Talk:Michael Di Biase

• IMO, the edits being made to the article by the two anonIP's, and calling my edits vandalism, (most likely VaughanWatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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 It's outdated and has nothing to do with his job as mayor.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)Reply

• The traffic incident is relevant, as you will find similar character stories about politicians throughout wikipedia. Besides, pm_shef wasn't supposed to touch articles relating to Vaughan. ED209 01:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• CJ, please stop reverting this very relevant information, simply because it conflicts with your personal views on Mr. Di Biase. ED209 01:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• • I don't have any strong opinions about Michael Di Biase, and I'm willing to grant that the information could perhaps be presented in a neutral and encyclopedic manner. The "VaughanWatch" edit does not accomplish this feat, however. CJCurrie 01:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• The story regarding the traffic incident was written by myself, several months ago. I was charged with being a sockpuppet by pm_shef, however, this proved to be false and he subsequently apologized. You can read it on my talk page. ED209 01:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• • I've seen that, and I'll talk your word that you aren't a sockpuppet. Still, there must surely be a more neutral and encyclopedic way to reference the "controversy". CJCurrie 01:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree that those comments are quite POV and portions of it are not encyclopedic. Does it really matter if he got tickets for running red lights? I have removed the contentious comments. -- JamesTeterenko 02:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I believe there are two relevant points here. First, contrary to ED's claim, I agreed to refrain from editing Vaughan articles before it was discovered that VW was running a sockfarm of some 52 malicious sockpuppets - obviously, that deal no longer applies. Second, and more importantly, so far, every single user who was not involved in the original Vaughan-cruft conflict agrees that the traffic ticket incidents are biased and NN. The only people who push this claim are the people who (surprise) were on VaughanWatch's side in the original dispute. - pm_shef 02:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• It seems the problem here is that you are confusing content with language. I agree that POV or one-side language is unacceptable. However, you cannot claim that something is POV simply because the facts are too damaging. These were the facts, reported by the largest newspaper in Canada. It is worthy of being in this man's profile. ED209 02:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Reported years ago, and never mentioned again. - pm_shef 02:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• This all started a few days ago when pm_shef removed my content from this page. He did not prove to me nor did we hold any kind of vote when he reverted the traffic ticket story. I am not backing down to him in this case because I know his agenda. He is not acting in good faith as he claims. His father and Mr. Di Biase are political allies. Many people around Vaughan are skeptical of Mr. Di Biase because of this incident. The very fact that something Vaughan-related makes the Toronto Star is a big deal. Considering that nobody eles seems to have anything to contribute to this page, I believe that a story like this is relevant. I am sick and tired of arguing this, especially with an impending world war outbreaking in the Middle East. In the end, if the traffic story is not left on Di Biase's page, I will proposed we delete the entire article. What's the point of having this entry if we are not going to include this relevant fact.

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)Reply

• To further support my opinion, I direct everybody to Hazel McCallion, who is the mayor of nearby Mississauga. Under personal it states: "In May 2006 she had an accident and crashed her car into a sign post. She claimed that she was distracted by her cell phone and has agreed to hire a driver. If she does, she will be the only mayor in the Greater Toronto Area municipalities to have a personal driver." ED209 05:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

• Why haven't you gone to Hazel McCallion page and try editing that out? Very similar story. ED209 18:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply

The information about the traffic tickets in Michael Di Biase’s article originally posted many months a go by a user authorized to make edits and the consensus at that time was to keep it therefore it should stay posted. It has been determined that it is very relevant (infact it is somewhat very interesting and ironic) was up for many months until it was removed by pm_shef (who on a side note has a personal connection with the subject of the article). It was then reverted by an unidentified user, who pm_shef and CJCurrie claimed to be a banned user (VaughanWatch) (although it has not been proven that it was him and I am confident that it isn’t him). Pm_shef and CJCurrie proceeded to revert these changes based on that it was made by a banned user making it an invalid edit. (the reverts were NOT made by pm_shef and CJCurrie because the info. was not relevant) Therefore if a user permitted to conduct edits reverted this to keep the info. Posted then it would have been all right. As this is very relevant to the article and very interesting and ironic it should stay up, therefore I am making the change and patrolling it to make sure it stays up. Pm_shef and CJCurrie you have to explain why this should be removed, not just remove it. --JohnnyCanuck 10:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I would like to add one more thing, the uniqueness and encyclopaedia worthy here is NOT that he got three tickets, it is that they “disappeared” and had an accident with a former police commissioner --JohnnyCanuck 10:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• First of all, Checkuser has confirmed that the Anon IP who added that information was in fact VaughanWatch. So there goes that theory. Furthermore, we're reverting it because it is entirely non-notable. Thirdly, and I'm going to say this one more time, you and the VaughanWatch crew are the only people who think this is notable. Every single other user who we have asked as gone on record saying that it has no place in this article. - pm_shef 00:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Admin note: again, I have no strong opinion about whether the traffic incidents belong in the article or not, although I will note that certain people seem to view the traffic incidents as more important than his actual political record (such as it may be). The matter can be handled in an NPOV manner, but so far it hasn't been. If somebody can write about it neutrally and without making it sound like the single most important thing a reader needs to know about him, then it may be a valid addition that I'll support retaining.

In the meantime, however, I need to note two things:

1. As at the municipal election article, a reminder that until consensus is reached on this talk page, the disputed information stays out of the article. The rule is not "in until consensus goes against it", it's "out until consensus goes in favour".
2. Under no circumstances does any editor, regardless of content disputes, have any right to revert to an unwikified and unformatted version of an article; that's vandalism. Articles must contain [[wikilinks]] and '''text formatting''', and any further edits to this article which involve removing those will be grounds for an immediate edit block independently of the state of the content dispute.

I hope this is clear to everyone. Bearcat 02:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Bold textReply

• I am quite sick of the way things are conducted around here. I have just one question. Who exactly do I have to prove the worthiness of the traffic ticket story to? I made this traffic ticket edit long ago and it remained for several months without objection. Even by pm_shef, who know seems to be on a damage control campaign. It is a significant occurance that rarely happens. I mean, traffic tickets disappearing and cops not showing up to the court. I would say there is no chance that my traffic tickets would get lost. And I would mostly definitely not get away with three of them. Plus, there is the interesting and ironic part of the story where Di Biase hits a former York Region police commish. So, you have a significant occurance, that is both interesting and ironic. Time is not relevant since this is a biographical article. Let the attacks ensue. ED209 23:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

Hey y'all, remember, 3 revert rule is a policy. Don't go stirring up the hate by reverting.

01:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Why not add something constructive to this argument? Let us know what you think on this issue. Everyone seems to be aware of the 3RR now. ED209 02:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Perhaps if you weren't so antagonistic, he wouldn't need to. Either way, since you seem to think the last paragraph in the article is also in dispute, would you care to explain why? And what is wrong with it? - pm_shef 04:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Hey, hey, hey. I have read through this talk page now that I've had time, so this is my opinion.

1. 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.
2. 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)Reply

• The paragraph I deleted is POV. I can't really explain it any clearer than that. Also, I dispute most of the claims in the paragraph as being false, unless I see documentation on it. ED209 15:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• 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 {{fact}} or {{unreferenced}} 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)Reply

• The paragraph I removed is POV. There is no argument and it stays out until it is rewritten and supported with evidence/citations. ED209 02:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I suggest we leave the article like this. I asked user:Bearcat to take the vandalism warning off, so I say we don't upset him anymore. We can both agree that this is a very encylopedia-like entry. It will be difficult to come to a consensus on his career at this point, plus I think we both disagree on how its gone so far. ED209 17:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• ED, you'll notice that I added citations and references to the disputed paragraph as well as rewritten it to make it neutral, the text is available in the page history before your last revert. If you insist that it is still PoV, I would ask that you explain exactly what in the revised paragraph remains POV. If you cannot point out specific examples, I will take that to mean that it is now neutral. - pm_shef 17:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• You cannot use the official Vaughan site and expect me to believe you are being neutral. Jargon like "instrumental" is very POVish. Plus, if you are gonna mention his "push" for the Civic Centre, you need to mention the concerns that some Vaughan organizations have had over not only the cost of the facility, but also the controversy over which company is going to recieve the construction contract. I believe this article is best left like this. Remember, disputes stay out until a consensus is made. It is troubling when you made comments like "if you cannot point out specific examples, I will take that to mean that it is now neutral." You are not the judge on this. You are not an administrator. ED209 20:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• First of all, the Vaughan site, as you yourself say, is official. Thus implying that any information on it is factual. Rather than argue, since you seem to have taken a "my way or the highway" attitude, rather than compromise, as I have, let's try to be constructive; what do you think of the more neutral version below? Do you have any suggestions to improve it?

Once elected, Di Biase shaped his policies based on the concept of renewing the City Of Vaughan. An example is the push for a new Civic Centre, scheduled for completion in 2008, which will feature gathering areas, a large outdoor skating rink and venues for community activities. It is relevant to note that although the City has come under some fire for the expected high cost of the new Civic Centre, it will conform to a LEED Gold Standard, the second highest environmental classification available. Di Biase has also played a large role over the past ten years in helping to secure the extension of the Toronto Subway beyond its city boundaries and into Vaughan.[1] - pm_shef 21:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Official sites are often very POVish. Plus, now of this information is relevant. ED209 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Please explain to me how two major accomplishments of his are not relevant? - pm_shef 03:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• This sentence proves you have an agenda: "It is relevant to note that although the City has come under some fire for the expected high cost of the new Civic Centre, it will conform to a LEED Gold Standard, the second highest environmental classification available."

Like seriously, do you buy all this garbage? How about writing how the contract will likely be granted to MayStar General Contracting. ED209 04:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• How on Earth does that prove anything? They in fact have qualified, under the LEED organization's criteria, for a Gold Standard. And they have come under fire for the suspected costs. Both of these things are 100% factual. In terms of "Maystar General Contracting" I neither have any idea who that is, or why they would be granted the contract over anyone else. If you have a source that says that they will be granted to contract, feel free to put it in. - pm_shef 04:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• The controversy is not the cost. It will be that the city has lower the minimum bid just enough to have MayStar be able to get there bid in and have the contract awarded. Information around this company is shaddy because they don't even have a website. Ask your dad about it, maybe he will know something. ED209 04:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• As I said before, if you have any references or citations for this claim, I strongly encourage you to add it, as it would indeed constitute a fairly significant issue. However, if you lack such references, I suggest you stop stonewalling. - pm_shef 04:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• You are the one who is hellbent on expanding this article. You go do the digging. I provided you with a viable lead. ED209 04:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

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 {{POV}} 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. Mangojuice^talk 05:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply

• Such material is then normally move to the talk page for further discussion, not deleted outright. Circeus 13:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply

• 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)Reply

• I'm filling it with clutter? Wow. Okay. And what happened to not including the traffic tickets? I thought the consensus was that it was receiving undue weight. -- pm_shef 21:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• It wasn't me. Check the user name. ED209 21:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• True dat, sorry. I just saw the ED2.... and assumed it was you. -- pm_shef 21:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply

• 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)Reply

• Well, the irony of hitting a former police commisioner deserves mention. The fact that the tickets are missing raises eyebrows. ED209 01:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply

neutrality of this article is disputed, relevant info. has been taken out--67.71.84.39 02:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC) _________________________________________________________________________Reply

The Toronto Star mentioned in its editorial endorsing Linda Jackson that one of its main reasons is because of the disappearing traffic tickets. I think it should be put in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromimo (talk • contribs)

• 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)Reply

Speaking of the salary comparison, I don't think its that relevant to deserve a spot in the main body, as Di Biase wasn't accused of raising his own salary or anything. Hazel McCallion makes close to as much and Don Cousens is close, and nobody has ever raised a complaint about that. It can probably go in trivia or something once the article gets big enough. GoldDragon 04:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was in the Toronto Star so it can't be libelous, because it's an important newspaper. Also looking back it looks like it was in the newspaper before. Jeromimo 02:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

• 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply