Jump to content

Talk:Claudia Tenney/Archive 1

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claudia Tenney. 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) 02:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Sins of the donors

We have a whole paragraph about Brindisi calling for Tenney to return the contributions of this or that donor based on the donor having said or done something, and Tenney making the same kind of call against Brindisi.

Some of Tenney's contributions raised concerns. The Alliance for Quality Education, the Oneida County Young Democrats, and Central New York Citizen Action sent Tenney a letter asking her to called for her to return campaign contributions from billionaire hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb due to racially charged comments he made about New York State Senate Democratic Conference Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins. A Tenney campaign spokesman said in a statement it will not return those donations, and criticized Anthony Brindisi from receiving funding from Representative Nancy Pelosi. Brindisi's campaign manager Ellen Foster asked Tenney to give back a $1,000 contribution from the "Patriots Leading a Majority" Political Action Committee of Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Meehan, who secretly settled a sexual harassment complaint made by a former female staffer. Tenney's campaign rejected that demand as well.[37]

I would like to delete this whole paragraph and I solicit other people's opinions on the subject. I think this is WP:UNDUE - there is one reference, and in a search there is a small amount of coverage from other local papers. I generally don't like this kind of comment which tries to tie the candidate to the sins of their donors. It's a common attack line from opposing candidates, but unless it gets widespread coverage or becomes a real issue I don't think it belongs in our articles. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Support it's completely WP:MILL and it's just a cheap political point from her opponent at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree entirely. MB 22:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. User:Corkythehornetfan removed most of the paragraph. I just removed the rest. --MelanieN (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I also think that this content ("Defending Trump's Staff Secretary Rob Porter, who was unable to obtain a White House security clearance because of his assaults against his ex-wives and current reports of anger problems from a girlfriend, Tenney said he had not been guilty of “crimes of character.”) should be removed. The first source specifically says that a spokesman for the DCCC pointed out these comments. So we're basically parroting campaign talking points. The second source, the New York Times, doesn't mention Tenney--it's about Porter, and looks like WP:COATRACK which is being used to pile on the descriptions of Porter's criminal behavior. If we include this, we should just use the first source-the one that actually mentions Tenney--and say "In a radio interview, Tenney suggested the domestic abuse allegations against former White House staff secretary Rob Porter were not 'crimes of character.'" But even that may be a bit overkill for a radio remark. The DCCC and RNC are tracking everything said and done by these candidates and sending out the alarms when anything that can be perceived as remotely controversial is said or done. I don't think it's particularly encyclopedic to turn around and add each such instance to these biographies. Marquardtika (talk) 05:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree and have removed the Rob Porter comment, which seems rather trivial and was not widely covered. The "mass murderers are Democrats" comment got widespread coverage and should be retained. Open to discussion about the "unAmerican not to applaud" comment; it's ridiculous (since that has been standard behavior at State of the Union addresses for at least several decades) but was parroted by many Republicans after Trump made an issue of it. --MelanieN (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Both comments should absolutely be retained. They both have received widespread coverage from several sources and illustrate positions on both guns and Trump. They are important comments independent of anything else on the page. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
With her comments about Porter, it's hard to even know what to single out for mention. She said the abuse alleged was "not a crime of character", whatever that means. She cast doubt on the abuse claims, asking why he hadn't been prosecuted if they were true, and saying "we just don't know" what happened. She said Trump has had a hard time hiring quality people because the Republican establishment was against him. She said, that was last week, why are we still talking about it? There are neutral mainstream sources like WaPo and Politico reporting on this, but it all sounds like idle chatter with no particular point she is making. --MelanieN (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Not to put words in PointsofNoReturn's mouth, but I read their comment as meaning that both the "un-American" and the mass shooting comments should be retained (which I'm fine with as well). Marquardtika (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
That works for me. --MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Those two comments by Tenney were what I was referring to. Thank you for clarifying my comment, Marquardtika. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @PointsofNoReturn:, @MelanieN:, @MB:, @Corkythehornetfan:, @PointsofNoReturn:, Tenney's comments about the hiring and retention of Porter were widely covered. Her statements were extemporaneously made in a 22-minute interview and were apparently meant to excuse processes which have brought a great deal of negative attention to the hiring and personnel retention difficulties of the Trump administration. About the quality of those personnel who were hired to work at the White House, Tenney excused it, saying, (at 4:26 on the tape) they were, "...not always the best. You just had to get someone to do the job." Her dismissive comments about the charges were, for an attorney, quite remarkable. Tenney asked why Rob Porter had not been prosecuted, but his abusive behavior had been internationally publicized in the broadcast and print media for more than a week prior to her Valentine's Day appearance on the Talk of the Town show. In fact, an uncontested restraining order was secured by second wife Jennifer Willougby against Porter when he put his fist through a window in the door of her home, the incident occurring during a mutually-agreed-upon separation period, while he was demanding to be admitted within. He only fled the scene as he could hear her giving her address to a 911 operator. The police recommended that she obtain the order. As an attorney, Tenney by the nature her profession was aware that such an order was subject to adversarial proceedings if Porter desired to contest it. He's fortunate his wife didn't charge him criminally. So the issues she trivialized weren't solely "crimes of character" issues, but the violent "conduct" as well. "Character" issues are neither "crimes" nor "prosecutable," but "conduct" (i.e., overt acts) are. His dishonesty was also publicized as he claimed that he had only accidentally broken through the pane of glass in Willoughby's door when he supposedly "tapped" on it, with the knuckle of his index finger. The glass used in a door is considerably thicker and more durable than the 3/32" single strength as is used in a picture frame. So he showed issues both with "character" as well as "conduct." His first wife, Colbie Holderness, indicated the verbal, physical and emotional abuse was persistent, from the time of their dating, through their honeymoon in Italy, when he gave her the photographed shiner, to their eventual divorce. In February 2017, Holderness had supplied the FBI with the photo of her black eye which was the result of Porter's assault on her. Willoughby gave them the abuse info which was relayed to the White House staff in July 2017. Porter's girl friend at the time who reported his anger problems, precipitated the November 2017 report that was brought to the attention of the White House personnel officers with regard to his application for a security clearance. The FBI made four notifications about Porter's behavior over the course of a year. FBI Director Christopher Wray testified about each of them, on the record, and in an open hearing, contradicted the White House which had asserted ignorance about the notifications. Tenney even mischaracterized the nature of the problems, in her interview, claiming that Porter was unlikely to blackmail anyone about it, when in fact his behavior would have instead, in fact, made him vulnerable to being the subject of blackmail. I don't expect anyone to decide to change the removal of the edit, just want to share my thoughts. Activist (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of reliably sourced information

Executive Anthony J. Picente, Jr., a Republican who is Oneida County, New York's top elected official, responded to Tenney's statement...,

"It's interesting that so many of these people that commit the mass murders end up being Democrats. But the media doesn't talk about that."

...saying, "I find that her comments are outrageous, pathetic and really despicable in terms of her answer to this problem. Let’s keep our eye on what’s going on here. This is not the place for political nonsense.”

Her comment can be found at: http://talk1300.com/CMT/podcast/FSC221181.mp3 33:45 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:777E:9820:9596:FBF4:34:24F3 (talk) 02:54, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Editor Marquardtika removed the quote on February 23rd, saying his (?) basis for editing it out was, (→‎Democrats as perpetrators of mass shootings: take heed of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, and cut quote from a probably non-notable person...let's see what comes of this radio interview before loading up the page w/ so-and-so's commentary on it) In fact Picente, the regularly reelected chief officer of the most populous county for over 11 years, which contains about a third of all the residents of the 22nd district, has served far longer than any of his predecessors since the office was established 53 years ago, and should not be characterized "probably" or otherwise, as "non-notable." As a long-time reporter, Marquardtika is well aware of the requirement for accuracy, both in his field of employment and as a Wikipedia editor. I'm consequently restoring the deletion of the pertinent quote. We're not here to whitewash the history of any article's subject. Activist (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC) I further restored reliably sourced, via campaign finance tracking organization Open Secrets, data, which Marquardtika deleted, writing it had been sourced to "Google Documents," which Open Secrets simply used as a format for presentation. It was no more "sourced" to Google Documents than the basis for any text was "sourced" to Word for Windows. Activist (talk) 13:05, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

And I have removed the claim about Tenney getting “more lifetime funding from the NRA than all but one current member of the New York delegation,” because it is not supported by the references. The syracuse.com reference does not say anything of the sort. And the OpenSecrets reference is simply a chart that lists all the members of congress and their NRA support, so any claim about lifetime funding compared to other members of the New York delegation is original research, not something which has been pointed out by a published source. --MelanieN (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
In addition to what Melanie said, namely that the information that you added along with the Google Spreadsheet wasn't actually in the spreadsheet and is in fact contradicted by the reliable Syracuse.com source, there is no evidence that the Google Spreadsheet was published by Open Secrets. I don't think Open Secrets has moved their publishing platform to Google. Here is a link to where Open Secrets collates their data on NRA recipients. When I search for the Google Spreadsheet/Open Secrets link, the hits I get are all to Tweets from gun control advocates, one of whom says that they have taken data from Open Secrets to make the Google Spreadsheet. The spreadsheet is now making the rounds on Twitter. But there's no evidence that Open Secrets itself published the spreadsheet. Anyone can create a Google Spreadsheet and name it anything they want to name it. But it hasn't been fact-checked and we have no idea if it's accurate, and it meets none of the criteria for WP:RS or WP:V. Marquardtika (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I should add that I don't know or care about the publishing platform for Open Secrets, or for that matter whether their information is accurate or not. My point is simply that neither of the two cited sources - Open Secrets and syracuse.com - actually says what is cited to them, or says anything about Tenney getting more lifetime funding from the NRA than other New York congresspeople. That statement appears to be WP:SYNTH of some kind, maybe taking the numbers and massaging them somehow to come up with that conclusion. We don't allow that. We cannot say this unless we are citing some Reliable Source that said it first. I don't see any such statement in either of the cited references, so I removed the claim as unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
The info that I included was most certainly included in the Open Secrets spreadsheet, which was created by that organization and placed on their own website. All one has to do is to read a simple line of type in a chart. The chart is also clear as to NRA support. It distinguishes between direct support through contributions, the number that Syracuse.com repeated, and indirect support through mailers, etc. I have provided copious documentation that Open Secrets collected the data, wrote about it, and published their chart on their own website. I don't do Twitter, not now, or not ever. It also has collected data on NRA support for members of the current NY congressional delegation (as it did for every other state), line by line, delegate by delegate, going back 30 years. More importantly, I haven't included any whit of material whatsoever that is external to the organization or its website. There is the cited story, plus their internal links to additional data, within that story, just as if had been in a sidebar. If you have one scintilla of evidence that such isn't the case, please provide it. Activist (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
My point is that you picked out certain data, compared it, and reached a conclusion that the source did not state. Per WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." --MelanieN (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Outcome of election

While it may be a few days before the relatively small number of remaining absentee and affidavit ballots from three counties are tabulated, by virtue of the size of Brindisi's lead as of the 17th, it would be virtually impossible for Tenney to overcome. The official certification of results by the state will follow that in December, I think. Activist (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

While you are probably right that Brindisi will win, there is no reason to push things. Oneida County, by far the biggest source of absentee ballots remaining to be counted, will be announcing their count before Thanksgiving, this Thursday. Their count has a high likelihood of making it official mathematically. AP would probably project the race at that point as well. I'd just wait until Thanksgiving until making any changes about the result of the election in the article. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Update on the vote counting: [1] PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Father

Shouldn't there be a mention of her father, the late state Supreme Court Justice John R. Tenney, who served from 1969 through 2003? It seems pretty notable. https://www.syracuse.com/news/2014/05/7_things_you_might_not_know_about_claudia_tenney_candidate_for_congress.html Robinrobin (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and link, Robinrobin. I've added it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Claudia_Tenney/Archive_1&oldid=1094804115"