Talk:Gary Schiff

Gary Schiff has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 24, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Minnesota Low‑importance

	Minnesota portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Gary Schiff/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Designate (talk · contribs) 15:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is good. The one problem is context: it assumes a local audience, where Wikipedia aims to be loosely accessible, at least, to a global audience. I recommend putting "American politician" or something along those lines in the first sentence, before mentioning anything specific to Minnesota. Similarly, in the first body paragraph I suggest you identify the location of Lewiston-Porter High School (Youngstown, NY). There are a few other stylistic quibbles but they're not part of the GA criteria.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The layout is fine, but the lead is insufficient. The lead should be at least a solid paragraph, maybe two, summarizing the most important points of each section. It doesn't have to be long but it should be able to stand on its own and explain what Schiff has done and why he matters, not just list the offices he's held. The lead should answer: who is he? what's his story?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Well cited, although there's a slight link glitch (ref 9) which should be fixed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	There are a number of instances where the source does not match the article. I'm only spot-checking but it happens quite a few times. "The theater reopened as the Cowles Center for Dance and the Performing Arts in September 2011 and hosted 110 performances in its first season." This is an example of what Wikipedia considers original synthesis (WP:SYNTH). The theater's success in 2011 was reported by a reliable source, but the source did not link this back to Schiff's work in 1990. The article should only refer to sources that specifically mention Schiff's efforts, not sources that may reflect long-term consequences of Schiff's work without mentioning him. "... a measure that permitted sidewalk cafes to use permanent outdoor furniture[19]" The source listed only indicates that he introduced this measure, not that it passed. It should say "would permit sidewalk cafes" unless there's a source showing it actually went into law. "He also sponsored ordinances that reduced the requirements of the Minneapolis Truth of Sale in Housing Program" The source only says he voted for this bill. "... added domestic partnerships to the Zoning Code's definition of "family" in terms of housing.[22]" The source listed doesn't appear to associate Schiff with this amendment at all.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The only glaring omission is his upbringing, everything pre-1990. The Buffalo News gives his father's name as Robert J. Schiffhauer ("Reporter's Notebook / Ambassador", April 6, 1989) and Gary's birth name (Gary J. Schiffhauer). The Star-Tribune confirms his birth name and birth place, and the fact that he's the youngest of six children. Other childhood information would be nice if you could find it, but at least this basic info should be included.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The paragraph about the Vikings stadium, which doesn't mention Schiff at all, is a little long. Maybe it could be worked into the following paragraph which does mention Schiff. The approval of the financing plan (2012) is mentioned in both paragraphs, for example.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The information is well cited and doesn't appear overly biased.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No problems.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a good biography of a local politician (a rarity on Wikipedia), and comes close to the GA criteria. I'll be happy to pass it if a few revisions are made. Let me know what you think.

Thanks for the review! None of these concerns seem too difficult to deal with, so I'll try and clean it up by next Sunday. I might note that, as there is a growing body of information pertaining to his mayoral campaign, I may write a new section covering that, especially considering that, as of now, it's mentioned in the lead and nowhere else. It'd be great if you could look that over in regard to the GA criteria once I get around to writing it (which will ideally be sooner than later). Thanks again! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 17:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this as of right now, hunting down better sources for a couple of statements and, once that's done, rewriting the lead. I believe everything else has been addressed. If I'm not completely done on Sunday, I should be by Monday. Thanks! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 05:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that should do it. Any further thoughts? BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 07:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I've passed it as GA. —Designate (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

None of the other announced and potential candidates for the 2013 Minneapolis mayoral election have wiki pages even remotely close to the depth of this page. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.190.119 (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because they haven't been written yet. If you have a candidate who's gotten a decent amount of biographical coverage in reliable independent sources (see our idea of notability) feel free to write an article on them! All our articles are written by people like you. There's no staff here. You're welcome to join, but it takes a little work and frustration. —Designate (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Council on Crime and Justice info

Gianthippo and I have reverted back and forth a time or two between slightly different versions of the coverage of Schiff's tenure at the Council on Crime and Justice (CCJ). I think it's worth taking a look at our respective versions and how the represent the two sources and coming to a consensus about how to report Schiff's time with the Council.

My version included two parts, a section in the lead, and one in the Post-mayoral bid section. In the lead:

"Schiff took over as president of the Council on Crime and Justice the following July [2014]. He was replaced at the organization a year later, and it closed abruptly shortly after his departure. A federal audit identified misused grant funds in a grant program that was frozen during Schiff's tenure."

This was elaborated upon in the body:

"On July 1, 2014, Schiff took over as president of the Council on Crime and Justice (CCJ), a Minneapolis nonprofit organization established in 1957 to "create a criminal justice system that is equitable and just." The CCJ dismissed Schiff in 2015 and closed suddenly in 2016 after almost 60 years of operation. A federal audit conducted on a grant program that was frozen while Schiff led the CCJ identified a misuse of funds at the organization. Schiff stated that he believed that the CCJ's board of directors and its previous leadership were responsible for the council's shutdown."

Gianthippo's most recent revision left the latter section unchanged. They wrote in the lead:

"Schiff took over as president of the Council on Crime and Justice the following July [2014]. Under his leadership, the nonprofit endured misuse of personal, foundation, state, and federal funds. The Office of Justice Programs ordered an audit upon his departure in May 2015, and the nearly sixty year old nonprofit dissolved in 2016."

Their edit summary accompanying the change read:

"Re-added-relevant sources. Unnecessary edits spin politician during election cycle. Concerned at conflict of interest."

The two relevant sources cited are:

Belz, Adam (March 18, 2017). "In race for Minneapolis' Ninth Ward, Council Member Alondra Cano draws two well-known challengers". Star Tribune.
Stahl, Brandon (May 20, 2016). "Council on Crime and Justice abruptly shuts down". Star Tribune.

Which, for ease of reference, we'll call Belz and Stahl.

The real crux of the disagreement appears to be the second (and third) sentences in the final paragraph of the lead so let's first check the sources:

My revision:

Claim	Source
"He was replaced at the organization a year later [after being hired in 2014]"	"He was hired as executive director of the Council on Crime and Justice in 2014, and then relieved of his duties a year later." (Belz)
"and it closed abruptly shortly after his departure."	"The organization closed after he was replaced" (Belz) and "Council on Crime and Justice abruptly shuts down" (Stahl)
"A federal audit identified misused grant funds in a grant program that was frozen during Schiff's tenure."	"a federal audit highlighted $424,000 in “questioned costs,” finding that the organization “spent grant funds on a variety of unallowable and unsupported costs.” ¶ Schiff wasn’t named in the audit, said he wasn’t interviewed by investigators, and said the grant program that came under scrutiny was frozen while he was in charge." (Belz)

Gianthippo's revision:

Claim	Source
"Under his leadership, the nonprofit endured misuse of personal, foundation, state, and federal funds."	I'd argue this sentence is not supported by either of the sources. Stahl says "Palumbo and Salsgiver said they had been told that the council closed after its main source of revenue, the Federal Office of Justice Programs, froze its funding following an audit. ¶ “They were having a hard time matching [the council’s] numbers,” Salsgiver said. ¶ Moriearty said she could not say specifically why the council shut down. “The council has had to face some extreme and serious financial hardships over the last several months,” she said." However, with Schiff gone since mid-2015, it's hard to say whether "the last several months" includes his time in leadership. Considering the Belz article specifically counters the claim that Schiff was implicated in the misappropriation ("a federal audit highlighted $424,000 in “questioned costs,” finding that the organization “spent grant funds on a variety of unallowable and unsupported costs.” ¶ Schiff wasn’t named in the audit, said he wasn’t interviewed by investigators, and said the grant program that came under scrutiny was frozen while he was in charge.", this claim feels like a stretch. Additionally, I could not find mention of the "misuse of personal, foundation, state, and federal funds."; only "grant funds" are mentioned in Belz and Stahl mentions only federal funding ("the council closed after its main source of revenue, the Federal Office of Justice Programs, froze its funding following an audit.")
"The Office of Justice Programs ordered an audit upon his departure in May 2015"	"the Federal Office of Justice Programs, froze its funding following an audit." (Stahl) but there's no indication that the audit was ordered upon Schiff's departure in May 2015, nor any source to indicate that Schiff left the program in May of that year (we only know it was sometime in 2015) from these sources.
"and the nearly sixty year old nonprofit dissolved in 2016."	"A nearly 60-year-old Minneapolis-based nonprofit focused on helping people involved in the criminal justice system has closed its doors and laid off its nine employees and three contractors." (Stahl)

Gianthippo's version of the text suggests a greater degree of culpability for Schiff than is supported in the sources we have at our disposal. Gianthippo, in your edit summary you mention readding sources. Those sources were already in the body of the article, citing the passage about Schiff's involvement with the CCJ. You state "Unnecessary edits spin politician during election cycle." I suggest that my revision is more in line with the sources we have available (both of which are Star Tribune sources, probably Minnesota's most trustworthy paper). In re "Concerned at conflict of interest", I'll happily tell you that my interest in this article is mostly because I helped get it to GA status several years back and I'm interested to see it maintain that level of quality. I supported Schiff lazily during his 2013 run for mayor (which is to say, I would have voted for him but then he dropped out). I'm no longer in a position to vote for Schiff or any other Minneapolis city councilmember and have no financial or professional connection to him. Really truly, I'm just interested in seeing this article be as good as it can be and fulfill the WP:BLP criteria. Gianthippo or any others interested in this, I'm interested to hear your feedback. Otherwise, I plan to revert back to my revision of the opening sentence in a day or two. All the best (and sorry if this feels like an overreaction to something little), BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 02:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Gary Schiff. 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) 13:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]