[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:Susan Kadis: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mangojuice (talk | contribs)
19,969 edits
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 111: Line 111:


:I agree with your google results. And thank you for trying to debate the merits. I think the problem I see with the inclusion of this is the way that it's included as part of her biography, as if it was a significant event in her life: I'm sure it was of very minor significance, and frankly, your response backs that up. I created a section on "press coverage" where this could be reasonably mentioned, and I added a couple other Susan Kadis refs from CTV; one about sexist remarks in the Belinda Stronach backlash and the other about the separatist allegations against the Gov. General Michaelle Jean. Both of those are much more signficant events politically than this lunches business: I recognize a slow news day article when I see one. I think the wording I have now is neutral; it's important not to describe this in more space or it makes it appear much more significant. [[User:Mangojuice|Mangojuice]] 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with your google results. And thank you for trying to debate the merits. I think the problem I see with the inclusion of this is the way that it's included as part of her biography, as if it was a significant event in her life: I'm sure it was of very minor significance, and frankly, your response backs that up. I created a section on "press coverage" where this could be reasonably mentioned, and I added a couple other Susan Kadis refs from CTV; one about sexist remarks in the Belinda Stronach backlash and the other about the separatist allegations against the Gov. General Michaelle Jean. Both of those are much more signficant events politically than this lunches business: I recognize a slow news day article when I see one. I think the wording I have now is neutral; it's important not to describe this in more space or it makes it appear much more significant. [[User:Mangojuice|Mangojuice]] 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

::Agreed. [[User:VaughanWatch|VaughanWatch]] 00:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:26, 6 April 2006

The following POV-pushing text needs to be fixed:

In May 2004, she abandoned her position as city councillor to pursue her own agenda federally and then in July 2004 she officially resigned her position as city councillor in mid-term after being elected federally (source of info. City of Vaughan http://www.city.vaughan.on.ca/

The word "abandoned" is not needed, as "resigned" suffices. Also the text "her own agenda federally" seem unecessary, once it's stated she's ran for, and won federal office. Also, the link given, is just a city's home page, and the home page doesn't specifically relate to this. --rob 13:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"abandoned" and "resigned" have two differnt meanings. The link is to the City of Vaughan website once there you have to click on governement. It shows tha facts about that she "abandoned" her position in May, 2004 and "resigned" in July, 2004 Thivierr/Rob asked for me to put a source of info. up so I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

Hello, User:64.231.242.98. I have added a referenced note to the page showing the date of Susan Kadis' resignation from the Vaughan City Council. Please add the same for the "abandoned" comment. --YUL89YYZ 19:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "abandoned" was not official like the "resignation" an exact date I don't think could be pin-pointed. She just stopped attending meetings starting in May, 2004 to run her campaigne federally. I think the attendance of councillors are listed somewhere on the City of Vaughan website. Just for your information the proper proceedure (here in Canada) when an elected official seeks another elected position while still serving the original term they must resign (or in some cases take an official unpaid leave of absence) there position prior to starting there campaign for the new position they are seeking. she did not do this. Susan Kadis was under a lot of scrutiny (locally) after the election for making this mistake and there was a group that even attemped to get her impeached for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

I was thinking about this and isn't this normal when a person runs for a federal position. If I was to run for office, I would ask for a leave of absence from my current job, and if I were to win I would then resign. You can't expect a City Counillor or anyone to always wait for her term to expire and then wait for the next federal election to run. Isn't this what Olivia Chow did? --YUL89YYZ 15:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this answers your question. Susan Kadis did NOT take an unpaid leave of absence she just stopped attending meetings and therefore abandoned her position. She had to take an unpaid leave of absence or resign prior to running her campaign federally which she did not therefore she was still on the city pay roll during and even after she was elected federally, if you look at her resignation letter you will notice that the letter was written and received on July 9th and she requested that her resignation to be retro-activated to June 28th. The proper procedure is to write a letter prior to starting your campaign of either resignation or a letter stating that you are taking an unpaid leave of absence with an understanding that this letter will also act as a letter of resignation pending the outcome of the election. If Vaughan council wanted to give her a hard time and voted against retro-activating her resignation she would not be able to be sworn in as a Member of Parliament. Lots of politicians do run for other positions while still in office including your example of Olivia Chow but they take an official unpaid leave of absence (that could be found in the council meeting minutes) and then either return to office or automatically resign after the election depending on the out come of the election. In Olivia Chow’s case she requested to end her unpaid leave of absence and returned to office after losing federally. The reason they have this in place is to avoid already elected candidates an unfair advantage by 1. Getting paid from their original position to fund their campaign 2. To avoid them using the resources from there original elected position 3. To use there position as an elected official to convince voters to vote for them EG: vote for me and I will get you break on your (municipal) property tax before I resign, to builders and construction companies, vote for me or you will never get a building permit from the city again. (I used these two examples for a reason because they were used) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.242.98 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia has rules about the application of POV bias. This article will not use the term "abandoned", and it will not describe a federal election campaign as "pursuing her own agenda". This is a fundamentally biased and inappropriate description. Bearcat 19:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

November 22 edits

What the anon editor posted:

In a report from CTV news [1] it said Susan Kadis and her cronies spent over $380.000.00 of taxpayers money this year on lunches.
No, it did not. It said that Kadis and other MPs get free lunches. These MPs, from all four parties and independents, are not Kadis's cronies by any stretch of the imagination. The article quotes her, but does not suggest that she is a ring-leader in MPs getting free lunches, as they have done for a long time.
Kadis has got her family members and cronies on the federal payroll [2].
The reference does not say that Kadis got her family members and cronies on the federal payorll. All it says is that Jim Peterson, MP, has someone with the last name "Kadis" on payroll. Even if it is her son, there is nohing in federal hiring rules to prevent children of MPs from working for other MPs or federal agencies.
Her illegal interference in a municipal by-election where she got her federal employees to run her friends campaign.
No evidence provided by anon editor.
In May 2004 under controversial circumstances, she stopped attending city council meetings without taking a leave of absence to pursue election to the Canadian House of Commons, and then on July 9, 2004 she officially resigned her position as city councillor after being elected federally on June 28, 2004.
The reference here does not provide evidence of any of the so-called "controversy". It only provides evidence that she resigned her position as councillor after she was elected to the House of Commons, which is perfectly legal. No evidence has been provided that she "abandoned" her position or failed to take a leave of absence. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that no evidence has been provided for that. Ground Zero | t 23:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So I'll revert again. This page may require protection from the anon editor who is pushing a bizarre and unsubstantiated POV. Ground Zero | t 23:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


No evidence that she supported the issues posted --67.71.86.17 23:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Kadis is one of four MP's mentioned in the CTV report that supports free lunches for MP's--67.71.86.17 01:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article from CTV even enough to include in her entry? Was there any more attention than this one article? It's presence seems to overstate its importance. Thes entinel 22:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the external links on this page really need to be there. They're clearly partisan in nature and they're things that could be found by simply searching her name on Google. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for people to try and present one-sided, biased news articles pm_shef 22:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, the external links to news sources do not need to be on this page. They are easily findable via google and serve no purpose on this encyclopedia entry. pm_shef 20:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • News links can certainly be relevant when they are needed to back up facts in the article. In general, citations on Wikipedia are a good thing. So the relevance of news links should be judged by that standard. -Joshuapaquin 23:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Liberal Party nomination

I have seen the following statement, "Kadis ran for the provincial Liberal Party nomination for the riding of Thornhill in 2003, but lost to fellow city councillor Mario Racco.", added and removed many times. It would seem pretty easy for someone to find a reference for this. If it is true it should stay in the article. --YUL89YYZ 13:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theonlyedge 22:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Yup, it was true (according to Mario Racco). Racco tried to get the federal nomination, but in turn lost to Kadis.[reply]

Racco never attempted to get the federal nomination (against Kadis in 2004 adn 2006), if he did he would have "steamed rolled" over Kadis for the nomination like he did Provincially. Kadis was aclaimed as the federal liberal candidate--64.231.172.236 05:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point of all the above is that it has to be verifiable. Word of mouth, even if true, is not verifiable for Wikipedia. You need to have documented sources without original research. --YUL89YYZ 00:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Got it: Toronto Star, Sept. 3, 2003, pg A8. "Liberals see a 905 opportunity" by Ian Urquhart:

Kadis entered the nomination fray but faced an uphill climb against Racco, who had a head start. McGuinty could have made it easy for her by using his power to appoint a candidate in up to five ridings. That would have been highly controversial, however, because Racco had already seen a federal nomination ripped from his grasp in 1997 when Prime Minister Jean Chretien appointed Elinor Caplan as the Liberal candidate in the riding.
So McGuinty let the nomination battle proceed in May of 2002, and Racco won.

I know there's a convention for how newspapers should be cited in Wikipedia now, but I'm not familiar with it. Perhaps someone who is could set it up. -Joshuapaquin 00:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MP Lunches

  • Alright, so since User:VaughanWatch has decided that previously agreed upon changes to the article aren't good enough, let's come to a clear consensus.
  1. No other MP in the article has it mentioned in their entry.
  2. It happened almost a full year ago.
  3. It has no bearing on her career or work as a politician

I believe it should be removed from the article. Comments? pm_shef 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

  1. So put it in other MPs article.
  2. A full year ago? That's not a long-time. This is supposed to be a biography, not her latest news.
  3. It has a lot of bearing on her work, as it indicates what position she takes on issues like accountability and frugality with tax-payers' money.

VaughanWatch 01:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow, you agree with him? That's a surprise /sarcasm. Seriously though, check the edit history, the admin Bearcat said that the lunch thing should be left out. pm_shef 03:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put it in and cite it if there's serious media coverage, and tailor it to the extent of that media coverage. More information is always better, but keep things in perspective. And cut out the ad hominem against pm_shef, who is acting with courtesy and good faith. -Joshuapaquin 04:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • VaughanWatch, we've been through this charade before. You need to provide evidence that the lunch thing was actually considered a major issue which got serious media coverage. I believe that you're citing it in an attempt to discredit Susan Kadis because of your personal agenda against her — it did not get widespread media coverage, and was not considered a major political issue. And again, can the ad hominem attacks on pm_shef — you will discuss the matter on the level of the issues themselves. The next person who even insinuates that pm_shef's argument is automatically invalid because of who he is, rather than engaging the discussion in good faith, is going to be whining on the business end of a 24-hour editblock. Bearcat 19:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia. Mention in the media does not, by itself, justify mention in an encyclopedia. You'll have to do more to convince me that it deserves to be here. HistoryBA 00:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to fix this up. The way coverage of the "lunch issue" was written gave a very negative bias; in fact, much more negative than the source article (which was clearly a light public-interest story, and didn't take a stand on whether or not the MP lunches were a waste of money, the way the article wording strongly implied.) I see no harm in leaving a link to the article, though... but I feel that in order to be neutral, the link should merely quote the headline of the article, rather than use the same negative editorializing that was present before. I strongly advise the editors pushing the inclusion of this in the article to take a wiki-vacation, and when you come back, read WP:NPOV, take it to heart, and try to find articles to edit that you don't have an agenda for. This is ridiculous. Mangojuice 04:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's kind of confusing to have that note there with no reference to the article. It looks like a reference for something, but isn't. So I'm not sure this is a good solution. -Joshuapaquin 04:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just fixed that. If this still doesn't look good, we can always make a separate subsection for "references." Mangojuice 13:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It still doesn't look good. Joshuapaquin's point is well-taken. We'll do some re-wording of the lunch paragraph to make it more "NPOV", if that's possible. We'll see if it's acceptable to the censors. VaughanWatch 01:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with censorship. It's about the fact that the lunch issue has nothing to do with anything. It was a minor, unimportant issue which nobody noticed or cared about, which never got to a vote anyway and thus isn't going to result in anything. It's a dead issue with no real-world impact. It is not "censorship" to state that something so utterly irrelevant to anything does not belong in an encyclopedia article, or that anti-Kadis POV is the only reason anybody could possibly think something so meaninglessly trivial belonged here. As per WP:NPA, you will immediately stop branding anybody who disagrees with you a "censor". Bearcat 02:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the WP:NPA on me, VaughanWatch. I've removed the lunches bit, again. Without any other sources to back up the idea that this is a story of any importance to Susan Kadis' career, the only conclusion a reasonable person can reach is that this is one of those run-of-the-mill news stories about minor political figures, mentioned once on some news service and then forgotten. I will move the article link to an external links section, as it no longer refers to part of the article. Mangojuice 04:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The CTV article was not minor. I remember when they broadcast it - in fact at the time I didn't even know Susan Kadis was involved. As I recall it got into at least 2 different major newscasts or newspapers. It was the important news of the day, was broadcast all over the country on CTV's evening news. Sure it may have been forgotten 2 days later, but so are most news reports. And according to google, Susan Kadis has not been mentioned in any other major articles since then, except the Michael Ignatieff issue. The few times Susan Kadis receives national press coverage should warrant inclusion in her encyclopedia article, not the sensing and cindering that's been going on. VaughanWatch 09:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your google results. And thank you for trying to debate the merits. I think the problem I see with the inclusion of this is the way that it's included as part of her biography, as if it was a significant event in her life: I'm sure it was of very minor significance, and frankly, your response backs that up. I created a section on "press coverage" where this could be reasonably mentioned, and I added a couple other Susan Kadis refs from CTV; one about sexist remarks in the Belinda Stronach backlash and the other about the separatist allegations against the Gov. General Michaelle Jean. Both of those are much more signficant events politically than this lunches business: I recognize a slow news day article when I see one. I think the wording I have now is neutral; it's important not to describe this in more space or it makes it appear much more significant. Mangojuice 13:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. VaughanWatch 00:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Susan_Kadis&oldid=47176764"