Talk:Kings Point, New York
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Long Island may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
Dan Piedra keeps inserting politically motivated content
Dan Piedra inserted the section Political Controversy that uses an opinion piece written by himself for Long Island Jewish World as the only source for the alleged Political Controversy. This violates the Wikipedia Principal of "No Original Research." I have removed the content. Dan Piedra went ahead and re-inserted it and I removed it again.
The entry by Dan Piedra also references a grassroots coalition called Kings Point Exposed and their website www.kingspointexposed.com which according to Piedra's entry was formed to "protest, among several issues, the recent property tax increase, lack of government transparency, and "fiscal irresponsibility" of the village government." Kings Point Exposed specifically targets the current mayor of Kings Point, Michael Kalnick, who is currently in a heated reelection battle.
A simple whois search shows that the Kings Point Exposed website is owned by Dan Piedra of Brighton, MI. So Dan Piedra is clearly a political opponent of the current mayor of Kings Point or a paid operative acting on behalf of the Mayor's political opponents.
In fact a simple google search of "Dan Piedra Brighton Michigan" brings up his linkedin profile which shows that he is a public relations consultant working for St. James and Co which according to his profile "provides professional services to political organizations.
This clearly violates the Wikipedia principal of Neutral Point of View.
- There are other articles cited, so the section does not rely entirely on the work attributed to Dan Piedra. Probably the best way to address this situation is for you to find sources that rebut content currently in the article; that would provide balance. —C.Fred (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- That said, I think more eyes are needed here. I've escalated this to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. —C.Fred (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have restored my changes. The Jewish World article that he cites is actually an editorial that he wrote as a paid political consultant for the opposition to the mayor. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard of verifiable accuracy when he uses it to support the other factual statements in the paragraph. The only source he gives is a Great Neck Record article that makes no mention of allegations of voter fraud. Given that the whole section on Voter Fraud rests entirely on the Jewish World Article, it should be removed until verifiably accurate sources are given. The section under Village Government is self-promotional and irrelevant. A single website does not provide sufficient evidence that "In recent years, the village government has faced increasing accusations of fraud, secrecy, and wasteful spending." Nor does it provide sufficient justification for a why the criticism from a single website is relevant for inclusion in a wikipedia article. Given these issues, and the fact that the website was created by Mr. Piedra, this section is overly self-promotional without serving a sufficiently substantive purpose.-Jfante713 (talk) 01:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)