This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
-- Bungleheadsauce ( talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a rich set of methods to handle most abuses that commonly arise. These methods are well-tested and should be relied upon.
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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. | ” |
“ | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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". [1] 2001:56A:F6E6:8000:1854:62BA:2E9D:7FE8 ( talk) 22:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
References
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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:
-- Bungleheadsauce ( talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has a rich set of methods to handle most abuses that commonly arise. These methods are well-tested and should be relied upon.
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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. | ” |
“ | 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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". [1] 2001:56A:F6E6:8000:1854:62BA:2E9D:7FE8 ( talk) 22:31, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
References