Talk:Joe Volpe/Archive

message: Blanked private address, since this should not be posted on wikipedia.
: Wikipedia is not the place to post direct correspondence to Joe Volpe. We have no connection to him or to the government of Canada. You'd be best served contacting him through . Bearcat 00:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

message: In an attempt to prevent a revert war, let's start a discussion about what you feel is appropriate for inclusion in this article.  As I see it, there are two issues with respect to the donation controversy.  The first is the donations themselves and the subsequent campaign reaction.  In an attempt to preserve an NPOV tone, I wouldn't mind seeing this section expanded to reflect the Volpe's campaign's arguments for why the donations were not in violation of Elections Canada rules regarding third-party donations.  (On the other hand, I consider spin and name-calling with no substantive logical underpinning as uninformative and inappropriate for inclusion.)  The second issue is with respect to the Volpe's campaign's attempts to censor a parody site.  This is not a minor news item; it has been widely reported in the US as well as in Canada, and I feel that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to mention it.  However, edits should remain strictly factual.  I think the current explanation is actually fairly honest and NPOV.  I invite commentary here if you feel otherwise.  --Chris Thompson 01:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if you feel the current article is POV, please be specific about what sentences you feel are not neutral.  --Chris Thompson 01:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Technically, he's not.  The three revert-rule says an editor must not perform more than three reversions in a 24-hour period.  He's done three. Plus there's an argument to be made that the 19:06, 6 June 2006 is a vandalism revert (given the repeated deletion of information from the article by anonymous IPs) and should be excluded from the count. Blackeagle 07:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Blackeagle.  CJCurrie, I do however appreciate your warning.  (By the way, I'm kind of impressed by the personal attack one of the anonymous commenters inserted -- that's the first time that's ever happened to me in nearly four years of making Wikipedia edits.  Political articles do bring out the zealots.) --Chris Thompson 07:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Donations controversy

message: I disagree with the following aspects of GoldDragon's preferred version:
(i)  Sgro announced her resignation from cabinet on 14 January, after allegations that she had offered to intervene in the immigration hearing of Harjit Singh in exchange for pizza (Singh later retracted the allegations).
Reasons:  The specifics relating to Sgro's departure are not relevant to an article on Volpe, and the information is presented in such a way as to make Sgro look ridiculous.
(ii)  He went further, claiming "Notwithstanding that they don't have their cowl and their cape, the Klan looks like they're still very much alive". Volpe's comments were widely criticized as over the top and he subsequently apologized. 
Granting that GoldDragon's preferred wording for this section has improved in the last 24 hours, it still isn't good enough.  Reason: "He went further" and "were widely criticized as over the top" are obviously leading, and are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article.  (Also, I'm not certain that Volpe ever actually apologized.)
(iii)  The presence of "Same-sex marriage", "Expenses" and "Donations" sub-headings.
Reason:  These are completely unnecessary, and seem to have been added to draw attention to the controversies in question.
(iv)  Several of these expense claims involved multiple dinners with the minister on the same day, such as a March 21 dinner for $80.14 followed by a dinner at Allegro, a high-end Ottawa restaurant, for $507.39. Critics also highlighted several expensive pizza lunches and long limo rides. Volpe's meal expenses were more than three times higher than his predecessor as Immigration Minister, Judy Sgro, during the same period a year earlier.
Reason:  These details may have been appropriate for Question Period a year ago, but they aren't suitable for an encyclopedia entry.  This pizza nonsense doesn't belong here, and neither does tabloid language like "long limo rides".  The comparison with Sgro isn't especially relevant.  My version provides the facts of the situation (including Volpe's explanation for the "multiple dinners"), without the tabloid-headline bits.
(v)  Subsequently, a website called "Youth for Volpe" was created to parody these events. The author(s) of this parody site are unknown. The Volpe campaign generated controversy and allegations of censorship by attempting to have this site removed, with Brenden Johnstone from the Volpe campaign quoted in the Globe and Mail as stating "my Office has had the website suspended through CIRA [Canadian Internet Registration Authority] and CDNS [Canadian Domain Name Services] and it will be down as soon as 6 p.m. I think the issue with the website has been dealt with...."
Reasons:  This is (i) not particularly important, (ii) tabloidish, and (iii) perhaps factually inaccurate ("allegations of censorship by attempting to have this site removed" is not the same as "allegedly tried to have this site removed").  We have another source indicating that the site was closed when it was found to be improperly registered: why, therefore, should we credit Brendan Johnstone's possible bravado?
(vi)  While Michael Geist and the CIRA initially denied thishttp://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1277/Itemid,85/nsub,/, the registrant quoted an e-mail allegedly from the website's domain name registrar (Canadian Domain Name Services) saying that their site was pulled because of complaints about its content. It later came to light that CADNS.ca had foolishly quoted the libel chill section of the registrant agreement when clarification for suspension was requested by the registrant. This and a falsehood made by Volpe's staffer had led to suspicions that he was pressuring CADNS.ca, which is presently awaiting retractions from the Globe and Mail and Volpe's campaign.
Reasons:  "allegedly from the website' domain name"?  "had foolishly quoted the libel chill section"?  "This and a falsehood made by Volpe's staffer"? "which is presently awaiting retractions from the Globe and Mail and Volpe's campaign"?  Come on, this paragraph is complete garbage and innuendo.
(vii)  After his abrupt departure from the campaign, Karygiannis called the police to prevent a Volpe official from seizing computers at the Scarborough, Ont., headquarters that contained the names of nearly 36,000 new party members he had helped recruit.
Reason:  This isn't quite right: the names were also available elsewhere in the Volpe camp.  It might be possible to reference the police call, but we should do it more carefully.  CJCurrie 03:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary

message: (i)  Sgro announced her resignation from cabinet on 14 January, after allegations that she had offered to intervene in the immigration hearing of Harjit Singh in exchange for pizza (Singh later retracted the allegations).
That is what happened. At the same time, Singh did not retract the allegations until after she resigned.
(ii)  He went further, claiming "Notwithstanding that they don't have their cowl and their cape, the Klan looks like they're still very much alive". Volpe's comments were widely criticized as over the top and he subsequently apologized. 
"He went further" was what the CTV article said just before his KKK comparison. Also, the Western Standard had a different purpose in mind (sponsorship scandal), though Volpe chose to intepret it as a racial slur. Your present wording is misleading.
(iii)  The presence of "Same-sex marriage", "Expenses" and "Donations" sub-headings.
I have a different reason to include these headings, mainly for organizational purposes. That is why they are included along with "supporters" and "campaign platform". In fact, they are less inflamatory than the headings used in the early version of this article, but assume good faith that the other editors did so for the sake of order.
(iv)  Several of these expense claims involved multiple dinners with the minister on the same day, such as a March 21 dinner for $80.14 followed by a dinner at Allegro, a high-end Ottawa restaurant, for $507.39. Critics also highlighted several expensive pizza lunches and long limo rides. Volpe's meal expenses were more than three times higher than his predecessor as Immigration Minister, Judy Sgro, during the same period a year earlier.
A comparison to Sgro's past expenses is a better assertion than the word "excessive" since the latter has no basis of comparison.
(v)  Subsequently, a website called "Youth for Volpe" was created to parody these events. The author(s) of this parody site are unknown. The Volpe campaign generated controversy and allegations of censorship by attempting to have this site removed, with Brenden Johnstone from the Volpe campaign quoted in the Globe and Mail as stating "my Office has had the website suspended through CIRA [Canadian Internet Registration Authority] and CDNS [Canadian Domain Name Services] and it will be down as soon as 6 p.m. I think the issue with the website has been dealt with...."
Again, I won't debate whether its "important" or not, if so, every large article wouldn't be safe from flesh-picking. There were allegations of censorship, even though they were later disproven. And even if the allegations are not correct, it does better to explain it rather than a blanket cover up.
(vi)  While Michael Geist and the CIRA initially denied thishttp://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_content/task,view/id,1277/Itemid,85/nsub,/, the registrant quoted an e-mail allegedly from the website's domain name registrar (Canadian Domain Name Services) saying that their site was pulled because of complaints about its content. It later came to light that CADNS.ca had foolishly quoted the libel chill section of the registrant agreement when clarification for suspension was requested by the registrant. This and a falsehood made by Volpe's staffer had led to suspicions that he was pressuring CADNS.ca, which is presently awaiting retractions from the Globe and Mail and Volpe's campaign.
I'm working on fixing the last part. Doesn't it feel good for Volpe supporters that this came to light?
(vii)  After his abrupt departure from the campaign, Karygiannis called the police to prevent a Volpe official from seizing computers at the Scarborough, Ont., headquarters that contained the names of nearly 36,000 new party members he had helped recruit.
Well, no police report was filed. That is all I have to say about that.
GoldDragon 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, without a heading, once is forced to compress material and leave out crucial information. At the same time, multiple paragraphs are easier to read. Could you imagine 
(ii)  Your edit removes non-controversial changes to the header and the Port Authority sections.  I assume that you're using one of your old edits as the source for your current version; please be aware that this removes more recent changes.  
(iii)  I maintain that adding sub-headings in the "Controversies" section are unnecessary, and have the effect of disproportionately highlighting such matters.  The single-paragraph section on same-sex marriage, in particular, does not deserve its own category.
(iv)  Leaving aside everything else, the phrase "expensive pizza lunches and limo rides" is not encyclopedic.
(v)  Only one of the two paragraphs in the "Campaign platform" section is actually about Volpe's campaign platform.  One its own, the other paragraph not enough to justify a separate section.
(vi)  My objection to the Karygiannis/police situation is not particularly strong, but (i) I think it would be more suited to JK's bio page, being only peripherally related to Volpe's life, (ii) it makes sense to present his resignation in the current chronological position.
(vii)  I've already made my point vis-a-vis Youth For Volpe.  CJCurrie 03:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response

message: I've discovered that Volpe campaigned for the North York Board of Education in 1974, a fact that I was unaware of prior to yesterday evening.
I plan to add this information to the Volpe page presently.  I do not plan to adjust any parts of the article relating to the current controversy, nor present new information in a controversial manner.  I trust that this will not meet with the disapproval of any contributor to this page.  CJCurrie 21:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Just to let everyone know

message: I've made some further adjustments to this page (taking your concerns into account) in the interests of finally ending our controversy.  Your point concerning Graham and MacKinnon is relevant to the discussion, and has been integrated into the current text [technically, though, Graham and MacKinnon didn't defend the actual donations -- they just upheld their legality].
As far as I can tell, the only *real* point of contention between us now is the "Youth for Volpe" paragraph.  I will reiterate that I do not consider the matter to be of encyclopedic importance, and further note that two other editors (AnnieHall and PetePeters) have indicated they agree with me.  Please do not restore the paragraph again, unless you can build consensus for such a change on the talk page.  CJCurrie 16:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: For GoldDragon