Talk:Carl Paladino

Nydied

SPA Nydied (talk · contribs) has been adding highly contentious information without including verifiable references from reliable sources, and without discussing on its user talk page.   — Jeff G.  ツ 01:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

See also [1] from User:Everard Proudfoot who may be the same person from the content of his posts on my UT page. Collect (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusing someone of having two accounts when they clearly don't is of course a violation of the no personal attack rules.

But rather than make collect cry I'm going to ask if this a reliable source?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/15/tea-party-primary-candidates-gop

--Nydied (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that one looks much more reliable than the CBS one.   — Jeff G.  ツ 02:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Alright. But I can't post much there without getting banned.

So do you want to do the honnor collect turned down? --Nydied (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Guardian is problematic with unsigned "background" articles on political figures - they were the ones who published accusations that Prescott Bush was a Nazi sympathizer. The NYT article is far superior unless you really want to push the "animal sex" thing. Collect (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There are currently more than 3 thousand articles on wikipedia that cite the Guardian so using it as a source is normal and denying it as a source is not.

However I suspect there may be better sources of information about Paladino's interest in animal sex available tomorrow so I'll bring them to your attention then.

--Nydied (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow, because I disagree with Collect, I must, of course, be a sockpuppet? And I really don't understand how CBS News is not a reliable source. Note that I have not participated in any edit war on the article, I have solely asked Collect why they're removing clearly reliable sources. And no, Nydied, I do not think anybody who disagrees with you is being paid by a politician. Unlike some people, I believe in assuming good faith. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that I did not remove any reasonably worded edit concerning the emails. I did revert one which stressed "sex with a horse" as being contentious per se, and not aimed at presenting a fully NPOV exposition with proper weight in a BLP. I was, however, concerned that you seemed to appear on my talk page arguing for Nydied's edits, rather than simply affirming your own, which I did not remove (I think I replaced some words with "improper" as being a fair term for the forwarded emails - which I trust you concur with). Is this now clear? Collect (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the removed paragraph to its mostly original form. I'm not sure that we need to get into the full details of what exactly was in the e-mails, only why they were considered controversial; i.e. mentioning that there was racism and pornography in the e-mails is OK, saying one had sex with a horse, one had the Obama inauguration rehearsal, etc. is too much detail. (P.S. the horse one... sounded more like a "caption this picture" dirty joke to me than any twisted bestiality fetish. But that's just me.) J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 11:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"Improper" is sufficient - readers can follow the ref link. Also fixed the bit about NY examining the contracts, and Paterson announcing they would be honored (following wording in cite). Hope that ends all this. Collect (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Someone had simply erased the whole thing altogether, which is why I made the edit that I did. Also, the editing of the contract section is fine.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The aim is to follow WP:BLP and WP:NPOV - which is all that one can ask for <g>. Collect (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Tag

I would say the article is adequately sourced. Could the "needs citations" tag be removed? Saebvn (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

E-mail controversy

I've removed some statements that were added which characterized the legal status of the e-mails attributed to Paladino. Those statements were improper synthesis and original research, both prohibited on Wikipedia.

I also flagged the source that is used for the purported contents of the emails. The source is a website that appears to have a strongly partisan bent and does not appear to have significant editorial oversight. Furthermore, the article doesn't clearly state the provenance of the emails it attributes to Paladino. I have no problem with including nature of the e-mails if that information is available from a reliable source, but I question whether or not this source qualifies. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The source in question is the organization that broke the story regarding the emails, and is the original source. The subject also admitted to the allegations. The political leanings of the organization and its editorial oversight policy, whatever they may be, are therefore irrelevant. Joey.J (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The source is part of the story - it would be odd for us to be ostrichs on this - if the source has been known to make false accusations etc. that is par and parcel of the whole picture. Hence, relevant. Collect (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:QS says the editorial oversight and political bias of the source are still relevant. Do you have a source that clearly confirms that Paladino has admitted each and every word of that particular source are true? If not, it's still questionable. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Daughter

[2] appears to state that someone took photos of the daughter - "Caputo said Paladino's anger with the paper exploded last Friday night when he got a call that a photographer, videographer and reporter from the Post were on the lawn of his daughter's house." and "Paladino on Sunday got a call from back home, saying that the same New York Post team was back at his daughter's house taking "close-range" photographs." The precise denial from the NYPost editor says "In addition, 'Mr. Paladino should not be surprised by the media’s interest in his families, as he has invited public scrutiny of his personal life by running for governor and speaking openly about his mistress and love child.“" and "Paladino spokesman Michael Caputo’s claim about our photographer is untrue." There was no denial that a photographer working for the NY Post exists, and that photographs were taken, only that Caputo was wrong. We are hitting WP:UNDUE if we extend this section at all. Collect (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC) Christopher Sadowski asserts that he is a "contract photographer" for the NYPost. [3]. Collect (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Photograph

What's the source of the photograph in the right sidebar? The skintone looks photoshopped and zombie-like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.170.59.138 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Strangely, all images I've seen of Paladino have that same skin tone. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

And the image was released by the Paladino campaign to Wikipedia themselves, so it's an officially approved image. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Incident with New York Post columnist Fred Dicker

If I recall correctly he made a threat "take you out". This is the basis for the 'controversy' and the rest of the incident is simply he said / she said sourced from biased media.Woods01 (talk) 02:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Tax breaks?

Why is there nothing in there on the tax breaks he specifically lobbied for, I thought they were in previous versions of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.73.127 (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Paladino's Oct 10 speech on gays

Paladino's Oct 10 speech on gays has generated international news coverage and and extraordinary amount of discussion on the internet. Various attempts to cite this coverage has been effectively blanked by other editors. I will temporarily leave it blanked -- as it now is. However, the mere fact that it is "Contensious content" (sic), according to one of the editors who blanked it, does not mean that it should not be included on the page. I will replace it on the page unless a legitimate reason is given as to why it should not be included. 128.125.59.112 (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please be aware there is no deadline and your desired addition has been reverted by more than one user. Please present your desired addition and the citations supporting it for discussion here on the talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS - just because it is in the current 24 hour news cycle doesnt mean that it warrants extensive paragraphs of coverage or even mention at all. Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My proposed edit is as follows: Controversial speech regarding gay people

On October 10, 2010, Paladino made a speech to a Jewish congregation in New York where he said that homosexuality was not "an equally valid and successful option."

A video of the speech was available on youtube.com and various news sites such as CNN.com. In the video Paladino said: "We must stop pandering to the pornographers and the perverts who seek to target our children and destroy their lives. I didn’t march in the gay parade this year — the gay pride parade this year. My opponent did, and that’s not the example we should be showing our children….and don’t misquote me as wanting to hurt homosexual people in any way. That would be a dastardly lie…I just think my children and your children would be much better off and much more successful getting married and raising a family, and I don’t want them brainwashed into thinking that homosexuality is an equally valid and successful option — it isn’t."

His comments sparked significant controversy and charges of hypocrisy because, in 2009, Paladino had forwarded to associates various explicit photographs and videos via E-mail, including a video of a woman engaged in sex with a horse. (See E-mail controversy, below). "

Note that is version is *significantly* different than the first version which was blanked. It has cites for the allegation of hypocrisy, and it has a shorter and more readable title. I certainly realize that wikipedia is not a news site. However, this is an extremely significant turning point in Paladino's campaign, and has generated more media coverage of his campaign than any other speech, statement, or action made by Paladino thus far.

128.125.59.112 (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to add this in its own section? with the header

Controversial speech regarding gay people

Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

this bit is undue .. His comments sparked significant controversy and charges of hypocrisy because, in 2009, Paladino had forwarded to associates various explicit photographs and videos via E-mail, including a video of a woman engaged in sex with a horse. (See E-mail controversy, below). [4 .. also if it was not undue it would need attributing, the horse sex is not actualy mentioned in the citation eitherm the citation is also a bit attacking, we are a neutral reporter not a activist site. Off2riorob (talk) 21:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The youtube link is not official and a likely copyright violation. Off2riorob (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The youtube link would be well protected by fair use. I am an attorney. Also, what does "official" mean? Are you suggesting that the youtube video is doctored? In anycase, the other link is to CNN's video site, and shows essentially identical content shot with a different camera. 128.125.59.112 (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNEVER no, we do not ever link to illegally hosted copyright materials. Active Banana (^bananaphone 22:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to me to leave out that last sentence then until or unless additional discussion of it continues. 128.125.59.112 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely recommend putting the proposed section in the article and leaving out that last sentence. Paladino's remarks on Homosexuality represent a large component of the publicity and controversy surrounding him, and as a New Yorker I was very surprised to find that the issue - which received several headlines in the New York Times as it unfolded - is not even mentioned in this article. It is certainly incomplete without it. That said, it is unfair that no mention is made of Paladino's later apology (in which he said that he “should have chosen better words”), even if he continues to stand by the contents of his remarks. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/13/nyregion/13paladino.html?scp=1&sq=paladino&st=cse Fixx42 (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/11/paladino-homosexuality-is-not-valid-or-successful-option/?iref=allsearch

• - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/nyregion/11paladino.html?ref=nyregion

• - http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20019197-503544.html

Perhaps we can add something, a bit trimmed... Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 comments about homosexuality

On October 10, 2010, Paladino made a speech to a Jewish congregation in New York where he said that homosexuality was not "an equally valid and successful option.". A video of the speech was available on various news sites such as CNN.com.

Removed comments which are not in the source

I was about to remove: "and the site that initially broke the story has been accused in the past of forging e-mails pertaining to another scandal."

Here is the source, an editorial in a small paper:

Big catfight in Buffalo last week between amateur bloggers Alan Bedenko of Buffalo Pundit and Glenn Gramigna of New WNY Politics, precipitated by the self-important Bedenko's decision to publish what he even said was a series of fraudulent e-mails purporting to have been sent between some top aides to Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown last summer.

Clearly, the e-mails were meant to slander and defame the people at Buffalo City Hall. Why Bedenko, who is an attorney in real life, chose to publish them is anyone's guess.

Enter Gramigna, who openly speculated that -- since Bedenko was the only one to publish the lurid e-mails -- perhaps Bedenko in fact had been their author. Actually, the theory makes a lot of sense. The e-mails were shopped to various news outlets last summer, and my impression was that they were created in response to the publication by the Niagara Falls Reporter of another series of e-mails between the married state Rep. Sam Hoyt and a young and comely Albany intern he was carrying on with.

Adamtheclown (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

early life

If his parents were immigrants, he's a first-generation American, right? Not second? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.37.75 (talk) 18:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

unnecessary disinction anyway. removed. Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Finding the consensus

After seeing this change, I came here to look for the part where there's a consensus to remove any mention of Paladino's statements about homosexuality, but I could not find it. What am I missing? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue I noted was the gratuitous insertion of details about emails per [4]. The homosexuality discussions are on the talk page as well. Collect (talk) 18:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see the discussion, but I do not see any consensus to remove. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss how we describe the emails he forwarded. So far, two versions have been suggested:

improper and offensive

racially insensitive and and sexually explicit

According to Off2riorob, the first is more neutral. However, I would say that it seems whitewashed, in that it does not specifically say what makes these emails improper and offensive. There are many ways that an email message could qualify as both, while being racially insensitive and sexually explicit is very specific. The more specific we are here, the less we are engaging in original research by substituting our own characterizations for the literal facts. In other words, we might find sexually explicit email messages to be offensive, or we might not, but it's undeniable that these messages were sexually explicit regardless of whether they were offensive. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

"Improper and offensive" is sufficient. Read Jimbo's talk page for extensive discussion regarding BLPs. The problem has not been with "whitewashing" as the references are surely there, but with "dirtwashing" which occurs every political silly season. Heck, someone even suggested I supported bestiality on my user talk page - to show you how far off base some editors can run. BLPs specifically are to be written "conservatively" per WP:BLP and that is what we ought to do. Collect (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "improper and offensive" is sufficient. I think saying "racially offensive and sexually explicit" is specific without being gratuitous. However, I also think the emails have been given far too much weight in the article, as has the NY Post interview. At most, these incidents, including the gay remarks possibly, should be in one section. Perhaps something title Campaign controversies or the like. Giving them their own sections makes this read like an article in a tabloid, and I think that is a bigger violation of BLP. When writing a biography, we should be aiming for writing about the totality of someone's life. When it comes down to it, is the NY Post really that significant an event that it warrants its own section? AniMate 22:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

How would you suggest fixing it? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Put everything into a single section and reduce each item down to two or three sentences max. AniMate 22:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

While I don't oppose this in principle, I'm concerned that, in practice, we might not be able to give each topic a balanced hearing in that space. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I saw your changes and have to agree that they're an improvement. Thank you for making the effort. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Image

Is there a better picture of this guy? He looks like he's got serious organ failure. In fact he looks like an extra in a zombie flick, you know the kind just before they "turn"! It takes a double take to look a the picture. Incredibly if this the only image released by his campaign team, how many others did they reject?