Jump to content

Talk:Bob Menendez/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Problems with Kean Jr Campaign Staff Editing This Page

Re: RobbyKyer-- it has already been proven by BlueJersey.com that several changes have been made to this article by Jill Hazelbaker, the Kean campaign press secretary. They traced it back to the IP address, 70.90.20.85 (http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2542).

This article has a problem with anonymous editors, and single issue editors such as RobbyKyer, inserting only POV propaganda against unfavored targets. Check their contributions, they contribute only to articles that harm Bob Menendez. Abe Froman 17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, my opinion on the issue is irrelevant, as that would be bias. All I have added are cited quotes from mainstream and objective newspapers (Some would say the NYT is liberal-leaning) about the the topic of this article. If you would like to "help" Menendez, then search for your own information and quotes. If your so offended, counter the information with your own. --RobbyKyer (from Kean Jr. campaign) 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are unguided missiles in what was a well-flowing article. If they cannot be integrated, and anonymous editors resist their condensing, remove them. Abe Froman 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The quotes and allegations have nothing to do with the Kean campaign. None of those quotes were released or created by his camp. Many of the quotes are also from newspaper articles dated before the campaign kicked off. To imply that those quotes are a direct result of Kean's "electoral ploy" is biased and misguided. --RobbyKyer (from Kean Jr. campaign) 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hatchet Job

This article has become a hatchet job. I believe it should be reverted to before the anon and new editor began their campaign. The corruption allegations are untrue, New York Times and Newark Star Ledger reporters covering the case 26 years ago disagree with them. [1][1] The four assistant United States attorneys who prosecuted the case in question 26 years ago called Menendez's behavior in the case "gutsy" and "courageous." The prosecutors say Menendez was never in legal jeopardy. [2].Abe Froman 13:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC). If the section goes back in, be ready to support it.

  1. ^ "New Jersey Senator's Rival Faults Him in 80's Corruption Case, but History Disagrees", Jim Dwyer, New York Times, June 25, 2006

Restoring FACTS

Every quote under "charges of corruption" is cited and sourced, FACTS from mainstream newspapers. The public has the right to know what newspapers report about Bob Menendez. The four prosecutors, by the way, are public Democratic supporters and fundraisers, so while what they say can be posted, it cannot replace or supercede newspaper quotes. It is completely justified to have cited newspaper quotes on the article. Please refrain from deleting factual information.

--RobbyKyer (from Kean Jr. campaign) 15:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The NYTimes article in question does not charge Menendez with corruption, it states that New Jersey has had corrupt politicians, none of them Menendez. This is a guilt by association hatchet job. Abe Froman 15:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Menendez Opposes Workplace Raids on Illegal Immigrants

Menendez has opposed workplace raids designed to locate illegal immigrants. He has even played the race card in this instance, although the raids were merely conducted to assure that people are obeying the law. Senator Mendendez should represent all of the legal citizens of New Jersey rather than assuming that he must pander to all Latinos, including those who are violating America's laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.144.245 (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Politics NJ Is Not a Reliable Source

re: RobbyKyer's contributions: Citations in the hatchet-job section of the article rely on a blind link to an advertisement on a political blog, www.politicsnj.com . This does not meet the conditions set in WP:CITE and WP:RS. Passages anchored by politicsnj should be removed because they are not cited correctly, and the source is unknown and unreliable. Abe Froman 15:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I have seen many problems with other article in blind links to www.politicsnj.com, which I agree should refer to specific articles as described in WP:CITE. As long as the criteria of attribution is met, there is no reason to treat PoliticsNJ-sourced articles any differently than those from any other source which is also compliant with WP:RS. Alansohn 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

PoliticsNJ actually can be a reliable source, but unfortunately they don't seem to maintain an archive, so all article links simply go to the homepage even after the article is no longer there. I wonder if there is a way to solve this problem, perhaps with the cache or something?

NYTimes opinion articles used as fact

re: RobbyKyer's contributions: Three citations on the hatchet-job section of the article use The New York Times op-ed page as fact. This is not in accordance with WP:RS, so the passages should be marked as opinions or removed. Abe Froman 15:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Having read through WP:RS several times in the past, and reviewing it again now, I see no criteria that excludes use of items from an otherwise reliable source simply because it is an editorial or opinion item. If there are specific issues regarding the attribution or the manner in which the source is being used, they should be addressed on an item-by-item basis. Using WP:RS as a blanket justification to remove material is unjustified. Alansohn 16:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

in response

Opinions expressed in newspaper and blog articles are relevant to this article. Hence the title of the section - "charges of corruption" which does not state that the quotes are facts, just instances of allegations. Completely justified in keeping the section alive and well.

--RobbyKyer (from Kean Jr. campaign) 16:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The passages from NYTimes' op-ed must be marked so. Otherwise they are treated as facts by disinterested readers. Please mark them before I do. Abe Froman 16:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

a charge would be a formal accusation, not an editorial

Hatchet Job

The hatchet job op-ed quotes against Menendez were condensed into a single paragraph, but anon's have seen fit to restore the unwieldly and clearly biased passage. The previous condensed version was superior, and easily readable. It should be restored. Abe Froman 16:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

dont delete quotes

Just because you dislike what mainstream newspapers and newssources say about Bob Menendez does not mean you have the right to hide it from the public. All quotes are cited and sourced.

If you feel it is biased, add your own cited quotes in favor of Menendez, but refrain from deleting the sourced quotes I posted.

--RobbyKyer (from Kean Jr. campaign) 17:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are unrelated to each other, blatantly POV, and do not belong as 20% of the article's content. Clean it up, before I do. Abe Froman 17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

POV Editors

This article has a problem with anonymous editors, and single issue editors such as RobbyKyer, inserting only POV propaganda against unfavored targets. Check their contributions, they contribute only to articles that harm Bob Menendez. Abe Froman 17:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, my opinion on the issue is irrelevant, as that would be bias. All I have added are cited quotes from mainstream and objective newspapers (Some would say the NYT is liberal-leaning) about the the topic of this article. If you would like to "help" Menendez, then search for your own information and quotes. If your so offended, counter the information with your own. --RobbyKyer (from Kean Jr. campaign) 18:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The quotes are unguided missiles in what was a well-flowing article. If they cannot be integrated, and anonymous editors resist their condensing, remove them. Abe Froman 19:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The quotes and allegations have nothing to do with the Kean campaign. None of those quotes were released or created by his camp. Many of the quotes are also from newspaper articles dated before the campaign kicked off. To imply that those quotes are a direct result of Kean's "electoral ploy" is biased and misguided. --RobbyKyer (from Kean Jr. campaign) 14:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: RobbyKyer-- it has already been proven by BlueJersey.com that several changes have been made to this article by Jill Hazelbaker, the Kean campaign press secretary. They traced it back to the IP address, 70.90.20.85 (http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2542).

POV passage removal (again)

I have removed the POV passage until the www.politicsnj.com quotations are properly cited, with one click to the material. Currently the click goes to politicsnj.com alone. This violates Wikipedia:Citation. The passage was also removed because throwing random quotations up on the page does not make an article. I tried to integrate the quotations into a coherent paragraph, but POV editors insist on damaging the article by reinserting the random quote chaos. Address these two issues, politicsnj.com citation and quote integration, before restoring this tendentious material. Abe Froman 15:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Passages from www.politicsnj.com have been removed until proper citation found. Please refrain from blatantly deleting and censoring other properly cited quotes from mainstream newspapers from this article. It is unclear where my analysis or opinion is played out in this article. All I am doing is showing the public what newspapers have reported and editorialized about Menendez. If you wish to censor properly cited newspaper quotes, then I will continue to revert them back. Thank you for your understanding. --RobbyKyer (from Kean Jr. campaign) 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The quotations must be integrated into a coherent paragraph instead of the current stochastic laundry hit list. Take a shot at it. Abe Froman 15:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
A list is much more clear than a vague paragraph. --RobbyKyer (from Kean Jr. campaign) 17:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph, as it stands, includes the allegations RobbyKyer is desparate to make while allowing the article to survive in a readable format. Please do not revert to that awful list. Abe Froman 19:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Residency and marital status

I have restored, yet again, the fact that Menendez lives in Hoboken, NOT Union City. See his campaign website bio where this is clearly stated. I have also restored his marital status as divorced. This is well-known and not disputed as far as I am aware. I have no idea why either of things has been changed. -- Jim Miller 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Kean campaign reps editing this article?

I saw this post at a blog, and thought that the matter discussed bears watching/investigation here, if true. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Political beliefs

Would anyone be interested in working to create a section on "Political beliefs" for Menendez? Kean has one. Mistermind 15:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Photograph

Do they have the right photograph in the "House of Representatives" section of this article? It doesn't look like him, and the caption says he was speaking in Texas, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense either. -- Fogelmatrix 16:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

See the following link for the provenance of the image. Alansohn 05:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

New Yorker column on this article

"Dirty WikiTricks" Bwithh 20:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming

Someone moved this page to Robert Menéndez; I've moved it back here. He himself doesn't seem to use an accent in the name, and it seems a bit presumptuous for us to change the spelling used by the subject... Shimgray | talk | 14:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Defending reverted edit

I had edited this article to reflect that, in spite of helping Sen. Clinton, he eventually endorsed the Democratic nominee, second, that his efforts and postures have not been "anti-Cuban" but "anti-Castro" and third that he cut a TV spot for a public official indicted for corruption. I reedited this last reference to keep it strictly neutral. Pr4ever (talk) 11:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Recall?

Should probably be something about this on the page, but I don't know enough about the situation. GreenReaper (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

heh, the controversies go much deeper than that

The controversy section seems to just list incidents of the slandering of Menendez by his Republican opponents. There are some other controversies surrounding Menendez that are very interesting -- such as proven (and in some cases admitted) links to Cuban Exile terrorism and drug trafficking. Menendez is a friend to Eduardo Arocena (and publicly donated to Arocena's defense fund while he was on trial) of the Omega 7 Cuban Exile terrorist group. Some of his close affiliates in the Cuban Exile community have also been alleged to traffic large amounts of cocaine. Factcheck has confirmed several of the core points of said allegations, which were originally put forth by the Republican Tom Kean in NJ: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2006/sopranos_lite_casting_menendez_in_a_culture.html. Most significantly, Arocena has been convicted of over 20 counts of felonies, including first-degree murder. Also a lawyer for the government of Venezuela, in the course of seeking the extradition of the notorious terrorist and mass-murderer Luis Posada Carriles, cited the admission of Menendez's own office that he received money from a collaborator and financial patron of Posada (see http://venezuela-us.org/2011/03/14/el-paso-diary-day-25-of-the-posada-carriles-trial-follow-the-money/). 74.102.158.68 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

About the Daily Caller story, i believe it is newsworthy, deserves to be here, and as the DC has been an acceptable source on other BLP it dont see why it isnt here. HOWEVER, is there a way to WORD the accusation to better placate those that do not want it on here? perhaps "The Daily Caller website has accused the Sen. of blah blah blah an accusation his staff has flat out denied"Tjm58 (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

On the sex with underage prostitutes, you could add the fact that the New York Times said that there was no evidence for the charges. The charges are inflammatory and come from anonymous sources. I think the connection with Posada is a more serious charge. --Nbauman (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent controversy

The "who was a registered sex offender" seems to be up in the air. The local DA, republican, says the person was but they are not on any list per the AP search. Should this be removed or at least added that they are not currently on a sex offender list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonic2030 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If true he should run for Prime Minister of Italy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.84.166 (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Daily Caller "Washington Post report confuses one prostitute with another in bid to debunk Menendez allegations"

I'm posting the link on the talk page instead of in the article, because it's about a living person, and we have conflicting sources. I don't know which source is telling the truth and which is mistaken. Just to be safe, I think this link should be kept out of the article for now. If more sources confirm it, then maybe it could be added to the article. For now, please be on the lookout for more info on this:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/05/wapo-report-confuses-one-prostitute-for-another-in-bid-to-debunk-menendez-allegations/

Gh82xc56 (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I say to include it, neutrally worded attributing it to the source. No more than a brief sentence is needed, IMHO.
Also given that other editors do not view the Daily Caller as a RS, which IMHO it is, if you can provide corroboration reliable sources, it will strengthen its presence.
Here are other RSs that report on the Daily Caller source:
  • Dylan Byers (5 March 2013). "Daily Caller: WaPo got wrong hooker". Politico. Retrieved 5 March 2013.
  • Dashiell Bennett (5 March 2013). "The Daily Caller Is Sticking with Its Senator Menendez Prostitute Story". Atlantic Wire. Retrieved 5 March 2013.
  • "Conflicting accounts emerge over Menendez prostitution allegations". Fox News. Associated Press. 5 March 2013. Retrieved 5 March 2013.
  • "Daily Caller, Washington Post Feud Over Senator Robert Menendez Allegations". Huffington Post. 5 March 2013. Retrieved 5 March 2013.
  • Brett LoGiurato (5 March 2013). "The Washington Post And The Daily Caller Are At War Over Reports On A Senator And Dominican Prostitutes". Business Insider. Retrieved 5 March 2013.
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
The Daily Caller is a questionable source and is "generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources Illegal Operation (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Can you include a link to the WP:RSN discussion(s) where the consensus for that characterization emerged? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
But we are not limited to only the Daily Caller, we have multiple reliable sources verifying what the Daily Caller 's response was. What they stated has weight in regards to this section, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Removal of content verified by multiple reliable sources

An editor has removed content that is verified by multiple reliable sources, and modified it so the wording is defensive if the subject of the article and no longer neutral in regards to the subject of the allegation. The changes refers to the news organization the Daily Caller as a "conservative website" which could be considered loaded language. The statement saying that "Most news organizations..." is not verified by the source provided, and is an additional attempt to discredit the Daily Caller; additionally reliable sources such as the Daily Mail, Salon, New York Post, CBS News, Fox News, Huffington Post, and the The Hill. It further rewords it to make the allegation appear to be "right-wing" smear.

The rewording is not neutral, and a compromise consensus version should be sought.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you could try rewording it without including sources that, it appears, the rough consensus at WP:RSN is are non-RS then? -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 21:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
First of all, the Daily Caller is a conservative website. That's not "loaded language"; it's a short, accurate description of a widely understood reality, like saying that the Huffington Post is a liberal website. Sources supporting the description should not be necessary, since it's a statement of the obvious, but they are available if you insist.

I'm fine with changing "most news organizations" to "many" or "some" news organizations. Again, this is not an attempt to discredit the Daily Caller - it's a verifiable, relevant fact that multiple other outlets, even those with a sensationalist bent like the New York Post, found these accusations far too unsubstantiated and dubious to print. Whether the Daily Caller's decision to run with them discredits that website is for the reader to decide. It is misleading, and a clear WP:BLP violation, to fail to note the skepticism with which these rumors were greeted by media, even before it became apparent that they were paid fabrications.

The phrase "right-wing smear" is a quote from Menendez, which was widely reported and is properly attributed.

Perhaps you could explain what you would view as a "compromise" here? I think the article needs to be based on the best available sources. That's true for any article, but especially true for a BLP where we're dealing with false accusations of criminal behavior. My revision uses what I think are the best available reputable non-partisan sources (Washington Post, ABC News, New York Times, the Atlantic). I think that's a clear improvement over the previous version, which leaned heavily on less reputable and more partisan media such as the Daily Caller and the Daily Mail. MastCell Talk 01:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

First let me say I completely disagree with the removal of the tag while this conversation is still active.
That being said the Daily Caller & Huffington Post are both reliable source news organizations, they may have a political lean but to label the Daily Caller as such is unnecessary and by doing so it attempts to paint the source as unreliable.
The Atlantic Wire source verifies the text about three news organizations did not report the news story, but it is also a Lying by omission as it does not say what news organizations did report about the story. There is a futher lying by omission by only including that the Washington Post reports X, withouth including that the Daily Caller showed inconsistencies with what they reported.
As a compromise I see the following needing to be included:
A) CREW published email conversations (the original source of the story)
B) Certain news organizations published the story, certain other news organizations did not publish the story
C) The Senate & the FBI openned an investigation
D) The office of Menendez denied the allegaton
E) The Washington Post reported that certain people were paid to lie by certain persons as reported by the Daily Caller
F) The lawyers said XYZ
G) The Daily Caller reported that the people reported by the Washington Post are not the people who were the ones in their story.
All this can be neutrally worded, reliably sources, and make up one lengthy paragraph, or two short paragraphs.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Assertions about WP:RSes "lying" seems, at best, WP:OR. I will avoid commenting about what a less charitable interpretation of these statements would be. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 23:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
So you want to state that the FBI "opened an investigation", but leave out the fact that the investigation exonerated Menendez? Let's talk about "lying by omission". The disregard for WP:BLP on display here is really disappointing, and I'm finding it hard to be as charitable as UseTheCommandLine about the motivations at work here. MastCell Talk 05:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I was unaware that the FBI had finished their investigation of the subject of this AfD, last I read he was still under investigation. Is he under grand jury investigation for something unrelated to our conversation?
That being said, if the FBI completed its investigation in regards to the allegation, then lets include that, but lets include all which I listed as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
You don't think that including non-WP:RS because you think some RS are "lying" puts you in WP:OR territory (if not WP:UNDUE or, well, WP:POVPUSH) on a BLP? Help me understand why the most obvious (though not entirely charitable) interpretation of this is the wrong one. It would probably be best if you uses a different argument than the one you already made above. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 01:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
And for the record, pieces from today call the allegations both "an elaborate smear campaign" and "a pretty elaborate plot to take down a sitting Senator". I can provide links, but since you seem to be a fan of their site I assume you can find them yourself. I hope this clarifies things. I would still appreciate an explanation of how excluding RS because you assert they are lying is anything but a violation of any number of policies. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 01:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @RCLC: Please read the article. Find the sentence which states "The FBI investigated the allegations involving prostitution, and found no evidence to substantiate them." Read the two sources cited at the end of that sentence. They should answer your question.

Generally, when a living person has been the victim of unfounded, fabricated smear attacks, we shouldn't enthusiastically repeat those false attacks. That would violate WP:BLP. We should simply note that he was falsely accused, and that one of his accusers admitted to being paid to frame him. MastCell Talk 01:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I will ignore what appears to be bad faith, and continue on.
No where did I say that the RSs were lying, either the Washington Post or Daily Caller. It can be verified that they disagree with each other regarding the individuals who the WaPo say they spoke to, and who the TDC say they spoke to. One side, as reported by others said persons A said X about Y; the other side, as reported by others said person A is not the person(s) whom they reported said Y.
Everything that I have suggested be added to the compromise version, including the completion of the FBI investigation, as MastCell has suggested, can be verified. It includes everything regarding this allegation from start to what is currently published, from original source documents to the differing reporting (as reported by others) of the WaPo & TDC.
Following WP:NEU as editors we should include what is published and write it neutrally, without taking sides on which side is right or wrong. The current version says X is wrong. We can report that Y said X is wrong, but in Wikipedia voice we shouldn't say X is wrong.
Again, an updated version of IMHO best solution:
A) CREW published email conversations (the original source of the story)
B) Certain news organizations published the story, certain other news organizations did not publish the story
C) The Senate & the FBI openned an investigation
D) The office of Menendez denied the allegaton
E) FBI closed their investigation, their result
F) The Washington Post reported that certain people were paid to lie by certain persons as reported by the Daily Caller
G) The lawyers said XYZ
H) The Daily Caller reported that the people reported by the Washington Post are not the people who were the ones in their story.
This can all be neutrally worded and concisely written. It may even be briefer than the current content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
If we include CREW links, we should include the more recent ones like this one and this one, though (as mentioned above) they undermine the narrative you appear to be most familiar with. I don't think we need to include what "the lawyers said" as that seems like it would be WP:UNDUE. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 01:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see why not, it will provide more information for the reader. We can add those in chronologically. into the list above. Where would they go in the timeline that I have listed?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm still not completely convinced that CREW material should be cited directly. That they've now made something of a 180 in their reporting of this is interesting, but it's still a BLP and we have plenty of less contentiously RS outlets to choose from. The existing material seems ok to me, but if we still have a dispute about CREW we can go to WP:RSN again. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 18:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
CREW is a decent source, especially for what CREW thinks. It's not really a reliable-source issue. The problem is more one of undue and excessive weight. These allegations carry very little weight in reputable, non-partisan reliable sources - they're essentially treated as a sordid footnote, an attempt to frame a sitting Senator concocted by unnamed parties and promoted by a handful of partisan media outlets. Out of respect for WP:WEIGHT (to say nothing of WP:BLP), we should probably be looking to say less, rather than more, here. In particular, a freestanding subsection for this material clearly breaches WP:WEIGHT. MastCell Talk 21:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
IMHO, to exclude content because one may or may not agree with the political leaning of an RS (which I understand our opinions of what sources of RS differs), especially when the reporting of those sources are reported by other RSs, is to leave out parts of the event, which IMHO is a disservice to the readers of this section. Even if not directly linking to the TDC or Daily Mail articles, there are RSs that report that they reported about the CREW documents. To exclude that the TDC disputed the WaPo reported, which was also reported by other RSs (that the TDC stated their dispute) is again a disservice to the readers. I understand that the content should be neutral and concise, but to exclude material may cause the section to be non-neutral.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
You are either intentionally or unintentionally mis-stating the crux of the objections here. The concern has nothing to do with the particular political slant of the Daily Caller. It has to do with the Daily Caller's poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which renders it unsuitable as a source for contentious biographical material. Separately, there's the glaring issue of undue weight. At this point no serious credibility is attached to the Daily Caller's version of events; the prostitutes they interviewed have been confirmed to be among those paid to lie about Menendez (see, for example, Associated Press, the Atlantic). At some point, we need to exercise editorial discretion and follow actual reputable, reliable sources here rather than continue to push a set of discredited, defamatory rumors promoted by a single partisan website. MastCell Talk 22:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Daily Caller

Regarding this edit: the Daily Caller is a conservative website. I think that's obvious enough that it doesn't require dedicated footnotes and sourcing. But the description is supported by independent, reliable sources; for example:

It seems that the site is routinely described by reliable sources as a "conservative news site", "conservative blog", etc. Can we therefore accept that this is a reasonable description of objective reality, at least insofar as this is Wikipedia and we base our coverage on reliable sources? MastCell Talk 00:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Only if there is no objection forthcoming from those pushing this POV inclusion if every future mention of a negative article about some Republican politician in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post and a few other such sources includes the description of the source as "liberal" or "left-leaning"... Fat&Happy (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Forget the false equivalence fantasy, what's going on here is not journalism or even opinion journalism with a point of view, but a real politically motivated hatchet job, not just a right wing fantasy that every New York Times article is a shiv directed at conservatives. In this case, to omit TDC's political allegiance is to leave out part of the story. Gamaliel (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure you're not seriously suggesting an equivalence between the New York Times/Washington Post and the Daily Caller. If so, we may as well simply delete the sourcing guidelines and be done with it. As to the Huffington Post, yes, I think it should be used sparingly, if at all, as a source; it should not be used to source contentious info about living people; and it's entirely fair and accurate to describe it in our articles as "liberal", "progressive", "left-leaning", or the like. MastCell Talk 04:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I am having a hard time coming up with a good AGFish explanation theory for why Fat&Happy decided that, even after discussion here and at WP:RSN, it was appropriate to put a link to the Daily Caller as the source for the Dominican Police story, particularly when there were literally dozens of proper RS that said the same thing. I figure maybe Fat&Happy would like to provide some background here. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 05:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

In response to what Gamaliel has said, if the TDC "allegiance" is specifically stated, so should all the other sources in this section, if fair is going to be fair. I am sure we can find sources that say that CREW is a liberal organization, that the New York Times has liberal bias, etc. etc.
If we are going to do it for one, let us do it for all. That is only fair IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Again with the false equivalence? We're not talking about geese and ganders, we're talking about geese and oranges. This story isn't merely reported on by TDC, it is about TDC. Gamaliel (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Let's drop the pretense that the New York Times and the Daily Caller are somehow equivalent. That claim not only violates every sourcing guideline and policy under which this website operates, but is also frankly ridiculous. I miss the days when editors actually cared, or at least pretended to care, about the quality of sources we cite in biographical articles. MastCell Talk 22:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
So say it was the Wall Street Journal who was reporting X, and the New York Times was reporting that X is wrong, should we only label the Wall Street Journal as being a Y leaning source, but not label the New York Times?
Again why label the news organization (which I understand that some editors here do not see as a reliable source) The Daily Caller, when we are not going to label other news organizations.
What I am trying to say here, is there is no need to label The Daily Caller as being X, Y, or Z. If one were to follow a link to the Daily Caller such labels are already in the lead of that article. There is no need to repeat what other people call that source, because it can already be found in that article. And if we are going to label The Daily Caller it is only fair to label all specifically stated sources.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
if the Daily Caller's political leanings were not germane to these accusations, then i might agree with you. but they are, so i don't. -- [UseTheCommandLine ~/talk] #_ 19:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, what UseTheCommandLine said. Also, your analogy doesn't really fit. The Wall Street Journal's news operation is highly reputable, non-partisan, and qualifies as a high-quality reliable source - there's absolutely no reason to label it one way or the other. (The Journal's editorial page is openly partisan, as is the Times editorial page, but both organizations maintain a clear demarcation between news and opinion, which is one of the hallmarks of a reputable, reliable source). You're trying to compare the Daily Caller to the news operations at the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. That comparison is ridiculous on its face, and I'd prefer we drop it. MastCell Talk 19:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The consensus of other editors here appears to be to tell a left leaning presentation of the story, rather than a balanced presentation. It is my view that those other editors believe that they are doing the best thing for this article and thus do not view my position as being the best thing for the article. I do not view this as being neutral, but my single view doesn't matter, it is outweighed by the views of others.
This is why, IMHO, certain BLPs have sub-articles that extensively cover negative aspects of the subject, while other BLP articles lack such negative sub-articles. Content should be neither positive or negative about a subject, but neutral.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

That almost sounds like you're accusing your fellow editors of WP:POVPUSH. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 20:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Almost? That's exactly what it is. Gamaliel (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikiformatting correction needed

I updated the article to reflect current committee assignments as listed on the official Senate website, but would appreciate it if someone could fix any wikiformatting errors I made in the process.

--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 00:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2014

On September 16, 2014 Menendez introduced the Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 that allows government to spending over $100 millions of US tax payer's money on war in Ukraine. http://www.chattanoogan.com/2014/9/16/284463/Corker-Menendez-Introduce-Ukraine.aspx 173.52.19.90 (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: The Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 does not yet have an article, suggesting it is not notable (yet), so I worry that mentioning it in this article would be undue weight. However, if the act becomes notable enough for its own article, or if you can get consensus for your proposed edit, feel free to use {{edit semi-protected}} again. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Undue weight

I am autoconfirmed and an active Wikipedia editor. This article from a neutral outsider appears to be a mess. There are viewpoints that are in the majority but they are not substantiated with commonly accepted reference texts. There are viewpoints that are held by a significant minority but they lack name prominent adherents. Finally there are viewpoint that are held by an extremely small minority, which does not belong in Wikipedia period. Would someone please take the lead and clean up this article so that it conforms to Wikipedia's standards? Gorba (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Caller

Some attention is needed to review The Daily Caller#Controversies in connection with its role in the Menendez scandal. I'm not very familiar with the facts here, nor the BLP aspect of this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

Why are the proper names of news publications or television programs in both italics and set off by quotation marks? They should be in italics only. It makes The Hudson Reporter seem like it's a fake publication. Fox News Channel should also not be in quotation marks or italics. It's a news channel like CNN or MSNBC. Just use correct capitalization and keep it in normal text, hyperlinked to its article if appropriate. The use of quotation marks and italics is very inconsistent in the article.68.186.235.153 (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Anonymous Grammar Nazi

Semi-Protected Edit Request on July 12th, 2016

The "2015 federal indictment on corruption charges" section contains a block quote about the Clintons that mentions Bob Menendez. This quote isn't really about Menendez and should be removed.

Additionally, the paragraph above this quote about Iran is not supported by the reference and should be removed. 140.180.246.136 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  01:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
It has been two weeks and no one has voiced opposition, I think we should move forward. 140.180.247.30 (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

the block quote is heresay opinion and isn't about the subject of the article. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.76.250 (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Quote about Clintons

The "2015 federal indictment on corruption charges" section contains a block quote about the Clintons that mentions Bob Menendez. This quote isn't really about Menendez, it's a question about why the Clintons weren't held to the same standard as Menendez (and others). Menendez is only mentioned in passing, and the speaker is clearly not disputing the charges against Menendez. What is the argument for this quote's relevance? Agreed it should be removed. It is hearsay opinion. 140.180.248.149 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 21 external links on Bob Menendez. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bob Menendez. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 20:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Bob Menendez. 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) 14:38, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Misspelling

His name is misspelled as "Melendez" near the middle of the article. (Am I doing this right?)Tjreports (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Removing detail of accusations from intro

Given that he was not convicted of the charges, as a matter of WP:BLPCRIME concern, I removed the specifics about the accusation and trial from the intro (it's still all in the article body), and put the fact that charges were dropped much closer to the first statement of his having been indicted. (Even if that hadn't been the case, there was a lot of detail in the case description that didn't need to be in the intro, such as which district court was involved. Broad strokes for the intro, folks!) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

put his character traits somewhere. 2600:1700:23C0:4A70:C8F7:340F:EE72:6E9C (talk) 19:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: It is better to go with an impartial description of facts than make judgments about the subject's character. That said, if a trait is mentioned repeatedly by multiple reliable sources, it could be worth mentioning. —C.Fred (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

1500 from Tony Bobulinski in 2014

Tony donating to Bob was mentioned at https://www.foxnews.com/politics/who-is-tony-bobulinski-hunter-bidens-former-business-associate so I want to know if this should be mentioned here. WakandaQT (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bob_Menendez/Archive_1&oldid=1136571211"