Talk:David Cicilline

ethnicity

I removed these categories until they can be sourced. Thanks --Tom 13:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have restored the category. He is of part Jewish descent, practices the religion and many of his patronage appointments (including his $250,000 + scandal emroiled police chief Dean Esserman) are Jews. Here are 2 sources: [[1]], [[2]],[[3]].John celona (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It's sourced and we do seem to keep lists of Jews on Wikipedia, so I'm not redeleting it. But I question why we keep such lists. And I question the good faith of Jew-spotters whose own edit history includes Holocaust denial, which, under WP policy is, per se, incivil. David in DC (talk) 06:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User threeafterthree removed this article from the category Jewish (where it had been previously been put by another user-not me). I found 3 sources and restored it. My mother is a Parisian Jew who survived World war II. Please stop accusing me of anti-semetism, threats, holocaust denial and other fabricated allegations as you are doing here and every other page you can. John celona (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"The final solution is a hoax" is credited to you, or your own talk page. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_celona#Your_edit_on_Holocaust This is fabricated Holocaust denial?David in DC (talk) 02:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed this many times both to your slanders and Jkp212's slanders. You are well aware of this. My mother is a Jew. PLEASE stop harrasing and stalking me everwhere on Wikipedia. John celona (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Firefighters dispute

I've tried to copy edit this section in a content-neutral way, but to shorten it, and in that way diminish the WP:WEIGHT problems that increase with every POV edit by partisans of the firefighter's local. I have no dog in this fight, but I fear the page is slowly turning into a firefighter's union screed against the subject, instead of a neutral encyclopedia article. What do others think? David in DC (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely, David. I appreciate that the editor has the forthrightness to chose name like "Provpublicsafety" and I've tried balance the page out without triggering some kind of backlash or claims that WP is a Cicilline Haven, but a bias is creeping in. I'm going to put a note in the section and direct all future edits about the firefighter's union to the discussion page here for POV balance before adding.--Loodog (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There has obviously been a spate of POV edits from firefighters (or their allies) that has markedly reduced the quality of the article. The whole section needs a re-write. — Lincolnite (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The only reason I opted to make edits is because what was there was scant and not accurate, previous edit had dispute starting in 2005. I will be adding more. I am not a firefighter or a member of the union--Provpublicsafety (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind as you add information to the section that the section should only be as big as notability dictates i.e. that whatever fraction of Cicilline's existence is about the firefighter's union issue is what fraction of the article we should spend on it. We shouldn't overweight the issue just because of the plethora of information about it that's out there.--Loodog (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)::I meant adding more in other sections (mayors brother John, crime statistics, appointees receiving exhorbitant salaries. Right now, the entry is mostly Cicilline PR--Provpublicsafety (talk) 04:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

As Mayor

The mayors website is not a reliable source (14% Mgmnt Positions Only): "The city has eliminated 14% of management positions,. . . .[7]" There is a news article for the bond rating--Joe 12:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Provpublicsafety (talk • contribs)

Agree. If you can find a reliable source either disputing this or providing its own data, that's preferable. The mayor's website has obvious cause to paint more favorable statistics.--Loodog (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Cover-up of scandals

This guy is the most scandal plagued politician in RI history. His brother and NUMEROUS workers like Lisa Torres and Juan Giraldo are sitting in the can on municipal corruption charges, his $400,000 police chief is the focus of multiple probes, including the fabrication of crime stats, his gay crony Paul Brooks is making 6 figures as the no-show "Director of Protocol", the city is expected to be about $30 million in the whole in the next fiscal year and the unfunded pension liablity has more than doubled, to $700 million, during his corrupt administration. Not to mention the Cicilline scamming of the taxpayers in the $75,000 "check to nowhere" scandal or the favored cops being alllowed to drive to Hartford every day at taxpayer expense in a Cicilline provided car. Far from a candidate for governor, most Rhode Islanders expect this guy to be dragged off in cuffs like Blagoevich in the next few months.

Editor, please sign your posts with 4 tildas, like so: ~~~~

We'd be glad to include anything you say provided you have neutral reliable sources that attest to this information. The last thing wikipedia desires is an inaccurate portrayal of a living person.--Loodog (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Disproportionate coverage of taxing students

As per WP:UNDUE, this does not deserve an entire section. Indeed, it may not be notable enough to be mentioned at all. Each piece of coverage of a person's political career should be given weight proportionate to its notability.--Loodog (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In May, 2009, Cicilline gained national headlines[4] after proposing a $150 per semester "Head Tax" on each of the 25,000 college students attending four universities in the city. The tax was an effort to close $6 to $8 million, of a reported $17 million dollar city budget shortfall. The associated press reported that if enacted, it would become the first-in-the-nation tax on students simply for being enrolled and attending college within the city limits.[5]. The tax question is notable because it came the same week a former City Tax Collector filed a lawsuit alleging conspiracy, corruption, libel and wrongful termination.[6] The controversy over new taxes, at the same time litigation was filed over old taxes, is in addition to a $10 million dollar lawsuit against the city filed by former Providence tax collector Robert P. Ceprano.

---

I disagree. It is properly sourced and documented. What would you like to do to resolve? J (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing and documenting has nothing to do with it. It violates WP:NPOV through clear WP:UNDUEWEIGHT on one particular subject. As one of three headlined issues, the impression is given that one third of all notable actions taken in office were related to this student tax. It'd be like awarding an entire section in the Bill Clinton article to the Telecommunications Act of 1996.--Loodog (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)