Talk:Pat Garofalo

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.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

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.

A lot of edits. Some not so well sourced, others well sourced and NPOV. BLP policy clearly says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. " The so-called "silly tweet" made national news, is relevant to the figure as an elected official, and is welled sourced. So why are experienced editors getting into a revert war here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.28.53.168 (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what wording would you propose to add and what sources would you cite? Jonathunder (talk) 03:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think you can debate the wording, but simply deleting the section en bloc seems a bit over-the-top. If you find the wording inappropriate, the appropriate response would be to alter it to be more NPOV. As for sources, if a source is objectionable, cite it, but sources such as the Associated Press and the Tweet itself would seem to meet threshold credibility. Mrfeek (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the section back in. Tried to make more NPOV, and added a paragraph noting Garofalo's apology. Mrfeek (talk) 07:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cited twitter, which is not a reliable source, and added an unsourced sentence that "some people" think that tweet was racist. You also allege racism in the section heading, which is supposed to be nuetral. Your additions, even shortened, made the article a coatrack on which to hang implications of racism. I am placing this article under BLP restrictions. Please discuss proposed additions here. Jonathunder (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Representative's own Twitter account is unreliable? Okay, well, the AP cites all quoted it verbatim, and I assume the AP is a reliable source. I noted "allegations" of racism, which unquestionably existed. You have yet to offer a constructive solution to this, and continue to simply revert to *no mention whatsoever*, despite the fact that Garofalo is arguably better known for this incident than any other. I am curious what mention of this event you *would* find acceptable. My suspicion is that there will not be any. Mrfeek (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]