Talk:Michael Di Biase

message: *IMO, the edits being made to the article by the two anonIP's, and calling my edits vandalism, (most likely  evading his block) do not have a neutral PoV and are partisan in nature. Specifically, the first block of edits regarding how he became mayor brings up information that really has no relevance to his person or career. The second block of edits, regarding the traffic tickets, is clearly intended to damage the subject's image. The issue was featured in one or two newspaper articles following the election, and hasn't been mentioned since. It's outdated and has nothing to do with his job as mayor. Do people agree with me?
**The first part isn't really relevant. The second part is debatable. Ardenn 01:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Reported years ago, and never mentioned again. - pm_shef 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: pm_shef might possibly have an agenda, but that doesn't factor into my opinion on this matter.  Whether or not Di Biase got traffic tickets is not really important.  Especially since according to your edit, the charges have been thrown out.  As for the accident, that is really borderline.  Why do you consider it so important to include?  This person's political career is important.  If we included all traffic tickets and accidents in everyone's biography, it would get ridiculous.  Just because no one else has other information to add does not mean we have to resort to trivia for this article.  -- JamesTeterenko 15:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: JamesTeterenko, I have asked an admin to assist me in this matter.  My edits lasted for several months without any objections and were only changed after pm_shef modified the traffic story last week, without any reasoning I may add. ED209 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have reverted twice.  I too have asked for assistance, since you have re-inserted the unimportant information 5 times, which is in violation of the Three revert rule.  There has been enough reasoning given by users on this page as to why it does not need to be included.  What reasoning have you given for it to be included?  Just because the information was there for months, that does not make it important enough to stay.  -- JamesTeterenko 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *First of all, I have no political agenda in this. Since the original conflict broke out earlier this year, ED209 and VaughanWatch's cronies have incessantly labelled me "biased" and accused me of having an agenda. From the outset, I made it clear who my father was, and yet still, no editor has been able to give any real examples of my supposed "bias". The accusations are tossed around, never with any proof, and to be honest, feel very much like personal attacks. Regarding Hazel McCallion, that is an entirely different story. First of all, I'm almost positive it made national news. Second, it is the culmination of years of speculation in the media on whether/when she would get a driver. The MdB incident was isolated, years ago and has never been brought up since. In terms of me removing it without a reason, my reason is, and was, simple. It is not notable in the context of the article. And it seems that the vast majority of the people involved here agree with me. Once again, do not accuse me of bias unless you can prove it. - pm_shef 22:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe you haven't fought a traffic ticket before, but the issuing officer rarely shows up to the court date, which results in the ticket getting thrown out. This is a common occurence throughout the GTA. And the reason I didn't remove the section earlier is because I didn't notice it. If I had seen it, I would have removed it then. - pm_shef 01:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: PoV Changes

message: Hey y'all, remember, 3 revert rule is a policy.  Don't go stirring up the hate by reverting.  Xiong Chiamiov   :: contact ::  01:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hey, hey, hey.  I have read through this talk page now that I've had time, so this is my opinion.
# The paragraph that ED209 just removed doesn't seem to be the one in controversy.  It looks ok to me, but I don't know if I'm missing something.  However, unless he puts it back in, I say it stays out until this is all sorted out.
# Regarding the traffic tickets: just because it is on another page does not mean that it is ok.  That page may be wrong, and the situations are not completely the same.  Now, I agree with whoever it was that said that the traffic tickets themselves are not notable.  If Di Biase was cracking down on red-light violators, then yes.  The fact that he hit a previous police commissioner is note-worthy, only if presented in an encyclopedic manner and as a side-note.  It doesn't need its own section or whatnot, and if there is no other "random trivia" type of stuff, then it would seem out of place, in which case I would be for its omission. Xiong Chiamiov :: contact :: 15:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: *Alright, so we now have 3 administrators telling us that in the current situation the traffic tickets should not be added. I would call that a pretty good consensus. In terms of the deleted paragraph, simply saying that its POV is not sufficient. You must either explain what you feel is POV and why it is, or else you're just making a blind assertion - in which case it's going back in. Not to mention that you should have attempted to reword the paragraph to make it neutral rather than deleting it. In terms of disputing the factual accuracy, you can accomplish that by adding the  or  tags, not by simply blanking the paragraph. We have process on this site, you cannot simply make up your own rules. - pm_shef 00:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  no edit wars 

message: First of all, obviously, the reverting back and forth has to stop.  As for the paragraph in question, I think that information about Di Biase's policies in office and his platform are needed in the article, but this paragraph doesn't do a very good job of laying them out neutrally and factually.  Some points: (1) it's totally legitimate to use Di Biase's promotional material to describe his policies as long as the description makes it clear that it's how Di Biase describes it.  For instance, "Di Biase's election platform includes support for renewing the City of Vaughan" or "Di Biase describes his policies as based on the concept of renewing the City of Vaughan."  (2) It's bad to mix self-promotion information with news information.  It makes more sense to me to separately describe (a) what he wants as his policies and then (b) what he has actually accomplished.  If you mix the two, it can start to sound like the politician's own rosy picture of himself is the truth.  Pm_shef, you stumbled right into it when you described the official site as containing only factual information.  No -- it's one source, and it's reliable, so we can base text on it, but it's not "factual information;" it exhibits a point of view.  Now, there are also critics of Di Biase's policies, right?  That stuff can also be included. In fact, it's pretty normal in articles about politicians to describe criticism of them.  Of course, it has to come from a reliable source, and the viewpoints should be the most significant oppositional ones that aren't "fringe;" we don't need to give undue weight to such viewpoints.  
As for the other disputed business about traffic tickets, I think the problem there is that it's undue weight.  The size of that text is huge compared to the rest of the article; you'd think the traffic ticket issue was as important as the entirety of Di Biase's platform and accomplishments as mayor, from the relative space between the two.  If that business is important at all, I'd say a short mention is appropriate, for instance "Di Biase has been scrutinized with respect to his driving record" (with the reference), and leave it at that.  
For the record, Ed, you're wrong about one thing: when there's a dispute like this, it's more normal for the disputed text to remain up there, but to add a tag like  to mention the dispute on the article page.  The reason is that generally, we try to keep info in there so that the article can eventually become comprehensive; it's best to avoid taking steps backwards.  Also, if you think pm_shef's proposed paragraph isn't neutral enough, you should try to write a more neutral version.  It's very difficult to get anything done on Wikipedia in a conflict when one side only criticizes rather than helping.  Okay, hope this gets you both talking productively.  Good luck, and if things start to get heated again, let me know on my talk page and I'll look into things.  Mangojuicetalk 05:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Lots of good points.  As for the "leaving things out until there is a consensus," I got that from user:Bearcat who told both user:pm_shef and myself that this was the rule on wikipedia. ED209 05:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Such material is then normally move to the talk page for further discussion, not deleted outright. Circeus 13:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some opinions on this conflict

message: *You'll notice my addition regarding the Toronto pay raise says "recently approved" which it was. It doesn't say that the raise has gone into effect, so I fail to see, ED209, how that addition is "blatantly POV" as you say. It seems to be entirely factual. -- pm_shef 18:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Your filling the article with clutter.  Every municipality votes on a pay raise every so often.  The point of the paragraph is simply to show the gap that currently exists. ED209 18:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *It wasn't me.  Check the user name. ED209 21:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *True dat, sorry. I just saw the ED2.... and assumed it was you. -- pm_shef 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pay 

message: *I've shortened this as much as I can, while trying to keep the irony of the incident.  Feel free to clean it up a bit more. ED209 01:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *The problem is I don't see how its important enough in the first place. Especially since, as the entry itself says, the tickets aren't on his record. -- pm_shef 01:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'll leave it for now simply to avoid another fight, but I still don't think its important enough. -- pm_shef 01:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *I'll take a quote from the notice at the top of this page "Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." The assertion that the traffic tickets "disappeared" is in fact poorly sourced (if sourced at all) and is certainly potentially libelous. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 22:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *Just because it was in a newspaper doesn't mean that it isn't libelous. Furthermore, we've had this discussion here, and the community has agreed that the issue is simply not of sufficient notability to be included. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something that is in a newspaper has authority, it means its credible. I'm going to put it back in, if no one else objects. Jeromimo 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: *As I said before, just because it's in the newspaper doesn't mean it isn't libelous. Furthermore, we've had this discussion before and agreed that it should not be included. Wikipedia works on consensus, the community agreed that it should not be included. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reviewed this talk page, and no contributors besides yourself agrees that the material should be left out of the article. Users mangojuice, jamesteterenko, bearcat, ed209 and circeus believe that some previous edit was biased, poorly written, etc, however they haven't said that information about traffic tickets should not be included. Now if you think my edit is biased, please try to change it, I don't mind. But the consensus is that the material should be in the article. Jeromimo 21:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed that edit per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.  As for my opinion on whether the traffic ticket should be included, I don't personally think it is important enough considering I have not seen any reliable source that could confirm anything other than the tickets were discarded.  The reasons why they were discarded are only speculation.  -- JamesTeterenko 00:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi James. You're right that the reasons why the tickets disappeared/were discarded are only speculation, however the Toronto Star has cited in their editorial as this being a good enough reason to not give Michael Di Biase their endorsement, as well as give it a lot of press coverage. I can look for the articles for you, and then I'll make a better edit to the wikipedia (but how do you add references? I'll have to look into that). thanks Jeromimo 00:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting fact addition