Jump to content

Talk:David Weprin

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

Sources

[edit]

I don't see evidence that the website used to source Weprin's political positions, thepoliticalguide.com, is a reliable source. I fixed some POV wording, but this section deserves another check and should probably be rewritten using reliable sources that do not aggregate - newspapers and such. Hekerui (talk) 09:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hekerui. I'll take a look at the sourcing. I'm sure I can find other, more reliable sources that state his positions. Best, ZannyBrainy (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You sourced positions with the same questionable website and gave this "spying" controversy undue weight by putting it in its own section. I restored the previous versions. I suggest usage of reliable sources to source politicial positions. Regards Hekerui (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't questionable sources though. They simply given his position based on public statements. As for the recent controversy, when a candidate doesn't deny having staffers spy, I think I constitutes it's own section. ZannyBrainy (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed note that he lives outside the district as it is not unusual and within the bounds of New York law; removed "spying" controversy because it is still poorly sourced; removed Turner endorsements as they belong in Turner's article, not Weprin's. Arbor8 (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Living outside your district may be accepted but it's important to note. Furthermore, as I've stated before, Weprin has not denied the spying, his campaign staff has. I'm going to make the article reflect that. ZannyBrainy (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The spying charges are the only really relevant thing that's happened in some time. If he hasn't denied it, why aren't we dedicating a full section to it? Inthegarden52 (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He denied involvement from his staff, as the source said. The sentence was previously phrased differently because user ZannyBrainy added conjecture not found in the source. These are mere accusations and they are already noted. The election issues that came up in the debate are hardly covered and to then give mere accusations a whole section is an instance of undue weight. Hekerui (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. The first source never says Weprin denied allegations. It only says, "Weprin spokeswoman Liz Kerr said, “I don’t know anything about it.”" In the second source, Weprin says that he cannot be held accountable for his staffers actions all the time. Neither instance constitutes a denial. And I'm confused about why you consider it conjecture.Inthegarden52 (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article should reflect NPOV

[edit]

I attempted to remove some partisan editorializing. Those edits were reverted with a request for discussion on the talk page.

  • I added information from an article in the NYT, this edit was removed. Surely one does not need to seek permission on the talk page before adding information based on the NYT. Currently, after the information I added was removed, the article reflects perfectly Turner's campaign ads denouncing Weprin rather than the facts given by the NYT. [1]
  • The statement that "Weprin has made a number of missteps on the campaign trail" is editorializing in the voice of Wikipedia. I removed that statement and Inthegarden52 re-inserted it, once again demanding that I "use the talk page before removing edits that have gained consensus." If there was consensus on the talk page to turn Weprin's bio into a campaign document favoring his opponent, then consensus on this page violates Wikipedia policy. [2]
  • I would like to point out that User:Inthegarden52 is a brand-new editor whose first edits were today. He seems to be taking up the course initiated by User:ZannyBrainy, a "different" new user active from September 4 until September 9, adding anti-Webprin material to this bio in the last weeks before the special election. This is inappropriate. Sharktopus talk 05:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
this edit removed information that reflected consensu. I concede that "Weprin has made a number of missteps on the campaign trail" violates Wikipedia:NPOV and will remove it immediately. ZannyBrainy (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polling Data

[edit]

New polling data needs to be added as well as explanations about his lagging numbers in the Jewish community, which normally votes democratic. ZannyBrainy (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Weprin Divorce

[edit]

Wowzer! This is quiet the October surprise! I quote from Politico.

<See link>

This material should, I think, be included in the page, especially after all the attention the scandal involving Jack_Ryan_(politician) ]. What do you all think?Starbucksian (talk) 22:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wowzer! The article goes on to say: <See link>

I'm also not sure what Jack Ryan has to do with David Weprin. Arbor8 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wowzer! The article also says: <See link>

Judge's words! ZannyBrainy (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a "25-year old child custody ruling" per the Politico blog entry. The blog entry does not assert any relevance to the upcoming election nor does it make a good source for information for this article. I removed the blog quotes. Anyone can check the link out and this crosses the line to copyright infringement. A connection to Jack Ryan is original research and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for miniscule coverage of custody fights. Hekerui (talk) 08:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Star isn't making a link between the two. He's pointing out that domestic issues are frequently addressed under a "personal life"-type section on Wiki. Why not here? ZannyBrainy (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly is notable. I mentioned Ryan because that's a high profile instance, but there are others out there. I think it ought to remain.Starbucksian (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I removed the POV edits to the "personal life" section. The residency issue is not notable, and the description of a "nasty custody battle" is editorializing. Please stop. Thanks!Arbor8 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Arbor8 in opposing the effort to insert negative personal commentary into a political bio just before and during election day. Sharktopus talk 22:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This type of information should have been inserted a while ago. Arbor8, the POV issues can be resolved without deleting the information. Simply remove "nasty custody battle." Moreover, Shark, this isn't just "commentary" this is a character sketch done by a judge. ZannyBrainy (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A 25-year-ago character sketch by a judge? Should we also use this much more recent character sketch of his opponent, from the same article? "Accessing court records about a child, possibly illegally, is the ultimate in dirty politics and shows how desperate Republican Bob Turner and his Tea Party allies are to distract from his plan to protect corporate tax loopholes while slashing Medicare and Social Security. Republican Bob Turner must order his staff and allies to stop engaging in these dirty tricks immediately. Voters deserve better." Editorializing comments about one candidate or another need to get very close scrutiny wrt BLP concerns. You say it "should have been inserted a while ago." Sadly, it was leaked to a hostile blogger only on two days before the election. Sharktopus talk 22:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with this. I removed the "nasty custody battle." It was a character sketch provided by one of the most progressive and pro-civil rights judges in the country, Bruce M. Wright. There's nothing wrong with featuring where a candidate lives. Wikipedia has done it in the past. There's nothing wrong with featuring notable parts of a candidate's personal life. I'm dismayed that people would try to spin this as someone trying to affect the outcome of a race. I believe in inserting all information into this so that voters and others can make their own determination.Starbucksian (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shark, is that character sketch from a judge? NO! It's from a Weprin campaign spokesman. Please consider the source. ZannyBrainy (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have now attempted to reinsert that negative material 3 times today and several times yesterday. Others besides me have pointed out it is inappropriate. I removed that material once, and you reinserted it again with an edit summary that accuses me of edit warring? Good grief. The "character sketch" is sourced to a hostile political blog, not WP:RS for negative material in WP:BLP. Removing crap like that from a BLP is in fact immune to the 3RR. Please think about what you are doing here. Sharktopus talk 22:46, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is not a hostile political blog. It is written by Ben Smith of Politico! He writes about Republicans and Democrats. You are absolutely allowed to use blogs published by reputable sources (i.e. Politico) when they are news related. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbucksian (talk • contribs) 22:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Politico story

[edit]

Ben Smith of Politico is not a "hostile blogger." He is a writer at Politico, which is a news website and newspaper that routinely is cited on Wikipedia as a reliable source. I don't see why the material keeps getting thrown off. Perhaps Shark would like to explain himself? That is, if he isn't too busy filing SPA attacks on other users.Starbucksian (talk) 22:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try to avoid personal attacks if you genuinely want to discuss the article here. That said, highly contentious material about living people needs to be sourced to something better than a blog post. If better sourcing can't be found, then it clearly isn't notable enough for inclusion in a biography. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to give a more balanced account of the story in Politico, which does report comments from the Weprin team as well as cherry-picked negative stuff from the transcript. Sharktopus talk 00:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Election Fraud

[edit]

http://www.politickerny.com/2011/09/13/david-weprin-served-papers-on-street-as-turner-challenges-election-results-before-its-over/

Weprin was just served papers alleging election fraud. ZannyBrainy (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good enough source for a biography, and Wikipedia is not news. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPSOURCES puts additional restraint on WP:V, namely that "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and notable, it will have appeared in more reliable sources." I hope that now voting has ended, the pressure to insert negative material based on blog reports will be reduced, and Wikipedia policy will get more attention. Sharktopus talk 00:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is and it isn't. It's surely not the AP wire but for important matters like a death, arrest, fraud, etc. that seem pertinent to a bio, they do operate like a news outlet that updates information regularly. ZannyBrainy (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The polls have closed, so there is no race to get this dubious material in here. If it is newsworthy and verifiable, it will be reported by actual news media. PolitickerNY is clearly not a neutral news source by any stretch of anyone's imagination. Sharktopus talk 00:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sharktopus, now that the election is over the POV pushing will likely stop. I don't expect further contributions by ZannyBrainy to this article seeing their contributions almost solely consist of inserting material into this article that reflects negatively on Weprin's 2011 candidacy, instead of Wikipedia's goal: improving articles. Hekerui (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

There is an attempt to insert redundant and unsourced content. My changes of [3] were:

  • "seen by many as a referendum" -> used "some" which is actually in the source
  • fixed a sentence that used "critisized" to one with correct spelling and the important explanation who claimed the criticism occured and who provided the population estimate
  • corrected the source of Weprin's comment about that "Ground Zero mosque" - they are from an older debate, and to misconstrue them to be recent is not verifiable
  • the source does not speak of "Obama to stop pressuring Israel" at all so a better NPOV reading of the source is used
  • calling a campaign "gaffe-prone" is redundant when the following section discusses those "gaffes"
  • To the NY Post Weprin gave a clear statement that his staff was not involved, whereas that other story conjures up that "he didn't deny XYZ" - not denying is meaningless, when there is no evidence to the contrary, which has not been produced. Being lax with implying guilt is BLP-problematic.
  • The rest was already in the article in a more concise form, but was replaced with longer worded paragraphs that use the NY Daily News opinion section as sources. I returned to a more encyclopedic style.

Hekerui (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hekerui, @ your et al.'s changes as of here
  • Yes, this one article says “some”, and so do many others - which adds up to “many”. Actually, I don't remember having seen any opinion not saying it, so “many” is an understatement, and “some” is just plain wrong.
  • The number of Jews in the district is relevant: It is more than one third. The third of them who are considered/estimated to be (- not were, they are not likely to become unreligious or convert to any other religion in a hurry -) “orthodox Jews” not only by some obscure “New York consultant”, as you claim, but generally, as opposed to non-orthodox Jews, only matter where Weprin's support for same-sex marriage is concerned, not otherwise. And the fact that Turner is a Roman Catholic is also relevant, that's why there is hardly any newspaper that didn't mention it.
  • It is a mistery to me, why you keep inserting data from the 2010 Friedrich-Weprin and Turner-Weiner races, into the 2011 Turner-Weprin campaign. “Turner had hosted a demonstration against Park51 and attempted to use Weprin's comments to ensure support of Jewish district residents opposed to Park51” is a pure Wikipedia invention. The Turner “demonstration” was not against Weprin in 2011, but against Weiner in 2010, and logically was not an attempt “to use Weprin's comments to ensure support of Jewish district residents opposed to Park51”. Turner did warm up the debate in 2011 though, and drastically so (- how could he miss the opportunity, with the election two days after 9/11+10years?) which for reasons unknown to me you keep deleting.
  • “Former New York mayor Ed Koch supported Turner to send a message to Barack Obama about his disagreements with the Israeli government”. So Ed Koch has a “disagreements with the Israeli government”. Swell. But tell me, why did Koch send his message to Barack Obama instead of the other Barak or whichever Israeli politician he thinks is interested? And why not by mail or pick up the phone? And what exactly about the Israeli government is it Koch disagrees with? And who the h- cares, even in Brooklyn or Queens? And if Koch's stance on Israel (or his stance on Obama's stance on Israel) is relevant, why do you keep deleting Israel as an issue for the loss of the seat?
  • “In August 2011, Weprin was criticized for telling the New York Daily News that the national debt was $4 trillion, but is estimated to be around $14 trillion, and for blaming Hurricane Irene as the reason for bowing out of a scheduled debate against Bob Turner” is nonsense. Weprin was not only “criticized in August 2011”, but also in September, and nobody will ever be able to understand what the gaffe about “blaming Hurricane Irene” was, if it is not explained that he used the excuse after the storm was over.
  • Preferring the New York Post to the New York Daily Mail is imo a matter of taste... And don't you agree, that it would make more sense to add comments about why Weprin lost, instead of deleting and tossing sourced content, relevant or not, about the campaign, which is clearly over? Ajnem (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, point per point: Many newspapers saying "seen by some" makes it "seen by many"? The sentence is about a people number estimate, not a number of appearances a word has newspapers. If newspapers all report "some", that does not make it "many".
  • The source gives an estimate by a consultant on how many Jews are Orthodox in the district - a third of them. The point you make about naming all Jewish residents hasn't been an issue in the edit.
  • The comments about the project are from a debate against Bob Friedrich and were used by Turner later and he led a demonstration - this is all in the source. The changes you made removed the origins of the comment but focused on some advertisement. Feel free to put that advertisement back in, but it seems neglibigle.
  • If you really think this is misleading insert one word and you're done - I did it for you. Before, the sentence made statements not supported by the source.
  • This is an adequate summary of the source. The sentence does not say "only in August 2011", but reflects the source - "I was happy last year" doesn't man "I was happy only last year". As for the rest, we are not a newspaper and there is not justification for exhaustive coverage of campaign minutiae.
  • The NY Post story was not an opinion comment but a newsstory, while the NY Daily News source was in the opinion section. If possible, we should rely on non-opinion news stories, no?
Regards Hekerui (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Why is Park51 referred to as a "mosque" in this article?

[edit]

There was a mosque near Ground Zero in some building's basement, but IIRC, it was recently closed. Park51 is not primarily known as a mosque, and it is intellectually dishonest to refer to it as one. Even if Weprin is quoted as incorrectly referring to it as a mosque, the fact that someone links Park51 while disguising the hyperlink in text referring to it as a mosque smells of deceit and propaganda. It plays to the same Islamophobia that ran rampant in 2010 when several bigots pejoratively referred to it as the "Ground Zero mosque." That's not up to wikipedia's standards.Shabeki (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One year later, and I decided to look up the quote "Weprin has defended the “right of the mosque to build on that site”, but expressed his wish that the center be built at a different location" at the link http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/nyregion/profile-of-david-i-weprin-unflashy-scion-of-queens-democrats-running-for-congress.html only to find that it doesn't exist! So for more than a year, people visiting this site were under the impression that not only was Park51 being built ON Ground Zero, but also that Weprin supported it! This page needs more work. Way too many right-wing biases both here and on Bob Turner's page. Who was writing this stuff, Karl Rove?!? Shabeki (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Weprin. 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) 14:50, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Weprin&oldid=1255956329"