard Moscoe/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

GoldDragon edits

June

Helicopters

Now ...

Gold Dragon edits

The current dispute

CJCurrie deletes

The wording

Third party view

further edits

Stintz/Nunziata and political outrage

Police section

Moscoe rejects claim of financial loss under Bombardier deal

The rationale for my edit

The rationale for my edit

Compromise

Editorial dispute

Outside input

Summary

Edit Summary Wars

Acceptable compromise?

Most recent revert

Again?

Edit War Reminder

I agree with GoldDragon version.

Wikipedia policy on Meatpuppets

GoldDragon's new edit adds POV

CJCurrie's preferred version is POV

CJCurrie explains his version

Bombardier/Siemens section

Update

Bromell

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search