Talk:Judy Marsales

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsourced assertions[edit]

I moved these points from the main article as they are unverified. Alan.ca 20:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Woman Entrepreneur of the Year for Hamilton-Wentworth in 1995: <ref>{{cite news|publisher=Hamilton Spectator, The (ON)|title= Athena nomination call is extended |page=A16|date= April 6, 2005 |accessdate=2006-12-30|language=english}} </ref>
  • Nominated forCanadian Woman Entrepreneur of the Year in the same year.
  • 1991, was a nominee for Woman of the Year.
  • She served as president of the Hamilton & District Chamber of Commerce in 1996
  • President of the Business Executives Association in 1998
  • 2001, she was named director of the Hamilton Port Authority, resigning after her election to public office in 2003.
  • I've sourced the struck-out items. Some others are here: [1] Bucketsofg 00:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Disputed by CJCurrie for POV[edit]

Please note, the following section has been removed from the article as a dispute resolution process is underway to determine if the statement violates wp:npov.Alan.ca 00:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-12 Judy Marsales exclusion of content[reply]

As an Ontario MP[edit]

In 2006, Judy voted against a conservative bill to cap property assessment increases to five percent. Conservative MPP Tim Hudak's Homestead Act was popular in the Hamilton West riding, but Marsales was one of nine Liberal members who voted against it.[1]

References[edit]

  1. ^ "ASSESSMENT VOTE ANGERS WESTDALE". Hamilton Spectator, The (ON). 2006-04-17. p. A01, Section Local. Retrieved 2006-12-10. Two local MPPs whose ridings have seen some of the highest property assessment increases in the region have voted against a bill that could offer tax relief to their constituents.

CJCurrie responds[edit]

  1. I do not agree with the assessment of this situation on the Mediation Cabal page.
  2. I oppose inclusion due to concerns about relevance. NPOV is a secondary matter. Since we're discussing NPOV, though, I might note that it violates policy is to suggest that the Hudak bill "was popular in her riding", based solely on the position of certain property owners.

CJCurrie 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why aren't we also mentioning John Tory's opposition to Hudak's act? CJCurrie 00:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're assuming good faith on my part. I truly was seeking sources for an otherwise unsourced article. When I came across an article that identified the subjects viewpoint on a polarized issue, I thought it would be worhty of inclusion. I don't have an opinion either way on this vote, the point of the article is to point out that her constituents wanted her to vote for the act and she voted contrary to that pressure. In some respects this could be regarded as negative. It could also be regarded as a defining position. Some may consider her willingness to stand by her principles as admirable. To vote her conscience not public opinion. In either respect, she thought it worthy to vote, a reporter thought it newsworthy to write about it and there must have been enough people in her constituency who thought it important enough to make a public opinion known for it to be relevant. I included that note about how many liberals voted the same as she because it was included in the article. There was no mention of John Tory and I don't see how it's relevant to what I just stated. Alan.ca 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion either way on this vote, the point of the article is to point out that her constituents wanted her to vote for the act and she voted contrary to that pressure. In some respects this could be regarded as negative. It could also be regarded as a defining position. I'm not certain this is a fair assessment of the facts. The article you've cited indicates that some property owners in Hamilton West opposed Marsales's decision on the Hudak bill. I don't believe we can extrapolate from this that "she voted contrary to the will of her constituents" in a more general sense. There is no indication of mass opposition to Marsales's vote, or of lingering anger toward her position. I doubt that many of her constituents knew, or cared, about the vote, one way or the other.
I will also reiterate my previous concerns about relevance. I simply don't believe that a government backbencher's vote on second-reading of an opposition member's private bill is of sufficient importance to include in this article, particularly when her vote did not make any difference on the outcome. CJCurrie 23:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that she voted against the public opinion of her constituents? Alan.ca 01:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above. That statement seems like an extrapolation, not based on solid evidence. CJCurrie 04:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the fact that an entire article was written about her vote on this bill asserts that enough people were angry to make the vote noteworthy. If it was a small note in a much larger discussion I may have been able to see your point of view here. Are you willing to suggest any kind of compromise between our two different points of view? Are you able to find any other sourced material that we could include in the article? Alan.ca 02:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I think the fact that an entire article was written about her vote on this bill asserts that enough people were angry to make the vote noteworthy." Um, no. it only means that some people, who may be undermedicated, were angry enough to have the article written. Or those people may be perfectly rational. We have no way of knowing. Also, it is not a good idea to base a Wikipedia article on a single article that is based on the views of angry people. Angry people usually do not represent a issue in an NPOV manner. In any event, this is only one vote, as CJCurrie notes, and would leave the article way unbalanced, especially in view of the lack of evidence that this is a big issue in her riding. Ground Zero | t 06:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ground Zero, are you here as a CJCurrie supporter? I have seen your name associated with his edits before! I'm trying to work this out with him and you chiming in to repeat his point of view isn't going to make the remedy come along any faster. Alan.ca 06:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, please stop personalising this. One story does not make a significant event, certainly not an unambiguously significant one, and the source absolutely does not establish that she voted against the wishes of her constituents, only some of her constituents - for all we know she may have had many thousands of letters in support of her position. Which is why we would need more sources to establish balance and context. If you can find evidence of this being picked up by the wider press and identified by impartial observers as significant then I believe the issue would be clarified. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am willing to compromise on the text of the section. I am willing to modify it to say some constituents did not support her vote. At a minimum I think we should be able to include the fact that she had voted. Alan.ca 12:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe there is any useful purpose to referencing a government backbencher's second-reading vote on an opposition member's private bill, particularly as the government backbencher's vote did not make difference as to the end result. CJCurrie 00:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alan, this is a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", so you must expect that other editors will get involved when editors have a disagreement. There is no "private dispute" on Wikipedia. I am entitled to have an opinion and express it. My opinion is based on my understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have disagreed with CJCurrie in the past, and I expect I will again. However, since he is an editor of long-standing, he is very familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and tends to abide by them. So it is not surprising that more often than not I agree with his position. Ground Zero | t 12:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point on involvment in this discussion relates to the fact that CJCurrie and I managed to find a truce in our edit dispute. We are awaiting the assignment of an impartial mediator and reiterating his comments only serves to agrivate a situation a fragile peace. This is why in mediation cases they often select reps for each point of view. Alan.ca 12:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made any edits to the article. I have only offered my own observations on the content dispute based on my understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I am not simply "reiterating CJCurrie's comments". If I have come to the same conclusions as CJCurrie, perhaps you should reconsider your own position in this.
Please be aware that the content of this article will not be decided by you and CJCurrie alone. This is not a personal dispute between the two of you -- it is about the content of an article, and therefore is relevant for any editors who wish to participate. In my many years as an active Wikipedia editor and year and year as an admin, I have never been told to "stand down" on a content dispute on the basis that two editors are working it out between them. That just is not how things work on Wikipedia. I understand that you are a relatively new editor, and may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so I encourage you to learn more about them. Ground Zero | t 14:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GZ, I have responded to your allegation on my talk page. Alan.ca 00:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What allegation are you talking about? CJCurrie 00:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said CJCurrie, you may view the discussion on my talk page. Alan.ca 00:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Marsales vote on Hudak's bill inclusion[edit]

I created this section to specifically discuss the inclusion of the Hamilton Spectator citation for Judy's vote on Hudak's bill. Alan.ca 12:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Does anyone dispute the Hamilton Spectator is a reliable, third party source for news?[edit]

Q: Does anyone dispute that a politician's vote, that is reported in the news as controversial is relevant to the politician's career?[edit]

  • With respect, you're asking the wrong questions. The real question is: should we report a government backbencher's vote on second reading of an opposition member's private bill, based on one report in a local newspaper that suggests some of her constituents opposed her decision? CJCurrie 00:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It very much depends. If it's widely reported in the national press, yes, but local papers are forever bitching about the voting record of the local representatives. It's how they sell copies. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, Marsales's vote on the Hudak bill was mentioned one (1) time in a local paper. CJCurrie 09:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see where the two of you are coming from, but in the case of a back bencher mpp, they don't get a lot of national coverage. I think in cases where there is a great deal of national coverage on a candidate we should opt to use those sources over smaller local sources, but in lieu of any national coverage it seems more weight should be given to the smaller news source. It seems we may be using a double standard here, the sources are good enough to evade an AfD, but not worthy of inclusion in the article? Alan.ca 11:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citing Sources[edit]

Ok, any editor interested in this article, I am receiving opposition on my choice of a sourced citation, so here, I present the ONLY hits I get in the Canadian Reference Center Database for Judy Marsales. Please indicate the sources that you would like to see read for citation in the article and sign your name. Thank you. Alan.ca 12:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


1. QUALITY OF OUR MPPS

Author: Nan Uzbalis; Mount Hope

Source: Hamilton Spectator, The (ON) Pub.: 2006-12-20 Description: AN : Q4K344602337106

2. THE $ALARY DEBATE

Author: N.A.

Source: Hamilton Spectator, The (ON) Pub.: 2006-12-19 Description: AN : Q4K271957047806

3. POOR LITTLE MPPS? HORWATH'S NOT BUYING IT

Author
Andrew Dreschel

Source: Hamilton Spectator, The (ON) Pub.: 2006-12-15 Description: AN : Q4K135783857706

4. SCHOOL CASH 'GOOD START'; PUBLIC BOARD TO GET $900,000 A YEAR FOR 25 YEARS

Author
Rob Faulkner

Source: Hamilton Spectator, The (ON) Pub.: 2006-06-30 Description: AN : Q4K112525856706

5. ASSESSMENT VOTE ANGERS WESTDALE

Author: Barb McKay

Source: Hamilton Spectator, The (ON) Pub.: 2006-04-17 Description: AN : Q4K365292887106

6. TAME FLASH MOB GATHERS TO PROTEST TUITION HIKES; MYSTERIOUS E-MAIL MESSAGE ROUSES :STUDENTS Author: Rob Faulkner Source: Hamilton Spectator, The (ON) Pub.: 2006-03-17 Description: AN : Q4K328165578506

7. MAC STUDENTS LOBBY MPP FOR TUITION FREEZE

Author: N.A.

Source: Hamilton Spectator, The (ON) Pub.: 2006-03-16 Description: AN : Q4K328902354806

8. RADICAL RESTRUCTURING OF HEALTH CARE; BILL 36 DEVOLVES CONTROL OF SERVICE DELIVERY, :FUNDING TO 14 ONTARIO REGIONAL AUTHORITIES Author: Joanna Frketich Source: Hamilton Spectator, The (ON) Pub.: 2006-03-03 Description: AN : Q4K324414127406

9. FUNDING AT LAST FOR ST. PETER'S WING

Author: Daniel Nolan

Source: Hamilton Spectator, The (ON) Pub.: 2006-01-27 Description: AN : Q4K056502745706

Votes for sources[edit]

None of these stories seem to me to be particularly noteworthy. Bucketsofg 03:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My view[edit]

I'm kind of surprised that anyone thinks that the tax-vote is something that seems worthy of inclusion, much less have a fight over it. Firstly, this is one article in which Marsales plays only a part. The article is mostly about property-tax anger generally. Only one resident is cited as angry at Marsales for the vote. Brian McHattie (the area city counsellor) expresses surprise about how she voted. Hudak is interviewed about the bill. Mossup (the other local liberal MP who voted against it) is interviewed. A couple of other local counsellors are interviewed, but criticize neither Mossup nor Marsales. This doesn't seem to me something that is worth including. Bucketsofg 00:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The initial basis for the reference was to add something with a cited source to the article. I now see that you have added quite a bit of sourced information. Thank you! The reason I feel the property tax vote warrants inclusion is that it was a controversial vote reported by local media. Our own interpretation of the validity of the public's opinion is not really valid, we're here to record history, not judge it. In fact, now that the article includes so much supportive information for the candidate it would seem more important to add something contrary to balance the article towards NPOV. Alan.ca 03:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'd describe the content as "supportive", it is more or less whatever was non-trivial that is in the database. The supportive stuff--ribbon-cuttings and funding-announcements--clealry don't belong. Neither does one Westdale blowhard's opinions. Bucketsofg 03:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I had stated earlier with CJCurrie, the opinion portion I am open to how to or not to integrate it. I see the vote as more important than the backlash in terms of inclusion. I know for me personally when reading a candidate's biography, I would want to know if they had voted against capping property tax increases. Alan.ca 22:09, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need an image[edit]

Does anyone know the liscencing implications of using the ontario government one here? Bucketsofg 03:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There seems to be a contact e-mail at the bottom of that page. Someone could e-mail them and ask them to make a release under a free license. I am currently involved in a dispute over a similiar matter with the House of Commons and the Mayor's office for Hamilton, Ontario. Essentially, some say these photos are official and so cannot be free licensed. Others argue, the images are given out upon request and therefore a free license shouldn't be a problem. In short, if you want to know, write the site admin an e-mail as the page you link says it has copyright. Alan.ca 03:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you're already experienced with this, would you be willing to do it? I'm supposed to be on wikibreak. Bucketsofg 03:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can contact them, it can take months to get an answer, but I'll try it. Alan.ca 22:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I am currently corresponding with an employee of the Ontario Legislative Assembly, Journals Branch in an effort to instigate a policy change that would allow the ONTLA images to be released under a free license. This is going to be a long process of review. I made the suggestion that members could be asked to choose to release the image under a free license at the time the photographs are taken. The photographs are all retaken after every provincial election. They seemed willing to entertain this option for the 2007 election. Alan.ca 17:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Judy_Marsales&oldid=1201577539"