Talk:Joe Volpe

Blanked private address, since this should not be posted on wikipedia.

Wikipedia is not the place to post direct correspondence to Joe Volpe. We have no connection to him or to the government of Canada. You'd be best served contacting him through [1]. Bearcat 00:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza

During that year, Volpe also came under fire for expensive pizza lunches which he billed on his expense account[2]. When these documents were revealed, opposition MPs questioned why Volpe "could not explain how he spent $138 for two, but could he now explain how he spent $207 on pizza for three"[3].

Does anyone really believe that this emphemeral controversy-du-jour is important enough to mention? Practically everyone who's held a ministerial portfolio has dealt with this sort of thing at one point or another. CJCurrie 20:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of the sponsorship scandal, this is not a controversy-du-jour. As long as its sourced, its perfectly valid, and its unfortunate for Volpe that this got in the news. GoldDragon 15:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do the pizza lunches have to do with the sponsorship scandal? CJCurrie 22:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, could someone else please weigh in on this matter. CJCurrie 22:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it warrants inclusion in the article. It was a minor news story, carried only once and only on CTV and really doesn't have a major impact on anything. pm_shef 20:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the pizza point does not merit inclusion, if it was an isolated incident. However, it is part of a larger picture with respect to overspending that was covered in the news repeatedly over a multi-month time period. As such, it is noteworthy and deserves inclusion. Volpe was on track in 2005 to spend $51,485 annualized on meals alone. When you compare that to the average Canadian personal income ($29,769 in 2000, before tax), the sheer scale of Volpe's spending is surely notable. --Chris Thompson 01:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the scale of Volpe's spending is also particulary notable precisely because it is so large relative to other politicians. 11.5 times higher than the Deputy Prime Minister's? Three times higher than Dingwall's meal expenses, who caused a controversy in his own right for rabid overspending? Even on an international scale, Volpe's gourmandise is impressive. It took Curt Weldon, R-PA, eight years to spend a mere $80,000 on meals, an incident that caused controversy in the United States [[4]]. Weldon's most extravagant meal was $495, while Volpe topped that on at least eight occasions during the infamous 11 week spending binge. --Chris Thompson 02:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the comparison is relevant. GoldDragon 18:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because Chris Thompson says so? CJCurrie 01:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say so too on the grounds that Cam Jackson got caught in similar allegations. GoldDragon 21:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between the two cases. Jackson was forced to resign his cabinet seat; Volpe wasn't, and I can't remember that he was even asked to do so.

Could someone else please weigh in on this matter? The back-and-forth is getting a bit tiring. CJCurrie 01:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donations controversy

In an attempt to prevent a revert war, let's start a discussion about what you feel is appropriate for inclusion in this article. As I see it, there are two issues with respect to the donation controversy. The first is the donations themselves and the subsequent campaign reaction. In an attempt to preserve an NPOV tone, I wouldn't mind seeing this section expanded to reflect the Volpe's campaign's arguments for why the donations were not in violation of Elections Canada rules regarding third-party donations. (On the other hand, I consider spin and name-calling with no substantive logical underpinning as uninformative and inappropriate for inclusion.) The second issue is with respect to the Volpe's campaign's attempts to censor a parody site. This is not a minor news item; it has been widely reported in the US as well as in Canada, and I feel that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia to mention it. However, edits should remain strictly factual. I think the current explanation is actually fairly honest and NPOV. I invite commentary here if you feel otherwise. --Chris Thompson 01:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you feel the current article is POV, please be specific about what sentences you feel are not neutral. --Chris Thompson 01:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris,

You're currently in violation of the three revert-rule. You may wish to revert your last edit back to the previous version -- we can work on compromise language tomorrow. CJCurrie 02:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, he's not. The three revert-rule says an editor must not perform more than three reversions in a 24-hour period. He's done three. Plus there's an argument to be made that the 19:06, 6 June 2006 is a vandalism revert (given the repeated deletion of information from the article by anonymous IPs) and should be excluded from the count. Blackeagle 07:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Blackeagle. CJCurrie, I do however appreciate your warning. (By the way, I'm kind of impressed by the personal attack one of the anonymous commenters inserted -- that's the first time that's ever happened to me in nearly four years of making Wikipedia edits. Political articles do bring out the zealots.) --Chris Thompson 07:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Editorial dispute

User:GoldDragon and I are currently involved in a protracted disagreement as to the content of this page. Could I please request that other readers weigh in on the controversy? CJCurrie 02:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any opinion on any of the other content on the page, but I think the Youth for Volpe incident needs to be left in. A politician's attempt to have a website critical of him shut down is a serious matter and ought to be included in their Wikipedia entry. Blackeagle 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Cory Hobbs, or someone in his camp requested it be shut down. The governing body, whatever it is called, noticed the page was not properly registered, and pulled the plug. The page was never shut down for censoring reasons, this myth needs to be put to rest. The YOuth for Volpe was a one week wonder. Was a comical joke, but it not enyclopedic. Pete Peters 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blackeagle, it is serious enough to warrant inclusion. Volpe or someone in his campaign requested to the governing body to shut down a critical website and later the website was shut down. The governing body might say it was shut down for other reasons but Volpe's intervention was what caused these allegations of censorship. The Globe and Mail does not take the view that the website was shut down only on registration grounds. GoldDragon 03:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a aside, Sgro didn't resign due to the stripper controversy, it was the pizza guy. The Western Standard cover was poking fun at the Liberals and the sponsorship scandal and not trying to make a racial slur against Italians, though Volpe decided to take offense to it anyway. Pat Martin did file an official complain, he did not merely speculate. GoldDragon 03:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's doubt as to the factual accuracy of the "Youth For Volpe" matter, we should leave it out. To your latter points: (i) the specifics of Sgro's resignation are not relevant here [and what exactly is your fascination with pizza?], (ii) your wording seems calculated to embarrass Sgro, and ignores the fact that she was ultimately vindicated, and (iii) the fact that the poster referenced "The Sopranos" and organized crime was interpreted as a slur. If you have source to correct the Pat Martin reference, please provide it. CJCurrie 02:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's doubt about specific elements, the article should express that doubt. Doubt about details is not a reason to leave something out entirely. Blackeagle 06:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blackeagle. Indeed, there is no doubt over the "factual accuracy" of this; Volpe or someone in his campaign requested to the governing body to shut down a critical website and later the website was shut down. Indeed, the doubt is over the governing body's statement that they shut down the website on registration grounds, so we cannot take Peters' support of the "registration grounds" statement as fact just to censor all of this.

(i) and (ii) Well, Sgro did not resign due to the stripper controversy. I'm not interested in embarrasing anyone, I would rather get the facts straight and be specific. Second, I noted that the allegations were later retracted; however they were not retracted until after Sgro resigned and Volpe assumed the Immigration Ministry, so my order of wording reflects this.

Indeed, we could expand this section on Sgro's speculated rivalry with Volpe, since it was suspected that Volpe wanted her out of cabinet to prevent further publicity to Paul Martin's government, though Martin wanted to stand by Sgro.

(iii) Well, first of all, the magazine poster was not attempting to make a racial slur, its orginal intent was to compare the Liberals to the sponsorship scandal[5]. Volpe decided to attack it as a slur, to score political points. However, your wording (which omits any connection to the sponsorship scandal and Chretien/Martin) does appear to state that the magazine poster made a racial slur. We wouldn't want to mislead the reader here and I must note that your current version is markly different from the one that many past contributors had agree with.

Here is the original wiki wording from way back: In 2005, Volpe came under criticism for remarks he made comparing the Conservative Party to the Ku Klux Klan. He made the remarks after seeing two Conservative Members of Parliament (MPs) posing with a poster from the Western Standard magazine comparing Liberals to the family from the mafia TV show The Sopranos, with the title "The Liberano$". Volpe considered this a slur against Italian-Canadians such as himself, despite the fact that the two key figures in the poster, Prime Minister Paul Martin and former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien are not Italian. He subsequently apologized.

(iv) Pat Martin didn't merely speculate. He actually filed a complaint. [6]

GoldDragon 14:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

(i) Again, we do not need to provide the full details of Sgro's resignation on this page. In any event, the current wording is accurate.

(ii) "Indeed", there is no point in dragging out the "Sgro/Volpe" controversy to any further length. We've already noted the accusations against Volpe, and Volpe's response to the same. What more do you want?

(iii) This is a matter of perception. From Volpe's POV, the ethnic background of the politicians depicted in the caricature doesn't seem to have been the point at issue. Adding a line along the lines of "even though x-and-y aren't Italian" skews the story, and may constitute Original Research. CJCurrie 04:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(iv) Actually, the fact that someone filed a complaint isn't especially notable. I don't particularly object to your suggested wording here, but the matter isn't all that important. CJCurrie 04:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal:

(i) and (ii) I'm not putting the whole details of her resignation, just the correct version of it. The full version would include the immigration hearings and credit card fraud and etc. Your version is as vague as possible, and I wonder why?

(iii) Anyhow, we must note the original purpose of the magazine poster, otherwise including only Volpe's wording makes it look like the magazine did make a racial slur, which was actually not the case.

(iv) Notable or not, as long as you don't object, it will be included. "Speculating" makes Pat Martin's actions look vague, when one could easily prove that he filed the official complaint.

(v) Allegations of censorship were made when Volpe's campaign requested that the website be shut down and later getting a response saying that it would be shut down. Indeed, why else would Volpe be so interested in an unregistered website unless it was critical of him?

(vi) Karygiannis's blocking of Volpe from getting the membership list is notable; some speculated that Karygiannis's members are loyal to him and not Volpe. GoldDragon 18:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this can put it all to an end.

The Globe and Mail, in an online article, published incorrect information in which it said that Mr. Volpe's campaign had the web site shut down. That was not the case, and the Globe and Mail has been contacted by caDNS.ca about the erroneous information. Mr. Beck says, "Ms. Taber has admitted that the publishing of the information was at the very least, inaccurate, and gave indication that she would be taking caDNS.ca's demand for a retraction to her editor, agreeing that a retraction was appropriate."

caDNS.ca has also contacted Mr. Volpe's office demanding a retraction. "Mr. Volpe's Director of Communications, Cory Hobbs, has assured caDNS.ca that a retraction from their office will be issued by Tuesday, June 6, 2006. Mr. Hobbs was in agreement with caDNS.ca that no such request came from Mr. Volpe's office or campaign, and agreed that caDNS.ca was entitled to a retraction of the false statement. That statement was also quoted by Ms. Taber in the Globe article, the statement having been apparently falsely uttered through an email sent by a person who was a junior volunteer on the Volpe campaign at the time of the email," states Beck[7]Pete Peters 19:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not inconsistent with the current version. GoldDragon 20:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]