Talk:David Miller (Canadian politician)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Was David Miller born in the US? Bulatych Tue Nov 11 16:51:26 UTC 2003

His site said he lived in Cleveland for 9 years, so I doubt it, though they very well could have been his first nine years of life, so to make a long story short, I don't know. - user:zanimum

I heard he went to Harvard also. Bulatych Wed Nov 12 00:16:18 UTC 2003

Image placement

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 [1]. I don't know if it's covered under {{OntarioCopyright}}, (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)

Since there were no objections, I moved the old image down to the Police section and replaced it with an image covered under {{OntarioCopyright}}. --Deathphoenix 06:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

why does CJCurrie refuse to allow anyone to touch this article?

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)

I know that you are a Miller supporter but this looks too much like an article that tells only the good things about him. [unsigned, anonymous contributor] _______________________________________________________________

My response:

To Miller's shock, a CP24 polling found out that the majority of Torontonians supported the police union.

In 2004, the city's budget put $235 million worth of necessary road repairs on hold until next year, while borrowing money and increasing spending on homeless shelters. Another example was after the heavy rainfall in 2005 when a section of Fince Avenue was washed away. Miller decided not to construct a temporary structure that would fix the gap in the arterial, causing a major inconvenience for suburban commuters and hurting local businesses.

As mayor, Miller's campaign to clear up corruption was seen as mainly targeting his political opponents.

Would anyone seriously believe that this is a neutral-point of view assessment of Miller's tenure as mayor? I don't have a problem with valid edits that present criticisms of Miller's record, but I'm not going to let this page turn into a clumsily-written attack piece. CJCurrie 00:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for partisan attacks. The article has to be objective; this doesn't mean that criticism of the subject is disallowed, but it (a) has to be supported by objective sources, and (b) has to be stated as other people's opinion, not as incontrovertible fact. Bearcat 00:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This article is far from objective. I support David Miller but CJCurrie seems intent on making Miller into some type of hagiographic figure. The edits are skillfully placed to maximize the positive while reducing and in some cases outright elimination of anything negative. I don't disagree with anything CJCurrie has added to the article, but it's true that it's only half the story. I'll shut up now since CJ is highly respected for his countless hours dedicated to wikipedia.

• It probably won't occasion much surprise that I don't agree with this assessment. If anyone disagrees with the current edit, however, there is a very simple solution: change it, or add something else. Be cautioned, however, that I'm holding this page to a high standard of referencing. CJCurrie 19:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The latest reversions

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)

Readers might also be interested to learn that the second quote is actually revised from an earlier attack-edit. The original version read as follows:

Many feel that Miller has ignored the needs of surburban commuters to focus upon his support base in the downtown core. A good example was the $235 million (CDN) in road repairs held up in 2005, while spending was diverted towards unimportant projects such as homeless shelters and other community works.

CJCurrie 01:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

First NDP Mayor?

"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)

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)

Excellent notes and sources!

I'm unsure who was responsible for this, but I love how relevant notes and sources have been incorporated (both as 'Harvard' references and in-line wikilinks) in this article. If only all articles were similarly sourced or wikified in such an effective, hybridised way! What would be really great is if each article cited could be wikilinked to an online version. (The tables can use some work, though.) Kudos! E Pluribus Anthony 22:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If only all articles were similarly sourced or wikified in such an effective, hybridised way!

It was my doing, and I'm working on it.  ;) In fairness, I should clarify that I took the idea from User:SimonP's work on Canadian federal election, 1993.

Unfortunately, many of the articles cited are not available as online text. It might be possible to establish them in this form, though the copyright issues involved would probably rule out this possibility.

I'm open to suggestions on the tables.  ;) CJCurrie 22:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Great! This reinforces the scholarly aspects of the article, while being easy for Wikipedians to read, verify, and learn more. Kudos to you, SimonP, et al.! :)

I'd be curious if the articles cited weren't online somewhere: the newspapers usually archive only recent articles, but interested parties may archive them on separate websites. I'll work on this, if there are no objections.

As for the tables, I'd suggest reformatting them to appear more similar to the federal election result tables. I realise that they are different due to party affiliation, et al., but I think there can be more unity in how they appear. Don't get me wrong, though, this is a minor point. :) Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 22:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering, as well, whether there is any value in having an infobox for Miller, and or a template infobox (reduced to common elements) for Canadian/other political heads of office? Just a suggestion.  ;) E Pluribus Anthony 22:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Probably, though I'm not inclined to set it up myself.  ;) CJCurrie 22:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Great; maybe I will, then ... though I'm a wee-bit swamped. I'll get back to ya. Thanks again! :) E Pluribus Anthony 23:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

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)

2.

GoldDragon wrote:

Some councillors, including Michael Thompson, have argued that Miller and Chief Blair waited too long for months before reacting to reports of increased violence. Case Ootes praised the initiative to hire more officers, but expressed doubt that Miller would follow through on it.^[2]

I changed this to:

Some councillors, including Michael Thompson, have argued that Miller and waited too long before reacting to reports of increased violence. Case Ootes praised the initiative to hire more officers, but expressed doubt that Miller would follow through on it.^[3]

Reasons: (i) Thompson only criticizes Miller, not Blair, in the article that I've referenced, (ii) "waited too long for months" is not grammatical. CJCurrie 00:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

3.

GoldDragon wrote:

The decision to hire new police officers as part of the new contract was vehemently opposed by the Toronto Police Association, because the Police Board wanted to raise the necessary revenues by clawing back existing rates of retention pay and asking cops to work their lunch hours.^[4]

I changed this to:

The decision to hire new police officers was controversial with the Toronto Police Association. Some Service Board members, such as Pam McConnell, wanted to raise the necessary revenues by clawing back existing rates of retention pay.^[5]

Reasons: (i) GoldDragon's edit assumes a direct link between the issue of retention pay and the hiring of new officers; this is a point of debate, not a factual certainty (recent reports indicate that the retention pay will be retained despite the hiring decision); McConnell cannot be said to speak for the official (or permanent) board policy, (ii) "asking cops to working their lunch hours" is not encyclopedic language, (iii) the source I've cited makes specific reference to McConnell's comments, not to a general link between retention payments and the new officers. CJCurrie 00:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

4.

GoldDragon wrote:

Officers from neighboring municipalities also attended the Association's protest march on City Hall.

I removed this. Reason: it's accurate, but irrelevant to a biography of Miller. CJCurrie 00:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

5.

re: transit. The source that I've cited does more than argue the ROW will be an important step forward for public transit; it also questions whether or not congestion is more likely to occur. Both points should be referenced. CJCurrie 00:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

6.

GoldDragon wrote:

Some critics believe that Miller has ignored the needs and concerns of surburban Toronto residents to focus upon his support base in the downtown core. His first budget as mayor delayed millions of dollars of road repairs while raising taxes, borrowing money, and allocating city funds for homeless shelters and other social outreach programs.

I deleted this. Reasons:

(i) I could just as easily write, "Others have credited Miller with reinvesting in the city's downtown core, after years of apparent neglect by different levels of government (which were often said to favour the interests of developers over citizens). His initial budget as mayor was the first in several years to significantly increase spending for social outreach programs such as homeless shelters."

Both paragraphs are partisan spin, thinly-veiled by words like "some critics believe" and "others have credited". Given that the article is now being held to a higher standard of referencing, neither paragraph has any place here. If you want to write about Miller's first budget or city-wide divisions, find a reliable source.

(ii) In any case, there was money allocated for road repairs in Miller's first budget, just not as much as some would have preferred. CJCurrie 00:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

7.

GoldDragon wrote:

In October 2005, with US Congress tabling a bill to close the border to Canadian Trash, Miller argued Canadians had a right to export trash under the terms of NAFTA, while also pointing out that Michigan shipped hazardous waste to Ontario.

I have hidden (not deleted) this text. Reason: although I have no objection to the information, and although it appears credible, I would like a source to be provided. CJCurrie 02:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Is Miller still a card member of the NDP?

On CFTO, the Mayor was shown campaigning for a liberal and NDP candidate. SFrank85 04:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the Federation of Metro Tenants Associations, Miller is no longer a card carrying member of the NDP. I contacted them and they say that is why they posted http://members2.boardhost.com/TorontoTenants/msg/1132846806.html

Recent reverts

These reverts by CJCurrie essentially ignore true criticisms. GoldDragon 19:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm perfectly willing to allow criticisms to be added, but I'm not willing to permit salient information to be deleted. Many of the comments that I made in our last discussion are still relevant now. CJCurrie 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So how is having a huge section on Miller's slip of the tongue important, all while marginalizing tax and airport policy? Much of it as very one sided and POVish.GoldDragon 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Miller's tax and airport policies are important, and these sections could easily be expanded. It's the presentation that I have difficulties with.

I'm now making adjustments to the article in a bid to find compromise wording.

There are some aspects of your recent edit that I disagree with entirely. These include:

(i) Critics assailed the settlement since it was at taxpayers' expense, as well as forgoing the benefits of the bridge and increased airline service[6].

Reason: The settlement was determined by the federal government, not the municipal government. Also, the article you've cited is a poorly-written tabloid piece. It might be appropriate to quote the Toronto Sun when they break an actual story, but dubious commentary like this is inappropriate for citation. CJCurrie 03:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(ii) Critics of Miller's position reasoned that it would cost taxpayers a significant amount of money to close the airport[7].

Reason: "reasoned" is obviouly POV in this context, and the article you've cited doesn't say anything about Miller's view on the issue. CJCurrie 03:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as you included both sides of the story, that more acceptable. Nonetheless, that editorial is an article in the Sun that does not descend to the level of the Hitler cartoon, it does point out the economic benefits of the bridge. In some ways, he is supporting the airport bridge like the CAA lobbying against St Clair's streetcar lanes.

GoldDragon 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you meant this as your response to point (i).

Anyway, I have no problem with citations that criticize Miller, but this particular Sun editorial is a piece of garbage -- not merely in the sense of containing dubious information, but also in the sense of being borderline sub-literate. It does not, from my vantage point, meet the minimum standard required for encyclopedic citation. If you disagree, it might be best to solicit a third-party opinion on the matter before going any further. (The article barely mentions Miller, in any case.)

I've already incorporated some real criticisms of Miller's policy; there's no need to link to Dunford's column. CJCurrie 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

(iii) Your removal of: Fantino, whose relationship with Miller was cool at best, apologized to the mayor after discovering that an article criticizing city policies had been posted on the police service's official website.^[8]

Reason: The material is accurate. Here is the source:

Toronto Police Chief Julian Fantino has "expressed regret" to Mayor David Miller for a controversial article about his new anti-crime proposal that appeared on the police service's website earlier this week.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Chief Fantino said he was shocked to discover that the story, which has already been removed from the website, contained criticisms of Mr. Miller's political policies.

(Globe and Mail, 21 February 2004)

You could perhaps argue that "relationship with Miller was cool at best" is POV, but I don't believe you would seriously disagree with the assessment. CJCurrie 04:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This Fantino interlude on the other hand, while not untrue, does not add any salient information. My sections on tax and the police do expand on the details (just go to the links). I don't see any less reason for their exclusion since they are relevant and add more detail to the discussion.

GoldDragon 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It does add salient information: that someone in the Toronto police services posted information critical of the mayor's policy on an official website (a clear policy violation). If we're going to mention the tensions between Miller and some police workers, this is entirely relevant as to background. Note that Fantino himself is not depicted as having anything to do with the matter. CJCurrie 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

(iv) Your removal of "serious" from: . A serious police corruption scandal unfolded in April 2004, in which a small number of officers were charged with aiding figures connected to the Hells Angels biker gang.

Reason: The scandal was serious. I don't think anyone would dispute this. I've noted that only a few officers were involved, and I don't believe that describing the scandal as "serious" constitutes anti-police rhetoric. CJCurrie 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(v) Your removal of: When the council voted to uphold Fantino's removal, the right-wing Toronto Sun tabloid ran a cartoon comparing Miller to Adolf Hitler over his handling of the issue. Miller described the cartoon as "despicable", and it was also condemned by a representative of the Canadian Jewish Congress. The paper's editor refused to apologize.^[9]

Reason: Everything in this paragraph is accurate. The Toronto Sun is certainly right-wing, and while it may seem harsh to describe it as a tabloid, the word is appropriate.

There is one thing to remove a Sun columnist's editorial viewpoint from this article, all while prominently featuring the Sun's cartoon, and the cartoon is easily least relevant of the two. I don't disagree with whether the cartoon is fact or not but you seem interested in cataloging all the trip-ups of Fantino's supporters by having its inclusion. At the same time, you excluded an opposing viewpoint on the airport from the same newspaper even though it does bring up some valid points.

The police negotiations and the tax policy are deserve much more attention, if not more, so I don't think you should just roll over them like you have in the past, all while making the Sun cartoon feature prominently.

GoldDragon 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not "interested in cataloging all the trip-ups of Fantino's supporters" (if I were, I would have included things like Rob Davis's botched parade effort). I included this because it was so obviously over-the-top, and involved Miller directly. CJCurrie 00:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Evidence as to the rest:

The Toronto Sun is unapologetic about printing an editorial cartoon yesterday that portrayed Mayor David Miller as Adolf Hitler.

“The cartoon is tough and controversial, but that's what cartoonists do,” said Lorrie Goldstein, the tabloid newspaper's editor. “Andy Donato is saying that the mayor behaved in a dictatorial fashion in the [Police Chief] Julian Fantino affair and wouldn't listen to the public.”

The cartoon by Mr. Donato, a cartoonist for the paper since it was founded in 1971, is a colour-by-number drawing that when filled in shows the mayor as Hitler.

[...]

Mr. Miller said he is “shocked” that any large newspaper would “descend to that kind of disgusting and insulting level.

“It's despicable. It's regrettably not surprising,” he said. “And it's an incredible insult to all of our veterans, including members of my family, who fought to uphold the kind of laws that we upheld at council this week.”

[...]

Len Rudner, a representative of the Canadian Jewish Congress, called the Sun's cartoon “an insult to the memory of those people who perished in the Holocaust and for those who survived.”

(Globe and Mail, 24 July 2004) CJCurrie 04:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

(vi) The Police Services Board's initial strategy for hiring new officers was strongly opposed by the Toronto Police Association[10]]. The Police Service Board, led by Pam McConnell, wanted to raise the necessary revenues by clawing back existing rates of retention pay and making officers work their lunch hours.^[11] In October 2005, following a breakdown of negotiations with the board over retention pay and shift schedules^[12], the association entered a work-to-rule campaign and refused to patrol or hand out fines[13]. In the course of this dispute, the association questioned Miller whether he was "going to be remembered as the Mayor who was tough on crime, or the Mayor who was tough on cops"[14]. The TPA also printed full-page advertisements in the Toronto Star and Toronto Sun, asking him as a Board member to become personally involved.^[15]

Reason: Miller's personal involvement in the initial flare-up was peripheral, and there's no compelling need to describe it at length on his bio page (though a shorter summary is fine). Neither is there any compelling need to link to the "Toronto cops are tops" ads in the main body of the article; the information could be mentioned on an article about the work to rule campaign, but it's not significant enough to warrant inclusion here. The McConnell wording was covered in our last conversation. CJCurrie 04:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

If you have no reason to discuss it at length on Miller's bio, then why the *huge* section on the Lord Mayor of London? Likewise, a guaranteed place is allocated for the Sun cartoon and Fantino's web criticism, but there is a severe constraint placed on the size of bigger disputes.

GoldDragon 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Lord Mayor of London" situation involved Miller more directly. As I said, his role in this particular dispute was (initially) fairly peripheral.

This may be a moot point now, as I've already expanded the section. CJCurrie 00:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's enough for tonight -- I'll cover the tax and garbage sections tomorrow. CJCurrie 04:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

GoldDragon: your most recent edits do not appear to have been made entirely in good faith. You indicated that both were minor edits, when in fact they were not. You also indicated that your second edit addressed the bridge controversy in relation to Miller's victory, but neglected to mention that you also deleted the text from point (iii) above.

At first, I mainly supplemented the article information where I felt it was deficient. Your first response was a complete revert.

GoldDragon 20:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I recognize that you may disagree with the various reversions I've made of your recent contributions (here and elsewhere), though I stand by all of my decisions. On this page, I have made efforts to (i) seek compromise wording (ii) to explain my decisions in cases of clear disagreement. I would request that you do the same. If I have misjudged your intent, please inform me. CJCurrie 22:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've incorporated compromise language into the "police service board" section, adding many of the more salient points raised by GoldDragon. I will not permit the line "asked officers to work their lunch hours" to return, since they were not asked to do this: the dispute concerned whether or not officers who worked four days for a five-day salary would retain their lunch-hour pay for the fifth day. CJCurrie 23:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll return to the tax section later, but I can inform you now that "Miller has also been under fire for his heavy reliance on convincing the provincial and federal levels of government for more funding instead of being fiscally responsible" will not be permitted to return. The line is transparently POV. If you want to revise the section again in my absence, leave this out. CJCurrie 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Its not much different from "the taxpayers association has criticized Miller for his levels of spending". At the same time, removing it entirely makes the taxpayers' seem like they have an empty argument or none at all. As a reader, I wondering why they are they complaining? Miller's strategy, based upon more funding from the uppper levels of gov't, is one possible explanation for the taxplayer's criticism. Overspending is another one cited by Jane Pitfield.

The link on Michigan politicians trying to block the trash is perfectly reasonable.

GoldDragon 20:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Its not much different from "the taxpayers association has criticized Miller for his levels of spending".

No, it's quite different. "his levels of spending" is not POV. "instead of being fiscally responsible" is.

At the same time, removing it entirely makes the taxpayers' seem like they have an empty argument or none at all.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. I didn't say anything about "the taxpayers" one way or the other. If your meaning is that "taxpayers oppose Miller's policies", that would be POV. In any event, most municipal governments rely on federal and provincial transfers for much of their work.

As to Pitfield, I'm not certain that "Miller's opponent is critical of Miller's policies" is especially noteworthy. It's fine to mention that that her focus is on tax policy, but the context could be better.

The link on Michigan politicians trying to block the trash is perfectly reasonable.

It may be. I hadn't managed to get that far. CJCurrie 00:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Image

• 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)

GoldDragon again

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)

Continued from above

(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[16]. 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"[17].

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)

Message to GoldDragon

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)

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)

Now, here's why I don't think the McGuinty quote should be returned. Here's the context (taken from a Globe and Mail article, btw):

This year's annual winter pilgrimage for the $7.6-billion budget could spark hot words in private between Toronto Mayor David Miller and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty. Though politically chummy, they don't fully agree on the reason for the city's budget shortfall.

To Mr. Miller, the “budget gap” — now whittled to $212-million from $532-million in early January — looms large because local taxpayers, as in no other province, must pay for social programs downloaded in the mid-1990s. That's why the mayor wants Mr. McGuinty to agree to a five-year plan to take back welfare and housing costs and return to paying half of operations at the Toronto Transit Commission.

“His mandate is to fix the mess left by the Harris government, not to make it permanent,” Mr. Miller told reporters last week.

While empathetic, the Premier has in mind another gap — Toronto's “credibility gap” — fed by skepticism, even among its urban allies, that city hall has done too little to tighten its belt.

“We just don't have the wherewithal to bail out Toronto of all of their financial challenges,” he said last week. “We're going to be there to help as we always have been, but they're going to have to do some very hard work on their own.” Provincial officials note that Toronto has been slower than surrounding municipalities to raise residential property taxes or make the most of user fees.

Somewhere between the two leaders' positions is a compromise that will yield some provincial funding, though how much and when remains unclear.

[...]

At Queen's Park, the mayor's single-minded focus is seen as a way to mask Toronto's reluctance to get tough on itself. “The challenge isn't that,” Mr. Miller said. “The challenge is we are obliged to deliver provincial services and they don't even pay their legislated share.”

This year, Toronto taxpayers are on the hook for a $60-million shortfall in provincial social costs, up from $2.9-million in 1998. The Ontario Drug Benefit Plan is a particular sore point, with the city's bill a whopping $167-million, including $48-million for provincial bureaucrats to run the program.

City politicians argue that higher taxes should pay for local services, not the province's failure to pay its bills. “Dalton McGuinty is a deadbeat dad,” said fuming budget committee member Kyle Rae. “He is strangling his own children.”

To make matters worse, a strong Toronto economy only boosts the coffers of other governments. Strong growth in the city is expected to pump an extra $750-million in sales and income tax revenue for Queen's Park and Ottawa this year, but the city only has its slow-growing property tax base. That's why the mayor wants a slice of revenues that grow with the economy, such as the provincial sales tax.

My comments:

(i) This pantomime between different levels of government occurs virtually every year (sometimes in two year cycles). Notwithstanding the headlines, it doesn't really deserve that much space in an encyclopedia article.

(ii) It might be acceptable to add a bit more to the provincial viewpoint, but throwing in a sensationalistic phrase out of context is not appropriate. CJCurrie 06:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC) CJCurrie 06:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Royson James quote

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)

Reasons for opposing recent changes

(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)

(ii) The police association criticized the proposals as reigniting an exodus of officers and lower pay for officers working compressed shift schedules.

If this is notable, then so is the PSB's response: that retention pay was no longer needed to prevent an exodus of officers, and that eliminating the lunch hours would pay for 50-100 officers (I could mention the pay increase as well). All of this information might be a bit much for a Miller bio, however -- it's probably best to leave it out. CJCurrie 05:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I see that the PSB argued at one stage that the "lunch" issue was primarily a matter of rescheduling. I'm not certain that the union responded (in public, anyway). There appear to be several layers to this story ... and mentioning them in detail would, as I say, be a bit much. (I'm half-tempted to take out the reference and just focus on retention pay.) CJCurrie 06:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

(iii) noting that a fiscal self-examination was overdue while spending on new programs was rampant.

The article does not note this, nor does it cite the province as noting this. The closest it comes is in the following line: Since amalgamation in 1998, the city has never done a stem-to-stern review of programs to minimize duplication and often seems eager to add programs. This occurs in the context of a balanced overview of the respective provincial and municipal positions.

"Often seems eager" does not equal an accusation of rampant behaviour. I can only conclude that the edit is your extrapolation from the article -- and I can only describe it as POV.

As a more general comment: It's largely because of edits like this that I keep such a close eye on your activities here. If you want to earn the trust of other Wikipedians, you should try to avoid throwing such a heavy-handed bias into these articles. Otherwise, I don't see any end to these tiresome back-and-forth debates. CJCurrie 06:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

(iv) They [the CTF] proposed a reduction in cultural spending in favour of filling potholes and hiring more police.

This information is already in the footnotes. I included it two days ago, during one of my compromise edits. CJCurrie 06:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Gold Dragon again

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)

Latest controversy

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)

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)

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)

Royson James reference

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)

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)

I'm still not certain the first comment is entirely accurate -- as Danny Williams could tell you, negotiating the details is often crucial.

In any case, my main concern is about the source. Royson James has been criticizing Miller's administration week in and week out for several months now -- and while I don't have a problem with including him as a criticial source, I'm not sure we need to overload the article with snippets from his columns. (Having said that, I don't have a major problem with using this particular article if others support its inclusion).

I'll ask again: what do others think? CJCurrie 23:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'm quite aware of that, and I'll note that he hasn't exactly rushed out to support Jane Pitfield either. My point is simply that there are already other critical remarks from Royson James in the article; I'm not certain that adding more serves much of a purpose. CJCurrie 01:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

NDP

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)

Middle name?

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