Talk:Sean Patrick Maloney

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Page Layout[edit] I think it looked better before the edits of Grammarxxx. The biggest issue I have is the 2012 congressional election. I believe that it belongs in the U.S. HOR section. Besides that, I don't really have an issue with the other edits.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

While your opinions are important to Wikipedia, simply because you don't enjoy the layout doesn't give you the right to revert all of my edits. Many politicians articles have their election and campaign sections outside the office ones, and I believe that will work best for this one, seeing how the AG election isn't very long and he has only run for the house once so far. If you feel so adamantly about it though we could bring in a abribter or this can be brought to a RfC. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 01:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Well you did revert my edits first. Most politicians have the elections inside. Yes, the AG election subsection isn't very long, so I think that belongs in the Early political career section, while the 2012 election belongs in the US HOR section.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think the current structure is appropriate for the content. Not every article needs the same heading structure; this isn't a database for computers to parse through. Different stories will organically lead to different article structures. —Designate (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Seeing how Jerzeykydd continues to revert my edits, I will explain my reasoning for each one. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 23:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I believe "association" is better than "administration" because Maloney was involved with Clinton before becoming a member of his White House staff..
  • The Attorney General primary and House election should remain together under one section per above conversation.
  • I believe caucuses should be under the committees section just because of manual of style, most (if not all) articles have the two together.
Grammarxxx, you should have explained yourself before. You aren't very open minded or civil. In fact, you have been very combative with me this entire process. Moreover, I actually agree that "association" makes sense after reading your explanation. Also, I strongly disagree that the two elections should be put together. I believe that the HOR election belongs in the HOR section. The AG election was part of his early career. I mean he lost by a landslide. His election to the HOR rebooted his political career. As far as the caucuses, I did agree with you at first. As a frequent editor, I used to put caucuses and committees together. However, I eventually realized that caucus memberships are significantly different than committee assignments. Committees are an extremely important function of congress. Congressman care deeply about which ones they are put on. Sometimes, if a member of congress isn't loyal enough with the party (like Justin Amash), they will be kicked off the committee, pissing off the congressman. In contrast, caucuses play a much more minor role. Nowadays, commmittee assignments and caucus memberships are separate. I hope that we can stop edit warring and find some common ground, or compromise. Please stop being so combative. We can both accuse each other of reverting our edits, claiming ownership, being the veteran editor, etc. At the end of the day, we editors must come together and compromise.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit "War"[edit]

I'm sure we're both tired or dealing with each other so let's just settle this Jerzeykydd.

  • I'm in favor of having the first section named "Early life, education, and career" not "Early life, education, and law career" because we worked as COO at Kiodex, Inc., a private equity firm, not a law firm.
  • I'm in favor of having the Clinton section named "Clinton association" not "Clinton administration" because he worked "with" Clinton as a volunteer in college.
  • I'm in favor of having his NY AG run and the House election grouped together because neither are very long and as far as we know Maloney may not even run for re-election. So for their size, they compliment each other.

Please put your opinions in the respective section so we can hammer this out ASAP. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 01:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok. As far as the first section, I now understand where you are coming from. How about we rename it "Early life, education, and early career"? As I said before, the second point I agree with you. The third point I have a serious disagreement with. I believe the NY AG election belongs in his "Early political career" and the HOR election belongs in U.S. HOR section. Yes, I understand he only ran for public office twice. But I feel that the two elections are significantly different. The 2012 HOR election put him on the map, it was a significant development. He lost the AG election by a landslide. They don't compliment each other. Also, I did agree with you at first that caucuses should be within committees. As a frequent editor, I used to put caucuses and committees together. However, I eventually realized that caucus memberships are significantly different than committee assignments. Committees are an extremely important function of congress. Congressman care deeply about which ones they are put on. Sometimes, if a member of congress isn't loyal enough with the party (like Justin Amash), they will be kicked off the committee, pissing off the congressman. In contrast, caucuses play a much more minor role. Nowadays, committee assignments and caucus memberships are separate.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, fine, lets just finish this. It's agreed the first section will be renamed "Early life, education, and early career" and the AG primary will go into "Early political career" and the House election will go into the HOR section. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 02:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sean Patrick Maloney/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 13:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • You may want to look over the IP edits made since your last round of expansion and cleanup. It appears there has been some information removed, some unsourced information added, and at least one section header changed.
    • Thanks, fixed.
    • Is the lengthy list of external links really necessary? It seems like a bit of overkill for what is in reality a fairly short article. Or perhaps there is information from these links that could be added, and some of them could be turned into references?
    • I'm not sure what you mean, it seems pretty standard to me.
    • It's normal to have 16 external links for a politician article, including four different biographies, plus three congressional profiles, three links to financial information and two different links to his voting record? It seems like a lot of duplication. Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, I've never encountered an issue like this, could you take the lead? - I don't want to accidentally remove useful info.
    • Well, things like the Ballotpedia article: it's a wiki, and all of the information appears to be contained either in the WP article or in other external links. Or the RollCall congressional profile, which is all either super basic info or really tangential, and requires users to subscribe for more detailed info. I still think it's overkill to have this many external links, and per WP:EL: "Some external links are welcome...but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." Dana boomer (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Okay, I've widdled it down a bit to where I'm comfortable, but I've seen GA's with far more EL.
    • "In 2006 he ran for the Democratic primary" for -> in?
    • Fixed.
    • Could we add another sentence to the lead summarizing his tenure in the House so far? The lead seems lacking on this topic.
    • Added.
    • It looks like you added a sentence on his tenure with Clinton (which is good), but nothing about his tenure in the House? Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    • "Maloney was a senior attorney at the law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP," When?
    • I'm sorry, but I really can't seem to turn anything up on the matter. I'll assume because he wasn't so notable at the time, it wasn't really documented.
    • " In March 2011 he joined the law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe as a partner." Does he still serve in this capacity, or did he leave when he was elected to the House?
    • I went on the site, and the only thing I could find is their notice of his hiring, and turning up no web searches on the matter, I assume he still "works" there.
    • "Clinton credited Maloney with helping to create jobs and grow the economy during his administration, saying in a statement: "Sean worked closely with me in the White House to create jobs, grow our economy and balance the budget."" This sentence is repetitive, given that exactly the same words are used for the paraphrase and the quote.
    • Fixed.
    • ""this day may not be the outcome we hope," Is the quoted correctly? Because it's grammatically wonky.
    • It is.
    • "Governor Paterson's" Link? I know Paterson is linked in the lead, but so is Spitzer, and you relink Spitzer in this section.
    • Fixed.
    • "Maloney supported the No Budget, No Pay Act." The Act article says it was a 2012 this the wrong link?
    • Cut.
    • No, it's still in there.
    • After looking at it again, in the news article it says it was passed in 2013.
    • Thanks, fixed it.
    • "Maloney has introduced four pieces of legislation in the 113th Congress:" Are there updates on any of these bills? Has he cosponsored any bills?
    • Cut.
    • Why cut this? It seems like quite useful/interesting information in an article about a serving politician. Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
    • With all the info that IP put in, I just felt it was better to start fresh, don't worry I'll add more.
    • Is this info going to be added back in? Dana boomer (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I've added in more info on legislation he's supported which has received considerable converge.
    • What about the other bills that he has sponsored? From what I can see, he's been a co-sponsor on a bunch of bills, so I wouldn't list those, but he's only been the sponsor on four (? I think ?). I would think at this level, the other three could be listed, even if details aren't given like they are for the veteran's red tape bill. Dana boomer (talk) 20:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
    • I've added them into the article.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • "Maloney is New York's first openly gay member of Congress." Source?
    • Fixed.
    • Source for legislation introduction in Tenure section? This appears to have been added in the recent round of IP edits.
    • Fixed.
    • Cutting the information does fix this point, but as I said above, I'm not sure it should have been cut.
    • I've added more notable information.
    • Publisher for Ref #15 is not Internet Archive, that's merely the archiving service. The publisher appears to be the state of New York or some variation thereof.
    • What makes ref #19 (GayAgenda) a reliable source?
    • Changed.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • There are a few spots that could stand to be expanded a bit; see the specific comments in the prose section above.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    • Does anyone have any criticism of this guy? All of the quotes from others in this article are favorable. Do we have any statistics: approval ratings, etc.?
    • Added some.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    • Please look past the recent disrutive edits, the user has been blocked for 24hr, lets try to finish before it's over.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Some comments above, a little bit in each category. I don't think it will take much work to get this article up to GA, so placing the review on hold until the above can be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The claim that Maloney is a moderate in the intro requires a source for WP:verifiability.CFredkin (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, everything looks good now. Passing the article to GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Full protection[edit]

[[File:Padlock.svg|74px|right|alt=Gold padlock]]

This article has been fully-protected due to unresolved edit warring. A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. The protection may be for a specified time or may be indefinite. Modifications to a fully protected page can be proposed on the talk page for discussion. Administrators can make changes to the protected article reflecting consensus. Placing the {{Edit protected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Article is now unlocked. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:10, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


The intro currently states that Maloney is "considered a moderate". It's a subjective claim that should be sourced. If he is widely considered to be a "moderate", it should not be difficult to provide a reliable source supporting the claim.CFredkin (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reliable sources that state Maloney is a moderate Democrat. I see a few stating he caucuses with the New Democrats, but transposing that into being a moderate is synthesis. If there is a source stating he's a moderate, it should be produced or the synthesis should be removed. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Here are just two (1, 2) articles which claim Maloney's a moderate. But beyond the "synthesis" accusations, it is common sense behind the duck test. By simply looking at his positions and history, anyone could recognize he's a moderate. But again, since we have the sources, there's no need to get into an ideological battle. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 00:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Those sources look acceptable to me. CFredkin, would you agree that those sources do indicate that Maloney is associated with a moderate viewpoint? If so, perhaps we can look at a form of wording that is acceptable. On the matter of the previous cite. It is original research to state a position based on interpretation of sources, and the duck test does not apply to articles: "The duck test does not apply to article content". See Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue for more thoughts on why it is helpful to cite what appears to you as something obvious. If it is obvious, there will be a source for it, and it's never harmful to use a reliable source. SilkTork ✔Tea time 04:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that both sources are reliable. Both were published prior to his assuming office and reference the fact that he positioned himself as a moderate during the campaign. I think you can reasonably make the statement that he campaigned as a moderate.CFredkin (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Would wording such as He is a member of the New Democrat Coalition,[1] and campaigned for the 2012 House of Representatives election as a moderate.[2] be acceptable? SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Currently the phrase is only in the lead, which is contrary to WP:Lead. Which section should such information go in? As this relates to his campaigning, would it go in 3.1 Elections? SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The proposed wording looks good to me. And since the only sources provided so far have to do with his 2012 election, that seems the appropriate section to include it in. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree also. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I have unlocked the article, added the sources Grammarxxx provided, and amended the wording along the lines agreed. I also put the wording into the body of the article, as per WP:Lead. I will monitor the article for a while, though I feel that this issue is now over, and the GA review can continue. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


He's not listed in the "Secretary to the Governor" article. Was he a chief deputy or serve as acting secretary? Is there a source for this? (talk) 01:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Startup which created "hundreds of jobs"[edit]

Maloney has claimed to have created hundreds of jobs by a "startup" which "he built from scratch". I don't see anything resembling that here in his Wikipedia article. Any info? Quis separabit? 19:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference newdem was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ 1, 2