Talk:Andrew Cuomo

Old comments

I'm no fan of Andrew Cuomo, but this article definitely appears to include a ton of bias.

This main articles mention of Cuomo's time with HUD appears to be misleading.

Lucy Komisar’s article:

  "Fees for Our Friends: the Scandal that Taints Andre ..." 
  (The Komisar Scoop, August 22, 2006;
   http://thekomisarscoop.com/2006/08/22/fees-for-our-friends-the-scandal-that-taints-andrew-cuomo/ )

is a very interesting contrast to that taken by the writer of the original bio.

---

Komisar is an investigative reporter with 40 years experience, with articles published in the NYTimes, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and many more newspapers and magazines. The person who wrote the above critique should specify which items are misleading. Broadsided attacks are not appropriate. So give at least one example of something that's misleading.

POV

If anyone wants to recover anything NPOV from this, go ahead. Cory.willis 04:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

---

This stuff below is uncited and controversial. It doesn't belong in a wikipedia article--->> gubernatorial humiliation. Worried about further political damage, he authorized an accusatory public statement about his wife at a time that demanded discretion for the sake of the couple's three children and their relationship with their mother. Career and image trumped family.

"As we wrote then, Cuomo "looks desperate to protect his public image and political career." Such a skewing of values leads to the question of whether, based on character, Cuomo should be entrusted with the responsibility of applying the law evenhandedly to friend and adversary, without calculation as to political benefit. That we feel compelled to ask is answer in itself."

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:TTXCxwlppMoJ:www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/450300p-378998c.html+green+yes,+cuomo+no&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

I suggest you propose a way to include content in accordance with WP policies & guidelines. Cutting & pasted from news articles does not help. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • • I didn't address this article prior to the election because it was too close to the vote. However, I think this article is highly sanitized. The material referenced above is not limited to one or two sources, but has been published in a number of reliable sources. The definition of a reliable source can, itself, turn into an exercise in POV. Granted, these journalists often have a POV. That is to be expected. Their POV should not prevent a neutralized version of their information being placed in this encyclopedia. I am considering some way to address these issues without a lot of hyperbole or invective, but the article is very one-sided the way it stands now. If someone can get to it before I do, please do.claimman75 23:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your Contradictions

First you complain that information is not sourced. Then you complain that one should not quote and link to news articles. So which is it? You are getting caught up in your contradictions.

Are you suggesting that other Wikipedia entries are based on original research rather than newspaper articles and other written sources? Where does the information come from?

The Daily News editorial was interesting. I hadn't seen it. So why didn't you post it? Sure gives one a more substantive view of Cuomo than his resume.

Again, please familiarize yourself with WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV. Large chunks of text cut/pasted from a news article/editorial is not the appropriate method of contributing to an encyclopedia article of a living person. Feel free to present content in accordance to these policies for inclusion in this article. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is advocating cutting and pasting news articles into entries. Just that what is in the articles should be made part of the entry.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.101.114 (talk • contribs) .

Again, then suggest an appropriate reference to this information, rather than just cutting/pasting here. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 04:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.

Cuomo has been praised by many leaders in the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton said that Cuomo "led one of the most dramatic and successful reforms of a federal agency in modern U.S. history, with HUD going from the brink of elimination to the forefront of the struggle for justice in America." Despite this, many people think differently of Andrew Cuomo. An article by Lucy Komisar claims that while at HUD, Cuomo got rid of a system which was designed to award contracts on the merits in order to be able to give contracts to his political friends. The New York Times and New York Daily News editorial boards say that he is more interested in his political career than the greater good. The New York Times editorial board gave as an example a $685,000 book paid for by taxpayers to highlight his accomplishments, while the Daily News editorial board says that he put his political career before his wife and children during his divorce. A Village Voice article by Wayne Barrett claims that Cuomo, while at HUD, encouraged a favorable settlement for a company, and later received millions of dollars from one of heads of the company. These are a few examples among other claims about him.

• • • I added a "Controversy" section to the article to indicate some of the criticisms of Mr. Cuomo. I excluded some issues to avoid making this section ponderous and disproportionately large. The Komisar reference was left out because I do think it is from a blog and I doubt it has editorial oversight. The citation to Catherine Fitts' article in "From the Wilderness", basically, covers the same information and "From the Wilderness" does have editorial oversight and an excellent fact-checking record. I think this strikes a balance between a campaign poster entry and a POV rant.claimman75 00:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More Information

Personal experiences by Catherine Austin Fitts with Cuomo as head of HUD.

   "Unanswered Questions about Andrew Cuomo" by Catherine Austin Fitts
   ( FromTheWilderness.com, September 21, 2006;
   http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/092106_about_cuomo.shtml )

There are many discernable facts and leads contained this article to constitute many NPOV. But because it happened to Ms. Fitts she definitely has a POV.

Problems with bare links for references

I have replaced the links used as references for this article with full citations. I removed three broken ones (out of seven!) and replaced two of them with {{fact}} tags because I could not find any substitute reliable source for them:

• http://blogs.nydailynews.com/dailypolitics/archives/2006/09/king_dropping_o.php (an unidentified blog entry)
• http://washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/xpecial/campfin/stories/reno090998.html (an unidentified news story)
• http://villagevoice.com/news/0636.lozano.74361.6.html (an unidentified news story)

The essential problem is the use of bare links; i.e., a URL with no other identifying information. These frequently break, and without data like news article titles or website page titles, it is often impossible even to know where to look for a replacement source. (Archive sites like the Wayback Machine or Google sometimes help, but often do not.)

In short, bare links should be never be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. You don't necessarily have to create a fully filled-out citation, but at least include basic title or descriptive information with the reference. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Clinton Cabinet position

So Andrew Cuomo caused the subprime mortgage crisis? Fascinating. Plesse cite the Republican talking point you got this from. Jperrylsu (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoever it was you were responding to lo so many years ago may have been referring to that republican bastion known as the Village Voice.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-08-05/news/how-andrew-cuomo-gave-birth-to-the-crisis-at-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/1/ --143.66.66.157 (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

64th NY Attorney General

According to www.NY.gov, Andrew Cuomo is the 64th attorney general, not the 74th. I've changed the infobox to reflect this. NY state does not count people who serve non-consecutive terms twice. This has consistantly been a porblem in the infoboxes for NY elected officials.EMT1871 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That NY state would not count non-consecutive terms, is the opinion of somebody who is not well-informed. In the case of the Att. Gen. there have been 62 persons who have held this office, two of them held it twice (Matthias Hildreth and Abraham Van Vechten), nevertheless the official count is 64th, meaning that AGs are counted like US Presidents. The erroneous notion that NY state would not count twice persons who served non-consecutive terms is derived from a different type of list at the governor's site which does not list the governors in chronological order but lists non-consecutive terms out of order at the single name entry... Kraxler (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

This section needs to be rewritten. I will probably do it myself, but I propose we keep the tag up until then. -Phil5329 (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It needs a section on the charges that companies have been induced to contribute to Mr Cuomo's possible 2010 campaign with theats of legal action - tens of thousands of Dollars have been contributed by companies that have been "investigated" by Mr Cuomo's office.91.107.92.172 (talk) 18:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tirade against Usenet

Why isn't this mentioned at all? http://newteevee.com/2008/06/11/isps-shut-down-usenet-to-save-children-and-cash/ --TIB (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Kennedy family category

He divorced his wife who is a member of the Kennedy family, so would one say he is no longer a "member" of the Kennedy family.--Levineps (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Adviser

Do you think it should be mentioned that Cuomo's advisers is a very powerful lobbyist in NYC?[1] Truthsort (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Swearing in vs. taking office

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Issue is closed, The current version is fine and does not violate any policy or guideline, including WP:CRYSTAL. This discussion is closed, move on. Dreadstar ☥ 16:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Although Cuomo had a small swearing in ceremony just before midnight on Friday evening, 12/31/10, he officially took office on Saturday, 1/1/11, and held a public inauguration on this day as well.[2] [3] This fact is undebatable, and the primary point at which we should acknowledge his term in office. Please see this as a warning to those who desire to continue defying the facts. Sinisterminister (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please check the source for this fact -- Article is dated 12/31/10 and makes no mention of "assuming office." Only "swearing in." Please don't make threats and stay cordial. STICK TO WHAT THE SECONDARY SOURCES SAY. No egos please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.50.195 (talk) 21:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The New York Constitution says when an elected Governor & elected Lieutenant Governor assume office. Midnight, new year's day following the previous November election. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually the New York Constitution says nothing about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.50.195 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

GoodDay makes a very good point, and the cited source is actually very clear about this: "Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, officially becoming governor at 12:01 a.m. on Saturday." This renders his swearing-in ceremony inconsequential to the point at which he technically, legally assumed office. Sinisterminister (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

When citing sources, it is advisable to stick to the facts as reported in the newspaper. It is not up to encyclopedia editors to put their own interpretation on the facts, whatever the US constitution says. --Kudpung (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but under that interpretation, the US Presidency would've been vacant for roughly 10-15 minutes every Inauguration Day. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, while I appreciate your input, I think you are missing the point of the debate, which is the legal distinction that has been made between a swearing in ceremony and the official, legal point at which an elected official has taken office. That said, I agree with GoodDay. Ceremonies are just that - ceremonies. And the cited source (here) reveals BOTH that while the swearing in ceremony took place on the evening of 12/31, but Cuomo did not officially become governor until 1/1. This was all stated in one sentence in one New York Times article cited. I am not "interpreting" anything, and am not sure where you are seeing this. The facts are quite clear. Sinisterminister (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Sinisterminister, the source you cite is dated and filed 12/31/10. There is no way this article could possibly report that the governor assumed office on 1/1 because it was written before that. Or, are you saying that it is wikipedia policy to cite sources that speculate about future events happening? 75.73.50.195 (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of the source, it says "A version of this article appeared in print on January 1, 2011, on page A13 of the New York edition.". The current version is fine and does not violate any policy or guideline, including WP:CRYSTAL. This discussion should be closed. Dreadstar ☥ 16:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't mean to blog, but New York would save us all a headache, if its Constitution would change it so that gubernatorial transition occured a Noon EST January 1, every inugural, instead of the current situation. GoodDay (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Strong disagree on "crystal ball"

"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." The article is dated December 31 and while a version appeared in print January 1, the portion you quote is clearly not in the past tense and is clearly speculating on a future event (albeit an event that may simply be hours away). Since the New York Times article does not cite any source, this quite clearly appears to me to be original research under the definition of CRYSTAL you provide. Frankly, I think you are too emotionally involved in this topic to make ultimate verdicts about it and I would ask that another editor find a different source that is not original research. Seriously, how hard can that be? Or do we not care about wikipedia's policies?

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.