Talk:Rocco Rossi

Call for Editors

This article is in serious need of repair. It is currently not neutral. New editors need to comb through the information and eliminate associations to terms, articles, references and all materials that do not adhere to the founding principles. I will tag this article for review. The purpose of peer-review is to find community consensus and self-governance not political attack or propaganda. --Bungleheadsauce (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:About#Editorial_administration.2C_oversight.2C_and_management --Bungleheadsauce (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Editorial Hierarchy

1. Editorial administration, oversight, and management

Main page: Wikipedia:Editorial oversight and control

The Wikipedia community is largely self-organising, so that anyone may build a reputation as a competent editor and become involved in any role he/she may choose, subject to peer approval. Individuals often will choose to become involved in specialised tasks, such as reviewing articles at others' request, watching current edits for vandalism, watching newly created articles for quality control purposes, or similar roles. Editors who believe they can serve the community better by taking on additional administrative responsibility may ask their peers for agreement to undertake such responsibilites. This structure enforces meritocracy and communal standards of editorship and conduct. At present a 75–80% approval rating from the community is required to take on these additional tools and responsibilities. This standard tends to ensure a high level of experience, trust, and familiarity across a broad front of aspects within Wikipedia.

A variety of software-assisted systems and automated programs help editors and administrators to watch for problematic edits and editors. Theoretically all editors and users are treated equally with no "power structure". There is, however a hierarchy of permissions and positions, some of which are listed below:

1. Anyone can edit most of the articles here. Some articles are protected due to vandalism or edit-warring, and can only be edited by certain editors.
2. Anyone with an account that has been registered for four days or longer and made ten edits becomes Autoconfirmed, and gains the technical ability to do three things that non-autoconfirmed editors cannot:
   • Move articles.
   • Edit semi-protected articles.
   • Vote in certain elections (minimum edit count to receive suffrage varies depending on the election).
3. Many editors with accounts obtain access to certain tools that make editing easier and faster. Most of those tools, few learn about, but one common privilege granted to editors in good standing is "rollback", which is the ability to undo edits more easily.
4. Administrators ("admins" or "sysops") have been approved by the community, and have access to some significant administrative tools. They can delete articles, block accounts or IP addresses, and edit fully protected articles.
5. Bureaucrats are chosen in a process similar to that for selecting administrators. There are not very many bureaucrats. They have the technical ability to add or remove admin rights, approve or revoke "bot" privileges, and rename user accounts.
6. The Arbitration Committee is kind of like Wikipedia's supreme court. They deal with disputes that remain unresolved after other attempts at dispute resolution have failed. Members of this Committee are elected by the community and tend to be selected from among the pool of experienced admins.
7. Stewards are the top echelon of technical permissions, other than the Wikimedia Board of Directors. Stewards can do a few technical things, and one almost never hears much about them since they normally only act when a local admin or bureaucrat is not available, and hence almost never on the English Wikipedia. There are very few stewards.
8. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has several special roles and privileges. In most instances however, he does not expect to be treated differently than any other editor or administrator.

--Bungleheadsauce (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Handling disputes and abuse

Main articles: Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Wikipedia has a rich set of methods to handle most abuses that commonly arise. These methods are well-tested and should be relied upon.

• Intentional vandalism can be reported and corrected by anyone.
• Unresolved disputes between editors, whether based upon behavior, editorial approach, or validity of content, can be addressed through the talk page of an article, through requesting comments from other editors or through Wikipedia's comprehensive dispute resolution process.
• Abuse of user accounts, such as the creation of "Internet sock puppets" or solicitation of friends and other parties to enforce a non-neutral viewpoint or inappropriate consensus within a discussion, or to disrupt other Wikipedia processes in an annoying manner, are addressed through the sock puppet policy.

In addition, brand new users (until they have established themselves a bit) may at the start find that their votes are given less weight by editors in some informal polls, in order to prevent abuse of single-purpose accounts. --Bungleheadsauce (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The Rosedale Gang

Wikipedia is not the place for political slander, nor editorial (opinion-based) conjecture, nor original research. The absolute most CORE tenet of our project is to uphold the NPOV, that is the neutral point of view. Therefore, in keeping with this tradition the link to The Rosedale Gang is too conjectural for the wiki page on a political figure. It attempts to discredit the person by associating them with a higher economic (higher net worth) set of friends. As respected wikipedia editors we must be vigilant to keep these pages as free from vandalism and political bias as humanly possible. It is hard to make declarative statements about public figures without context or implication being carried into the conservation, that much is true. But we must try our best, nevertheless. This applies both to unnecessary and undeserved accolades as it does to slander.

Any further discussion about the importance of NPOV as it relates to Rocco Rossi or to the meta-theory surrounding encyclopedia-based authorship in general, should be carried out in this talk page before it is submitted to the article. Thanks. -- Contributions/Skychildandsonofthesun SKY_child  18:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, keep in mind that wikipedia has a permanent back history of all changes made to pages as well as your computer's IP address. If you are going to make any changes to an article it is preferred that you have an account registered with wikipedia and you sign all your posts. -- Contributions/Skychildandsonofthesun SKY_child  18:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

• The pov concern is well taken but in the opposite direction. The Rosedale Gang reference is well sourced and has been re-inserted. To leave it out of the article seems quite bizarre. It is not a slur of any kind. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • I find it very hard to imagine that you actually believe that, but in any case I will allow editors more senior than ourselves to weigh in on this issue. All that matters is the integrity of wikipedia's status as a shared, neutral online encyclopedia resource that the world can use for non-conjectural information on topics. I think we both know that (for people living in Toronto) the, "Rosedale Gang" reference is derogatory (paints him with the brush of a certain economic class) and conjectural (opinion-based), it is certainly not neutral.  Contributions/Skychildandsonofthesun SKY_child  10:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • I respect the good faith of your position and would also welcome input from other Editors. but in the meantime it should stay in the article, I think, until such time as you have a consensus for your opinion. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • • To error on the side of including something controversial obviously makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Especially for an encyclopedia article. Especially for someone in a political campaign. But, I will leave this in the article until the matter is resolved and I will save this discussion thread both on this page as well as a copy offline for future reference. I find it unbelievable that you think this is even remotely acceptable behaviour for an encyclopedia article but very soon this matter will be resolved by someone more senior than myself. -- Contributions/Skychildandsonofthesun SKY_child  20:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV flag

Skychild, you seem to think the article is pov with the Rosedale Gang mentioned and I think the article is pov with it excluded. So, I will likely be putting that flag if you continue to edit this article as if it is a campaign brochure for Mr. Rossi. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that we give some thought to undue weight here. It's probably legitimate to note an association that's referenced to reliable media. But is it really necessary to mention it in the lead paragraph — thereby marking it as one of the most fundamental facts that a reader needs to know about him — instead of, say, discussing it in the "Political work" subsection? The placement of a piece of information can be an NPOV issue too — even if the information would be perfectly fair and reasonable content in a different context, it can still become POV if you overstate its importance relative to other information. Bearcat (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the reference to the "Rosedale Gang" is inappropriate, it certainly is not slanderous to say that he advised the leader of the opposition, and it is cited. I do not however think it belongs in the lead of the article, neither do his campaign promises for the Toronto mayoral election.--kelapstick (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Good points, what should go in the lead? Also, the article really needs a lot more information in it, I think. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 03:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It definitely does, I'll agree. The lead, though, should generally be a summary of the most centrally important facts about the topic; in this particular case, it should probably be something simple and brief, such as

“ Rocco Rossi (born February 6, 1962) is a Canadian political strategist and politician. Formerly a national director of the Liberal Party of Canada, he is currently a candidate for Mayor of Toronto in the city's 2010 mayoral race. ”

And then the actual details, such as specific campaign promises and his association with the Rosedale Gang, can be discussed in the appropriate subsections. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that "political strategist and politician" is an accurate representation of Mr. Rossi's career as supported by the contents of this article. First, there is no mention of Mr. Rossi actually ever holding political office; and second, his numerous business and non-profit accomplishments far outweigh his involvement in political parties or campaigns. Mr. Rossi spent less than one year as a national director of the Liberal Party of Canada, and contributed more toward increasing membership and finances than he did to the Liberal's political strategy. Even if we consider his involvement in this capacity as a "political strategist", is that what defines his overall career and achievements? I agree with Bearcat that undue weight can be an NPOV issue. Perhaps the term "political strategist" should be moved into the "political work" section, and emphases on his business and non-profit work should be noted in the "lead paragraph". I believe that an NPOV lead should read as:Medwardsca (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

“ Rocco Rossi (born February 6, 1962) is a Canadian businessman and non-profit leader. Formerly the CEO of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario and a national director of the Liberal Party of Canada, he is currently a candidate for Mayor of Toronto in the city's 2010 mayoral race. ”

Medwardsca (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, whether it be "The Gang of Eight", relating to 8 Premiers[1] in Trudeaus day or "Rosedale Gang" or the Little Rascals "our gang"...I personally see nothing pov about the word "gang, notwithstanding that it has Reliable Sources. I still think it belongs in the lead because Rossi's referred to in the RS as being an integral part of Ignatieff's recruitment and management of the Ignatieff team and I ,for 1, first herard of him in that context and I dare say I am not alone in that. I disagree that there is more RS info relating to his business or non-profit activities. But you are not alone in proposing distance between Rossi and his political activities. Skychild and 76 feel the same way you do although we haven't heard from skychild in awhile. I compromiosed with Bearcat and I thought with the others by moving Rosedale Gang out of the Lead, but I still believe that is exactly where it belongs. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Specific work history facts (like advising the leader of the opposition: M Ignatieff) make perfect sense for an encyclopedia article and no one is debating for or against that. The component of this however, that is not anywhere close to being neutral is specifically the phrasing, "Rosedale Gang." First of all, the reference to a gang itself is ridiculously non-neutral. Look up Wiki's own definition of the term gang: "In current usage it typically denotes a criminal organization or else a criminal affiliation." Furthermore, Bearcat might not be aware of this if you are from a province other than Ontario, but Rosedale is a famously affluent community in Toronto so the association that Mr.Grantevans2 is trying to make is obvious, but as I have said before, all of these issues are larger than myself so we will wait and see how a senior editor weighs in on these matters. I am just a lowly page writer but I do feel as though some people are being (very obviously) dishonest in these matters and not upholding the core mission of Wikipedia. --76.70.115.25 (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that noone on Wikipedia made up the reference to "Rosedale Gang". That was done by someone else. It was reported in the press and gained a certain amount of notoriety. That is why it is mentioned here and should stay because it is pertinent to this article and it is properly referenced. This sort of naming has a precedent... please see the Liberal Party of Canada Rat Pack article. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 13:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not been trying to associate Rossi with an affluent community. I did not even first introduce the Rosdale Gang term to this bio [2]. What is ironic is that I personally agree more with Rossi's platform than that of any of the other candidates thus far. Having said that, I am taking a hiatus from Wikipedia editing so will have no more to say on this topic. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI... The Rosedale Gang reference has been in the article since it was created. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, 76, I know perfectly well what Rosedale is. But the point is we're not creating an association that hasn't already been made in mainstream media. We're reporting what's already been said about him elsewhere, not inserting new opinions or judgements. Whether we like the term that's passed into general usage for Iggy's inner circle of advisors or not, it is the term in general usage. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

We all need to remain more neutral in our creation of this article. That is not happening right now. We are still awaiting a higher power to come down and help arbitrate all these issues. Thank you for your patience everyone. I will leave whatever modifications, opinions, changes you have made up till now but when an outsider with top ranking authority weighs in on this I suspect a lot will change. --76.70.115.25 (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.115.25 (talk)

It is misleading to the readers that the political work section is shorter than the heart and stroke section. By far this Subject has more notability for his connection with the Liberal Party of Canada and its Leader. The constant editing, some by sockpuppets, to minimize, conceal and relegate his prior political activities into an "also" status is keeping this article from being NPOV so I'm placing the tag until a consensus is reached. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns are laudable but misplaced. Consensus on this issue has been reached through the editing process. Anyone following the history of this article will know that. If not, just check the edit history log. As for the term "businessman", it is so generic that it applies to many roles. I don't know the details of Rossi's working life but it is likely that he held the position as Ignatieff's advisor in a part-time role while he was do some other paying job full-time. I re-inserted it into the lead sentence. Until we know more details on the specifics of Rossi's recent career I think it is an acceptable descriptor. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Further to the NPOV issue, I checked the edits made by skychild and Bunglehead. Apart from the date of birth none of the other edits by these two editors has survived in the current article. So there is no remaining issue from these two editors at present. Both have been blocked from editing for a few days so unless they start contributing again I think this is a dead issue. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, to address your valid point about until we know more about his recent career, I have expanded the "Political Work" section to include a bit of 2 MacLean's articles specifically related to Rossi. I think there is likely much more RS content available concerning his 2009 jobs and activities. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

BLP Citing Sources

Wikipedia:Citing sources states clearly "...without exception, and in particular to information about living persons: unsourced material about living persons must be removed immediately." I have noticed an unsourced reference to Rossi's accomplishments while working for the Liberal Party so I suppose it should be removed immediately. I googled for a source but did not find one but maybe someone has a RS so it can be re-inserted? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Reference/Source #6 seems to be not available through the link. It supports these sentences "Rossi is strongly opposed to bicycle lanes on arterial roads, and has said that he would introduce bylaws to prohibit the expansion of bicycle lanes along major city streets. He would even consider the removal of existing bike lanes. He has also stated his desire to put a moratorium on all unbuilt lines of Transit City in order to study the finances of the project. [6] He has called for a stop on the Jarvis Streetscape Improvement project's plans to create bicycle lanes until after the municipal election." So we need to find an available source for these commentsm, I think. I think I have heard about these positions so I will look for another source later and leave the contents in the article now since there is at least a source cited, albeit not a working link and maybe not a RS. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

We all need to remain more neutral in our creation of this article. That is not happening right now. We are still awaiting a higher power to come down and help arbitrate all these issues. Thank you for your patience everyone. I will leave whatever modifications, opinions, changes you have made up till now but when an outsider with top ranking authority weighs in on this I suspect a lot will change. --76.70.115.25 (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's funny that Wikipedia:Citing sources says "Without exception" in the intro, but later in the guts of the article it says unsourced contentious material must be removed immediately. Obviously the bike-lane opposition is a contentious claim with no source, so removing it is the right thing to do. Thundermaker (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Vandalism

From their Userpages ( math collaboration focus) and style of editing, looks like skychild and Bunglehead may be the same person. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I have asked for a sockpuppet investigation in this regard and I will absolutely apologize if my suspicions are found to be without merit. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Confirmed

Bungleheadsauce is confirmed to be a Sockpuppet of ;Contributions/Skychildandsonofthesun SKY_child & Blocked for 1 week. It's edits in the article had the effect of removing "Rosedale Gang",against prior consensus. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Campaign website as RS

I think this discussion wil be of use to some of us (me for sure) in developing article content for all political candidates, including this one. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know... the conversation you are referencing is just that. It reflects the opinions of some editors both pro and con on this issue. Don't let it override your common sense. If you feel that a particular point it poorly referenced you can add the tag rather than simply removing the text. This gives a chance for other editors to find a reference. I did this for this point [3] and someone did come up with a good reference [4]. Remember this is a collective effort, it's not just you out there (although sometimes it feels like it). EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

you are absolutely right, on both points; I will work on both. Thanks. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 04:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Removed the "Criticism" section added on 10 April 2010 by Mr.Grantevans2 as it did not adhere to Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. The policy states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous." In the case of the mentioned criticisms, the source article itself makes explicit that comments are unattributed. Additionally, the source article speculates what his salary "likely" was and is baseless in its assumption.

With this said, I do believe that discussion of the Heart & Stroke Foundation's increased reserve under Rossi's leadership is important to discuss, but should be moved to the "Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario". I have updated that section to reflect this input. Medwardsca (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable logic,maybe, but why delete Rossi's own quote about his salary? Once again I think this shows a pro-Rossi slant to the BLP, all one needs to do is look at Rob Ford to see the benignity of the small criticism section here. The sourcing is the Toronto Star so that is not an issue in this case, however I will re-word to meet your other points. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Medwardsca that the inclusion of a "Criticism" section is a bad idea. Rather, any criticism whould be included in other sections as part of the article instead of sitting on its own. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ok Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Salary Estimate

I don't think its our job to evaluate the content of articles which are from RSs. The Toronto Star is a Reliable Source. Rossi had the opportunity to give the exact amount of his salary but instead said that it would "confuse the donors". So, the newspaper ( the Star in this case) said in its article:"Likely he was pulling in a healthy, six-figure sum at the charity"; and in my humble opinion, given that the total salaries was 18 million plus, I would not be surprised if the Star's estimate is 1 zero too small. But, I am not the RS while the Star quite definitely is. So, now that I think about it, the source for the salary estimate is the Toronto Star and I think that would qualify for inclusion since it is stated as "likely" by them rather than an absolute. However let's see what the other Editors think about including that. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You should recognize that there is a difference between news articles which are reliably sourced and articles by columnists which include personal opinions. Good information can be gleaned from opinion pieces but you need to be careful to stay away from text written by the journalist which may be an opinion rather than a sourced statement. The statement "Likely he was pulling in a healthy, six-figure sum at the charity" is an opinion and has no source. So unless you can find another RS that gives a specific figure for Rossi's salary then this should stay out. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

ok Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I've revised this section referencing internal revenue filings by HSFO with the CRA. While we cannot be certain of the exact amount, it is clear that it was over $119,999 (and likely between the $300-$350,000 range). Extremely convenient that that Globe article came out today and led me to check CRA filings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medwardsca (talk • contribs) 02:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Right; good catch. The Globe report reads to me that the salary was definitely between $300,000 and $350,000. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of RS article re: Rossi's salary etc.

this was removed by recent edits. Since it was during Rossi's tenure I think it belongs in the article. Any other opinions about that? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 15:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that the existing content is actually from this source so I will reinsert the citation. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Toronto Mayoral Election

The mention of Madrid, Spain is irrelevant. Can we remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louiechefei28848888 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

IP address

Hey all, I've checked and the IP address 38.110.68.195 is registered to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. I've put a COI warning on its talk page. It's edited this page sporadically for the past year. Blythwood (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2019

Add "lobbyist" to opening sentence to reflect his current occupation. He is no longer operating a business and thus is no longer a businessman.

Under Career>Heart and Stroke Foundation, edit the paragraph about criticism to reflect the actual nature of the criticism. The current description, "saving instead of spending," is an intentionally slanted interpretation of the criticism. It was not saving money, but rather collecting and not using money for which tax receipts had been issued, thus reducing the income taxes of wealthy donors, that is at the heart of the critique.

Suggested NPOV edit:

Under Rossi's leadership the Heart and Stroke Foundation built a $130-million reserve of tax-receipted funds. While some criticized collecting but not using funds for which donors had received income tax exemptions, Rossi has remarked, "It's a criticism I will bear with honour... I'm proud that we built a healthy, long-term balance sheet". 2001:56A:F6E6:8000:1854:62BA:2E9D:7FE8 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. aboideau^talk 15:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

References