Talk:David Miller (Canadian politician)/Archive 1

message: I'm just wondering if the current  top image in this article is the best one we can use. It's probably best to place this image in context of the "Is your police force in jail?" incident in the article. When I saw that text in the image description, I forgot about that incident and had to read through the article to remind myself just what incident it is. In addition, I'm not quite comfortable with the idea of using a "fair use" image as a first image for a public official. I'd rather go with either a public domain image or an image covered under government copyright.
I'm thinking that it's best to place that image beside the Police section in David Miller#Police where it actually describes that incident, and instead go with an official government photograph. An image I'm thinking would be appropriate is the following, found on the official City of Toronto web site . I don't know if it's covered under , (Crown copyright), or if municipalities are covered under their own copyright (such as given here. If this copyright is only covered under photos published in the Government of Ontario website this one may suffice (found  here). I may be nitpicking here, since other public officials, such as Hazel McCallion, have "fair use" images inserted as the first image the article. What do you think? --Deathphoenix 19:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there were no objections, I moved the old image down to the Police section and replaced it with an image covered under . --Deathphoenix 06:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image placement 

message: I was poking around at the history here, and it seems as if this CJCurrie guy is refusing to let anyone make any edits here.   Some other person edited this comment section earlier (more like vandalized, but who am I to judge), and it looks as if this CJ scooped away any comments immediately.
There's gotta be a fire where the smoke is rising, if not then why the virulent abuse of edit to eliminate any critisim?   Even in the discussion field, can you not allow any dissent?
[unsigned, anonymous contributor II} [added 24 June 2006]
_________________________________________________________
*The previous post altered my prior comments.  This was vandalism, and it was promptly removed.  CJCurrie 05:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why does CJCurrie refuse to allow anyone to touch this article? 

message: with the police union blaming the anti-police stance in Miller's council supporters for stalled contract negotiations
In 2004, the city's budget deferred $235 million worth of necessary road repairs on hold until next year, while borrowing money, hiking taxes, and increasing spending on homeless shelters
As before, the bias is transparent.  Please don't insult our intelligence by trying put these deleted sections back on the page.  CJCurrie 01:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The latest reversions

message: "He is the first Toronto mayor to be affiliated with the left-wing New Democratic Party."
I'm not certain this is accurate.  Barbara Hall was an NDP candidate in the 1985 provincial election, and her win in '94 was widely seen as a victory for the NDP.  She wasn't an official party candidate, I grant -- but, then, neither was Miller (and both were able to win support from outside the party).  CJCurrie 18:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your right, that section could be more precisely worded. Hall was a prominent NDPer as a city councillor, but before running for mayor she renounced her ties, and there was some bitterness between her and the NDP. Her campaing was also managed by arch-Liberal Keith Davey. Miller could be desribed as the first "avowedly NDP mayor." - SimonP 18:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First NDP Mayor?

message: Explaining some of my recent decisions:
1.  
GoldDragon wrote:
Board member Case Ootes argued that it amounted to political interference, and pointed out "some contradiction" between the request and Miller's earlier refusal to engage in public debate over Fantino's removal.
In this instance, "pointed out" is somewhat POV.  It assumes (or strongly implies) that a contradiction definitely existed -- and this is a point of debate, not a factual certainty.  The better choice of wording is, "said there was "some contradiction"".
As a result, the Board turned down Miller's request.
Similarly, this statement assumes definite causality between the two events.  This is also a point of debate, not a factual certainty.  The sentence reads better without, "As a result".  CJCurrie 23:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: *I think it would be best to find a better image of Miller now. The current picture with the war vet is good, however I think we should get a closer pic of him. However, it is hard to find a good one.SFrank85 19:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Your last edit summary was not an accurate reflection of the changes.  You removed the Fantino reference again and changed the police section, even though these matters had already been dealt with.  CJCurrie 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GoldDragon again

message: (vii)  Miller has also been criticized for his reliance on convincing the provincial and federal levels of government for more funding instead of being fiscally responsible. Councillor Michael Walker has criticized the November 2005 pay hike which was done with little open debate, saying that it "calls into question Mayor David Miller's election promise to clean-up city hall".
I've already indicated that the first sentence is POV.  Beyond that, the cited article is tabloid-quality and I'm not sure Canada Free Press counts as a viable source.
As to the second point ... it seems more credible, until one scrolls down the link to discover that Miller tabled a motion for reopening debate on the issue (which was defeated).  CJCurrie 02:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued from above 

message: You just violated the three revert rule (something which I've been very careful not to do).  I'm not going to recommend that you be banned, but I would request that you not touch this article for 24 hours (see 3RR, if you're not certain what I'm talking about).
You also jumped the gun -- I was about to start work on a compromise wording.  CJCurrie 04:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you noticed carefully, the "third time" was NOT a revert and rather an attempt at resolving the provincial duplication. The McGuinty sentence as said earlier is too lacking so I restored the original. I also added the Toronto Star columnist's take on the Grunwald measures, which were omitted by the simplified McGuinty sentence.
GoldDragon 21:00 3 March 2006 (UTC)
There were some positioning changes and some other material was added, but it was still a revert.  CJCurrie 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Message to GoldDragon

message: GoldDragon writes:
Royson also hinted that while the Board of Trade proposals were "bitter pills", they were nonetheless necessary to reduce the municipal budget gap.
This is inaccurate.  Here is the direct quote:
Grunwald presented a 19-page brief on the city budget. Queen's Park should upload the costs of social housing and social services, he said, agreeing with Miller. But council must swallow some bitter pills. For example, adopt and implement more than 800 recommendations from the city auditor. Rethink spending on new programs. Increase user pay by $300 million. And look at privatizing some services. 
In total, it was as good a response as one expects from a business lobby. 
This does not constitute an endorsement, and James was not advocating for the Board of Trade's position.  His position in the article was actually quite neutral -- it was the tone of Miller's response that he was criticizing.  CJCurrie 05:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Royson James quote

message: (i) who had his own waterfront revitalization plans (re: Dennis Mills)
This may be true, but it's not especially relevant to a Miller bio.  The wording also makes it look as though Mills was "freelancing" with his plans, which may be inaccurate.  CJCurrie 05:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for opposing recent changes

message: GD,
Your most recent edits seem intellectually dishonest.  You have returned the line, noting that a fiscal self-examination was overdue while spending on new programs was rampant, even though the source material in question neither makes this statement, nor attributes it to the provincial government.  You have not given a reason for returning the statement, nor have you responded to my comments here on the discussion page.
Perhaps I wasn't making myself sufficiently clear yesterday:  if you want to earn the trust of other Wikipedians, you will have to stop making dubious edits such as this.  I'm prepared to wait until the 24 hour frame has elapsed before reverting the statement, but I would request that you stop misrepresenting sources in this manner.  
I'm also going to request that you make an argument in favour of returning the statement here on the discussion page, should you disagree with my decision.  CJCurrie 20:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gold Dragon again

message: Should this be included in the article?
the increase is equal to the total of the operating budgets of the neighboring Greater Toronto Area municipalities in 2005. 
My feeling is that this statement is the slanted response to an irrelevant question: the GTA cities have smaller population bases, and completely different needs.  I can see why Pitfield is making it part of her campaign, but even raising the issue on this forum seems a bit POV.  CJCurrie 02:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a very poor comparison. What it is saying is that the difference between the 2004 budget and the 2006 budget for Toronto is equal to the sum of all the other surrounding municipal budgets for 2006. What's the point of comparing an increase to a total? It would be better to compare the increase in Toronto's budget to the increase in each of the other cities' budgets over the same time period. Even better would be to base it on a per capita basis rather than a total basis. You also need to factor in the differences between what Toronto's budget covers and what the other cities cover. There are significant differences. If you are going to use these figures it should be pointed out that they are statistically meaningless numbers. The only significance is that this number was used in a political speech, nothing more. Atrian 03:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should also be made (and it is a fair point) that if you were to combine Toronto's population and the GTA's, it would be about the same population wise. It is just to be put into context with how much new spending has come into place in three years of Toronto's spending, and the whole GTA's operating budget in 2005. But I am also a fair person, and I don't have a problem the way it is written now. SFrank85 03:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest controversy

message: I'm not certain that the latest Royson James opinion piece is significant enough to merit mention (and I think it might be somewhat inaccurate, as I noted in my last edit summary).  
I'd be willing to return the reference if there's a consensus in that direction, however.  What do others think?  CJCurrie 02:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be noted that Miller was not involved in the negotiations  itself. He was the lucky enough to be Mayor when it finally happened. SFrank85 14:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The thing that makes it more appealing is that Royson James was one of Miller's biggest supporters during the 2003 election. The day of the election, The Star gave him the honour of writing why the Toronto Star was supporting Miller over John Tory. He has also for a good chunck of Miller's time in office, been supportive of him.SFrank85 23:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Royson James reference

message: William Dennision was a longtime CCFer and was a member of the NDP when he was mayor AFAIK. Barbara Hall is no longer an NDPer but she was a member when she became mayor. Neither person was the official NDP candidate for mayor or ran as an NDPer but then neither did Miller. Noobieboo 23:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NDP 

message: Does anybody knows what his full middle name is? Circeus 19:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Middle name?