Talk:Howard Moscoe
GoldDragon edits
I think you may be confusing the taxi/police quote with this:
Driving a taxi is still a dangerous profession because there are a lot of people out there who see it as a chance to grab some quick money.
(Howard Moscoe, quoted in the Toronto Star, 7 September 2005, A04)
- No confusion at all. The Star (Toronto Star, 1 April 2006, A15) did have the exact Moscoe quote stating that a taxi driver was more dangerous that a police officer. This could imply his contempt for the police service which enjoyed strong backing from Mel Lastman.GoldDragon 03:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure where the Star took that quote from, and I think it might be slightly garbled. In any case, your subsequent comments are (i) conjectural, and (ii) probably incorrect. Moscoe has made several statements in support of taxi drivers, particularly in response to the shootings that occurred last year. If the Star quote is real, it was likely taken from that period. (I wonder if more taxi operators than police officers died on the job in Toronto last year). CJCurrie 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- The comment is truth, no doubt about it. That doesn't change even if you and I don't debate the conjecture. Of course, the Star brought it that old quote after the Nunziata remark, so their editors had their own conjecture to why they used that quote.GoldDragon 02:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the other quote, do you seriously think that a cop/donut shop joke is worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article? CJCurrie 04:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- That was made in response to Julian Fantino's request for police choppers...so again this clearly clarifies Moscoe's position.GoldDragon 03:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- It was a trivial throwaway joke. CJCurrie 03:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- That is what most politicians think, until the Star brings it up again. GoldDragon 02:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Moscoe's been in politics a long time yet about half the article is on two relatively trivial incidents. Is there also nothing positive he's done in his career? I seem to recall Moscoe being a force in lobbying for more provincial funding for the TTC and if you search the archives of Eye Weekly and Now Magazine online you'll find a number of laudatory references, particularly in regards to the TTC.
There's also the whole reform of taxi licencing that Moscoe helped bring in a few years ago ie the "Ambassador" plates that are reserved for actual drivers as opposed to the standard plate system that had become very corrupt with most plates held by lawyers, bankers and investors renting them to drivers for exorbitant sums.
As for the negative, surely Moscoe's motion to raise city council wages last year is more worthy of mention than the trivial incidents that the article focusses on at present.
In short 1) the article needs to be balanced with the positive as well as the negative 2) the minutae should be reduced. Surely those two parargraphs can be replaced by one or two sentences each.
Also, the fact that Moscoe is a teacher by profession should be mentioned as should his rivalry with Mel Lastman back on North York City Council.Homey 21:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Expanding this page will probably be my next "big project" on Wikipedia ... CJCurrie 20:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
- Pssst. Eye and Now are left-leaning. Of course they would have a lot of laudatory references. The right-wing on the other hand would have savaged him for two fare hikes in two years. Speaking of positives, I looked at your article on John Baird and it much of it appears to be a Eye/Now view of his provincial career. Might you want to balance these parts out with some right-wing positives?GoldDragon 03:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Supposedly he tried to sneak it through without much debate... GoldDragon 03:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
In future, please don't place your comments in the middle of someone else's. It's considered rude. Yes, I know Eye and Now are left leaning but for this article to be *balanced* it has to include both left and right opinions, both laudits and criticism. Right now it only includes criticisms and fairly picayune ones at that. If you're interested in actually having a fair NPOV article you'll dig up some of the positive things mentioned in NOW, Eye, th Star or even that left wing rag the Globe and Mail and put them in. Right now you seem to be depending on the sort of criticisms one finds in right-leaning sources such as the Toronto Sun and the National Post. Homey 06:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- Fine, so CJCurrie can add positives from the Eye/Now to balance the current content out, but I object strongly to him removing/marginalizing most of the negatives in the process.
- In particular, my response to what CJCurrie considers "minutae"; he had an entire paragraph devoted to John Baird's OPSEU call in the legislature. He against devoted an entire paragraph in the McGuinty article to the evil kitten quote but he wants no detail regarding the 1999 debate. So the minutae is relative, not absolute. GoldDragon 02:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Concerning the other articles: The Baird/OPSEU situation was referenced in a relatively recent news article about Baird (as distinguished from a collection of quotes), and I've given his side of the story in any case. Some of the contested passages about the 1999 debate are simply not relevant to an article about McGuinty (I'm thinking specifically of Hampton calling Harris a "thug").
Neither situation is especially relevant as to whether or not a cops/donut shops joke should be included on this page. CJCurrie 04:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
June
The cited article does not say that HM will be resigning in June -- it says that his current term will end in June. Also, citing an obviously partisan blog isn't recommended. CJCurrie 22:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Moreover, I've just noticed that the Sun article is from 2005. CJCurrie 22:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Helicopters
GoldDragon,
I've discovered that the Toronto Star made a mistake with its "helicopters" quote. The line they attributed to Moscoe was actually from Julian Fantino, who was misquoting something Moscoe had said earlier.
“I think [City Councillor] Howard Moscoe, though, said . . .‘I wish I had a whole slew of them and have them land on doughnut shops,' ” the chief says, shaking his head and muttering the words “uninformed, uneducated” before trailing off.
Globe and Mail, 26 February 2005, M1
Moscoe's actual comments were somewhat different, and were more hyperbolic than insulting. CJCurrie 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Now ...
Could someone please review the page for style errors. CJCurrie 04:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Gold Dragon edits
GD,
Homey previously commented that the disputed section is trivial, and should be reduced to 1-2 sentences per incident. I agree with this assessment. This means the vote is currently 2-1 against your current edit. Why not try to build consensus on the talk page if you want a change, rather than reposting the same thing over and over and over. CJCurrie 20:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Put it better this way, this is one area where you want change (you want to get rid of it). I want it to stay as it has been. I didn't "add" this to the article, I'm trying to prevent you from trivializing it, since other similar controversies for other politicians don't get reduced to 1-2 sentences. GoldDragon 02:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)