Talk:Sandra Bussin

I came to her page hoping to learn which way she tends to lean on issues; to the right, the left, or more central.

Is she a supporter of the Mayor?

When she worked at Queen's Park, which party did she work for? These are all things I would have wanted to know coming to her page on Wikipedia.

Can someone in the know please fill in the blanks?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.221.52 (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

The original text for this section suffered from badly skewed POV language. However, the tersely summarized single sentence goes too far in removing the substance of the issues. I propose that the section begin with something like "In 2009-2010 three zoning disputes were highlighted in the local media..." followed by three short summaries. The one that I already reworded is perhaps still too long so I am open to suggestions. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

While I can sympathize with the above poster who would like to see the sordid details of at least one of the controversies dragged out in an encyclopedia article, the length of this article will simply not bear the detail: When describing living people, we do not host attack pages, even if the substance of the criticisms is true. We do not place WP:UNDUE weight on minor controversies.

If someone has a burning desire to expand the criticism section again, the proper way to do so is in detailing additional positive aspects of Ms. Bussin's career. This article is about the political career of a particular Toronto politician--it is neither to be a puff-piece written by supporters, nor a collection of every controversy assembled by her detractors. Right now, it has become a little less unbalanced. Efforts to move it back towards an attack page on Ms. Bussin are not appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Posting only 'positive' aspects is in itself a type of POV. When I add text I strive to report the facts of the matter which also involves reporting both sides of an issue in a neutral manner. Reporting only the 'positive' side creates an imbalance. I think you have gone too far in this case. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

You are allowed your opinion, and if you want to seek broader consensus to restore this article to a hatchet-job on Ms. Bussin, WP:BLP/N would be the appropriate place to do so. Again, if you would like to include the details which I find trivial that you believe to be meaningful and worthy of inclusion, feel free to increase the positive coverage of Ms. Bussin throughout the article such that the net result is an article where the criticisms do not outweigh the rest of the article's contents. Jclemens (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am creating this section for anyone to respond to recent edits which are an effort to restore the article to its 2010 state. IMO, the current article summarizes this content adequately and there is no reason to restore it (other than political motivations) to its earlier state. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

• The current state of the article is, indeed, about as much WP:WEIGHT as the controversies in question actually warrant — it is simply not necessary for the article to go into exhaustive detail about every last time her name happened to be in the news. It's legitimate to note that she got involved in a few controversial matters, certainly, but there's a fine line between acknowledging the controversies and actually crossing over into attack page territory by giving them more weight than they warrant — and our job as Wikipedians is to know where that line is, and to stay on the correct side of it. For the moment, I'm editprotecting the page, so that the matter can be discussed on this talk page before it devolves into an outright edit war. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

• You know what? I hadn't heard, and only just now found out, the news that she reregistered to run for her old council seat again just last week. So now I know exactly where the sudden determination to restore all the old disproportionately weighted negative content came from. Though admittedly I should have guessed, because that's almost always the real story in matters like this. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The 20 year exclusive tender on the Boardwalk Cafe was omitted, among other controversies. And Rob Ford doesn't get the benefit of the doubt on his article either. Bearcat, by acting on your own opinion to quickly block editing on the page, I think that you abused you administrator powers. PortugalPepe (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nope. As an administrator my responsibility is to act to prevent editwarring, and our practice requires that in any such situation, we temporarily freeze the article on the least contentious version pending resolution of the discussion. Whether you agree with that version or not, in a dispute such as this the process requires that the disputed material stays out of the article until a consensus is actually established to add it. I have no objection to the addition of further content about the controversies if that's the consensus established, but you cannot simply get into a revert war with another editor over it. Bearcat (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The least contentious version tends to be the one that is posted on their official campaign website.

And if the other editor that I'm dealing with keeps shooting me down, would that effectively give him/her a veto on the article? PortugalPepe (talk) 02:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Other people have been asked to come weigh in so that this doesn't boil down to one-on-one. Bearcat (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've kept an eye on this article (amongst other politician articles) and has remained relatively unchanged over the past four years. During the 2010 election period the article received a lot of attention, mostly negative. After Bussin lost the election and after a short cooling off period, the article was nicely summarized by User:Jclemens In January 2011. Not much changed since then until Bussin announced last week that she was going to recontest her old council seat. Guess what? All the old stuff was suddenly resurrected. Coincidence? I agree with Bearcat that restoring the old text would constitute WP:UNDUE weight. The article as it stands provides a good balance between her good and bad record. Unless any new content comes to light there is not much new to say. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm not planning on restoring all of the old text and all of the old headers, although I used that as a starting point and then cut from that point on. However the Boardwalk Cafe should be included (it is probably more significant than some of the libel/spending controversies).

And there could be some insight added into the 2010 election defeat, such as Bussin (in her own words) being targeted after Miller's retirement or highlighted as an example of the gravy train, as it isn't usual for an incumbent to lose by such a wide margin. Some of the sources on the office spending and Blue Jays could be added into the 2010 election section, and mentioned with a brief blurb or two (rather than a full sentence or header), as that was when it became it issue at the time. While I understand that your aim is to avoid undue weight, that will still incorporate all of the references that previous editors added. PortugalPepe (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

We don't need to restore the old text, even as a starting point, for the reasons set out above. Having said that, I do agree that a sentence or two on the Boardwalk Cafe would not be inappropriate. It was a significant issue with a lot of press coverage. The old text was not great - it was one-sided (did a poor job of providing Bussin's justfication) and did not have great sources (the only source is now a dead link). The sole-source contract was controversial and should be easily sourced with reliable, mainstream media sources. The additional accusations of the contract being given to friends and contributors are more problematic, and I would want to see the sources before we got into that. In any event, anyone wanting to insert this information should propose something here on the talk page, with sources. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Also I thought that it was better to put NPOV tags into sections that were one-sided, rather than remove the content if Bussin's side of the story was pending. Anyhow, with three status-quo editors closely watching this article, this article should not be protected indefinitely (use warning tags instead), as that could imply censorship for an upcoming election. PortugalPepe (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Nice try. I just requested WP:Speedy deletion of your new article, Sandra Bussin (Canadian politician), which you created in order to bypass this discussion. That is at best, poor judgment, and at worst impolite to your fellow editors. Wikipedia is not a place to put your personal opinions out there (see WP:NOTSOAPBOX), there are other places on the internet for that. If you are truly interested in improving this article I suggest you wait until October 28, 2014. I suspect that your interest in this article will somehow fade rapidly after that. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wow, PortugalPepe, that's really inappropriate. Good catch, EncyclopediaUpdaticus. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

It was't a big edit war to begin with, and for such cases most admins usually set protection for just few days. With this article protected indefinitely, which could be seem as a form of censorship, most of you have been dragging your feet with regard to discussion on allowing edits to this original article. Is the protection going to be lifted anytime soon or is it going to be until October 28, 2014 (coincidentally after the election)? Remember, you can make changes or put in POV tags as it seems fit if you disagree with my edits.

Creating a duplicate proposed version (which is not too different from the protected version, but adds back in the Boardwalk Cafe and some more detail on the 2010 election) at least got your attention. PortugalPepe (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Whether you like it or not, there's nothing we can do about the page protection until such time as enough people have participated in this discussion to establish that there's a proper consensus one way or the other — we cannot, and will not, allow it to just slide back into an unresolvable edit war. The process takes as long as it takes, whether that's one week or ten, and there's nothing that anybody who's already participated in this discussion needs to (or even can) "pay attention" to, and no action that anybody can take, until there's been enough participation to properly assess the weight of consensus. Nobody here is "dragging their feet", because what we need is not more rehashing of the same ground by the same four people who've already participated, but more new participants weighing in than we've had so far. And it's not my responsibility, or Skeezix's, or EncyclopediaUpdaticus's, to wave a magic wand and make that happen — do you really think I'd be sitting here on Wikipedia arguing about this, instead of lounging on a beach in Ibiza with $50 million in my pocket, if I had that kind of magical power? — so if it takes ten weeks to happen on its own, then it takes ten weeks and there's not a damn thing we can do about that except wait the ten weeks it takes to happen.

And incidentally, the fact that she's involved in an ongoing current election is exactly why we have to be extra careful about this — under WP:NPOV, it's not our role to bias potential voters against her any more than it is to bias potential voters toward her, so with an actively campaigning politician it's especially critical that we take extra care to ensure that the article remains balanced, and not overweighted toward the negative. It's not our role to be a venue for excessive criticism of her any more than it is to be a venue for hagiography — and it's not our role to have an opinion one way or the other about who the voters in Ward 32 should choose in October. Nobody has argued that the negative stuff should be entirely removed from the article, so it's not a question of "censorship" — it's simply an issue of how much weight the controversies do or don't deserve to be given, of whether they warrant a brief summary or an epic novel.

Finally, you keep claiming that you have a compromise version in mind, which adds a bit more detail without going overboard — but you've been asked more than once in the above discussion to post your proposal here on this talk page so that it can be reviewed and discussed, and you still haven't done that. And that, ultimately, is why this discussion keeps going around in circles — as of yet, we don't have a proposed revision to discuss, and all we've got is you repeatedly asking for free rein to just do whatever you want (which is exactly where the problem started in the first place.) So kindly show your proposed revision so that we can discuss it already. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

There is something you can do about page protection, as you were the one who chose to slap it on indefinitely, and so you can turn it off. Choosing indefinite protection, as well as your justification for saying that it was an attack edit in response to Bussin running in the election, isn't the norm when other admins protect a page for a few days and avoid taking sides or making accusations. Heck, the Toronto Star (which I presume was supporting her) notes some of the controversies that aren't in this wikipedia article, such as the Boardwalk cafe and the Star reports that it is still an issue for some ward residents.[4][5]

Even if the article was unprotected, it wouldn't descent into another back-and-forth edit war. I'm aware that once I'm outnumbered 3-1, there is no point in trying to push the old version. Having to propose stuff here first and then put it in the article is clumsy, when it is just easier for you or another editor to see the material and then make changes or revert if you feel it is inappropriate. Lastly, a current event tags belongs on this page too. PortugalPepe (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Article protection, for the record, has to be in place as long as the dispute remains unresolved. If it resolves in three days, the protection can come off in three days, but if it takes ten weeks to resolve, then the protection has to stay in place for ten weeks. "Indefinite" does not mean "permanent" — it just means "remains in place until an administrator determines that the issue has been resolved". Michael Bryant, for just one example, had to remain editprotected for months after the bike courier incident; Adam Giambrone, on the other hand, was initially editprotected for only a week after his sex scandal, but then had to be reprotected again for longer because the editwarring started up again right away as soon as the first protection expired. No matter how long it takes to resolve, the page cannot be unprotected until a consensus is established around the dispute — certainly we would like to get it resolved as quickly as possible, but we cannot unprotect a page while the dispute is still unresolved. Bearcat (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Here is my proposed revisions below. PortugalPepe (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Sandra Bussin was unseated by newcomer Mary-Margaret McMahon in the municipal election held on October 25, 2010. McMahon defeated Bussin by over 9000 votes with a margin of 39 percentage points.^[1] Rob Ford had successfully campaigned for mayor on stopping the "gravy train", which had portrayed Bussin and several other left-leaning councillors in a negative light for their high spending which was charged to their expense accounts.^[2][3] On her loss, Bussin said "I think people recognize that I became some type of target (in 2010). I was the top person in the city, the mayor was gone [Mayor David Miller announced he would not run for re-election], and I was the speaker of council, the deputy mayor of the city and I think I just became a target and it got out of hand."^[4]

In 2007, Bussin was criticized for supporting and voting in favour of the city's decision to award a 20 year restaurant operating contract without tender to the Boardwalk Cafe. It was later revealed that the restaurant owner was a personal friend of Bussin; several members of his family and several employees of the location had donated a total of $12,250 to Bussin's 2003 and 2006 re-election campaigns, each giving the maximum $750. Bussin defended her actions by saying that the recipient was a 'good fit' for the city.^[5] In June 2010, a former employee of the restaurant operator told the Toronto Sun that he had been paid by the restaurant to "volunteer" for Bussin's campaign. This revelation led to renewed calls by City Council to reopen the contract to be put out to tender.^[6]

I, for the record, do not have any issue with adding this text to the article — my concern was around the full restoration of the original text, which added disproportionate weight to the controversies because it was itself longer than the entire rest of the article put together. This version gives it something more like the appropriate volume of weight, and I have no objection — though other commenters would still need to give some input one way or the other before we can declare this resolved. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

The text seems generally fine (subject to my one comment below), but the text is only half the issue. The sources still need work.

In a few places, sources are matched to the wrong sentence (for example - an easy one to fix - you've got the CTV article as source for the proposition that Bussin lost to McMahon by 39%/9000 votes, but those numbers are actually in the Star article you cite later).

You've still got a deadlink as a source - even if it worked, I doubt "Now Public" would be considered a reliable source.

In other places, there is some inappropriate synthesis going on - you provide a source for Ford's "gravy train" attacks, and you provide a Christie Blatchford column in which she criticized Bussin's use of office expenses for her "Bussin Blue Jays" and critiqued her mileage claim to appear on Tory's radio show, but then you combine the two for the assertion that Ford's gravy train campaign targeted, in part, Bussin's expenses. Your assertion is undoubtedly correct, but you need to provide a reliable source that actually says it (which I assume would be easy to find), instead of inappropriately synthesizing two sources. You should review to make sure you have not done the same elsewhere.

I don't see any assertion in any of your sources that Foulidis is a "personal friend" of Bussin. You have a source that says Tuggs employees donated to the Bussin campaign in 2006, but nothing about employees donating in 2003. In the Levy column it is not clear that McVeigh's "volunteer" revelation led to Nunziata's motion, or to "calls by City Council" to reopen the contract. It might have, but your source doesn't say that. The text needs to reflect what the sources actually say (see WP:BLP for further information). Be careful in summarizing the sources, so as not to attribute more to the sources than is actually there.

On that same point, be careful referring to "City Council". City Council speaks only through its votes. The reference should be to "renewed calls by some members of City Council", as your source only references 8 Councillors at that time confirming that would vote in favour of reopening.

Finally, in terms of text, Bussin's defence was more than just the "good fit" claim (which, BTW, is not properly sourced, but there is a source here). Her response at the time, which was well publicized, was that giving the contract to a small, local firm would keep out the fast food chains (there are numerous sources for this, e.g. [6], [7], etc.). Whether one agrees with her explanation or not, it was far more than just a pat "good fit". For such a major issue, there needs to be a balance of the criticism with the subject's rationale for her actions. Maybe better wording: "Bussin defended her actions by saying that the recipient was a "good fit" as it had been well received in the community, that the City should emphasize maintaining existing "good relationships" and that the untendered process would keep fast-food chains out of the area." Someone might be able to summarize that better than I did. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I, for the record, missed the fact that one of the proposed sources was NowPublic. That site is now defunct and its content is not properly verifiable — and even more importantly, it was a user-generated content site where anybody could effectively publish any "news" they wanted without editorial oversight for neutrality or importance. They had some content-sharing with the Associated Press, a more reliable source, but AP content could always be located elsewhere anyway. So NowPublic is never an appropriate source for use on Wikipedia.

Otherwise, I'll have to defer to Skeezix1000's interpretation of the proposed text's accuracy or lack thereof; while I certainly know that the Boardwalk Café controversy existed, I'm not nearly as knowledgeable about its minutiae as he obviously is. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

In that case, perhaps best to directly quote from the Toronto Star, although I find some of the language a little strong. To avoid synthesis, mention the numerous controversies that dogged her during the campaign (with the Globe and Mail as a second source), and the next sentence will mention Rob Ford's "gravy train", without a causation/combination link between the two ideas.Adeptly demonized by the “gravy train” campaign of Rob Ford. But the Tuggs deal was not Bussin’s only obstacle. She was also criticized for using public money to sue a local newsletter for libel; claiming to be an ordinary citizen while calling into Tory’s radio show to defend Miller; her role in a number of divisive neighbourhood battles and for her council-topping office expenses.[8][9]

As for the Tuggs deal on the Boardwalk Cafe, of course several sources do mention the justification of keeping fast food chains out, but the biggest criticism was how it was sole sourced (against city staff recommendations), as well as how Tuggs contributed to Bussin's campaign (neither of which had much to do with keeping out fast food chains).[10][11] PortugalPepe (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

So can we proceed with the changes to the article? PortugalPepe (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to see some space given to Bussin's defense of her actions. In recent articles she said that the issue of sole-sourcing of the Boardwalk Cafe contract was over-blown. She said, "There’s always been sole-sourcing. There always will be. You look at the Works Department, there are thousands of contracts going out that are sole-sourced." She also claims that this and other issues were latched onto by Ford as been politically expedient, as examples of his 'gravy train'. Ford went so far as to call the contract corrupt. The owner of Boardwalk Cafe unsuccessfully sued Ford for libel for his statements.[12][13] EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Just feel that this could be digressing (the Toronto Star article on Bussin running for 2014 doesn't mention it), since Ford's involvement was appropriately covered on his wikipedia page. I would exclude the Works Department as the circumstances for the way they operate don't apply here. The fast food chains is the best excuse/defense, it could have been well-received at the time (as so she claimed) and it did pass a council vote, but less so by the time the 2010 campaign rolled around. PortugalPepe (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is still not ready. Despite my earlier comments, the text still contains unsourced claims, mismatched sources and incorrectly attributes actions to City Council. You proposed some alternative text to address the WP:SYNTH issue, but it's unclear what you intend it to replace and it is verbatim cut-and-paste from the Toronto Star. I also still think Bussin's justification for the Tuggs deal is mischaracterized - she said a lot more rationale than it being a "good fit" - and I agree with EncyclopediaUpdaticus that we need more on her defense (this needs to be a balanced portrayal). --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

Might as well quote from the Star directly to avoid any WP:SYNTH concerns.

One thing for sure, though, is that the Ford libel suit is digressing too much.

At some point, however, something as high profile as the Tuggs deal for the Boardwalk cafe can't be omitted from the article, whether you think it is sufficiently balanced or not, as numerous sources highlighted the controversy over the 20 year untender lease and campaign contributions. Include the controversy in the article, tag it with NPOV if we can't agree on what constitutes an appropriate "excuse", otherwise readers will question why this was readily available in the media but not wikipedia. To be fair, not all politicians will get a balanced "defense" for certain controversies, such as Brampton mayor Susan Fennell where an audit finding showed that she broke spending rules. PortugalPepe (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Your proposal for moving forward with NPOV tags is as much a non-starter as it was when you proposed it on Sept. 16 and again on Sept. 18. We are not going to insert disputed and contentious material into an article about a living person, in the midst of an election, and then tag it. You need consensus to insert this material. This has been explained to you in detail by Bearcat. Your speculation as to what a reader might think is not relevant.

I proposed a short list of relatively simple improvements that would be necessary to get my support. You have ignored most of them. I'm not going to speak for other editors, but at this rate, with you unwilling to address the concerns that have been raised, I doubt at this stage that you will achieve consensus. We are just going around in circles. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

If you are so concerned about WP:SYNTH for the expenses, you propose a rewrite based on the Star and Globe sources.

I already explained why the proposed Ford libel suit should not go here, as it digresses too far and was already covered on his page. Regradless, it should not be a precondition in order to mention of the Tuggs deal. Even the Star doesn't bother mentioning the libel suit, they focused on how it affected Bussin in the 2010 vote.

Bussin was considered vulnerable for the first time in her political career after a number of political controversies. She took a lot of heat for her role in granting an untendered 20-year contract to Tuggs Inc., operator of the Boardwalk Pub in the eastern beaches, which also happened to be a major contributor to her previous election campaigns. The deal became a flashpoint for angry constituents, a powerful symbol for Rob Ford’s campaign against City Hall’s “gravy train” and an easy target for Bussin’s challengers. But the Tuggs deal was not Bussin’s only obstacle. She was also criticized for using public money to sue a local newsletter for libel; claiming to be an ordinary citizen while calling into Tory’s radio show to defend Miller; her role in a number of divisive neighbourhood battles and for her council-topping office expenses.[14]

She took a lot of heat for her role in granting an untendered 20-year contract to Tuggs Inc., operator of the Boardwalk Pub. And critics used her expensing of a bunny suit for an Easter Parade as a symbol for Rob Ford’s campaign against the “gravy train” at city hall.[15] PortugalPepe (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I raised a number of issues. Other than deleting a deadlink (but not replacing it with another source), WP:SYNTH is the only issue which I raised and that you have partially addressed. And even on that point, you haven't answered all my questions. I have no idea how you intend to incorporate this quote into the text and what it would replace (especially since what you provided is not a quote per se, but a mash up of excerpts from two different articles). And the other issues I raised also remain unanswered. The sources still do not appear to have been straightened out.

I didn't mention the libel suit at all. Unclear why you are so focused on arguing about it, since it doesn't sound like UE was all that focused on it either. If you don't think it should be included, then by all means propose a rewrite that addresses the concerns about balance which doesn't reference the libel suit. I already suggested text. There is no more I can do to help you on that issue.

You seem to be making this way more difficult than necessary. My advice would be that you provide a new rewrite below, which addresses all of the issues and questions set out above, rather than continuing to argue about one issue (which might not even be a big deal) and harking back to your thoughts on NPOV tags. Otherwise, you will start losing people's attention, and then you'll find yourself stuck with no consensus. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

An update on this article discussion. PortugalPepe (talk) was blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of GoldDragon (talk), a notorious POV editor. He brought up valid points about this discussion point though and I will eventually return to it with a more balanced edit. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 01:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)Reply