Talk:Jerry Nadler/Archive 1

Use of Hate Speech Convention in Twitter Name

Representative Jerrold Nadler's Verified Twitter Account "(((Rep. Nadler))) (@RepJerryNadler) · Twitter" uses an antisemitic triple parenthesis 'echo' meme, ostensibly to antagonize "conservatives" on twitter. However, this itself is a controversial double-standard, because this convention when used by conservatives would be considered 'bannable' hate speech subject to a Terms-of-service account deactivation. Strangely, though reported, this offensive gesture remains on his verified account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.48.58.5 (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Untitled

Seems like he's a member of the Democrat Party - http://www.house.gov/nadler/biography.shtml - sounds like a rather major omission to me not to mention it in the article... More interesting would be a summary of his relations to the party, how dependent or independent his from his Party. Boud 23:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I have updated the article, highlighting Congressman Nadler is a Democrat. And the proper name of the party is the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Thank you. --Blue387 07:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

". . . civil rights groups like the NRA and Gun Owners of America" sounds like Newspeak to me. While I have no beef with the statement regarding Nadler's relationship vis a vis the NRA et al, to introduce the NRA as a "civil rights group" is clearly an attempt to introduce spin into the discussion. Yes, I get the argument that fighting to defend (one's interpretation of) one of the amendments in the Bill of Rights could arguably make a claim to that term (but it's a stretch); nevertheless, it is so far from common usage that it has no place in a document such as this whose mission is to articulate consensus.

The Colbert Report

On an episode of the Colbert Report, Nadler referenced having a girlfriend and I think that him having an affair should be in his entry on wikipedia.

Nadler spoke in the hypothetical, I believe about wiretapping conversations with one's wife or one's girlfriend. Colbert then tried to characterize it as an assertion by Nadler that he himself had a girlfriend, which Nadler expressly denied. There is no plausible way to use that as a reference for factually asserting that Nadler is having an affair. Postdlf 20:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Him denying it seemed as him realizing his mistake and trying to cover it up. The controversy should be included in the article, whether he has a girlfriend or not, the controversy around it is worthy of inclusion. 69.218.181.192 03:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside the context of Colbert trying to have some humor at Nadler's expense in that Colbert Report episode, where has this even been mentioned or discussed? What's the "controversy"? Postdlf 05:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Nadler said "I don't have a girlfriend" before Colbert even responded. 69.218.181.192 19:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Post, Nadler was back-tracking before Colbert ever tried to pin something on him. Colbert actually gave it up pretty quickly when he realized it might be true and the real Colbert did not want to get him in trouble. 69.218.181.192 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I saw that episode of the Colbert Report. It was a joke. Watch it again and get over yourself 69.218 Cornell Rockey 00:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cornell, if you watch it again, you will see Nadler denies having a girlfriend before Colbert even accuses him of it. 69.218.181.192 18:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Are Republicans born without the humor gene? A group supporting Tom DeLay actually posted a Colbert routine "defending" DeLay on their website! You guys are clueless! Nothing anybody says in a Stephen Colbert interview should be taken seriously.

Furthermore, those interviews are heavily edited for comic effect. Not only should nothing anybody says in a Stephen Colbert interview be taken seriously, nothing anybody says in a Stephen Colbert interview should ever be taken in any sort of context. --Gradient 02:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Voting scorecards

Literally hundreds of groups offer voting scorecards. But only one is mentioned in virtually every Congressional biography on Wikipedia. Seems like someone from the "Drum Major Institute" has been working overtime? I think those references are probably worthy of deletion, unless the Drum Major can explain why his group is worthy of mention more than the hundreds of other interest groups out there.

NPOV template

Why is the NPOV template on this article? -- noosphere 01:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since no reason has been given for the tag, I'm going to remove it. -- noosphere 14:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

"Although he frequently makes what his admirers describe as courageous stands in the Congress, he has an uneven voting record, stating opposition to both the War in Iraq and the USA PATRIOT ACT but voting to support both. Nadler also voted to introduce a National ID Card starting in 2008 (REAL ID Act), despite statements supporting privacy rights, and he supports left-wing economic policies purportedly to help disadvantaged and improverished members of society but which defy empirical laws of economic prosperity. Although he campaigns as a champion of civil rights, he frequently votes to abridge those rights, such as his consistent record voting against gun rights for individuals under the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights."

I really don't this is objective at all for a bio, and I am a Republican who can't stand the guy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.130.60.218 (talk • contribs) .

Yep. I have to agree. So I've gone ahead and deleted these comments and unsourced assertions per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. -- noosphere 18:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Partisan railroad jobs

I'm still feeling really uneasy about the line that says Nadler's opponents countered that he "never mentioned the partisan railroad jobs conducted by Democrats". I initially thought it made sense to leave it in in the interests of balance, but the more I think about it, the more I think that this isn't the place to post counterarguments. Posting Nadler's views (that he thought the process was a railroad job) is relevant because the article is about him. Whether or not it was isn't relevant for this article, and so I don't think the line should stay up. What do you all think?

--Gradient 15:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The anon's POV edits

An anon who is evidently an ardent libertarian wants to use this article and the Deborah Glick article as platforms for right-wing attacks on the bio subjects. As I said in one of my edit summaries, and as the anon has ignored, this article is not the place to debate the merits of every bill Nadler has ever voted on. It's also not the place to make a general case against the American left.

The article correctly states that Nadler has a progressive voting record. I've changed the wikilink to go to Progressivism in the United States instead of the "progressive" dab page. It's thus clear to the reader that Nadler is generally on the left, and we don't need to spend paragraphs elaborating that people on the right disagree with him about this, that, and the other.

To the anon: Your best course would be to discuss these questions here. If, instead, you decide to complain to the admins, please feel free -- that way someone other than me will be involved in explaining Wikipedia polices to you, which will save me some time. JamesMLane t c 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The Vandal JamesMLane's Partisan Censorship

First of all, they're not "right wing attacks" (as you apparently are ignorant of the fact that libertarians are neither left nor right), they're *facts* about his voting record which I documented with footnoted links, and second, just because I added things when I hadn't bothered to sign in doesn't make my factual, true and legitimate additions illegitimate or "attacks".

Now, perhaps you'd like to explain the following: why a "Criticisms" section is ok for other candidates, but not for Nadler, and second, what is your objection to valid, factual criticisms and the viewpoints of Nadler's critics, as Wikipedia has for many other candidates? Or are you jst arguing that the Nadler bio should be a one-sided advertisement for an establishment politician?

I'll assume for now that you are a partisan schill for Nadler and other left wing socialist "progressives" and restore the vandalism you've committed, and when you vandalise these legitimate additons again, you'll only be providing further ammunition for me to use against you during our upcoming Mediation. Nicolas Leobold New York, N.Y. nleobold@msn.com Constituent/Victim of Nadler and his NY Demo-rat Gang

The attacks you want us to include would be considered right-wing by most people, but the characterization would have no place in the article so it doesn't matter. As for your not signing in, you're absolutely right that you're allowed to edit, and I never said otherwise. You should read what I actually wrote.

They are not attacks, they are facts. And only politically-ignorant people, which granted, most Americans are, would label a libertarian as "right-wing". Who knows, maybe you're ignorant too, you sure act like it. NL

That applies also to: "Now, perhaps you'd like to explain the following: why a 'Criticisms' section is ok for other candidates, but not for Nadler...." No, I'm not going to explain a belief I don't hold and never stated. What I actually wrote was that "this article is not the place to debate the merits of every bill Nadler has ever voted on." What you've described as criticisms of Nadler could be included practically verbatim in the bios of hundreds of members of Congress.

Yes, and they should be included if any Wikipedia member, whether right-wing, libertarian, or Marxist, wants to add criticisms. NL

As for your alleged "footnoted links", here's what I see:

• First paragraph, no citations.
• Second paragraph, no citations
• Third paragraph, a citation to a local TV news story in Texas, which doesn't mention Nadler, about some people getting some money from some 9/11-related program, cited to support the sweeping proposition that most federal programs grant a large proportion of the money improperly.
• Fourth paragraph, no citations.
• Fifth paragraph, citation to a website that lists some of Nadler's votes, with one-line descriptions of the bills voted on, cited as support for a clearly non-neutral summary unsupported by the source.
• Sixth paragraph, no citations.
• Seventh paragraph, no citations.

Neither does every or most items in the main section have footnotes. So what? Are you going to also claim that anything un-sourced is automatically untrue, or that any of these criticisms are uncharacteristic of his libertarian critics, and further discredit yourself? His Green Party, Constitution Party, Communist Party and any other of Nadler's critics, are welcome to add their criticisms too, as far as I'm concerned. NL

It's instructive that your attitude toward mediation is that you'll prepare for it by accumulating "ammunition to use against" another user. I suggest that mediation is unlikely to be productive in that case. You should instead look at other bios of incumbent legislators. Do you see any that have the kind of attacks you've inserted? By your lights, every Congressmember who voted for Bush's tax cuts should have a section in his/her bio saying "critics contend that the tax cuts unfairly benefited the rich and turned a record annual surplus (under Clinton) into a record annual deficit under Bush." You bet I could source that. You can also bet that if I added it to a couple hundred articles, it would be reverted every single time, and rightly so. JamesMLane t c 04:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no surplus under Bill Clinton. Clinton raided the Social Security Trust Fund and used the money in the general fund, and that's how he was able to claim there was a "surplus". God are you people gullible. I think all "progressives" should be forced to go back to school, but I guess that would be unlibertarian. Or, maybe you know it's a lie and you're just evil. I've met both Hillary and Nadler, they're evil and dishonest, so it wouldn't be surprising if their supporters/defenders were too. Second, plenty of the Wikipedia political bios have "Criticism" sections, where do you think I got the idea? Look at Hillary Clinton's bio as one example, last I checked it had one. Of course, now you'll claim that Hillary is different, etc. Basically, you're just partisan schills, and will stoop to any trick, lie or smear to protect your fellow statists. You're authoritarian, lying creeps, masters of dirty tricks, and want to control the whole country ands continue leeching and stealing from Americans for profit. That's how the Demorats and Republicans work. So lying and cheating on Wikipedia is small fries for you, but you'll do it in order to keep pushing your views and censoring the truth. And, of course I want ammunition to win my case against you. Do you think I wouldn't? I appreciate you providing it. NL

Delusional commentary

Some editors are under profound delusions about liberal Congresspeople and economic concepts. Democrats such as Nadler do not support a centrally controlled economy. The Dp DOES NOT = CP-USSR. Today someone typed in Newsmax-type or Free Republic-type tripe. The section was almost entirely POV. This is an encyclopedia, not people's collective blog. Dogru144 23:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Dougru144. --noosphere 05:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely false. Democrats, AND Republicans, are BOTH authoritarian, socialist, favor a centralized economy, and both favor the current policies and laws which have fulfilled all ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. Here they are:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. 10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Now, please tell us which of these 10 Communist Objectives the Democrats AND Republicans HAVEN'T supported? NONE--they supported and instituted ALL OF THEM! Ergo, Dp/Rp=CP-USSR, Nadler=CP/Socialist The only one who is delusional here is you. Another example, please tell me how internet gambling threatnes national security, or why people shouldn't be able to do it, especialy with after-tax money (if you actually endorse taxation)? It's legal in Europe, yet the Democrats and Republicans want to keep it banned in the U.S. Ergo, the Democrats and Republicans are both authoritarian socialist control freaks, who don't believe in freedom, individual rights or privacy for their own people. Case Closed. You people are either incredibly ignorant or incredibly evil. Which one is it?? Nicolas Leobold, nleobold@msn.com

What delusional nonsense. Most of the 10 points have not and were not pursued in the US or Western Europe. Ever heard of the military (arms race) compliment to the Cold War? Dogru144 15:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment — at the risk of being caught in the crossfire, I'd like to warn all those involved about edit warring and also personal attacks (I'm not involved in this discussion or these edits and so have no stance, but calling someone delusional — regardless of whether they are right or wrong in their claims — is decidedly not on). Let's try to keep a cool head, folks! Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 15:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, Angus. In addition to the other Wikipedia policies that have been called to his attention (WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:BLP), Mr. Leobold needs to have a look at WP:NPA and WP:AGF.

In defending his edits, he writes: "His Green Party, Constitution Party, Communist Party and any other of Nadler's critics, are welcome to add their criticisms too, as far as I'm concerned." Mr. Leobold, you correctly note that your view is as far as you're concerned. Wikipedia, however, doesn't follow the same standard. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, the policies I cited above must be complied with, especially with material that is uncomplimentary to a living person. If Greens or whoever show up and vent their criticisms of Nadler in a way that violates those policies, I will revert their additions just as unhesitatingly as I'm reverting yours. JamesMLane t c 17:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough on the use of delusional. However, the core point still stands:

The US, the DP, the RP are not communistic. These perspectives, which I am familiar with, having read literature reflecting such viewpoints, are perspectives. One should stick with "Just the facts, ma'm" when editing an encyclopedia. Dogru144 22:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, JamesMLane and Dogru think a Criticisms section is not legitimate for Jerrold Nadler or Deborah Glick, yet they are silent on why they exist for politicians like Hillary Clinton and similar major figures. The reason is obvious, of course, they cannot prevent the major politicians and all their critics from forcing a Criticisms section on their bio's, but for small-fry politicos like Glick and Nadler, they have a fighting chance to bully honest contributors with their dirty trick partisan sobatage tactics. Sorry, won't work, these people are just hacks for the Socialist-er, Democratic Party, they probably get many financial and perk benefits from DP, yet they haven't identified themselves while I have. The usual major party smear jobs, par for the course. Wikipedia and our fellow members will never tolerate vandalism and biased partisanship from such rogue members. Nleobold 13:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Nicolas Leobold

I left more or less this same message on your talk page, but it belongs here too. I am not opposed to seeing criticism in this article. The problem with your submission is that it is poorly sourced, and probably qualifies as original research. Every claim you make must cite a reliable secondary source, with the exception of primary sources like Nadler's or Congressional web content. The claims must accurately characterize what those cited sources say, no extra conclusions, no matter how obvious they are to you, can be inserted. The first news source that you cite does not even mention Nadler by name. The last one you cite looks rather bloggish and unreliable to me. You need to find reliable sources (like news articles) that criticize Nadler directly, and you need to present them neutrally. There are a few links on my user page that are good for finding archived news stories, you may find them helpful. (see quick ref section). - Crockspot 15:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see that the discussion is getting in the realm of "are you now or have you ever been . . . ?" The crux of the matter is that this is not a personal political blog. Create your own blog. These comments are a personal ideological commentary. Encyclopedia Brittanica does not have such editorializing. Furthermore, this section has potentially libelous material, such as allegations that he is slighting Orthodox Jews. If this is the case, why is this not on the front pages of the New York newspapers? Dogru144 14:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course! My critical additions are all unreasonable and unfair, while your biased partisan ones are all reasonable and logical. Right. Puh-lease! Next thing you are going to tell us is that being a dirty-trickster is legitimate, after all, you're just doing the "Right" thing and the ends justify the means. Typical "progessive" (Stalinist) speak. I've restored the complete version which you have vandalized yet again. Nleobold 01:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Nicolas Leobold

Voting record information

The Washington Post site has full information on Congressional voting records -- and by "full" I mean that it appears to report the member's position (Yes, No, or not voting) on each recorded vote. Nleobold has chosen to give particular emphasis to missed votes, and also to mention Nadler's frequent agreement with the majority of the Democrats. My inclination is that these data aren't all that important, in general (although in some bios, missed votes and/or party solidarity might be worth including if they had become significant campaign issues). Going beyond the simple summary, and including a specific link to the list of missed votes (but not to the list of votes cast), is clear POV.

My inclination is to link to the Post's summary page ([1]), where the reader can get basic information and will find links to lists of votes cast and votes missed. JamesMLane t c 18:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and link to whatever sources you want, just stop vandalizing other members' sources and contributions. Your contributions to these articles, despite extreme partisan bias, have not been vandalized or deleted, so you should be respectful of everyone else's contributions.

Nleobold 01:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Nicolas Leobold

Your constant misuse of the term "vandalism" serves only to lessen your credibility. You might look at Wikipedia:Vandalism to see what it actually means. There is also no merit to any suggestion that, as long as you don't edit or remove copy written by other contributors, no one is allowed to remove yours. All articles must conform to this project's policies and guidelines, including WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, and WP:NOR. You do not gain exemption from those standards by being "respectful" of other editors' contributions. JamesMLane t c 10:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you guys are fighting about, but two bits of my work have been undone. One, the category that keeps getting put back NO LONGER EXISTS, that's why it comes up red, so please leave it out. Also, I added a notes section that was removed. There is one ref that uses ref tags that does not display without this section, and I will be converting all the other citations to display as footnotes as soon as I have some time, so please leave the notes section be. Thank you. - Crockspot 19:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts, not WP:POV

The encyclopedia should just have facts, not opinions, that is the crux of the matter. The article, as the one on D.G., should be having a neutral point-of-view. Cheers, Dogru144 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Largest congressman?

Is Nadler currently the largest congressman? This should be added if he is. --64.53.161.131 (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether any reliable source compiles such information, but even if it could be verified, I don't think it would merit inclusion. JamesMLane t c 13:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

He is quite the fat ass, and that seems eminently notable. --64.53.161.131 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Senate seat

One commentator, I believe on NPR, has said something to the effect that every politician in New York wants Clinton's senate seat. Is it really notable that this subject has expressed interest? An article on the AP yesterday said:

• Among those who are also said to be interested in the Senate seat are New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi of Long Island, and Reps. Carolyn Maloney, Steve Israel, Jerrold Nadler, Kirsten Gillibrand and Brian Higgins. [2]

Even with that shorter list he's still just one of eight people (including Kennedy) who are "said to be interested". This appears to be news and recentism. Whether he gets the seat or not this interview reply won't be significant in a year. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Impeachment

1. Nevertheless, as chair of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, he has refused to entertain calls by fellow Congress Members Dennis Kucinich and Robert Wexler to conduct hearings on the Impeachment of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney [3] [4].

1. Despite earlier efforts to bring impeachment charges against George W. Bush, and more recent requests from fellow representatives, he did not scheduled hearings impeachments for Bush or Dick Cheney, saying in 2007 that doing so would be pointless and would distract from the presidential election.

I rewrote #2 as a rewrite of #1. #1 repeats that he is chair of the subcommitte, aready mentioned in the same section. A source for #1, the Rawstory article, doesn't mention Nadler, and the online petition isn't a reliable source. This article is about Nadler, so the names of the 2008 impeachment proponents aren't especially important. I did a little research and found that Nadler had been a propopent of impeachment in 2006, when the House was still under Republican control. Six months later, he apparently felt it was too late. #2 does a better job of summarizing the history, and uses reliable sources. Overall, we shouldn't spend too much space on something he didn't do and this may be excessive weight already. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Rev Moon's Washington Times is a legitimate, unbiased source but an online petition is not? Wikipedia is unblemished? This year, Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush & his colleague, Robert Wexler has been calling for hearings. Why don't they gate the too late, waste of time message. Even Nadler has had a flurry of action on Presidential Pardons & the like, including proposing a very difficult Constitutional amendment. Forgive me.. doesn't this apply to him? ·:·. —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC).

Yes, as a matter of fact, the Washington Times is considered a reliable source and online petitions are not. We have two lengthy article devoted to the Attempted impeachment of Dick Cheney and the Movement to impeach George W. Bush. This article shouldn't dwell on things that the subject didn't do. Otherwise it could be a thousand pages long. In this regard, it would be more helpful to find out what he has done or said about impeachment, rather than getting into what Kucinich and others have done or said. Does that make sense? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Congressional Career: political make-up of district

The article mentions that a Republican hasn't held this district in "over a century" and cites a NYTimes article. However, I can't find anything about that in the cited article, and according to this, a Republican held the seat as recently as 1960. I think this should be changed accordingly. Anyone disagree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabefarkas (talk • contribs) 14:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Your link is to an article about the 12th CD, currently represented by Nydia Velázquez. In any event, you can't really go by numbers. When there's a redistricting, a particular district might be essentially unchanged but get a new number. Furthermore, districts are sometimes significantly changed. That makes tracking a district's history hard. I don't see any attempt to track it in the Times story cited in our article, but some other source might support it. The assertion is a plausible one. JamesMLane t c 20:36, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

False tagging as "Vandalism"

You might disagree with beezerbugbuyboo's edits, but they are a legitimate opinion and arguably worthwhile information, and are not "vandalism" according to Wikipedia's definition of vandalism. Indeed, mislabeling such edits, which constitute alternative, strongly and honestly-held viewpoints as "vandalism" challenges the credibility of Wikipedia's objectivity and the reputation of administrators and could itself be labeled "vandalism" for misusing a Wikipedia definition merely to crack down on opponents, which damages Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.241.186 (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

How are 12.37.144.20's edits "vandalism"??? Therealcriminals (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Gun control advocacy

This edit has added a whole section on how Nadler, after the Connecticut massacre, again supported gun control. The editor described it as being about "controversial remarks". The supposed "controversy" is that Nadler, a longtime liberal, was one of many, many people who pointed out that the latest tragedy was a further illustration of the need for gun control, and that he was criticized by the right-wing Washington Times and the extreme right-wing Breitbart.com. I really can't see this as an episode of any importance. To leave it in without being misleading (i.e., giving the impression of Nadler being a lone wolf on this), we would have to add the information about all the other elected officials and commentators who had taken the same position, and then it would be clear that it's not a big deal in Nadler's bio.

We might instead usefully start a section on "Political positions", which is a standard component of many politician bios, and note his support for gun control (although without giving the misleading impression that he adopted this position only because of the massacre -- some previous opponents of gun control have changed their minds this week, but Nadler isn't in that category). JamesMLane t c 09:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC) Addendum: I just happened to run into this example in which the Roanoke Times notes that it was attacked for raising this political issue "so quickly after the shooting." Other examples could be multiplied -- of people calling for gun control, and opponents denouncing such calls as "politicizing the tragedy" or the like. JamesMLane t c 11:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Platinum coin

This issue isn't significant enough for the bio. The coinage solution to the debt ceiling issue was suggested by some commentators, endorsed as legal by some law professors and opposed as illegal by others, but was mainly being kicked around in the commentariat rather than being a major policy consideration, especially because the Obama administration never pursued the idea. There was never a Congressional vote on the proposal. I'm removing the section.

If others feel that it should stay in, it must, at a minimum, be NPOV. The wording I'm removing is full of right-wing talking points: the idea was a "tactical means for the Executive branch to bypass Congressional authority" (no, because Congress had passed the statute authorizing the minting of platinum coins); "Nadler's theory was predicated on a novel interpretation of a statute" (no, because it wasn't Nadler's theory, it originated elsewhere, and the assertion that the interpretation was novel is unsourced opinion); the Treasury said the law couldn't be used that way (true as far as it goes, but it would be POV to report that implied criticism without also reporting that some experts agreed with Nadler). JamesMLane t c 09:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

First, when you express concern that "this issue isn't significant enough for the bio," the article contains few biographical facts and lots of Nadler POV, e.g. "Nadler was unhappy with the passage of the..."; "Nadler compared Obama's acceptance..."; "Nadler has also vowed...". Your expressed concern for biographical content or POV is suspect.

Second, there was a citation _not_ of the "commentariat" remarks, but of a direct quote from Nadler in a telephone interview in which he said: "There is specific statutory authority that says that the Federal Reserve can mint any non-gold or -silver coin in any denomination, so all you do is you tell the Federal Reserve to make a platinum coin for one trillion dollars, and then you deposit it in the Treasury account, and you pay your bills"..."I'm being absolutely serious," he said..

Third, perhaps you could find a more appropriate word than "novel" to describe Nadler's interpretation of the law which, by all appearances, was solely intended to support coin collecting. The provision was passed in H.R. 5273 entitled, "United States Mint Numismatic Coin Clarification Act of 2000". I understand it offends your POV to hear the theory described as a "tactical means for the Executive branch to bypass Congressional authority"...how would you describe the purpose of Nadler's theory? Rather than delete or mis-characterize the facts, why not re-state them without POV? (You seem to just be another POV; please treat this like a Wikipedia article and not a political poster.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.191.5 (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

What you dismiss as "Nadler POV" are mostly statements about legislation, which is after all the business of Congress. The exception that I see is the sentence about his criticism of the "ritualistic" reading of the Constitution on the floor of the House. That's more tangential, but at least it still relates to what the House does, as opposed to what the President might do by executive order. Another point commending it is that it's Nadler POV about something that actually happened, as opposed to a hypothetical that was discussed by some commentators but that the White House never endorsed.

That latter point is where the "commentariat" comes in. The issue is not whether the Nadler quotation is accurate. Rather, the issue is whether this particular proposal was of such importance that Nadler's bio should include his view of it. My point is that the coinage option was discussed only in the commentariat. Nadler was not addressing an executive order signed by the President, or even suggested by the President. An encylopedia article can't include everything Nadler has said about every subject under the sun.

Finally, the talk page isn't the place to debate whether calling Nadler's theory "novel" is accurate. We're not called upon to characterize every opinion uttered by every politician. (See [[WP:NPOV and WP:NOR for further elaboration.) Even if this opinion were important enough to include, which in my view it isn't, we would simply report it and let the reader judge. We report a lot of idiotic stuff that right-wingers say without pointing out that it's idiotic. JamesMLane t c 13:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

If other politicians articles' have a "criticisms" section, they shouldn't, and neither should Nadler's here

Suppose a congressperson favors turnip subsidies. The fact that they favor that is just a fact. To state that the act of stating that fact is a PRAISE of the politician, OR to state that the act of stating that fact is a CRITICISM of the politician, is NOT a fact, because it's colored by YOUR OPINION of the wisdom of turnip subsidies. Since it's colored by your opinion it's out of place in an objective encyclopedia. The correct heading would be "Controversies". Stating that a politician has taken a "controversial" stand in favor of turnip subsidies is neither "criticizing" nor "praising" them but merely stating a fact about them.69.86.131.77 (talk)Christopher L. Simpson

The words "The district" are ambiguous and, under one prong of the ambiguity, completely wrong (while true on the other prong)

"The district from 2002-2013 included the west side of Manhattan from the Upper West Side down to Battery Park, including the site where the World Trade Center stood." I would favor changing the words "The district" to "Nadler's district" because this makes it absolutely clear that the district being talked about is IDENTIFIED as the one that is (a) represented by Nadler and (b) much the same as in 2011. That interpretation makes the sentence true. As the sentence stands NOW it is open to a nonsensical interpretation: that "the district" means "the district that bears the number '10'". The district numbered '10' before the 2013 renumbering was entirely in Brooklyn, and from 2002 to 2013 it was the district numbered 'EIGHT' (NOT '10') that matches the description in the rest of the sentence. So, if "the district" means "10th district" then the sentence is blatantly false.69.86.131.77 (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

updated footnote 8, but footnote is not formatted correctly. Sorry.

I made a change, and tried to update the corresponding reference, but I could not figure out how to correctly format the footnote (footnote 8). Morris (talk) 04:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)