Jump to content

Talk:David Miller (Canadian politician)

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

Waste of Bandwidth

[edit]

My God, this article is about twice as long as the Wikipedia biography of Steve Jobs, and around the same length as the article for Winston bloody Churchill. Did the City of Toronto pay for this, or is it simply a labour of love on the part of someone with Asperger's Syndrome, a strange obsession with political mediocrities and a lot of time on his or her hands? If the latter, can I suggest that you move on to beefing up the profile of another equally prominent Canadian, such as Casey LeBlanc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.181.7.213 (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be shortened, and de-fluffed. it fails to mention any of the contentious issues or criticisms of Miller. This obviously was crafted with heavy bias. Perhaps Miller wrote it himself?

Agreed This article definitely needs to be shortened. --Drewwerd12 (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Garbage policy

[edit]

The section on Environmental policy is dominated by the discussion on garbage. I would like to suggest that the text regarding garbage be placed in its own section. The remaining section could be expanded to include Miller's support for other environmental initiatives such as the 20 minute makeover, Trees Across Toronto, Roundtable for a Beautiful City, Wet Weather Flow improvements to name a few. Any comments? Atrian 01:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I might it might be better to have garbage disposal as a sub-section of the environmental policy section. (I'm currently expanding the page with reference to Miller's newspaper references, btw, and I'd have no problem if someone wants to supplement this with city press releases.) CJCurrie 01:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useless

[edit]

Why isn't there a heading on the article that he was the most useless mayor Toronto has ever had?

Toronto has become dirtier, scummier and bummier since he has taken power.

Maybe his legacy of empowering homelessness and the drifting tumbleweeds of trash swirling around Queen Street should be referenced?

Because that would be POV ("drifting tumbleweeds of trash swirling around Queen Street", my ass), and for what it's worth, while I know very few people would assert that Miller's been the most effective mayor in recent memory, I really doubt that very many people would state that he's been a worse mayor than Mel Lastman was, either. Bearcat 17:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not so sure about that. Lastman would get 80% plus apporval ratings and Miller has a hard time getting past 55%. Plus, Lastman did not make the city finances out of control like Miller has, and you can't deny that. SFrank85 20:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People whining about Miller as the worst mayor should read more history. Leslie Howard Saunders in the 1950s was a worse case scenario as you can imagine. Bigoted and racist were kind terms to apply to him. Miller by contrast is a saint. Atrian 21:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did not state he was the worst mayor, I just was saying that between the two, he is worse than Lastman. SFrank85 00:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All one needs to do is to look at the amount of aggressive panhandlers, return of squeegee kids and the amount of trash in the streets to see how effective Miller has been compared to Lastman. Mel may have been a tool, but I wasn't embarassed to bring people into the downtown core during his tenure. Get rid of Miller, he's too hung up trying to shut down the island airport to pay attention to the city's real problems. Barbara Hall was even better than Miller.
Reverted - Once again CJCurrie is trying to erase all negative comments about Miller by editing the TALK PAGE. Editing the article is one thing, but now you wish to erase one's OPINIONS? You are a disgrace to everything that Wikipedia stands for, sir.
I hafta agree with Mr. Anonymous there...CJCurrie, I can see that you have put a lot of work into Wikipedia and it's commendable, but I do think you have gravely crossed a line by censoring this article's Talk Page. Wikipedia is about presenting facts... true enough -- I defend your edits on the main page. Keeping an open-source resource such as this true and proper is indeed a challenge!! Your actions on the talk pg, however, are wrong. You obviously are a fan of Mr. Miller - that is fine, but your editorial duties don't extend to removing negative opinions and comments on this page. I think you should sit back and consider your actions. While Mr. Anon's got a flair for the dramatic and obviously got a chip on his shoulder, you don't have the right to obliterate all trace of his comments. It reeks of censorship and bias. The talk pages are just that, discussion related to the article. Please think before you act in the future, sir..... Wikipedia is in our hands! --Heterodyne 18:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't censor the page. Users are not supposed to use these pages for partisan comments -- the anon's posts were made in violation of Wikipedia regulations, and I removed them in accordance with Wikipedia policy. CJCurrie 23:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your past actions on this page don't jive with what you are saying, CJCurrie. --206.223.177.111 12:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find that this article (David Miller's Wikipedia entry) seems to be very self-serving, considering the fact that Miller is running for Mayor this November 13th election. Jesus Christ, Albert Einstein, George Washington and Pierre Trudeau, all of whom I think most would agree had a greater impact on our lives, have smaller listings in the Wikipedia. Maybe we should not allow those running for public office to use this site for their own political gain. If allowed, guess I could put my own vanity page on as well, under the rules followed for Mayor Miller...User:lanceoak

  • This isn't necessarily as it should be, but you'll generally find that on Wikipedia, current figures and topics tend to attract far more detail and effort than historical ones, partly because less work is required to research them. For a historical figure, you may have to go to the library and sign out biographies and history books; for a current one, much of the time you need only monitor the Toronto Star webpage. Wikipedia does not have any rules about the appropriate length of an article, however — "this topic is less important than this other one that has a shorter article" is a reason to put some work into expanding the other articles, not a reason to remove the work people have already put in here. Bearcat 20:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is first-rate work

[edit]

This is an amazingly comprehensive article, better than many Wikipedia articles on premiers, prime ministers, and even presidents. Kudos all around to those who have worked on this page. Tyronen 18:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. But my question is why? Why does a civic mayor merit an article of such length? Scientz 14:11, 18 November 2006 (EDT)
Any topic on Wikipedia is permitted whatever length of article it takes to cover the topic properly. There are no length limitations on Wikipedia. If you think other more important topics are shrifted by being shorter than this, then feel free to expand those other articles. Bearcat 20:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This article is longer than articles for presidents and prime ministers. David Miller is a tool - who cares about him? Did he write most of this himself?--140.247.125.108 20:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind a piece on Miller as a mayor of Toronto but I found this piece somewhat self-serving before an election. My question is, who did this piece and were they paid somehow by Miller to produce this somewhat long vanity page for the purposes of increasing his exposure for an election? Yes, I could increase information on those other pages I listed but I think they inform one of the person's importance within an easily read piece. Miller, I get bored reading about how great he is. I'm not running for mayor, nor supporting someone but, if we can all put vanity pieces like this in, I guess I should get writing and develop my own.

This is a fluff piece and hardly accurate. Where is the discussion and controversy surrounding the G20 illegal arrests, and Miller's subsequent support of the rights violations by police? Hmmm... interesting!

Miller's blog

[edit]

I trust this is real, and not an elaborate hoax. CJCurrie 23:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too long?

[edit]

It probably won't come as a surprise that I disagree with this notice. CJCurrie 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article has become way too long. Some categories need to be combined, and other things just have become irrelevant as of late. SFrank85 05:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the article is too long in principle, but I'm open to suggestions for improvement. CJCurrie 06:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article is approximately 120 kilobytes large. I suggest that the article should be split with Miller's role as city councillor on one article and his role as mayor in another article, while the main article contains his non-political biography and a summary of his political biography. Johnny Au (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had created a new sub-article called David Miller's role as mayor to alleviate the length issue. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 14:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that you took this step with good intentions, but I don't think it's the right solution. I still believe the best solution is to carefully edit the text where and as required -- not to take out huge chunks from the text. CJCurrie (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I love how this article is much longer than the one for George Bush. Certainly there's more to say about the US President than the Mayor of Toronto, especially since Bush has effed over the entire world, while Miller may have screwed just Spadina Street.
Nowhere in Wikipedia policy is there any clause indicating that the length of any article is to be compared to George W. Bush's article as a metric for determining a recommended length. Each article stands on its own, and can be as long or as short as interested editors want it to be. And seriously, David Miller is screwing Toronto worse than Mel Lastman ever did? News to me. Bearcat (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. I'll move to David Miller (mayor of Toronto) since that's where it originated and that requires +sysop. If anyone wants to continue discussion for a move to David Miller (mayor), that move isn't blocked so feel free. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

David Miller → NewName — Move somewhere else. Undo a bad move by User:Rosameliamartinez. This should not be the primary disambiguation. If there were only two of them, maybe he would deserve primary head-to-head against any of the others, but he does not deserve the primary spot versus at least 13 other David Millers with Wikipedia articles, plus others mentioned which do not yet have articles. Any of the former names of this article which are now redirects would be better: David Miller (mayor of Toronto) or David Miller (Canadian politician) [was badly capitalized with lc "c" before] or David R. Miller. Also, many of the current links to the David Miller article should be linked either to someone else or the disambiguation page. Gene Nygaard 17:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

[edit]
  1. Support Mea Culpa...lol...I moved this page as a newbie ages ago, it was a clumsy mistake. I fully support the disambiguation page to become the primary page for this article as none of the David Millers are obviously more remarkable than the others, least of all the mayor of Toronto, who isn't known outside of Canada (as opposed to for example David Miller (singer) who is a multi-platinum selling artist of worldwide acclaim). David Miller, the politician should become David Miller (mayor of Toronto) or David Miller (Canadian politician).Rosa 20:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as nominator and suggest move to David Miller (mayor of Toronto) so we have something to fall back to unless somebody has a better idea. It might not have been my choice if it hadn't been used before so the redirect already exists, but I think it is as good as any of them. Gene Nygaard 03:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. There are no other mayors listed on the dab page. Seems like David Miller (mayor) then is the most appropriate choice, as it distinguishes him effectively from all the other David Millers. --Serge 21:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the move

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]
Add any additional comments:

Having "David Miller" as the disambiguation page will make it easier to maintain misdirected links. As it is now, the Canadian mayor's article has a large number of links which do belong to it, but also a significant number of links which do not belong there, and it is very tedious and time-consuming to find them. OTOH, it is easy to find inappropriate links to a disambiguation page. Gene Nygaard 17:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Toronto Life

[edit]

I don't think tacking on "left-leaning" to Toronto Life or "right-leaning" to National Post is appropriate or necessary. As a subscriber to TL, I don't find particularly leftish, but more importantly, it is not appropriate to jaundice the reader's perspective on a source unless it is totally wacko, like the Communist Party organ (in which case, it would be enough to describe it as such, rather than "the crazy extreme leftist People's Daily). Ground Zero | t 00:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto Star may also not come across as particularly leftish if you compare it to the People's Daily. CJCurrie has described it as left-leaning in his original wording and I support that. And this is of particular importance in an endorsement, such as in Mike_Del_Grande#As_a_City_Councillor, unless the endorser is a generally-accepted centrist source. If Miller got both the endorsement both the Star and Sun, then maybe the tacking on wouldn't matter as much. GoldDragon 01:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoldDragon writes: CJCurrie has described it as left-leaning in his original wording and I support that. Wrong again. CJCurrie 06:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to disagree that TL is left-leaning. This is POV, unless you can provide a definitive source. Ground Zero | t 12:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For CJCurrie, thanks for pointing out that SFrank85 also considers TL left-leaning. And CJCurrie did not challenge that until recently. Would we be in a deadlock situation? GoldDragon 14:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So congratulations, you and SFrank are of the opinion that TL is left-leaning. Can you explain why your opinion about TL is a necessary qualifier here? And can you explain why it is appropriate to set aside Wikipedia policies on neutrality here? There is no deadlock if you can provide a definitive source on this. Otherwise, your opinion doesn't belong, even if another editor shares that opinion. Ground Zero | t 14:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have the opinion that TL is not left-leaning, and if CJCurrie shares that view, of course we have a deadlock. Second, how does it violate neutrality, as everyone always mentions the left-leaning NOW or right-leaning National Post?

Would Miller get such a high rating from other publications that are more centrist or right-leaning? And just mentioning the TL rating Miller would mislead the reader into believing that it is representative of the spectrum's view of him, unless we could also find other ratings from other publications. GoldDragon 22:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked, here's a Toronto Star clip from 28 October 2000:

Yes, the teacher hands out "A" grades as if they were solid gold. They are. So are the four - Olivia Chow, Jack Layton, Case Ootes and David Miller - who earned top marks.

The original source document is an overview of the amalgamated council after its first term. The author, if you can believe this, was Royson James. CJCurrie 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, so we will say that Royson James gave a grade... GoldDragon 16:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Well, if you have the opinion that TL is not left-leaning, and if CJCurrie shares that view, of course we have a deadlock." Right. So it would be POV to write "The non-left-leaning Toronto Life" or the "right-leaning Toronto Life", or "the middle-of-the-road Toronto Life", or the "left-leaning Toronto Life". So the only NPOV thing to do is to call it just "Toronto Life". Unless, of course, you can provide a source that identifies TL as "left-leaning (third request), and I think the only source that would be credible here would be a statement by the magazine or its editor-in-chief self-identifying the magazine as left-leaning. Since you have not prvided one yet, I'll add a "fact" tag to the statement. Ground Zero | t 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lastman paragraph

[edit]

Gold Dragon's preferred version:

Mayor Mel Lastman and Miller were generally said to have an adversarial relationship. This was exemplified during a May 2002 debate when Lastman yelled at Miller, "You will never be mayor of this city because you say stupid and dumb things!" Miller afterwards remarked that the exchange was what encouraged him to run for mayor. Despite being council opponents, Lastman attended the funeral for Miller's mother and lent his shoulder for Miller to cry upon. refJohn Barber, "Mel's funny, but Miller has last laugh", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; James Rusk, "Lastman loses council battle", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; Bruce DeMara, "Lastman attack falls flat", Toronto Star, 23 May 2002, B03; Linda Diebel, "Miller: A candidate 'clear on who he is'", 11 October 2003, A01./ref

CJCurrie's preferred version:

In May 2002, Mayor Lastman criticized Miller for using the word "corruption" during a debate about the city's appointments process. Deputy Mayor Case Ootes censured Miller for his choice of words, but the council voted 27-16 to overturn this decision. At one stage in the debate, Lastman yelled at Miller, "You will never be mayor of this city because you say stupid and dumb things!" Lastman's comment was widely ridiculed, particularly in light of his own penchant for embarrassing comments. Several political observers believe that the exchange increased Miller's profile in the buildup to the 2003 campaign.refJohn Barber, "Mel's funny, but Miller has last laugh", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; James Rusk, "Lastman loses council battle", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; Bruce DeMara, "Lastman attack falls flat", Toronto Star, 23 May 2002, B03; Linda Diebel, "Miller: A candidate 'clear on who he is'", 11 October 2003, A01./ref

I think that we should look at how much detail is appropriate here. I think that GD's version provides an overview of the relationship between the two, while CJC's version gets mired in detail that, while interesting at the time, doesn't shed much light on the relationship, and covers a relatively minor episode (the use of "corruption"). I'd opt for GD's version. Ground Zero | t 12:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that the debate over the word "corruption" was a minor episode, and will not object to its removal. (There are a number of other minor episodes that should be cut from this page as well; I'll have to do a comprehensive update shortly.)

As against which, I still find GoldDragon's reference to the funeral of Miller's mother to be somewhat problematic in this context. It's hardly unusual for political opponents to be civil, even accommodating to one another during memorial ceremonies: one thinks of the recent cross-party demonstrations of grief over the death of Dominic Agostino in 2004, or for Shaughnessy Cohen a few years earlier. While I don't doubt that Lastman's gesture toward Miller was heartfelt and sincere, I'm not certain it sheds any light on their interpersonal relationship, and it seems a bit too close to "junk news" for comfort.

A couple of other minor gripes: (i) Miller's plans to run for mayor were already well known before Lastman's outburst, (ii) Lastman's remark was widely ridiculed at the time, for the obvious reasons.

Could I suggest this revised version:

Mayor Mel Lastman and Miller generally had an adversarial relationship on council. This was exemplified during a May 2002 debate when Lastman yelled at Miller, "You will never be mayor of this city because you say stupid and dumb things!" Lastman's remark was widely ridiculed in light of his own history of gaffes, and many believe the exchange increased Miller's profile in the buildup to the 2003 campaign. refJohn Barber, "Mel's funny, but Miller has last laugh", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; James Rusk, "Lastman loses council battle", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; Bruce DeMara, "Lastman attack falls flat", Toronto Star, 23 May 2002, B03; Linda Diebel, "Miller: A candidate 'clear on who he is'", 11 October 2003, A01./ref

CJCurrie 23:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, Lastman's outburst was ridiculed, but there is no need to rub it in as it speaks for itself. That is why I feel that this is excessive and not adding any useful information: Lastman's remark was widely ridiculed in light of his own history of gaffes. Second, Miller's support was in single digits and far below Hall and Nunziata in early 2003, so its not certain if it really raised his profile. GoldDragon 00:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree on the first count: I don't believe it's "excessive" to clarify that Lastman has a history of making gaffes (which is hardly a disputable point). You may have a point on the second concern, though -- I'll suggest another adjustment presently. CJCurrie 01:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you also say that it is not "excessive" to say that Howard Moscoe had a history of making gaffes? Also, given Lastman's history of controversial statements, this would not come as a surprise. Thus there is no need to clarify this. GoldDragon 16:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bombardier v. Siemens

[edit]

If Siemens' contention that it could have provided the cars for $100m less is here, then Bombardier's challenge to that claim should be here as well. From what I understand, there wasn't much substance to Siemens' claim. Ground Zero | t 12:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this was a topic of dispute in Howard Moscoe and Rick Ducharme. If we included the Bombardier challenge, we could also include Bombardier's lobbying efforts with Adam Giambrone, Moscoe and Miller's links to Bombardier's union, etc... In general, I feel that it is not NPOV to only dispute Siemen's claim. GoldDragon 14:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... no. Siemens made a claim. Bombardier disputed it. That presents both sides of the story. Saying only that Siemens made a claim presents one side of the story. The Bombardier lobbying is a separate issue. Ground Zero | t 14:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current dispute

[edit]

Could I please request that someone comment on these matters? CJCurrie 04:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as long as I have everyone's attention, could I once again request that the following paragraph be added to the article, concerning Miller's relationship with Lastman?

"Mayor Mel Lastman and Miller generally had an adversarial relationship on council. During a May 2002 debate, Lastman yelled at Miller, "You will never be mayor of this city because you say stupid and dumb things!" Lastman's remark was widely ridiculed in light of his own history of gaffes, and many believe the exchange increased Miller's profile in the buildup to the 2003 campaign. refJohn Barber, "Mel's funny, but Miller has last laugh", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; James Rusk, "Lastman loses council battle", Globe and Mail, 23 May 2002, A19; Bruce DeMara, "Lastman attack falls flat", Toronto Star, 23 May 2002, B03; Linda Diebel, "Miller: A candidate 'clear on who he is'", 11 October 2003, A01./ref

CJCurrie 04:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old dispute that GroundZero settled, ruling against CJCurrie. I also would ask, is it okay to describe Howard Moscoe in similar terms to how CJCurrie is trying to describe Lastman? I expect a no and so I don't understand why CJCurrie would insist on treating them differently, unless he is POV pushing. GoldDragon 16:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond shortly. CJCurrie 21:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GoldDragon's latest edit

[edit]

It might be worth noting that the Sun's editor didn't apologize for "Miller as Hitler" cartoon. CJCurrie 21:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone at the Sun did apologize to Miller.[1] GoldDragon 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA?

[edit]

I see that there are intentions of trying to make this article a future FA. Although Did anyone considered nominating this article for at least GA-class? There are probably a few one sentence paragraphs that can be moved into another and maybe some wikifying in some spots and may be a bit too long but otherwise looks neutral, well written and it's not the reliable sources that are missing. Any thoughts about upgrading the class of this article?JForget 18:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also it seems to be often occasionally updated (i.e : The recent massive budget shortfall possible for this year), so it looks pretty up to date.--JForget 18:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude columnists as reliable sources from this article

[edit]

I find that columnists such as John Barber of the Globe and Mail and Royson James of the Toronto Star have certain opinions that bias their columns to suit a particular point of view. Using them as sources for articles tends to skew the article towards their own personal viewpoint. This makes them unreliable as sources for articles on people such as David Miller who easily polarize opinions. I suggest they be excluded as appropriate sources. Comments? Atrian (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The Royson James about casting a protest vote stands out in particular, so that and another lead-up paragraph were removed.

However, regarding this section: Miller later described Harper's 2007 budget as a "step backwards", criticizing its lack of revenues for long-term transit funding and permanent infrastructure.[203] Globe and Mail columnist John Barber, however, has noted that this was not echoed by other city mayors and described the One Cent Campaign as "wishful thinking". A second opposing POV is needed because the first assertion says that Miller is right and Harper is wrong. GoldDragon (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions for a shorter article

[edit]

The recent attempt to shorten this article proved to be a failure as some people couldn't agree on what form the daughter article should take. Even the title, David Miller's role as mayor prompted a dispute over neutrality. My suggestion would be that one or more articles could be created based on the evolution of Toronto's post amalgamation government and structure. This content could include much of what makes up the discussion on policy issues that are included in the Miller article but could be expanded to include what happened during the Lastman days as well. While these issues are heavily influenced by Miller, I don't think they are specifically related to him, ie. they go well beyond what is traditionally included in biographical articles. Is this material better suited to a discussion on Miller as mayor or on Toronto as a city? EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to come up with a more neutral name for the daughter article than "David Miller's role as mayor" at the time. Since he is no longer mayor, how about trimming up the main article and the details can be found in the new daughter article "Mayoralty of David Miller" or something similar. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 22:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Miller was so insignificant to Toronto that there shouldn't be a daughter article and this article should be cut way down. This article looks about 6 times as long as Mel Lastman (which is preposterous) and 3 times as long as Rob Ford (even more preposterous). Whomever is controlling/promoting this page appears to have an pro-Miller objective and agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickGSB (talk • contribs) 21:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Just checked. This article is longer than the article for Jesus. I think that says it all Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickGSB (talk • contribs) 21:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Toronto Explosions Aftermath

[edit]

Who keeps deleting the material about the 2008 Toronot explosions and how Mayor Miller was absent in the aftermath of the explosions??? Just because it looks bad on Mayor Miller, it CANNOT be erased! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.221.33 (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It looks bad on Wikipedia to have unsourced POV diatribes about a single incident on what purports to be a biography. If you can find reliable sources to say that rather than your own original research, then we could discuss whether it belongs in this bio or an article about the explosion but, as it stands, it belongs only in your personal blog. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a forum for your personal opinions. Neutral, verifiable media coverage in reliable sources of Miller being publicly criticized for his absence may be valid content if it's properly worded. But what you're adding is an unsourced personal diatribe. Bearcat (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article.

[edit]

It's rare to find any article on Wikipedia that gives information without a positive or negative spin, but this is one. No editorializing, just the facts. Well done.

Wannabe rockstar (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To say that this article is unbiased is to say that the universe is full of marshmallows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatrickGSB (talk • contribs) 21:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The gun violence?

[edit]

Is it necessary to note that David Miller is responding to the recent handgun violence in Toronto.Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk.universe 00:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

triple citizenship

[edit]

Well, Wikipedia has some strange nationality procedure...so going by it, shouldn't he be considered to be a Canadian-British-American lawyer? Wikipedia should really work on the issues of nationalities and ethnicities. Norum 05:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on David Miller (Canadian politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on David Miller (Canadian politician). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Miller_(Canadian_politician)&oldid=1203822603"