Talk:Joe Volpe/Archive

This is an archive of past discussions about Joe Volpe. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

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)

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)

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

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

• 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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

Only Joe Volpe's page on Wikipedia would provoke this level of debate....this is a true testament to his character!

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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

I disagree with the following aspects of GoldDragon's preferred version:

(i) Sgro announced her resignation from cabinet on 14 January, after allegations that she had offered to intervene in the immigration hearing of Harjit Singh in exchange for pizza (Singh later retracted the allegations).

Reasons: The specifics relating to Sgro's departure are not relevant to an article on Volpe, and the information is presented in such a way as to make Sgro look ridiculous.

(ii) He went further, claiming "Notwithstanding that they don't have their cowl and their cape, the Klan looks like they're still very much alive". Volpe's comments were widely criticized as over the top and he subsequently apologized.

Granting that GoldDragon's preferred wording for this section has improved in the last 24 hours, it still isn't good enough. Reason: "He went further" and "were widely criticized as over the top" are obviously leading, and are inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. (Also, I'm not certain that Volpe ever actually apologized.)

(iii) The presence of "Same-sex marriage", "Expenses" and "Donations" sub-headings.

Reason: These are completely unnecessary, and seem to have been added to draw attention to the controversies in question.

(iv) Several of these expense claims involved multiple dinners with the minister on the same day, such as a March 21 dinner for $80.14 followed by a dinner at Allegro, a high-end Ottawa restaurant, for $507.39. Critics also highlighted several expensive pizza lunches and long limo rides. Volpe's meal expenses were more than three times higher than his predecessor as Immigration Minister, Judy Sgro, during the same period a year earlier.

Reason: These details may have been appropriate for Question Period a year ago, but they aren't suitable for an encyclopedia entry. This pizza nonsense doesn't belong here, and neither does tabloid language like "long limo rides". The comparison with Sgro isn't especially relevant. My version provides the facts of the situation (including Volpe's explanation for the "multiple dinners"), without the tabloid-headline bits.

(v) Subsequently, a website called "Youth for Volpe" was created to parody these events. The author(s) of this parody site are unknown. The Volpe campaign generated controversy and allegations of censorship by attempting to have this site removed, with Brenden Johnstone from the Volpe campaign quoted in the Globe and Mail as stating "my Office has had the website suspended through CIRA [Canadian Internet Registration Authority] and CDNS [Canadian Domain Name Services] and it will be down as soon as 6 p.m. I think the issue with the website has been dealt with...."

Reasons: This is (i) not particularly important, (ii) tabloidish, and (iii) perhaps factually inaccurate ("allegations of censorship by attempting to have this site removed" is not the same as "allegedly tried to have this site removed"). We have another source indicating that the site was closed when it was found to be improperly registered: why, therefore, should we credit Brendan Johnstone's possible bravado?

(vi) While Michael Geist and the CIRA initially denied this^[1], the registrant quoted an e-mail allegedly from the website's domain name registrar (Canadian Domain Name Services) saying that their site was pulled because of complaints about its content. It later came to light that CADNS.ca had foolishly quoted the libel chill section of the registrant agreement when clarification for suspension was requested by the registrant. This and a falsehood made by Volpe's staffer had led to suspicions that he was pressuring CADNS.ca, which is presently awaiting retractions from the Globe and Mail and Volpe's campaign.

Reasons: "allegedly from the website' domain name"? "had foolishly quoted the libel chill section"? "This and a falsehood made by Volpe's staffer"? "which is presently awaiting retractions from the Globe and Mail and Volpe's campaign"? Come on, this paragraph is complete garbage and innuendo.

(vii) After his abrupt departure from the campaign, Karygiannis called the police to prevent a Volpe official from seizing computers at the Scarborough, Ont., headquarters that contained the names of nearly 36,000 new party members he had helped recruit.

Reason: This isn't quite right: the names were also available elsewhere in the Volpe camp. It might be possible to reference the police call, but we should do it more carefully. CJCurrie 03:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that my last two edits were made with reference to recent events in the Volpe campaign, and were not related to the content dispute. CJCurrie 05:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

(i) Sgro announced her resignation from cabinet on 14 January, after allegations that she had offered to intervene in the immigration hearing of Harjit Singh in exchange for pizza (Singh later retracted the allegations).

That is what happened. At the same time, Singh did not retract the allegations until after she resigned.

(ii) He went further, claiming "Notwithstanding that they don't have their cowl and their cape, the Klan looks like they're still very much alive". Volpe's comments were widely criticized as over the top and he subsequently apologized.

"He went further" was what the CTV article said just before his KKK comparison. Also, the Western Standard had a different purpose in mind (sponsorship scandal), though Volpe chose to intepret it as a racial slur. Your present wording is misleading.

(iii) The presence of "Same-sex marriage", "Expenses" and "Donations" sub-headings.

I have a different reason to include these headings, mainly for organizational purposes. That is why they are included along with "supporters" and "campaign platform". In fact, they are less inflamatory than the headings used in the early version of this article, but assume good faith that the other editors did so for the sake of order.

(iv) Several of these expense claims involved multiple dinners with the minister on the same day, such as a March 21 dinner for $80.14 followed by a dinner at Allegro, a high-end Ottawa restaurant, for $507.39. Critics also highlighted several expensive pizza lunches and long limo rides. Volpe's meal expenses were more than three times higher than his predecessor as Immigration Minister, Judy Sgro, during the same period a year earlier.

A comparison to Sgro's past expenses is a better assertion than the word "excessive" since the latter has no basis of comparison.

(v) Subsequently, a website called "Youth for Volpe" was created to parody these events. The author(s) of this parody site are unknown. The Volpe campaign generated controversy and allegations of censorship by attempting to have this site removed, with Brenden Johnstone from the Volpe campaign quoted in the Globe and Mail as stating "my Office has had the website suspended through CIRA [Canadian Internet Registration Authority] and CDNS [Canadian Domain Name Services] and it will be down as soon as 6 p.m. I think the issue with the website has been dealt with...."

Again, I won't debate whether its "important" or not, if so, every large article wouldn't be safe from flesh-picking. There were allegations of censorship, even though they were later disproven. And even if the allegations are not correct, it does better to explain it rather than a blanket cover up.

(vi) While Michael Geist and the CIRA initially denied this^[2], the registrant quoted an e-mail allegedly from the website's domain name registrar (Canadian Domain Name Services) saying that their site was pulled because of complaints about its content. It later came to light that CADNS.ca had foolishly quoted the libel chill section of the registrant agreement when clarification for suspension was requested by the registrant. This and a falsehood made by Volpe's staffer had led to suspicions that he was pressuring CADNS.ca, which is presently awaiting retractions from the Globe and Mail and Volpe's campaign.

I'm working on fixing the last part. Doesn't it feel good for Volpe supporters that this came to light?

(vii) After his abrupt departure from the campaign, Karygiannis called the police to prevent a Volpe official from seizing computers at the Scarborough, Ont., headquarters that contained the names of nearly 36,000 new party members he had helped recruit.

Well, no police report was filed. That is all I have to say about that.

GoldDragon 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Responses from CJCurrie:

(i) I'm not disputing that Singh's allegations were the immediate cause of her resignation, but (i) the previous accusations were a contributory factor too, (ii) we don't need to provide the full details of Sgro's resignation on a Volpe bio, and (iii) Sgro still comes off as rather ridiculous in the current version. Actually, the revised version isn't so bad -- I'm withdrawing my objection to this point.

(ii) Lines like "he went further" are good enough for journalism (sometimes), but not for encyclopedia articles. Perhaps the "racial slur" context can be adjusted.

(iii) The SSM section isn't large enough to warrant a separate sub-header, and *all* of the headers have the effect of drawing unwarranted attention to these material therein. I still don't believe we need these.

(iv) Would you accept this as a compromise: include the Sgro comparison, but leave out the pizza/limo stuff?

(v) The "Youth For Volpe" site may be worth mentioning, but the "accusations of censorship" was just a momentarily journalistic blip that has no business being here.

(vi) Sorry, but I can't agree -- and this is still my main problem with your version. A sentence based around "evidence" as patchy as this has no business being included.

(vii) I'm not particularly bothered by this point; I just don't think the context is quite right. CJCurrie 02:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to create a compromise version. CJCurrie 03:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond tomorrow. GoldDragon 22:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the expense details have been removed, while the Youth for Volpe has been cleared up. (It turns out that Stephen Taylor did track the controversy throughout and got to the end of it.) The headings I support because its pretty odd to jump from one month to another. If you keep his ministry sections they way they are now, they flow decently. That is why the controversies have been put in their own sections. GoldDragon 23:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you mean by "odd to jump from one month to another". The "Controversies" section deals with Volpe's entire tenure as a cabinet minister, and having separate sections for each controversy seems to draw disproportionate attention to them. The Youth for Volpe section is improved, but I'm not certain a campaign worker's bravado is significant enough to be mentioned at all. (There were also some non-controversial changes that were removed in your last edit, presumably unintentionally.) CJCurrie 02:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm made a few adjustments, though. CJCurrie 02:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sgro, I'll leave to you. I also don't mind your added justification towards Volpe's expenses, however I find fault with you removing information at the same time. In particular, I defend the inclusion of multiple headings, since it makes it far easier to within each section. Without headings, one is reduced to a single paragraph per topic. Another major sticking point is still your manner of presentation regarding the Western Standard ad, since it is more inflammatory than it need to be and doesn't present the magazine's point of view. GoldDragon 03:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Responses:

(i) Without headings, one is reduced to a single paragraph per topic. Can you explain what you mean by this?

Well, without a heading, once is forced to compress material and leave out crucial information. At the same time, multiple paragraphs are easier to read. Could you imagine

(ii) Your edit removes non-controversial changes to the header and the Port Authority sections. I assume that you're using one of your old edits as the source for your current version; please be aware that this removes more recent changes.

(iii) I maintain that adding sub-headings in the "Controversies" section are unnecessary, and have the effect of disproportionately highlighting such matters. The single-paragraph section on same-sex marriage, in particular, does not deserve its own category.

(iv) Leaving aside everything else, the phrase "expensive pizza lunches and limo rides" is not encyclopedic.

(v) Only one of the two paragraphs in the "Campaign platform" section is actually about Volpe's campaign platform. One its own, the other paragraph not enough to justify a separate section.

(vi) My objection to the Karygiannis/police situation is not particularly strong, but (i) I think it would be more suited to JK's bio page, being only peripherally related to Volpe's life, (ii) it makes sense to present his resignation in the current chronological position.

(vii) I've already made my point vis-a-vis Youth For Volpe. CJCurrie 03:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Youth has been cleared up so there is no need for it to "dissapear". The headings are necessary because otherwise the controversies are not necesarily in order. Bill Graham and Steve McKinnon did' defend the donations and Pat Martin did file a complaint. And you still keep sidestepping the Western Standard. GoldDragon 17:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The headers apply to the entirety of the article, including his backbench career. I'm not using them to single out controversies. The same-sex has nothing to do with his ministry, so where else would I put it but its own header. The rest of it is your wording and I otherwise don't have any arguement with it. I've already rewrote Youth for Volpe, particularly so its resolved. GoldDragon 21:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've already responded to GoldDragon's objections, and would welcome the input of other contributors. CJCurrie 04:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've discovered that Volpe campaigned for the North York Board of Education in 1974, a fact that I was unaware of prior to yesterday evening.

I plan to add this information to the Volpe page presently. I do not plan to adjust any parts of the article relating to the current controversy, nor present new information in a controversial manner. I trust that this will not meet with the disapproval of any contributor to this page. CJCurrie 21:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

As before: I've updated the page vis-a-vis Volpe's plans for the softwood lumber vote. No changes were made to the contested parts of the page. If anyone has a problem with me making these adjustments, let me know. CJCurrie 21:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made some further adjustments to this page (taking your concerns into account) in the interests of finally ending our controversy. Your point concerning Graham and MacKinnon is relevant to the discussion, and has been integrated into the current text [technically, though, Graham and MacKinnon didn't defend the actual donations -- they just upheld their legality].

As far as I can tell, the only *real* point of contention between us now is the "Youth for Volpe" paragraph. I will reiterate that I do not consider the matter to be of encyclopedic importance, and further note that two other editors (AnnieHall and PetePeters) have indicated they agree with me. Please do not restore the paragraph again, unless you can build consensus for such a change on the talk page. CJCurrie 16:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

GoldDragon: there was never any consensus as to the "Youth For Volpe" paragraph. Chris Thompson and Blackeagle added it in mid-summer, and the only reason I didn't delete it at the time is because I didn't investigate the story until later. I haven't seen anyone apart from you speak in favour of its return. I will repeat, please do not restore the paragraph again unless you can build support for such a change here, on the talk page. These endless revert wars are getting us nowhere. CJCurrie 00:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I will reiterate my previous comments. CJCurrie 04:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)